Boston Globe Column: Opposition to Marriage Equality = Support for Jim Crow Laws

Brian Brown - professional hate merchant

If one knows accurate history - which sadly far too many black pastors seemingly do not - one will immediately see the parallels between those who oppose marriage equality for same sex couples and those who opposed desegregation in the 1950's and 1960's (indeed, some of those opponents STILL oppose desegregation).  Worse yet, if one knows the antecedents of today's "family values" organizations, many track directly back to some of the movements that were most vociferous in their opposition to desegregation and who often cited the Bible as justification for their deeply held hate and bigotry.  One need look no farther than FRC president Tony Perkins who has a documented history of supporting white supremacist organizations. These people were and are on the wrong side of history.  A column in the Boston Globe looks at these modern day descendants of segregationist who are yet again on the wrong side of history.  Here are some column highlights:

Americans will rally in Washington, D.C., at a March for Marriage on Thursday in support of “the simple and beautiful message,” to quote Brian Brown, that “marriage between one man and one woman is unique and critical for our society.” Brown is president of the National Organization for Marriage, the event’s lead sponsor.

Don’t he and his supporters know that they’re on the Wrong Side of History?

These days, of course, anyone who publicly opposes same-sex marriage can expect to be scorned in many quarters as a bigot or reviled as an ignoramus. No Democrat with serious political ambitions would dare to agree with Brown’s traditional point of view. In some places the same is increasingly true of Republicans.

Yet until about 10 minutes ago, in historical terms, the traditional understanding of marriage as the complementary union of male and female was anything but controversial. Brown’s “simple and beautiful message,” now seen as so threatened that it needs to be defended at Washington rallies, was about as mainstream a position as there was in American life.

 Same-sex marriage has gone from all-but-unthinkable to all-but-unstoppable. So what do those marchers in Washington think they’re going to accomplish? Don’t they have better things to do with their lives than fight for a cause that, if not yet entirely lost, is surely down for the count? Why don’t they wake up and smell the historical inevitability?

Then again, much the same could have been said a century ago to those who insisted — in the depths of Jim Crow — that the cause of civil rights and racial fairness was worth fighting for. They too must have heard with regularity that they were on the “wrong side of history.” The promise of Reconstruction was long gone. In much of the country, black enfranchisement was a dead letter. The Supreme Court had ruled 7-1 in Plessy v. Ferguson that racial segregation — “separate but equal” — was constitutional.

History is littered with causes and beliefs that were thought at one point to be historically unstoppable, from the divine right of kings to worldwide Marxist revolution. In the relative blink of an eye, same-sex marriage has made extraordinary political and psychological gains. It is on a roll, winning hearts and minds as well as court cases. No wonder it seems to so many that history’s verdict is in, and same-sex marriage is here to stay.

I first moved to Virginia shortly after the ruling in Loving v. Virginia and, coming from New York State, was shocked to see separate restroom facilities for blacks and whites even in courthouses (somehow the whites always happened to have the far nicer facilities) and there were (and are) some who proclaimed segregation now, segregation forever.  History does not look kindly on such people and I am convinced that the anti-gay animus filled "family values" organizations of today will be equated with the KKK by future generations.  I can only wonder what the grandchildren of Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher, et al, will think of their ancestors.  I suspect that many will slink and hide and pretend they do not know who the hate merchants in their lineage even were.  I can't say that I would blame them.

Can McAullife Use a Republican Ploy to Expand Medicaid?

Time and time again Republicans have used so-called "public-private partnerships" to fund governmental programs.  Often the public gets screwed as it foots the bill while private interest get rich providing a needed governmental service.  The Elizabeth River tunnels deal expanding the Midtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth is a prime example.  Now, it appears that Governor Terry McAuliffe could use a similar ploy to expand Medicaid except that federal funds rather than Virginia taxpayers would fund the expansion.  It would indeed be sweet to see a GOP formulated process used to beat them at their own game.  A column in the Richmond Times Dispatch lays out how it might work.  Here are excerpts:

Republican-written laws, in place since the early 1990s, allow the cash-flush private sector to do what the cash-strapped public sector can’t: supply services to Virginians. The examples, depending on your perspective, are notable or notorious: the increasingly pricey computer services deal with Northrop Grumman and the underused connector between Interstates 95 and 295, southeast of Richmond, that has skirted bankruptcy.

