Elton John

Elton John is in a Los Angles hospital being treated for a serious respiratory infection, CNN reports.

The 65-year-old entertainer became ill last weekend in Las Vegas while performing his “Million Dollar Piano” show at The Colosseum at Caesars Palace. John returned to Los Angeles to undergo testing at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center on Wednesday.

“Those tests resulted in the attending Cedars-Sinai physician recommending that Elton not perform any concerts for approximately seven days with complete rest and antibiotic treatment to cure his respiratory infection and prevent any damage,” a statement from the publicist says.

We hope he recovers quickly.

Related articles

• Cedars-Sinai first West Coast ALS clinic to implant breathing-assist device under new FDA approval (medicalxpress.com)

William A. Clark buying his Senate seat. The Anaconda Standard, Oct. 28, 1900

The Virginia-based American Tradition Partnership sued the State of Montana to force the state abandon their campaign financing laws and allow unrestricted corporate money to do the same kind of damage in Montana elections as it is doing in national ones. The state courts ruled for the State, so ATP took the case to the Federal level. They have asked the Supreme Court, which created this mess with its Citizens United ruling to overturn the state court decisions. The Supremes have blocked Montana’s law until they can “look at the case.”

In Supreme Court cases, it is possible for “interested parties” to file briefs in support of one side or the other. In this case, 22 state’s attorneys and the district of Columbia have filed such briefs. The states’ briefs say that the Montana law is different from the issues in the Citizens United case and the ruling should not apply to Montana.

Citizens United is one of the most controversial and unpopular rulings not related to social issues to ever come out of the Supreme Court. It wiped out decades of attempts to regulate the money spent in elections. It allows the creation of political action committees who can collect and spend unlimited amounts of money and keep the sources from public view. While campaign finance control has been the will of the people, Citizens United is the will of the very wealthy who seek to gain control over our government and install elected officials who will turn the law to their benefit.

Montana’s citizens in 1912 passed strict campaign finance laws because of rampant corruption in their state government. Bribery and vote buying were the manner in which the battling owners of copper mines fought for power. One copper baron, William A. Clark, literally bought a seat in the United States Senate in 1899. His selection led to the passage of the 17th Amendment, direct election of senators.  The voters rose up against the way very wealthy men were buying their government, and in a voter initiative, banned all corporate contributions to political campaigns.

In Citizens United, the Roberts Court ruled that no one should have their freedom of speech limited, and declared that corporations were people with the right of free speech, and independent political action committees should be free to spend as much money as they wish on campaigns, so long as they are not advocating for a specific candidate. They can crucify a candidate, as was planned with the Joe Ricketts anti-Obama ad campaign centering on Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but they cannot support one.

Legal experts do not expect the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Montana. At best, they might tweak the Montana law. The Roberts Court has four devout Republicans who have consistently ruled for their party. There are four liberal justices and one swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has voted with the conservatives 87% of the time.

The Montana case is unique. We have argued that the citizens of a state should not determine social issues by popular referendum since those are the issues where the popular vote will frequently limit the rights of a minority, and I have argued that the state of California should limit referendums in their governance. But in Montana, in 1912, the populace rose up to stop criminal and quasi-criminal behavior that was denying them their constitutional rights. This referendum did not limit anyone’s rights or screw up the state’s government. The law the people of Montana passed a hundred years ago reinforced the rights of the people and ended the sale of their government to the highest bidder.

The group that brought the suit to void Montana’s law is based in Virginia. They are not Montanans. It’s none of their freaking business what the people of Montana do. Like most of these conservative groups trying to bend the American people to their will, they have a nice, patriotic sounding name. But the true American tradition has always been that buying elections is wrong, no matter how one sugar-coats it.

Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, also support Montana. They have cited evidence that the Citizens United ruling was wrong in saying that unlimited corporate spending would not lead to corruption, because it has, and not just at the federal election level. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker was caught on tape promising a wealthy donor that after destroying the public sector unions, he would go after the private sector unions for the sake of his donors.

The states who filed the brief supporting Montana are New York, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. The balance in that list between conservative and liberal states says a lot about how Americans are reacting to Citizens United and a Supreme Court that has forgotten who and what they are supposed to be working for.

Related articles

• Montana wins states’ backing over Citizens United fight(guardian.co.uk)

  ---

• 22 states join campaign finance fight (wvgazette.com)
• A Democrat and a Republican want the Supreme Court to revisit “Citizens United” (underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com)
• States Wage War Against Citizens United (huffingtonpost.com)

The California Statehouse, Sacramento

The Constitution of the State of California, in Section 1, contains the following, “The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.”

Nice, innocuous sentence, right? The people retained for themselves the power to suggest new laws and to hold referendums on important issues. Nothing harmful there. Except in the state of California. That little sentence has created the chaos and failure that is the state of California.

In 1978, Proposition 13 limited property taxes to 1% of assessed value of the property and limited reassessments to inflation or 2% whichever was lower. That was the beginning of the end for responsible governance and budgetary sensibility in California. The motive for the law was to protect the elderly from losing their homes because a rapidly inflating housing market would tax them out of houses they had lived in for decades. It was a valid concern, but one that could have been better handled with any number of alternative laws, starting with the homestead exemptions that some states have used, or grandfathering of persons who had owned their homes over a specific period of time. Instead, it crippled the ability of California to garner sufficient tax revenue for the government.

Prop 13 was just the first of California’s idiotic referendums. Over the next twenty to thirty years, it reached the point where California’s assembly couldn’t adjourn for lunch without someone demanding a referendum. Jerry Brown, California’s current governor and a Democrat, was governor at the time of Prop 13. He left office in 1983. From 1983 to 1999, there were two Republican governors, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson. They were followed by Democrat Gray Davis until 2003, and then Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger until last year. California’s economic problems are not partisan. Neither party is more responsible than the other. The state’s problem is its citizens.

Left to a referendum system, a state’s citizens will naturally vote for things that benefit them without giving much thought to what the consequences might be in the long term. From an extraordinary education system to sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants to a far-reaching welfare system, Californians just kept piling on the things the state had to pay for, all the time limiting what they were going to pay with.

The state knew some exceptional economic booms, the movie and television industry and the tech industry brought great fortunes to the state. But they contracted over time. Laws passed during the booms became unsustainable, but the state didn’t referendum reforms that adequately contracted state obligations to match revenues.

In 2006, just as everywhere else in America, the perfect storm of economic catastrophes hit California. Unlike everywhere else, California could not respond. It couldn’t even screw up the way other states did in 2009 when they received the stimulus money and used to keep their budgets going instead using it to stimulate their economies. As it had been for too many years, California was paralyzed by a budget and management system run by citizen referendum.

There are only about a dozen nations in the world that have a larger GDP than California, which is why California’s budget deficit is bigger than the deficits of most nations, and there is only one way out…they need to amend their constitution to limit the use of referendums. Then, they need to let their elected officials do what needs to be done.

Related articles

• If You Live In California Things Just Got A Whole Lot Worse(ConservativeActionAlerts.com)

  ---

• The Golden State Gone Broke – Huffington Post (blog) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Steven Greenhut on Jerry Brown’s Broken Budget (reason.com)
• Brown’s Plan for California: 4-Day Workweek (newser.com)

From Creative Commons

The National Mortgage Settlement was supposed to help underwater homeowners and prevent further disclosures. The settlement was wrung out of the five largest loan servicers (Ally/GMAC, Bank of America, Citi, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo) to provide retribution for their abuses of servicing and improper foreclosures. The settlement was approved six weeks ago. The total is $25 billion and $2.5 billion was to be turned over directly to the attorneys general of the fifty states to manage directly to the homeowners.

Fat chance.

Twenty-five states have committed all the money to help homeowners either through direct assistance or other programs. Oklahoma chose not to participate in the program at all.

Nine states are using part of the money for mortgage relief, and part of it for other programs. Indiana is using half of it to assist low-income households with energy bills. Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Maine and West Virginia have not been as specific as to where they are diverting the funds.

Vermont, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Mississippi, Alabama and Oregon have not announced how they are using the funds.

I can tell you that Vermont’s budget is sort of under control, the way it usually is (we always assume we need wiggle room and the final figures will not match the hopes and expectations), our home values did not fall the way they did in other states, and we had the lowest foreclosure rate in the country. The current proposal for our $2.55 million is half to housing and half to the general fund.

And then there’s the infamous eight…..Georgia is using their $99.36 million for “economic development” to attract businesses to the state. Missouri is diverting their $39.8 million to bolster education funding. Virginia’s $66.5 million is going it to local governments and Texas just shot it’s $134.6 million straight into the general fund. California just announced that it will use their $410.58 million to help it cope with their extraordinary budget problems. Alaska is putting $1 million to the Division of Banking and Securities and has not announced what the rest of their $3.28 million will be used for. South Carolina is mimicking Georgia and using their $31 million to attract new businesses. South Dakota’s $2.88 million will be used to “enact regulations.”

Among the things this money was intended for was counseling for homeowners, funds to pursue investigations into mortgage foreclosure activities, and assistance in refinancing.

The 2009 stimulus package was supposed go to infrastructure projects, which would have a ripple effect on states’ economies. Too many states used it to plug their budget deficits. Very few used it for infrastructure, and for those who did, it had the desired effect. Those states that diverted the stimulus package have served to “prove” to Republican voters that the stimulus package did nothing for the states. Diverting these funds will also help the Republican Party by expanding the accusation that President Obama has done nothing to help homeowners, though it was probably not the reason behind these decisions.

Related articles

• More Details on Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Fund Raid(news.firedoglake.com)

  ---

• ‘Mortgage Settlement’ Funds Paying for Prisons, Not Foreclosure Relief (commondreams.org)
• Arizona The Latest State To Use Foreclosure Settlement Funds To Balance Budget (thinkprogress.org)
• States Grab Robosigning Settlement – to Pay Own Bills (newser.com)
• CA AG Kamala Harris Rejects Governor Brown’s Attempt to Raid Foreclosure Fraud Settlement Funds (news.firedoglake.com)

Marriage Certificate, 1875

Originally published May 11, 2012

The right wing avers that allowing gays to marry will destroy traditional marriage in America. They never say how, but they are sure it will happen. Too late. Traditional marriage is already in trouble, and gays had nothing to do with it. Neither did Kim Kardashian. She simply provided fathers with a really good argument against $25,000 custom wedding dresses and million dollar receptions.

Fifty years ago, 72% of Americans were married. Today, the number is just under 50%. The United States isn’t the only place experiencing this phenomenon. When my husband’s family in Canada held their last reunion a few years ago, the organizers got tired of trying to sort out spouses and non-spouses and just put “partner” on the name tags. Britain, France, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong are all reporting deep drops in the number of couples getting married.

In spite of the right wing nonsense, marriage has always been an economic arrangement. The rich and titled used marriage to join property, assure inheritances, merge businesses, cement international treaties. The poor didn’t bother to get married which is why the concept of common-law marriages arose. If two people stuck together long enough, they were considered married for legal purposes. Marriage was very much an upper-class thing until the emergence of a mercantile class. It was the middle class that set the standard of what the right calls traditional marriage. The economic factor was subtler than joining two estates or receiving a massive dowry that paid off the debtors. Money, property or value was not an open part of marriage negotiations in the middle class. Women wanted a husband who could support them because they were barred from earning their own incomes. Men often wanted a wife who might be able to advance their careers, which accounts for over half the signers of our Constitution marrying the daughter, sister or widow of an employer. Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington became members of the landed gentry because of their marriages.

People in the middle class were also those most attached to a moral standard and a religious standard. So, within those moral and religious strictures, the only place for sex (which women weren’t supposed to enjoy anyway) was marriage, and sex was only supposed to be for procreation. A child born out of wedlock, and the mother, were spurned by society, relegated to the fringes of society, condemned to poverty and deprivation, or in their pregnant state, the girls were whisked off out of sight, the babies were disposed of into orphanages and the girls returned to their families to be handed over to the first man who expressed willingness to marry “sullied goods.” Discovering on his wedding night that his bride was not a virgin, was legal justification for divorce in many cultures.

Two factors blew up the traditional marriage model. The pill removed the fear of pregnancy if a woman had sex before marriage. And women started making strides in the workplace. They became able to support themselves.

There was a debate that occurred in Georgia a few years ago among black college students and college graduates. The women were questioned (more like challenged by black men) as to why they were either dating white men or having babies out-of-wedlock and dumping the fathers. They said that there were not enough black males going to college and able to match the women’s intellectual or financial achievements. As women became able to control their reproductive choices and their financial situations, men became optional.

