Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS- GOP wins governors mansions in Virginia, New Jersey, loses congressional seat in New York.
- Maine voters repeal law allowing gay marriage; votes to legalize medical marijuana.
- New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spends $100 million, ekes out a narrow win.
- CIA dutifully fulfills Freedom of Information Act request . . . 20 years later.
- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush to face off in a debate at Radio City Music Hall.
Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Get Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Morning Links: GOP Wins in New Jersey and Virginia, Bloomberg Narrowly Wins, Medical Marijuana Approved in Maine
Johnny Longtorso|11.4.09 @ 7:47AM|#
Remember the good old days, then libs cared about deficits?
moveon.org's 30 second ad winner "Childs Pay
moveon.org, Ballooning Deficit
|11.4.09 @ 8:02AM|#
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg spends $100 million, eeks out a narrow win.
Was he standing on a chair, with his skirt pulled up, as he "eeked"?
smartass sob|11.4.09 @ 9:29AM|#
One hundred million dollars of his own money to win a position which pays a salary that is only a fraction of that figure? Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
guy in the back row|11.4.09 @ 9:48AM|#
He only takes a dollar in salary, which makes it even more sketchy.
JB|11.4.09 @ 10:03AM|#
The guy is addicted to power. He even has armed bodyguards while outlawing the little people from defending themselves.
The fucker thinks he is king.
|11.4.09 @ 8:03AM|#
The only candidate more unattractive than Didi Scuzzafuza would have to be Doug Hoffman. Is upstate New York completely void of decent looking pols?
Enyap|11.4.09 @ 8:25AM|#
Scozzafava is the spitting image of the fat middle aged women I see working at the DMV.
|11.4.09 @ 8:05AM|#
Maine voters repeal law allowing gay marriage; vote to legalize medical marijuana.
Have you ever hated teh gays... on weed!?
Traditional marriage supporter|11.4.09 @ 9:14AM|#
If I keep being told I hate gays for supporting traditional marriage some day it may wear me down, I'll give up, and begin actually hating teh gays. Then what?
Zeb|11.4.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Support of traditional marriage does not require opposition to non-traditional marriage.
Thom|11.4.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Just supporting traditional marriage doesn't mean you hate gay people. I fully support traditional marriage for straights and gays, and I don't hate gay people. I also support non-traditional marriage for everybody as well. To each their own!
JB|11.4.09 @ 10:06AM|#
I don't think the state should be in the marriage business period. Civil unions for all.
I love the story with crying gays in Maine saying they can't get married. Actually they can married, but what they want is state approval.
More gays should be saying fuck the state as opposed to I want the state all the time in every orifice.
Colin|11.4.09 @ 10:25AM|#
Well said.
I knew a gay couple in NYC in the 80s who were married for decades. And they didn't need the state to affirm it.
Isaac Bartram|11.4.09 @ 10:53AM|#
It's true that liberal churches like the Quakers and the Unitarians have been performing nonstate sanction marriages for decades and for many this has sufficed for affirming their commitment before God and man.
However it does nothing to establish legal rights and privilege connected with issues like next of kin, child custody and many others.
At this time the state is bound up in a whole range of family law issues. It will take a whole bunch of changes for the sate to get out of the marriage business.
For my part, I suggest that for the state's legal issues civil unions should be the route and should be open to all consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation and whether the union is for sexual congress or childrearing or any other purpose other that the entrants own reasons for commitment to each other.
Leave marriage to the churches to practice as each sect wishes.
prolefeed|11.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#
More gays should be saying fuck the state as opposed to I want the state all the time in every orifice.
Not every gay is a political "top", JB.
|11.4.09 @ 10:57AM|#
And they should happily forego all of the benefits enshrined in law for married people (inheritance, tax breaks, spousal privilege in court, ...
Perhaps you consider this a way to compltely avoid the subject of governmental discrimination against same sex partners.
