recent news items....
Sun Jun 28 12:27:22 EDT 2015Alabama Police Dog Dies After Being Left in Hot Car
An Alabama police dog died after its handler accidentally left the animal inside a hot car, Gulf Shores police said this week.
Mason, a community relations dog that was not involved in the arrests of suspects, died at 11 p.m. Friday, a day after police said its handler, Cpl. Josh Coleman, left the animal inside a hot car.
Police did not say how long the dog, named Mason, was left inside the vehicle but said Coleman changed duties on Thursday and later remembered that the dog was left in the back seat of his patrol vehicle. Coleman took the animal to a veterinarian for treatment, but the following night the animal went into respiratory distress.
Mason had turned 3 years old just earlier this month, according to the department's Facebook page.
Gulf Shores police Detective Sgt. Jason Woodruff said Coleman has been on the police force for eight years, and has acted as handler for Mason for the past year. The department said the animal's death has been "devastating" for Coleman.
This is of course relating to leaving children in hot cars. Police can do it too. (But I do keep saying police are just ordinary people too.)The high temperature last Thursday was around 90 degrees in the region, according to the National Weather Service. The patrol car did not have remote heat indicators and other protective measures because Mason was not a police enforcement dog, police said. Those dogs typically spend more time inside vehicles.
Gulf Shores is a coastal town of around 10,700 on Gulf of Mexico about 30 miles west of Pensacola, Florida. An average of 38 children die each year from heat-related conditions after being left in vehicles, according to the advocacy group KidsandCars.org.
First Published Jun 24 2015, 7:32 pm ET
I've got to think that dogs die in hot, parked cars all the time, but they don't make the news because they're not people. I think we're hearing about this one only because the police were involved, and police problems of any sort get coverage lately.Pastor Clementa Pinckney's Body Carried Past Confederate Flag Into S.C. Capitol
The body of the pastor and state senator slain in the Charleston church massacre last week was carried by horse-drawn caisson Wednesday into the South Carolina State House, past a Confederate battle flag that flies outside.
In the second-floor lobby of the Capitol, where the body of the Rev. Clementa Pinckney lay in honor, a black drape was placed over a window, blocking view of the rebel flag.
Pinckney was one of nine black people shot to death at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston by Dylann Roof....
First Published Jun 24 2015, 12:27 pm ET
America as a whole may be past this, but there are parts that cannot accept no longer being superior.Arsonist Targets Predominately Black Church in Charlotte, North Carolina
A predominately black church in North Carolina was intentionally set ablaze, authorities said.
Charlotte fire officials are looking into whether Wednesday morning's arson at Briar Creek Baptist Church was a hate crime, NBC station WCNC reported. Although there were no initial indications that the crime was motivated by hate, officials haven't ruled it out, fire investigator David Williams told the station.
Investigators say an arsonist was behind a fire which caused $250,000 in damage to the Briar Creek Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Charlotte Fire Dept.
Investigators are examining hate as a possible motive because Briar Creek Baptist Church is an 85-member church with a mostly black congregation, according to WCNC.
The arson attack came a week after a mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina.
First Published Jun 25 2015, 7:19 am ET
I don't think I've ever heard of an arson of a Black church that wasn't racially motivated.Girl Dies, 2 Brothers in ICU After Irving [Texas] Pool Incident
(Published Thursday, Jun 25, 2015)
A 10-year-old girl drowned and her two brothers, ages 9 and 11, remain hospitalized after they were found underwater in a pool at an Irving apartment complex while their mother was at the other end with a younger child, police said.
... Irving police said her brothers remained in the intensive care unit at the hospital Thursday morning.
... Police said their mother was at the other end of the pool with her 3-year-old while the other children were swimming.
"When she didn't hear the sounds of the children playing anymore, she turned around and didn't see them anymore," Irving Police Department spokesman James McLellan said. "They appeared to have gone below the surface [of the water]."
The mother then began screaming for help, as police said they think she is unable to swim. A nearby maintenance man jumped into the pool and pulled two of the unconscious children out.
"According to [the] original officer that arrived first, she was not made aware that there was a third child in the pool," said McLellan. "In fact, she expressed a little frustration that she didn't know that."
Police are looking into the pool water's murky appearance for a possible reason no one noticed the third child.