The definition of why people got married changed. The modern prime motivation was supposed to be “love.” The only problem with that was the discovery that being “in love” is a chemical and biological state related to sexual passion and not a logical, rational emotion based on common values, goals and interests. There comes a point where the passion becomes secondary to the need for a best friend and partner. There is a moment when the ability to talk to each other overrides everything else. That revelation brought about a spike in divorce rates.

Is same sex marriage responsible for the decline in straight marriage? No way. Traditional marriage is still popular among those who live traditional lives bound on all sides by gender roles and religious morality. The problem is not that the existence of gay marriage diminishes the value of straight marriage, but that it shows young people there are alternative ways of thinking about gender roles and the structure of marriage.

Conservatives and followers of certain religious ideologies want to keep their kids locked up in a world where the only things they see or hear are “acceptable” ways of thinking or being. Tony Perkins of the American Family Research Council has stated that his children will never be gay because he and his wife raise them properly. But to keep them in that state, he must deny them access to thoughts outside of his narrow views. For that reason, Perkins wants gays back in the closet and religion to control our civil laws. For that reason, anti-abortionists also oppose birth control and fact-based sex education, and favor public shaming of those who become pregnant out of marriage. It’s a control issue, not a morality issue. They are losing, which is making them double down on their attempts to push the world back into the fantasy framework of the 1950s when no one saw or acknowledged those things that did not fit the “traditional” model, even though those non-traditional things existed all around us.

Where is marriage in America today? The following states have same-sex marriage: Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Vermont. It is pending in California, Maryland, New Jersey and Washington.

Common law marriages still exist in Alabama, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah. In New Hampshire they are legally effective for settling an estate, and in Georgia, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania a couple who were considered “common lawed” before a certain date must obtain a legal divorce to terminate the marriage.

Civil unions exist in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. There are legally recognized domestic partnerships in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine and Wisconsin (the last three have very restricted rights attached).

Laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman exist in Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wyoming. The first three bar same-sex marriage while allowing civil unions.

And those states whose populations have been persuaded to amend their state constitutions because same-sex marriage will bring about Armageddon are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin. Nevada and Oregon have domestic partnerships.

California’s amendment is in the courts, and the result of that law suit will determine the future of all these amendments. As much as conservatives love to lament “activist judges” Georgia’s amendment is a shining example of conservative activist judges. The state constitution clearly requires an amendment have only one clause. The same-sex marriage ban has two. The amendment was argued to the Georgia Supreme Court on that single issue – it’s consitutionality under their constitution. The judges upheld the amendment, denying their own constitution.

Related articles

• Mecklenburg board votes, 5-4, to oppose marriage amendment(goqnotes.com)

  ---

• Biblical / Traditional Marriage is … what exactly?(brgulker.wordpress.com)

  ---

• Obama talks same-sex marriage on “The View”(cnn.com)

  ---

• Rush Limbaugh Accuses Obama Of Leading War On Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• There Is No Such Thing As “Traditional Marriage” (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Five myths about gay marriage (topix.net)
• Traditional marriage and families debunked (queeringthechurch.com)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Theodore Olson appeared on Hardball as well to discuss not only marriage equality, but lesbian and gay parents. Olson is one of two leads on the suit seeking to take down California’s Prop 8. Olson has been a strong advocate of marriage equality for some time now. He believes that it is only right as a Conservative to support equality for all.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Corporate taxes in Nevada are zero. Corporate taxes in California are 8.84%. So, Apple has a office in Nevada. The company may be “based” in California, but it does very little actual business out of California. Apple directs its profits to the Reno office, and others in similarly low-tax states, and a subsidiary called Braeburn Capital invests the money. When those investments earn profits, there are not state taxes to pay.

The same holds true in Europe. There, download sales are routed through the tiny country of Luxembourg, which has a very low corporate tax rate, instead of larger countries with double-digit corporate tax rates. As Robert Hatta, who was the iTunes retail marketing director in Europe until 2007, explained, “We set up in Luxembourg because of the favorable taxes. Downloads are different from tractors or steel because there’s nothing you can touch, so it doesn’t matter if your computer is in France or England. If you’re buying from Luxembourg, it’s a relationship with Luxembourg.” Luxembourg’s low taxes probably explain its national debt of 3443% of its GDP, the highest in Europe. Before the recession, it had one of the lowest in the world at just 17%.

The Times report showed how Apple had “devised corporate strategies that take advantage of gaps in the tax code.” They interviewed executives in the Reno office, Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, the British Virgin Islands and other tax-shelter nations and states and its all totally legal. In the first three months of 2012, Apple made a $39.2 billion profit.

Apple issued the following statement to the Times, “Apple has conducted all of its business with the highest of ethical standards, complying with applicable laws and accounting rules. We are incredibly proud of all of Apple’s contributions…[the company] pays an enormous amount of taxes, which help our local, state and federal governments.” In Nevada, they pay property taxes on their offices, either as owners or as part of their rent, and income and payroll taxes on employees, while the office processes untold millions of dollars of investments generating more millions in profit. Nevada used the Federal stimulus money to plug their budget deficit instead of using it to create jobs. They have one of the highest rates of unemployment and home foreclosures in the country.

Some governments are self-destructive in their attachment to creating low-tax incentives for greedy businesses. Others have built their entire economies on their low-tax rates, attracting so many post-office-box companies that the relatively small fees those companies pay support the country. As long as these countries and states exist, others will suffer. They may suffer themselves from their policies, as Luxembourg and Nevada have. And it will all be perfectly legal…though whether or not its ethical is debatable.

Related articles

• Sneaky Tax Tactics Save Apple Billions of Dollars [Apple] (gizmodo.com)

Jody L. Herman, Manager of Transgender Research and Peter J. Cooper Fellow at the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute stated that “Recent research has highlighted significant workplace discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and this ruling is an essential step towards providing all transgender workers a path for redress.”

According to the Williams Institute:

The National Transgender Discrimination Survey, co-authored by Herman, found high levels of discrimination based on anti-transgender bias, including:

Double the rate of unemployment: Survey respondents experienced unemployment at twice the rate of the general population at the time of the survey.
Widespread mistreatment at work: Ninety percent (90%) of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment, mistreatment or discrimination on the job or took actions like hiding who they are to avoid it.
Forty-seven percent (47%) said they had experienced an adverse job outcome, such as being fired, not hired or denied a promotion because of being transgender or gender non-conforming.
More than one-quarter (26%) reported that they had lost a job due to being transgender or gender non-conforming and 50% were harassed.

While a number of federal courts and legal scholars have previously found the federal employment law, Title VII, applies to gender identity or expression discrimination, the EEOC opinion means as a practical matter that workers who face such discrimination should no longer be turned away when trying to file an EEOC complaint, which is the necessary first step when seeking to enforce one’s rights under Title VII.

“This opinion from the nation’s top civil rights officials provides clarity and consistency both for the EEOC and for employers and their human resource officers, who must abide by Title VII,” said Jennifer C. Pizer, Legal Director and Arnold D. Kassoy Senior Scholar of Law. “The opinion will serve the essential function of ensuring that EEOC staff coast to coast, others charged with ensuring equal opportunity in federal employment and programs, and state and local officials now all can share a clear understanding that sex discrimination prohibitions protect transgender people,” said Pizer.

In addition to confirming what courts and legal scholars have previously said, the ruling also follows an increasingly common practice in corporate America. More than 70 percent of Fortune 50 companies already prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression, and many who prioritize reduction of discrimination as a means to improve workplace dynamics and productivity have recognized that discrimination against transgender job applicants and workers is an improper form of sex discrimination. The EEOC opinion sets a clear rule for the entire private sector, such that the standards already adopted by many leading companies can be more easily understood and adopted by others.

The Transgender Law Center informed us:

The ruling came as a result of a discrimination complaint filed by Transgender Law Center on behalf of Mia Macy, a transgender woman who was denied a job asa ballistics technician at the Walnut Creek, California laboratory of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Ms. Macy, a veteran and former police detective, initially applied for the position as male and was told that she virtually was guaranteed the job. Ms. Macy was exceptionally qualified for the position, having a military and law enforcement background and being one of the few people in the country who had already been trained on ATF’s ballistics computer system. After disclosing her gender transition mid-way through the hiring process, Ms. Macy was told that funding for that position had been suddenly cut. She later learned that someone else had been hired for the job.

In response to the EEOC’s decision, Ms. Macy stated, “As a veteran and a police officer, I’ve worked my whole career to uphold the values of fairness and equality. Although the discrimination I experienced was painful both personally and financially, and led to the loss of my family’s home to foreclosure, I’m proud to be a part of this groundbreaking decision confirming that our nation’s employment discrimination laws protect all Americans, including transgender people. I’m grateful for the help of Transgender Law Center, which believed in me from the start and helped guide me through this process. No one should be denied a job just for being who they are.”

The decision today follows a clear trend by federal courts in recent years holding that transgender people are protected by Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. But it has even broader implications than a court decision, because the EEOC is the agency charged with interpreting and enforcing federal discrimination laws throughout the nation. The EEOC’s decision will impact every employer, public and private, throughout the nation. The decision is entitled to significant deference by the courts, and will be binding on all federal agencies.

Transgender Law Center’s Legal Director Ilona Turner explained, “It’s incredibly significant that the Commission has finally put its stamp of approval on the common-sense understanding that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination. That’s true whether it’s understood as discrimination because of the person’s gender identity, or because they have changed their sex, or because they don’t conform to other people’s stereotypes of how men and women ought to be.”

Noreen Farrell, Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates, a legal organization that has been fighting for women’s rights since 1974, also celebrated the ruling. She stated, “Today’s decision helps our discrimination laws fulfill their purpose of ensuring that no one loses a job based on sex. Women have fought for decades to be judged in the workplace by our abilities, not by our sex, gender identity, or gender stereotypes. We are thrilled that the EEOC has confirmed that Title VII protects transgender people from job discrimination, thanks to the work of Transgender Law Center.”

Masen Davis, Transgender Law Center’s Executive Director, added, “With so many barriers to gainful employment in our society, we can’t let discrimination be one of them. The EEOC’s decision ensures that every transgender person in the United States will have legal recourse when faced with employment discrimination. Having the protection of federal law is especially critical for transgender people who live in the 34 states that lack transgender-inclusive nondiscrimination laws. This is a game changer for transgender America.”

Cow with BSE. A feature of such disease is the inability of the infected animal to stand.

According to The Huffington Post the USDA has confirmed a case of Mad Cow Disease was found in a California dairy cow. It is the fourth case of Mad Cow (or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)) found in U.S. cattle since the first in December 2003.

USDA Chief Veterinary Officer, John Clifford, said Tuesday that the cow did not enter the human food chain and that all U.S. meat and dairy supplies are safe. Further mitigating the risk to the public, milk does not transmit BSE. According to the USDA, the animal’s carcass is being held under state authority at a California rendering facility and will be destroyed. “It was never presented for slaughter for human consumption, so at no time presented a risk to the food supply or human health,” Clifford said.

Dr. William Schaffner, Chair of Preventive Medicine at Vanderbilt University, told ABC News that it was unlikely any more cows would contract BSE. “Mad cow occurs in animals as it does in humans — rarely and sporadically. At this point, I would not expect there to be another cow to be found,” he said. The animal tested positive for a case of “atypical” BSE (a very rare form of the disease not generally associated with an animal consuming infected feed).

A hamburger

The Associated Press reports:

“There is really no cause for alarm here with regard to this animal,” Clifford told reporters at a hastily convened press conference.

Clifford did not say when the disease was discovered or exactly where the cow was raised. He said the cow was at a rendering plant in Central California when the case was discovered through regular USDA sample testing.

Mad cow disease, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. The World Health Organization has said that tests show that humans cannot be infected by drinking milk from BSE-infected animals.

The disease is always fatal in cattle, however. There have been three confirmed cases of BSE in the United states, in a Canadian-born cow in 2003 in Washington state, in 2005 in Texas and in 2006 in Alabama.

In people, eating meat contaminated with BSE is linked to variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, a rare and deadly nerve disease. A massive outbreak of mad cow disease in the United Kingdom that peaked in 1993 was blamed for the deaths of 180,000 cattle and more than 150 people.

There have been a handful of cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease confirmed in people living in the United States, but those were linked to meat products in the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Related articles

• MAD COW DISEASE Rears Its Ugly Head in California (VIDEO) (blippitt.com)
• US officials confirm 4th domestic case of mad-cow disease (shortformblog.com)
• Lab test rules out connection to mad cow disease for one of two rare Marin cases (mercurynews.com)

Commonly called "Headies"

Did you know that your 420 celebration plans for this Friday, 4/20/2012, could actually make the government some money (if only it were legal) according to a bunch of economists? It’s true!