Those of us with triple digit IQs are not swayed by the obfuscation.
JB|11.4.09 @ 11:15AM|#
J sub D,
1. I am against all those benefits.
2. If the state wants to keep those, it should stop using the word 'marriage' and allow anyone to participate in civil unions. No state marriage for anyone.
3. Many proponents of state gay marriage (including Andrew Sullivan) say that civil unions aren't enough and one of the main purposes is to get government affirmation for their lifestyle. That need for government affirmation is sick.
|11.4.09 @ 11:24AM|#
I voted against R-71 (some domestic partnership thing) in WA state, for two reasons: 1) It cost taxpayer money to implement it, and 2) I don't think the state needs to be in the marriage business.
I had to agonize a bit before casting my vote, mainly because I'm not a homophobe or a hater. But I feel that I made the right choice. Looks like it might pass anyway, however.
Thom|11.4.09 @ 2:12PM|#
Agreed. But the state bestows special privileges on those who it recognizes as married. If the state is going to continue sanctioning marriage (which is, what I assume, is meant by "traditional" marriage) then they need to start being equal about it. Just because the state shouldn't be doing something doesn't mean that they should be free to openly discriminate in that thing they are doing.
|11.4.09 @ 11:56AM|#
How, exactly, does one "support traditional marriage"?
I've been wondering that for a while. Is there a "traditional marriage foundation" in need of your generous donations? Do they use that money for research into new technologies for preserving and protecting "traditional marriage"?
Just seems an odd thing to say. "I support traditional marriage."
Do we hold traditional marriage pep rallies and get out the boosters?
"Yay traditional marriage!! GooooooooOOOOOO MARRIAGE!!"
Thom|11.4.09 @ 2:16PM|#
By not being allowed to enter into traditional, state-sanctioned marriages aren't gays necessarily then driven into non-traditional marriages?
I'm starting to think that you're really anti-gay, not for traditional marriage. If you supported the institution of traditional marriage you would definitely want the gates opened to all.
TP|11.4.09 @ 8:07AM|#
The Catholic Church was a leading supporter of the repeal campaign, even asking parishes to pass a second collection plate at Sunday mass to help the cause.
Of course they were. If gay marriage were legal, they'd lose half of their Priests.
Damn, I made a promise to myself that I wouldn't bash the Catholic Church while my Grandmother was still alive. Oh well.
ktc2|11.4.09 @ 8:12AM|#
Slick Willie v. Shrub? Seriously?
Ever seen "the worlds most one sided fights" on Robot Chicken?
Cabeza de Vaca|11.4.09 @ 8:21AM|#
"Bill Clinton, George W. Bush to face off in a debate at Radio City Music Hall."
You would have to pay me a lot of money for me to sit through that. The only thing that could make that enjoyable is if the Iraqi shoe thrower showed up.
Spartacus|11.4.09 @ 8:42AM|#
Yeah, many years ago I went to one of the Liddy vs. Leary "debates". Pure theater. I walked out halfway through. I suspect this will be pretty much the same.
Draco|11.4.09 @ 8:22AM|#
As a conservative libertarian, I am quite pleased with the Maine results.
We have a right to imbibe what we wish, and to take whatever medicines we wish.
We don't have a right to command the assent of others to our personal sexual relationships when those relationships violate norms established over millennia. (But civil unions are fine with me -- just not "marriage").
tarran|11.4.09 @ 8:25AM|#
Yes, how dare gays aggress against you by calling their coupling's 'marriage'.
Draco|11.4.09 @ 8:33AM|#
You're obviously not getting my point. I used very few, and very simple and accurate words, to no avail apparently.
