DOMA & Same Sex Marriage

"Federal law requires states to recognize each others marriage licenses and drivers licenses. Why they don't have to recognize each others concealed weapons licenses is only because the 2nd hasn't been incorporated."

When someone I like and respect makes a statement sufficiently at variance with reality, it's HARDER to respond, because I can't trot out the usual snark in good conscience and I have to play nice.

Federal law, in the form of the questionably constitutional federal "Defense of Marriage Act" passed in 1996 specifically bars the federal government and its' agencies from any recognition of same-sex marriage in any of its' actions or rulings (in the second section). In the first section, it specifically exempts states, tribes, and subordinate jurisdictions from recognizing/honoring/acknowledging any same-sex marriage or relationship if the whim doesn't strike them.

Subsequently, various states have passed sundry forms of state level DOMA - while somewhat outdated (4 yrs) this site reviews the variety of bans out there, some more vicious, some less. Florida's, for instance, is particularly vile - not only barring same-sex marriages from being performed within the state, but barring recognition of such marriages performed in any other state or foreign jurisdiction as well.

Progress is being made (Washington's "everything but the name" statute this year is one example), but thus far neither the state nor the federal DOMA variants have made it to the Supreme Court of the United States where, with luck, the good justices will batter the silly about the head and shoulders with the "full faith and credit" clause (Section 1) of the United States Constitution - which the various DOMA implementations appear to defy rather directly.

But that time hasn't come yet. Currenly, to invalidate a Massachusetts (For example) same sex marriage, all one must do is gather all the valuables (not required, but par for the course when dealing with the overwrought) and move to Florida sans partner (and STAY there) - no federal or state penalty will incur. In the same mode, if a person falls in love abroad with a person of the same sex and marries them in, say, Sweden - La Migra will not recognize the marriage and will not admit the spouse.

Then we look at Prop. 8 and its' subsequent effects. Oy.

Proposition 8 and the California Supreme Ct

Let me clarify my position, before we get into the really controversial stuff. I *favor* same sex marriage. Should I find a candidate that agrees that such a plan is mutually worthwhile, I want one my very own self - but that's not (mostly) why I favor it.

For the same reason that the anti-miscegenation laws of the Jim Crow South were wrong (that at base, even before touching on the morality of racism, that the government (federal, state, county or municipal) has no business deciding which consenting adults beyond a reasonable degree of consanguinity get hitched with each other, bans on same sex marriage are wrong.

However, beyond that fundamental argument, such bans are counterproductive when subject to rational analysis. The very nature of the bans is counter to best rational interests of the state - not only do persons in legally defined long term relationships cost less in terms of taxpayer support over the years (married folks stay off medicare longer, two incomes stave off the need for assistance, etc.), they increase available pool of marriages and the revenue (direct and indirect) to the state attached to such marriages.

Beyond even that simple logic, in general wielding the public hammer of constitutional amendments and legal statutes to selectively discriminate against specific demographic with the avowed intent of denying the recognition of their equal worth before the law AND specifically denying them over 1000 rights and protections granted married couples at the federal and international levels (and some various rights at the state level, even with Domestic Partnership - marriage for 2nd class citizens) sets exceptionally bad precedent.

With all that said, the California Supreme Court - however much I may dislike its' policy effects - did good. They did their jobs, which is NOT to set moral or public policy, but rather to rule on points of Constitutional and statutory law.

The CSSC had before it two points:

1) Was Proposition 8 properly an amendment (simple modification) of the California State Constitution, or was it a mislabeled revision (a wholesale change, which requires a state constitutionall convention under California rules?

2) In the event that Proposition 8 was legally valid (moral is, as always, a different argument and not on appeal), what legal status do the 18,000+/- same sex marriages that occcured between the original CSSC decision and the passage of Proposition 8 have?

In the case of the first, it was, frankly a weak legal argument by members of the LGBT community that is best characterized as grasping desperately at straws after the barn has burned down. A shot in a million "gotta look busy while we regroup, and what the hell we might win, and it'll gin up the community" kind of appeal.

Anyone with any sort of interest in the law could detect that at thirty yards off or so, in a sad but true kind of way, and it's simply unfair to excoriate the Justices of the CSSC for doing their appointed job. Accurate targeting for protests, boycotts, and other lawful retaliation and protest is on pro-Prop 8 donors and advocates, including the presently-gloating Mormon church and its' membership.