According to the Huffington Post more than 300 economists (including three Nobel laureates) have signed a petition calling attention to findings from a paper by Harvard economist, Jeffrey Miron. It suggests that if the government legalized Marijuana (Cannabis Sativa) it would save $7.7 billion annually for the U.S. by not having to enforce the current prohibition on the drug.

The report continued that legalization would save an additional $6 billion per year if the government taxed Marijuana like it does for Alcohol and Tobacco. That’s as much as $13.7 billion per year, but it’s still minimal when compared to the federal deficit, which hit $1.5 trillion last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would help make a substantial dent in it though.

While the economists don’t directly call for pot legalization, the petition asks advocates on both sides to engage in an “open and honest debate” about the benefits of pot prohibition, which Obama has said he would be agreeable to.

“At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition,” the petition states.

Neon sign at a dispensary on Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

The economic benefits of pushing pot into mainstream commerce have long been cited as a reason to make the drug legal. The economists’ petition comes as government officials at both the federal and local levels are looking for ways to raise funds. Many Americans say they prefer cutting programs to increasing taxes as a way to deal with the nation’s budget deficit — marijuana legalization would seemingly give the government money without doing either. Basically it would be a Win-Win situation for all.

California Democratic State Assemblyman (say that 3x fast!) Tom Ammiano proposed legislation in 2009 to legalize Marijuana in California, arguing that it would yield billions in tax revenue for a state in need of funds. California voters ultimately knocked down a referendum to legalize marijuana in 2010.

Economist Stephen Easton wrote in Businessweek that the financial gains for legalization may be more than Miron’s findings estimate. Based on the amount of money he thinks it would take to produce and market legal marijuana, combined with an estimate of marijuana consumers, Eatson guesses that legalizing the drug could bring in $45 to $100 billion per year. Easton’s name does NOT appear on the petition.

Haught Street Obama "Yes We Cannabis" Poster (Photo credit: Tony Fischer Photography)

Some say that the economic argument for Marijuana legalization is already proven by the benefits states and cities have gained from legalizing Medical Marijuana. Advocates for Colorado’s Medical Marijuana Industry argue that legalization has helped to “jump-start” a stalled economy in cities like Boulder and Denver, according to nj.com.

Related articles

• Why Make Marijuana Legal? (jpr100w.wordpress.com)
• Colorado the new “ground zero” for debates over pot prohibitions and policies (sentencing.typepad.com)
• Pat Robertson: Legalize Marijuana (myq105.radio.com)
• Record percent support marijuana legalization (talesfromthelou.wordpress.com)

According tot he press release:

“NOM has once again conspired to hide its contributions, and this time it was Mitt Romney’s,” stated Karger. “The recently unsealed documents (coincidentally from my last campaign ethics violation complaint against NOM in Maine) revealed that NOM received the $10,000 on October 14, 2008 from Romney’s Alabama PAC “Free and Strong America.” That was only 3 weeks before the Prop 8 election in which NOM was heavily involved. Funny that NOM appears to have reported all the contributions that it received before and after Romney’s, but failed to report Governor Romney’s $10,000 to ban gay marriage in California.”?

“The Maine Ethics Commission and Attorney General’s office have done a phenomenal job of gathering evidence in the money laundering case I filed against NOM on August 24, 2009. The 29 Exhibits they collected are proving to be NOM’s undoing. NOM’s veil of deceit and lies has finally been lifted.”

“It looks like it was Exhibit 10 in the Maine case: National Organization for Marriage v. Walter F. McKee, et al which is NOM’s 2008 990 Federal Tax Return that lists the unreported $10,000 Romney contribution.”

“Mitt Romney and NOM appear to have gone to a lot of trouble to hide his contribution. I am sure that Romney’s $10K was never meant to never see the light of day.”

NOM was formed in 2007 to qualify and pass Proposition 8 in California, a state Constitutional Amendment to undo the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed gay marriage in California. Back then NOM proudly listed all its contributors to show its vast influence in the Prop 8 campaign. It claimed to be the biggest donor to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Ever since 2009, it appears NOM tried to launder money through its national organization, its Educational Fund or one of its state PACs.

“I have been tracking NOM since we went up against each other for the first time in July of 2008. I led the boycott of one of the largest donors, San Diego hotelier Doug Manchester. Manchester gave $125,000 to NOM to pass Prop 8. Along with Unite Here Local #30, we launched our successful boycott of Manchester’s hotels. The largest, the Manchester Grand Hyatt, reported losing $1 million per month from the still ongoing boycott.”

Director GB Hajim and Shelly Doty, the co-creators of the film, are heading to Skywalker Ranch in California to do the final mix. According to the press release:

The movie is about Parker, a sax player who falls in love with Naia, an inspired songwriter. Naia is genetically engineered and held in debt slavery as a miner. They form a band and soon Naia is enslaved again, this time to stardom. Parker with the crew of the Lone Mango set out on a quest to rescue Naia.

The movie premieres during Sci-Fi London, the UK’s largest sci-fi festival and home of the Arthur C. Clarke award. Tickets and info at:

http://www.sci-fi-london.com/festival/2012/programme/feature/strange-frame-love-sax

This is the problem in Maryland where a lesbian couple are suing for divorce. The two were married in California back in 2008, and sued for divorce in 2010, but in Maryland. They were informed that their state does not recognize their marriage. However:

Kansas City News notes:

“If you’re validly married somewhere else, the rule in Maryland is your marriage is going to be respected in Maryland, and that’s what we’re asking the court to do here,” said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco.

Judges in Maryland have been inconsistent about granting divorces for gay couples. Lawyers said judges have granted divorces for about half a dozen gay couples, but their clients and at least two other couples were denied. As a result, some couples are waiting for a ruling from Maryland’s high court before filing for divorce, the lawyers said.

The ruling may not matter for very long since this January same-sex marriage is suppose to start. That is, of course, if they can get 56,000 valid signatures by June 30th. The Maryland Marriage Alliance claims that they have collected 20,000.

Mitt Romney

Oh Mitt. . .and here we thought you were just so moderate. It has come to light that Mitt Romney’s PAC made some donations available to the National Organization for Marriage back when the group was pouring money into repealing the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and trans people in California. Romney certainly hasn’t made a move to let people know about this.

The Huffington Post reports that:

“The governor feels strongly that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, and one of the most high-profile fights on this subject is happening in California,” Fehrnstrom said at the time.

But when Romney eventually made his donation, he did so quietly, and through an unusual channel. Records filed by Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC with the Federal Election Commission did not include details of that $10,000 donation. Nor did NOM’s public 990 form. In fact, record of the payment was only uncovered Friday when the pro-gay rights Human Rights Campaign was sent a private IRS filing from NOM via a whistleblower. The Human Rights Campaign shared the filing with The Huffington Post.

Romney has been trying hard not to take a hard line on same-sex marriage rights, but has done a lot of just broadly saying he opposes same-sex marriage. This information came to light just as people are realizing what kind of racist tactics NOM was willing to stoop to in order to fight to ensure inequality in the United States.

When a light is shined into the dark corners of American politics, it’s never pleasant to see what scurries away. Last week, a federal judge in Maine unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage, one of the most prominent groups fighting against same-sex marriage.

. . . .

The documents brag about its “crucial” role in passage of Proposition 8, California’s ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal appeals court. They describe the group’s use of “robo-calls” to scare residents in different states away from supporting marriage equality. They talk of a plan to “expose Obama as a social radical,” but the most appalling portions deal with the group’s racially and ethnically divisive strategies.

It is not surprising that NOM is busy pushing this kind of racially divisive strategy. Those of us who have been keeping an eye on them for a long time have known that this is what they are doing for some time now.

The movie was released without a rating to some significant interest.

According to Erik Lomis, the head if distribution from Weinstein Co “We’re going to expand April 13 into the top 50 markets — at least 100 theaters, maybe more. We’re going to focus on a lot of group sales — we got calls from churches and school groups and the Boy Scouts. You name the groups, we’ve got them all over the country calling us and requesting information.”

He also stated that they are still in talks with the MPAA about the rating. They have retained David Boies as their lawyer. Boies is best known for his work with Ted Olsen to take down California’s Prop 8. Boies and Olsen crossed swords in Bush v. Gore back in 2000.

Lomis did acknowledge that the documentary “is a hard watch, but it’s a very moving film — and we only had 10 percent of the audience under 18. Maybe that was because of the ratings issue, I don’t know, but it leads me to be very optimistic about the potential of this film.”

He does feel optimistic given exit polls showing that the movie played well among teens.

Via Yahoo News

The Transgender Law Center wrote:

Alexis began her activism in California’s transgender community almost fifteen ago as an outreach worker for LGBT youth in Hollywood. She was hired at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles’ Division of Adolescent Medicine where she became a case manager and eventually became the first program director for CHLA’s groundbreaking Tranny Rockstar program, where she helped hundreds of transgender youth in Los Angeles. A natural leader, she served as Commissioner for the Los Angeles County Commission on HIV/AIDS; founding board member of FTM Alliance of Los Angeles; and, chair of the Transgender Service Provider Network. Alexis was also a founding member of the League of Trans Unified Sisters (LOTUS), a sisterhood for transgender women.

Transgender Law Center was honored to have Alexis join its staff as Policy Advocate in 2007. Alexis advocated for statewide policy change and trained hundreds of transgender community members to build relationships with their elected officials. During this time, Alexis was also a leader of the Transgender Law Center’s Health Care Access Project and helped secure affordable transgender health care services in several counties across California.

Alexis received many awards and honors in recognition of her leadership, including the Trans-Unity Trailblazer and Spirit Awards, the Latino Caucus on HIV Prevention Leadership Award, and the first QUEST Advocacy Pageant sash in 2002.

“Words can barely express the grief experienced by California’s trans communities this week,” said Masen Davis, Executive Director of Transgender Law Center. “A proud trans Latina and natural leader, Alexis Rivera was a role model and inspiration for countless youth – and many “elders” too. She understood that we are stronger together, and she kept organizing until the very end. Alexis’ death is a reminder that the fight for equality – and against AIDS – is far from over.”

A memorial gathering will be held in Fiesta Hall at Plummer Park, 7377 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood, on Sunday, April 1st at 12:15pm. A viewing will be held on Monday, April 2nd from 1pm to 3pm at Abbott Abbott & Hast Mortuary.

A San Francisco memorial gathering will be held at the SF LGBT Center, 1800 Market Street, on Saturday, April 7th from 3pm to 5:30pm.

Transgender Law Center will continue to post reflections, videos, and links to information about ways to celebrate Alexis on transgenderlawcenter.org. To submit your reflections or information please email mark@transgenderlawcenter.org.

Transgender Law Center works to change law, policy, and attitudes so that all people can live safely, authentically, and free from discrimination regardless of their gender identity or expression.

One Million Hijabs Gathering

Shaima Alawadi was a 32-year-old mother of five who immigrated to the United States from Iraq in 1993 with her parents to escape the crackdown on Shi’ites by Saddam Hussein. She graduated from high school in San Diego, though her parents’ family and hers moved between San Diego and Dearborn, Michigan, a few times. Her brothers and husband have worked as private contractors to the United States Army, teaching our soldiers the culture of Iraq so they can be sensitive to the beliefs and customs of the Iraqi people. Shaima lived a quiet life, caring for her husband, children and home in El Cajon, a suburb of San Diego, California. The only thing that stood out about her was her hajib, her head scarf, which she wore as a modern, but devout Shi’ite Muslim. Her father is a cleric who returned to Iraq after the death of Hussein.

On Wednesday, her 17-year-old daughter, Fatima al-Himidi, came home and found Shaima lying in a pool of her own blood, drowning in her own blood, from multiple blows to her head with a tire iron. On the floor next to her was a note saying “Go back to your country, you terrorist,” or “Go back to your own country, you’re a terrorist.” There have been conflicting reports about　the content of the note. What there is no conflict about is the result. On Sunday, Shaima was taken off life support.

Shaima’s body will be flown back to Iraq for burial. The murder has quietly resonated across Iraq. In a country that has seen so few days when no one dies, this murder struck a strange chord. America is supposed to be safe, supposed to be “…the land of democracy, freedoms and freedom of religious.” said Aliyah Nisayef, a female member of parliament. “The parliament will take a serious position on this. Iraqi Foreign Affairs Ministry must now officially ask the U. S. Embassy and the Department of State for more details on this hideous crime.” It’s the intimacy of the murder, the singleness of it, that is so shocking for the Iraqi people.

