I’ve been thinking about Constitutional amendments lately, because it is not yet football season.
The other night, President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner traded speeches about the made-up fight over whether to increase the nation’s credit limit. (They’re calling it a debt limit, but it’s a credit limit.) (By the way… we can increase our own credit limit? How different would your life be if you could call Visa and say, “I need to improve my credit score. Spot me another $10,000 in available credit.”)
Any way… Rep. Boehner mentioned a failed GOP bill nicknamed “cut, cap and balance,” which would make the debt ceiling increase contingent on passage of a Constitutional balanced budget amendment. Setting aside the fact that amending the Constitution can take years (with good reason – it’s not something we do impulsively), this isn’t even something that President Reagan tried with any of the 18 times he raised the debt limit. It wasn’t a condition even Boehner himself raised as recently as a few months ago.
Have you ever asked yourself why our country couldn’t just pass a law, or some sort of policy, demanding a balanced budget? Why does it need to be a big ol’ amendment to a Constitution that’s only had 27 of them since 1791 (including 10 at one time, the Bill of Rights), and that hasn’t had one since I was in the sixth grade?
Because requiring a balanced budget is, in the belief of some, un-Constitutional.
As the conservative blog Conservatives on Fire writes, it’s a bad idea on many levels. “In fact, a BBA would be a license to spend at will. So, are our boys and girls in Washington playing games with us or are they that ignorant or worse, are they trying to deceive us?” (Me: do you really need an answer to that question?)
This post is a great summary of one by another conservative blogger, Publius Huldah (which you really should read if you have a chance). Basically, there are so many holes in the BBA that it would basically be a license for the Executive Branch to spend whatever it wants on its own. And since conservatives supposedly oppose the sprawling growth of federal government, and the Executive Branch’s mission creep in particular, it makes no sense for Congressional Republicans to be pushing a BBA.
Now, to the state level… North Carolina is proud to be the only state in the South without a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. So far, our far right General Assembly hasn’t made moves to change that, but it’s a threat given how hard they’ve worked so far to drag our pleasant state back to the dark ages. Again, we have to ask, why an amendment? Same-sex marriage is already not legal in N.C. Why do a bunch of supposedly small-government types want a redundant amendment saying the same thing that a law already does? (Grammar nerds: did you see what I did there? Hee-hee.)
Because an amendment is harder to strip away than a law is.
And this is where I have to call BS on my state’s conservatives. They’re all about laissez-faire, non-interventionist government until it’s an issue where the state’s population is trending away from them. See, five or 10 or 20 years from now when enough North Carolinians say to themselves “This is stupid,” a majority of both houses and a governor’s signature and boom – we join New York, Iowa, et al in granting our tax-paying adult gay citizens the same privileges as their hetero counterparts. Not so with an amendment to the state Constitution.
In other words, pro-amendment conservatives want to restrict the ability of future North Carolinians to pass the laws that reflect our wishes. How’s that for a nanny state?
For me, the moral of the story is this: when someone pushes to amend either the U.S. or a state constitution, we need to ask a lot of questions. Why an amendment, and not a law that can be changed with the times? What are this person’s motives? Is what he or she wants already taken care of by an existing law? Do you get the feeling that he or she just really wants “passed the X Amendment” in his/her obituary? Ask these questions, and demand the answers.
(Since you didn’t ask, but just in case you do… The Equal Rights Amendment. Fair warning: while the ERA technically isn’t dead, the bulk of the movement for it happened before I was born, so I don’t have the perspective of someone who lived through this. It seems to me that the ERA’s provisions are already in the Constitution and existing law. But so were the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, but Congress still needed to pass the Civil Rights Act almost 100 years later to actually start enforcing them. So I’m not going to bash ERA supporters. They lived in a time when marital rape was still perfectly legal, so I can see why a strict constructionist argument didn’t exactly get their sympathy.)
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Voter ID laws, revisted
First, Colbert:
(Can I just say how much I resent that anyone chalks up my Democratic votes to naivete and inexperience? P.S., I bought my house when I was 25, so the guy who said that young people and property owners aren't the same people is clueless.)
Second, this: when Winston-Salem's CHANGE, a non-partisan community group, partnered with the Winston-Salem Police Department to issue photo IDs to low-income people who didn't have them, conservatives went ape-shit.
Hypocrisy - we has it.
(Can I just say how much I resent that anyone chalks up my Democratic votes to naivete and inexperience? P.S., I bought my house when I was 25, so the guy who said that young people and property owners aren't the same people is clueless.)
Second, this: when Winston-Salem's CHANGE, a non-partisan community group, partnered with the Winston-Salem Police Department to issue photo IDs to low-income people who didn't have them, conservatives went ape-shit.