The *SECOND* part of the decision was also hideously predictable. The marriages were lawful at the time they occured, and thus, remain lawful after Proposition 8 passed - in non-legal terms, "no, you don't get a do-over". Retroactive laws are, for good and solid reason, simply forbidden - and that would include any attempt to "un-do" the then-legal marriages.

There is plenty of reason for anger, but directing that anger at the Justices or at the legal system, is inappropriate. Once Proposition 8 passed, the system worked, and worked well, in a bad situation.

The argument of to what degree the terms of State and even Federal Constitutions should be modifiable by popular vote is entirely separate, and one of long standing, and not specific to either same sex marriage or LGBT rights generally.

Frankly, I think that both the legislature and the people should each have an extremely difficult mechanism to change constitutions that involves super-majorities, multi-year cooling off periods, and multiple votes - just to filter out the stupid, the bigoted, and the just plain wrong-headed. Additional precautions to keep either from going astray are negotiable.

Proposition 8 remains a wrong-headed piece of religous bigotry thinly disguised as an amendment to the California Constitution. But now all that remains to Californians is a repealing/modifying amendment, or, heaven forfend, a state constitutional convention.

GC

Housekeeping

Had a moment, got the blog-links organized by alpha and added a few I'd been meaning to (or thought I had already!). Not a huge deal, but hopefully makes the linky-list easier to use.

On a different topic, the car sales thing is muddling along.

Best Wishes,

GC

The Mark of a Rat-Bastard

I've seen it before - a group of organizers threatening to stomp off over the horizon or force an event to be done "their way", and when nobody panics (and in fact someone steps forward to save the event) they do their level best to bully the community in question into compliance with either threats or actual bad acts to ruin said event - often using "trademark" as the baseball bat of choice to pummel their opponents.

In recent days I've observed, as a non-attendee semi-gun blogger, an unhappy post-script (in addition to the pre-event Registration tantrum) to the 2A Blog Bash. After a typically irreverent and generally positive podcast from ViciousCircle (the domain name SHOULD be a hint for the humor-impaired), a lengthy screed was posted that resulted in MANY comments.

(Oh? Broken link? We in the biz call that a "blatant act of cowardice in the face of disagreement" - you know, when the bulk of comments on your post logically dissent and dissect ones viewpoint, you proceed to act like an ass, and its easier to delete the entire post and comments than own up to ones errors and begin the necessary apologies and groveling).

And if y'all don't like I don't get the quotes exactly right, you shouldn't have been such a wuss and struck the post and comment thread - I'd have been happy to quote letter for letter, complete with links.

I initially commented on the blogpost in question with what I felt was a balanced, well-measured, contribution with a few gentle been-there, done-that hints. Then a line was crossed, and I pondered a bit...and this post emerged.

While there were PLENTY of errors, the most egregious, the one that persuaded me to write this post, was the vicious reply to PhlegmFatale's response offering to organize the 2010 Charottle 2A BlogBash (in the face of "Perhaps we just won't do this if folks don't like the exact way we do it" comment by one of the current organizers) displaying a level of selfish pettiness I rarely observe in the 2A Blogosphere (most folks involved are just too civilized) - an organizer replied with a variation on "I own the event name, you can't do it, screw you - I'll kill it before I'll let anyone else organize it".

This, to someone completely outside the dispute (phlegmmy), charitably offering to take over an event an organizer had just stated they were thinking about walking away from because it was *just too much trouble* and *people might not constantly lavish praise and refrain from all criticism*. If you can't take the heat, you have *no business* as an organizer.

A community event, to my view, belongs to the community - and one organizing group or another is permitted to do the event at said communities sufferance. Piss the given community off badly enough (or step aside), and a replacement organizer can and should spring up.

The 2A BlogBash is definitely a Community Event - that any one person or organizer volunteers to put it together (or help at it) is a fine/good/noble thing. But it does not imply any sort of moral ownership, and attempts to use trademark to bully others to prevent them creating/organizing successor or competitive events....reek of personal moral vileness, or one hell of an imitation thereof, in my opinion.

Playing "we own the name/concept" is nothing more and nothing less than the act of a bullying rat-bastard - and playing it with someone innocently stepping forward to pick up the slack right after you've flung your delicate wrist to your forehead and declaimed "It's just all too, too, much. You do not shower me with sufficient rose petals! You do not worship properly! I just can't bear it! Perhaps I should not do the event! See how you feel then, you ingrates!" is, if anything, worse.

