During a news conference at Broad and High streets in Columbus today, supporters said the New York senator has been pounded by sexist insults, her superior credentials ignored while Democratic leaders have remained silent.

“Our party has been witness to the most outrageous display of misogyny and sexism in modern campaign history,” said Cynthia Ruccia, a former congressional candidate from Columbus and Clinton supporter. “If Sen. Barack Obama is our party's candidate, we will actively campaign against him.”

Mary E. Davis, a 65-year-old retired judge from Pittsburgh, said she will vote for Republican Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, if Clinton is not on the November ballot.

Davis said Clinton's credentials have been disregarded as party leaders try “bullying her out” of the race.

“One candidate is well-qualified. The other candidate is not well-qualified, but the qualified candidate happens to be a woman,” Davis said, referring to the Democratic contest between Clinton and Obama.

While Clinton trails Obama in the delegate count, her supporters argue that she has won several key states, including Ohio and Pennsylvania.

“To be told at this point to sit down, be quiet, get with the program and take a back seat to an opponent with a clearly weaker resume because the party thinks it can take our loyalty for granted is a supreme insult,” Ruccia said.

Song Bush was humming after his speech today: “It’s my White House and I’ll lie if I want to”. Seriously, what are the speechwriters thinking? Oh, we’re in Israel, Israel means Jews, and Jews shit their pants when you invoke Hitler’s name?

As a matter of fact, we don’t. George must not have heard about Telushkin’s 614^th commandment: “Thou shalt not grant Hitler any posthumous victories”. That includes not letting anyone bully us into turning our backs on Obama. What, did you think we’d roll over and play ball when faced with your stupid propaganda? Besides, if the Nazis had had their way, there would not be anybody like Obama on the planet.

Thanks; Bush, for trying to score a victory over the backs of six million victims. Asshole. But we’re not falling for it.  As if we needed any additional reminders that George Bush is the biggest wanker to ever have walked the capitol. If I were McCain, I’d place a phone call to George and tell him to shut up. On second thought: keep it up. We can use an easy victory in November. Then we can pull the troops out of Iraq and use the money for all the collective therapy we’ll need to forget about the past eight damn years.

Say it loud and say it proud: Jews for Obama! 

The whole thing is great, but if you're in a hurry, do yourself a favour and skip forward to about 4.10 and enjoy Chris Mathews DESTROYING right-wing pundit Kevin James by revealing that he doesn't know what Neville Chamberlain did in Munich or what the word 'appeasement' means. It's hilarious!

Chief Justice Ronald George explained why he felt it was the right decision:

"In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation,"

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom echoed his comments and gave them a moral context:

"It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California, as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

James Dobson, chairmen of the Conservative Focus on the Family however doesn't believe that gay people deserve the same rights as heterosexuals:

"It will be up to the people of California to preserve traditional marriage by passing a constitutional amendment. ... Only then can they protect themselves from this latest example of judicial tyranny,"

Now here is what I found out, channel one to about channel 27(except HBO, Star Movies and Star World) all the channels were discussing THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF PAKISTAN... you must know that ... then came ARY or may be INDUS, that was sweet, a very nice cute little girl dancing in front of the whole nation, her parents appreciating; lucky parents; people chanting slogans, clapping and whistling. Then came another young boy, dancing and being appreciating by the “International Level” judges’ .Thanks God we are competing with India at least in any way. All our parents must be so happy that now their boys and girls are getting the real chance to show their talent in front of the world. They were dying for that! Now I am sure we will produce world class dancers who may get a chance to show their talent in boogie woogie. That’s what our ultimate goal should be. Let them think, we will copy later on.

Back to channel 27, thanks God I found out National Geographic. But my dad said ‘Oh yaar kaheen aur laga kya her waqt kutay billay dhakta rahta ha tu…’ perhaps he too is anxious to know about THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF PAKISTAN.

Now let’s talk about the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES OF PAKISTAN. Off course none other than our beloved, Just, Fair and The most innocent “The Judiciary”. Once all the judges are reinstated every thing will be OK. Oh don’t forget get my favourate chap his highness Mr. justice Iftikhar Chaudry back. Because he has this (shhhh don’t tell any one, it’s a secret) secret magical stick with which he can solve every problem including atta issue , not only that he can light up your homes, bring back investment, flood the dams with water, make smooth roads with no bumps. Oh yeah the magical stick has the power to wipe out extremism from its roots. Off course we have voted for a change and only ifti uncle can bring that.

Back to TV and media. Let’s not forget the positive role of media in all the issues. Thanks to Geo, ARY, Express, Aaj and many others ohh I forget to mention Mian sahib’s latest investment; it’s not masala tv though, the waqt tv. Thanks for keeping us inform of the Real Issues. You rock guys. You all are working so hard to solve all the issues facing Pakistan. My special thanks to the new anchors cum politicians, Hamid Mir, Talat Hussain, Doctors, Khans, Ansaris and Abbasi and many more.

Its 8 O’clock and here is hamid mir having the The Most Significant people of Pakistan in his show, again discussing THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF PAKISTAN. Now lets talk, talk and talk, because that is the solution of every problem. Let’s swear upon Mushi, let’s curse him as he is the one and the only person responsible for every bad thing happening in this country. We should accept what Hamid Mir, Talat hussain , Kamran Khan, Shahid masood etc etc say. Because they are talking about, THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF PAKISTAN.

Hold on, wasn’t I talking about a “Tension-free” program?

What the hell, my fingers are tired of pressing the next button and I didn’t find one channel worth watching. Every damn third class journalist is trying to Tim Sabistian of hard talk. Now these third ill mannered fools try to tell me that what my most important problem is!

Two strong Mafia have emerged from no where. The Journalist Mafia and the Lawyers Mafia! Every member of the Journalist mafia has been given a one hour talk show to pump as much non-sense as he could in the minds of this foolish nation. Special songs have been prepared to salute the lawyer’s movement. But Why? Are they so law abiding? What happened when a couple of days back Supreme Court ordered Geo to stop humiliating politicians and judiciary, all of a sudden, on the gates of SC every member of this Mafia turned out against SC orders? What is this? On one side they are chanting slogans in favor of Judiciary and what happens when judiciary turns against them? Poor damn hypocrites.

How much freedom do these two Mafia want? Look at the lawyers! They were making bucks before and now they want a bigger share. You remember the famous paindu quote “Khuda thanay kacahree sa bachee” Why? You know why. Every lawyer and every judge in this country is on sale. Got some money, buy ‘em. The country where justice always has a price, you expect more freedom there. God help us then. We will have to earn really hard to buy law if we need it someday. Judiciary is the 3^rd most corrupt department in Pakistan after Police and WAPDA according to transparency international. God help us again.

And there is another phenomenon just evolved, The CIVIL SOCIETY.

