Monthly Archives: January 2010

The Return of Ask Dr. Liberal

Is your political party adrift?  Your marriage in crisis?  Your prize Holstein under-producing or your teenager not getting you while your shaman, priest or large animal vet stands idly by?  Don’t worry.   The Doctor is in.

Dr. Liberal is back to answer your most pressing questions.  Pour the doctor a cup of your thoughts and prepare to have your mind blown by the Doctor’s liberal life tips and quips to conquer by.

Warning: Consult your physician prior to undertaking any program of vigorous mental exercise.

Send questions to us at liberalgeek@delawareliberal.net and all questions will be sent to Dr. Liberal for consideration and possibly response.

Pat Robertson: Haiti Deserved It.

The relevant portion starts at the 6:00 minute mark.

Here is the a transcript if you can’t bare to watch:

Pat Robertson: “When these disasters strike, we are there to help the people. And you know… Christy… something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it, they [Haitians] were under the heel of the French and uh you know, Napoleon the third or whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the Devil and they said we will serve you if you get us free from the French. True story. So the devil said ‘okay, it’s a deal’. And they kicked the French out, you know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free, but ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other, desperately poor. That island of Hispanola is one island, cut down the middle, on one side is Haiti and on the other is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic is prosperous, healthy, full of resorts, Haiti is in desperate poverty. Same island. They need to have a great turning to God.

Whew. I need a shower. What is with Pat Robertson and always saying victims deserved their tragedies. Whether it be hurricanes, terrorist attacks like 9/11 or earthquakes, the victims are somehow the perpetrator, according to the oh so Christian Pat Robertson.

Now, I am not even going to touch Pat Robertson’s fictional recounting of the Haitian Revolution. You can read the truth of what happened if you want, and needless to say, the Devil was not involved, and he surely was not quoted about any deal making. But the religious demographic is of importance:

Haiti is a largely Christian country, with Roman Catholicism professed by 80% of Haitians. Protestants make up about 16% of the population. Haitian Vodou, a New World Afro-diasporic faith unique to the country, is practiced by an undetermined percentage of the population. Religious practice often spans Haiti and its diaspora as those who have migrated interact through religion with family in Haiti.

Haiti is 80% Roman Catholic. I wonder if Pat Robertson is a bigot towards Catholics. Perhaps like his brethren at the Westboro Baptist Church. Evangelical Protestantism does have a history of not liking us Catholics all that much. Perhaps that is why Robertson thinks the Haitians made a pact with the Devil. Or perhaps he thinks all Haitians practice Haitian Vodou, which would be a stereotypical and bigoted way to look at Haiti. Regardless, according to Pat Robertson, victims deserve their fate always, for surely they did something to deserve. And that way of thinking is identical to those who think women deserved to be raped.

I’m Having Trouble Seeing This Marriage End In Anything Other Than Divorce

Cenk Uygar (the Seminal at Fire Dog Lake) has issued an invitation to tea parties.

I issue a challenge to the tea-party movement. If you’re true to your word, and you believe in protecting the American people and principles, and you think government is too big and hands out money to the wrong people, then join us in fighting against the biggest giveaway to biggest culprits. Fight the power of the banks with us.

Don’t get me wrong, I think creating a majority of Americans fighting against banks is a good idea.  That said, I already think this coalition, while not organized under one name, exists across ideological lines.  I also think pointing out how tea parties are being played by astroturf  organizations is smart.

What I’m not sure is smart is hitching your cart to a group of people who didn’t exist until Barack Obama became President.  So forgive me for questioning the sincerity of tea parties – a group who apparently  didn’t seem to care all that much about deficits and debt during the Bush Administration.  To me their history is questionable, their timing far too obvious to be coincidental, and their sudden concern over spending shallow at best.  Unless… someone here actually believes they would exist if McCain won.  So, color me extremely skeptical.  To me, tea parties have always been far more political than populist.

But there’s another side to this debate, and that’s the movement courting the tea partiers.  From where I’m standing, the only way to bring these two groups together involves compromise  And, let’s face it, the side issuing this invitation, as well as the side being asked to RSVP, aren’t known for compromise. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but I’m having trouble seeing these two groups playing happy family for more than 30 seconds before all hell breaks loose.

But what really bothers me about this post is the use of specific language designed to woo tea partiers.  Take this line for instance:  If you’re true to your word, and you believe in protecting the American people and principles, and you think government is too big and hands out money to the wrong people...  Wrong people?  Government too big?  Hmmm… Think the Tea Partier’s idea of where government needs to shrink and who constitutes the wrong sort of person to hand out money will match up with a Progressive’s idea?  And don’t even get me started on trying to define American “principles.”