I am not amused. I tend to expect better of folks in the 2A community, and have seldom been disappointed - and to some extent, thus the scale of my wrath.

I hope to visit the Charlotte 2010 NRA Convention, and hope there is a competing or successor 2A Blog Gathering with organizers not terminally thin-skinned, prone to precipitous and arbitrary action, and capable of respecting differing views and priorities. Ideally, organizers with a more positive attitude than "If you don't like the way we do it, y'all can just F*$k right off!"

This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of conduct, nor the first community I've observed it in. I note the vileness remains fairly constant.

Grouchily,

GC

Amazing Trends

I'm amazed at the winds of popularity surround fellow-blogger snarkybytes with his first dance video (here),





a significant improvement over the efforts of Chris Crocker, and his masterpiece, "Leave Brittany Alone"



Amazingly, this phenomena is also documented HERE! And HERE! And HERE!

Dull Rumblings of Federal Gun Control

Today I received a disturbing phone call, from the NRA of all places, regarding the advent of HR 45 and how it was an TEOTWAWKI Gun Licensing/Seizure/Ban Bill, and I needed to rush to open up my checkbook as fast as I could and empty my account into the coffers of the NRA in order to fight off this dreadful event.

I politely thanked the caller (several times, as they had substantial difficulty varying from their script) and cranked up the email client and browser.

I've found that if I contact folks over at the Second Amendment Foundation they tend to be more reality-driven and less focused on ginning up the fund-raising mill with a good round of panic-mongering. They seem to have wrapped their collective heads around the notion that if you scare the crud outta the constituency whenever the coffers are running a bit low, that it can be much harder to be trusted, credible, or believed when the proverbial roof really is falling.

I quote "It's dead in committee. Still has zero co-sponsors. It's all over the internet, and everyone is getting worked up about it, but it has maybe a 1% chance of moving. " from my SAF contact.

So, I think we can, for the moment, let our collective breath out. There's more to worry about with a rogue Legislative Special Session coming up than there is with HR45 - for the moment. It's a bad time to let our guard down, but let us focus our energies where they will do us the most good.

Malkin's Commentators

Alright, I promised, so let us be about delivering - but this is FOUR PAGES of comments on Malkin's blog, so...

If I've already addressed a point once, you're not nearly special enough for me to address it twice, and first one to make a point gets credit/infamy.

DFern - Aside from beauty contests not being precisely a bastion of feminist ideals, not everything is about feminism. Hilton, however crass, was not misogynist - he was anti-Prejean, and anti-Prejean because he (rightly or wrongly) found her viewpoint vile.

Englishqueen01 - Equally, if not superior, conservative arguments in favor of gay/samesex marriage can be found here. While I find the latest article a bit...dry....it lays out the conservative case for gay/same sex marriage more logically (and in vastly more depth) than any other article on the topic I've read. And, Perez, it doesn't include a single hissy fit, or instance of name-calling. It's what we grown-ups call mature discussion.

Insomniac - as stated in my last post, using this picture with the crude scrawl, was a regrettable instance of Malkin descending to Perez' rather vile level. Unlike Perez, I expect (and usually observe) far better of her.

PasadenaPhil (and many similar comments) - Please, if you're going to post, try and rise above the level of name-calling or fear-mongering absurdity.

jangar - I worry less about "morals and shame" (as both have been abused by conservatives and liberals in equal measure into absurd bludgeons with which to whip ones political opponents), than that our increasing reliance on "feelings" to the exclusion of logic, critical analysis, and evidence-drive policy decisions. However this is a beauty pageant and a privately sponsored event, so unless we're participating in some fashion - whatever non-criminal weirdness they gin up isn't any of our business. And frankly, I view hate crimes laws as generally counterproductive - teaching folks in groups frequenty targeted for bigotry-based attacks about gun safety, self-defense, and proper firearms selection works much better in my view.

wighttrasch - for whatever reason, many feminist thinkers (the ones that consider marriage a good thing at all) tend to favor equality before the law, which to many means legalizing same-sex marriage. Further, disagreeing with a specific woman (even as crudely as Perez), does not make one a misogynist or "out to get women".

Thackeragency - you are quite simply wrong. At merely the federal level, the GAO has found over 1,000 rights, privileges, and responsibilities available to married couples that are not and cannot be accessed through contractual or domestic partner arrangements. Given the diversity of marriage laws and judicial practice among the States and Territories, the number is large but variable at that level. More than one contractual agreement between persons of the same sex has been thrown out by state courts claiming that the agreement was contrary to the public interest. A joint power of attorney or a will isn't worth much once a judge throws it out, particularly in the face of a hostile and phobic family.