Definition according to myPedia “A group of the most corrupt old bureaucrats, who had enjoyed there prime and now they have nothing to do and they don’t want to get retired and came back to get their share with a new label i.e. the civil society”

These thugs have looted Pakistan with both hands and now they have come back as civil society to get their share again. This civil society also include people like Asma Jhangir, who have spared no chance to appreciate India and blame Pakistan for whatever bad is happening around the globe, especially in her beloved country the India.

Now they say, people have voted for us just to bring back ifti. Oh come on; just tell me how many people in Pakistan even know the meaning of the very word ‘the constitution’? Pakistan’s seventy percent population is living in villages, now how on earth are they concerned about the reinstatement of judiciary. And that too in such a difficult time when a single rooti costs 5 Rupees. There is no electricity, we are among the top in the UN’s list of countries facing severe food crisis, we have no investment coming in, no basic infrastructure, markets are flooded with Chinese products, we are facing shortage of water, energy, food, health facilities, we are facing severe brain drain, lack of quality education and what not. And we are told by our politicians and our media mafia that judiciary is the prime issue and because these crisis are a byproduct of the previous government, so we cant handle it. Mr, Ishaq dar, our finance minister, comes up with a new calculation every day and tells us that what the last government did and that becomes the headline of the next day’s newspapers. So again, there is no harm is TALKING. So let’s keep talking. Our PM talks, our ministers’ talks, our media talks, our civil society talks … bacha bacha talks. Now then who will dare to tell a solution to any problem?

For how long will this government last by blaming the previous government? Man, the previous government is gone, it’s your government. Now face the music. You promised a lot, now fulfill ‘em.

But how can I expect a government who is begging UN to come and investigate the death of a third world country’s politician. The so called daughter of the East. God, open your eyes, she was a leader of a third world country and wasn’t a hero. She did nothing for this country; I refuse to accept her as my leader. I request Mr. ten percent that there were more important people whose cases need to be resolved before going for a UN team. People like Dr. Ghulam Murtaza, like Hakim Saeed, people like Gull Ge, people like Gen. Mushtaq Baig and so many more. They are my heroes and they are my mentors, not BB. They did something for the people of this country. But unfortunately if they die they are never entitled as “Shaheeds” but if a political leader is even hanged and charged with wrong doings, they will instantly be called as “Shaheed”.

Back to TV channels again, I was just wondering how many channels does Geo and ARY have; more than a dozen. And tell me about one single program that is “Tension-free”. Have you ever seen a program on any channel, discussing the issues like ‘why so many trees have been cut by CDA in Islamabad and what effect will it make’? or ‘why are their so many beggars on the streets’? Or ‘How should we educate our public to behave in the public areas’? Have you ever saw a program which depicts the true Pakistan. Just imagine a 1 hour program about the historic forts in Pakistan, a documentary program may be. I think they can make more than a thousand documentaries just on this topic. Have they ever made a program which shows the beautiful landscapes of this country, start from Sindh and Balochistan and come up to khabir, tell me about a single geographical location on this globe which has such a versatile landscape? A program on deserts of Pakistan, a program on mountains of Pakistan; do you know we have seven out of 14 highest peaks in the world. Imagine about a program on the wildlife of Pakistan, do you know that we have got some unique species of snakes that are not found else where. Have you ever heard and you can find Grizzlie bears in Pakistan. Imagine about a program on the heritage, cultural festivals and the folk music. We have got the most unique sufi music. We have got amazing people, but we don’t have time to show them on TV as we are too busy in judges’ issues. I am eager to see a TV quiz show but I don’t find any. I am eager to see PTV style dramas but now Geo tells me that SOAP is the real drama, bullshit. Everybody know that’s pure bullshit, why do they show it then?

Damn with corrupt Lawyers and shame on the irresponsible and immature Media and Journalists Mafia.

It matches well with the Latinobarometro poll, which is apparently the most respected poll in Latin America:

Perhaps the most widely respected among all recent polls is the 2007 annual survey of 18 Latin American countries conducted by the Chilean polling firm Latinobarometro, the results of which were released this past January.

According to Latinobarometro, 60% of Venezuelans approved of President Chávez`s job performance in 2007, and 61% approved of the Venezuelan government as a whole. Also, 59% of Venezuelans were either “very satisfied” or “pretty satisfied” with the functioning of democracy in their country, placing Venezuela second only to Uruguay.

The Latinobarometro poll also showed that 52% of Venezuelans said the economic situation in their country was either good or very good in 2007, and that 67% agreed that the state is capable of solving the nation’s problems.

The 60% approval rating matches up well with the historical record in Venezuela as Chavez has often been elected by similar numbers.  This also matches the numbers from a poll recently performed by the Venezuelan Data Analysis Institute:

A national poll conducted between April 24th and May 2nd by the Venezuelan Data Analysis Institute (IVAD) showed that 68.8% of Venezuelans believe the presidency of Hugo Chávez has been excellent, very good, or good, while 28.2% consider it to have been bad, very bad, or terrible.

The article then goes into how opposition polls have found different numbers, but I think I'll lean toward believing the IVAD and Latinobarometro polls more because of their consistency with the known Venezuelan voting record.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/3438

California, if I were totally gay and totally had a partner, I'd totally move to you and get married. Only because you have nicer weather than Massachusetts.

Just because that's not the case didn't mean the news wasn't great. It just means I can be happy for the people who have been dutifully holding the torch (some for decades) in that state, who can now get hitched.

Here in the Keystone, we've got cause to stop holding our breath for just a bit because some Baron Von Bullshit and associated moral majority motherfuckers have indefinitely tabled yet another measure to strictly define marriage as man and wo-man. It's bad enough we've already got one.

The bill included a maze of new red-tape to protect the 'institution of marriage'. Yo, I got news Mr. Senator. While we celebrate around 2 million blessed unions a year nationally, about 1 million of those unions turn out to be not so blessed. See? Making divorce more of a heartbreak by adding red tape isn't going irritate unhappy people into being happy with each other, you pathetic whitebread bigot.

Maybe in, say, twenty years, after a few more states get on the stick, Pennsylvania might start to consider thinking about hearing cases that would overturn the glaring violation of constitutional rights.

As an American, I'm grouchy we don't have an Equal Rights Amendment. I'm sick of the glass ceilings; I'm sick of Ageism (though now that I'm twenty-five, I can finally rent a car. Swell), Racism, and I'm fed up with people not being able to enjoy the bond of marriage, god or no god.

Furthermore, as an American, you keep your damn laws off my body and any female I tango with. So fuck you, Montana. Missionary is boring. But then, so is your state.

Honorary Youth

Rising Energy Costs and the Future of Hospital Work:
[Via The Oil Drum - Discussions about Energy and Our Future]

This is a talk given by Dan Bednarz to a group of nurses. The talk was given at the House of Delegates Meeting of the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses & Allied Professionals (Pasnap) in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on April 29, 2008.

