Reasonably Logical

I’m currently listening to the VP debate live. Honestly, I’m somewhat surprised at how well Palin is handling herself. I was expecting this to be somewhat like watching a train wreck. Instead, she’s actually doing a fairly damn decent job. Of course, even as I type this she just dodged the question about restricted budgets and first things to cut.

For the record, I love this moderator. She’s cutting them off and forcing them to actually answer the questions!

<--- Missing sections first 1/2 hour --->

Update (9:32pm): Climate Change
Palin - “we’re allowing them to …pollute more than America would ever stand for.” - Any body else concerned by that wording
Biden - faced man-made impact face on, support for clean coal & safe nuclear, export clean coal technology

Update (9:34pm) - Carbon Caps
Palin - Seemingly ignored carbon caps question. Two word answer. (”I do.”) Support for large scale domestic drilling and energy production
Biden - Yes, strict caps.

Update (9:38pm) - Same Sex Rights
Biden - Support for equal constitution rights. Do not support same-sex marriage.
Palin - Can’t support “redefine marriage”. Emphasizing tolerance. No civil rights discussion. Dodged the equal civil rights part of questions.

Update (9:43pm) - Iraq
Palin - Plan for withdrawal, but no early withdrawal. Emphasis on surge and NATO allies (what allies?). Attack with “white flag of surrender”. Slander about voting not to fund the troops.
Biden - Shift responsibility to Iraqis and draw troops over 18 months. Defense of Obama.

Update (9:50pm) - Pakistan vs Iran
Biden - Solid comparison. Redirect issue towards Afghanistan. Build schools to compete for hearts and minds. Point about control of Iran not in the hands of nut job (whose name I can’t remember.)
Palin - Mention nut job leader of Iran and says should not have nuclear power or weapons. Attack on “meet without preconditions”.

Update (9:53pm) - Israel solution
Palin - Two state solution is the solution. Israel is our strongest ally and we will not allow a second holocausts. Enough is enough looking backwards. (After everything she’s said so far? Hah!) Divert to domestic issues.
Bidin - Both friends on Israel. Attack on elections in Gaza strip, not putting NATO troops in Lebanon. “I haven’t heard how his policy on [] will be different from George Bush’s”

Update (10:10pm) - Usage of Nuclear Weapons
Palin - Dodged main question. Went in direction of proliferation. Then went to Afghanistan. Disputed claim of general in Iraq.
Bidin - “Facts matter”. General said, surge will not work. 3 weeks in Iraq is more than 6.5 years in Afghanistan. Caught own over extension about McCain’s record, stepped back.

Update (10:05pm) - Interventionism
Biden - Dafur (no fly zone, “rally the world to act”). genocide -> does not have right to national sovereignty
Palin - Attack on Biden for reversed stance war vote. Agreement on Dafur. Also “all options are on the table” statement. (Does that worry anyone else? Isn’t that a Bushism we can avoid?)

Update (10:07) - “A heat beat away”
Bidin - Carry out Obama’s policies. Rinse repeat.
Palin - Acknowledge differences in positions. Continue policies. Rinse repeat.

<--- Questions are less straight forward and descrete. As such, I'm breaking out by issue, not question now. -->

Education (from a couple of different questions)
Palin - More focus on education, need flexibility in NCLB, profession of teaching, working with special needs
Bidin - NCLB not funded properly

VP Power
Palin - Flexibility of VP office in congress etc. (Very dangerous expansion of past policy in my opinion.)
Bidin - Cheney violated article 1 of constitution. Very dangerous. (I agree entirely.)

Own weaknesses
Palin - Did not answer at all. (Amusingly she drew attention to her own record, but refuses to let Bidin use McCian.)
Bidin - Faced question straight on.

Unfortunately, I have to stop now. My laptop battery is about to die. I may add some extra comments latter.

Pa. court upholds gay-rally ruling
Published: Jul 25, 2008
By MICHAEL YODER, Intelligencer Journal

While obviously I’d rather it wasn’t this particular law that was used to set the precedent*, overall this is a positive outcome for anyone who has any interest in limited, understandable government. Essentially, the legislature used a completely unrelated bill to lump unpopular changes into something that legislatures couldn’t vote against. This happens all the time at both the state and federal levels and is one of the things that drives my nuts about congressional politics.