More recently, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the governor-controlled panel that oversees roads and transit, set up a private corporation to supervise construction of the new U.S. 460. That project — initiated before the legislature endorsed McDonnell’s promise-breaking tax increase for transportation in 2013 — is supposed to be underwritten by Wall Street; specifically through higher-risk junk bonds. Bondholders would be paid back, with interest, with toll revenues.

The Department of Medical Assistance Services, the governor-controlled agency that administers Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program for the poor, has the same authority as the state’s transportation bureaucracy to enlist private business to manage programs on the public’s behalf.

According to lawmakers in both parties and legislative experts, DMAS could team with health care providers and insurance companies to provide coverage for up to 400,000 uninsured Virginians. The cost would be covered by nearly $7 billion in Medicaid funds available to the state during McAuliffe’s four years as governor.

Through its private partners, DMAS might implement a permutation of Marketplace Virginia. It is private health insurance, underwritten with Medicaid dollars administered by the state, and was included in the Virginia Senate’s version of the two-year budget. That maneuver fueled the angry, five-month standoff with the House of Delegates over spending and health care.

McAuliffe could tear a page from the McDonnell playbook, enlisting private interests to execute a public program — and, in the process, generate profits for their investors. A tricky consideration is how these federal funds would be transferred to Virginia, absent the General Assembly carrying out its duty to approve spending. McAuliffe has plenty of friends in Washington. He might persuade the federal Medicaid agency to make the money available as a grant to the governor’s office. Then, McAuliffe could steer it to DMAS.

If this sounds like a lot of procedural Byzantium, it is. But it’s important procedural Byzantium, because it rests on the rules — constitutional and statutory — under which Virginia government works. The legislature and governor have distinct powers subject to interpretation by the judiciary. In this era of polarized politics, these powers take on greater significance as instruments of policy and as weapons for thwarting the will of others.

This is why lawyering, by the governor’s staff and the attorney general’s office, has accelerated in recent days. McAuliffe isn’t giving up on a solution for Medicaid expansion. It doesn’t have to be pretty. It just has to work.

The New Oil Crisis: Exploding Trains

click image to enlarge

As the residents of Lynchburg, Virginia, recently found out, there is a dangerous side to America's surging oil production: trains carry large cargoes of oil in often aging tank cars that set the stage for a fiery conflagration in the event of a derailment.  Thankfully, no one died in Lynchburg, but in other places not everyone has been so lucky.  While Virginia is investigating the cause of the Lynchburg crash the trains continue to roll raising the specter of other possible disasters.  With refineries in the area and its large port facilities, Hampton Roads is often a destination for these potentially catastrophic cargoes.  A lengthy piece in Politico looks at the growing danger.  Here are highlights (read the entire piece):

Communities throughout the U.S. and Canada are waking up to the dark side of North America’s energy boom: Trains hauling crude oil are crashing, exploding and spilling in record numbers as a fast-growing industry outpaces the federal government’s oversight.

In the 11 months since a runaway oil train derailed in the middle of a small town in Quebec, incinerating 47 people, the rolling virtual pipelines have unleashed crude oil into an Alabama swamp, forced more than 1,000 North Dakota residents to evacuate, dangled from a bridge in Philadelphia and smashed into an industrial building near Pittsburgh. The latest serious accident was April’s fiery crash in Lynchburg, Virginia, where even the mayor had been unaware oil was rolling through his city.

These dangerous moments on the rails raise questions about the safety of transporting increasing amounts of oil in mile-long chains of tank cars, some of them decades old. Community leaders and activists from Oregon to Alabama to Albany call the trains a disaster waiting to happen — despite the Department of Transportation’s efforts to play catchup through a series of emergency orders, agreements with industry and proposed regulations being reviewed by the White House.

