Ben of Hungryblues has a disturbing story of a possible lynching in Alabama being covered up by local authorities. I’m a little leery of this story precisely because it has been given so little coverage, making it hard to be sure what happened; but that’s all the more reason the story should be given more attention.
I can’t resist linking to this thread on an “anti-feminism” livejournal community. A member of the community posted this photo with the caption “so damn hot!” This led to a debate between those anti-feminists who objected to the Nazi imagery (because “it gives anti-feminism a bad name” - that Nazis are every kind of bigoted scum didn’t seem to weigh as heavily), and those who feel Nazis should be welcomed as anti-feminist allies.
My favorite quote, from a poster complaining about how Nazis are misunderstood: “It’s so frustrating when people let hatred cloud their vision like that.”
I’ll think of this photo the next time I see some moron call feminists “feminazis.” At least none of our allies are actual Nazis.
From the AP via ABC News:
Superior Court Judge Carol Ball sympathized with plaintiff frustration that the 91 year old law had not been applied recently, but was only reactivated in the wake of the ruling to permit same sex marriage but noted the law is being applied equally. The state is also blocking marriages if couples are underage in their state of residence.
The plaintiffs are considering an appeal.
In related news, on Tuesday, a federal bankruptcy court in Washington State upheld DOMA. An American lesbian couple who married in Canada will not be permitted to file bankruptcy as a married couple in the US. I have not read whether they will appeal. I would have to guess that a couple in bankruptcy proceedings cannot afford a costly appeal.
Meanwhile, I’m waiting to hear whether the Louisiana anti-marriage equality amendment will be decided by a vote on the Sept. 18 ballot. I had thought keeping track of the ultimate decision was confusing enough when there were two suits. In one article, I read there were three cases each with its own appeals. I understand there will be an important ruling on one of the appeals tomorrow.
As we get closer to the election, I tend to check out electoral college survey maps - at least in theory, state-by-state poll results are much more meaningful than national polls in showing how the presidential campaign is going. Ed Fitzgerald’s blog Unfutz is very usefully providing a more-or-less-weekly survey of all the various electoral map survey sites - here’s his most recent.
Page 13 is online. I’m pretty happy with how this page looks. Many thanks to my brother-in-law Tim, who loaned me a lightbox and the use of a computer while I was in Ithaca, making it possible for me to get cartooning done.
Also, as Jimmy Ho pointed out in the comments last week, the Modern Tales Family Newsletter has an interview with me (the interviewer is Jenn Lee, whose blog is soooo good-looking, and who is a fellow Girlamatic cartoonist - her comic, Dicebox, is the best thing on Girlamatic). Anyhow, Jenn’s interview with me is only accessable until the next newsletter appears, so if you wanna read it, better do it soon.
In other news, I’m returning to Portland today (or tomorrow, depending on what time zone you’re in - the point is, I’m returning on Thursday). Yay!
The Washington Post is running a contest called “2004 Best Blogs - Politics and Elections Readers’ Choice Awards”. These are the categories:
What? No best cartoons? Never mind.
Nominate “Alas, A Blog”! In all categories. That’s right, both inside and outside the beltway. Both best Democratic and best Republican coverage. I don’t generally know any campaign dirt others don’t know, but vote for us in that category anyway. Of course, we will be here after election day, so type “Alas, a Blog” in that box too.
Click here to enter their poll. They will be taking nominations until Sept. 3rd, so nominate us now.
As many have heard, ultra-conservative Maryland radio talk-show host, Alan Keyes, jumped in to replace Jack Ryan in the race for the Illinois Senate. Although few believe Keyes can beat Democratic Nominee Obama, Keyes is fulfilling the universal expectation that he will be outspoken on the campaign trail so as to maximize media attention.
Keyes seems to have decided to fixate on this attention grabbing issue: slavery! He first alluded to slavery when criticizing Obama’s views on abortion. (For the story, read The Sun Times.)
Now, Keyes is discussing slave reparations. Keyes previously argued vehemently against monetary reparations for slavery. Yet, days after being booed by African Americans at the Bud Billikan parade, The Chicago Tribune reports:
Based on his justification for federal reparations, I gather Keyes proposes descendants of slaves continue to pay Illinois State income and sales tax, city and county taxes and local real estate taxes. After all, there was no slavery in The Land of Lincoln. It’s also not clear when he is proposing we start the clock. Is he suggesting we excuse all current living descendants of slaves and their children? Or, does he mean we excuse taxes for children and grandchildren, but not great-grandchildren, of former slaves? (The civil war ended in 1865. Are any grandchildren of slaves still alive and paying income taxes?) I doubt these details will be ironed out before the election in November.
