Wednesday Open Thread [3.27.13]

13 Comments
Ross Douthat imagines the state of our politics today if the Iraq War never happened:
[T]ake away Iraq’s imprint on our politics, and America might well have still elected a Democrat to replace George W. Bush. But because of Iraq, the Democratic majority that did come to power in 2006 and 2008 has been more aggressive on public policy, less defensive in the culture war, and more proficient in the art of base mobilization than a hypothetical Clinton Restoration would have been – and their Republican opposition has been more ideologically bunkered-down, less nimble and less inclined to woo the center, than the G.O.P. might have been absent the trauma of Iraq.
Without Iraq, there is no Obama presidency. Obama would not have been able to distinquish himself from Clinton in the primaries and would have lost to her. Perhaps even more importantly, there would have been no Howard Dean. Thus, while Hillary would have gone on to beat John McCain due to the 2008 economic collapse, the Democratic Party would be a moderate mess, as the progressive take over of the party in 2005 would not have happened, and the 2006 retaking of Congress probably does not happen (although it would have in 2008).

Defense – America’s real spending problem

67 Comments
I've frequently said, "We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem." That is true as long as you are talking about domestic spending. Domestic programs from food safety inspections to college loan guarantees are cut to the bone. "Entitlements" such as Social security add nothing to the debt and could easily be self-sustaining well into the future with modest revenue side reforms. However, if you talking about the US budget in its entirety, the wingnuts are right. We do have a spending problem. We have a pretty big fucking spending problem.

Short and Sweet Spin from DP

5 Comments
I am not a reader of the right wing downstate "Delaware Politics." But I have the blog on my Google Reader RSS Feed so I can see when and what they post, and every once and a while, they will post something that piques my interest. Like David Anderson's reaction to the repeal of the Death Penalty in the Senate yesterday. Now, keep in my mind when reading this that David Anderson is supposedly a professed devout Christian, and he relies on those beliefs constantly to inform his opinions on women's healthcare, women's rights, abortion, homosexuality, marriage equality, contraception, education, the First Amendment, and I could go on and on and on. I am not saying there is anyting wrong with relying upon your religion to inform your political beliefs. But David does. And this is what he said....
After giving up on changing the sentences for current death row murderers, the Senate passed over bipartisan and law enforcement opposition to repeal the state death penalty. The bill goes on the House. 3 Republicans crossed over to support the bill, led by the Minority Leader.
Anderson then goes on to list the votes of the entire Senate, like I did yesterday. After reading this, I cannot tell if David is happy or said that death penalty repeal was passed by the Senate. There is no celebration, but there is no ranting and raving either. Given the comments from Don Ayotte and others on that post (reacting with the typical reserve, calm and discretion that is representative of the Teabagger movement(/snark)), I wonder if David is purposefully masking his true thoughts here for fear that he will offend his rabid readers.

General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Weds., March 27, 2013

23 Comments
And to think that I was gonna cut back on covering the legislative beat. Whatever was I thinking? Every day, huge stories, two of 'em yesterday: 1. State Senate votes to repeal Delaware's death penalty statute, and 2. The Obama-ization of the House Democratic Caucus appears complete. At least with respect to preemptively compromising with an enemy that will not compromise with you.

A message from Lt. Governor Matt Denn

"With all the excitement yesterday in Washington, it is important to remember that there will be a vote here in Delaware this year on marriage equality, and although we are optimistic, the outcome of that vote is anything but certain. You can volunteer to help win the vote by visiting Equality Delaware at www.equalitydelaware.org (I am proud to have been a long-time member of its Advisory Board). I have found that one of the most compelling ways to convince legislators that marriage equality is the right thing to do is to share why you decided it was right, so if you want to share a story here about why you decided to support marriage equality, I will pass it along."

10 Democratic Senators are still either silent about or against Marriage Equality. Of course Tom Carper is one of them.

14 Comments
Huffington Post had up as their lead banner story earlier this evening the pictures of 10 Senate Democrats who are still either opposed to marriage equality or who are silent on it, despite the avalanche of Democratic politicians who are rushing to be on the right side of history recently, namely their colleagues Claire McCaskill, Mark Begich and Mark Warner recently. The stunning facial features of our Senior Senator was among the pictures of the 10. Come inside to see what HuffPo had to say about Senator Carper.....

Tuesday Open Thread [3.26.13]

48 Comments
It will be a historic day at the Supreme Court over the next two days as the Court hears arguments in two cases affecting marriage equality in this country. Today, the Court will consider whether California's ban on same-sex marriage, a law known as Prop 8 or Prop Hate, which was passed by referendum in 2008, is unconstitutional. Tomorrow, the Court will consider whether the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

Why Is Consent So Difficult To Understand?

128 Comments

con·sent

/kənˈsent/ Noun Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something. Verb Give permission for something to happen: "he consented to a search by a detective".
Sometimes you come across an article that won't let you move onto other things.  Here's mine:
MARCH 22--A New York City man flying cross country with his 12-year-old son allegedly put his hand underneath the skirt of a sleeping female passenger and massaged her thigh, an act he later defended by telling the victim, “It’s not like I molested you. It’s not like I stuck my my finger in your pussy or grabbed your tits.” [...] As detailed in a probable cause statement, a few hours into the flight the woman took medication to help her fall asleep. About 40 minutes before arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport, the woman “woke up… to Zorse massaging her thigh underneath her skirt.” [...] When questioned by investigators, Zorse claimed that he believed the female passenger was “flirting with him, telling him he was attractive and he was a good father,” adding that he felt he had “bonded” with her. While copping to placing his hand on the woman’s leg for “approximately 30 seconds,” Zorse denied placing his hand up her skirt. He did acknowledge, however, that he “could have said something like ‘It’s not like I stuck my finger up your pussy or grabbed your tits,’” according to the probable cause statement.
Here's what really bothers me about this ugly, illegal incident.  Zorse confesses. Easily. He doesn't see anything wrong in what he did to a sleeping (NON- CONSENTING) woman because he believed "the female passenger was “flirting with him, telling him he was attractive and he was a good father,” adding that he felt he had “bonded” with her."  It's all about his feelings.  Those are his only social clues. Zorse determines what constitutes flirting.  He also determines what constitutes bonding.  He even decides that the conversation before the woman fell asleep progressed to the point where he could touch her. He had already granted himself permission.

General Assembly Post-Game Wrap-Up/Pre-Game Show: Tues., March 26, 2013

7 Comments
Jack Markell: From clammed-up to happy-as-a-clam. The Governor who was unwilling to take a public position on a minimum wage increase effusively praised it after it had passed the Senate:
“I commend Senator Marshall for the changes he made to the bill. I assured Senator Marshall I would sign the bill as passed by the Senate because of the help it will provide to many struggling families,” Markell said in a statement.
Jack Markell has proven time and time again that he cares not for struggling families. But Markell was able to (a) get a cost-of-living provision struck from the bill, (b) get the effective date for the bill pushed back, and (c) lower the amount of the minimum wage to $7.75 an hour in 2014 and $8.25 in 2015. All this in exchange for dropping his threat to veto the bill. Ladies and gentlemen, your Democratic governor. Still, kudos to the 12 D's who voted yes. It's better than nothing, which is all you're gonna get from this governor. For the record, self-professed 'friend of labor' Cathy Cloutier voted no. This will not be the last time that she proves to be a phony during this, or any session, of the Delaware General Assembly.