Dan is a healthcare consultant who tries to get people in healthcare (including public health) to start thinking about peak oil and climate change issues and how to address them. In Dan's words, he is "a healthcare consultant building a consortium among public health and health care stakeholders and actors to address peak oil, climate change and related environmental issues". Dan posts on TOD under the name Danb.

Hello, it's nice to be with you today. My intent is to give you a realistic take on the future of your profession by explaining why healthcare and nursing will be transformed by rising energy costs. Is there danger ahead? You bet. It's going to be difficult, probably life-changing for all Americans. Here’s why: the scale of our energy predicament is enormous, unprecedented and grossly misunderstood by institutional leaders and most of the media.

I know some of you may be wondering, Energy scarcity? That's someone else's problem; put this guy in touch with geologists and politicians.

So let's step back for the big picture.
[break]
Overview

A few numbers to set the context:

•The amount of crude oil pumped out of the ground has been on a bumpy plateau since May of 2005. Until then oil production was steadily increasing about 2% a year-–with periodic declines--and the world had a daily surplus, or emergency cushion. That surplus is gone, everything produced, supply, is immediately purchased, demand. Whether or not the world has reached "peak oil"-–the point at which yearly total worldwide extraction cannot be increased--this 3 year plateau indicates that the era of cheap energy is over.

•Oil is now over $100.00 a barrel. It was $10.00 a barrel in November 1998.

•Oil powers 90% of all transportation and it is essential to food production and distribution; it is the primary ingredient in many products-–think plastics, petrochemicals, and clothing. It is fair to say that all our institutions, especially medicine, are dependent upon oil, the lynchpin resource that keeps the economy humming and allows it to grow.

•And it’s not just oil that’s getting scarce. Natural gas in Pittsburgh went up 30% on April 1st, to $12.50 per MCF (thousand cubic feet); it was $2.50 in 2001. Typically, the cost of natural gas drops after the winter but here we are facing higher prices during the summer.

•Coal is becoming scarce in many countries and more expensive here; its price has about doubled in the past year. It is our main source of electricity. In about 15 years the world may hit a peak in its production, and this combined with the fact that natural gas-–the secondary source of electricity generation--simultaneously will be at or past its peak, poses a threat to our supply of electricity.

•To put a human face on this, a polling agency found in December 2007 that 12% of Americans planned to put their winter energy bills on their credit card-–no wonder Christmas spending was down. An article in this past Saturday's New York Times details the rising number of people unable to pay their winter utility bills and now facing service cutoffs. Many hospitals in California are on the verge of bankruptcy; rising energy costs-–in tandem with other increasing costs--could be a breaking point for them. Further, we are merely at the beginning of what some of you recognize as Jim Kunstler's poetic phrase "The Long Emergency."

•The total amount of energy the world gets from fossil fuels is predicted to peak in 2010, so we’ve probably got about two years before systemic disruptions and breakdowns become commonplace and then worsen. Even now we see the airlines struggling, food prices soaring, and we have a fiscal/financial crisis of unknown scope that is connected to the price of oil in numerous ways I cannot delve into today.

Energy usage in hospitals is increasing 4-8 fold each year. How in the world are we going to be able to afford medical costs when the price of energy increases also? This is a really difficult problem. And oil is not only important for energy. Almost everything used in a hospital includes plastics made from fossil fuels. These have also increased in price.

He concludes with these statement. It is critically important to understand how the cost of energy not only the cars we drive but the medicine we expect. This is also heading towards a crisis point unless we change our energy policies.

1.I feel safe observing that the vast majority of insurance companies, medical associations, HMOs and other hospital associations will resist facing the stark consequences of peak oil because they are benefiting from the status quo. On the other hand, those hospitals with a mission for stewardship of the earth and charitable activity are likely to be among the first to recognize the need for radical change in medical care.

2.In the same vein, it's obvious that nursing is not prospering even though it is in some ways the backbone of the system. Your profession's main themes for reforming the healthcare system should center-–I hate to use the word "should"--around radical resource conservation and efficiency, and the elimination of wasteful and environmentally harmful practices. In other words, reduce, reuse, recycle, and repair.

3.Simultaneously, there will be a political struggle for the soul of healthcare: We will look to other nations with decent health systems where three core values predominate: 1) no one goes bankrupt due to medical status; 2) no one is denied treatment for any reason, and 3) preventive and treatment medicine are integrated. This means one response to energy downturn leads to healthcare for all. The alternative to this is medicine becoming something for the wealthy few, with the rest of society receiving what amounts to triage-–or, alternatively, home care or "folk medicine." In some respects these alternatives represent the familiar themes of the Jeffersonian/egalitarian and Hamiltonian/elitist traditions.

4.By forming a coalition with public health and even some of the growing number of doctors who favor a "single-payer" system, nursing can shape the transformation of our healthcare system.

Technorati Tags: Environment

More than 5,000 convenience store owners have not yet installed “garage-style” coverings that will hide cigarettes from consumers to meet new regulations, the Ontario Convenience Stores Association says. The group is calling on the government to grant an extension past the May 31 compliance deadline.

“There is so much confusion,” association president Dave Bryans said today. “There are only six or seven companies that can install the covers and there’s many stores who won’t have it done on time.”

...

“But this is not about punishing the little guy,” Health Promotion Ministry spokesman Rick Byun said. “This is about helping people get healthy.”

True, moron, many store owners will get healthy by doing arm curls all day.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history,"

Of course, what Bush failed to mention was that the Senator he was referring to was a Republican.

Howard Dean demanded that Senator McCain show himself to be a decent man with integrity and denounce the President's hateful and inappropriate comments. The Senator from Arizona refused and showed his true colors, resorting to fear:

"This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?"

McCain also brought up Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who ceded part of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, furthering Bush's pathetic attempt at "Guilt By Analogy."

Senator Obama wasn't campaigning today but his campaign responded that:

"It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack, George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

However, others such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee described the comments for what they were. Sen. Clinton said:

"President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush."

Senator Biden said:

“This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement. He is the guy who has weakened us,” he said. “He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.”

Senator Biden also later described the President's tactics as a "long-distance swiftboating."

The Democrats did the right thing, but John McCain has shown again that he's not a "maverick". He's simply yet another fear-mongering Rovian Republican.

In both the cases, the Parishad has accused the ruling Sikkim Democratic Front (SDF) of the crimes.

The Maruti Gypsy of A.D. Subba, the president of the Parishad, with registration number SK 02 1176 was already burning when a passing police team doused the flames just in time. The car had been parked in front of Subba’s house at Daragaon, Tadong.

Almost at the same time, in Ranipul, 10km downhill from here, an alert police team spotted a lighted bottle lamp with petrol inside and the wick burning below the fuel tank of Bharat Basnett’s Maruti WagonR with registration number SK 02 5537.

Separate FIRs have been lodged at the Sadar police station here and at Ranipul. In the case of Subba’s car, the Parishad has named SDF leader Beg Bahadur Rai and members of the youth wing of the ruling party as suspects.

