Around the Horn Friday
First, here is a post by RSmitty that defies categorization below. It is a post on Father’s Day.
What a week. Homosexuals finally don’t have to fear being fired just because they are gay. But they are still not treated equally under Delaware law, and it is time to extend the right to marry to them. And for you “traditional marriage” shouters: shut up, pay attention to your own marriage and mind your business. Gay Marriage did not cause Mark Sanford to cheat.
Here is what our colleagues said about THE PASSAGE OF SB 121.
MJ lobbies for the passage of the bill at Lower Slower Delaware and then offers a celebratory postscript.
Anderson is disappointed.
SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEM THURMAN ADAMS DIED, signaling an end of era. I hope it is not disrespectful to say we are glad that era is over. Senator Adams served this State honorably for decades, but it is still possible to be honorable and wrong. We mourn his passing and have sympathy for his family and friends, but look forward to the day where progress is not stymied in a desk drawer.
Your reaction:
Brian Shields, in his “Get to Know Your State Constitution Series,” looks at the immediate affects of Sen. Adams death procedurely (as in when a special election will be called and how the new President Pro Tem will be appointed).
John Tobin of By the Numbers offers his sympathy and then looks at the upcoming special election.
Anderson offers his condolences.
Brian Shields offers his thoughts on Adams’ passing.
Nancy Willing passes along Jud Bennett’s thoughts on Adams’ passing. Why doesn’t Jud join Anderson on the future Delaware Conservative (whoops, did I let the cat out of the bag)?
Anderson thinks downstaters should be concerned about the new Senate leadership.
Kavips offers a eulogy for a tough adversary.
DELAWARE POLITICS and DOWN WITH ABSOLUTES are both dying as well. Mike Matthews is leaving his blog for Twitter, where you can follow his live-tweets at DWABlog. Then Burris announced that he is closing down Delaware Politics at the end of the legislative session. Given the fledgling success of Coastal Sussex, his departure is understandable. But what about RSmitty, David Anderson, Maria Evans and Elbert, the remaining DP contributors? Anderson tells us that an announcement is coming on Tuesday about their future. While it is unlikely that the newly independent RSmitty will be involved, a new right wing group blog is most definitely in the works. And no, Maria, it will not be center-left. You are not center-left. Maybe for Sussex County, but not for the rest of the planet. đ
Here are the posts announcing the demises and the reaction:
Burris announces that it’s time.
Kilroy reacts hysterically then oddly. And then offers some thoughts on the nature of the Delaware blogosphere.
Steve Newton reacts.
Mike Matthews shows why he is pretty invaluable as a member of the local scene, in his posts about the NCCo meeting.
MIKE CASTLE (D…no wait…R) for SENATE, er ah, for a BEACH IN FLORIDA….ANNOUNCED AS PROMISED ON JUNE 20, no wait, HE WILL DECIDE ON AUGUST 30….kill me.
David Anderson tires of the waiting game, and implies that he will be supporting O’Donnell.
Nancy Willing relays wRong Williams’ opinion that Castle is definitely running and that Beau is not. Nancy projects that Ted Kaufman will run, even though he said he won’t.
Shirley calls bullshit on analysis that says Castle might change parties.
Finally, the continued work of the GENERAL ASSEMBLY remained the focus of the Delaware Blogosphere:
A new bill (HB229) to ban cell phones by Rep. Peach Pie?. This new bill would ban even “hands-free” devices, even though a straight ban on using cell phones while driving was defeated earlier this session. So how will a harsher bill pass?
Tommywonk continues to follow the progress of the energy bills in the GA, and announces that the first exploratory leases have awarded for offshore wind.
Anderson offers the view on the budget from the minority.
Resolute Determination looks at the potential tax increases proposed to close the budget gap and considers the political benefits to the GOP in the sin taxes failing to pass. They also suggest eliminating the Grants in Aid fund and wonder if the JFC knows what it is doing.