Hypocrisy - we has it.
Friday, July 29, 2011
A Democrat with [insert your preferred anatomical analogy here]
Does it seem to anyone else that, when Democrats win huge legislative majorities, they say "We're not going to over-reach because we don't want to be accused of over-reaching," but when Republican win even small majorities, they say "Screw it, we're in charge"?
If you're disgusted with Washington and you're looking for a Democrat who doesn't roll over in a spasm of hand-wringing every time a Republican sneaks up behind her and whispers "BOO!", come on down to Raleigh and take a look at Gov. Bev Perdue.
Perdue didn't look at the state GOP gains last year as some sort of indication that her 2008 election had been invalidated. She remembered the people who put her there, and she's stood up to the General Assembly even knowing that she'd lose a lot of these battles. As Melissa Harris-Perry (not Lacewell) said on "The Rachel Maddow Show," Perdue is putting on the record that there's "another North Carolina" besides these ultra-ultra-conservatives.
And the funny thing is, I was lukewarm about Perdue when I voted for her three years ago. But her resolve these past few months, when it would've been so easy to just go along, has really impressed me. She really is the last bulwark between moderate North Carolinians and the totalitarian third-world country that the GOP seems to want us to be. I'm glad she's there, and I'll do everything I can to help re-elect her next year.
If you're disgusted with Washington and you're looking for a Democrat who doesn't roll over in a spasm of hand-wringing every time a Republican sneaks up behind her and whispers "BOO!", come on down to Raleigh and take a look at Gov. Bev Perdue.
Perdue didn't look at the state GOP gains last year as some sort of indication that her 2008 election had been invalidated. She remembered the people who put her there, and she's stood up to the General Assembly even knowing that she'd lose a lot of these battles. As Melissa Harris-Perry (not Lacewell) said on "The Rachel Maddow Show," Perdue is putting on the record that there's "another North Carolina" besides these ultra-ultra-conservatives.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
And the funny thing is, I was lukewarm about Perdue when I voted for her three years ago. But her resolve these past few months, when it would've been so easy to just go along, has really impressed me. She really is the last bulwark between moderate North Carolinians and the totalitarian third-world country that the GOP seems to want us to be. I'm glad she's there, and I'll do everything I can to help re-elect her next year.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
In defense of “glitter bombing”
Today, a group of LGBT rights demonstrators “glitter bombed” the clinic run by Marcus Bachmann, husband of Rep. Michele Bachman. It’s the latest, and largest, glitter bomb in what seems to be an informal campaign of drawing attention to (and shaming) the anti-gay positions of prominent politicians. Current GOP presidential candidates Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich have also gotten the glitter treatment.
In case you’ve missed this mini-phenomenon, glitter bombing is just what it sounds like: demonstrators fling handfuls of glitter at their targets. It’s attention-getting, but friendlier than a pie to the face.
The demonstrators at the Bachmann clinic had their act together. In a reference to Mr. Bachmann’s comments calling gay teens “barbarians,” they dressed like the cast of a Capitol One commercial. Instead of going after Rep. Bachmann (at least this time), they went to the clinic that’s been accused of practicing bogus “pray away the gay” therapy. And, of course, they sent out a press release.
What interests me is the response to this particular form of protest. It’s not designed to convince the glitter target to change his or her mind; it’s more about getting the attention of others. There’s been a lot of discussion among activists over how effective glitter bombing is in achieving the goal of earning sympathy. And that’s really what I wanted to address.
In any movement, there are going to be activists pushing boundaries and, inevitably, those who urge slow-going and caution, and complain that in-your-face tactics will just turn people off. That’s a worthy discussion for activists to have. But what irritates me is when someone on the “slow down” side pulls out the non-violent examples of Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to prove their point – the implication being that Gandhi or King NEVER pushed the envelope, and just waited piously and patiently for change to come. Not true. And, actually, kind of dangerous.
A few years ago, I wrote a story about a man who’d been involved in the integration struggles in St. Augustine, Fla., in 1964. Dr. King successfully used St. Augustine as a rallying point at the same time that the Civil Rights Act was being debated. This man’s impression of King was that he was incredibly shrewd and savvy when it came to public relations and dealing with the media. For instance, King would time demonstrations and other activities to take place by late morning so that the national media would have time to pick up the story for evening broadcasts.
King wasn’t a shrinking violet, and neither was Gandhi. We’ve mythologized them both into these passive, godlike figures who humbly accepted all the abuse heaped on them and spewed unobjectionable pablum. And the reason I said that this is a little dangerous is because that myth is being used to lecture today’s activists about how they should just sing softly, hold candles and shy away from strategically pissing people off.