Yes, I would like Keyes to clarify this idea a bit more. One question I really want answered is:
If you honestly support monetary reparation to this generation of African American descendants of slaves, isn’t this an unjust method to distribute the money?
The US income tax is progressive; social security taxes are regressive. Low income Americans currently pay plenty in social security taxes, but little in income tax. So, applying your proposal, low income African Americans would receive next to nothing in reparations. In contrast, high income African Americans would receive fairly generous monetary benefits.
If you wish to erase the lingering negative effects of slavery, wouldn’t it make more sense to design a program to benefit low income African Americans at least as much as a high income African Americans?
Asking that question, I realize the question I really want answered is this:
Aren’t you proposing a method of doling out reparations that no-one would support?
I guess we do know at least one African American wouldn’t get the income tax break. Obama. He is not a descendent of slaves.
Long, strange day.
It began with a five-hour bus ride into New York City, which took seven hours. Then I had, for lack of a better term, afternoon tea with Craig Wedren and David Wain. David looks much as I remembered him from summer camp, except with a higher hairline. Craig, who has moved in with his girlfriend since I saw him last, is disturbingly thin (as I am disturbingly fat?) but seems very happy. Craig is playing with two bands and discussed his most recent movie soundtrack, which sounds interesting and cool. David is filming a pilot for Comedy Central next month, which I’m sure I’ll love, since I thought David’s last show (an MTV show called “The State”) was way excellent. I showed them both some Hereville art, which they oohed and aahed over satisfactorily.
It’s so odd - these two people were once so important to me, but over the years we’ve barely seen each other. When we were kids we used to wonder if someday we’d sit around a table at a cool NYC cafe talking about Craig’s music and David’s films and my comics. Did it occur to me that we might do it, but that I’d no longer really know them?
Then it was on to Air America, where I met Janeane and Sam, and debated Megan M. of Asymmetrical Information. We spent our entire half-hour discussing the wage gap, which was fine with me - we could have spent two more hours discussing it and still not run out of material. I think I did okay - I messed up a few times, but got in a few decent points, and on the whole probably didn’t sound like an idiot. However, I won’t know for sure until I can find an archived link to the show.
I told Janeane that David said “hi” (she acted in a movie he directed). Sam seems a bit put off (in a funny, self-mocking way) that David hadn’t asked me to say hi to him, too. Janeane seemed surprisingly interested in the topic of comics about hasidic girls; we end up spending most of the break time discussing books and films about hasidim. After the show, I get Janeane to sign a DVD of “Mystery Men” for my friend Aaron.
Then, dinner with Elayne Riggs and her husband Robin. I’ve met Elayne a few times before, but never Robin; he is laid back and has a british accent, which contrasts wonderfully with Elayne’s in-your-face energy and New York intonations. We eat Chinese, Robin discusses a cutting-edge inking technique he’s working on and gives me a couple of issues of his current inking assignment, Bloodhound (which certainly has nice inking, although otherwise it’s not my sort of comic). Elayne tells me about all the bookcases in their home, which makes me almost wish I had gone to Yonkers to see the comic book collection for myself. Elayne and Robin make the proper oohing and ahhing noises over the Hereville art I show them. Like everyone, the first thing they compliment is the color, which is especially nice to hear from Robin since he’s a kick-ass colorist.
Then it’s off to Brooklyn to visit my old pals (and former housemates) Paul Winkler and Scott DiBerardino. Scott and Paul are being nice enough to put me up for the night. Paul, who listened to me on Air America, assures me I didn’t sound like an idiot. I keep them up past their bedtimes talking. They ooh and ahh over Hereville art; Paul shows me a 24-hour comic he had done that I have never seen. It turns out that both of them are planning to visit me (and others) in Oregon this October, but neither of them knew that the other was making such plans.
They go to bed. I jump on Scott’s computer to answer some emails and write this post. Tomorrow it’s back to Ithaca and next-to-no internet access; regular posting from me will resume on Friday, or maybe on Monday. Meanwhile, it’s late and I must go sleep.
Today, Matt Yglesias commented on Jonah Goldberg’s piece on Yucca Mountain, a proposed repository for radioactive waste. Both Matt and Jonah discuss the impact of this proposed repository on the future of nuclear power generation. Using nuclear power would reduce our need for fossil fuels to generate electricity, and thereby reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. This is one reason some favor the repository.
So,Matt Yglesias wonders:
I also don’t know the precise reason for Mr. Goldberg’s interest. However, one doesn’t need to be concerned about global warming to be interested in the Yucca Mountain repository. Whether or not we build more nuclear power plants, the US needs to find a better place to store the radioactive waste we created some time ago. Millions of gallons of waste are currently store at facilities like Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge and other locations in this country.