It's not about trying to sue a church that won't perform a given marriage. Between the First Amendment to the federal constitution and the heavy weight of precedent indicating that a church CANNOT be compelled to act against its own doctrines regarding marriage, such a case would be laughed out of court.

How, pray tell, would extending the institution of marriage further burden the courts? Granted, it would likely generate a certain number of divorce cases...but it is doubtful they'd be any more frequent than those emerging from traditional marriages, and they would certainly be simpler and take less court time than the "palimony suits" that today burden the courts when same sex couples part ways (resolving property, children, investments, real estate, etc WITH NO DIVORCE STRUCTURE, AND OUTSIDE A LEGALLY RECOGNIZED RELATIONSHIP) eats court time with a vast and mighty appetite.

thetoysurgeon - I only wish it were true. We are still burdened with counterproductive academic and workplace speech codes, and it will take years of time and effort to point out that "freedom of speech" means "freedom to say things that folks don't like w/o governmental harassment" (i.e., the living room rule - I can kick you outta my living room if you offend me - but the government can't arrest you for calling me nasty names."

xler8bmw - That's a liberal (and far left) definition of bigotry if ever I saw it. From Merriam-Webster, "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance". I'd limit it further to "a person who fails to consider members of groups (such as race/ethnic/religious/orientation/gender/etc) as individuals, exhibiting hatred or intolerance towards individuals that they percieve as members of that group, based on the groups alleged and frequently stereotypical characteristics." Perez, in my opinion, is a vile and immature toad - however, at least in this instance I didn't see him exhibit bigotry - merely "if they hold this view (which they just stated, on camera even) I dislike them and consider their view ludicrous" dressed up in a lot of name-calling and crudity.

right4life - Frankly, if the theocratic branch of Christianity would just leave us the hell alone and tend to their own miseries rather than trying to run our lives, most LGBT folk really couldn't give a damn about silencing, applauding, or mooning the Christian faith. Given our historic rejection and, frequently, persecution by His followers, such a reponse is surprisingly gentle. Gay or same-sex marriage, I'm sorry to tell you, is NOT really about you - beyond rare exceptions, we just plain don't care about you that much. It's about garnering the same protection for our partners, our children, and our posterity that you enjoy in the eyes of the law.

flmom - In passing, I'm merely a libertarian brand of right. However, I agree, the left has largely lost (in particular, those in elected office) the ability to engage in civilized discourse. I am saddened to be able to say that is increasingly true of many on the right, as well.

orlandocajun - he really is one of those I wake up thinking "please, can't he be on the other side!" when I think of him at all. Regrettably, there is no ethical way to abolish him. We rarely (do, let's look at some of the conservative and libertarian "prizes" out there) get to choose our self-proclaimed "famous folk" or "representatives". It's not as if, once a year all us LGBT folks got together in Sioux Falls to elect a bunch of representatives each year.

gridlock - to my regret, for a long list of reasons too numerous and lengthy to go into here, the vast majority of the LGBT community held their noses and voted for Obama on the "not-a-republican" ticket. Prejean wasn't running against a GOP presidential candidate, thus under this mindset any reason to hold back vanishes.

iamsaved - Umm. You know, there's this guy down in Kansas, Fred Phelps, that I think you'd be real good buddies with.

ArizonaNeanderthal - Civil wars suck. Bigtime. What say we not, even by implication, cheerlead for one? We may get one anyway, with this administration, but I suggest it would be a very bad thing indeed, no matter how it ends.

CDat88 - The MissUSA pageant is a private organization entitled to pick whoever it wants as judges, no matter how much you or I may agree with them. If I were told I had to choose a gay judge with a big name for the event (after getting past the "quota/token" headache), it surely wouldn't have been Perez - any of the boys from Queer Eye would have been better choices, as they know fashion/design/civility like the back of their hands. Sadly, Perez was chosen.

And violence is way to serious to expend on mere obnoxious speech. Should be saved for persons busy being physically assaultive or felonious in the general direction of self or loved ones.

Wareagle82 - As long as someone isn't actively "out to get me" or obnoxious, I (and most other LGBT folk I know) either respects you or, never having encountered you, is more or less oblivious to your existence. We've got troubles enough of our own without fretting about you.