Police said the incident appears to be accidental. The mother does not face any charges, but police are still looking for any criminal signs that point to negligence.
Published at 4:48 PM CDT on Jun 24, 2015
What set me off about this story (besides having 4 kids when humanity's biggest problem is population growth) is that the mom doesn't know how to swim. If you live with a pool (or close to other water more than waist deep) your kids need to know how to swim, and you need to know how to swim. She should have been able to jump in and pull the kids out herself. Losing count and getting only 2 of 3 out of the water doesn't look good either.Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Obama Health Care Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the reach of the Obama health care law, rescuing the program from a potentially fatal legal challenge for the second time since Obamacare's inception.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said consumers qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost of premiums whether they buy their coverage through federal or state exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the court wrote in its majority opinion .
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said ... "This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."
More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange - HealthCare.Gov - depend on the subsidies, reducing their premiums an average of 72 percent, saving an average of $270 a month.
If the challengers had prevailed, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange - by far the majority of those insured by Obamacare - would have lost the subsidies. Only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.
The health insurance industry had warned that if the challenge succeeded, the Affordable Care Act would have entered a "death spiral" - with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.
"We did dodge a bullet. In the short run if this had gone the other way, then millions of people would have lost health insurance," said Tal Gross, a health policy expert at Columbia University's school of public health.
Conservatives vowed to press on with their efforts to bring attention to flaws in a law they see as broken.
"That we're even discussing another of Obamacare's self-inflicted brushes with the brink - again - is the latest indictment of a law that's been a rolling disaster for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday after the court ruling was announced. "Today's ruling won't change Obamacare's multitude of broken promises, including the one that resulted in millions of Americans losing the coverage they had and wanted to keep. Today's ruling won't change Obamacare's spectacular flops, from humiliating website debacles to the total collapse of exchanges in states run by the law's loudest cheerleaders. Today's ruling won't change the skyrocketing costs in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays that have hit the middle class so hard over the last few years."
Pete Williams
First Published Jun 25 2015, 10:10 am ET
When are the Republicans going to realize that (a) the majority of Americans think "Obamacare" is a good thing, and (b) a lot of people need it. The Republicans want to get rid of it, but don't have anything better to offer. They keep criticizing its problems, highlighting the flaws as reasons to dismantle it, when anyone who truly cared about the common good would be trying to fix the problems.
I keep seeing the Republicans not only on the wrong side of issues, but on the wrong side of issues that shouldn't even be contested, and arguing about things that shouldn't be government's business.
If we could somehow get 90% turnout for elections it would really shake things up....2016 Candidates React to Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling
The Supreme Court's landmark decision that all states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples prompted a flood of responses on Friday morning, including from those eyeing the White House in 2016.
Reaction from the presidential hopefuls poured in almost immediately after the decision was announced.
Republican 2016 candidates slammed the decision, with reactions ranging from dire warnings about the future of religious liberty to calls for mutual respect.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wrote that he believes that the court should have left the matter to the states but that Americans should also "respect" each other while also protecting religious freedom.
"In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side," he said. "It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."
This is an issue that most people see with a "right" and "wrong" side, but people disagree about which is which. And the states differ. So some states must be right, and some wrong. And if some states are getting it wrong, how can it make sense to leave this to individual states to decide?
Doesn't "religious freedom" mean not being subject to laws based on other people's religions?Republican presidential candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, said in a lengthy statement that the decision "will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision."
"The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that," Jindal said.
If you don't believe in the existence of God, it's hard to accept that marriage was "established by God".
It's hard to see how you can defend religious freedom when you assume/insist that everyone believes in God.Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, another staunch social conservative, said the ruling will prove to be "one of the court's most disastrous opinions."
"I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," Huckabee said. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
How do we get an "imperial court" without an empire? How do you not see that laws against marriage equality are legislative tyranny?Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum tweeted:
Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage
- Rick Santorum (
ricksantorum) June 26, 2015
He added in a statement: "Now is the people's opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate. The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record."
Um, the "people" have said they're OK with gay marriage. And as for the quality of the decision, does the Constitution say anything about gender in marriage?Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said he will make a 2016 announcement next month, said, "As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."
How are you going to get a Constitutional amendment passed against something the majority of the population accepts or embraces?South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham called himself "a proud defender of traditional marriage," but threw cold water on the prospects of a Constitutional Amendment.