Art Downs is concerned that Governor Markell is going to abolish the $500 school tax credit for Seniors, despite no bill introduced to do that. RSmitty has more on the vast right wing conspiracy trying to gin up some outrage over a means testing, and thinks perhaps it is time to look at Colin Bonini as a Republican back bencher for Congress.
Hey Charlie Copeland, start referring to the Democratic Party properly or I will question your mental acuity.
Anderson concern trolls about HB 230, which seeks to end independent contractor abuse in construction.
RD writes about the consideration and passage of a HB 250, encouraging the film industry to film in Delaware. Matthews does too.
The normally astute Steve Newton forgets that we liberals want efficient and activist government, rather than an ever expanding and bloated government. The fight is to cut what is right, rather than what is necessary. Republicans and libertarians tend to want to cut the necessary and increase spending on the unnecessary (like our amazingly enormous defense budget nationally, for example). In Delaware, it will be a long process that will last beyond this one budget process, whose focus was necessarily on the emergency of balancing the budget in the short term. The long term considerations of cutting the fat will be the focus of the remainder of Governor Markell’s term.
There was never any fear of homosexuals getting fired.
Ask yourself this question. What would raise more notice? In a public place, a same sex couple holding hands or someone lighting up a cigarette?
Same sex Marriage? I think the President has siad no to that bad idea and in fact went to court to defend DOMA quoting incest laws.
Mike Protack
Feeling snarky today DD?
We already know why Sanford cheated because Rush told us so. It’s because of Obama. Everything bad is Obama’s fault, don’t you know.
Great as usual. Thanks again for the compilation, DD.
I am saddened by the impending departure of Mike from the blogging world. I wish him the best.
Maria is right of center and I am sure proud of it. She is not as conservative as I am. Maybe I can put her under hypnosis and play Shawn Hannity for four hours to take care of that. Seriously, I would love to know the backstory for picking on sweet Maria.
I am not picking on her, but Maria has said she is left of center, and I was pointing out that she is not. Maria is great and she should continue blogging in some capacity, in your new venture that will be announced on Tuesday perhaps. đ
Maybe I can put her under hypnosis and play Shawn Hannity for four hours to take care of that.
Right there, that explains David.
LOL. No, Anderson is not Hannity. While he is a theocrat, I would not insult him with that comparison. Mike Protack on the other hand….
I would not insult him with that comparison.
I think David would take it as a compliment. I think Hannity would take it as an insult. I don’t think that even Hannity would applaud the law ‘n order policies of North Korea the way David has.
I was picturing David on a couch in a self-induced hypnotic trance listening to his daily indoctrination of Hannity and Limbaugh. I figure that is how he can lie so shamelessly.
I never called myself “center-left”. When I was at DTR I asked several times for that ridiculous promo to get dumped in the trash.
And one more thing, DD, don’t try to define me. You don’t know me to define me.
Little testy today, Maria?
no more than usual, thanks for asking.
Don’t try to define her attitude either!
And as I said in my promo for Maria’s show, the opposite ofright isn’t always left .
I think the opposite if right is probably now “correct.”
BTW if anyone hasn’t read Smitty’s post, I would recommend doing so.
When it comes to budget, a lot of things need to be cut. I for one would love to see the day where we close 99% of our bases overseas, and move them to the US. There is no reason that we should operate or control 700-800 bases in 156 countries. Just imagine if we closes 600 of them, and built say 50 new ones in strategic places near our borders. Think of how much money we would save.
Phil
“There is no reason that we should operate or control 700-800 bases in 156 countries. Just imagine if we closes 600 of them, and built say 50 new ones in strategic places near our borders. Think of how much money we would save.”
Can I called you Senator Phil! Dam that was good!
I count bases in 59 countries. This includes US territories like Puerto Rico and Guam.
I also think that it is hard to refuel planes in Texas when flying between Germany and Iraq.
That doesn’t count small outpost, or bases “held” by other countries, but financed by us.
“II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations
The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.
In this regard, Hugh dâAndrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War'”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.
In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.