While I disagree with many in my community about the Boy Scouts (not without qualms, but they are a private organization, entitled to come up with whatever bizarre membership requirements make them feel all warm'n'fuzzy, no matter how wrong-headed I find them) I'll address your other points.

Your family is your family, and as long as you aren't busy abusing your spouse or kids, most likely none of anyone elses business, and nobody should give you a ration about it. All we ask is that you not harass our kids (or encourage your kids to do so), not try to screw us over 'cause we're not "just like you" and we don't fit your worldview, and acknowledge that our families have the precise same rights and benefits as anyone elses.

Marriage, I've touched on repeatedly above. It's enough to say that it's not so much that we're all hot and bothered (at least most of us, and fess up, you've got your own Bridezilla's) about the big church wedding - we're mostly a whole bunch more interested in obtaining the same lega protections (and responsibilities) for our spouses, ourselves, and our children that you and your family enjoy.

Maisy - have you ever noticed the truly disproportionate number of gay men in the fashion and makeup/haircare industries? Yes, a gay man is qualified to judge a beauty contest - particularly when balanced by several other judges.

#59 - Pt#4 "Gays are stirring up anger AGAINST people who disagree with them. There haven’t been such childish demonstrations of a lost elections as there was in California under Prop 8 for a while. Gays are digging their own graves with their political uprising and I hope they keep it up. Perez is a great spokesman for the gays."

Umm. We lost. You expect we should celebrate? Or give up? Or give big warm fuzzy hugs to those that managed to amend the California Constitution to specifically exclude us, our partners, and our children from the rights, protections, and responsibilities granted everyone else in California, legally or otherwise?

Not being a victim anymore is a positive development in the mindset of the LGBT community - of course, it also means we'll fight back when someone kicks us in the slats.
___________________________________________________________________

All right, I didn't make it all the way through. It was getting too long to reasonably expect anyone here to read, and I can only take so much BS in one sitting (not to say that all comments were BS, it was just the RATIO that was painfully high).

Done.

Hilton, Malkin, and commentators

Michelle Malkin is a respected writer and conservative pundit, whose writing I typically enjoy as long as she doesn't venture near the same-sex/gay marriage issue - where she goes off the tracks in a variation of "I know what I know, and be-damned to any efforts to provide me with real-world input, new data, logic, or alternative perspectives."

All to many folks have, regrettably, at least one such topic in their range of discourse and while sad (Michelle is a very talented writer and advocate, in my estimation), at least she's only stuck with the one.

This morning, the Malkin takes exception to blogger Perez Hiltons "Miss California" antics . Malkin's meme finally went, in conjunction with her reader comments, from tiresomely dysfunctional bigotry to actively offensive.

For those new to the topic, terminally shallow celeb blogger Perez Hilton was (for reasons that escape me and that are largely irrelevant) chosen by the Miss USA organization as a judge for their annual beauty competition. Setting aside (with difficulty), for the moment, the standard issue snark on the ultimate silliness and shallowness of beauty contests, we proceed to the conjunction of the ever-flammable Hilton, the current Miss USA competition, and the Miss California (Carrie Prejean) competing in that event.

Hilton inquired, in his role as judge, of Miss Prejean regarding gay/same-sex marriage. In regrettably clumsy fashion, Miss Prejean expressed her opposition to same-sex marriage and implied it was somehow mutually exclusive to traditional marriage. Perez, not surprisingly, took exception - and equally unsurprising, his response was lengthy, vituperative, and crude.

Malkin opens her commentary on the situation descending from her usual mature and acerbic tone to swim in the shallow, "Perez End", of the literary pool by emulating his petty, childish, and amateurish "re-touching" of the posted photo of her "target" or symbol after choosing a rather ludicrous picture of Hilton to begin with.

Classy moves, there, Malkin - way to walk that walk when you're calling for maturity, civility, and class. I'm sort of puzzled how a visual representation of "I can be just as childish, petty, and immature as you are" accomplishes that - or how it reflects well on any of your subsequent comments, on conservative thought, or on libertarian thought.

Nonetheless, Hilton isn't precisely covered with glory, either.

Prejean answered the question about gay/same-sex marriage honestly and according to her convictions, and for that I honor her. In that exceptionally limited sense, she "done good."

Perez Hilton: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Prejean: “Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

However. Aside from the fact that, as a wordsmith, I find the construction and usages of Prejeans answer to be almost painful in their clumsiness, something more important is going on to which Malkin is almost wilfully blind (and more blatantly, her commenters) to a significant disconnect.