"Given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress," he said.
A voice of reason.Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said, "This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be."
Somebody's got to say what the law should be. Preferably somebody who's not deciding based on beliefs and opinions instead of facts.Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson took a slightly different tone than many of his GOP colleagues. "While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land," he said.
Another voice of reason.He added that he supports same-sex civil unions, but "to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.
It's not just a religious service because (a) you can get married in a government courthouse and (b) many legal and financial options are tied to marital status.Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said, "This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years. While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood."
When a political process on the state level is going so many different directions it needs to be short circuited.Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he is disappointed with the ruling and pledged to "appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, "I agree with Justice - Chief Justice Roberts. As you know, that this is something that should be decided by the people and not by, I think he called them, five lawyers. I agree with that, I've said that before as to our Supreme Court. That this is something that shouldn't be decided by a group of lawyers, but should be decided by the people."
First Published Jun 26 2015, 10:23 am ET
I'm not sure this (and so many other issues) should be decided by "the people", given that the majority often are a tyranny to the minority. But this has already been decided by the people, and you Republicans would have lost, in case you haven't noticed. There's been a surprisingly-rapid change in recent years, and all signs are that it will continue as the opposition ages and dies out. (Pot's becoming legal too.)
I've still seen nothing explaining how removing gender restrictions on marriage threatens or diminishes "traditional" marriage. If anything, it allows the inclusion of a large number of people in strong, committed, non-traditional partnerships. Canada didn't collapse after it allowed gay marriage. It's hard to think of a better predictor of what would happen here. Inter-racial marriage was going to lead to the destruction of society too; what happened there?
As for non-tradidional, any idea when we'll allow marriage with more than 2 people?
Wednesday 10:56
Why do people take advice from actors?Jim Carrey ... believes there is a link between vaccines and autism. He branded California Gov. Jerry Brown a "corporate fascist" after he signed into law one of the strictest immunization programs in the country earlier in the day.
In a series of more than half a dozen tweets ... the Golden Globe winner insisted he was "pro-vaccine." He was only "anti-neurotoxin," he said, repeating his claim that ingredients such as thimerosal and mercury carry a risk to children.
Carrey has been an activist on the issue since his relationship with Jenny McCarthy, the model, actor and author who believes her son's autism was caused by vaccines.
Despite lingering fears among some parents, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear that there is no link between vaccines and autism. Echoing the broad scientific consensus, the CDC says there is "no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and [autism], as well as no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and [autism] in children."
No childhood vaccines distributed in the U.S. contain mercury or thimerosal, CDC says.
The California law comes in the wake of a measles outbreak at Disneyland last year that affected more than 100 people in the U.S. and Mexico. The state joins West Virginia and Mississippi as the only states without a personal-belief exemption for vaccines, according to The Associated Press.
There are probably still people who believe the earth is flat; there are certainly people who believe the earth was created in 7 days. Personal beliefs have no place displacing well-established and widely-accepted science, especially when those beliefs can kill others. There are children who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons (other diseases and/or compromised immune systems) who need the protection provided by the herd effect (i.e. being around vaccinated people who will not spread the diseases prevent by vaccinations), and we lose the herd effect when too many people opt their children out of vaccinations. These ignorant parents are putting their own children and other people's children at risk - hence the outbreak at Disneyland.
Another question is "Why do people listen to actors?" For the most part they're not scientists, or doctors. They have no particular education on the subject, nor experience beyond anecdotal. Why should their advice carry any more weight than a plumber's or a cashier's?
A "lowering" of the Confederate flag:Dukes of Hazzard Reruns Pulled From TV Land Schedule Amid Confederate Flag Controversy
TV Land has pulled all reruns of the 80's series from its schedule, just one week after Warner Bros. "elected to cease the licensing" of replicas and models of the show's iconic, Confederate flag-laden car, the General Lee....
I hadn't even thought about the car, with the southern cross painted on its roof. The show's been in the controversy lately because one of its actors ("Why do people listen to actors?") has been defending the flag.Ben Jones, who played Cooter on the series and is currently the proprietor of a Dukes of Hazzard museum called Cooter's Place, weighed in on Facebook with a lengthy post explaining that his museum will continue to carry and sell the flag, saying, "I think all of Hazzard Nation understands that the confederate battle flag is the symbol that represents the indomitable spirit of independence.... That flag on top of the General Lee made a statement that the values of the rural south were the values of courage and family and good times."