You have no right to command my recognition and sanction of your "relationship" (I used the word "assent"). I couldn't care less what you call it. But don't expect me to recognize it. Believe me, just as with all other civil rights legislation, there will eventually be legal penalties for people who refuse to sanction homosexual "relationships." That's a violation of my right to be left alone and to hold my own opinions (no matter how abhorrent to you or anyone else). And you are headed straight towards that rights violation when you back laws that command people to sanction "gay marriage."
|11.4.09 @ 8:47AM|#
Yet gay people are commanded to sanction straight marriage, and stand on the sidelines and see their heterosexual friends enjoy benefits that they cannot have, whether you call it "marriage" or "civil union" or whatever.
No one would deny you have a right to your own opinions, at least not here (except perhaps for Howley, who appears to feel that your right to not recognize gay marriage ends when gays feel insulted by it).
However people choose to couple, or triple if that's the case, should be up to them and only them. Health care, survivor benefits, custody of any children produced within the union, and the ability to allow your legally defined spouse make decisions for you if you become incapacitated are rights granted, at this time, only to "married" (i.e. heterosexual) couples.
What legal penalties would arise for a hospital, bank, or family court that refuses to allow a husband to make decisions for his comatose wife? If a husband wants to use his health insurance plan to cover his wife and children, he is allowed because the law says he can. Gay couples are not afforded this benefit.
The legal penalties for denying a heterosexual married couple basic decision making, health care, custody, and survivor benefits already exist; extending them to gay couples will not hurt you or me or anyone else.
I reiterate my initial response: get government out of marriage altogether. Allow people to join in civil unions for legal purposes, and let religious institutions define and enforce marriage according to their own moral code.
Draco|11.4.09 @ 9:27AM|#
I don't have a problem with any of that MadBiker. Makes sense to me.
But as someone else posted below, there are people who won't be "happy" until they can compel your acceptance of their lifestyle. They want to violate our rights to hold our own opinions. They want to make the equivalent of "racist" someone who is repelled by behavior that is condemned in the strongest possible terms for millennia in all of the Western world's religions.
While I personally don't have a problem with the gay lifestyle, I need to stand up for my religious brothers and sisters who have rights to conscience, and who will definitely have those rights violated when the government mandates acceptance of gay marriage as a civil rights issue.
smartass sob|11.4.09 @ 9:37AM|#
I reiterate my initial response: get government out of marriage altogether. Allow people to join in civil unions for legal purposes, and let religious institutions define and enforce marriage according to their own moral code.
Amen to that - I agree completely.
robc|11.4.09 @ 10:04AM|#
I support getting government out of marriage altogether. I see no purpose to "civil unions" for gays or straights however. Why bring government back in once we booted them out?
prolefeed|11.4.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Because right now gays have unequal treatment under the law. They pay higher taxes. They can't visit sick partners in the hospital. And so on. Either give gays those same legal rights and obligations, or remove them for straights.
I support having the same set of laws apply for everyone, along with government having no say whatsoever in who is "married" and who is not.
|11.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#
O RLY?
When I did my taxes last year, Quicken didn't ask me if I was gay. When I paid a professional tax prepared the year before, he didn't bring up the subject, either.
Where on earth in the tax code does it say gays have to pay a higher rate? The provisions of the "marriage penalty" -- where us poor joint-filing married heteros were taxed at a higher rate -- were repealed years ago.
Furthermore, haven't gays ever heard of powers-of-attorney and trusts and living wills? There's no law that I know of which says two gay men can't designate each other as their legal proxies.
Sheesh, you'd think there was at least one gay lawyer who could figure this out.
|11.4.09 @ 12:03PM|#
Furthermore, haven't gays ever heard of powers-of-attorney and trusts and living wills? There's no law that I know of which says two gay men can't designate each other as their legal proxies.
So they have to take the time and not inconsiderable expense that we heteros do not, in order to secure the same benefits and treatment under the law that we heteros get by default?
I don't need a POA or living trust or even a will if I want my wife to get my estate when I die. It is the default position under the state laws of intestacy. If a gay person wants his or her partner to get his or her estate, he or she has to go pay a lawyer to create a will and all the other accoutrements, which easily can cost $1,000.