And before I touch on that disconnect, I will point out that as a libertarian, gun-owning, somewhat irritable, gay man...that the moment that answer left her lips, she lost any hope of any support she might seek from me, were I sitting as a judge in this instance. As a mental aid, let's insert the word "race" for gay, and see how Prejeans statement plays out:

“Well I think its great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-race marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a white and a white, or a black and black, and so on. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman two persons of the same race. Thank you very much.”

Read that again, and tell me it isn't a bigoted statement. Then tell me how the blatant pre-civil-rights was "oh no, never!" inspired or justified by religious belief or text in the old Jim Crow South. Hint: Just as poo is still poo, even if sprinkled by Holy Water - bigotry doesn't smell any sweeter with a dose of extra-special rose-scented cheap religious perfume.

Now the disconnect. Prejean ABSOLUTELY has the right to believe as she believes, in little green men, or in armies of flying monkeys coming to punish the sinners. Yay her!

HOWEVER, words/actions/deeds/publicly expressed opinions have CONSEQUENCES! Wretched, wretched, reality. People might *stop liking us*, they *might stop thinking we're a good candidate for one thing or another* (oh, like, say - representing an essentially silly and obsolete contest to select a mostly irrelevant goodwill ambassador intended to be representative of the best of ALL Americans, to wander around giving feel-good speeches for a year.), or perhaps even vote against us for political office, refuse to hire us, or become so offended as to make undoing your actions a major life project with punitive responses a happy sideline (say, perhaps, Proposition 8 - no, it's not over, the forces of decency just lost round 2 - and are tired of playing nice/vulnerable/helpless).

The theocratic right has long employed all of the above againt the LGBT community - I cannot help but respond to their plaintive whining with - "Gee, how do you like the other end of the stick?"

Perez (and yes, there are just too damned many Hiltons in public life, so I'm violating style and not using the the last name - sorry, but "Malkin" is just less confusing), however, is a bit of a toad. Where a civilized individual (as Perez alleges one of his fellow judges did - that Alicia Jacobs post vanished, but thank you Google Cache!) would have simply shot down Prejean as a bigot (religious inspiration not relevant - a bigot is a bigot) and issued a dignified statement along the lines of "By her answer, Miss California USA demonstrated to me that she could not in good conscience represent the diverse range of law-abiding U.S. citizens, nor be expected to interact successfully with that full range, any more than a daughter of the Klan might be expected to interact well with a meeting of the NAACP. I regretfully could not consider as a realistic candidate for Miss USA based on this."

Instead, Perez threw a crude public temper tantrum, undermining any point he might legitimately have and simultaneously inciting the theocratic right to the detriment of the LGBT community, in a moment that left me asking "God, could you please make him be on the other side?". Since then, in typical fashion, he has used his blog as a bully pulpit, taking every opportunity to berate and belittle Miss California USA over every mis-step and detail available, no matter how small. He's covering himself...but with something browner and far more fragrant than anything I'd recognize as glory, and I can't say I'm thrilled with the splatter effect.

Perez, I expect this of. But Malkin?

In a last touch on Malkin - why yes, there is gutter profanity, and I don't consider Perez either particularly insightful, nice, or mature - but misogyny? Beyond a bit of childish name-calling, I don't see despite of the female half of the species...just use of pejorative tools available to poor writers and uncreative thinkers.

Malkin then goes on to other topics, but her readers comments, oh my.

I'll hit that in the next post.

Seattle April 15 Tea Party

Well, after a busy day discovering architectural salvage yards and dropping off surplus stuff at Goodwill, I had a cup of coffee and meandered down to Tea Party in Seattle at Westlake Mall. I arrived in the *ever-so-green* electric car, and parked it a few blocks away lest things go sideways (this is, after all, Seattle...and since we've no shortage of potential obnoxious counter-protesters, being able to fade into the background of leftists and greenies under such circumstances is a fine thing). Event was to start at 5:45, I'd arrived around 5, and the crowd was already gathering.

Now, the pictures here aren't in chronological order, but above was a rather precious sign about some of the Obamatrons more creative vote gathering techniques.
Apparently, agents of the UMPC (Tam Division) made a stealth entry into the tax'n'spend stronghold of Seattle with the sign above.
The Paulians made an appearance, an occurence of questionable benefit. And while I only observed one anti-semitic racist bastard (a Serb offended at the Clinton administration), it was kinda fun watching him be chased about by mid-60's big-haired suburban ladies determined to cover his rather vile signage with less offensive prose.
One of my favorite signs was the "Party Like It's 1773" poster above. Charming, really.
Our friends, the Larouchies (won't they EVER go away?) Really, we won't mind.