These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).”
source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564
Maria…
I wasn’t trying to define you no more than you try to define us. I don’ t know you personally, and you don’t know me personally, but I think it is safe to say that you are not a liberal and I am not a conservative. If you really object to those definitions, then please, let’s have debate as to your liberal credentials and my conservative credentials.
Further, you also take a very adversarial attitude towards me, and perhaps that is natural, but please know I am not picking on you or taunting you. It is all in good fun.
So which part of the world should we lessen our presence? Should we get rid of refueling stations? Close listening posts? Sell CIA offices?
I’m not opposed to the idea, I am opposed to weakening our intelligence gathering, our supply lines and our relationships with foreign governments. If we can do an international version of BRAC, fine.
I have to read more on the link you provided, but the premise of much of what he says seems to be based on the idea that the US controls foreign governments through NATO and the UN.
There is more than a little tin-foil hattery in there.
You’re not a conserative DD?
Conspiracy aside, the numbers are close. Notice I said 600 (well below the 700-800) should close, keeping vital ones open. Rammstein, Yakota, and Lajes Field being 3 major refuel points that would stay open.
NATO is terrible. It really worked in Georgia….
If we stopped sticking our neck out, it wouldn’t get swiped at.
DD: “I wasnât trying to define you no more than you try to define us.”
And I’ve done that with DL writers when, exactly?
LG–on military bases–and I take my information from either the Pentagon or Chalmers Johnson
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17123.htm
On this issue Phil is absolutely correct. We maintain way more “logistical capacity” that we need by any practical equation… unless you conceive of our need as the ability to project military force into any corner of the earth at a moment’s notice? Do we need that? Should we be accounting for 41% of the world’s total military expenditures? [Which is significantly more than the ten next largest spenders combined, including China, Russia, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan ].
Is our need to have these bases and this interventionist capacity legitimately driven by our foreign policy, or does it now drive our foreign policy?
DD
You attribute the following to me (at least indirectly)
Republicans and libertarians tend to want to cut the necessary and increase spending on the unnecessary (like our amazingly enormous defense budget nationally, for example).
Exactly what kool-aid have you been drinking? I have been advocating deeper cuts in the defense budget than any of you for years…
Moreover: most Libertarians want to slash defense spending and develop a non-interventionist foreign policy.
But back to State government: if you agree it has grown and become bloated as the WNJ says, and as you imply: what would you cut? I have put my proposals on the table many times, and in no case have I have suggested cutting social services as part of the answer.
So disagree with me if you like–but try to get what I said straight.
On this issue Phil is absolutely correct. We maintain way more âlogistical capacityâ that we need by any practical equation⌠unless you conceive of our need as the ability to project military force into any corner of the earth at a momentâs notice?
Surrender monkey…
Cut back those bases and Phil and his friends will show up accusing Democrats of hollowing out US military preparedness.
As I said, I am not against scaling back our military bases. I don’t suspect that you will see it under Obama either.
Politically, I suspect it is akin to taking cops off the street because there are really just too many of them out there. It would be suicide, especially in light of the failures of intelligence that enabled the attacks on 9/11.
I think that, if done properly, it could be a bipartisan success. I just wouldn’t want to see a bunch of fingers pointing at Obama when we can’t respond to an emergency in Azerbaijan in a timely manner.
Catch my drift?
anon – you and I are on the same wavelength.
One of the reasons I tire of partisan politics: we can’t do what makes sense and what would be morally correct because both sides score points on each other….
True enough, Steve. But I’m not sure that we wouldn’t have the same issue in any democracy.
Republicans and libertarians tend to want to cut the necessary and increase spending on the unnecessary (like our amazingly enormous defense budget nationally, for example).
I have about 15 different preachy responses to this jab designed to provoke a response… but I am going to let it be.
I don’t snipe comments about liberals, calling them commies, please don’t compare Libertarians to conservatives. I took offense. The misunderstanding of Libertarian ideals and flawed logic I can blame on poor education of Libertarian ideals. I can accept that. Maybe I have a future lesson for a blog post there.
“Phil and his friends….”
There you go pushing me into the republican croud again.
Too late for around the horn, but my closing act plus comment has been posted.