I keep seeing a rural south where the families enjoying those good times were benefiting from the labors of the people they owned, living in shacks with dirt floors and no plumbing.
What (allegedly non-racist) Confederate flag defenders are refusing to admit is that just as words can change meanings over time, other people can assign meanings to your symbols, and those meanings can overpower your associations; you may have to give that symbol up. The swastika (or gammadion or tetraskelion) has been used by many cultures, dating back to Neolithic times. But in Western cultures those meanings have been buried by its more recent association with the Nazi party. Anyone who sees a swastika now will think of the German atrocities of World War II. Any (US) American who can look at a Confederate flag without thinking of slavery is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly deluded.
I heard someone on the radio arguing that the square battle flag and the rectangular flag have different meanings, and it's appropriate to defend the one and put the other aside, because only the rectangular flag has been adopted by today's white supremacists. That's like saying words have different meanings when you change the font. I routinely take rectangular images and make them square for DW/LJ icons. I suspect the alteration is rarely noticed, and it certainly doesn't give them new meanings.
Thursday 00:39Episcopalians have voted to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide.
Under the new rules, clergy can decline to perform the ceremonies.
First Published Jul 1 2015, 8:34 pm ET
I consider myself an atheist, but I've spent a lot of time in churches, and a large portion of that has been Episcopalian churches. I am happy to see this response. I was disappointed to see the conflicts in the Anglican Church in less - progressive - parts of the world over allowing gay bishops, and no doubt those churches will not be performing gay weddings either.
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/750841.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]
An Alabama police dog died after its handler accidentally left the animal inside a hot car, Gulf Shores police said this week.
Mason, a community relations dog that was not involved in the arrests of suspects, died at 11 p.m. Friday, a day after police said its handler, Cpl. Josh Coleman, left the animal inside a hot car.
Police did not say how long the dog, named Mason, was left inside the vehicle but said Coleman changed duties on Thursday and later remembered that the dog was left in the back seat of his patrol vehicle. Coleman took the animal to a veterinarian for treatment, but the following night the animal went into respiratory distress.
Mason had turned 3 years old just earlier this month, according to the department's Facebook page.
Gulf Shores police Detective Sgt. Jason Woodruff said Coleman has been on the police force for eight years, and has acted as handler for Mason for the past year. The department said the animal's death has been "devastating" for Coleman.
This is of course relating to leaving children in hot cars. Police can do it too. (But I do keep saying police are just ordinary people too.)The high temperature last Thursday was around 90 degrees in the region, according to the National Weather Service. The patrol car did not have remote heat indicators and other protective measures because Mason was not a police enforcement dog, police said. Those dogs typically spend more time inside vehicles.
Gulf Shores is a coastal town of around 10,700 on Gulf of Mexico about 30 miles west of Pensacola, Florida. An average of 38 children die each year from heat-related conditions after being left in vehicles, according to the advocacy group KidsandCars.org.
First Published Jun 24 2015, 7:32 pm ET
I've got to think that dogs die in hot, parked cars all the time, but they don't make the news because they're not people. I think we're hearing about this one only because the police were involved, and police problems of any sort get coverage lately.Pastor Clementa Pinckney's Body Carried Past Confederate Flag Into S.C. Capitol
The body of the pastor and state senator slain in the Charleston church massacre last week was carried by horse-drawn caisson Wednesday into the South Carolina State House, past a Confederate battle flag that flies outside.
In the second-floor lobby of the Capitol, where the body of the Rev. Clementa Pinckney lay in honor, a black drape was placed over a window, blocking view of the rebel flag.
Pinckney was one of nine black people shot to death at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston by Dylann Roof....
First Published Jun 24 2015, 12:27 pm ET
America as a whole may be past this, but there are parts that cannot accept no longer being superior.Arsonist Targets Predominately Black Church in Charlotte, North Carolina
A predominately black church in North Carolina was intentionally set ablaze, authorities said.
Charlotte fire officials are looking into whether Wednesday morning's arson at Briar Creek Baptist Church was a hate crime, NBC station WCNC reported. Although there were no initial indications that the crime was motivated by hate, officials haven't ruled it out, fire investigator David Williams told the station.