And a partial representation of the attending: 6 horse patrolmen, 10 bike cops, whole bunch o' sergeants, and a pointy-hatted Site Commander for free! (Sung to "Days of Christmas").

Good speakers, good MC, and overall a well-organized event, even though it remained apparent that protest rallies are not yet among the well-conquered skills among the non-liberal skillset.

Looking forward to the next one!

GC

A Concatenation of things I should've written on...

In tax resistance news, we have Arthur Farnsworth, a convicted tax resister, being released on April 15th, purely as an item of interest.

Stolen shamelessly from GunNuts radio, we have "Liberals We Can't stand", a charming little ditty...



And then a well-written and well-timed warning of the hazardous times we are now in, with the rule of the mob and the rabble-rouser replacing the rule of law, from Geek w/ a .45. Yes, Virginia, it CAN happen to you. Strongly recommended reading.

With the rather sensational title, Journolist Revealed! Inside the Secret Liberal Media E-Mail Cabal! , on-line magazine Slate reveals the troubling existence of a three hundred member group of liberal journalists apparently sharing sources, spins, and an apparent desire to present a unified message as "journalism". Again, recommended reading - not only is it good for you, but it will help you maintain a healthy level of skepticism.

In a delightful reference to the masterwork, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by science fiction grand master Robert Heinlien, a new website, I am Simon Jester has popped up in response to the increasingly intrusive nature of our current administration.

On another irreverent note, the Empty Wallet Convoy & Funeral Procession has launched in New Jersey (of all places) , to point out to Dem. NJ Gov. Jon Corzine that "there ain't no more to tax, and ain't no more to spend. Sounds like a good companion activity to the Tea Parties.

The failed "Earth Hour" propaganda event appears to have made no net difference in power consumption in California, and likely not in saner climes either. Perhaps because of Human Achievement Hour?

Also in California - that state of deficits, dementia, and dizziness - we see a stunning new initiative proposed, to bar DARK COLORED CARS to reduce carbon emissions. Not as if folk could make up their own minds or anything.....

As a result of the Obama adminstrations heavy-handed scape-goating of AIG and harassment of Swiss financial firm UBS, an increasing number of Swiss financial firms are barring employee travel (business or personal) to prevent hostile governments (like, say, Obama's) from siezing said persons.

On March 23rd, two gay college-age men were beaten unconscious while on a late night beach stroll in Seaside, Oregon in yet another of an increased number of West Coast bashing incidents. Since education and diversity training aren't working out so well, what say we start encouraging our LGBT friends and family to implement practical and reality-based plans for personal safety - including firearms, for those with sufficient intestinal fortitude. I am mightily tired of hearing of this sort of event - I'd much rather hear of "the late John and Bob, in their attempt to assault two local gay men, suffered a sudden and massive case of lead poisoning."

Chicago residents, in what may be happy early signs of revolt against the House of Daley, have begun a Parking Revolt. Perhaps, from this seed, sanity will grow and return to Illinois (doubt it, though).

More later, in Concatenation, Pt II.

Bitches for the left

In a classic example of how a political organization treats "captive" demographics (those groups believed either so committed or lacking in options that their support can be assumed without more than, at most, lip service to said groups goals) the Obama Administration puts off any substantive action to repeal the wasteful, costly, counterproductive, and bigoted Clinton "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, essentially saying "don't bother us, we're busy" to the LGBT community that frequently offers slobbering support of all but the most absurd Democrat proposals and candidates in the faint hope of being tossed some small and not too badly decayed unwanted scraps from the the table of liberal largess.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) was in 1993 implemented under the administration of President Bill Clinton ( a DEMOCRAT) at the behest of a Senate rebellion led by Sen. Sam Nunn (D). Clinton had promised while campaigning that as one of his first acts in office, he would allow *all* United States citzens, regardless of sexual orientation, to serve openly in the U.S. Military. DADT was a vile compromise forged when Clinton sold out in the face of the internal party rebellion led by Nunn.

Promise, welshed on.

Looms now the Obama, full of hope'n'change (or something really good for fertilizing roses), promising to eliminate DADT...and now his hand-puppet Gates announces there will be no change in the policy in the forseeable future.

Promise, welshed on.