A POLITICO analysis of federal data from more than 400 oil-train incidents since 1971 shows that a once-uncommon threat has escalated dramatically in the past five years:

• This year has already shattered the record for property damage from U.S. oil-train accidents, with a toll exceeding $10 million through mid-May — nearly triple the damage for all of 2013. The number of incidents so far this year — 70 — is also on pace to set a record.
• Almost every region of the U.S. has been touched by an oil-train incident. These episodes are spreading as more refineries take crude from production hot spots like North Dakota’s Bakken region and western Canada, while companies from California and Washington state to Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida build or expand terminals for moving oil from trains to barges, trucks or pipelines.

“The boom in domestic oil production has turned many railways and small communities across our country into de facto oil pipelines, and the gold-rush-type phenomenon has unfortunately put our regulators behind the eight ball,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing for stricter safety and disclosure rules. “It has become abundantly clear that there are a whole slew of freight rail safety measures that, while for many years have been moving through the gears of bureaucracy, must now be approved and implemented in haste.”

Like the oil boom itself, the surge in oil-train traffic has come much faster than anyone expected. Meanwhile, the trains face less onerous regulations than other ways of moving oil, including pipelines like TransCanada’s Keystone XL project.

Keystone, which would carry oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, has waited more than five years for a permit from the Obama administration while provoking a national debate about climate change. But no White House approval was needed for all the trains carrying Canadian oil into the United States. In fact, freight railroads in the U.S. are considered “common carriers” for hazardous materials, meaning they can’t refuse to ship it as long as it meets federal guidelines.

Meanwhile, the oil train business is primed to get bigger. Even TransCanada might start using rail to ship oil to the U.S. while waiting for Keystone to get the green light, CEO Russ Girling said in an interview in May — despite agreeing that trains are a costlier and potentially more dangerous option.

“If anybody thinks that is a better idea, that’s delusional,” Girling said.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

The Obscene Hubris and Lack of Shame of Bush/Cheney and the GOP

Readers may think that I am beating a dead horse, but the continued shocking behavior and statements of the architects of the Iraq War disaster truly defy belief.  Where is the remorse, where is any admission of error, where is there a scintilla of feeling for the countless lives thrown away?  There is none whatsoever.  Moreover, these people are now blaming the disaster unfolding in Iraq on Barack Obama rather than their own idiocy, lies and hubris.  Equally shocking, is the fact that many of these "doyens" of the far right pretend to believe in "Judeo-Christian" values even as they prove to be the anti-thesis of what a decent Christian ought to be.  Andrew Sullivan lets loose with another volley that focuses on the shameless delusion of these people, including Emperor Palpatine Cheney.  Here are excerpts:

The events in Iraq have unveiled the core reality of that country’s sectarian vortex, but they’ve also revealed something just as disturbing at home. Far from feeling any remorse, or expressing the slightest regret, or analyzing their own catastrophic misjudgments, the architects of the Iraq disaster are actually proud of the devastation they caused for no reason. To read Tony Blair is to witness a mind unsullied by fact or history or responsibility. There is not a scintilla of the self-awareness – let alone the shame – that one might expect from any responsible adult. 

If Blair needs help, what can we say of Paul Bremer – yes, Paul Bremer, the man who disbanded the Iraqi military – actually having the gall to go on CNN and blame Obama for his own responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths? We have Bill Kristol – with a straight face – actually going on cable news and arguing that not only does the US have to intervene, but that we have to fight both Iran and ISIS and Maliki simultaneously. He actually then has the gall to ask that we do not re-litigate his own record in fomenting this bloodbath! 

And now the country’s resident and proud war criminal, with his failed politician daughter, are in on the act. As you might expect, theirs is a poisonous little tract, asserting ludicrously that Iraq was a victory, denying any responsibility for introducing extreme Islamism into Iraq, parlaying their own cronies in the Middle East as representative of anything but their own bubble, and blaming everything, as usual, on the man who has steadfastly managed to de-leverage the US from the Bush-Cheney catastrophe.

