Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Swedish Meatballs
1 day ago
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Reacting to a rising tide of anger from gay and lesbian supporters at a series of slights and deferred promises, President Obama will tomorrow sign an executive order extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees...Ben also notes that this was already on the agenda a long while ago - in other words, Obama is doing it to look like he's giving the community something to make up for the incest comments, when he was actually going to do it all along.
The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a large state-based gay rights group, Alan Van Capelle, greeted today's announcement sarcastically.
"Welcome to 1999," he told POLITICO. "How revolutionary of the White House to give benefits to same-sex couples, when two-thirds of conservative Wall Street are already doing it. What an achievement."
"It's just one of the things that should have been done in January," Van Capelle, who was among those taking his name off the Biden event, said, calling for a "comprehensive strategy." "If the President makes the announcement tomorrow, it will still fall short of what LGBT people are expecting from this administration.""
Sen. John Ensign today acknowledged an extramarital affair with a member of his campaign staff.Of course, Ensign is another marriage hypocrite. He was one of the earliest supporters of George Bush's gay-bashing strategy, which was so popular back in 2004. Yes, Ensign was so worried about the institution of marriage that he wanted a constitutional amendment to protect it from same-sex couples. From February 2004:
The affair took place between December 2007 and August 2008 with a campaign staffer who was married to an employee in Ensign's Senate office. Neither have worked for the senator since May 2008.
Ensign read a brief prepared statement Tuesday afternoon at the Lloyd George Federal Building in downtown Las Vegas in which he expressed regret and took no questions.
"I came back home to Nevada to come forward to explain to the citizens of our state something I was involved in about a year ago. Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of our marriage. It is absolutely the worst thing I have never done in my life," Ensign said.
Ensign said he sought and received forgiveness from his wife and the couple had gone to counseling. He said he still committed to serving the people of Nevada.
After evaluating the idea of President Bush's recommendation of such an amendment Tuesday, Ensign said he believes it is necessary "to protect the institution of marriage in America."Hypocrite. Sounds like he should have voted for a constitutional amendment to keep it in his pants. That would have done more to protect his marriage. Read More......
"In order to defend the institution of marriage, uphold the rights of individual states and maintain the will of the people, I believe we are compelled to amend our country's Constitution," Ensign said.
In the evening, the President will deliver brief remarks and sign a Presidential Memorandum regarding federal benefits and non-discrimination in the Oval Office. This event is pooled press.That pretty much means that he's going to give gay federal employees partner benefits.
Washington, Jun 16 - U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) issued the following statement in response to the Obama Administration’s decision to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in a recent court filing.I think Jared is wrong about one thing. We are at the breaking point. And this White House and Democratic party is quickly shoving us over the edge. We'd been warning them for months privately, to no avail. No more. Read More......
“I was shocked and disappointed to learn that President Obama chose to defend DOMA in federal court, especially given his campaign promise to call for a full repeal of DOMA. My sadness turned to outrage when I read the Justice Department’s brief that not only defended this hurtful law but seemed to embrace it. Comparing my loving relationship with my partner, Marlon, to incest was unconscionable coming from a president who has called for change.
Since this filing, I have called on the President to issue a statement or give any sign that would clarify his position and am disappointed in his lack of reply.
I am a proud Democrat, as are many in the GLBT community, and I believe we must hold our leaders accountable. The Obama Administration made a HUGE mistake in the DOMA brief. If they keep making mistakes like this, they risk losing the support of the GLBT community forever, although I do not believe we are at that point yet.
President Obama needs to honor his promise to repeal this law and end its needlessly divisive and harmful impact on our nation. I again call on him to work with us in Congress to help pass legislation, ending this hateful and divisive law.
As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, “busy calendars and political expediency are no excuse for making one group of Americans wait any longer for equal rights.” (emphasis added)
If you CAN make the date, you'll be joining the Vice President of the United States . . .Rouse's departure ups to four the number of high profile gay politicos who have now dropped out of the event following the Justice Department's filing of a homophobic brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act last week. The other three people to pull out of the fundraiser are famous "friend of Bill Clinton" David Mixner, Alan Van Capelle (Executive Director of New York's largest gay group, the Empire State Pride Agenda), and top gay blogger Andy Towle.
. . . along with Virginia Governor / DNC Chair Tim Kaine . . . immediate past DNC Chair Howard Dean . . . Chairman Barney Frank . . . Representatives Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis . . . Vermont Senate President Pete Shumlin . . . District of Columbia Mayor Adrian Fenty . . . David Mixner . . . Richard Socarides . . . The Task Force's Rea Carey . . . HRC's Marty Rouse . . . ESPA's Alan Van Capelle . . . GLAD's Mary Bonauto . . . NBJC's Alexander Robinson . . . GMHC's Marjorie Hill . . . The Victory Fund's Chuck Wolfe . . . Towle Road's Andy Towle . . . Iraq Marine vet Brian Fricke (whom you may have seen on 60 Minutes) . . . Billy Bean . . . Joan Garry . . . Keith Boykin . . . Ray Buckley . . . Brian Johnson . . . Corey Johnson . . . Dixon Osburn . . . Paul Smith . . . Bruce Bastian . . . Mitchell Gold . . . Krystal Ball . . . and so many others, like YOU, who have been pushing the ball down the field for so long. (Well, Krystal is fairly new to this, but what a kick to have a pro-marriage CPA triathlete young mom running to unseat a conservative Republican in Virginia.)
Few suggest yet that Ayatollah Khamenei’s hold on power is at risk. But, analysts say, he has opened a serious fissure in the face of Islamic rule and one that may prove impossible to patch over, particularly given the fierce dispute over the election that has erupted amid the elite veterans of the 1979 revolution. Even his strong links to the powerful Revolutionary Guards — long his insurance policy — may not be decisive as the confrontation in Iran unfolds.As we watch people put their lives on the line for democracy, there are ways to help. New media and social networking sites, like Twitter, have allowed young Iranians the ability to communicate what's happening inside their country -- even as the authorities try to prevent it. Yesterday's rally was just amazing to see:
Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become ‘Iranians’ it becomes much harder to find them.I did it:
"If this debacle of a brief represented the President's views, I'd boycott too," Tobias, who is organizing the fundraiser and has been one of the White House's most vocal gay defenders, said in an email. "[I] [t]otally understand all the hurt and anger, thought Joe Solmonese['s] letter to the President was spot on. Still personally totally believe in the President. His Pride Proclamation, and his call to repeal DOMA, are genuine."Andy is a friend and I take him at his word. But the problem is that on Sunday, the president's own director of OPM said that these were in fact Obama's words, and those of us asking Obama to defend DOMA were asking him to "lie." And on Saturday, we proved that the president had the power to oppose DOMA in the brief, as the NYT has since confirmed - he simply didn't think we were important enough to defend.
New U.S. housing starts and permits rebounded in May from record lows as ground-breaking for multifamily units surged after tumbling the prior month, a government report showed on Tuesday.CNBC has more on why these numbers are not based on reality. Read More......
The Commerce Department said housing starts jumped 17.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 532,000 units, from April's revised 454,000 units. Ground-breaking for multifamily units surged 61.7 percent. Multifamily unit starts fell 49.4 percent in April.
Compared to the same period last year, housing starts dived 45.2 percent.
The Obama administration is fighting to block access to names of visitors to the White House, taking up the Bush administration argument that a president doesn't have to reveal who comes calling to influence policy decisions.Read More......
Despite President Barack Obama's pledge to introduce a new era of transparency to Washington, and despite two rulings by a federal judge that the records are public, the Secret Service has denied msnbc.com's request for the names of all White House visitors from Jan. 20 to the present. It also denied a narrower request by the nonpartisan watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sought logs of visits by executives of coal companies.
CREW says it will file a lawsuit Tuesday against the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service. (Updated: Here's a copy of CREW's complaint.)
"We are deeply disappointed," said CREW attorney Anne L. Weismann, "that the Obama administration is following the same anti-transparency policy as the Bush administration when it comes to White House visitor records. Refusing to let the public know who visits the White House is not the action of a pro-transparency, pro-accountability administration."
Two prominent gay figures, activist David Mixner and widely-read blogger Andy Towle, have pulled out of a Democratic National Committee fundraiser later this month amid growing calls to confront the administration at what was supposed to be its first large scale opportunity to bring in gay cash....Guess who's coming to dinner?
The escalating tension sets the stage for an unusual conflict between the Vice President and what has traditionally been a core Democratic group -- and a wealthy one -- at the posh Mandarin Oriental on June 25.
Did I mention that the Mandarin Oriental has a 10,400-square-foot spa?Did I mention that the attendees are going to need a 10,400 sq ft spa and a plane ticket out of the country after our community gets a hold of them.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
"As it generally does with existing statutes, the Justice Department is defending the law on the books in court...," said Tracy Schmaler. "Until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system." (emphasis added)At least the DOJ spokesperson is no longer lying. Previously, the DOJ implied that the White House had no choice but to defend the law Obama once called "'abhorrent." In fact, that is not true, as proven this weekend in an essay by a former senior White House aide to President Clinton. Now the DOJ is simply saying that the White House "generally" defends the law in court cases. That is true, when dealing with "general" run-of-the-mill cases. But when dealing with cases that are of great political and social import to the president, as the former White House aide explains, the president traditionally orders the DOJ not defend such laws at all:
I know and accept the fact that one of the Department of Justice's roles is to (generally) defend the law against constitutional attack. But not in all cases, certainly not in this case – and not in this way. To defend this brief is to defend the indefensible.In other words, the White House had a choice, and still does. But they've decided that our civil rights are a general, run of the mill subject for a law suit, like property disputes and arcane tax provisions (one now wonders how the White House feels about Loving v. Virginia). They do not consider our civil rights to be exceptional, or of any significant social or political import. They, therefore, will continue to file briefs defending a law the president had promised to repeal, and presenting arguments so hateful they could have been written by Jerry Falwell, George Bush, or Dick Cheney. Strike that, even Dick Cheney is better than this White House on gay marriage.