And then there are the estate tax provisions. Look up "marital trust." Of course, that becomes an issue only for those fortunate enough to have enough material wealth to have to worry about such things. But there certainly are some very wealthy gays out there.
|11.4.09 @ 9:07PM|#
Of course the state presumes that your wife is the primary heir of your estate, but if you think she is going to waltz in and take control of your assets after you die intestate -- without having to spend a penny -- then you've got another thing coming.
I probated my uncle's estate without the benefit of a will; we ended up spending about $4,000 when it was all through -- and that was in Idaho, a state in which it is fairly easy to resolve such matters. I can just imagine the terrifying complexity of probate law in places like New York.
Which is why even married hetero couples -- at least the wise ones -- have to "take time and not inconsiderable expense" to prepare wills and trusts for their estates, even though the state presumes their spouse will eventually get everything.
Sorry, but paying money to get a will is something everyone needs to do, despite their marital status. If they don't pay before they die, their heirs certainly will afterwards.
|11.4.09 @ 1:13PM|#
except that a gay persons family members, who often dont approve of their relatives lifestyle and/or partner are often able to contravene these legal proxies through court orders in situations where legitimate spousal status could in no way be overturned by the relatives.
PR|11.4.09 @ 1:50PM|#
They pay higher taxes? Not than me. I'm single. Oh, I see, they want to reach into my wallet too.
|11.4.09 @ 11:05AM|#
I agree to civil unions for all, marriage as a religious/social institution only.
Oddly, though, gay activists have rejected legal equality via "civil unions". They demand the social acceptance/approval of the term marriage, and will not accept mere legal equality.
So fuck 'em.
kinnath|11.4.09 @ 9:05AM|#
You're obviously not getting my point. I used very few, and very simple and accurate words, to no avail apparently.
The legal institution of marriage provides multiple benefits to a married couple which cannot be replicated by a private contract.
The 14th ammendment demands equal protection under the law.
So your choices are simple: repeal the 14th or allow same-sex marriages.
Were those words simple enough for you?
|11.4.09 @ 9:26AM|#
yes, but you do have to show ID and indicate your gender and your intended's gender. At least in NJ. But civil unions are legal here. Maybe other states don't ask.
smartass sob|11.4.09 @ 9:41AM|#
The 14th ammendment demands equal protection under the law.
So your choices are simple: repeal the 14th or allow same-sex marriages.
How about just repealing government sanction of all marriages? Why should some have more rights than single people?
Michael Ejercito|11.5.09 @ 12:42AM|#
You forget two things:
The Fourteenth Amendment did not do away with laws prohibiting women from voting.
It has not done away with laws requiring only men to register for a possible draft.
|11.4.09 @ 8:42AM|#
tarran,
You have to read carefully. You can "command the assent" if your "relationship norms" have been "established over millenia."
Those fags just have to wait a few thousand years to get to be married.
@|11.4.09 @ 9:07AM|#
Calling legally recognized gay unions "marriages" is certainly a corruption of the term. Not that this particular form of the contract should not be protected under civil law. Traditional folks who spend thousands of dollars on exhibitionist church-sanctioned extravaganzas feel that their big event is cheapened a little when gays can do it too. And gays will never be happy until those traditionally minded folks call an otherwise equal union a "marriage."
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|11.4.09 @ 9:30AM|#
Calling legally recognized gay unions non
church-sanctioned unions "marriages" is certainly a corruption of
the term.
FTFY.
@|11.4.09 @ 10:38AM|#
"non church-sanctioned unions..."