I don’t know if glitter bombing “works” as activism for any goal other than drawing attention to the anti-gay positions of people who want to be our president. But the bombers should remember one thing: every single person who has ever tried to change anything, including Gandhi and King, was told at some point that they were coming on too strong. If you’re not raising eyebrows at least every now and then, you’re doing it wrong.
In case you’ve missed this mini-phenomenon, glitter bombing is just what it sounds like: demonstrators fling handfuls of glitter at their targets. It’s attention-getting, but friendlier than a pie to the face.
The demonstrators at the Bachmann clinic had their act together. In a reference to Mr. Bachmann’s comments calling gay teens “barbarians,” they dressed like the cast of a Capitol One commercial. Instead of going after Rep. Bachmann (at least this time), they went to the clinic that’s been accused of practicing bogus “pray away the gay” therapy. And, of course, they sent out a press release.
What interests me is the response to this particular form of protest. It’s not designed to convince the glitter target to change his or her mind; it’s more about getting the attention of others. There’s been a lot of discussion among activists over how effective glitter bombing is in achieving the goal of earning sympathy. And that’s really what I wanted to address.
In any movement, there are going to be activists pushing boundaries and, inevitably, those who urge slow-going and caution, and complain that in-your-face tactics will just turn people off. That’s a worthy discussion for activists to have. But what irritates me is when someone on the “slow down” side pulls out the non-violent examples of Gandhi or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to prove their point – the implication being that Gandhi or King NEVER pushed the envelope, and just waited piously and patiently for change to come. Not true. And, actually, kind of dangerous.
A few years ago, I wrote a story about a man who’d been involved in the integration struggles in St. Augustine, Fla., in 1964. Dr. King successfully used St. Augustine as a rallying point at the same time that the Civil Rights Act was being debated. This man’s impression of King was that he was incredibly shrewd and savvy when it came to public relations and dealing with the media. For instance, King would time demonstrations and other activities to take place by late morning so that the national media would have time to pick up the story for evening broadcasts.
King wasn’t a shrinking violet, and neither was Gandhi. We’ve mythologized them both into these passive, godlike figures who humbly accepted all the abuse heaped on them and spewed unobjectionable pablum. And the reason I said that this is a little dangerous is because that myth is being used to lecture today’s activists about how they should just sing softly, hold candles and shy away from strategically pissing people off.
I don’t know if glitter bombing “works” as activism for any goal other than drawing attention to the anti-gay positions of people who want to be our president. But the bombers should remember one thing: every single person who has ever tried to change anything, including Gandhi and King, was told at some point that they were coming on too strong. If you’re not raising eyebrows at least every now and then, you’re doing it wrong.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
What Bill Maher gets wrong
Last night on his show’s “new rules” segment, Bill Maher started off making a good point about how inaccurate it is for conservatives to cry sexism when anyone criticizes Sarah Palin or Rep. Michelle Bachmann. (Long story short: criticizing someone who happens to be female isn’t automatically sexist.) But then he does what he always seems to do whenever he has the chance: start bashing religion, Christianity in particular.
It’s tacky to point out someone else’s argumentative fallacy by using an argumentative fallacy of your own. And “I’m not sexist, Jesus is sexist” is a pretty dumb argument.
Since Bill brought it up, Ephesians 5:22 is frequently under-quoted, quoted out of context and then misinterpreted. Let’s first read the complete sentence, and then the several following.
It’s tacky to point out someone else’s argumentative fallacy by using an argumentative fallacy of your own. And “I’m not sexist, Jesus is sexist” is a pretty dumb argument.
Since Bill brought it up, Ephesians 5:22 is frequently under-quoted, quoted out of context and then misinterpreted. Let’s first read the complete sentence, and then the several following.
22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Husbands have some obligations here, too.
When a Christian fundamentalist starts quoting all the Bible verses that appear to condemn homosexuality, what is the very first thing most progressives say in response? It’s some variation of “Well, the Bible also says not to eat shellfish and that you should kill your children if they disobey you, but we don’t follow those things!” But when it comes to Ephesians 5:22, no one gets any slack. It’s carved in stone, and according to that great theologian Bill Maher, we Christians have to agree.
But here’s what really frustrates me when people who don’t like Christianity (for whatever reason) throw this passage in our faces. The Bible is full of passages that liberal or humanist Christians – myself included – de-emphasize by pointing out the patriarchalism of the time and place when the passage was written, or the changes made to the text at different points in history. A lot of us have issues with Paul’s letters. We argue that the published text is less important than a general orientation toward Christ-like living, treating others as we would want to be treated.
