Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 03:48 PM
Number of posts: 7,108
Number of posts: 7,108
- 2016 (33)
- 2015 (107)
- 2014 (130)
- 2013 (172)
- 2012 (102)
- 2011 (8)
- December (8)
- Older Archives
. . . that the Democratic Party looks pretty good right now. I mean, we have two very different potential nominees, both of them serious and substantive (irrespective of what anybody may think of either one). Meanwhile, the other side is closing in on 20 potential nominees, and every one is either a lunatic, an egomaniac, a sociopath or a retread -- or some combination thereof!
Posted by markpkessinger | Wed May 6, 2015, 03:55 PM (11 replies)
Internal conversation at Fox News:
Exec #1: Let's see . . . things are quieting down in Baltimore. But surely we can find a way to milk this story a little more. Any ideas?
Exec #2: HEY, I KNOW! Let's make a false report of a cop shooting a fleeing African American, wait an hour to see what happens, and then retract it, claiming it was a 'mistake!'
Exec #1: Yeah, that's the ticket!
VIDEO: Fox Issues Startling On-Air Retraction: 'Nobody Has Been Shot'
Fox News host Shepard Smith issued a startling on-air retraction on Monday, saying the channel had "screwed up" when a reporter said an hour earlier that he'd witnessed a black man being shot while running from Baltimore police.
"What's happened is we screwed up what it sounds like," Smith said. "I can tell you one thing, Mike Tobin would never — I've been through this. Mike Tobin thought he saw somebody get shot. And there was a gun. And there was a patient on a stretcher. And there was a woman who said she saw the cops gun him down and there's gonna be violence and all the rest of that. And what we have is nothing."
"Nobody has been shot," Smith said. "No police officer pulled the trigger."
Smith said the conditions were unusual and that the news crew had made an "honest" mistake.
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Mon May 4, 2015, 07:14 PM (1 replies)
With tomorrow marking the 45th anniversary of the tragic events at Kent State, I cannot help but to see a very sad parallel in the way many Americans reacted to those events at the time and the way many have reacted to the events in Baltimore in recent days. 45 years ago, many Americans responded to the deaths of four college students, and the wounding of nine more, at the hands of the Ohio National Guard, with an attitude of, "It's about time they started shooting some of these dirty, smelly hippies." They focused on the violence of the anti-war protesters that had occurred in the days leading up to the shootings, while remaining willfully ignorant of the violence being perpetrated by our government on the people of Southeast Asia, as well as on a generation of Americans that was being forced to serve as cannon fodder in a totally unjustifiable war. Today, many Americans have chosen to focus on the violence of the demonstrations in Baltimore, while remaining willfully ignorant of the pattern of violence and oppression levied against a particular community, of which the death of Freddie Gray has become such a potent symbol. We never learn.
Posted by markpkessinger | Sun May 3, 2015, 08:26 PM (4 replies)
The two questions before the court were:
(a) whether same-sex couples must be permitted by the states to marry on the same terms as heterosexual couples as a matter of constitutional right; and
(b) if the Court decides against recognizing it as a Constitutional right, then are states that do not recognize same-sex marriage required, under the full faith and credit clause, to recognize those same-sex marriages performed in states that do allow them.
IT seems to me as if there are three possible configurations of rulings on the two questions. They are:
(1) On question (a) they could rule that same-sex marriage is not protected by the equal protection clause, and thus the question of whether same-sex marriages will be recognized will continue to be left up to the states; and on (b) they could rule that states are not required to recognize the same-sex marriages legally performed in other states; or
(2) On question (a) they could rule that the equal protection clause does indeed mean that same-sex couples must be permitted to marry on the same basis as heterosexual couples. In this case, question (b) becomes moot, and the Court doesn't have to address it; or
(3) On question (a) they could rule against a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and on question (b) rule that even though the question will still be left to the states regarding whether to permit same-sex marriages within its borders, that states must still be required to recognize the marriages validly performed in other states.
Question (a) is too hard to call based solely on the oral arguments, so that could go either way (most likely depending upon where Justice Kennedy falls). But from what I heard during the argument for question (b) even the conservative justices were having a hard time finding any coherent basis for ruling that states should not have to recognize the public acts (including same-sex marriage) of another state. So, if I am right about this, scenario (1) is not really a possibility.
I think the conservatives on the court will tend to want to split the baby and go with scenario (3). But if they think about the practical ramifications of that, at least some of them (such as Kennedy and maybe even Roberts), will have to take a step back. The reason is that scenario (3) will create an absurd legal reality, whereby same-sex couples in states that do not allow them to marry will simply get married in states that do, and their home states will be required to recognize their marriages in any case. So IF even one of the conservatives actually applies a bit of rationality to the situation, the only coherent option is scenario (2). But that's a big 'IF'.