...is rather ponderous, no? And "gay unions" are really just that, aren't they? But it does bring up the tantalizing legal option of two straight guys (or gals) marrying to gain benefits not otherwise available to them as single people. I can envision turmoil and chaos, requiring wholesale revision of existing laws. I'm single. If I died today, all the money I've been forced to contribute to my Social Security account would dissolve into thin air. But if I were "married"...get my point? I could leave it all to my best friend.
|11.4.09 @ 11:36AM|#
Right, because dudes and ladies are never best friends. There's no way anyone would do this with opposite sex friends, because marriage is too sacred.
|11.4.09 @ 11:06AM|#
Traditional folks who spend thousands of dollars on exhibitionist church-sanctioned extravaganzas feel that their big event is cheapened a little when gays can do it too.
Last time I was in San Fran, it happened to be gay pride week, and the restaurants were packed with wedding parties. Anyone who thinks gay wedding observances cheapen anything has never seen one in action.
@|11.4.09 @ 12:16PM|#
I don't doubt that gays, whose flamboyant excesses are legendary, are capable of throwing marriage orgies that make straight ceremonies look like Puritan pancake socials.
/snark
Draco|11.4.09 @ 9:32AM|#
Hey SugarFree,
Don't be a dick. You act like a dick when you imply that my post was written by someone who would use the derogatory term "fag."
And yes, as a grown up (and a Hayekian), I can deal with the fact that human society is molded by decisions and norms that have been evolved and passed down over millennia.
I'm happy to live in a free society where I can generally get away with activities that busybodies and nannies and religious freaks would love to see banned. That includes acting gay if I want.
I'm just not ready to revolutionize the fundamental structures of family and society, thank you very much.
|11.4.09 @ 9:50AM|#
If you really only object to "marriage" being applied to a civil union that is in every other way and aspect identical to marriage, all you have is a semantic argument. Do the "fundamental structures of family and society" really rest on the definition of a single word?
Tradition means nothing to those who choose not to follow it. It is not a sufficient argument when narrowly applied on a contingent basis to cover your ass in polite society. (Not that I care about polite society; I'm a dick.)
People who appeal to tradition should have a tub of leeches dumped on them the next time they go to the hospital.
robc|11.4.09 @ 10:06AM|#
Maggots work better than leeches and is even more traditional. Hell, its "natural".
|11.4.09 @ 10:21AM|#
Actually, BOTH are used in conventional medicine these days.
Leeches are used to reduce inflammation and hemostatic edema for patients getting limb and member re-attachment by preventing excessive swelling following the procedure.
Maggots are utilized to excise necrotic tissue for the debridement of moist exudating wounds as they only consume infected flesh taht cannot heal.
Citizen Nothing|11.4.09 @ 10:10AM|#
Draco: The Rodomontade to Serfdom.
(I've been waitin' for years to use that one.)
|11.4.09 @ 10:33AM|#
Saccharin Man,
Many (if not most) of the arguments made are semantic in nature, re: argument from definition.
What people (myself included) regard as "marriage" is primarily faith based, such as Judaism, Christianity/Catholicism, and Islam.
What folks object to is the redefining the term through the use of government fiat; consequently, the state, which has no business meddling in what a religion should teach and regard as holy, will have (in some places, does now) the ability to determnine what can or cannot be spoken and taught in religious doctrine, re: "Hate Crimes".
Government should NOT be in the business of defining marriage, nor impeding the "Freedom of Religion".
Brian Combs|11.4.09 @ 10:45AM|#
But they are in this business, whether you like it or not. And most states define it as being between a man and a woman. If they weren't defining it one way or another, I don't think there would be a problem.
Besides, the greater threat to marriage is not homosexual marriage, it's heterosexual divorce.
Draco|11.4.09 @ 10:48AM|#
People who appeal to tradition should have a tub of leeches dumped on them the next time they go to the hospital.
That's something like what Lenin said when he figured he could do away with the entire apparatus of the traditional market economy. He was pretty sure all of those "businessmen" were just shuffling papers and whatnot. He was pretty sure his new, revolutionary approach would just work, since it worked "in theory." Then 75 years of unmitigated economic disaster ensued.