Vehicle burning seems to have emerged as a trend in Sikkim politics in recent times with 18 of them having been set ablaze this year.

“The crimes committed on the eve of State Day only prove that there is no democracy in Sikkim despite 33 years having passed since the state opted for it and merged with the Indian union,” said Subba.

The spokesperson of the SDF, K. T Gyaltshen, has denied the allegations.

A message issued for State Day by chief Minister Pawan Chamling read: “The SDF is like the Rock of Gibraltar, which will safeguard the safety and interest of the Sikkimese people against all evil designs of the anti-development and anti-progress (sic) people.” [The Telegraph]

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

By ADAM LIPTAK

The California Supreme Court, striking down two state laws that had limited marriages to unions between a man and a woman, ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

The 4-to-3 decision, drawing on a ruling 60 years ago that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, would make California the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow same-sex marriages.

The decision, which becomes effective in 30 days unless the court grants a stay, was greeted with celebrations at San Francisco City Hall, where thousands of same-sex marriages were thrown out by the courts four years ago.

Picture from The New York Times

It was denounced by religious and conservative groups that promised to support an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would amend the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriages and overturn the decision.

Same-sex marriage has been a highly contentious issue in presidential and Congressional elections, but it was not immediately clear what role the ruling would have this year. The Democratic and Republican candidates for president have all said they believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, but Republicans could use a surge in same-sex marriages in the most populous state to invigorate conservative voters.

Given the historic, cultural, symbolic and constitutional significance of marriage, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority, the state cannot limit its availability to opposite-sex couples.

“In view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship,” Chief Justice George wrote, “the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.”

Supporters of same-sex marriage called the ruling a milestone.

“This decision will give Americans the lived experience that ending exclusion from marriage helps families and harms no one,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, who noted that same-sex marriages were legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa and Spain.

Opponents said they expected the proposed ballot initiative, which has been submitted to election officials with more than one million signatures, to pass in November.

“The court was wrong from top to bottom on this one,” said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage. “The court brushed aside the entire history and meaning of marriage in our tradition.”

About 110,000 same-sex couples live in California, according to census data. The state has a strong domestic partnership law that gives couples who register nearly all of the benefits and burdens of heterosexual marriage.

A majority of the justices said that was not enough.

The court left open the possibility that the Legislature could use a term other than “marriage” to denote state-sanctioned unions, so long as that term was used across the board for opposite-sex and same-sex couples.

The ban on same-sex marriage was based on a law enacted in 1977 and a statewide initiative approved by the voters in 2000, both defining marriage as limited to unions between a man and a woman. The question before the court was whether those laws violated provisions of the state’s Constitution protecting equality and fundamental rights.

Mathew D. Staver, a lawyer with Liberty Counsel, a public interest firm that defends traditional marriage, said it would ask the court to stay its decision until the November election, meaning that the decision could be overturned before becoming effective.

“It would only be logical” to grant a stay, Mr. Staver said, given the confusion that would arise if same-sex marriages were available for a few months.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a statement that he respected the ruling and did not support a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

In a dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage, particularly given the increased legal protections for same-sex couples enacted in recent years.

“But a bare majority of this court,” Justice Baxter wrote, “not satisfied with the pace of democratic change, now abruptly forestalls that process and substitutes, by judicial fiat, its own social policy views for those expressed by the People themselves.”

Also dissenting, Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote that her personal sympathies were with the plaintiffs challenging the bans on same-sex marriage. But Justice Corrigan said the courts should allow the political process to address the question.

“We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic partnership statutes to continue to take root,” she wrote. “If there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box.”

The Supreme Court was the first state high court to strike down a law barring interracial marriage, in a 1948 decision called Perez v. Sharp. The vote in Perez, like the one in Thursday’s decision, was 4 to 3. The United States Supreme Court did not follow suit until 1967.

At present, six of the seven justices on the California court, including all the dissenters, were appointed by Republican governors.

The decision was rooted in two rationales, and both drew on the Perez case.

The first was that marriage is a fundamental constitutional right.

“The right to marry,” Chief Justice George wrote, “represents the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with a person of one’s choice and, as such, is of fundamental significance both to society and to the individual.”

Chief Justice George conceded that “as an historical matter in this state marriage has always been restricted to a union between a man and a woman.” But “tradition alone,” he continued, does not justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right. Bans on interracial marriage were, he wrote, sanctioned by the state for many years.

In a second rationale from the interracial case, the court struck down the laws banning same-sex marriage on equal protection grounds, also adopting a new standard of review in the process.

When courts weigh whether distinctions among people or groups violate the right to equal protection they generally require just a rational basis for the distinction, a relatively easy standard to meet. But when the discrimination is based on race, sex or religion, the courts generally require a more substantial justification.

Discrimination based on sexual orientation, the majority ruled on Thursday, also requires that sort of more rigorous justification. The court acknowledged that it was the first state high court to adopt the standard, strict scrutiny, in sexual orientation cases.

Lawyers for the state identified two interests to justify reserving the term marriage for heterosexual unions — tradition and the will of the majority. Chief Justice George said neither was sufficient.

Still, Chief Justice George took pains to emphasize the limits of the ruling. It does not require ministers, priests or rabbis to perform same-sex marriages, he said.

He added that the decision did “not affect the constitutional validity of the existing prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.”

Other state high courts to consider the question of same-sex marriage in recent years, including those in New York, New Jersey and Washington, have been closely divided but stopped short of striking down state laws forbidding it. A decision from the Connecticut Supreme Court is expected shortly.

What an idiot. He's got nothing beyond screaming appeasement 500 times. Pathetic.

Recently a stumbled upon a sweet article from a collection of aging 1968ers intellectuals on how they spent the fateful year. My favourite is as usual Christopher Hitchens,who recollects on his golden boy days at Oxford and how he went to Cuba to harvest coffee to support communism. That is until Fidel Castro denounced the Warsaw pact invasion of Czechoslovakia and little Christopher woke up.

Coincidentally my parents were caught up in the middle of the invasion. My father was nearly shot by some random Russian brute from the Urals for refusing to take down a flower on his shirt as a sign of protest against the invasion. While large scale purges of the cadres withing the party and a systematic elimination of the entire civic society was going on in Prague, the American intellectuals were living up their historic civilizing mission to rid the US of the evils of capitalism and instigate true "democracy". It never occured to them that perhaps the Czechs might have just wanted a little more breathing space and the same material goods which they were rebelling against.

The other article is from the feminist Kay S. Hymowitz. While I commend the attempts of an assortment of elite white female intellectuals to rid the American society of the baggage of poisonously judgmental and sexually oppressive Anglo-Saxon sex mores, one can but laugh at some of the attempts to do just that:

joys of “polymorphous perversity.”
In the most radical precincts of the Left, women went to inspired extremes to rid themselves of their sexual “hang-ups.”