The investigators in California are looking at the possibility of a hate crime, in light of the note found with the dying woman and the note she had previously received but never reported to the authorities. For the time being, they are not sharing any details concerning the investigation.

In the meantime, “One Million Hijabs for Shaima Alawadi” has been launched on Facebook. Students at Wake Forest and Salem are wearing hoodies and hijabs in support of the family. They can be found at #Hoodiesandhijabs.

So far, since we invaded Afghanistan, the attacks against Muslims in America have been aimed at buildings and building sites, though there was one attack on a Muslim cab driver a few years ago. But it was only a matter of time before someone became an innocent victim of the anti-Muslim hatred spread by idiots who refuse to separate the one billion practitioners of Islam from the hundreds of terrorists, the idiot lawmakers in state legislators wasting time on “ban Sharia” laws, the idiot politicians in the GOP who refuse to speak out against hate, the idiot media figures who spread the hate and distrust. As bad as it was when George W. Bush was President, the fear-mongering and hate-mongering have mushroomed out of control since Barack Obama was elected, just as the anti-government militias have grown from less than 700 to over 2,400 in that time. Shaima Alwadi did not just die at the hands of one or a few criminals. She died because those who could stop the hate refuse to and they refuse to because they want to pander to the worst of us to garner votes. She died because John Boehner refused to emphatically put down the lie that President Obama is a Muslim, because Rick Santorum refuses to shut people up at his rallies when they call the President a Muslim, because Mitt Romney doesn’t have the guts to speak out against the hate even though he belongs to a religion that was so persecuted, their founder was murdered.

A million hijabs is not enough. Shaima deserves just as much outrage and protest as Trayvon Martin. The great pity is that the Muslims in America are too afraid to gather the way people have for Trayvon.

Related articles

• Slain California Muslim Woman’s Body To Return To Iraq (thinkprogress.org)
• Shaima Alawadi: Iraqi Muslim Woman Severely Beaten To Death in America-USA (islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com)
• Iraqi Woman beaten in Southern California home dies…Could this be a hate crime? (haleybehre.wordpress.com)
• Iraqi Woman’s Death Sparks Online Movement (mashable.com)
• Iraqi woman, Shaima Alawadi, beaten to death in California (redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com)
• Arianna Nation’s (HuffPost) Pathetic And Hypocritical Pseudo-Concern For The Death Of Shaima Alawadi (neosecularist.com)
• I Am Shaima Alawadi (buzzfeed.com)

According to Brad Sears, Williams Institute Executive Director, stated that “This study shows that local governments can play an important role in making sure that employees with same-sex partners have access to the same benefits enjoyed by all employees.”

The Williams Institute noted that:

San Francisco was the first locality to enact what is known as an equal benefits ordinance (EBO) in 1996. Since then, 17 cities and counties—from Los Angeles, California, to Dane County, Wisconsin—have adopted their own statutes. The ordinances simply require that any benefits a local contractor provides to spouses of employees also be provided to domestic partners. One state, California, also requires its contractors to provide equal benefits by law.

The study evaluated data from 16 of the 17 localities with EBOs and found widespread compliance with almost no resistance from contractors, almost no enforcement costs and no other adverse effects. Localities reported that staffing burdens were minimal; only one hired a permanent, full-time staff member, and a few hired temporary or part-time staff to administer the ordinance. The localities also estimated that the EBOs resulted in little increase in contracting costs compared to their overall budgets.

Sears wrote that “Offering domestic partner benefits is inexpensive, so it makes sense that localities estimated only minimal increases in contracting costs. Research shows that when companies offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex partners, health insurance costs rise less than half of one percent. Even when different-sex partners are included, the increase is still less than two and a half percent.”

Christy Mallory, the study’s co-author, stated “Many successful businesses have said that they offer domestic partner benefits for economic reasons so it is not surprising that the localities in our study reported in almost every case that contractors were willing to offer the benefits if they did not already.”

“(1) to reverse the very dangerous 82% increase in non-defense discretionary spending that we had in the previous two Congresses; (2) to finally pass the job-creating free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea; (3) to enhance our national security by working to strengthen the legislatures of new and reemerging democracies across the globe through the bipartisan House Democracy Partnership; and (4) to ensure, through the Rules Committee, that both Democrats and Republicans have the opportunity to offer their solutions by proposing amendments on the House floor,” he said.

Dreier has served in the House since 1981, and came in on the heels of Ronald Reagan. His retirement is not unsurprising given the redistricting that is going on.

Still, Dreier, who is a bachelor, has had some controversy over the years. He has been passed over for leadership in the past, and that has lead some to wonder if he is gay. Openly gay (and also retiring) Representative Barney Frank was asked, though, if Dreier was passed over because he was too ‘moderate’ (perhaps code for gay). Frank responded with his usual dry wit saying “Yes, in the sense that I marched in the moderate pride parade last summer and went to a moderate bar.” Frank did point out that he had no idea if Dreier was gay or not.

Via Huffington Post

California State Senator Mark Leno, though, has crafted a bill that would protect clergy and religious groups across the state from being forced to participate in same-sex marriages.

Here is the press release:

Senator Mark Leno introduced legislation today that clarifies the religious freedom of clergy members in California. Senate Bill 1140 reaffirms the separation of church and state and clarifies under state law that no member of clergy will be required to perform a marriage that is contrary to his or her faith. SB 1140 also protects churches from losing their tax-exempt status if they refuse to perform a marriage that is contrary to their faith. The bill is sponsored by Equality California and California Council of Churches IMPACT.

“With the recent appellate court decision on Proposition 8, we know that it is only a matter of time before same-sex couples in California will again have the freedom to marry,” said Senator Leno, D-San Francisco. “Under SB 1140, churches and clergy members who fear their religious views are threatened by allowing marriage for same-sex couples will have clear and solid protections under state law. Similarly, churches that welcome same-sex couples will be able to fully recognize those families within their faith.”

“Equality California is committed to eliminating every possible barrier to securing the freedom to marry, including the false claim made by anti-equality advocates in California and elsewhere that allowing loving same-sex couples to marry will force clergy or places of worship to compromise their religious beliefs,” said Equality California Board President Clarissa Filgioun. “This bill makes our intention and the law clear—all committed couples ought to have the freedom to marry and all clergy ought to be able to operate freely according to the tenets of their faith.”

“Senator Leno’s bill is essential to protecting our freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment,” said The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of California Council of Churches IMPACT. “It is as imperative that we protect the religious freedom to not solemnize marriages between same-sex couples for clergy and congregations who oppose it on the basis of their faith tradition as it is to protect the religious freedom of those who do support marriage equality. California Council of Churches IMPACT represents faith traditions on both sides of this question and this bill perfectly codifies legal protection for all our faith communities,” he said.

Many states that allow marriage for same-sex couples have also passed similar laws clarifying that religious denominations and individual clergy members are free to determine which marriages they perform.

Rep. Jackie Speier, Democrat, California

Service Women’s Action Network is applauding the appointment of Representative Jackie Speier to the House Armed Services Committee. Speier was nominated to the post by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

In the press release that SWAN released, they stated

“SWAN is very excited to see Representative Speier appointed to the House Armed Services Committee,” said Anu Bhagwati, former Marine Corps Captain and executive director of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN). “The Congresswoman has been a vocal advocate for fairness and justice in the military, and her appointment is a positive step toward ensuring that all service members have a voice on this important committee.”

SWAN has worked closely with Rep. Speier on issues facing servicewomen, women veterans and survivors of military sexual violence, most recently on the development of the Sexual Assault Training Oversight and Prevention Act (the STOP Act), one of several bills introduced by Congress in the past year designed to combat the epidemic of sexual assault in the military. (Read a summary of the STOP Act here).

In months prior to the introduction of her bill, Rep. Speier delivered more than a dozen speeches on the House floor recounting stories of sexual assaults by military survivors. In announcing her new role, Rep. Speier stated she would, “Continue stressing the harm that the epidemic of military sexual assault poses to unit cohesiveness and also promote solutions within the chain of command structure.”

SWAN applauds Congressional leadership for appointing a strong advocate for service members’ rights, and looks forward to Rep Speier’s participation in SWAN’s historic Summit on Military Sexual Violence on May 17 and 18 on Capitol Hill.

Governor Martin O'Malley

The Maryland House of Delegates, by a 72-67 vote approved same sex marriage Friday night. The bill now goes to the state Senate, which approved a similar bill last year, and then to Governor Martin O’Malley, who has promised to sign it.

The outcome was in sharp contrast to the New Jersey bill which passed both chambers and is being vetoed by Governor Chris Christie.

Maryland will become the eighth state with legal same-sex marriage. That is just 5 states short of the number of states needed to guarantee that an anti-same sex marriage amendment will never get into our Constitution.

The arguments in Maryland were the same as everywhere else – the religious objections on the right, the civil liberties defense on the left with the right crying that “the people” should be allowed to decide. We all know that’s the favored position of the anti-gay mob because they can put enough money into the vote process to overturn legislatures, the way they did in California.

The argument is based on a single fallacy – that our state representatives do not represent the people who voted them into office. This is a republic. We elect people, at municipal, county, state and federal levels (and a few other configurations) who we believe represent our opinions and will act in our best interests. The closer the representative is to us, meaning the smaller the population he or she represents, the more we can interact with him or her. I’m on a “first-name, hug her at the polls” basis with my state representative, Peg Andrews. Almost every Saturday morning, I can find her in a small conference room in the public library two blocks from my house.

Vermont’s been through this legislative process twice – first for civil unions in 2000 and then the passage of same-sex marriage and the override of Governor Jim Douglas’ veto in 2009. The day of the override vote was probably the day the state’s in-session video stream hit its highest number of viewers on any vote. How we responded to those votes and how they impacted the make-up of our legislature are important lessons to other states, and lessons they have learned if their legislators want to keep their seats.

In the 2000 election, our state legislature was practically turned inside out. Those who voted for civil unions were defeated on par with those who voted against it. The results of that election left a very clear district support map for our legislators nine years later, when added to the demographic shifts of younger people who turned 18 in that period. But the most important thing they learned was that gay issues are best dealt with in non-election years. That is why the non-election year vote on same-sex marriage had no impact on the following elections. Eighteen months later, no one cared how anyone had voted on the veto override, with the possible exception of one of my state senators. Republican Kevin Mullin was re-elected to his seat with more votes than there are registered Republicans in my county because he cast the deciding vote to override the veto on behalf of his gay son. By 2010, we had moved on to the messy, complicated process of creating a single-payer health plan in Vermont. Besides, as Rachel Maddow noted on the day of the vote, our sky had not fallen.

The legislators in New Jersey and Maryland have heard from their constituents on the issue of same sex marriage. They know, particularly in an election year, whether or not they have lost re-election because of this one vote. They are politicians and they are not stupid. If their constituents have overwhelmingly told them not to vote for this, they probably haven’t. The people have already spoken in Maryland and New Jersey, through the men and women they elected to represent them.

The Republican position on these votes is a disavowal of our Constitutions and our system of government. They are saying that the people who decided that we should have a representative Republic were wrong, we should have had the direct democracy of ancient Greece. It’s a ridiculous position to take. The state of California is mired in chaos because they put referendums on their ballots ad nauseum. Practically everything gets referendumed in California and the result has been a state which can’t fart without a statewide vote.

The longer this battle goes on, the more the Republican Party is proving itself to be opposed to the Constitution of the United States of America. They want to create a state religion through the back door with laws based on religious principles. They want to bypass the representative process. They want to create a one-party state based in a religious minority, just like Syria. They are right about one thing – this election is a battle for the soul of America, a battle between those who want to destroy our Constitution for religious dominance and corporate gain and those who want to preserve the very foundations of our freedoms.

Related articles

• Christie Vetoes Same Sex Marriage Bill In New Jersey (lezgetreal.com)
• BREAKING: MD House of Delegates passes same-sex marriage bill (haleybehre.wordpress.com)
• Good News in Maryland, Bad News in New Jersey (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)

The White House is set to announce a ‘compromise’ on the rule, but it should be noted that the compromise goes from being based on this law:

(2) Outpatient prescription benefits for an enrollee shall be the same for an enrollee’s covered spouse and covered nonspouse dependents.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a religious employer may request a health care service plan contract without coverage for federal Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods that are contrary to the religious employer’s religious tenets.  If so requested, a health care service plan contract shall be provided without coverage for contraceptive methods.  This subdivision shall not be construed to deny an enrollee coverage of, and timely access to, contraceptive methods.
(1) For purposes of this section, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(D) The entity is a nonprofit organization as described in Section 6033(a)(2)(A)i or iii, of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(2) Every religious employer that invokes the exemption provided under this section shall provide written notice to prospective enrollees prior to enrollment with the plan, listing the
contraceptive health care services the employer refuses to cover for religious reasons.