Investigators say an arsonist was behind a fire which caused $250,000 in damage to the Briar Creek Baptist Church in Charlotte, North Carolina. Charlotte Fire Dept.
Investigators are examining hate as a possible motive because Briar Creek Baptist Church is an 85-member church with a mostly black congregation, according to WCNC.
The arson attack came a week after a mass shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina.
First Published Jun 25 2015, 7:19 am ET
I don't think I've ever heard of an arson of a Black church that wasn't racially motivated.Girl Dies, 2 Brothers in ICU After Irving [Texas] Pool Incident
(Published Thursday, Jun 25, 2015)
A 10-year-old girl drowned and her two brothers, ages 9 and 11, remain hospitalized after they were found underwater in a pool at an Irving apartment complex while their mother was at the other end with a younger child, police said.
... Irving police said her brothers remained in the intensive care unit at the hospital Thursday morning.
... Police said their mother was at the other end of the pool with her 3-year-old while the other children were swimming.
"When she didn't hear the sounds of the children playing anymore, she turned around and didn't see them anymore," Irving Police Department spokesman James McLellan said. "They appeared to have gone below the surface [of the water]."
The mother then began screaming for help, as police said they think she is unable to swim. A nearby maintenance man jumped into the pool and pulled two of the unconscious children out.
"According to [the] original officer that arrived first, she was not made aware that there was a third child in the pool," said McLellan. "In fact, she expressed a little frustration that she didn't know that."
Police are looking into the pool water's murky appearance for a possible reason no one noticed the third child.
Police said the incident appears to be accidental. The mother does not face any charges, but police are still looking for any criminal signs that point to negligence.
Published at 4:48 PM CDT on Jun 24, 2015
What set me off about this story (besides having 4 kids when humanity's biggest problem is population growth) is that the mom doesn't know how to swim. If you live with a pool (or close to other water more than waist deep) your kids need to know how to swim, and you need to know how to swim. She should have been able to jump in and pull the kids out herself. Losing count and getting only 2 of 3 out of the water doesn't look good either.Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Obama Health Care Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the reach of the Obama health care law, rescuing the program from a potentially fatal legal challenge for the second time since Obamacare's inception.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said consumers qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost of premiums whether they buy their coverage through federal or state exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.
"Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the court wrote in its majority opinion .
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said ... "This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."
More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange - HealthCare.Gov - depend on the subsidies, reducing their premiums an average of 72 percent, saving an average of $270 a month.
If the challengers had prevailed, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange - by far the majority of those insured by Obamacare - would have lost the subsidies. Only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.
The health insurance industry had warned that if the challenge succeeded, the Affordable Care Act would have entered a "death spiral" - with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.
"We did dodge a bullet. In the short run if this had gone the other way, then millions of people would have lost health insurance," said Tal Gross, a health policy expert at Columbia University's school of public health.
Conservatives vowed to press on with their efforts to bring attention to flaws in a law they see as broken.
"That we're even discussing another of Obamacare's self-inflicted brushes with the brink - again - is the latest indictment of a law that's been a rolling disaster for the American people," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on the Senate floor Thursday after the court ruling was announced. "Today's ruling won't change Obamacare's multitude of broken promises, including the one that resulted in millions of Americans losing the coverage they had and wanted to keep. Today's ruling won't change Obamacare's spectacular flops, from humiliating website debacles to the total collapse of exchanges in states run by the law's loudest cheerleaders. Today's ruling won't change the skyrocketing costs in premiums, deductibles, and co-pays that have hit the middle class so hard over the last few years."
Pete Williams
First Published Jun 25 2015, 10:10 am ET
When are the Republicans going to realize that (a) the majority of Americans think "Obamacare" is a good thing, and (b) a lot of people need it. The Republicans want to get rid of it, but don't have anything better to offer. They keep criticizing its problems, highlighting the flaws as reasons to dismantle it, when anyone who truly cared about the common good would be trying to fix the problems.
I keep seeing the Republicans not only on the wrong side of issues, but on the wrong side of issues that shouldn't even be contested, and arguing about things that shouldn't be government's business.
If we could somehow get 90% turnout for elections it would really shake things up....2016 Candidates React to Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling
The Supreme Court's landmark decision that all states must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples prompted a flood of responses on Friday morning, including from those eyeing the White House in 2016.