Smash Monogamy” program requiring all members to sleep with one another; they wanted to wipe out “sick bourgeois habits.”

To Friedan’s dismay, they organized “consciousness-raising” groups where, as they vented about male oppression, conversation often turned to their own disappointing sexual experiences.

Nor, with all its permutations—lesbian feminism, difference feminism, lipstick feminism, what have you—did the movement for women’s rights ever come to a mature accounting of the sexual revolution’s drawbacks, which continue to perplex the lives of young women today.

She was elegantly regal, fiercely intellectual, and transparently neurotic; I remember feeling that this was a woman to whom something awful had happened. Yet Atkinson’s weirdness didn’t stop the sisterhood from listening intently as she pronounced marriage “legalized rape” and concluded—in her ultimate gift to womanhood—that “love has to be destroyed.”

And so they age and get bitter and more bitter with every passing Bush year. At least today the Supreme Court of California gave the Californian lesbians and gays the right to marriage. The 1968ers, however, have a strange capacity to pass on their disappointment with their revolution on to their children, some of whom pick up the fight with renewed vigour.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

I'll start with something in the news:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7402101.stm

In a nutshell, Obama called a reporter "sweetie."  She doesn't much care; everyone else got their undies in a bunch.

I know it's diminutive, and I know women are demeaned all the time with language that refers to us as food (cupcake, sweetie) or animals (cougar, kitten, shrew).  And I know as a tiny female who looks younger than she is, I'm desensitized.  This, however, is just not that big of a deal.

First, there's worse.  If he said "later, bitch!" I'd totally get the fuss.  The intent wasn't at all malicious.  Second, I think there's bigger battles to fight on the sexism field, and I think nicknames for men are equally limiting.  Not every guy is as athletic as "champ," "sport," and "dude" would imply.  Third, what do you call someone if you don't know their name?  Sir and ma'am are ageist.  "Mister" works for guys, but comes prepackaged with the "Miss/Ms/Mrs" debacle.

I think the English language needs a neutral word meaning "individual whose name I do not know but wish to be polite to."  And gender-neutral pronouns.

Why Isn’t Obama Bothered By Terrorist Support?

The fact that receiving Hamas support does not appear to disturb Obama should worry us even more than the fact that terrorists see something in him that they really like.

Pajamas Media

The 2008 Presidential campaign has already seen a number of outlandish, and patently false, attacks. The idea that Islamic terrorists are picking a side in selection of an American president might seem to be yet another for the list…if it didn’t have its basis in truth.

A few weeks ago, Ahmed Yousef, a top political adviser for terrorist group Hamas, said in an interview on WABC radio in New York that the group supports Obama. “We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef explained. Hamas, which seized control of the Palestinian Gaza last June, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department.

The Obama campaign has claimed to be “flattered” by the fact that the Hamas endorsement compared their candidate to Kennedy. Obama himself told the Atlantic magazine that he understands why Hamas would support him. “It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, ‘This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush.’” Obama concluded that the perception is “legitimate” as long as they understand he will be “unyielding” in his support for Israel.

So what have Barack’s Hamas friends been up to lately? Well, on the very day President Bush arrived in Israel to mark the nation’s 60^th anniversary and to renew his push for a Palestinian state as part of elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Barack’s buddies fired a rocket into an Israeli shopping mall. The mall was devastated, and 14 innocent civilians were seriously injured.

The Hamas endorsement of Obama is even more interesting when viewed against the backdrop of the group’s aggressive promotion of violence among young Palestinians in Gaza and in the context of a recent Al-Jazeera story about how young Palestinians in Gaza have banded together to call American voters at random asking them to vote for Obama. Rockets by night, Obama phone banks by day?

“It all started at the time of the US primaries,” says the pro-Obama Palestinian organizer, 23 year old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab. “After studying Obama’s electronic campaign manifesto I thought this is a man that’s capable of change inside of America. As for potential change in the Middle East, he can also do that if he can bring peace to the area. At least this is what we hope.” The full Al-Jazeera television report can be viewed here.

Obama’s campaign may argue that there is no apparent direct link between the young Palestinian men and the Hamas terrorist organization. But the young phone-bankers have also received coverage from Ramattan, the Palestinian news agency, in what reads like a Hamas-generated anti-Israel press release.

Can anyone seriously believe that young Palestinian men are allowed free and easy access to operate an internet phone bank in the impoverished and violent Gaza Strip — and bring that effort to the attention of the international media — without Hamas’ knowledge and approval? The support that Barack Obama is receiving from avowed terrorist enemies of America should bother him. The fact that it does not bother him should bother us even more than the fact that terrorists see something in him that they really like.

Did you hear Nawaz Sharif even once mention the economy in his press conference Monday night when he announced he was ditching the coalition government?

Did he once in his recent media events offer any solutions?

He generally touched on “the problems that all of you know” and pretended that somehow the question of the reinstatement of a bunch of politicized judges was the real reason why all of us are facing economic problems.

Read these two brief, simple and brilliantly written reports on the Pakistani economy. They offer a balanced picture of the good and the bad. After reading them, you will notice how the two writers have more common sense than some of our leaders, unfortunately.

www.cpifinancial.net

Investors take long view on Pakistan economic turmoil
By: Mike Gallagher

Falling rupee coupled with high food and fuel prices in Pakistan causes concern for investors. World Bank says “painful adjustments” are necessary to overhaul economy.

Karachi. Photograph: M. Imran.

Reports have emerged that some investors are pulling out of Pakistan as a depreciating rupee caused by a weakening dollar and political uncertainty is blunting investor appetite. The rupee has dived by nearly 9 per cent since the start of the year to a little under 70 rupees to the dollar. The Pakistani currency has fell by two rupees in just one day’s trading last week amid concerns over rising inflation, which is at a 13 year high and falling foreign investment. Pakistan’s low foreign exchange reserves means that the central bank could struggle to keep the rupee above the 70 to a dollar mark.

Pakistan is currently attempting to access a $500 million loan facility from the World Bank, which it hopes to have before the end of June, although some of the conditions that the World Bank might impose are reportedly making the Pakistani authorities.

The World Bank said in a statement that Pakistan would need to undergo "painful adjustments" if it was to be able to stave off the effects of high inflation which has been brought on by a combination of high oil

prices and soaring commodities costs.

World Bank vice president Praful Patel bluntly said that Pakistan had not yet reached crisis point, "but the economic picture for Pakistan is not good. Growth can only continue if Pakistan adjusts to the new global reality, which includes high prices for oil, commodities and foodstuffs such as wheat," he said.

This was echoed by the central bank. "We are not in a crisis like situation. Several measures are in place to remove macro-economic imbalances," Shamshad Akhtar, the State Bank of Pakistan Governor said. She also said that they would continue to support foreign exchange rate stability to “curb excessive short term fluctuation".