I have one last thought, giving the recent split on the left.  Before we start adding additions, perhaps we should get our own house in order.  Unless… I’ve already been divorced and my former partner is moving onto their next relationship?  Say it ain’t so!

Wednesday Open Thread

It’s Wednesday and today’s open thread has a theme: polling.

A new poll by CNN shows that Americans are in line with Obama’s political ideology.

Even in most generic poll question imaginable, teabaggers are not the majority (CNN, Jan. 8-10, +/- 3%):

In general, would you say that President Obama’s views and proposed programs for the country are too liberal, not liberal enough, or just about right for the country?

Not liberal enough 10%
Just about right 42%
Too liberal 46%

That’s 52%, pretty close to his election day totals.

Support for health care reform has been falling in some polls, but it’s coming mainly from the left, who thinks it doesn’t go far enough.

But right below that headline was a a chart of poll results on “Health care reform in Congress” broken down into three metrics.

Covering Americans: A plurality of 35% say Not Far Enough

Controlling Costs: A plurality of 39% say Not Far Enough

Regulating Health
Insurance Costs: A plurality of 43% say Not Far Enough

Thanks Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson for screwing over health care reform.

DE Sports and Video Lottery Commission Recommends Against New Casinos

…or — perhaps we should call this Watching the Delaware Legislature Put Their Ninny Hats On. Ginger Gibson at the News Journal documents the atrocities.

This is a completely mind-boggling recommendation by this Commission and flies in the face of the recommendations (and data gathered) by their own commissioned study:

Several lawmakers insisted that any financial harm to the existing racetracks was unacceptable, even if job losses there were compensated for with new jobs at new venues.

“I think there are some things wrong with the study,” said Rep. Clifford “Biff” Lee, R-Laurel, who is a member of the gambling commission.

Five of the six lawmakers who served on the gambling commission voted Tuesday morning to add a contradictory footnote before submitting the study to the Legislature on its first day; Lee, Senate Majority Leader Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere, Sens. Nancy Cook, D-Kenton, Colin Bonini, R-Dover South, and Rep. Helene Keeley, D-Wilmington West.

Read that again — any financial harm to the existing racetracks was unacceptable.

This is just what Delaware needs — another protect at all costs industry. Wonder where they were when Borders and Barnes and Noble were building like crazy and pushing out independent booksellers? Or do you think that we can get these guys to weigh in on the side of local businesses when the newest Walmart comes up to be built? Probably not, because this Commission has decided that casinos are a Too Big to Fail industry for Delaware.

And even then this doesn’t quite work since adding more casinos definitely adds jobs and adds to the overall financial health of the state’s gambling industry. Any lost jobs by Dover or Harrington are basically a function of how well they can compete and I really do not see why these casinos need the protection of the state if they aren’t ready to be aggressively competitive.

Which brings me to my next point — what is up with the R’s on this committee voting against a Free Market for the gambling industry? Colin Bonini is supposed to be one of these free-market conservatives and here he is voting for protectionism. Wonder when the CRI takes him to task for betraying the cause. Yeah, that was a joke. But still there is a difference between specific business protectionism which is often short sighted and in the long run expensive for taxpayers and creating an atmosphere where an industry is welcome and able to compete. And this protectionism is going to be expensive for Delaware taxpayers. Because the next step — once the MD and PA casinos come on line — is for Dover, Harrington, Delaware Park to start lobbying this Commission and the larger Legislature for special considerations. That will take the form of givebacks on revenue sharing or some special funding to help them get more competitive. And this legislature will be back whining about jobs — jobs they plainly don’t give a damn about right now — to try to get them more money. More money that this vote by this Commission has already told you they will make sure they’ll get — because protected industries get a special place in line for taxpayer funds.

This Commission thinks that you’ll never remember their clear and abundant stupidity today. Voting to protect the currently weak from having to compete with new in-state casinos doesn’t speak well for these currently weak casinos’ capacity to compete with the upcoming out of state ones. So for all of you legislators looking to protect this industry, we are all pretty clear that the State doesn’t have the money to write the check you are writing today. I really do not want to see the State get in the business of propping up businesses that we already know are not going to survive the opening of new venues in Maryland and PA just because everyone involved in this simply could not think about long-term consequences.

Pre-Game Show: State Legislative Committee Day-Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2010

First, a brief primer for newcomers. On Wednesdays when the General Assembly is in session, virtually the entire legislative day is devoted to committee meetings. For the House, other than ceremonial business, it is entirely devoted to committees. The Senate may conduct some business, but committee meetings usually are the main, if not sole, focus.