Reaction from the presidential hopefuls poured in almost immediately after the decision was announced.
Republican 2016 candidates slammed the decision, with reactions ranging from dire warnings about the future of religious liberty to calls for mutual respect.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush wrote that he believes that the court should have left the matter to the states but that Americans should also "respect" each other while also protecting religious freedom.
"In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side," he said. "It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate."
This is an issue that most people see with a "right" and "wrong" side, but people disagree about which is which. And the states differ. So some states must be right, and some wrong. And if some states are getting it wrong, how can it make sense to leave this to individual states to decide?
Doesn't "religious freedom" mean not being subject to laws based on other people's religions?Republican presidential candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, said in a lengthy statement that the decision "will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision."
"The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states' rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that," Jindal said.
If you don't believe in the existence of God, it's hard to accept that marriage was "established by God".
It's hard to see how you can defend religious freedom when you assume/insist that everyone believes in God.Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, another staunch social conservative, said the ruling will prove to be "one of the court's most disastrous opinions."
"I will not acquiesce to an imperial court any more than our Founders acquiesced to an imperial British monarch," Huckabee said. "We must resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
How do we get an "imperial court" without an empire? How do you not see that laws against marriage equality are legislative tyranny?Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum tweeted:
Today, 5 unelected judges redefined the foundational unit of society. Now it is the people's turn to speak #Marriage
- Rick Santorum (
ricksantorum) June 26, 2015
He added in a statement: "Now is the people's opportunity respond because the future of the institution of marriage is too important to not have a public debate. The Court is one of three co-equal branches of government and, just as they have in cases from Dred Scott to Plessy, the Court has an imperfect track record."
Um, the "people" have said they're OK with gay marriage. And as for the quality of the decision, does the Constitution say anything about gender in marriage?Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who said he will make a 2016 announcement next month, said, "As a result of this decision, the only alternative left for the American people is to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to reaffirm the ability of the states to continue to define marriage."
How are you going to get a Constitutional amendment passed against something the majority of the population accepts or embraces?South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham called himself "a proud defender of traditional marriage," but threw cold water on the prospects of a Constitutional Amendment.
"Given the quickly changing tide of public opinion on this issue, I do not believe that an attempt to amend the U.S. Constitution could possibly gain the support of three-fourths of the states or a supermajority in the U.S. Congress," he said.
A voice of reason.Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina said, "This is only the latest example of an activist Court ignoring its constitutional duty to say what the law is and not what the law should be."
Somebody's got to say what the law should be. Preferably somebody who's not deciding based on beliefs and opinions instead of facts.Former neurosurgeon Ben Carson took a slightly different tone than many of his GOP colleagues. "While I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's decision, their ruling is now the law of the land," he said.
Another voice of reason.He added that he supports same-sex civil unions, but "to me, and millions like me, marriage is a religious service not a government form.
It's not just a religious service because (a) you can get married in a government courthouse and (b) many legal and financial options are tied to marital status.Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said, "This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years. While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood."
When a political process on the state level is going so many different directions it needs to be short circuited.Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he is disappointed with the ruling and pledged to "appoint strict Constitutional conservatives who will apply the law as written."
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said, "I agree with Justice - Chief Justice Roberts. As you know, that this is something that should be decided by the people and not by, I think he called them, five lawyers. I agree with that, I've said that before as to our Supreme Court. That this is something that shouldn't be decided by a group of lawyers, but should be decided by the people."
First Published Jun 26 2015, 10:23 am ET
I'm not sure this (and so many other issues) should be decided by "the people", given that the majority often are a tyranny to the minority. But this has already been decided by the people, and you Republicans would have lost, in case you haven't noticed. There's been a surprisingly-rapid change in recent years, and all signs are that it will continue as the opposition ages and dies out. (Pot's becoming legal too.)
I've still seen nothing explaining how removing gender restrictions on marriage threatens or diminishes "traditional" marriage. If anything, it allows the inclusion of a large number of people in strong, committed, non-traditional partnerships. Canada didn't collapse after it allowed gay marriage. It's hard to think of a better predictor of what would happen here. Inter-racial marriage was going to lead to the destruction of society too; what happened there?
As for non-tradidional, any idea when we'll allow marriage with more than 2 people?