However, Patel said, “On the issue of food, Pakistan, I would say, is in an even more difficult situation that Bangladesh. They have a two million tonne deficit in the wheat harvest this year, so they need to import wheat at a time when it is simply not available and what is available is at a very high price.”

Meanwhile, a report on Pakistan’s Geo TV said that Pakistani real estate companies have been moving capital out of the country to the tune of at least $15 billion so far to invest in Gulf real estate.

One analyst said, “People who were stung by the credit crunch had been looking at Pakistan, even before the Bhutto assassination took place and while the political situation is becoming more stable, you need to look at what kinds of deals are taking place in the infrastructure market there. I think there are deals still happening, but it is hard to say accurately what is happening off the back of the current situation.”

All this comes at a time when several financial institutions from the GCC and South East Asia have announced they were moving into the troubled country to set up banks or insurance companies by teaming up with local entities or by going it alone. The likes of Al Baraka, Habib bank, Oman International Bank, Dubai Islamic Bank and most recently Maybank, have entered the country. Maybank said it was preparing to pay around $930 million to acquire a 20 per cent stake in MCB Bank.

In the summer of 2007, Qatar Islamic Bank, the fifth largest Islamic bank in the world and the largest Islamic bank in the Qatar, said it was planning to launch an Islamic bank in Pakistan with paid up capital of $100 million.

Ahmad Barghout, senior manager of the corporate investment and developments group at Qatar Islamic Bank speaking to CPI Financial said, “Both Pakistani and GCC companies are opportunity driven. There are opportunities in both areas and I think investors are taking the long term view.”

While the current economic and political instability in Pakistan is causing concern in some circles, Mansoor Khan, managing director of Lahore-based law firm Khan Associates told CPI Financial that conventional banks would probably be more affected by the turmoil than their Islamic counterparts.

“The conventional banks are western, risk-averse and do not understand ‘Pakistan risk.’ Islamic banks are primarily Middle Eastern or Asian and have a better understanding of the mentality of Pakistan. They will not be put off,” he said.

Source: CPIfinancial.net

Pakistan Inflation Accelerates to Fastest in 25 Years (Update3)

By Farhan Sharif

May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistan's inflation accelerated at the fastest pace in at least 25 years in April because of surging food and fuel prices, straining a six-week-old coalition government already on the brink of collapse.

Consumer prices jumped 17.21 percent from a year earlier after gaining 14.1 percent in March, the Federal Bureau of Statistics said in a statement in Islamabad today.

Finance Minister Ishaq Dar's party said it will quit the coalition led by the Pakistan Peoples Party tomorrow, hampering the government's ability to rein in prices. Dar said May 4 that oil and food prices are undermining the fight against poverty.

``If the trend continues, it will cause serious concerns to the new government,'' said Farhan Rizvi, an economist at JS Global Capital Ltd. in Karachi. ``Oil prices have added to already high food prices, which directly hit the masses.''

Oil at more than $125 a barrel and lower wheat output are straining state finances as food and fuel are subsidized in the nation of 160 million people. Hundreds of people queue for hours outside state-run shops to buy subsidized wheat flour and other essential goods across the nation.

Food prices in April rose 25.5 percent from a year earlier and fuel climbed 8.6 percent, according to the data. Inflation is the highest since at least June 1983, according to JS Capital. The statistics bureau doesn't have data preceding the year 2000.

Stocks, Currency

Pakistan's key stock index rose 0.4 percent to 14,286.61 after falling 4.9 percent last week, the biggest weekly decline in almost nine months. The rupee rose 1 percent against the dollar to 69, after losing 6.8 percent last week, the most since 1998. Inflation data was released after markets closed.

Almost half the population of Pakistan, the world's seventh- most-populous nation, faces difficulty gaining access to affordable food because of the soaring cost of cereals, a World Food Program spokesman Paul Risley said on April 23.

The Rome-based United Nations agency increased its estimate of the number of so-called food insecure people in Pakistan to 77 million from 60 million.

The nation may import more than 1.5 million metric tons of wheat this year to ease the shortage, farm minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali said on April 24.

The average price of pulses has risen about 50 percent since January, said Fareed Qureshi, chairman of the Karachi Retail Market Association. Average edible oil prices have climbed 16 percent since the start of the year and rice is 26 percent more costly than it was on Jan. 1, he said.

``Pakistan's prices of wheat, flour, edible oil and pulses are at a record now,'' Qureshi said.

Oil Bill

Pakistan, which imports about 85 percent of the oil it uses, increased prices of gasoline for the first time in more than 22 months on Feb. 29 after record crude prices increased import costs for the nation's refiners. Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority, the regulator, has since raised prices three more times.

The trade deficit widened to $2.3 billion in April from $1.1 billion because of the rising oil import bill, the Bureau of Statistics said on May 10.

The central bank increased its benchmark interest rate for a second straight meeting on Jan. 31 to tame inflation. The discount rate for commercial lenders was raised half a percentage point to 10.5 percent for the six months ending June 30. Inflation may exceed the government's target of 6.5 percent this year, curbing economic growth, the central bank said on March 31.

``The inflation is paced mainly by food and oil prices,'' said Suleman Akhtar, an economist at Foundation Securities in Karachi. ``In current conditions, a rise in interest rates would not do much.''

China, India

Rising commodity prices are also stoking inflation in neighboring India and China. Prices in China accelerated to near the fastest in more than 11 years, the government said today, while inflation in India is at a 3 1/2 year high.

Pakistan's consumer prices may jump as much as 9 percent in this fiscal year ending June 30, exceeding the target of 6.5 percent, the central bank estimates. Annual inflation may reach 12.5 percent, said JS Global's Rizvi.

Sharif, who leads the second-largest party in parliament, said today he will withdraw from the PPP-led government because of a dispute over sacked judges.

``Reinstating the judges was a condition for joining the coalition government,'' Sharif said, after meeting leaders of his Pakistan Muslim League in Islamabad. ``We will continue to support the PPP-led government on an issue to issue basis.''

To contact the reporter on this story: Farhan Sharif in Karachi at fsharif2@bloomberg.net.

[imitating the Admiral] "The average Rooskie, son, don't take a dump without a plan." Wait a minute. We don't have to figure out how to get the crew off the sub. He's already done that, he would have had to. All we gotta do is figure out what he's gonna do. So how's he gonna get the crew of the sub. They have to want to get off. How do you get a crew to want to get off a submarine? How do you get a crew to want to get off a nuclear sub...
[eureka!]

Someone doesn't have a plan, or they're friggin' geniuses. Think about this. There's going to be Google data going to ESRI users and ESRI user data will be visible to the Google indexers. That leaves us with some unanswered questions:

• What is going to be the EULA going to look like on both sides?
• Will data made w/ gData be the user's data, or Google or ESRI's data if it's exposed to Google's web?
• Will the analysis layers be indexed by Google and will they own a copy?
• Will "Big Iron GIS" users even want to expose their data to Google and the web?
• Where's Microsoft in this? ESRI + Microsoft makes for quick and easy GIS. Does (ESRI + Microsoft) * Google = Cloud Geoprocessing? Or, Google using Microsoft server and database platforms?