*As it happens, I tend to feel hate crimes laws are used *way* too broadly. Overall, they do more good than harm though.

Wednesday’s ruling, initiated by a lawsuit involving Manheim Township resident Mark Diener, found that the Pennsylvania Legislature’s altering of a 2002 crop-destruction bill into an amendment to the “ethnic intimidation” law violated Article III of the state’s constitution.

Rather than make a separate post for each of these, I’m stringing together a couple of interesting news articles and making one big post out of them.

Judge OKs adult trial for teen suspect
Attorney sought juvenile court for fatal shooting case
By Raul Hernandez, Ventura County Start
Friday, July 25, 2008

The judge responsible for the trail of the young boy who shot a (gay) classmate in California a few months back has decided that he must face an adult court, not juvenile court. Excuse me but the kid is 14! If he’s not a juvenile, who the heck is?

I thought I’d mentioned this before, but I can’t find the reference if I did.

Bush signs sweeping AIDS bill
Landmark measure repeals ban on HIV-positive immigrants and visitors
By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade | Jul 30, 3:00 PM

OK, some mostly good news this time. The long standing ban against people with HIV traveling to the United States has been repealed. The congressional mandate was reversed, but there is still one more step to see it totally gone. The Department of Health and Human Services must change their policy, and unfortunately that is unlike to happen as long as we have Bush in office.

Assembly’s Gay Rites Backers Reap Benefits
Donations Pour In for Republicans
By JACOB GERSHMAN, Staff Reporter of the Sun | August 7, 2008

Nice to see that some Republicans can vote in support of gay marriage and keep there seats. Maybe my party isn’t total hopeless after all…

OK, more articles to come, but I need a break from typing.

One of the strengths/weakness (depending on whom you ask) of copyright law has long been that the government had no real roll in enforcing it. If someone was misusing your copyright, it’s your job to find them, sue them, and prove your case. The only real help the government provides is the court room.

However, this may soon change. There is a bill being introduced in the Senate that would grant the US Attorney General the ability to file civil law suits and the responsibility to enforce copyright. While there are some pluses to the bill (mostly to copyright holders like music labels and movie studios) the consequences of the bill are quite scary.

First, the government has significantly more resources than even the richest company. And since the government is not out to make a profit, there’s no “it’s not worth it financially” incentive to restrict suits. As a result, were likely to find the number of enforcement suits going way up. Personally, I don’t like that idea much at all.

More importantly though, this is breaking into some significant new legal ground. Traditionally, the government has been (in theory at least) a neutral party in the battle* between consumer rights and corporate profits. This bill would bring the government down strongly on the “wrong” side of that battle. It sets the government up as the enforcer of corporate policy and profits. Equally importantly, the government has traditionally had no roll in the enforcement of civil law. This bill will be opening a while new legal arena in terms of government involvement and possible prosecution. Do you really want the government suing you for libel? (Say of George W Bush or Hillary Clinton?) We’re heading in that direction folks.

* Yes “battle” is a slightly inflammatory term, but can you truthfully tell me its become anything less?

Further Reading:

Senators Announce New Intellectual Property Enforcement Bill
Posted by Richard Esguerra of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Some of the articles best quotes are:

The real “problem” may be that some so-called “offenses” can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard for any crime. This new provision would allow the AG to sidestep that high burden of proof — a burden that gives the average citizen an important measure of protection from the overwhelming power of the government.

If the bill is passed, something as simple as taking your iPod to Mexico could be considered an infringement of the copyright owners’ distribution right.

Civil law (legal system)
From Wikipedia

Lawsuit
From Wikipedia

I didn’t quite give up when McCain got the presumptive nomination, but more and more I’m really starting to think I’m going to be voting for Obama come November. Is it too much to ask to actually have a decent Republican candidate? One who doesn’t just cater to the f*ing religious right all the time? I would like to be able to vote for my own party once in a while!

McCain assailed for opposing gay adoption
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Not my original source, but it gets the idea across.

