Paul K commented on the blog post Random thoughts about organized religion, politics, and community as election day nears
This discussion reminds me of the book A Political Reading of the Life of Jesus by George W. Baldwin. In it, he talks about Powers and the Oppressed. He says that what Jesus did was to provide an example of how the Oppressed can challenge a Power. The way to identify a Power is whether it uses violence — physical, emotional, spiritual, or economic — to get what it wants.
Alas, the much of the Christian church has become a Power intent on its own oppression to maintain its position and status.
Paul K commented on the blog post UNC School of Gov’t: Amendment One doesn’t bar local govts from offering domestic partner benefits
Second, there is no legal precedent in North Carolina or elsewhere for the proposition that a government employer’s coverage of its employees’ domestic partners under benefits plans makes valid or constitutes legal recognition of any union or confers rights and responsibilities to any union under the law.
Back in 2004 Michigan voters approved a marriage protection amendment. Supporters swore up, down, and sideways that the domestic partner benefits of state universities and city governments would be unaffected.
The same day the amendment was certified and a legal part of the state constitution those same supporters filed a suit in state courts saying DP benefits were too much like marriage. The state Supreme Court eventually agreed.
Cities and universities can offer DP benefits, but must write the rules to make them available to a larger group than just same-sex couples.
Yes, the ACLU has announced they are mounting a challenge.
Everything Snyder has been pushing over the last year — starting with his tax reforms last spring in which he dropped the business tax and instituted a tax on pensions — has been about saving money and attracting business to the state. Everyone, including state newspaper editorials but with the exception of GOP true believers, look at what he has done and list the reasons why the latest law won’t do what he says it will do. To me, that sounds like he is clueless.
In addition, Snyder did not campaign on an anti-gay platform, in contrast to many GOP members of the legislature. Snyder doesn’t rant about gays. The only thing Snyder has said about the bill is the financial impact. It sounds pretty clueless if he thinks saving a few bucks in next year’s budget will be bigger than the fallout to the state’s budget and reputation as our young people take their brainpower elsewhere.
With that MBA it seems all he can think about is money and the bottom line. He is clueless about the impact the law will have on school teachers with partners in cancer treatment who will now seek jobs elsewhere. He is clueless about societal forces that will change that bottom line.
The GOP members of the legislature are scum. Snyder is clueless. Neither is a complement. And cluelessness is not an excuse. One would think someone so smart would be able to think through the consequences.
Does he own the offense as much as the legislature? If they didn’t plop it on his desk, he wouldn’t have bothered. He said while campaigning is focus would be on jobs, not on the messy social issues.
My reaction is to the title of this post. The way it was written blames it all on Snyder. I would blame the legislature a lot more than I would blame him.
I wouldn’t blame this one completely on Snyder. Yeah, he signed it, but he comes across not as someone out to get the gays, but simply oblivious to anything but money. He was told it would save the state a few bucks and is clueless about long-term consequences (as he appears to be on a lot of bills he has signed).
The anger should be directed at the Michigan Legislature. Both houses are firmly in GOP control (no surprise there) and Between the Lines (the state gay newspaper) has declared this legislature to be the most hostile to gays in the state’s history. Alas, they’ve been hostile to lots of other progressive causes.
Between the Lines says a big part of the problem is term limits for House and Senate members. That causes them to seek funding from the extreme but deep pocket side of the party.
Your view that the temporary transvestite genre should be retired has made me curious about your views of some of the better films of the genre. What is your take on “Some Like it Hot” starring Jack Lemmon (transvestite to escape) and “Tootsie” starring Dustin Hoffman (transvestite to get a job)?
Paul K commented on the blog post Family Research Council to honor ‘pro-family’ pol who’s a colossal deadbeat dad
Doesn’t owing child support mean he is also divorced? Definitely family-values hypocrite.
Paul K commented on the blog post Should smokers and obese workers pay more for health care? It’s the wrong question.
I’m a retiree in the auto industry and get my health insurance through my former employer (not old enough for Medicare). This last year the insurance company required to go into a weight management program because I was a couple pounds over the border between overweight and obese. I had two options:
Wear a pedometer and upload the data once a month proving I had averaged over 5000 steps a day. The problems: That much walking made my knees ache. I already got much more exercise on my bicycle so switching to walking would have been a reduction in exercise.
Join Weight Watchers and verify attendance at 11 meetings every quarter. Problem: My hypoglycemia made meeting the diet’s targets difficult. No dietitian available.
Nope, no choice that actually makes sense for me.
I did join Weight Watchers and have managed to lose enough to fall below the program requirements, though some weeks I only lose .2 pounds.
There are a few things that should not be subject to the profit motive. Health care is one of them. Others include education, wilderness areas, and shared infrastructure.
Paul K commented on the blog post Pro-amendment NC legislators: look at how many LGBT families will be hurt by your bigotry
Arizona Dave wrote:
From the day Obama won the presidency, the republicans have been doing everything they can to get him defeated in 2012. It’s Job #1 for Mitch McConnell, and many others who haven’t said so in as many words.
According to Box Turtle Bulletin, the date of the amendment vote was moved from next November to May to attract the last few Democrat votes to pass the amendment in the General Assembly. The Dems didn’t want the amendment to draw out Fundies and ruin Obama’s chances.
If I have this right, that means the NC GOP hates gays so much they were willing to increase the chances of Obama taking the state next year. Pissing on gays is more important than getting rid of Obama. The mind staggers.
I read a bit of the report on Qnotes. The change of date from the general election to the primary (to make it less political) jumped out at me. Let’s see if I got this right. A whole slew of GOP candidates will draw all the GOP voters to the polls. Obama is running unopposed so there is little reason for Dem supporters to bother to vote except for this issue and minor candidates. It makes me think the GOP projected the general election too close to call.
Of course, the new date may not be the primary for candidates for president. That might mean such an important issue is left to those who bother to vote.
The change of date is not good.
What are the prospects in the senate?