Which is California’s law governing religious exemption regarding contraception to this one which is based on Hawaii’s:

(a)  A “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:
(1)  The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity;
(2)  The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity;
(3)  The entity is not staffed by public employees; and
(4)  The entity is a nonprofit organization as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
For the purpose of this definition, any educational, health care, or other nonprofit institution or organization owned or controlled by the religious employer is included in this exemption.
(b)  Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any religious employer may request an accident and health or sickness insurance plan without coverage for contraceptive services and supplies that are contrary to the religious employer’s religious tenets.  If so requested, the accident and health or sickness insurer, mutual benefit society, or health maintenance organization shall provide a plan without coverage for contraceptive services and supplies.  This subsection shall not be construed to deny an enrollee coverage of, and timely access to, contraceptive services and supplies.
(c)  Each religious employer that invokes the exemption provided under this section shall:
(1)  Provide written notice to enrollees upon enrollment with the plan, listing the contraceptive health care services the employer refuses to cover for religious reasons;
(2)  Provide written information describing how an enrollee may directly access contraceptive services and supplies in an expeditious manner; and
(3)  Ensure that enrollees who are refused contraceptive services and supplies coverage under this section have prompt access to the information developed under paragraph (2).  Such notice shall appear, in not less than twelve-point type, in the policy, application, and sales brochure for such policy.

The White House is set to announce that “the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees. This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization strongly opposed to that care in order to obtain it.”

Actually, it looks like the California option, which is the one that the rule was originally based upon, would be far better for the religious organizations than the second one, which is based on Hawaii’s law.  The way the rule works right now, these organizations can opt out entirely from covering contraception if they happen to be employing a majority of people who share their religious beliefs, are dedicated to spreading the values and religion of that particular faith, or primarily serves those of said faith.

So, basically, it comes down to those religious organizations which do not fit those criteria.  In fact, for many religious organizations forced by state laws to cover contraception, the rule as it stands will end up easing those restrictions.

Update:

Obama made the announcement and this is pretty much what he announced.

Via ABC News

So, in an email blast, they wrote:

If you haven’t already heard, Ellen DeGeneres mentioned One Million Moms on her television show yesterday with a few hand-picked Facebook comments that supported her of course. Watch the video of her show to see how she validates all of OMM’s concerns about the J.C. Penney decision. She starts with celebrating California’s Prop 8 decision that came Tuesday, February 7, 2012, against traditional marriage, and then goes after OMM in a rant. For those who are not aware, Prop 8 bans same-sex marriage, but unfortunately the Appeals Court ruled earlier this week that it was unconstitutional. If something is legal it doesn’t make it morally right. What it boils down to is agenda.

Of course, OMM would know about how something being legal not making it morally correct given that they push hatred and are part of a group that actively uses hatred, lies and attacks on every minority under the sun including many Christians who do not agree with them. While hate speech is legally allowed, it is certainly not morally correct to say that Native Americans deserved to be slaughtered, or Blacks deserved to be enslaved. The AFA, of which OMM is an affiliate, have said those things in the past.

They went on to say:

OMM appreciates your support for our agenda – standing up for Biblical values. As Christians we know God says homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), like adultery, fornication, and other sexual sins. Ellen is attempting to indoctrinate our children.

And yet, adultery and fornication are legal. It should also be noted that children cannot be indoctrinated into being lesbian or gay since science has shown sexuality to be inherent. Even the Roman Catholic Church has admitted that homosexuality is inherent even if they believe it is wrong. Of course, that is a problem given that homosexuality is inherent. That is like demanding that a Black person stop being Black just because it is considered morally impure. Oh that is right, at one point, being Black was seen as being automatically immoral.

Oh, and it is nice to see that they admit that they have an agenda.

They continue:

In today’s culture when an individual stands up for what they believe in and someone disagrees with them then they are referred to as a hater when in reality it is OMM’s opponents who are hating us. Tolerance does go both ways. Apparently, OMM must be doing something right because scripture says that we will be persecuted for our Biblical beliefs (Matthew 5:11). Our voice is being heard! The Word also says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated because He was hated first (John 15:18). OMM will remain strong because we are to be the salt and light.

There is, of course, a difference between disagreeing based upon something factual and relying solely upon someone’s religion given that religious beliefs are not universal. What is more, when someone has to rely upon lies in order to spread their agenda, they are easily someone who hates. If they actually had any facts to support their beliefs that do not rely upon their religious beliefs, then they would use them. Instead, they rely upon lies about how children are hurt by homosexuality even when it has been shown to be incorrect time and time again. They rely upon claiming that children raised by lesbians and gays are harmed, even though the evidence shows that they are incorrect on that front too.

And finally, they wrote:

OMM has hundreds of thousands of supporters joining together for what is right. Yes, OMM will have its critics, but remember Godly principles validate our stand. OMM is growing everyday and has gained new supporters over this past week. There is strength in numbers! It is our responsibility as parents to do everything in our power to protect our children from being misled and desensitized.

OMM plans to cover other issues in the near future, but we will not change our stance on Ellen becoming the new spokesperson for JC Penney. OMM will not back down or give in to pressure from the media.

Hundreds of thousands. . .hundreds of thousands. . .Ellen’s show brings in 2.4 million viewers every day. Guess who people are listening to more.

The problem is that it is established precedent that you cannot give someone a right and then take it away without due process or a just reason. Since NOM and company could not muster so much as a decent argument as to why it was necessary to remove the right for same-sex couples to get married, and ended up showing that their reasoning was based on religion, well, their case pretty much was doomed.

Of course, Brown wrote:

Even while pretending their ruling was a “narrow” decision, these judges effectively decreed themselves to be the supreme overlords of the people, invalidating the votes of over 7 million Californians and declaring that they, the vaunted elite in black robes and cloaked with lifetime tenure, will decide what marriage means in California and the nation.

In this nation, it has never been the standard practice to put the rights of a minority group to a popular vote. In fact, had the civil and political rights of Roman Catholics been put to a vote back in 1789, they would have been defeated. It was not until the 1960′s that Catholics were even trusted by the majority if Americans. We can also guess how putting the civil and political rights of Blacks to a vote in 1965 would have gone.

Brown’s reaction and statements are identical or similar to those written in the wake of Brown v. Board of Education by those demanding Segregation. The Southern Manifesto states “This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.” and “The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.”

The Southern Manifesto was signed by Strom Thurmond and Harry F. Byrd among others. In fact, of the Southern Senators at the time it was written, only three refused to sign it- Estes Kefauver, Albert Gore Sr., and Lyndon Banes Johnson.

Brown went on to say:

Not only must our founding fathers be rolling over in their graves with the preposterous notion that marriage is unconstitutional, but the ruling is an affront to the millions of Americans—the vast majority of the nation—who recognize that man does not have the right to redefine marriage. After all, how can federal judges redefine something that man didn’t create?

Actually, the Founding Fathers would be far more upset over a Catholic puppet trying to backdoor theocracy in this nation. In fact, while the Founding Fathers would have been upset over the notion of homosexuality being legal, they would be furious over just how theocratic Brown and company are given their battle against theocracy in this nation, and their declaration that this nation was not a Christian nation, but rather a Secular one.

Brown also stated:

America is supposed to be a nation where the rule of law prevails. Until this case yesterday, no federal appeals court had ever declared that marriage is unconstitutional. To justify its outrageous opinion, the Ninth Circuit had to totally ignore binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent that state laws like Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman do not violate the US Constitution.

The two judges who formed the majority opinion dismissed this precedent with a mere mention in a footnote because it inconveniences their radical judicial activism.

The judicial overlords on the Ninth Circuit have come to the amazing conclusion that once a court has imposed same-sex marriage on a state—as the California Supreme Court did in 2008 in a hotly-contested 4-3 ruling—the voters of that state are powerless to do anything about it. Maybe these activist judges think they are above the law, but we don’t!

In America, the people are sovereign, not elitist federal judges with their Hollywood values and lifetime tenure. Nobody is above the law, and it’s time we reminded them of that fact!

Of course, the fact that NOM has fought tooth and nail to try and keep their donor lists secret in violation of the law makes their last statement absolutely idiotic. What is more, the judges used existing laws to their benefit. In fact, they used case law to make their ruling, and case law that flies in the face of those who hate the rule of law like NOM.

Of course, that brings us to Bill O’Rielly who nearly had an aneurysm on his show last night:

Simply put, O’Reilly went into a fury because he cannot stands have anyone actually tell him he is wrong.

Which he is.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have both condemned the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stating that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. It is not surprising that they decided to attack the ruling even though it was based on accurate law and precedent. Romney attacked the judges because they are “unelected”, and Gingrich attacked it because of the supposed way it assaults the “Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.

Romney stated

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

Gingrich stated

With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States….

Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons if its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

The Social Conservatives are up in arms over the ruling, and already threatening to appeal the ruling even though the appeal might not be in their best interest. The probability is that the Supreme Court will rule against Prop 8, and that is even if they are willing to take the case.

The Ninth’s ruling is based on established precedent that it is unlikely that the Court will likely want to revisit at this point. Even with the Court moving more towards the Right, there is still a probability that they will be unwilling to take up the case given the way the ruling was worded and structured.

The big problem for the pro-Prop 8 groups is that appealing this ruling is far more risky than it is if they leave it. It will set precedent that will make repealing same-sex marriage laws impossible, but appealing it risks sending this to the Supreme Court where the likelihood is that it will be ruled unconstitutional 5 to 4 due to the way that the current Court is structured, and at that point, they could widen the ruling to make it unconstitutional across the board.

According to the Press Release:

“GSA Network is proud to see national officials recognize the courageous leadership of GSA activists, who have successfully advocated for essential student protections in several states, including California,” said Carolyn Laub, Executive Director of GSA Network. “It is time for our Senators to honor and exhibit that same leadership by passing federal student protections.”

Senator Franken will host a call with GSA activists on National GSA Day to discuss the country’s urgent need for safer schools. He has already released a video calling on viewers to “make it better” for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth by asking their Senators to co-sponsor the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

“National GSA Day is a time to celebrate the contributions made by Gay Straight Alliance clubs all over the country,” said Sen. Franken. “GSA clubs make schools safer and provide a supportive community for LGBT students, who are bullied far more frequently than other students and, tragically, have a much higher rate of suicide. I’m proud to call myself an ally of the LGBT community and I’ve been working with the GSA Network to pass legislation – the Student Non-Discrimination Act – to protect students from bullying, harassment and discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Together, we can make sure our kids feel safe and supported at school so they can get the education they need and deserve.”

The Student Non-Discrimination Act would establish a comprehensive federal prohibition against discrimination, including harassment, in public elementary and secondary schools based on a student’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

“My Gay-Straight Alliance club has empowered me and other youth to improve policies, laws, and culture in my school and in the state,” said Trio Harris, GSA Network Board Member and President of the Carlsbad High School GSA. “I’m excited that GSA Network is joining with Senator Franken to celebrate the tradition of youth activism on National GSA Day by advocating for the Student Non-Discrimination Act, a federal law with important protections that would make it better for all students in America.”

In preparation for the day of action, Gay-Straight Alliance Network sent a letter Tuesday to the United States Senate urging all Senators to support SNDA. Since its founding in 1998, GSA Network has grown from just 40 GSA clubs in the Bay Area to 870 clubs with an estimated 13,000 student members in California alone. Nationally, GSA Network operates an association of state networks with 35 member organizations. Youth advocates trained by GSA Network have successfully lobbied ten successful pieces of state legislation in California, including student protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

GSA Network is part of a broad coalition of organizations across the country partnering to honor National GSA Day. Coordinated and sponsored nationally by Iowa Pride Network (IPN), National GSA Day on January 25, 2012 is a time to strengthen the bond between LGBT people and straight allies and in particular recognize and honor student organizations called Gay-Straight Alliances. These student led groups work to educate their peers to stop homophobia, transphobia and violence in schools and colleges throughout the country. Find out more about National GSA Day at GSADay.org.

Ever since Dee Brown published Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee in 1970, the battle of historical accuracy has raged. In the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant version of American history, Washington threw a silver dollar over the half-mile wide Potomac at the age of 62 and Americans put the native population in reservations for their own good. Newt Gingrich’s and Rush Limbaugh’s favorite phrase for describing any attempt to correct the historical record is “revisionist history,” meaning that historians were trying to revise history for a liberal perspective instead of correcting its errors.

