The Democrat Thread

[bmags]

Yes, but if voting laws in CA are like here in FL with closed primaries then you won't be able to vote in the Dem primaries if you are a registered GOP. And when you realize you are registered to the wrong party it may be too lat to get it corrected to be able to vote.

 

I would show my revolt by voting Fiorino.

[Balta1701]

Great moments in legislative acronyms.

“Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections” Act, or The DISCLOSE Act

 

Copied from email press release:

The legislation is a response to the Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case last January. That decision overturned a decades-old law banning political expenditures by corporate interests. The new Senate legislation would partly restore those limits – by barring foreign-controlled corporations, government contractors and companies that have received government assistance from making political expenditures – and also require corporations, unions, and other organizations that make political expenditures to disclose their donors and stand by their ads....

 

Under the senators’ proposal, the heads of any organization sponsoring an ad—including corporate CEOs—would be required to appear during the ad, as is currently required of candidates for federal office. In cases where special interests funnel their money into shell groups, the top five organizations that have donated to the group would have to be identified on screen during any ad sponsored by that group. The CEO of the group’s top funder for that particular advertisement would also be required to appear on screen to deliver a “stand by your ad” disclaimer.

 

Also, the bill would effectively require, for the first time, all corporations and advocacy groups that make political expenditures to establish easy-to-track campaign accounts. All donations to these accounts that exceed $1,000—as well as all expenditures funded through these accounts—would be reported within 24 hours to the Federal Election Commission once the money is spent, as well as to the public on the organization’s website, and to company shareholders in their corporate filing statements. If a company or organization did not wish to establish these transparent accounts, it would be required to disclose all its donors, not just those whose contributions are earmarked for political activities.

 

The legislation will also strengthen a candidate’s ability to respond to corporate attack ads by ensuring they can purchase air time at the lowest possible rate in the same media markets where these attacks ads are airing. The bill would also make sure that private corporations don’t coordinate their political activities with candidates.

[NorthSideSox72]

Great moments in legislative acronyms.

 

 

Copied from email press release:

Seems like a good start.

 

[bmags]

out of curiosity, wouldn't that just get overturned too.

[Balta1701]

out of curiosity, wouldn't that just get overturned too.

I don't see how the Constitution requires you to be able to give money in secret to support a campaign. I may disagree with their legal argument, but at least I can understand the legal argument behind Citizens United. The inclusion of forcing funders to acknowledge themselves and say "I'm Goldman Sachs and I approve this message" seems like a good workaround that could really limit what corporate spenders are allowed to do.

 

That's just the Congress exercising control over the contents of the ads. You can't run misleading ads, you can't run ads for prescription drugs without acknowledging the side effects, you can't run an ad for your own campaign without saying who you are and that you support it, why can you give to the chamber of commerce and have them run an ad for you without having them acknowledge who's paying for the ad?

[BigSqwert]

Tweet of the day...

 

"Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty," - Bill Maher

[HuskyCaucasian]

Tweet of the day...

 

"Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty," - Bill Maher

LOVE IT!!!!!

[kapkomet]

DRILL BABY DRILL.

 

Whatever.

[mr_genius]

so, are the Dems going to push a immigration reform bill this year?

 

i have heard yes, and no. latest I heard from Obama was "no".

[Soxy]

The point here is that Obama is pulling the country hard left. Compared to past years, this is hard left. Not Billy C. left nut on a blue dress left. Hard left.

 

It turns this into a Euroweenie state. And frankly, that's socialism. Obama clearly belives this is the best policy for this country.

I saw you use the bolded term in the republican thread and I wanted to ask you about it here (it seemed rude to say anything about it in your home thread).

 

So, do you not like any other countries? Do you even feel like there's a country out there you can respect? Or is it just us?

 

I have to ask because when I've been abroad people always talk about being global citizens--so do you disagree with that concept?

[kapkomet]

I saw you use the bolded term in the republican thread and I wanted to ask you about it here (it seemed rude to say anything about it in your home thread).

 

So, do you not like any other countries? Do you even feel like there's a country out there you can respect? Or is it just us?

 

I have to ask because when I've been abroad people always talk about being global citizens--so do you disagree with that concept?

 

 

Before I answer that, of course, I'm rude.

 

Ok, now I'll answer that, and I won't be an ass like usual. The "global citizens" phrase makes me really ill right now, because it's being used as a huge cliche and to push an agenda. That's why I have a problem with it, and why I have a problem equating our society and trying to model it to everyone else.

 

On the serious side, I have business ties to international places, and I respect people all over the world. In fact, they'll more often then not even joke about their own system and then say right in the same sentance about how the way we do things is so much better; yet, we are throwing it all away. That is on a whole lot of subjects. Of course, they're proud of their country, but so am I. I don't want to be like everyone else, I want to be better then that, because we've always been better then that.

 

So, I guess that makes me an arrogant American, right? IMO, no, because I can respect people and their ways - yet; it's a really fine line. I've traveled enough and been to enough places to understand the difference and then on top of that expect more out of our society then to "just be like everyone else". We've led the world for about 5 or 6 generations now, and I personally hate to see it go to where "we're just like everyone else" and the "global citizen" thing. When people look at history, especially western cultures, they know they wouldn't be where they are without what our country has done for them.

 

Now, I'll do a little Bush bashing here - I don't like the whole "my way or the highway" thought that he planted (to tie back to the fine line sentance above) - nor do I treat things as such. But, to me, when it's proven time and time again that there's an exceptional way to do things, you continue to be exceptional, and not let yourself get pulled back to the rest of the world, so to speak, because "it's not fair" to be better (kind of the concept of giving the kids on the last place team "good job" trophies - you have to learn to want to excel, not just accept that "everyone's swell" world right now).

 

With all that said, "Euroweenie" was meant as the typical Kaperbole ™ smart ass post and wasn't meant to be serious.

[Soxy]

Before I answer that, of course, I'm rude.

 

Ok, now I'll answer that, and I won't be an ass like usual. The "global citizens" phrase makes me really ill right now, because it's being used as a huge cliche and to push an agenda. That's why I have a problem with it, and why I have a problem equating our society and trying to model it to everyone else.

 

On the serious side, I have business ties to international places, and I respect people all over the world. In fact, they'll more often then not even joke about their own system and then say right in the same sentance about how the way we do things is so much better; yet, we are throwing it all away. That is on a whole lot of subjects. Of course, they're proud of their country, but so am I. I don't want to be like everyone else, I want to be better then that, because we've always been better then that.

 

So, I guess that makes me an arrogant American, right? IMO, no, because I can respect people and their ways - yet; it's a really fine line. I've traveled enough and been to enough places to understand the difference and then on top of that expect more out of our society then to "just be like everyone else". We've led the world for about 5 or 6 generations now, and I personally hate to see it go to where "we're just like everyone else" and the "global citizen" thing. When people look at history, especially western cultures, they know they wouldn't be where they are without what our country has done for them.

 

Now, I'll do a little Bush bashing here - I don't like the whole "my way or the highway" thought that he planted (to tie back to the fine line sentance above) - nor do I treat things as such. But, to me, when it's proven time and time again that there's an exceptional way to do things, you continue to be exceptional, and not let yourself get pulled back to the rest of the world, so to speak, because "it's not fair" to be better (kind of the concept of giving the kids on the last place team "good job" trophies - you have to learn to want to excel, not just accept that "everyone's swell" world right now).

 

With all that said, "Euroweenie" was meant as the typical Kaperbole ™ smart ass post and wasn't meant to be serious.

Thanks Kap. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and honesty. (Can you hear my teacher voice?)

 

I feel like it's so hard to know anymore when people are serious and when they aren't.

 

[kapkomet]

Thanks Kap. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and honesty. (Can you hear my teacher voice?)

 

I feel like it's so hard to know anymore when people are serious and when they aren't.

 

My issue with a lot of politics, Kaperbole ™ aside, is the blatent one-sidedness of it all. The pendulum swing of BushCo's "either you're with us or against us" vs. the "we are all global citizens and we all need to be one people" stuff really bugs me. The honest middle should be, yea, I'm proud of my country, be it Canada, the US, Germany, France, or whatever, but the freedoms granted to us all should be kept at all costs (aka, remember our history, don't repeat the mistakes, honor generations before us, etc.), no matter what the nation, creed, or race. Way too often, people forget that, and that's where respect goes out the window.

[lostfan]

My issue with a lot of politics, Kaperbole ™ aside, is the blatent one-sidedness of it all. The pendulum swing of BushCo's "either you're with us or against us" vs. the "we are all global citizens and we all need to be one people" stuff really bugs me. The honest middle should be, yea, I'm proud of my country, be it Canada, the US, Germany, France, or whatever, but the freedoms granted to us all should be kept at all costs (aka, remember our history, don't repeat the mistakes, honor generations before us, etc.), no matter what the nation, creed, or race. Way too often, people forget that, and that's where respect goes out the window.

That's basically paraphrasing Obama... lol

[kapkomet]

That's basically paraphrasing Obama... lol

 

Really? Yup.

[BigSqwert]

I know it's a long read but it's rather fascinating...

 

Do 'Family Values' Weaken Families?

Can it be? One of the oddest paradoxes of modern cultural politics may at last be resolved.

 

The paradox is this: Cultural conservatives revel in condemning the loose moral values and louche lifestyles of "San Francisco liberals." But if you want to find two-parent families with stable marriages and coddled kids, your best bet is to bypass Sarah Palin country and go to Nancy Pelosi territory: the liberal, bicoastal, predominantly Democratic places that cultural conservatives love to hate.

 

The country's lowest divorce rate belongs to none other than Massachusetts, the original home of same-sex marriage. Palinites might wish that Massachusetts's enviable marital stability were an anomaly, but it is not. The pattern is robust. States that voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in both 2004 and 2008 boast lower average rates of divorce and teenage childbirth than do states that voted for the Republican in both elections. (That is using family data for 2006 and 2007, the latest available.)

 

Six of the seven states with the lowest divorce rates in 2007, and all seven with the lowest teen birthrates in 2006, voted blue in both elections. Six of the seven states with the highest divorce rates in 2007, and five of the seven with the highest teen birthrates, voted red. It's as if family strictures undermine family structures.

 

Naomi Cahn and June Carbone -- family law professors at George Washington University and the University of Missouri (Kansas City), respectively -- suggest that the apparent paradox is no paradox at all. Rather, it is the natural consequence of a cultural divide that has opened wide over the past few decades and shows no sign of closing. To define the divide in a sentence: In red America, families form adults; in blue America, adults form families.

 

Cahn and Carbone's important new book, Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture, from Oxford University Press, is too rich with nuance to be encompassed in a short space. But here is the gist.

 

For generations, American family life was premised on two facts. First, sex makes babies. Second, low-skilled men, if they apply themselves, can expect to get a job, make a living, and support a family.

 

Fact 1 gave rise to a strong linkage between sexual activity, marriage, and procreation. It was (and still is) difficult for teenagers and young adults to abstain from sex, so one important norm was not to have sex before marriage. If you did have premarital sex and conceived a child, you had to marry.

 

Under those rules, families formed early, whether by choice or at the point of a shotgun. That was all right, however, because (Fact 2) the man could get a job and support the family, so the woman could probably stay home and raise the kids. Neither member of the couple had to have an extended education in order to succeed as spouse or parent.

 

True, young people often make poor marital choices. But that, too, was usually all right, at least from society's point of view, because divorce was stigmatized and fairly hard to get. Even a flawed marriage was likely to be a stable one. Over time, the spouses would grow into their responsibilities.

 

That is what "families form adults" means. Many teenagers and young adults formed families before they reached maturity and then came to maturity precisely by shouldering family responsibilities. Immature choices and what were once euphemistically called "accidents" were a fact of life, but the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation, combined with the pressure not to divorce, turned childish errors into adult vocations.

 

But then along come two game-changers: the global information economy and the birth-control revolution. The postindustrial economy puts a premium on skill and cognitive ability. A high school education or less no longer offers very good prospects. Blue-collar wages fall, so a factory job no longer cuts it -- if, that is, you can even find a factory job.

 

Meanwhile, birth control separates decisions about sex from decisions about parenthood, and the advent of effective female contraception lets men shift the moral responsibility for pregnancy to women, eroding the shotgun marriage. Divorce becomes easy to obtain and sheds its stigma. Women stream into the workforce and become more economically independent -- a good thing, but with the side effect of contributing to a much higher divorce rate.

 

In this very different world, early family formation is often a calamity. It short-circuits skill acquisition by knocking one or both parents out of school. It carries a high penalty for immature marital judgment in the form of likely divorce. It leaves many young mothers, now bearing both the children and the cultural responsibility for pregnancy, without the option of ever marrying at all.

 

New norms arise for this environment, norms geared to prevent premature family formation. The new paradigm prizes responsible childbearing and child-rearing far above the traditional linkage of sex, marriage, and procreation. Instead of emphasizing abstinence until marriage, it enjoins: Don't form a family until after you have finished your education and are equipped for responsibility. In other words, adults form families. Family life marks the end of the transition to adulthood, not the beginning.

 

Red America still prefers the traditional model. In 2008, when news emerged that the 17-year-old daughter of the Republican vice presidential nominee was pregnant, traditionalists were reassured rather than outraged, because Bristol Palin followed the time-honored rules by announcing she would marry the father. They were kids, to be sure, but they would form a family and grow up together, as so many before them had done. Blue America, by contrast, was censorious. Bristol had committed the unforgivable sin of starting a family too young. If red and blue America seemed to be talking past one another about family values, it's because they were.

 

When you understand all of that, you also understand why you can do a good job of predicting how a state will vote in national elections by looking at its population's average age at first marriage and childbirth. In 2007, for example, the states with the lowest median age at marriage in 2007 were all red (Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Utah). The states with the highest first-marriage age were all blue (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island). The same pattern holds for age at first childbirth. Massachusetts is highest (about 28 years old), Mississippi lowest (about 23 years old).

 

A further twist makes the story more interesting, and more sobering. Cahn and Carbone find an asymmetry. Blue norms are well adapted to the Information Age. They encourage late family formation and advanced education. They produce prosperous parents with graduate degrees, low divorce rates, and one or two over-protected children.

 

Red norms, on the other hand, create a quandary. They shun abortion (which is blue America's ultimate weapon against premature parenthood) and emphasize abstinence over contraception. But deferring sex in today's cultural environment, with its wide acceptance of premarital sex, is hard. Deferring sex and marriage until you get a college or graduate degree -- until age 23 or 25 or beyond -- is harder still. "Even the most devout overwhelmingly do not abstain until marriage," Cahn and Carbone write.

 

In any case, for a lot of people, a graduate education or even a bachelor's degree is unrealistic. The injunction to delay family formation until you are 24 and finish your master's offers these people only cold comfort.

 

The result of this red quandary, Cahn and Carbone argue, is a self-defeating backlash. Moral traditionalism fails to prevent premarital sex and early childbirth. Births precipitate more early marriages and unwed parenthood. That, in turn, increases family breakdown while reducing education and earnings.

 

"The consequential sense of failure increases the demands to constrain the popular culture -- and blue family practices such as contraception and abortion -- that undermines parental efforts to instill the right moral values in children," Cahn and Carbone say. "More sex prompts more sermons and more emphasis on abstinence." The cycle repeats. Culturally, economically, and politically, blue and red families drift further apart as their fortunes diverge.

 

Whether Cahn and Carbone are right will take time and subsequent scholarship to learn; but their story is both plausible and sobering. Plausible, because it brings so many aspects of the culture wars into sharper focus. Sobering, because the economic and cultural forces battering traditional family norms show no signs of abating -- but the new, education-centered pathway to adulthood is often least accessible to those who need it most.

[Soxy]

I know it's a long read but it's rather fascinating...

 

Do 'Family Values' Weaken Families?

Que interesante. Gracias.

[Balta1701]

Sen. John McCain...now less sane than Glenn Beck.

[StrangeSox]

Sen. John McCain...now less sane than Glenn Beck.

 

He's an American citizen.

 

But, hey, it's Obama and the Democrats that want to destroy our individual freedom!

[NorthSideSox72]

Sen. John McCain...now less sane than Glenn Beck.

Not often I agree with Glenn Beck, but here I sure do. An American citizen committed a crime. What's difficult to understand here?

 

[StrangeSox]

Not often I agree with Glenn Beck, but here I sure do. An American citizen committed a crime. What's difficult to understand here?

 

The duplicity of conservatives* crowing about freedom and liberty while wanting to grant it selectively. It's mind-boggling.

 

*some, not all conservatives

Edited May 4, 2010 by StrangeSox

[HuskyCaucasian]

Sen. John McCain...now less sane than Glenn Beck.

Even More Less-Sane:

Lieberman Proposes Taking Away Citizenship Of Suspected Terrorists

Joe Lieberman has a creative solution: Take away their citizenship. "If you've joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship," Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, told reporters Tuesday.

 

Lieberman argued that if an act of terrorism was coordinated with a group designated as a terrorist organization, then an American involved with such a group would lose citizenship and the constitutional protections that come with it. "It just seems to me if you're attacking your fellow Americans in an act of war, you lose the rights that come with citizenship," he said.

 

How about we charge them with treason instead?

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-06/ne...-with-rent-boy/

 

The pictures on the Rentboy.com profile show a shirtless young man with delicate features, guileless eyes, and sun-kissed, hairless skin. The profile touts his "smooth, sweet, tight ass" and "perfectly built 8 inch cock (uncut)" and explains he is "sensual," "wild," and "up for anything" — as long you ask first. And as long as you pay.

 

On April 13, the "rent boy" (whom we'll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

 

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy's client and, as it happens, one of America's most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

 

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. "I had surgery," Rekers said, "and I can't lift luggage. That's why I hired him." (Though medical problems didn't stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

 

Yet Rekers wouldn't deny he met his slender, blond escort at Rentboy.com — which features homepage images of men in bondage and grainy videos of crotch-rubbing twinks — and Lucien confirmed it.

[BigSqwert]

We must preserve our family values and not allow the gays to marry.

[Steve9347]

The world has officially ended... Glenn Beck made sense on a given topic.