This from the man who left office with a cratering economy, two lost wars, a bankrupted Treasury, and a record of torture and military incompetence unknown in modern American history.

What we’re seeing now is the inability of the neocon mind to adjust even a smidgen in the face of empirical reality, to absorb just a soupcon of history, to accept even a minimum of responsibility.

 I wish I could say it all as well as Andrew does.  On a personal note, I am bitter.  I nearly lost a son-in-law and my grandson nearly lost his father because of the nightmare that Bush/Cheney and the neocons unleashed on  an all too believing America.   Thankfully, my son-in-law survived, has had a good recovery all things considered and has resigned from the military.  He/we were the lucky ones. Many thousands were not so lucky and these horrible individuals who created the fiasco have suffered no consequences and have shown not even a modicum of shame or remorse.  I truly wish Cheney and Bush would be put on trial for war crimes and in Cheney's case in particular, I believe he deserves a fate like those of the leadership tried at Nuremberg.

 

Far Right in GOP And Christofascists Attack Obama for ENDA Executive Order

The text of President Barack Obama's proposed executive order barring employment discrimination against LGBT employees has not even yet been released and already the Christofascists and their political whores in the GOP are shrieking and carrying on.  Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is demanding that any executive order contain a religious exemption that is so broad that it is tantamount to a grant of special rights to Christofascists.   The Washington Blade looks at the exemption that Hatch supported in the Senate version of ENDA:

Under the current version of ENDA before Congress, religious institutions, like churches or religious hospitals and schools, could continue to discriminate against LGBT workers in non-ministerial positions even if the bill were to become law. The religious exemption is broader than similar exemptions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for categories of race, gender, religion and national origin. 

In my view, the larger problem with such an exemption is that it bears no relation to the intention behind the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which sought to guarantee that no citizen would (i) be forced to support a religion that they did not adhere to or (ii) find limitations placed on their right to freely worship.  In fact, an exemption such as what Hatch wants would allow the Christofascists to trample of the religious freedom rights of LGBT citizens who have a constitutional right to NOT adhere to Christofascist and far right Muslim beliefs. 

Meanwhile, the hate merchants at Family Research Council are beside themselves over Obama's partial end run around the bar to ENDA that their boot licking GOP members of the House of Representatives have maintained to date.  Right on cue, FRC is whining that the proposed executive order is an attack on Christians and an attack on free speech.   As is ALWAYS the case with FRC it wants special rights for Christofascists.  Here is a sample of the disingenuous drivel and lies on its blog page:

[T]he detrimental impact on employers' and employees' constitutional freedoms of religion, speech, and association.  

Today's announced executive order will give activists a license to challenge their employers whenever they feel aggrieved, exposing those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts. Furthermore, by requiring federal contractors to consider characteristics and behaviors related to a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, this policy will make contractors liable for protecting actual or perceived self-disclosed and fluid identities that may not even be known.  

I'd suggest that if FRC doesn't want protections for LGBT employees, let's open the door for employers to fire far right Christians because  their behavior is clearly a "choice" and is not an immutable characteristic.    Let's treat the "godly folk" the same way that they demand to be allowed to treat others.  I may sound peevish, but I am SO OVER the undeserved deference that religion is afforded even though it has caused more wars, deaths and unbridled hatred than almost any other thing across history.

 

More Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

Pat Robertson Slams George W. Bush and Iraq Fool's Errand

Usually those of us living in Hampton Roads cringe at least once a month due to some batshitery that comes from the mouth of Pat Robertson.  Shockingly, apparently sometimes even Robertson can get it right.  A case in point? Robertson let loose on George W. Bush and his campaign of lies that took America to war in Iraq and set the stage for the horrific violence and sectarian strife ripping Iraq apart.  Unfortunately, I do not recall Robertson opposing the fool's errand launched by Bush/Cheney when it mattered.  Here are highlights from The Raw Story:

Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday blasted former President George W. Bush for selling Americans a “bill of goods” before the Iraq invasion, which led to the violence that is currently sweeping across the country. 