Let’s get this straight right off: the Americans didn’t liberate the people of Texas or California. They conquered both those states. They wanted slavery in Texas, which was against Mexican law, and the wanted California’s access to the Pacific and resources. Zorro is an Anglo myth, not a Mexican legend. The people of California were no worse off under Spanish rule than any people in a top-down, rich-man’s control situation, and they sure as hell were better off under Mexican rule in Texas without slavery.

In Tucson, Arizona, the school board has decided that students should not have access to any facts about the WASP conquest of this continent. They sent in goons to seize books from classrooms and out of students’ hands. The majority of books seized were by Native American authors ranging from the twenty-year old text book Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years co-edited by that radical Hispanic Bill Bigelow to N. Scott Momaday’s The Delight Song of Tsoai-Talee and a picture book of Mexican landscapes.

When Star Trek: Voyager premiered, there was some criticism from Native Americans of the casting of Mexican-American actor Robert Beltran as an Southwestern Native American. Beltran explained, rather emphatically and somewhat angrily, that most Mexicans are Native Americans, not Spaniards. Latin America was always racially divided. At the political and economic top were the Spaniards like my grandparents – a closed society of immigrants who were frequently the younger members of upper-class and aristocratic Spanish families and their descendants. In the middle were the mix-bloods, descendants of Spanish soldiers and lower-class immigrants who intermarried with the native population. At the bottom, the overwhelming majority of inhabitants of Mexico, the continent, the islands and the isthmus, were Native Americans. The Mexican Civil War of 1909-13 was fought along these racial lines.

At the core of the school board’s decision (which interestingly enough included banning Shakespeare’s The Tempest, but not Othello) is the personal agenda of Arizona state superintendent of public instruction John Huppenthal, who campaigned for his office on the promise to “stop la raza.” “La Raza” refers in an narrow sense to Partido Nacional de La Raza Unida, a Chicano political party that as founded in the 1970s to work for better conditions of Mexican-Americans. In Huppenthal’s usage, it means all Latin-American peoples who want equal opportunity, equal rights and preservation of their culture.

The Tucson school board has informed teachers of Mexican-American studies that they are to avoid any class units where “race, ethnicity and oppression are central themes.” So, they are forbidden to teach the Trail of Tears, the genocidal Indian Wars, the reservations on land that could not support agriculture, the truth in all its uncomfortable forms?

So-called “revisionist history” seeks to correct the American mythology by providing the other side of the story – the facts about the Indian Wars and the conquest of the Southwest. It is not a liberal agenda, but an agenda of truth and fact. It is an assertion of who really built this nation and what those men and women contributed to it and who suffered for it.

I can hear the complaints now – you live in New England, so what the hell do you know about the Mexican border? What I know is that the northern border and Canadians are the same situation as the southern border and Mexicans, just less obviously because of the racial factor. The entire northern tier from the Atlantic to the Dakotas was settled by the French Canadians. They settled as far south as Colorado and all along the Mississippi Valley. They founded Louisiana before the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia. Canadians and Canadian-Americans crossed back and forth over the border as though it didn’t exist until 2001. There were hundreds of little roads that were unmonitored border crossings. My husband’s grandparents crossed the border twice a year with their entire brood of children in the back of the truck, following the seasonal work. No one questioned that practice. It was the same on the southern border. The borders didn’t exist in the minds of those who lived along them. In point of fact, our immigration laws did not initially include any reference to Mexicans and Canadians. The hysteria over 9-11 – and in this regard it was pure hysteria – damaged the cultures of both borders. It denied us the right to do what had been done since before any of these three nations existed, maintain contact with friends and relatives no matter where they lived, take jobs that shifted with the seasons. There is nothing in the Canadian-American border vocabulary that parallels the word “tejano” – the culture of the border. One Canadian explained it to me thusly: these were for the most part illiterate laborers. They couldn’t write letters to the families they left behind, but they could get in their cars or trucks and visit. Those who didn’t do that were deemed to have been swallowed up by America, lost to their families and friends. In a Québeqois family reunion, the presence of descendants of the lost ones is a big deal. It re-establishes connections thought to be gone for all time.

Arizona has a population of 6.4 million. The non-Hispanic white population is 57.8% of that. Hispanics are 29.6%. Native Americans make up only 4.6% of the population. The remaining 8% of the population is “other” or mixed race. One third of the population is Hispanic and Native American, while the non-white population is over 40%. Huppenthal wants to deny 40% of the population of his state access to anything other than the Anglo white-washed version of history and Anglo literature. He wants Arizona children to be raised to think there has never been racial prejudice, racial injustice or even a multitude of races in this country. He wants a curriculum of lies. The Tucson high school students who compared the seizing of their books to Nazi Germany had it right. The Nazis wanted an ethnically and religiously pure nation, too.

The Republican charge that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama “apologize” for America is part of this battle over historical accuracy. The United States has done some stupid things over time, especially as part of the Cold War. We supported vicious, butchering dictators because they said they were “pro-America,” including men like Saddam Hussein and Augusto Pinochet, whose body count in Chile was higher than Hussein’s in Iraq. We did this. That is historical fact. It is not an apology to acknowledge it. The acknowledgment shows that as a nation we – or at least some of us – have grown beyond the fascist nationalism of the Cold War era.

There is a minor benefit to men like Huppenthal, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. They have gotten arrogant. They believe that there is enough support in this country for their bigotry that they can drop the facade of inclusiveness. They think they are free to pursue their agendas that denigrate, demean and deny the wide range of ethnic and racial identities in America. They think that the color of my skin will make me their ally. They do not understand that even whites have been victims of discrimination over time and that there is a strong sense among Americans that oppression and repression based on ethnicity or race or culture is fundamentally wrong.

The more secure they think they are in such overt expressions of bigotry, the more they turn good Americans against their agenda.

Related articles

• Tucson school board suspends Mexican-American studies program (cnn.com)
• Tucson schools ban books by Chicano and Native American authors (moorbey.wordpress.com)
• A critical reading of Tucson’s ‘Banned Books’ list (alanlechusza.wordpress.com)
• Arizona bigotry: How it can affect us all (dailykos.com)
• Testament’s Chuck Billy Opens Up About His Native American Upbringing (noisecreep.com)
• The Ten Commandments of the Native American Indians (the2012scenario.com)
• Neo-Racism in the Southwest (moorbey.wordpress.com)
• School Suspends Mexican-American History Program To Comply With Arizona’s Ban On Ethnic Studies (thinkprogress.org)
• Tucson Unified School District Ban Rethinking Columbus (ecochildsplay.com)

The thing is, I still have gone through, and continue to go through, many of the same issues that other transsexuals, intersexuals and transgendereds have to go through on a daily basis. For one thing, I always wanted to be a Girl Scout. I wanted to dress up in girl’s clothing. I wanted to live my life as a girl. Instead, I had to join the Boy Scouts, dress in boy’s clothing, and lived as a male until I was much older. While I was lucky that I had a family that allowed me and even encouraged me to be fairly feminine as a boy, I still wanted those things.

Of course, we live in a society where one is defined not by what is between one’s head, but what is between one’s legs. Society is defined by those who are, shall we say, ‘Penetrators’ and those who are ‘Penetrated.’ Anyone who is born a Penetrator is suppose to adore being that, and want to remain in that exalted status forever. Anyone who is born a Penetrated is suppose to aspire to being like a Penetrator even though they can never be given that status. Anyone who wants to leave being a Penetrator is automatically seen as being suspect and wrong. They are a threat to the Penetrators and need to be stamped out. The same is true of any Penetrated who gain too much status and get too close to being a Penetrator.

This is not totally analogous to male/female. Penetrators are heterosexual males- period. It is assumed by our society that all males are Penetrators and thus heterosexual. To want to be homosexual- and thus penetrated- is a threat to the Penetrators as it means losing status as a male. Thus, Penetrators are all heterosexual males and Penetrated are everyone else.

The machinery in society that has been enforcing this binary system for so long has been breaking down slowly. The problem is that there are still people who hate the fact that it is breaking down at all.

A 14-year-old California Girl Scout known only as “Taylor” railed against the Girl Scout’s decision to allow 7-year-old trans girl Bobby into the Scouts. Others have joined in Taylor’s calls for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies. Let us be honest here. The reality is that the Girl Scouts have always been a threat to those who want women to remain second class citizens. The Girl Scouts have always supported what empowers girls and women without regards to who they love or what genitals they were born with.

Perhaps Taylor missed that lesson.

H/T Edge

Two landmark transgender rights bills signed by Governor Brown last year became law on January 1, 2012. AB 887, the Gender Nondiscrimination Act, authored by Assemblymember Toni Atkins, strongly clarifies the existing employment, housing and other civil rights protections for all Californians. The law makes it clear that discrimination is not legal in California. AB433, the Vital Statistics Modernization Act, authored by Assemblymember Bonnie Lowenthal, streamlines the process for Californians to obtain and update birth certificates.

“This is a huge victory, and yet there is still work to be done in order to make sure all our laws and societal attitudes are fair and promote justice for transgender people,” said Kristina Wertz, “The passage of these bills motivates me to work harder than ever before to ensure transgender and gender non-conforming people have access to quality health care and are treated with dignity and respect.”

Transgender Law Center will continue to offer assistance to anyone who experiences challenges in obtaining documentation appropriate to their gender identity or anyone who experiences discrimination in housing, employment and other situations. The process of legally changing name or gender can take longer than expected, as courts are experiencing a back-up due to budget cuts.

“It’s a new era for transgender Californians and their families. I am incredibly proud of our staff, our allies, the legislators and Governor Brown for putting an end to discrimination,” said Masen Davis, executive Director.

Frequently Asked Questions about both laws are available at www.transgenderlawcenter.org as well as information about the most up-to-date forms and necessary paperwork.

Dye served six months in jail and was ordered to register as a sex offender. She did that in Ohio, but suddenly moved without providing a new address. This occurred last December. Dye moved to California, from whence she was returned to Ohio.

Via the Dispatch.

Jules Manson (no relation to Charles or Marilyn)

Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Partiers get very upset when they are called racist. The uncomfortable truth is, within their ranks there are a number of racists, and as long as they fail to completely disavow these vermin, they get painted with the same brush.

Around the time of the BP oil spill, there was a commenter on Yahoo News who called himself “Dark Clown.” He called for the gang rape of the Obama/Robinson women – Michelle, Sasha, Malia and Mrs. Robinson. Then, he recommended the gang rape of every Democratic Party woman in Washington, starting with Nancy Pelosi. Not exactly a racist, but definitely misogynistic. Placards held up by Tea Party members during the health care “debate” depicted the President as an African witch doctor. That was racist.

It is also racist to refer to Allah as a “monkey god” or call Mohammed a pedophile. It is racist to portray all Muslims as terrorists and barbarians. These views are fairly widely held among conservatives and Tea Party members and part of the rhetoric of the Republican Party.

Right now, Tea Party members are incensed that a Californian named Jules Manson is being identified with their movement in the press. He calls himself a Tea Partier but he has announced that he is going to run for the California State Senate in the 28^th District as a Democrat. He would be challenging incumbent Ted Lieu, who helped create the backlash against Lowe’s.

Manson posted on his Facebook page that “I am very RACIST: an Insidious American Against Sociality Takeover.” That would be I-A-A-S-T, not R-A-C-I-S-T, but that might require more education than Manson appears to have.

What is focusing attention on Manson right now is a couple of postings. First, he used very Biblical language to call for the assassination of the President and his daughters “…it MUST be countered with assassination onto them and their children.” Yup, doesn’t know his “onto” from his “unto.” Then, in case his readers didn’t get the message, he posted “Assassinate the fucking nigger and his monkey children.”

This week’s source of Manson’s anger is the National Defense Authorization Act which some people are getting hysterical about because the language in it seems to suggest that Americans could be taken into custody as suspected terrorists and held without due process. The hysteria is stupid. That portion of the NDAA will never withstand a court challenge on the grounds of Constitutionality. The President signed the NDAA to fund the military before they ran out of money. He’s a former professor of Constitutional Law, for crying out loud. He’d be the first person to tell you how unconstitutional that provision is and how it doesn’t stand a chance of sticking if any President were dumb enough to try it.

But it is President Bush’s crowning legislative achievement that brought the Secret Service to Manson’s door. There is a provision in the Patriot Act that restricts free speech, if that speech threatens the life of a Federal employee or elected official or members of their families.

Manson claims that his rants are protected free speech, no matter what the intent behind them. It’s the same defense Bill O’Reilly used when Dr. George Tiller was murdered – he can say anything he wants and he is not responsible if someone else does something. They are both dead wrong.