Having worked near Hanford, I am familiar with some issues associated with storing radioactive and hazardous waste using our current facilities. I thought up a few search terms, and googled to find links describing a few situations that have caused concern over the past few decades.
Issues at the Hanford site alone include:
I am relatively unfamiliar with the pros and cons associated with using Yucca Mountain as a repository. However, I do know we that we Americans need a safe permanent storage facility for the waste we have already created. If we do not create a better facility, issues similar to the ones that have occurred at Hanford, and other sites will recur.
For more information:
Visit the: Washington Department of Ecology. The DOE’s office of waste management maintains a web page listing of “hot topics”, and LanderCounty.com supports a web site discussing many of the issues associated with storing waste at Yucca Mountain.
On Saturday, August 14, The New York Times ran an editorial discussing the recent California Supreme Court ruling which voided the same sex marriages performed in San Francisco. Their editorial included these words:
Referring to their comment about activist judges, David Blankenhorn, of Family Scholars, asks, “What could the editors be thinking?” He answered his own question as follows:
Was this what the editors were thinking? It is often difficult to guess what a writer may have meant by a short, rather vague clause. I tend to guess they probably meant what I understood when I read their word.
What did I think when I read those word? I thought they meant to suggest:
Conservatives often label judges “activist” after rulings they dislike. In this ruling, we have clear evidence these California judges are not activists. Had these judges wished to legislate from the bench, they would have interpreted the law to validate Mayor Newsom’s actions. Surely, at a minimum, activist judges would not have voided the marriage licenses. Instead, these judges interpreted the law as it is written.
Could the editors have meant something else? Of course. Is it an accusation? I didn’t read it as such, but possibly, it is. Mostly, I think it’s a fairly vague clause. The editors of The New York Times could have said whatever they meant more clearly, then we’d know for sure.
As many know, the case to decide the constitutionality of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples is pending in California. We shall learn then how these apparently non-activist judges rule on that case. If they rule to extend marriage to same sex couples, based on their interpretation of the California constitution, will conservatives label them activist? Or will they realize that sometimes constitutions guarantee a right conservatives happen to dislike? We do not know.
Earlier this week, KATC3 reported Judge Nadine Ramsey dismissed a suit to keep an anti-marriage equality amendment off the ballot. In that suit, opponents asked the amendment be kept off the ballot because it was illegally approved, and unconstitutional.
If I understand the opponents’ objection correctly, in Louisiana, amendments are restricted to having one object. As a voter, I see the advantage to this type of restriction. When I vote for an amendment, it is easier to decide my vote if the amendment addresses one thing only. If several topics are allowed, then an amendment might have one clause banning liquor sales while another might permit gun control. I might, in principle, support one and oppose the other. (Yes, it’s an absurd example, but that’s the sort of thing that would be possible. )
Regarding the Louisiana anti-marriage equality amendment, opponents say:
As with all amendments, various people have argued over what the amendment means. As usual for anti-marriage amendment, the discussion revolves around the meaning extra clauses discussing the ‘legal incidents of marriage’. HRC provides some discussion.
Presumably, if the amendment bars same sex marriage, and then does something else too, that would be more than one objective. On the other hand, as usual, some claim the second clause doesn’t really do much a all. In that case, presumably, there would only be one objective. (But, then one must ask, what’s the purpose of the second clause?)
The Judge Nadine Ramsey did not decide on the “multiple objective” issue, but stated the case should have been filed in Baton Rouge, not Louisiana. See KATC3
Despite that ruling, the amendment will not appear on the Sept. 18 ballot, because of the outcome of another suit. AP News reports:
Evidently, Civil District Judge Christopher Bruno so ruled because Sept. 18 is not a statewide election. We don’t know whether this particular amendment will appear in a later election.
Is George Bush warming to the idea of states recognizing same sex civil unions?
Bush still backs an amendment banning marriage equality. Presumably, we will hear more on the President’s evolving position between today and the election.
Calif. Court Voids S.F. Same-Sex Marriages
The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that SF mayor Newsom overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples. This part of the ruling was expected.
They also ruled 5-2 to void the marriages performed between Feb. 12 and March 11. This part of the ruling was not unexpected, but some thought the court might let the marriages stand.
While the marriages have been set aside, the ruling actually addresses the narrow question about local authorities power to bypass state, judicial and legislative branches. Specifically:
So, from a legal point of view, this ruling is not about the constitutionality of banning or permitting same sex marriage, per se. The “honest to goodness” same sex marriage cases have been filed, but will likely not reach the California Supreme Court for a year.
===
Added later.
Eugene Volokh comments on the ruling:
Page 12 of Hereville is up. It’s in black-and-white for now, because my access to computers is limited.