During his Monday broadcast, a viewer asked Robertson if there was a solution to the ongoing violence caused by an al Qaeda splinter group, ISIS, threatening to take over Iraq.

“Right now, what we did — and it was a great mistake to go in there,” Robertson explained, pointing out that Saddam Hussein’s “bomb maker” had said that the then-dictator “doesn’t know how to make an atomic bomb.”

“And so to sell the American people on weapons of mass destruction, he had WMD and was getting [concentrated uranium] yellowcake out of Africa and all of that, it was a lot of nonsense,” the TV preacher said. “We were sold a bill of goods, we should never have gone into that country!”

“As bad as Saddam Hussein was, he held those warring factions in check, and he contained those radical Islamists,” he continued. “Fix it, no? It’s too late to fix it. It’s unfixable. Those simmering animosities have been there for centuries.”

In the end, Robertson reckoned that there would be conflict in Iraq until an Antichrist appeared before the Second Coming of Christ. 

If Jeb Bush is watching, perhaps he will get the message that his brother has irretrievable damaged the Bush brand for at least a generation or more. 

Conservatives Undermine the Future of the GOP

Typical GOP Voter

For a long time now I have said that the Christofascist/Tea Party base of the GOP would be the death of the party - much as the Christofascists are steadily killing the Christian brand.  In a column in the Washington Post, Michael Gerson, a conservative columnist, reaches a conclusion much like my own and looks at the likelihood of the far right damaging the GOP further in the lead up to the 2016 presidential elections.  Here are some column excerpts:

According to the talk radio right, Cantor lost for supporting “amnesty,” which he had actually rejected. But some of the best thinkers of the reform conservative movement — pushing Republicans toward a more populist, pro-family, pro-middle-class agenda — have posited a more sophisticated connection between immigration and Cantor’s loss. Part of his establishment baggage was, in New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s words, his support for the “donor class’s consensus on immigration reform.”

Let me stipulate that reform conservatism is the best hope of a Republican Party struggling to attract middle-class voters. And that the GOP needs to distance itself from an (often deserved) reputation for crony capitalism. But insofar as conservatives identify crony capitalism with comprehensive immigration reform, they undermine the future of the party they seek to help. 

Some conservatives are trying to make common cause with tea party populism, which may be open to pro-middle-class reforms, but certainly not on immigration. The future, in this view, lies with Republicans such as Sen. Mike Lee — skeptical on immigration reform, supportive of middle-class populism — rather than immigration softies such as Jeb Bush. 

Almost all the internal preoccupations of the Republican Party — in primary battles, intra-movement arguments, conservative media tropes — have nothing to do with the party’s main external challenges: appealing to young people, to the middle class, to the working class and to rising demographic groups. Even the few who admit this problem seem to disagree about priority and consistency of such appeals.

Even if immigration reform is not everyone’s top priority in the polls, embracing it would be a signal that Republicans recognize, accept, even welcome that the face of America is changing. 

Currently, that face often registers disdain. Mitt Romney won 59 percent of the white vote in the process of losing the 2012 election by four points. By one estimate, if Democrats secure 80 percent of minority votes in the next presidential election (a realistic goal), they will need only 37 percent of the white vote to extend their White House winning streak. Those who think that ethnic outreach is a secondary concern for Republicans are proposing to win the presidency on a map without Florida.

The GOP requires a candidate who can get through a nomination process that includes Iowa and South Carolina, then secure increased support from white middle-class voters in Ohio and Hispanic voters in Florida. The ideal nominee, therefore, would have tea party populist roots, middle-class sensibilities, a policy interest in social mobility and a conspicuously welcoming approach to immigration. 

Not an easy profile to find in any circumstances. Impossible when ruled out beforehand.

Given the strangle hold of insane elements of the GOP on the nomination process, I candidly do not see how the GOP will be able to mount a candidate that can be attractive to anyone other than those within the shrinking demographic of angry, straight white voters. 

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty