Transformation

Political Cartoon is by Bill Day at cagle.com.

It Takes More Than A Flag Pin Or Yellow Ribbon

GOP Ransom Note (Revised)

(This image is from the website mariopiperni.com.)

The Red States Don't Oppose Legalizing Same-Sex Unions - As Long As You Don't Call It Marriage

It has been widely reported, and commonly believed, that people in the red states (those states controlled by right-wing Republicans) oppose granting the LGBT community equal rights by allowing same-sex marriages. But it's not quite that simple. The reality is that most folks in those states (a significant majority) would like to see the LGBT community granted equal rights. They just don't want to call it "marriage".

Kansas is a perfect example. Public Policy Polling recently questioned residents of that state on the question. The poll was done between February 18th and 20th of 693 Kansas residents, and has a margin of error of 3.7 points. Note that when people were asked if they supported legalizing same-sex marriage, a plurality said no (48% to 44%). But when they were asked if they favored legalizing same-sex civil unions (unions that would have all of the legal rights and privileges of opposite-sex marriages), a clear majority (66% to 32%) supported that.

To me, this is a rather strange outcome. If you allow legal same-sex civil unions, and those civil unions have all the same rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex marriages, haven't you in effect legalized same-sex marriages? Of course you have. The only difference is the use of the word "marriage" -- a difference that has no real meaning.

Why does this difference exist, since it is only a semantic one? Some right-wing fundamentalists will claim it is because marriage is a religious (christian) sacrament. That simply doesn't hold water. Marriages existed long before any of the modern religious were established, and opposite-sex couples have long had the right to be joined in a civil ceremony -- and have those civil unions called marriages.

Others will tell you that if same-sex marriages are legalized, then some churches that oppose those unions will be forced to perform them. That is also ludicrous. No one is advocating making any church preform any ceremony they do not approve of, since that would be a violation of religious freedom. For example, there are churches that don't approve of inter-faith marriages, or marriages between a believer and a non-believer. But while those marriages are legal in all 50 states, no church is required or forced to perform them.

The same would be true of same-sex marriages. Some churches would perform them and some would refuse to do so -- but it would be left up to the individual church, and none would have to violate their own beliefs.

Personally, I feel there is only one reason for right-wing christians to cling to this semantic difference. It is a face-saving device. Many of them are beginning to realize they are advocating an untenable position -- a bigoted position that is unconstitutional and promotes granting some people more rights than others. They want to grant all Americans equal rights, but don't want to admit they have been wrong -- so they favor civil unions without the use of the word "marriage".

And Kansas is not the only red state that thinks this way. In fact, I would venture to say that is the position in most (if not all) of them. Here are some other examples of red state voters that approve of civil unions (without using the word "marriage"):

Painter

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.

Russia Damages Its Rehabilitated Reputation With Invasion

The U.S.S.R. (Soviet Union) was regarded as an enemy by much of the world, especially the Western nations. It was viewed as anti-democratic, and an aggressive expansionist country. But the Soviet Union ceased to exist near the end of 1991, and since that time, Russia has tried hard to rehabilitate their image.

They went to a largely capitalist economic system, and started to choose their leaders with democratic elections (or at least elections that had the veneer of being democratic. They also tried to project a more peaceful image -- convincing many that they were interested in cooperation, not confrontation. They stopped most of their anti-Western rhetoric, and even joined the G-8 economic group.

And they were pretty successful in their efforts to change their image over the last couple of decades. Many in the West began to believe Russia was serious in its desire to join with the West in a desire to promote peace and prosperity, and that they should no longer be viewed with fear and trepidation.

The recent Winter Olympics in Sochi was Russia's opportunity to show off the "new" and changed Russia. And that effort was largely successful. While many disapproved of Russia's stand on homosexuality, most saw through the games the image Russia wanted to project -- the image of a friendly people who just wanted to take their rightful place among the world's nations.

Unfortunately, with one single action (the invasion of the Crimea by Russian troops), Russia has managed to destroy two decades of hard work in rehabilitating their reputation. They say they acted only to protect Russians living in the Crimea ( a section of Ukraine with a large Russian population). But the fact is that they have invaded a sovereign nation -- bringing back visions of the old aggressive and expansionist Russia.

Will Russia withdraw its troops from the Crimea once the situation has settled down? Or will they annex it (and possibly other parts of Ukraine) as an autonomous Russian-protected (and controlled) country? I suspect it is the latter, but only the future can answer that question. Either way, they have done some serious damage to the rehabilitated reputation they worked hard for two decades to establish.

Patriotism ?

Political Cartoon is by Rob Rogers in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Early Party Presidential Preferences In Iowa

One of the first states to choose their preference for president for each party in 2016 will be Iowa. The choices made by the party caucuses in that state can often give a candidate a boost going into other states, and defines who the major players are in each party. So, even though it is still very early, I thought it was interesting when Public Policy Polling queried Iowa voters on their presidential preferences.

The choice of Iowa Democrats was no surprise. Just like in other states, Iowa Democrats overwhelmingly support the nomination of Hillary Clinton. Unless something very unexpected happens in the next couple of years, Hillary can have the nomination simply by declaring that she is a candidate.

The Republican picture is very different -- but is the same as has been reflected in other states. There is no clear cut front-runner for the Republicans. The GOP race is wide open, and still waiting for a candidate to establish himself as the favorite. Will that happen in the next year or so, or will  the GOP enter the primaries with no favorite -- and engage in the same kind of dog-fight that hurt them in 2012?