Since we are in the second year of the two-year legislative cycle, which begins and ends on Election Day, all of the legislation that was ‘in play’ at the conclusion of session last June remains in play.

And, of course, new bills can be introduced, some of which have already been discussed here at DL.

With the ground rules firmly laid out, let’s proceed to our Pre-Game Show.

There are some pretty darn interesting bills on House Committee agendas this week. In addition, some committees will be briefed by key state decision-makers. All committee meetings are open to the public. Here is the complete schedule of House Committee meetings this week. Once you connect to the link, you can just click on the location/time for the committee(s) that you’re interested in, and the agenda for the meeting will appear. Here’s what piqued my interest:

House Corrections Committee-HB 284 (Rep. J. Johnson)–Would eliminate the ‘chilling effect’ on reporting rapes in prison by “…impos(ing) criminal liability solely on employees, visitors, contractors and volunteers at detention facilities. Prisoner-on-prisoner sexual assaults remain prosecutable pursuant to already existing criminal statutes.” Previously, and incomprehensibly, the victim of the assault was also deemed culpable.

House Education Committee-Dr. Lillian Lowery, Secretary of the Department of Education, updates the committee on Race to the Top and other educational initiatives.

House Health & Human Development Committee-DHSS Secretary Rita Landgraf will address the committee.

House Judiciary Committee-Now, here’s where we’ve got some interesting pieces of legislation, including:

House Bill 247 (Rep. Keeley)–Seeks to streamline and strengthen consumer protection statute. This basically rewrites existing Delaware Code provisions in entirety. Will bear watching to make sure that the finished product matches the purported intent.

House Bill 302 (Rep. B. Short)–Seeks  “to encourage the reporting of suspected financial exploitation of the elderly and infirm adults by providing immunity from criminal and civil liability for making such reports.” I support the intent of this bill, but just have one cautionary concern. Sometimes it is hard to tell the protective and greedy family members apart when families fight over who has the best interests of their elderly/infirm relatives at heart (as opposed to who gets to handle their assets). Sometimes, both parties are equally greedy and equally vindictive. I hope the bill doesn’t provide immunity for greedy relatives seeking to game the system by filing false reports against rival family members. It’s happened more than you might think.

Senate Bill 169 (Sen. Ennis)-I don’t recall reading or hearing about this bill passing the Senate, but it’s one that I suspect all the DL contributors might strongly support. SB 169 makes “obstructing ingress to or egress from a health care facility a Class B misdemeanor.” Reading the bill in its entirety here leaves no doubt as to its intentions. There were 3 ‘no’ votes in the Senate: Bonini, Simpson and (surprise, not) Venables. I told you that Bruce Ennis was a huge improvement over Jim Vaughn, and he is.  Hmm, I wonder how Monsignor Lavelle will vote on this one. Lotsa pro-choice people in his Brandywine Hundred district…

There are no Senate committee meetings scheduled. Really, I’m not sure why the Senate is even bothering to show up this week since, to date, they haven’t done anything.

Haiti Earthquake – Please Help

As more and more information comes out of Haiti there is no doubt that the scope of this tragedy will be grow.  The Red Cross estimates that 3 million people are affected.  No one is even estimating the death toll.

The pictures/videos coming out of Haiti are heartbreaking, and I simply can’t look at them and not do anything.  So… I’m sending money, which is hardly original or heroic, but it’s what I can do.

If anyone else is interested in donating, this link will direct you to organizations ready to help with this tragedy.

California Prop 8 Trial

Right now in California a trial to determine the constitutionality of Prop 8 is just underway. Prop 8 is the proposition that overturned a court ruling in California allowing same sex marriage by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. One of the interesting notes of the trial is that the team that wants to overturn Prop 8 has two high profile lawyers, David Boies and Ted Olson. Ted Olson, Bush’s former Solicitor General and David Boies were adversaries in the Bush v. Gore case. Now they’re working together. Ted Olson wrote an essay in the most recent Newsweek called “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.”

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one’s own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

That’s exactly right. If you argue that marriage is fundamental to our society how do you argue that some people should be denied its benefits? Same sex marriage opponents have several arguments:
1) marriage is for procreation and same sex couples can’t procreate
2) tradition
3) allowing same sex couples to marry destabilizes traditional marriage

From the first day of the trial, it sounds like #2 is going to be very difficult for the Prop 8 defenders. [In this short transcript Walker is the trial judge, Cooper is the lawyer defending Prop 8]:

Walker: If the Prez’s parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a TREMENDOUS change in the institution of marriage? doesn’t that show evolution? Isn’t that correct?

Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. (laughter in our courtrtoomm)

Cooper: These restrictions were loathesome, and a detail. “Man and woman” has been universal, across time and all societies.

walker: Is the evidence going to show these racial restrictions are different than the restrictions imposed by Prop 8?

(like a bug pinned to a piece of wood)

Cooper: Naturally procreative instincts….

Walker: Only purpose?

Cooper: Basis of marriage is procreation. It is a pro-child societal institution.

Walker: Many things attend marriage, will your evidence show that those are all secondary to procreation?

Cooper: This is about deinstitutionalizing marriage…

Walker: Yes, you say that. But will your evidence show that?

The trial is being recorded and it may be placed on YouTube (right now the SCOTUS has issued a stay on releasing trial video). This is really a case to watch, but no matter the outcome it will be appealed probably all the way to SCOTUS.

Nate Silver demolishes #3 in a statistical analysis yesterday. He found that states that allow same sex marriage have lowered their divorce rates since 2003 while states that prohibit same sex marriage constitutionally have seen a rise in their divorce rates.

The differences are highly statistically significant. Nevertheless, they do not necessarily imply causation. The decision to ban same-sex marriage does not occur randomly throughout the states, but instead is strongly correlated with other factors, such as religiosity and political ideology, which we have made no attempt to account for. Nor do we know in which way the causal arrow might point. It could be that voters who have more marital problems of their own are more inclined to deny the right of marriage to same-sex couples.

Ginger Gibson Finds the JFC Still Not Open

Last year’s hard won HB 1 victory was supposed to mean that legislature business was to be done in the light of day — with ample and good notice to the public of meetings and hearings as well as making sure that minutes or recordings of meetings were made and made public.

Reporter Ginger Gibson at the NJ catches the JFC in already working to find how far they can push the Open Government laws before they are even a good working part of the Legislative process yet:

But with little notice and no note-taking, the first meeting late last month seemed cloaked in as much secrecy as in prior years, when the committee met in private, say open-government advocates.

In what could be a violation of the law, no written minutes or audio recordings were taken during the Dec. 29 meeting. Even in the past, when the committee closed its meetings, minutes were recorded.

Apparently notice was made of this meeting where you’d have to look for it on the Legislature’s website and posted in hardcopy on a bulletin board someplace in Leg Hall. Rep Dennis P Williams was surprised to know there were no recordings (really?) and denied that he was trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. But the NJ is asking the AG’s office for an opinion on whether or not the JFC meeting was conducted lawfully.

In the meantime, it is clear that making sure that the Open Government rules are abided by is going to be a clear priority. But then, I am sure that the Legislators don’t want more stories like this one — by a reporter rightly peeved that info that she still had to do some work to break down a JFC door.

It looks like they have added a scrolling calendar on the home page of the Legislature, but I think that this would be more useful on a detailed calendar where you could click on an event to get its details. Sort of like Google Calendar. Or perhaps give meetings their own RSS feed so interested parties can update their own calendars for events that are of interest to them.

Vigilantism Justified

Since when is killing someone performing a legal procedure justified?

Via Digby:

Before the first juror is selected or witness called, a decision allowing a confessed killer to argue he believes the slaying of one of the nation’s few late-term abortion providers was a justified act aimed at saving unborn children has upended what most expected to be an open-and-shut case.

Some abortion opponents are pleasantly stunned and eager to watch Scott Roeder tell a jury his slaying of Wichita doctor George Tiller was voluntary manslaughter. Tiller’s colleagues and abortion rights advocates are outraged and fear the court’s actions give a more than tacit approval to further acts of violence.

”This judge has basically announced a death sentence for all of us who help women,” said Dr. Warren Hern of Boulder, Colo., a longtime friend of Tiller who also performs late-term abortions. ”That is the effect of the ruling.”

[…]

Will the judge’s decision embolden militant anti-abortion activists and lead to open season on abortion providers? Does the Justice Department plan to file charges against Roeder under federal statutes guaranteeing access to clinics? And what does it portend for the unfolding case itself and the inevitable legal challenges to the nation’s abortion laws?

Hern, of Boulder, Colo., said it’s irrelevant that Wilbert won’t decide until after the defense presents its evidence whether to allow jurors to actually consider a conviction on the lesser charge.

”The damage is done: The judge has agreed to give him a platform,” Hern said. ”It is an act of incomprehensible stupidity on the part of the judge, but he is carrying out the will of the people of Kansas who are trying to get out of the 19th century.”

The Feminist Majority Foundation also denounced the ruling, saying Wilbert essentially was allowing a justifiable homicide defense. The group, which supports abortion rights, urged the Justice Department to file federal charges under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar declined to comment, citing an ongoing […]

A man who runs a Web site supporting violence against abortion providers said in the wake of the judge’s decision that he has changed his mind about attending Roeder’s trial. The Rev. Don Spitz of Chesapeake, Va., said he and other activists from the Army of God plan to observe the court proceedings quietly next week.