At one point, I found myself so angry I was sputtering. It was when Scalia started saying that a constitutional right to same-sex marriage could require Christian clergy to perform same-sex weddings. It's a bogus argument, and Scalia knows damned well it's bogus, the reason being that clergy are not required to perform ANY WEDDING AT ALL, gay or straight. As a matter of the establishment clause, they cannot be required to perform weddings they do not wish to perform. And nothing would change in that regard by extending the right to marry to same-sex couples. It was such an outrageously dishonest position!
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Apr 30, 2015, 06:54 PM (0 replies)
A little earlier today, I posted something that was an attempt at irony, but which unfortunately went over like a lead balloon. It started out with a question: "Why do I find it cosmically ironic that the lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of Michigan against gay marriage was this guy?". I followed with an actual professional photo of the guy. His appearance in the photo is, shall we say, rather 'dandy-esque.' (For reference, I'll post it in a separate, follow-up comment.) Unfortunately, through no fault of anyone reading the post, my intent was not clear, and as a result, was misinterpreted. I was quite taken aback by the negative responses: things like, "Stereotype much?" and "No, why don't you enlighten us." I realized immediately that nobody reading, unless they personally knew me, could possibly have the context needed to understand where I was coming from with that post. And for that, I apologize.
But I do want to explain a bit, lest anyone think I am some bigoted, homophobic troglodyte. First, yes, it was poking some fun at the stereotype. I am acutely aware of the stereotype, and the hurtful, malicious ways it is sometimes used against gay people, because I, myself, am a gay man. And although I have made mention of that on numerous occasions here on DU, generally it isn't something I mention unless there is a particular reason to do so.
The irony I saw in the situation was the same kind of irony I see whenever a notorious, right-wing, anti-gay legislator is caught in flagrante delicto with another man, or trying to solicit favors in a men's room stall. The thing is, that lawyer's countenance <i>does</i> match an old, commonly held stereotype of gay men. Jon Stewart even made an oblique, unstated (but certainly implied) reference to it in his monologue last night, which is what prompted me to create the post. As a gay man, I was not offended in the least, because I didn't see it as being a swipe at gay people at all, but rather at the hypocrisy of so many right wingers.
And another friend of mine, also gay, posted the following about this same lawyer to Facebook after listening to the audio of the oral arguments:
Bursch could be coughing up glitter right and left every time he opens his mouth, self-loathing is real."
One person responded that the guy looked too much like a sexless dork to be considered to 'look gay.' To that, I would point out that prime time TV shows have a long history of portraying gay characters as sexless dorks: "Jack" from Will & Grace, for example, or the argyle sweater-wearing gay couple from Modern Family. Indeed, that stereotype seems to be the one TV producers think is most palatable to middle America. Salon ran a good article on this subject a few months back.
This kind of ironic humor has a long and venerable tradition in the gay community: it is referred to as "camp." And it often involves making use of the very stereotypes that have so often been hurled at the gay community in order to make its point. However, context is everything, and context is what was lacking in my post. I apologize for that, but I do not apologize in any way for seeing the irony in that situation and calling it out.
Posted by markpkessinger | Thu Apr 30, 2015, 02:10 PM (12 replies)
Crips, Bloods Call Truce, Not to Harm Cops But to Protect their Community from Violence & Looting Re
WOW! Just . . . wow!
Crips, Bloods Call Truce, Not to Harm Cops But to Protect their Community from Violence & Looting
Baltimore, MD — The Crips, Bloods, BGF and other major gangs reportedly called a truce during yesterday’s Freddie Gray protests in Baltimore. They did not make threats of violence, they were not indicated as participants in acts of violence or vandalism during the protests.
However, their promise to no longer be divided, was such a threat to the establishment that within 12 hours there were stories on the home page of every mainstream media publication talking about how the gangs were going to join up with the specific intention of killing cops and burning down the city.
Each of the mainstream sources had basically republished a press release that was put out by the Baltimore City Police Department, citing that there was a “credible threat” that gang members were planning to carry out attacks on police. There was no evidence to back this claim up, but the very fact that rival gangs were calling a truce in the streets was enough to drive the establishment into panic mode.
This should tell you something. The establishment wants people divided, and they fear other armed and organized groups providing their own communities with defense, effectively challenging the state’s monopoly on violence.
< . . . . >
Posted by markpkessinger | Tue Apr 28, 2015, 01:28 PM (5 replies)
(Note: I posted this back in November, when the riots in Ferguson were the major topic of discussion. I have reworked it in relation to the current discussions concerning the rioting in Baltimore.)