A great example is the Capital Words project. Every wonder what our politicians are actually talking about in Washington but don’t have the time to read the full transcript? This site will tell you in a single word. I really like how they’ve used technology to simply something really complex (congressional transcripts) down to something really simple (a single word.) The result is easily understood by anyone and gives a good insight into the current hot topics on capital hill. Now if only the had source linking…

I encountered this site through the blog of the Open House Project. As I’ve said before, I enjoy reading their articles for the occasional gems scattered throughout. Most of their posts aren’t that useful, but some really make you stop and think.

For those who haven’t heard, the California Supreme Court struck down a law banning same-sex marriage in CA. Thus CA becomes the second state in the union to allow gay folks to get married. Already opposing groups are trying to organize constitutional amendments at both state and federal levels, but I don’t really see that happening. Yahoo! Now if only I hadn’t just given up my CA residency. Oh well, I’m in no need of a marriage license just yet.

The other big piece of news I doubt many folks have heard about. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a decision which could very well be the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Essentially, the ruling said that just being gay isn’t a determent to troop moral. (Duh!) Instead, the military will have to prove that each individual soldier dismissed under the policy has individually caused harm to troop moral or military readiness. Of the two, this may very well be the more important in the long run.

Here are two news articles related to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” case. Read the top one first, its much more clear. The second one is somewhat confusingly written.

Federal court rules against military gays policy
GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Thu May 22, 7:52 AM ET

Court: Gay officer can pursue lawsuit against military
CNN, May 22, 2008

In just about every election I’ve voted in, its been a fair struggle just to get information about the issues on the ballot. Last fall, it wasn’t ’till I actually got to the polling place that I found out about one of the offices I was voting for. And this was after spending several *hours* the night before doing research and deciding my votes!

I don’t know about anyone else, but I consider that pretty damn ridiculous. I ran across this post from the blogger at the Open House Project who talks about his experiences in the recent PA primaries and pretty much came to the same conclusion.

The Open House Project is a site devoted to transparent government. (On in other words, we the citizens should know what sh*t our leaders are up to.) The guy who runs it often has some interesting blog posts, though its somewhat hit or miss. A lot of them I read and ignore, but others really make you think.

For those who haven’t heard yet, Sally Kern - an Oklahoma Legislator - made some extremely homophobic comments at a political rally. (Article, Video) So what right? Might be worth a little outrage/annoyance, but usually it wouldn’t warrant a post here. What makes this a lot more interesting is the ongoing speculation that one of Kern’s sons is gay.

The speculation is that Kern’s son Jessie is gay and that his parents essentially disinherited him because of it. While nothing new - Alan Keyes anyone? - it always make me think whenever I hear something like this. I really feel that people are missing an important point here - if this is true than that kid probably went through *hell* growing up. For some reason, that never seems to actually get mentioned. It also makes me want to ask some tough questions of Kern. What the hell happened to her “family values”?

For the record, I have no respect what-so-ever for a parent who abandons their child - over religion, politics, or whatever. No matter what they may have done, they’re still your kid for God’s sake. I just don’t get that.

For those not aware, there is currently a bill before congress that would ban discrimination on sexual orientation and gender expression. Or at least it used to. Barney Frank, one of the sponsors of the bill and a man who I have great respect for, has introduced a reduced version of the bill that does not cover transgender individuals or gender expression. The reason given was that this reduced bill would stand a better chance of actually passing and provide protection for some of our community, if not all. Honestly, when I first heard this I was extremely torn. I don’t particularly want to abandon any of our community, but the chance of getting something actually passed seemed to almost be worth it. (Not my proudest moment, I know.)

What totally changes things though, was reading Lambda Legal’s evaluation of the new bill. Not just does the new bill not cover transgender folks, it doesn’t cover anyone who is fired based on gender expression. You can’t be fired for being gay, but you could be fired for “acting gay”: talking with a lisp, wearing makeup at work, etc.. While this wouldn’t bother many straight acting folks on first glance, we all know how easily this could be bent. And besides, do we really want to walk away from the rest of our community like that? This new bill really gives us next to nothing.

I honestly do think that Representative Frank introduced this new bill with the best of intentions, but passing it would be a major mistake. I’m extremely proud of our community leaders (NGLFT, Lambda Legal, Triangle Foundation, etc., but NOT HRC) for actively opposing this bill. (Even before I personally was ready to do so.)