”I am flabbergasted, but in a good way,” Spitz said of the judge’s decision.

Spitz acknowledged that the possibility that Wilbert’s decision may influence some people who in the past wouldn’t kill abortion providers because they risked a sentence of death or life imprisonment. ”It may increase the number of people who may be willing to take that risk,” he said.

In Des Moines, Iowa, militant anti-abortion activist Dave Leach agreed the decision opens the door to presenting the same evidence as in a case of justifiable homicide. It was Leach who wrote the 104-page legal brief that Roeder signed and submitted to the court in which he admitted killing Tiller.

”The closer we come to a court actually addressing these issues, the less danger abortionists are going to be in,” Leach said. [emphasis mine and Digby’s]

Talk about a slippery slope and a ready excuse for breaking the law, or as Digby states at the end of the post:   Nice little clinic you have there. Be a shame if anything happened to it…

This is crazy, and so is the judge.  Why not just declare open season on everyone who legally works in an abortion clinic?  If only this judge took this step years ago, Terri Schiavo could still be alive.  Those who were charged with removing her from life support… not so much.  Or… we could take that oh so reliable sex offender registry and start working our way down the list.

Have at it in the comments.  I’m beyond speech.

Tuesday Open Thread

It’s Tuesday and it’s open thread time. Today’s open thread has a theme: humor. I’ll give you two examples.

Example #1, from Daily Kos, the new presidential timeline:

According to Rudy Giuliani, Mary Matalin, and Dana Perino:

1/20/1993 to 1/20/2001: Bill Clinton
1/20/2001 to 9/10/2001: George W Bush
9/11/2001: Bill Clinton
9/12/01 to 12/21/2001: George W Bush
12/22/2001 (shoe bomb): Bill Clinton
12/23/2001 to 1/20/2009: George W Bush
1/20/2009 to 12/24/2009: Barack Obama
12/25/2009 to present: BARACK OBAMA! BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!!!!

Example #2, from Tucker Carlson’s new Daily Caller. It’s supposed to be the conservative version of the Huffington Post.

The “Ask Matt Labash” column is supposed to be a funny “conversation.” Highlights from this week include jokes about how getting a traffic ticket is like being raped and Rachel Maddow is “the sexiest man alive”:

For those unfamiliar with me from my day job at The Weekly Standard, I’ll give you a capsule bio by way of introduction: I have the gift of wisdom. Does that sound arrogant? I’m sorry, that wasn’t my intention. I didn’t choose wisdom. It chose me. If I had my druthers, I’d have chosen another gift, perhaps the untold riches of Lil’ Wayne, whose teeth are made of actual diamonds, or to be the sexiest man alive, like Rachel Maddow. […]

Pick three government programs you would eliminate. Why?
–AJ

2. Legalized rape. What’s that you say? Rape isn’t sanctioned in this country? Then you must not live in a city with red-light or speed cameras, where it happens every day. Forget for a second that in one-fourth of all automated ticket cases, the ticketed car owner wasn’t the one actually driving the vehicle at the time of the infraction (what other crime-fighting technology do we consider reliable that nabs the wrong person 25 percent of the time?) Just as heinous is that every year, more and more municipal governments pretend that they plant these all-seeing menaces in the interest of “safety.” Yet every year, their revenues tend to increase from the very same technology. Meaning that the only deterrent effect the technology has is deterring your government from being honest about raping its own citizenry. If you’re going to slide me a roofie, Government, at least take me to dinner and a movie first.

Conservative humor usually consists of joking about assassinations of people you don’t like, calling women who you don’t agree with ugly, implying men you don’t agree with are women and jokes comparing policies you don’t like to rape. We’ve got 2 of 4 here but the column is only a week old.

Westboro Baptist Bigots Protest Biden Funeral

I have heard this second hand on Twitter from Liberalgeek, and when I drove by the church this morning I did not see them, but it would be expected that they would protest the funeral of a devoutly Catholic and universally respected mother of four and grandmother of many, because in their eyes she is evil because she does not hate homosexuals as they do, I suppose.

I look forward to pictures of the signs these bigots are holding. Indeed, is David Anderson out there with them? He agrees with the Westboro Baptist position on homosexuality.

UPDATE: CONFIRMED. The News Journal has some pictures of the small protest, and here is one, where in the upper left corner you can see the sign saying “BIDEN in HELL” with a picture of the 92 year old beloved grandmother.