From my experience, in a case where, as here, there are important political and social issues at stake, the president’s relationship with the Justice Department should work like this: The president makes a policy decision first and then the very talented DOJ lawyers figure out how to apply it to actual cases. If the lawyers cannot figure out how to defend a statute and stay consistent with the president’s policy decision, the policy decision should always win out.
Thus, the general rule that the DOJ must defend laws against attack is relative – like everything in Washington.
The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights.Yes, those incest references were particularly ugly and disturbing.
A gay couple married under California law is challenging the act in federal court. In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the couple lack legal standing to do so. It goes on to contend that even if they have standing, the case should be dismissed on the merits.
The brief insists it is reasonable for states to favor heterosexual marriages because they are the “traditional and universally recognized form of marriage.” In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece.
In the presidential campaign, President Obama declared that he would work to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, the administration appears to be defending it out of a sense of obligation to support a validly enacted Congressional law. There is a strong presumption that the Justice Department will defend federal laws, but it is not an inviolable rule. (emphasis added)And, this paragraph nails it:
If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.But, our alleged allies in the Obama administration did resort to "specious arguments and inflammatory language." It was very, very ugly.
Mr Strauss-Kahn pointed to improving, but still dysfunctional, credit markets and doubts about some banks as reasons for his wariness: "The markets are not as frozen as they were one year ago, or eight months ago but they are still not functioning normally. And the recovery needs markets functioning correctly.... One of the constants of [banking] crises is that you never recover before the cleansing of the balance sheets of the financial sector."Stateside, Nouriel Roubini and Robert Shiller both see problems ahead. Read More......
Nonetheless, the IMF has raised global growth estimates for 2010 to 2.4 per cent from 1.9 per cent, and confirmed its April forecast for a 1.3 per cent contraction in 2009. It also revealed a brighter outlook for the US. It now believes that the world's largest economy will grow by 0.75 per cent in 2010, rather than staying flat, and that it will contract by 2.5 per cent this year, rather than 2.8 per cent. The IMF gives the credit to the Obama administration's stimulus packages – "increasingly strong and comprehensive".
The IMF chief acknowledged this improvement and that many economic indicators have been pointing, albeit tentatively, towards a global upturn, but reflected the misgivings voiced by G8 finance ministers after their summit in Italy over the weekend: "Their [G8] stance is that we are beginning to see some green shoots but nevertheless we have to be cautious."
Exxon Mobil Corp. was ordered Monday to pay about $500 million in interest on punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, nearly doubling the payout to Alaska Natives, fishermen, business owners and others harmed by the 1989 disaster.Read More......
The ruling was issued by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
In June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court set punitive damages at $507.5 million. But two months later, the high court declined to decide whether Exxon Mobil must pay interest on the punitive damages awarded in the nation's worst oil spill and instead sent it back to the appeals court.
Monday's decision would double the average payout of about $15,000 for the nearly 33,000 claimants.
Not since the 1979 Iranian Revolution have massed protesters gathered in such numbers, or with such overwhelming popularity, through the boulevards of this torrid, despairing city. They jostled and pushed and crowded through narrow lanes to reach the main highway and then found riot police in steel helmets and batons lined on each side. The people ignored them all. And the cops, horribly outnumbered by these tens of thousands, smiled sheepishly and – to our astonishment – nodded their heads towards the men and women demanding freedom. Who would have believed the government had banned this march?CNN now reporting Iran state media has updated the death toll to seven people. From reading the Robert Fisk article above, it sounds like the pro-religious government Basiji forces are attacking those at the far end of the rallies. They are too outnumbered to touch the large groups so they cowardly attack stragglers. Read More......
The protesters' bravery was all the more staggering because many had already learned of the savage killing of five Iranians on the campus of Tehran University, done to death – according to students – by pistol-firing Basiji militiamen. When I reached the gates of the college yesterday morning, many students were weeping behind the iron fence of the campus, shouting "massacre" and throwing a black cloth across the mesh. That was when the riot police returned and charged into the university grounds once more.
At times, Mousavi's victory march threatened to crush us amid walls of chanting men and women. They fell into the storm drains and stumbled over broken trees and tried to keep pace with his vehicle, vast streamers of green linen strung out in front of their political leader's car. They sang in unison, over and over, the same words: "Tanks, guns, Basiji, you have no effect now." As the government's helicopters roared overhead, these thousands looked upwards and bayed above the clatter of rotor blades: "Where is my vote?" Clichés come easily during such titanic days, but this was truly a historic moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
© 2010 - John Aravosis | Design maintenance by Jason Rosenbaum
Send me your tips: americablog AT starpower DOT net