What is NOT particularly helpful with regard to
In another thread, the question was asked, how is burning of black owned businesses helpful. It probably isn't, but that isn't really the point of rioting anyway -- more on that in a moment. But if there is one thing that can definitely be said to be unhelpful with respect to
Riots of the type unfolding in
Some will argue that while the rage in Ferguson may be justified, violence and looting never are. Well, perhaps, but when it gets to the point that people feel they must riot in order to be heard, then they are already way past a point where they see any value in recognizing a society's norms for what is considered to be "justified." This is a community that feels it has been denied justice, not just in the case of
What I believe the people of
A friend of mine tonight put it like this:
Is the violence and chaos upsetting, regrettable, and unfortunate? Certainly. Is it occurring because nobody's taken the time to calmly and rationally explain to the rioters why rioting is bad? Fuck you."
Posted by markpkessinger | Mon Apr 27, 2015, 09:43 PM (21 replies)
Had this exchange with another reader in the comments to an article on Raw Story about Bruce Jenner:
Honest questions for those who support transgenderism:
1. If you are a hetero man would you have an issue with marrying and having sex with a man who tells you that he is now a transgender woman?
2. Or for the hetero woman would you have an issue with marrying and having sex with a woman who tells you that she is now a transgender man?
3. Or if you are a lesbian woman would you have an issue with marrying and having sex with a man who tells you that he is now a transgender woman?
4. Or if you are a gay man, would you have an issue with marrying and having sex with a woman who tells you that she is now a transgender man?
If you believe that a man can turn into a woman 100% or that a woman can turn into a man 100%, then why would you have an issue?
Oh, and the friend to whom I referred (who occasionally posts here on DU) chimed in as well, as you can see if you follow the link above to the thread!
Posted by markpkessinger | Mon Apr 27, 2015, 07:16 PM (0 replies)
. . . are those would never dream of making demands of it. If, in fact, Warren and Brown are lying as the President suggests, then it is within the President's ability to demonstrate that bu releasing the text of the entire document. Even apart from the parts of the TPP draft that have been leaked to date, the fact that he is resisting doing so, expecting the public and most of Congress to simply take his word for it. and at the same time is so uncharacteristically energetic in his attempts to impugn the integrity of critics who are, on most other issue, staunch allies, speaks volumes.
Another thing I learned a long time ago is that when faced with a choice about whom to believe among two parties, each of whom is accusing the other of lying, one rarely goes wrong by asking oneself one simple question: which party stands to gain or lose the most both by misrepresenting an issue, and/or by falsely accusing the other party of lying? Frankly, if the deal is all it is cracked up to be by the President, then I can see nothing that Warren or Brown would have to gain by opposing it. But I can certainly see that a President, now in the home stretch of his Presidency, casting about for a new 'legacy' since the future of his single biggest achievement is in doubt, I can see where he would have plenty to lose if the deal falls apart, and thus plenty to gain by falsely characterizing the deal's opponents as lying.
For me, then, the determination whom to regard as being the most credible between the PResident and Senator Warren is not even a close call.
Posted by markpkessinger | Sun Apr 26, 2015, 12:52 PM (46 replies)
CRUZ FALLOUT: Broadway Cares Cancels AIDS Fundraiser At Ian Reisner's Hotel
From the executive director of Broadway Cares:
t is with regret that we have decided to cancel this year’s edition of the Broadway Bares Solo Strips fundraiser, which was scheduled for May 10 at the NYC club 42West. We cannot in good conscience hold an event at a venue whose owners have alienated our community, as reflected in an April 23 New York Times story and an April 24 follow-up post. We do business with and accept fundraising support from a variety of people across a wide spectrum of political and religious affiliations. The rich diversity of our community makes what we do together so special. It is a rare instance where the actions of a donor negatively impacts us as an organization and potentially jeopardizes our relationship with others whose support is integral to our success. But when it does occur, in a way that’s blatantly against all we stand and work for, we can’t pretend it doesn’t come with consequences. Silence is not a neutral position. It is complicit. This is not about partisan politics or punishment. This is about doing what’s right to ultimately ensure that our commitment to the men, women and children we serve cannot be questioned.
Fallout has been equally swift across Manhattan's clubland. Links to the boycott of Reisner's properties have been posted by top New York City club promoters John Blair and Mark Nelson, both of whom have worked with Reisner's clubs in the past. Facebook pages for Reisner's various businesses have been deluged with negative comments and vows to stay away. Also interesting are boycott pledges by summer-long residents of Fire Island Pines, who would have few other options as Reisner recently paid $10M for 80% of the resort town's commercial district. At this writing the boycott's Facebook group has grown to over 4100 members in just one day.
NOTE: Broadway Bares 25 will take place as scheduled at the Hammerstein Ballroom on June 24th.
Posted by markpkessinger | Fri Apr 24, 2015, 04:58 PM (14 replies)