As several of you have noticed, this page is more than a little late. I was blocked. Being blocked is a strange and disquieting thing. At first you think you’re just being lazy. But, eventually, I noticed that what I do when I’m blocked is a heck of a lot less fun than just drawing a new Hereville page would be. It’s just - whatever it is that lets me know how to lay out that next panel, or how to draw a figure so it has some life in it - it just isn’t there.
It’s not fun, and it’s not just being lazy. And it’s something I hope to avoid in the future - but that’s what’s frightening, that being blocked or not feels so beyond my control.
In any case, I’m over it now. The timing isn’t great - at first I was over it in a period when I was working non-stop at my day job, now I’m over it and thousands of miles away from my drawing board - but I’ll take what I can get. Look for a new Hereville page next Thursday, and (I hope) every Thursday after that.
UPDATE: Color art is now online.
I’ve discovered Catholic World News, which often runs articles that amuse me. Usually, I don’t expect anyone else will find them amusing — I sort of figure you have to be a former Catholic to give a hoot. (Still, learning that a Nigerian Cardinal has banned jerry curls in church has just got to make everyone smile!)
Every now and then, an article touches on American politics. We hear about Bishops telling parishioners how to vote. We hear about threats to cut off communion. So, how are Catholics planning to vote? According to Gallop, it turns out:
Now, Catholics know that all Catholics must attend mass regularly, right?
Taken together, people who call themselves Catholic seem to support Kerry 51-45%. (The reported margin of error for the poll is ±5%.)
Now, I want to learn who non-practicing Protestants are voting for!
Hey, folks. I’ll be visiting New York state for the next week or so - I’m going to be hanging out with my family in Ithaca. I’ve never even met my neice before, so I’m looking forward to the trip.
So if you’re an “Alas” reader in the Ithaca area between August 11 and August 18 and would like to have lunch with Ampersand, leave a comment in this thread and maybe we can work it out.
Also, I’ll be in New York City on Monday the 16th, returning to Ithaca sometime on Tuesday the 17th. Again, any “Alas” readers who’d like to get together while I’m in NYC, leave a comment and maybe we’ll work something out. It looks to me like I’m available for an early dinner on Monday, or for breakfast/early lunch on Tuesday. (Warning to everyone: My dining preferences are for inexpensive diners serving bland American food, rather than interesting ethnic restaurants or expensive coffee shops.)
While I’m in NYC, I’m going to be a guest on Janeane Garofalo’s radio show, The Majority Report. I’ll be debating Megan McArdle, aka Jane Galt, who I hope will not entirely humiliate me. If you’d like to hear me on the air, tune in via radio or webcast at 7:15 pm (eastern) on Monday, August 16.
Michael Graham of the NRO seems upset.
Evidently, it bothers him that Bruce Springsteen has become politically active. Worse yet, Mr. Springsteen has the gall to discuss politics offstage. Mr. Graham laments:
I have always disliked entertainers unexpectedly turning paid performances into political advertisements. If I pay good money to listen to a concert, I want to hear a concert. I’ll also admit, I’m envious that famous people can publicize their view with such great ease. After all, Ted Koppel should clearly be televising my views!
Nevertheless, I don’t understand how anyone can think they have a valid reason to object when an entertainer decides to become politically active offstage. Musicians and actors have just as much right to discuss politics as lawyers, businessmen, owners of professional baseball teams or a paid political flaks turned editorial writers, like Mr. Graham.
So, I have to ask myself: “What, other than envy, could explain Graham’s suggestion that Mr. Springsteen does not have a right to campaign in swing states simply because Graham likes Springsteen’s music?”
Maybe readers can suggest other reasons.
No matter what the reason, I have some advice for Mr. Graham and others who squirm when musicians reveal their political views. If you no longer enjoy listening to any musician’s tunes for any reason, stop listening! Spend the money NRO pays you on CDs by musicians who share, or once shared, your views. Like Sonny Bono and Britney Spears.
From The One True b!X:
Willamette Week is reporting on this poll, too.
Speaking of polls, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (an anti-gay group) has a summary of polls on same-sex marraige from the last 16 years (pdf file).
From the current Willamette Week:
“Beginning in kindergarten, children will be taught that marriage between two men is the same as marriage between a man and a woman,” the letter says. “Sex-education classes will be required to teach homosexuality as a legitimate option.”
This was all news to Gene Evans, spokesman for the state schools. “The Oregon Department of Education couldn’t require kindergarten teachers to do that even if we wanted to,” Evans says. “The curriculum is set through a public process, and right now there is no marriage curriculum in any grade.”
You are currently browsing the Alas, a blog weblog archives for August, 2004.