In any conversation among Christians, you’ll find earnest debate over what we’re supposed to be doing. None of us needs a comedian with an ax against religion to grind using our 2,000-year-long struggle to absolve himself of his own flaws.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
NASCAR is for rebels, but only men need apply
Did you ever notice the young, usually very pretty women standing in Victory Lane behind the winning driver, smiling and trying not to get sprayed with beer? Of course you did. That’s why they’re there.
There are three Miss Sprint Cups* each year, apparently. Now there’s an opening for one of them, since this week Paige Duke, a 24-year-old veterinary technician from South Carolina, was fired after pictures she’d taken for an old boyfriend surfaced online. This violated her contract's morality clause.
I have to say… I think this is kind of BS. When she was 18 years old, a young woman took pictures to send privately to someone she trusted. First of all, how awful is it that the pictures had been circulating online this whole time? That ex-bf is scum. Second, what on earth do her actions – again, taken in private – SIX YEARS AGO have to do with her ability to represent NASCAR today?
Sure, let’s all hop up on our high horses and sniff about how she shouldn’t have taken the pictures in the first place. I say again – she was 18. It isn’t her fault the pictures got out. (Once again I have to give thanks for the fact that I went through my reckless late teens/early 20s phase before YouTube and camera phones.)
Why fire her? Is it me, or is NASCAR a hell-raisin’, beer-swiggin’ “boys have at it” culture when it wants to be, and a conservative family sport when it suits it? Back to that asterisk up in the second paragraph… I once interviewed a woman whose family had been involved in NASCAR promotions from the beginning (her father was on the original board), and one of the things she told me was that our local track ditched its Miss Bowman Gray promotion decades ago because it just didn’t present the image they wanted.
But NASCAR’s title sponsor still uses young, attractive women to promote the sport at the track and at other events. Ok, they’re wearing firesuits and not bikinis, but what the hell ever. You’re still using a woman’s sexuality to promote a sport that has nothing to do with that sexuality. But when one of those women appears to have had an actual, not fantasy, sex life SIX YEARS AGO, the Sprint folks kick her to the curb.
NASCAR and the sponsors that support it want it both ways. Drivers can get caught speeding on a public road many times over the legal limit. At the track, they can use illegal parts, beat each other up and get their wrists slapped. But one woman with an extremely peripheral role in making the sport happen gets embarrassed by an a-hole ex, through no fault of her own, and she loses her job?
Unless her morality clause covered everything she’d ever done in her entire life, including for several years before her employment, I hope Paige Duke sues the hell out of Sprint.
By the way… a “morality clause” from the entertainment empire that pretends it was founded by people who violated federal laws? I say again… BS.
There are three Miss Sprint Cups* each year, apparently. Now there’s an opening for one of them, since this week Paige Duke, a 24-year-old veterinary technician from South Carolina, was fired after pictures she’d taken for an old boyfriend surfaced online. This violated her contract's morality clause.
I have to say… I think this is kind of BS. When she was 18 years old, a young woman took pictures to send privately to someone she trusted. First of all, how awful is it that the pictures had been circulating online this whole time? That ex-bf is scum. Second, what on earth do her actions – again, taken in private – SIX YEARS AGO have to do with her ability to represent NASCAR today?
Sure, let’s all hop up on our high horses and sniff about how she shouldn’t have taken the pictures in the first place. I say again – she was 18. It isn’t her fault the pictures got out. (Once again I have to give thanks for the fact that I went through my reckless late teens/early 20s phase before YouTube and camera phones.)
Why fire her? Is it me, or is NASCAR a hell-raisin’, beer-swiggin’ “boys have at it” culture when it wants to be, and a conservative family sport when it suits it? Back to that asterisk up in the second paragraph… I once interviewed a woman whose family had been involved in NASCAR promotions from the beginning (her father was on the original board), and one of the things she told me was that our local track ditched its Miss Bowman Gray promotion decades ago because it just didn’t present the image they wanted.
But NASCAR’s title sponsor still uses young, attractive women to promote the sport at the track and at other events. Ok, they’re wearing firesuits and not bikinis, but what the hell ever. You’re still using a woman’s sexuality to promote a sport that has nothing to do with that sexuality. But when one of those women appears to have had an actual, not fantasy, sex life SIX YEARS AGO, the Sprint folks kick her to the curb.
NASCAR and the sponsors that support it want it both ways. Drivers can get caught speeding on a public road many times over the legal limit. At the track, they can use illegal parts, beat each other up and get their wrists slapped. But one woman with an extremely peripheral role in making the sport happen gets embarrassed by an a-hole ex, through no fault of her own, and she loses her job?
Unless her morality clause covered everything she’d ever done in her entire life, including for several years before her employment, I hope Paige Duke sues the hell out of Sprint.
By the way… a “morality clause” from the entertainment empire that pretends it was founded by people who violated federal laws? I say again… BS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)