Getting back to ESRI users exposing data. Some of those users don't let that stuff out of their command line. A friend was telling me today that cities in his region are ultra resistant to sharing data with other cities. So, how does Jack get his users to expose their data?

That's what I really want to know.

The typical ESRI user "is an expert." Or, at least in their own mind; and they typically don't want to be usurped in anyway. Their Matrix gets turned off like that doll house by SAP. You may get a county to do something, but local sites are going to be a pain in the butt to turn onto the web by ESRI. Unless it's ESRI's responsibility in the pre-nup to bring in the "trusted interlocutors" to Google.

Something is askew.

On a side note: I spoke with Lisa Parks, who spoke yesterday about slippy map makers framing spatial media context, today. She has a grad student tracking the changes to the Google license agreement almost daily. That is because it changes almost daily.

She wants to give legal status to illegal immigrants by granting 5 year visas to some 1.35 million illegal aliens!

According to Steve Elliot of Grassfire.org, it is her revisiting a past failure to push her amnesty agenda.

"Tentatively called the Emergency Agriculture Relief Act of 2008, this is a slight-of-hand, scaled-down version of Feinstein's AgJobs amnesty bill that she had previously introduced."

That was from today's alert email he sent out. Considering the one yesterday (whose headlines I also read myself), do we want this nonsense to continue?

Scanning the headlines this morning sickened me.

In Virginia (my home state), an illegal alien raped a 4 year-old child.

In Tennessee, a suspected illegal alien raped a 15 year-old girl just hours after his release from prison.

Another raped and impregnated a 9 year-old child. It has been widely reported that she has just given birth!

390 illegals were arrested following a raid of a meat-packing plant in Postville, Iowa.

(Source: Grassfire.org Alliance email newsletter - Wed, 14 May 2008.)

I urge my fellow Oklahomans to contact your Senators and tell them we are tired of our political leaders trying to give our nation away.

Contact:

Sen. Inhofe 202-224-4721
Sen. Coburn 202-224-5754

During a campaign stop in Sterling Heights, Michigan, a reporter, Peggy Agar tried to ask Obama a question, he told her to "Hold on Sweetie." If Barack is trying to be smooth, this isn't it. I haven't heard anything like this since a drunk Mel Gibson called a female police officer "Sugar Titties." Well, at least it wasn't Helen Johnson he was calling Sweetie. He did call and apologize via voicemail: "Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next." He still never answered her intitial question which was "How are you going to help the American autoworker?" Barack has continously proven how unsmooth he is. Shooting pool in West Virginia in a shirt and tie, not smooth. Bowling in Pennsylvania, this wouldn't have even gotten him one of those cheezy bleached blonde bowling alley babes, not smooth. Once again Obama is proving his inexperience as a politician. Is this an example of his future diplomacy?  When he meets a female diplomat, is he going to call them "Honey" or "Darlin'?"  Just what we need is more blundering in the White House after the last eight years from someone else who doesn't have a clue about how to do the job. Not Smooth!

LET'S GO TO THE VIDEO TAPE! OBAMA IN STERLING HEIGHTS:

 
 

DOLLY PARTON TAKES ON HOWARD STERN

Dolly Parton is going to sue Howard Stern for well, being Howard. He took some clips from her audio book and cut them up so that they say some absolutely digusting statements. The cutting was pretty poor and you can easily tell that the clipping is a hack job. "I have never been so shocked, hurt and humiliated in all my life," Parton said in a statement on Wednesday. "I cannot believe what Howard Stern has done to me. In a blue million years, I would never have such vulgar things come out of my mouth. They have done editing or some sort of trickery to make this horrible, horrible thing. Please accept my apology for them and certainly know I had nothing to do with this." She concluded: "If there was ever going to be a lawsuit, it's going to be over this. Just wanted you to know that I am completely devastated by this." This is a bit that Howard has done on his satellite radio show and she's not the first to get the treatment. I think she should leave it go, because she's just giving Howard more publicity. He'll make more this way than the suit will be worth. The best thing to do with Howard is ignore him.

 TEXAS MAN SHOOTS HIMSELF SCRATCHING HIS BACK

Jorge Espinal had an itch he had to scratch. He left the table where he had been drinking and playing poker with his buddies. Yes alcohol was involved here. Go figure. Something possessed him, I'm guessing stupidity, to use a revolver as a back scratcher. It was loaded, like he was and he shot himself in the back. He was taken to a Fort Worth hospital and treated for non-life threatening injuries. Can he prosecute himself for assault? His friends though he was joking until they saw the blood. I guess they couldn't believe he was that stupid either. 

WORLD'S SMALLEST HELICOPTER HONORS DAVINCI

Seventy-five-year-old Gennai Yanagisawa says he will fly his one-man helicopter in the city of Vinci, near Florence, Italy, on May 25. Yanagisawa describes the demonstration as a tribute to the Renaissance-era visionary's original idea of an "aerial screw." It looks like something you'd expect from a James Bond film. "Italian people seem to welcome my realizing of DaVinci's idea in his birthplace," he said. "I want to make my best flight so that I can live up to their expectations." Vinci Mayor Dario Parrini offered him an opportunity to fly his helicopter when the two met in the Italian city. I think old Leonardo would have loved this and would have wanted to go for a ride. I can just see him buzzing around giggling his butt off, that hair and beard blowing behind him.

By Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch (Tom Engelhardt)
May 15, 2008

Kiss American Security Goodbye

15 Numbers That Add Up to an Age of Insecurity

Once upon a time, I studied the Chinese martial art of Tai Chi -- until, that is, I realized I would never locate my "chi." At that point, I threw in the towel and took up Western exercise. Still, the principle behind Tai Chi stayed with me -- that you could multiply the force of an act by giving way before the force of others; that a smaller person could use the strength of a bigger one against him.

Now, jump to September 11, 2001 and its aftermath -- and you know the Tai Chi version of history from there. Think of it as a grim cosmic joke -- that the 9/11 attacks, as apocalyptic as they looked, were anything but. The true disasters followed and the wounds were largely self-inflicted, as the most militarily powerful nation on the planet used its own force to disable itself.

Before that fateful day, the Bush administration had considered terrorism, Osama bin Laden, and al-Qaeda subjects for suckers and wusses. What they were intent on was pouring money into developing an elaborate boondoggle of a missile defense system against future nuclear attacks by rogue states. Those Cold War high frontiersmen (and women) couldn't get enough of the idea of missiling up. That, after all, was where the money and the fun seemed to be. Nuclear was where the big boys -- the nation states -- played. "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.…," the CIA told the President that August. Yawn.