Yep. These are really the people that are the only ones the LGBT community can trust to help us. Riiiiight. Just like Union Auto Workers are getting a great big helping of happy hope'n'change from the flower-farting rainbow-unicorn-riding Dear One.

Gah. 2010. And then, God(dess) willing, 2012.

Accelerating Blood Dance

It's early, I'm more cynical than usual, and I am wondering at the sheer volume of coverage penny-ante shootings (however tragic) are getting in local media.

While some speculate that there seems to be more than the usual amount of jackasses about, that's hard to explain in light of decreasing crime rates. Particularly when local media seem to be reaching, covering what are essentially local shootings (again, tragic, but not relevant to the Seattle audience when the incident is both hundreds of miles away and the perpetrator is either deceased, hospitalized, or incarcerated) with major breathless hype.

Sad, but it's not as if there isn't a plethora of local crap to deal with. Washington is having huge budget cuts (and accompanying controversy) due to a massive state deficit, we have a mayoral race kicking up with an incumbent of legendary unpopularity, and a wide variety of local trauma and tragedy to soak up a news hour.

It seems like there's an unusual uptick in coverage of coverage of shooting events apparently selected to inspire a sense of moral outrage in followers of the main stream media - i.e., these incidents have always occurred at some level, but now seem to almost have a PR agent.

In light of the Journolist controversy, 300+ liberal so-called journalists corresponding on how to spin stories, I am just a wee tad suspicious that this may be an witting or unwitting attempt (it'd certainly be Raum Emmanuels style, for instance) to grease the skids to sleaze in a new "Ugly Gun Ban" or other gun control measures.

Thoughts?

Miles Electric Vehicle

We've had the Miles for about a week now, and are starting to explore its' benefits and challenges as it arrives stock from the store. Overall, we like it. As an around-town car, it does what you need it to do....

However, the below lists our challenges thus far.

1) Range - I observe the range is at best 50% (downhill, tailwind) of 40 mi. Example - this morning I arose, discovered a drill was missing, and went journeying to replace it. I visited True Value Hardware over at the Junction, the Black&Decker factory store over at 2100 Airport way, Home Depot on 1st Ave, Sears on 1st Ave, and finally Target over at Westwood Village. I left the house with a 100% charge, and returned home with a 40% charge. I am hard-pressed to believe that I traveled more than 10 miles.

Explanation on Dealer Contact: The 2009 model employs the new DeltaQ charger which has not proven to work out well in conjunction with the current battery set. Miles is developing a new charging algorithm, and requests that affected users log critical information to assist in diagnosis. The charge measurement instrumentation is suspect. Ongoing, but hopeful.



2) I am not observing any benefit, charge-wise, from the regenerative brakes.

Explanation on Dealer Contact: resolving the possible instrumentation issue may resolve this issue. Ongoing, depending on resolution to issue in (1)



3) Intermittent Creep Mode - On ignition, following the "Enter car, place key in ignition, place foot on standard brake, release emergency brake, turn key in ignition" sequence I am observing intermittent "creep" mode where forward and reverse speeds max out at roughly 3mph until I stop the vehicle, express my sincere frustration, turn the key off w/ my foot on the brake, and remove the key, and then turn the key back on. After completing this ritual 1-3 times, all returns to normal.

Explanation on Dealer Contact: "I'll look into that - it sounds like a programming or manufacturing issue."

4) Rust - I am observing initial rust signs around the charge port, under the port door and around the door open detection switch and screws.

Explanation on Dealer Contact: This is a common issue, resolved normally with a bit of Rustoleum. I suggested switching out to brass screws, as well, as they are not noted for rust.

A general design suggestion, I would *gladly* pay to have the proprietary charging socket replaced with a standard male grounded three-prong power jack that I could simply ram the female end of an extension cord onto - it's rather nervous-making to leave an $80.00 charge cord dangling at curbside at night in less than ideal neighborhoods.

Dealer response: They can make this change for $190.00 total, or I can buy the part for $30.00 and do it myself. I anticipate doing it myself.

Mom is beginning to drive the Miles with caution, and I am using it when she's not, in order to avoid burning gas. We like it, the both of us. So far, I'm happy with dealer responses, and proposed resolutions.

Latest Obama Fail

And now, in a startling (well, not really) new development...we have Obama Whitehouse Chief Information officer discovered to be a convicted petty thief...after his office was raided by the FBI and one of his underlings was hauled off.

Yes, another hard-working Democrat!

In other news, early signs are that Treasury Secretary Geitner is about to be hurled beneath the bus...