I’ve stayed out on the latest attacks on Planned Parenthood, mainly because I am more or less confident that any financial attacks to that specific institution will fail by way of the President’s veto. However I do think that conservatives salivating over ending abortion judicially are also way too confident in what is looking more and more like a possibility after 2016. Frankly the anti-abortion cause, one that was a load of horseshit from the beginning, has overplayed it’s recent successes, and is throughly doomed with a new generation of sexually liberated and class cognizant millennials quickly approaching adulthood. However the damage done to this fundamental right has been severe, and it’s worth discussing the idiotic excuse for legal reasoning that has allowed things to get this bad.
Whats interesting about the conservative movement after Hobby Lobby, is that they have put the idea of what exactly is a “sincere religious belief” clearly within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. They see this as a victory (and right now it clearly was), but there is a problem with this analysis.
Historical evidence clearly shows that American Protestants (including evangelicals), definitively disagreed with the Catholic view of life starting at Conception….until their rise as part of the new conservative coalition. Therefore it is worth asking whether subsequent regulations placed on abortion could even pass a rational basis review, given that the issue of “preserving potential life” was certainly more of a cynical political calculation for maintaining solid Republican power in Red States, and therefore is not a belief supported by the rights provided by the 1st Amendment.
And while some might find it distasteful to challenge the seriousness of someone’s beliefs on this matter, its worth remembering that this insanely abstract view of “what is life” isn’t even consistently applied across the bio-medical world. I mean if life is so precious and pregnancy such a sanctified state that we don’t trust a woman to make her own decisions regarding the fate of the fetus, why do we then allow someone to essentially sell their baby to her wealthy client in surrogacy? Likewise you see very few graphic protests outside of IVF clinics, and no one is threatening nurses at sperm banks with pipe bombs.
So perhaps it is time to start haranguing the Tony Perkins of the wold why their “sincere” concern for the lives of fetus-americans doesn’t extend to properly funding W.I.C. once the kid is born.
Got to love the Democratic Party. They have a candidate with cross-generational, bipartisan, and populist appeal. This candidate is surging in the polls, and who also happens to be campaigning in strict appearance of the Democratic platform (much to the chagrin of his fellow Socialists). But because that candidate is Bernie Sanders (and not Hillary Clinton), the party leadership is panicking publicly:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Secretary of State John Kerry, Senator Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Al Gore: Each has been discussed among party officials in recent weeks as an alternative to Mrs. Clinton if she does not regain her once-dominant standing in the 2016 presidential field and instead remains mired in the long-running email controversy, with its attendant investigations…..
…“If party leaders see a scenario next winter where Bernie Sanders has a real chance at the Democratic nomination, I think there’s no question that leaders will reach out to Vice President Biden or Secretary of State Kerry or even Gore about entering the primaries,” said Garnet F. Coleman, a Texas state lawmaker and Democratic national committeeman.
Ah a member of the vaunted Texas Democratic Party has an opinion on someone’s electability. That’s fucking rich.
Where is this antagonism for Sanders coming from? Sanders is gaining popularity mainly because he is addressing economic issues in a way that is next to perfect for the decades-long suffering American working class. He is even managing to recast the “family values” slogan into a Democratic ideal- something I’ve been screaming about for a while now. Isn’t this a good thing?
The real issue here is the old truism of Democrats despising the types of people who put them into office. Intelligent political operatives would see the Sanders rise as a fantastic scenario for Democrats, not just because it puts them in a position to retain influence in the White House, but because this sort of campaign could very well produce dramatic results down the ballot throughout the country. HOWEVER, because Democrats have maintained a nomination process that is specifically designed to suppress the liberal vote, they are placing themselves in a position to lose an election where their opponents have basically pulled the goalie.
But by all means continue hippy punching when your brilliant fucking idea of nominating Al Gore (20 years after he was relevant) doesn’t work.
Where else will you find activists associated with an unabashedly capitalistic cause urging supporters to be patient in order to ensure that a policy is as precise and politically perfect as possible?
The California Secretary of State’s Office suggested July 7 as the last day to submit a measure to the state attorney general and request an official title and summary for a November 2016 ballot measure. But the leading coalition will not file an initiative until some time in early September, said Dale Sky Jones, chancellor of Oaksterdam University in Oakland and chair of what’s referred to as ReformCA — the post-Proposition 19 coalition that includes the most effective, major reform groups: Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom confirmed that he will lead the ReformCA effort on August 7 on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. Newsom is the head of a steering committee for a blue ribbon commission on cannabis legalization that released its findings in July. Incorporating those findings delayed ReformCA’s initiative, Jones said. “We wanted to ensure our language was well within the parameters [of the commission’s report], so that slowed us down a bit,” she said.
Collaboration has also slowed down the effort, she added. “We care more about getting the policy exactly right. We realize if we’re a little late, it’s going to be a little harder. It’s going to be worth the extra effort to get it right.”