After 9/11, of course, George W. Bush and his top advisors almost instantly launched their crusade against Islam and then their various wars, all under the rubric of the Global War on Terror. (As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pungently put the matter that September, "We have a choice -- either to change the way we live, which is unacceptable, or to change the way that they live; and we chose the latter.") By then, they were already heading out to "drain the swamp" of evil doers, 60 countries worth of them, if necessary. Meanwhile, they moved quickly to fight the last battle at home, the one just over, by squandering vast sums on an American Maginot Line of security. The porous new Department of Homeland Security, the NSA, the FBI, and other acronymic agencies were to lock down, surveill, and listen in on America. All this to prevent "the next 9/11."

In the process, they would treat bin Laden's scattered al-Qaeda network as if it were the Nazi or Soviet war machine (even comically dubbing his followers "Islamofascists"). In the blinking of an eye, and in the rubble of two enormous buildings in downtown Manhattan, bin Laden and his cronies had morphed from nobodies into supermen, a veritable Legion of Doom. (There was a curious parallel to this transformation in World War II. Before Pearl Harbor, American experts had considered the Japanese -- as historian John Dower so vividly documented in his book War Without Mercy -- bucktoothed, near-sighted military incompetents whose war planes were barely capable of flight. On December 8, 1941, they suddenly became a race of invincible supermen without, in the American imagination, ever passing through a human incarnation.)

...continued

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Who You Calling Activist?
California's gay-marriage decision reflects the difference between judicial activism and, um, judging.

By Dahlia Lithwick

When it comes to gay marriage, California is a hotbed of activism. Their activist Legislature has twice passed bills that would legalize gay marriage, and their activist governor has twice vetoed those bills. That same activist Legislature also enacted a ban on same-sex marriage in 1977, and its activist citizenry passed a statewide ballot initiative in 2000 doing the same thing. While polls show that Californians are increasingly supportive of gay marriage, other activist citizens have been collecting what now amounts to 1.1 million signatures to amend their constitution in November to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." But then today the state's activist Supreme Court got in on the activist action, finding in a 4-3 decision that the California ban on same-sex marriage violates the "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship." That makes everybody an activist in California, just by virtue of the fact that they are acting. (Let it be noted that it's particularly activist of the state Legislature and its citizens to be banning and legalizing gay marriage all at the same time.)

In case you are confused about whose superactivist-hero powers trump here, let me add that California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger—who had vetoed both attempts by the state Legislature to enact bills legalizing same-sex marriage on the grounds that they would override the more than 60 percent of the state's voters who'd approved 2000 referendum—announced today that he would abide by the state Supreme Court's decision. "I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement today. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

So—and in the event that you are scoring this along with me from the bleachers—that means the Governator, who was once prepared to thwart the will of the Legislature in order to uphold the will of the people, is not prepared to usurp the prerogative of the courts to thwart the will of the people or the Legislature. Nor will he back any future attempts of the people to usurp the powers of the courts. Which by some lights makes him a seriously activist governor and by others makes him the biggest wuss in history.

Let's stipulate that these gay-marriage decisions inevitably degenerate into cartoonish attacks on the judiciary and—in an election year—even more cartoonish battles over judicial ideology. Every time a state court reads its own constitution and precedent to find a right to gay marriage, the critics always cry activism. They do that before they read the opinion, which means they can do it regardless of what said state constitution and precedents say. If the decision is for gay marriage, it's activist, and whatever the court did to get there is activism. Once you recognize this fact, you can read today's opinion (and the instant criticism of the opinion) for what it is: Even though the majority did what it was supposed to do and offered up a rigorous close reading of state law and precedent, it will be defended and also criticized solely in terms of judicial elitism and overreaching. That's too bad. There's some pretty interesting law stuff in here. But the only real fight that emerges from today's Supreme Court decision (all but one of the justices was appointed by a Republican governor, incidentally) is over what makes a judge an activist and who can properly say "nyah, nyah, nyah" come November.

Given that no majority opinion allowing for gay marriage could ever have been crafted that would not have been excoriated as the work of "arrogant, elitist, activist judges," judicial anxiety over that fact dominates both the opinion and dissent. The justices start off on the defensive and somehow get more defensive from there. Whether this makes for quality opinion writing is yours to decide.

Those opposed to gay marriage were already calling today's decision "activist" long before they'd read all 172 pages of the opinion. Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Glen Lavy quickly opined that "the court's decision clearly demonstrates that marriage is not ultimately safe from tampering by activists and others in government until the voters have amended the constitution." Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage-California, went one further with the judge bashery: "[T]hese out-of-touch California judges will not have the last word on marriage. … A state marriage amendment is the only way to put Prop 22 safely from the reach of activist judges who cannot tell the difference between marriage and bigotry."

All of that plays right into John McCain's latest cut-and-paste rant about how "the moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it." If Sen. McCain wants to take a moment to explain the difference between "making" and "applying" the law, I am all ears.

The opinion itself is teeming with the court's own anxiety over the public perception of judicial activism. The majority begins with a plea to recognize that the judges in the majority are not activists: "Whatever our views as individuals with regard to this question as a matter of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to limit our consideration of the question to a determination of the constitutional validity of the current legislative provisions."

The word activist itself appears just once today—in a concurrence and dissent by Justice Marvin Baxter, who doesn't call his colleagues activists but worries about their grandchildren: "Who can say that in ten, fifteen, or twenty years, an activist court might not rely on the majority's analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?"

Not to be outdone as the winner of the "I am not an activist" Olympics, Justice Carol Corrigan opens her dissent with the announcement that she is so not an activist that even though she personally believes that Californians "should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call their unions marriages," the court nevertheless overstepped its bounds in striking down the state marriage laws. Writes Corrigan, "[T]he principle of judicial restraint is a covenant between judges and the people from whom their power derives. … [I]f there is to be a new understanding of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of our state and find its expression at the ballot box."

Justice Corrigan's model of judicial restraint is not quite constitutional originalism or even John Roberts-style minimalism. Like Baxter, she espouses some kind of shabby-chic jurisprudence in which state statutes endure a constitutional distressing process that allows them to become more and more constitutional over time. Standards and values can change, she allows, but only when the people have lived with those changes for some set period of time. It's mot so much that the majority is "activist" therefore. Their real problem is that they are somehow "tacky."

My own vote today is with the governor, who's smart enough to realize both that activism is an empty label, and that when your citizens and/or their Legislature are racing around banning and legalizing the same thing at the same time, the will of the people is not necessarily the last word on what's constitutional. Moreover, he seems to understand the difference between judicial activism and judicial action, and the fact that the latter is not something for which a court needs to apologize.

• The Government of Pakistan
• The Media in Pakistan
• The future of Pakistan

Rules

• Please discuss all aspects (or at least try to discuss) all aspects of a particular point.
• Keep yourself open to the comments.
• While posting keep in mind not to name or target any one in particular. (this is not freedom, just a way to direct your hatred)
• The point in all this is to try and better understand whats going on around us