Wednesday 10:56
Why do people take advice from actors?Jim Carrey ... believes there is a link between vaccines and autism. He branded California Gov. Jerry Brown a "corporate fascist" after he signed into law one of the strictest immunization programs in the country earlier in the day.
In a series of more than half a dozen tweets ... the Golden Globe winner insisted he was "pro-vaccine." He was only "anti-neurotoxin," he said, repeating his claim that ingredients such as thimerosal and mercury carry a risk to children.
Carrey has been an activist on the issue since his relationship with Jenny McCarthy, the model, actor and author who believes her son's autism was caused by vaccines.
Despite lingering fears among some parents, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is clear that there is no link between vaccines and autism. Echoing the broad scientific consensus, the CDC says there is "no link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and [autism], as well as no link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and [autism] in children."
No childhood vaccines distributed in the U.S. contain mercury or thimerosal, CDC says.
The California law comes in the wake of a measles outbreak at Disneyland last year that affected more than 100 people in the U.S. and Mexico. The state joins West Virginia and Mississippi as the only states without a personal-belief exemption for vaccines, according to The Associated Press.
There are probably still people who believe the earth is flat; there are certainly people who believe the earth was created in 7 days. Personal beliefs have no place displacing well-established and widely-accepted science, especially when those beliefs can kill others. There are children who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons (other diseases and/or compromised immune systems) who need the protection provided by the herd effect (i.e. being around vaccinated people who will not spread the diseases prevent by vaccinations), and we lose the herd effect when too many people opt their children out of vaccinations. These ignorant parents are putting their own children and other people's children at risk - hence the outbreak at Disneyland.
Another question is "Why do people listen to actors?" For the most part they're not scientists, or doctors. They have no particular education on the subject, nor experience beyond anecdotal. Why should their advice carry any more weight than a plumber's or a cashier's?
A "lowering" of the Confederate flag:Dukes of Hazzard Reruns Pulled From TV Land Schedule Amid Confederate Flag Controversy
TV Land has pulled all reruns of the 80's series from its schedule, just one week after Warner Bros. "elected to cease the licensing" of replicas and models of the show's iconic, Confederate flag-laden car, the General Lee....
I hadn't even thought about the car, with the southern cross painted on its roof. The show's been in the controversy lately because one of its actors ("Why do people listen to actors?") has been defending the flag.Ben Jones, who played Cooter on the series and is currently the proprietor of a Dukes of Hazzard museum called Cooter's Place, weighed in on Facebook with a lengthy post explaining that his museum will continue to carry and sell the flag, saying, "I think all of Hazzard Nation understands that the confederate battle flag is the symbol that represents the indomitable spirit of independence.... That flag on top of the General Lee made a statement that the values of the rural south were the values of courage and family and good times."
I keep seeing a rural south where the families enjoying those good times were benefiting from the labors of the people they owned, living in shacks with dirt floors and no plumbing.
What (allegedly non-racist) Confederate flag defenders are refusing to admit is that just as words can change meanings over time, other people can assign meanings to your symbols, and those meanings can overpower your associations; you may have to give that symbol up. The swastika (or gammadion or tetraskelion) has been used by many cultures, dating back to Neolithic times. But in Western cultures those meanings have been buried by its more recent association with the Nazi party. Anyone who sees a swastika now will think of the German atrocities of World War II. Any (US) American who can look at a Confederate flag without thinking of slavery is either incredibly ignorant or incredibly deluded.
I heard someone on the radio arguing that the square battle flag and the rectangular flag have different meanings, and it's appropriate to defend the one and put the other aside, because only the rectangular flag has been adopted by today's white supremacists. That's like saying words have different meanings when you change the font. I routinely take rectangular images and make them square for DW/LJ icons. I suspect the alteration is rarely noticed, and it certainly doesn't give them new meanings.
Thursday 00:39Episcopalians have voted to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide.
Under the new rules, clergy can decline to perform the ceremonies.
First Published Jul 1 2015, 8:34 pm ET
I consider myself an atheist, but I've spent a lot of time in churches, and a large portion of that has been Episcopalian churches. I am happy to see this response. I was disappointed to see the conflicts in the Anglican Church in less - progressive - parts of the world over allowing gay bishops, and no doubt those churches will not be performing gay weddings either.
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/750841.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]