To understand why we’re having this delay you must understand the history of California’s medical pot movement and how its subsequent legacy is putting adult-use weed in danger. We’ve had 19 years of quasi-legal cannabis in this state where a broadly written law has allowed a uniquely lawyer-driven (almost feudal) market to develop here in SoCal. This “mess” might have been created by prohibitionists who never acted in good faith towards this law, but it has been maintained by lawyers who have never wanted to cede control over the dispensary clients that they attracted. Furthermore the state legislature has been very recalcitrant in adopting necessary “clean up” legislation on this issue, so therefore it is incumbent on the industry to develop the good public policies and best practices for legal cannabis.
Plus a good law (unlike one currently under consideration in Ohio for example) has a tendency to sell itself to voters:
Marijuana Policy Project communications director Mason Tvert, who helped legalize cannabis in Colorado, agreed. “I would take a good initiative and three hundred days of campaigning over a sub-par initiative and five hundred days of campaigning — any day,” he said.
Seeing as I plan on walking precincts for this proposal until the soles of my Chuck Taylor’s wear out, I have to agree.
One of the reasons I left the Democratic Party and stopped writing embarrassing defenses of the Obama administration was because of the insanely immoral handling of Chelsea Manning in prison.
Manning’s detention itself was ludicrous to begin with, as the information that she leaked (especially in retrospect) undeniably represented a clear public interest. This is something that I didn’t acknowledge at the time because, I like many naiive idiots on the left I had entirely conflated support for progressive values with supporting the President. I’m sad to say that it took hearing the details of Manning’s treatment in Supermax (which I believe were designed specifically to drive her to suicide) to cut through the noise of liberal hawkishness.
With that in mind, read this list of banned items
Try your best to come up with a legitimate reason why someone stuck in a closet sized room for 23 hours a day shouldn’t have access to them. If you can’t, CONGRATS you have a soul. The bitter irony of denying someone a book that discusses the universality of dignity for living things is a perfect symbol for the insanity of post-9/11 jurisprudence.
Access to affordable and safe housing is arguably the most important factor in determining the levels of justice, fairness, and integration within a city. Therefore it should be of no great surprise that large swaths of ostensibly progressive residents are incredibly uncomfortable when their “right” to gentrified urban spaces is threatened by the victims of neoliberalism:
No one, including the few (mostly homeless, formerly homeless, or homeless advocates) who spoke in favor of the encampment, called the opposition “classist”–that, along with “racist,” is the third rail of Seattle’s white progressive politics–but whatever possible conclusion is there when a group of mostly upper-middle-class, mostly white, mostly homeowning residents gang up on a group of disenfranchised people sleeping on park benches or in their cars and say that they, as a class, are shiftless alcoholics and drug addicts (as if addiction was a choice) who contribute nothing to society and instigate crime and the loss of property values?
How else can we describe parents who say they don’t want their children exposed to a less-fortunate class of people, whose basic humanity is suspect because they haven’t pulled themselves up by their bootstraps into the middle-class existence so many of those wealthy homeowners received as their birthright? And what are we supposed to make of people who literally say they can’t be anti-homeless because they once took an individual homeless person into their home, just like your racist friend who says he can’t be racist because he gets along just great with the black people who serve him?
I’ve noticed many of the same themes here in Long Beach from residents and their pusillanimous representatives in city government. Something about residents associations seems to attract white liberals that are fine advocating for policies that are analogous to ethnic cleansing, all while wearing Obama t-shirts.
I can’t tell if Hillary is being semantically cute like a’la her husband, or if she’s going for the elderly mob boss defense by pretending that she doesn’t understand basic tech terminology from 1992.
This is one of the dumber scandals to hit the Clintons, especially since the people pushing it are the last motherfuckers to lecture someone about the danger to democracy posed by lost emails. Nevertheless this should serve as your daily reminder that Hillary is (once again) a doomed candidate.
We already knew that the ownership society in Los Angeles county is totally on board blowing an unfathomable amount of public money and spending an indeterminate number of years getting played by the NFL just to keep the possibility of a new local football stadium alive. However it seems that the NFL itself is also keen on making Los Angeles football happen regardless of the clusterfuck that it causes its own organization in the process:
If the Chargers and Raiders move to a shared stadium in Los Angeles—as currently appears to be the most likely outcome—the NFL will probably not want them continuing to share a division. That’s absolutely no problem, with both teams telling the league they’re willing to be moved if necessary.
“The teams have made clear to the league and NFL owners that “you send us to LA and you’ll make the decision as to who plays in what conference or division,” Policy told reporters after detailing stadium plans for business leaders and a sports group at an event in downtown Los Angeles.”
All this in order to expand into a market where NFL allegiances are already more or less set, and where a thriving soccer team is steadily becoming a true local favorite. Never mind the the huge swaths of Angelenos who will never be able to afford football tickets or those who grew up watching other sports (again mainly soccer) in their native countries. But despite the insanity of engaging the NFL in this deal, civil leaders seem intent on making this travesty a reality.