It also looks like Iowa is leaning toward the Democrats, at least they are if Hillary is the nominee. Here is how she fared in this survey against some prominent Republicans:

Hillary Clinton...............45%
Jeb Bush...............41%
Unsure...............13%

Hillary Clinton...............45%
Chris Christie...............39%
Unsure...............17%

Hillary Clinton...............46%
Mike Huckabee...............42%
Unsure...............12%

Hillary Clinton...............47%
Rand Paul...............42%
Unsure...............11%

The Public Policy Polling survey was done between February 20th and 23rd of 869 Iowa voters, and has a margin of error of 3.3 points. For the party preferences, 335 Democrats were questioned (with a moe of 5.4 points) and 283 Republicans (with a moe of 5.8 points).

Not Enlightened

Political Cartoon is by Lee Judge in the Kansas City Star.

Bernie On Veterans Benefits

This is some pretty good advice from Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. When you vote to send American citizens to war (any kind of war, even a ridiculous and unnecessary one), you have an obligation to help the veterans of those wars to access needed medical care, educational opportunities, and to find a decent job. Sanders has a bill pending in the Senate that would do that, but it is being blocked by Senate Republicans. Those Republicans were quick to send those citizens to war (and spend over a trillion dollars to do it), but now claim we don't have the money to help them. That is unacceptable -- especially since those same Republicans are now trying to pick a new war (with Iran).

All Correct

Obamacare Is Here To Stay (And The GOP Knows It)

The Republican Party had said they would be voting again to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) this coming week, and this time they would be passing their own version of health care reform. But that's now not going to happen.

The Republicans have been saying for years now that they will produce a better health care reform plan -- and for years they have been unable to do that. They have been unable to do it because whatever proposal a Republican comes up with, there are a majority of Republicans against it. And the same thing happened to their plan for this week. They were unable to get enough Republicans to support any reform plan at all to get it passed.

While their opposition to Obamacare is nearly universal with their elected officials, they simply cannot come up with any other cure for our broken health care system (except to cut taxes for the insurance companies and other corporations, which is their "cure" for every problem the nation faces). So, instead of voting to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a GOP reform plan this week, they are going to just propose and vote on a one-year delay of Obamacare's individual mandate.

Even if this proposal passes both houses and becomes law (which it won't), this is nothing short of a surrender to reality -- the reality that Obamacare is here to stay (and there's nothing they can do about it). And it's not just their inability to come up with an alternative that makes them realize this (even if they won't admit it).

They can see the numbers of people who have purchased private insurance under Obamacare -- numbers that are significant, and continue to grow. And they know it is simply not politically viable to deny these millions of people the cheaper and better insurance Obamacare is providing them. The Department of Health and Human Services is reporting that the number of people who have purchased private insurance under Obamacare has now topped 4 million (and that doesn't count the millions more who have now qualified for Medicaid).

I'm sure the Republicans will continue to mouth their proposals to repeal Obamacare during their primary season, because that's what their teabagger base wants to hear. But they know the fight is over. Obamacare is here to stay. Now we need to start a dialogue on how to improve Obamacare.

Minimum Wage ?

Political Cartoon is by Lee Judge in the Kansas City Star.

Kinky Supports Legalizing Hemp And Marijuana

Kinky Friedman (pictured at left) is running for the Democratic nomination to be the candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner on the November ballot. And while most candidates of either party are to afraid to take a stand on any controversial issues, Kinky is not.

Kinky is running his campaign on three major issues -- solving the state's water problems, legalizing the growth of hemp by Texas farmers, and legalizing the possession of marijuana by adults. Here is what Kinky has to say to the voters of Texas:


Greetings, fellow Texans!

I’m running for Agriculture Commissioner of Texas in the March 4th Democratic Primary in an effort to bring courage, imagination, and common sense back to politics. I’m running as an old-time Harry Truman blue dog Democrat. I’m running to try to give young people in Texas someone in politics they can look up to. Last, but certainly not least, I’m running to end the prohibition on pot and hemp in the great state of Texas.

There would be no culture without agriculture. It is the green thread that runs through all our lives. As we have seen in Colorado and Washington State, legalizing, taxing, and cultivating pot can be the economic engine to fund education, not just talk about it, so perhaps we would no longer rank 50th in the country in high school graduation rates. Legalizing pot will lower property taxes as well as reducing other state and local taxes. It will also effectively spay and neuter the Mexican drug cartels; the people of Texas will become the new cartel. I have yet to meet a law enforcement officer in Texas who does not believe we are losing the war on drugs.

In 2010, according to the Dallas Observer, more than 74,000 non-violent pot arrests occurred in Texas, resulting in the ruin of many young lives at the cost to the taxpayer of 250 million dollars. It should also be noted that seven times as many African-Americans and Hispanics have been incarcerated as whites.

Add to this that Texas has arguably the biggest and the best cancer hospital in the world, M.D. Anderson in Houston, and no medical marijuana.

As far as hemp goes, it’s really a no-brainer. Cotton requires twice as much water as hemp, yet hemp produces two and a half times the fiber. This is ever more important in these times of deep drought and a major factor in considering our options for water conservation. Hemp returns nutrients to the soil; cotton does not. Hemp requires no pesticides; twenty-five percent of all the pesticides in the world go into cotton. Hemp even reduces CO2 in the atmosphere. If you were a farmer, which would you rather grow?

Prohibition simply doesn’t work. Lifting the prohibition on pot is not about long-haired hippies smoking dope; it’s about the economy, the environment and water conservation, education, the border, health care, criminal justice (and injustice!). It’s about the future of this great state.

I doubt if any other candidate for statewide office will champion (or even mention) these ideas. But someone needs to bring them forth. That’s another reason I’m running. It’s a dirty job, and I get to do it.

It would be a good thing for all of us to ask ourselves two questions whenever we encounter a new idea. The first question should be, “Is it good for Texas?” The second question should be, “Do we want to be leaders, or do we want to be seceders?”

Yours in Texas,

Kinky Friedman