The United States criminal code says that “whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.” And “whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.”

Bill O’Reilly never actually told anyone to kill Dr. Tiller, but his language made it apparent to those of that mindset that Tiller was a murderer. Manson, on the other hand, encouraged murder. He is legally responsible if someone kills or attempts to kill the President or one of his daughters. We know there are real nutcases out there, men and women as crazy as Jared Loughner or Tim McVeigh, who would take a call to assassinate the President or his daughters seriously. In the coming ten months, the President will be more exposed than usual because of campaign appearances.

Unless or until someone takes a shot at the Obamas, Manson has not committed a crime. For now, the best we can hope for is the voters of California’s 28^th District making his life unbearable. Every single campaign appearance he makes should serve as a reminder to him of how unacceptable his language is.

Christmas photo of Sasha, Michelle, President Barack and Malia Obama

Related articles

• Former Carson City Council Candidate Calls For Assassination Of Obama ‘And His Monkey Children’ (laist.com)
• California Politician and Ron Paul Supporter, Jules Manson, Is A Racist And Advocates Assassinating Obama And His Children (practikel.com)
• Failed Tea Party Politician Posts Facebook Page Calling For Obama Assassination (crooksandliars.com)
• Feds following up after California man’s anti-Obama post (cnn.com)
• Mr. Jules Manson: “Assassinate the fucken nigger and his monkey children” (theobamacrat.com)
• Libertarian Candidate Calls For Assassination Of Obama And His Children (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Calif. man says he’s sorry for Obama threat (sfgate.com)
• Ron Paul-Loving Teabagger Turns Out to Be Huge Racist (slog.thestranger.com)

President Obama signing Affordable Health Act

Just remember, the Tea Party is not racist. Jules Manson is a failed Tea Party candidate in California who has now called for the assassination of President Barack Obama and his daughters in a racial epithet-laden Facebook rant. Manson stated “Assassinate the f—– n—– and his monkey children.” The post was originally about his opposition to the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in which Congress gives the President the right to detain suspected foreign (and possibly domestic) terrorists.

A screen shot of it was uploaded by “Americans Against the Tea Party”.

Manson later pulled the comments from his Facebook page and tried to explain that the comments were “careless, emotionally driven remarks that had no real substance.” Manson is an avid Ron Paul supporter and libertarian. He has since been visited by the Secret Service and said that he cooperated fully.

Manson has, in the past, posted pictures of Obama dressed as Hitler.

Author’s Note: Since a bunch of people cannot seem to quite grasp that there is no guilt by association in this article, or anything else other than a statement of fact, comments are hereby closed. Attempts to address this article in other locations will be viewed as a violation of our commenting policies and result in a ban. There is no editorialization here, just statements of fact. Understood?

Via Huffington Post

Mark Meckler at Capital, Nov. 2, 2010 (Getty Images)

Mark Meckler, co-founder ad chariman of the Tea Party Patriots, was arrested in New York’s LaGuardia Airport for trying to check in for a flight with a gun and ammunition in his luggage. According to Meckler’s attorney, this whole thing is improper. Meckler, “legally declared his possession of the firearm in his checked baggage at the ticket counter as required by law and in a manner approved by the TSA and the airline, yet was arrested by the port authority for said possession.”

Let us review, complements of the TSA website:

–Travelers must declare all firearms to the airline during the ticket counter check in process.      –The firearm must be unloaded.                                                                                                                                   –The firearm must be in a hard-sided container                                                                                                     –The container must be locked. A locked container is defined as one taht completely secures the firearm from being accessed. Locked cases that can be pulled open with little effort cannot be brought aboard the aircraft.                                                                                                                                           –If firearms are not properly declared or packaged, TSA will provide the bag to law enforcement for resolution with the airline. If the issue is resolved, law enforcement will release the bag to TSA so screening may be completed.

(There are several sentences concerning the resolution of firearms that are not secured and set off alarms.)

–Travelers must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amount of ammuniti                            –Firearm magazines and ammunition clips must be securely boxed or included with a hard-sided case containing an unloaded firearm.                                                                                                                         –Small arms ammunition, including ammunition not exceeding .75 caliber for rifle or pistol and shotgun shells of any gauge, may be carried in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as it follows the packing guidelines described above.                                                                                                  –TSA prohibits black powder or percussion caps used with black-powder.

My money’s on the method of packing. Though Meckler’s attorney has declared that the weapon was declared, he has not also said that it was properly packed.

Meckler is charged with criminal possession of a weapon, which is a class C felony with a maximum 15-year sentence. Meckler’s Glock 27 pistol is registered in California, but not in New York. Prosecutors say that since the weapon isn’t illegal, and Meckler is licensed in his home state, he will probably only get a fine. He will, however, lose the Glock. It has been seized and will be destroyed.

Meckler, by the way, says he carries the Glock when he travels because he “recieves threats.”

Related articles

• Tea Party Honcho Busted For Gun At LaGuardia Airport (huffingtonpost.com)
• Tea Party member arrested on gun charge at NY airport (cnn.com)
• Tea-party leader shocked by arrest on gun charges(NY) (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Tea Party Leader Mark Meckler Arrested For Trying To Board Flight With A Gun (mediaite.com)
• Tea Party Patriots Co-Founder Mark Meckler Arrested – Charged With Gun Possession At LaGuardia Airport (yubanet.com)

Chickens Say- Eat More Beef!

Chick-fil-A is having problems again. Their attitudes towards the LGBT Community and their spat with a Vermont-based T-shirt designer have caused them some well deserved ire across the nation, and now, they are having problems out of Irvine, California. Three students of Asian heritage there have said that a Chick-fil-A location in Orange County insulted them with racist stereotypes.

The employee at the register never asked the names of the students, but wrote “Ching” and “Chong” on their receipts. According to Chick-fil-A, the incident did occur, and the employee in question was fired from his job. This brings up echos of Macy’s employee Natalie Johnson’s firing for harassing a transgender teen who wanted to use the women’s changing rooms.

Chick-fil-A issued a statement saying:

Please understand and accept our confirmation that the inappropriate, and unthinking behavior of a young team member at one of our restaurants does not support any claim or even suggestion of racism at our restaurant. The individual clearly violated our operating standards; the matter was addressed and discussed immediately with the guests on the spot; and a confirmation was provided that the employee was immediately dismissed for the individual behavior.

Our Chick-fil-A restaurant Operators and their employees try very hard every day to actually go the extra mile in serving ALL of our customers with honor, dignity and respect. The circumstances here are a simply case of immaturity, failed judgment, and human error….it has nothing to do with the service and operational standards of our Chick-fil-A restaurants which are consistently rated at the highest level of service in the foodservice industry.”

Chick-fil-A has had some major problems of late. They have vocally supported anti-LGBT groups, some of whom are known to consort with known hate organizations.

Oh, and how the Founding Fathers actually celebrated Christmas.

By and large, the Founding Fathers did very little in the way of celebrating Christmas…it was a more religious holiday and people either spent the day in church or with family and really, only Catholic and Unitarians made a big to-do about the day. . .

And, of course, the Daily Show has to have the last laugh on the subject:

Fantelli is not only a racer, she is a trans woman, and she has been living as a woman for less than two years. That is a problem since, according to her physician, she needs to be full time for two years as a woman before she can change her California identification.

According to Fantelli, the ranger went from referring to her by female terms to calling her by male terms after seeing her identification. She was informed by the ranger that she was being arrested for public drunkenness after she consumed a beer. She claims to have had two and a half beers, but the ranger claims she had four.

The ranger then tazed her.

She is heard audibly screaming in the video and told San Diego’s 10News that “He actually looked me straight in the eye and says, ‘You used to be a guy,’ and I said, ‘Yes, I did.’ There was no way around it. I could see it in his eyes. He wanted to do that. It was obvious. He hated me.”

The escort complained that Myers only paid him $500, but never came through with the car and other gifts. The website involved has been taken down.

Myters had, initially, refused to comment on the allegations, and did not mention them in his resignation letter. He stated in his resignation letter “My work commitments will not allow me to devote the time that is needed in the months ahead.”

Some other council members have complained that the allegations have gotten in the way of doing business. He was suspended as a vice-president at Lockheed Martin Corp.

Via Huffington Post

North Carolina had a Democratic legislature ten years ago, and created allegedly Democratic districts. That didn’t prevent the state’s voters from electing a Republican majority this time around. And the Republicans are trying to extract their pound of flesh vengeance for that last district map. The new map virtually eliminates all Democratic-majority districts and ends the tenure of all of North Carolina’s female Congresspersons. The new districts are also written in such a way that there will be no minority-majority districts. Did that sentence make sense? The very convoluted districts split up neighborhoods, towns and counties to achieve ten districts that have a voting majority of white Republicans and three districts that cluster 50% of the states black population. The Supreme Court decision in Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U. S. 1 (2009), March 9, 2009, pretty much gutted the provisions of the Voting Rights Act that would put North Carolina under pre-clearance status over this new map. The Roberts Court literally ruled that a minority in a voting district has to be a majority for their minority status to be relevant to districting. Gee, and you thought I had a problem with minority/majority language.

In addition to clustering black voters and reducing their impact both in Congress and in the state’s legislature, the new maps eliminate the districts of 40% of the women currently serving in the state’s legislature. About 66% of the women in the North Carolina Assembly are Democrats. Eliminate 40% of them and you reduce the number of Democratic women to less than 40% of the women in the Assembly. That seriously reduces the ability of Democratic women to fight for women’s rights. The attempted cuts are being achieved by a technique called “double bunking.” In a “double bunk” two districts are joined, pitting two incumbents against each other. In the three majority-black districts, there will be black incumbents going against each other and in the female-represented districts, the women will be going against fellow Democrats or against very strong Republican incumbents in newly Republican districts.

The Justice Department pre-cleared the district maps in the 40 counties it has jurisdiction over. That left 60 counties that could be gerrymandered to the Republicans’ hearts’ content.

Voters in North Carolina have filed suit over the new maps. With Bartlett v. Strickland as a legal precedent, it will be very hard for North Carolina’s voters to get any action on these new maps. Women are neither a perceived nor actual minority, even if we are a repressed and oppressed group. We are 50.8% of the American population and the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment means North Carolina’s women cannot sue over the new districts. All they can do is protest, which they are doing with television ads and calls for support from North Carolina’s women. Whether or not Republican women in North Carolina are willing to cross party lines and stand up for women is real iffy.

Related articles

• NAACP prez: GOP-led legislature practices ‘racism and classism’ (goqnotes.com)
• North Carolina Senate Rewrites Racial Justice Act; Gov Urged To Veto Changes (blogs.wsj.com)
• Veto debate follows NC legislature’s vote to repeal state’s capital Racial Justice Act (sentencing.typepad.com)
• Gay candidates win big across North Carolina (goqnotes.com)
• Gerry-rigged: Does your vote matter? (cnn.com)
• Approval of North Carolina Voting Maps Followed by Lawsuits (willetcreek.wordpress.com)

Texas Gov. Rick Perry

Rick Perry sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi challenging her to a debate over his “Overhauling Washington” plan. She seems to have accepted, though not really, and one has to say that the debate is very simple…

Part Time Congress? Need an Amendment for that.

In fact, everything that Perry has proposed in his Overhauling Washington plan would, pretty much, require a Constitutional amendment in order for him to enact them.

Pelosi replied to Perry stating “He did ask if I could debate here in Washington, Monday, it is my understanding. I’m going to be in Portland in the morning … and California in the afternoon. That’s two — and I can’t remember what the other thing is…”

In his letter, Perry states that:

My plan would overhaul Washington, eliminating certain agencies and reducing the size and scope of others. It will force Congress to make the tough decisions to balance the budget or require a further reduction in their pay. It would end lifetime appointments to future appointees to the federal bench. I don’t want to tinker around the edges when the American People demand a complete overhaul of Washington.

Here is the problem, agencies and departments are created or dissolved by Congress and Congress alone. While it can be easy to create an agency, it is not quite so easy to get rid of one. This is why we have something like fifteen different intelligence agencies. The President can certainly ASK Congress to remove a department or an agency, but he has no way of forcing them to.

As for reducing the pay of Congress…he has to get Congress to agree to that. For a man who says he loves the Constitution, he apparently has never read that document.

Here is the bulk of the letter from Perry to Pelosi:

“Dear Leader Pelosi,

After reading about House Minority Whip Steny Hoyers’ outburst over my “Overhauling Washington” plan, I wonder if his obstructionism reflects your own opposition and that of the Democratic Caucus to urgent reforms the American public so vehemently demand.

After increasing the debt by $4 trillion in less than three years, no one can truly believe that Americans are satisfied with business as usual, and that a permanent political class in Washington can get us out of the mess you and your colleagues have created.

A part-time Congress with half the pay would still make $38,000 a year more than the average American Family. Do you truly oppose lawmakers spending more time in their districts? Is it so important for the Washington power brokers to build their fiefdoms of influence, including providing bailouts to Wall Street while businesses on Main Street are being boarded up every day?

…………………..

My plan would overhaul Washington, eliminating certain agencies and reducing the size and scope of others. It will force Congress to make the tough decisions to balance the budget or require a further reduction in their pay. It would end lifetime appointments to future appointees to the federal bench. I don’t want to tinker around the edges when the American People demand a complete overhaul of Washington.

Let me conclude with an invitation: I am in Washington Monday and would love to engage you in a public debate about my Overhaul Washington plan versus the congressional status quo.

I think it would be a tremendous service to the American public to see a public airing of those differences. Let the people decide.

If Monday doesn’t work, perhaps we could find a time in Iowa over the course of the next month to discuss these issues in front of the people of America’s heartland.

Should you choose not to respond or engage in such a healthy discussion, I will take it to mean you will continue your obstructionist ways in the face of much needed Washington reform.

At least he didn’t call her “Princess”.

Anti-gay opponents of SB 48, the California law that mandates the teaching of history of LGBT people, disabled people and other minority groups in the state’s public schools, have filed paperwork to qualify a referendum that would strike out  references to LGBT people and sexual orientation from the act.

The FAIR Education Act, authored by state Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and sponsored by Equality California and Gay-Straight Alliance Network, was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown earlier this year. It requires schools to integrate age-appropriate and factual information about historical roles of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, people with disabilities and people of color into existing social science instruction.

The proposed referendum, if passed, would allow the study of the role and contributions of both men and women, Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, persons with disabilities, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups – except LGBT Americans.

After California’s Attorney General approves the paperwork, the proponents will have 150 days to collect the nearly 505,000 signatures need to place the measure on the ballot. Last month another group  failed to qualify their voter initiative to repeal the entire law after they fail to secure the required signatures.

“In the past few months, organizations across the state have been working tirelessly in coalition to ensure California schools value and protect equality for all Americans, including students and the figures they read about in history books,” said James Gilliam, deputy executive eirector of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. “This initiative seeks to distort the history taught in California schools and present students with a censored, inaccurate view of our nation, which our coalition will not let stand.”

“Here they go again. At a time when California is facing real economic and social challenges, opponents of equality are manufacturing ‘problems’ to advance their extremist agenda — and they’re using our schools as the battleground,” said Clarissa Filgioun, Equality California board chair. “The FAIR Education Act will simply ensure that California’s students learn an honest, accurate, and inclusive account of history, but opponents of equality have grossly distorted the intent and the effect of the FAIR Education act in their quest dismantle it. We know that when Californians learn the facts about the FAIR Education Act they see these efforts for what they are–the same tired attacks and lies these groups have used for years to turn back the clock on LGBT equality.”

Related articles

• Law mandating teaching of LGBT history faces new challenge (sfgate.com)

The California Supreme Court stated in their ruling that:

…In response to the question submitted by the Ninth Circuit, we conclude, for the reasons discussed above, that when the public officials who ordinarily defend a challenged state law or appeal a judgment invalidating the law decline to do so, under article II, section 8 of the California Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Elections Code, the official proponents of a voter-approved initiative measure are authorized to assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity, enabling the proponents to defend the constitutionality of the initiative and to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative.

The ruling is advisory, but it is very influential and likely means that the Ninth will allow ProtectMarriage, et al to go forward with their case. The question now is whether or not the proponents of Prop 8 have standing in Federal court to appeal.

Proponents of Prop 8 have a difficult job ahead of them. An appeal must show that Judge Vaughn Walker made some error of law, procedure, or fact in making his ruling. Given the lack of evidence put forth by the opponents of same-sex marriage, that seems to be a difficult task to prove.

Via Prop 8 Trial Tracker

The court stated that:

The court granted the request of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to address the following question: “Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”

This is not a binding decision on the case, though. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will have the final say, but they asked the California Supreme Court to issue a ruling guiding whether or not they should grant standing to the proponents of Prop 8.

If they do not rule in favor of the marriage equality opponents, then that will leave Prop 8 without a defendant, and that means that the plaintiffs, the supporters of marriage equality, win.

The supporters of marriage inequality including the National Organization for Marriage lost the case that went before Judge Vaughn Walker when they realized that they had little to no evidence that would stand up in court showing that granting lesbians and gays marriage equality would destroy “traditional” marriage.

The ruling could end up going to the full 9th Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. Those may or may not take up any appeals.

Via Prop 8 Tracker

Janelle has been covered in the OC Weekly and Los Angeles Times as well as the Huffington Post and Orange County Register. Heck, she even got covered here on our little blog.

According to GLAAD, “She breaks stereotypes and is spreading the message of diversity, creativity and equality. At GLAAD, we think telling these types of stories in the media is important. Jenelle will be a role model for other young LGBT folks to look up to.”

The writer at GLAAD talked to Janelle and she stated that “I am running for Miss Long Beach and Miss California USA. I will be the first to wear a tux on stage. Also, this will be the first time someone who is openly lesbian this will represented in this pageant. I hope to bring a message of equality. As an artist in the beauty industry, I can appreciate every texture and color on my pallet. I believe true beauty is something we see every day and comes from within, and I will represent a variety of beauty on stage.”

She is having to raise a lot of money to cover the registration for the Miss California USA pageant, and you can find out how to help her via the GLAAD blog.

According to WalMart spokeswoman Tara Raddohl, the retail giant will announce in January the “partners” who will help them “dramatically….lower the cost of healthcare…by becoming the largest provider of primary healthcare services in the nation.”

Gee, I wonder if they’ll accept Medicaid, since so many of their employees’ children are enrolled in state health insurance programs.

There are a range of clinics available in many communities, from free clinics to walk-in clinics to multi-doctor practices to clinics that accept patients who can afford to pay on a sliding scale. Most of them are over-used and under-funded.

Ian Morrison, a California health care consultant, told NPR that in-store clinics may be the wave of the future. There are clinics in malls. A cynic like me would say that WalMart is ramping up competition against the malls. It already did major damage to small pharmacies when they offered $4 a month generics.

But Ann O’Malley, a researcher at the Center for Studying Health System Change in Washington told NPR that WalMart may be over-reaching. “Maybe WalMart can deliver a lot of this stuff more cheaply because it is an expert at doing this with other types of widgets, but health care is not a widget and managing individual human being is not nearly as simple as selling commiercial products to consumers.” She was unsure if WalMart could “truly attack cost problems” in health care.

WalMart holds down costs through a system of distribution centers. They buy huge amounts of a product and have them delivered to the center and they distribute them to the stores form there. There are no choices of merchandise by an individual store to match their community. They are also one of China’s biggest customers. Their optical departments buy large quantities of frames, which holds down the cost of glasses, offsetting the cost of lenses.

Years ago, we belonged to an HMO that ended up abandoning its highly cost-effective model. They owned our local hospital, which processed all the lab work for patients from their multi-doctor clinic. One could choose to see only one doctor repeatedly or take the spin of the wheel when making an appointment. One of the doctors told me that the clinic was very attractive for new doctors and ones nearing retirement age. The younger ones got to practice medicine without the exorbitant costs of setting up offices and buying malpractice insurance. The older ones liked the office hours and the fact that the younger ones got stuck with being on-call. When the HMO had a problem with the pharmacy chain they had contracted with, they opened their own pharmacy. While it lasted, it was the lowest cost, most effective and efficient health care we ever had. The thing that killed it was the narrow profit margin. The HMO’s shareholders wanted a higher return on their investments.

For this idea to work effectively, it will be necessary for WalMart to also offer the insurance. The more the layers of profit are reduced, the greater the over-all profitability of a venture like this. And WalMart employees can spell irony.

Related articles

• Wal-Mart looks into expanding services at health clinics (usatoday.com)
• WalMart Shifts Employee Healthcare Costs To States (lezgetreal.com)
• Dr. Always Low Prices? Wal-Mart wants to be your physician (shortformblog.tumblr.com)
• Wal-Mart Slices Health Benefits (lawprofessors.typepad.com)

Lang was on RoveOnline, which apparently is a podcast show of the Australian comedian Rove McManus. She was there alongside NCIS: Los Angeles star LL Cool J and Dexter star Michael C. Hall. He pulled a random question out of a hat and Lang got asked “Justin Bieber, hot or not?”

She answered “Justin Bieber looks like a lesbian. So I’m going to say – hot as sh*t!”

Via RadarOnline

Bieber’s publicist said in a statement that “While we haven’t yet seen the lawsuit, it’s sad that someone would fabricate malicious, defamatory and demonstrably false claims. We will vigorously pursue all available legal remedies to defend and protect Justin against these allegations.”

The reports are that Mariah Yeater has claimed that she had unprotected sex with Bieber a year ago while backstage at one of the singer’s concerts. She got pregnant and gave birth three months ago. MTV is quoting Star Magazine as saying “in a hand-signed affidavit, sworn under the penalty of perjury, Yeater told a California court that Bieber propositioned her on October 25 of last year, when she was 19. The pair had a sexual tryst after his concert and backstage at L.A.’s Staples Center, it’s alleged in court papers.”

The affidavit also requests that the court compel Bieber to have a paternity test done in order to prove whether or not the child, who is named Tristran, is his and then to provide “reasonable child support, effective immediately.”

Bieber has confirmed that he is dating Selena Gomez, and has voiced his beliefs that homosexuality is a choice, and that he is opposed to casual sex. He told Rolling Stone magazine that “I don’t think you should have sex with anyone unless you love them.” A court hearing is schedules for December. Bieber just released his first Christmas album called “under the Mistletoe.”

Now, here is The View on this whole sordid affair:

Lindsay Lohan via Celebuzz

Lindsay Lohan is going to jail…oh and not house arrest either. Lohan will spend thirty days in jail for violating her probation, and after that, she will be on a tight leash (which she may enjoy, we’re not sure what she likes) in order to make sure she completes her probation. Lohan admitted to violating her probation by not attending therapy sessions as was required by the courts and for getting kicked out of the Downtown Women’s Center.

The judge says that all of Lohan’s community service must now be served at the LA County Morgue, where she gets to bedazzle the corpses. The judge also made it clear that, if Lohan violates her probation again, she will be in jail for 270 days.

According to TMZ, the LA Sheriff’s Department has said that Lohan will serve only about twenty percent of the thirty days in jail, or about six days.

TMZ also reported that

Judge Stephanie Sautner gave Lindsay a strict schedule on completing the rest of her probation — by December 14, she must have completed 12 days at the morgue and 4 psychotherapy sessions. By January 17, another 12 days at morgue and 4 psychotherapy sessions. And so on. Everything must be completed by March 29 — or she goes directly to jail for 270 days.

Oh, and Lohan was…strongly encouraged to stop tweeting about what she is doing at the morgue. Lohan apparently appeared happy about this, and said “thank God” under her breath as she left the court.

The written statements have been put in already. In the past, minority judges have been permitted to preside over civil rights cases affecting their race, ethnicity or sex. The dispute over Walker’s sexuality is likely to simply clarify this situation. Walker’s sexuality was widely known before the trial even began, though he did not make it explicitly clear. By the logic of the homophobic groups, though, a straight judge is likely to rule against same-sex marriage.

The homophobic groups are busy saying that Walker should have disclosed any interest he may have in marrying his partner of ten years, or he should have stepped aside. The homophobic group ProtectMarriage- which is out to destroy marriage at all costs- stated “Although a judge may choose to avoid disclosure by recusing himself without explanation, he cannot both remain silent and sit in judgment of a case in which a reasonable observer, with knowledge of all of the relevant facts (disclosed or not) would conclude the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

According to the LA Times:

Gay rights lawyers countered that judges must disqualify, or recuse, themselves from hearing cases only when they have a “substantial and individualized interest in the case, particularly a financial interest, that gives rise to actual bias,” the lawyers for Proposition 8’s challengers said.

“A recusal rule that turns on a minority judge’s subjective desire to enjoy his basic civil rights would effectively disqualify all minority judges,” Proposition 8’s challengers said.

This is an appeal of an earlier ruling where the homophobic groups found themselves on the losing end of the argument. By and large, they lost the case put before Walker because of their inability to actually field any credible witnesses or any evidence to back up their assertions.