Read some Mises. Read some Hayek.
prolefeed|11.4.09 @ 10:50AM|#
SugarFree -- Religious fundies have a huge objection to the government defining who is "married" if it is not their definition of married. Many if not most of them are OK with equal treatment under the law, if you don't drag the word "marriage" into the equation, but instead talk about "equal taxes" and "equal rights to hospital visitation".
So, yes, terminology DOES matter if you want to actually increase freedom and equality for gays. Give the fundies their choice of wording, and you'll get their reluctant support for much more tangible things.
If you're diplomatic with fundies, instead of insisting on pissing them off, you can get more freedom. Deal with it.
Citizen Nothing|11.4.09 @ 10:59AM|#
So perhaps instead of marriage, we should call it "Jesus chains."
Citizen Nothing|11.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
prole - I've never seen any proof that being diplomatic with fundies in any way increases freedom. Pissing them off, however, is fun. So there's that.
JB|11.4.09 @ 11:22AM|#
Even back in the 90s, many fundies had no problem with civil unions. 'Marriage' actually does piss a lot of them off.
Better to have the state stop using the word altogether. It was a religious institution long before the state came along and stole it for its own purposes.
|11.4.09 @ 8:27AM|#
why not call all legally defined relationships between hetero- or homosexual couples civil unions, then?
Get government out of the marriage business altogether. Let it become and remain the sole domain of religious institutions to declare and uphold according their own moral standards.
Government in Louisiana recently denied a marriage license to a mixed race couple. Is that any more or less abhorrent than gays getting married?
Rich|11.4.09 @ 8:34AM|#
I have never understood why there's (apparently) so little support for implementing relationship contracts. The lawyers would have even more business.
John Tagliaferro|11.4.09 @ 9:39AM|#
I am with you in not understanding lack of support for relationship contracts either. But I really don't care what happens to the gross billing hour of the legal industry.
Rich|11.4.09 @ 9:56AM|#
Oh, would that it were less.
I'm just surprised that the attorney-driven congress doesn't whip up more, um, professional courtesy.
anarch|11.4.09 @ 10:34AM|#
attorney-driven congress
First they make coitus state-sanctioned, then it becomes mandatory.
I've always said it would go that way.
Isaac Bartram|11.4.09 @ 11:08AM|#
Unfortunately such contracts can be litigated. Vindictive family members could make it so someone's partner could be dead and buried before the courts settled whether their contract was valid.
While it's true that marriages can also be litigated producing a marriage certificate usually settles who someone's next-of-kin is pretty quickly.
The state sanctioned marriage is just an attempt at producing uniformity and instant recognition to the contract.
As I and others have stated above, let's turn "marriage" over to churches for a religious ritual for their own communicants and let the states formalize the laws of succession, inheritance, child custody rights etc with "civil unions".
But it's more than likely that couples coming out of City Hall or the JP's office wil still announce to wrld, "We just got married."
husband|11.4.09 @ 8:49AM|#
why not call all legally defined relationships between hetero- or homosexual couples civil unions, then?
Cuz it's ain't civil is why.
@|11.4.09 @ 10:14AM|#
why not call all legally defined relationships between hetero- or homosexual couples civil unions, then?
Because it would piss off the biggest gang, who happen to be traditionalists, and those who profit from this tradition, who happen to be in the religion business.
Johnny Longtorso|11.4.09 @ 8:27AM|#
And here I thought my moveon.org anti Bush deficit ads were the best links (in today's context) evah.
|11.4.09 @ 8:49AM|#
You just don't understand. If the money is going to Democratic chronies, it is not a deficit. It is only a deficit if the money is going to Republican chronies.
|11.4.09 @ 10:11AM|#
Not quite John.
Money for Dems = CURRENT AND FUTURE "INVESTMENTS" IN OUR COUNTRY
Money for Anyone Else = PARTISAN THEFT AND ILL-GOTTEN GAINS
TP|11.4.09 @ 8:32AM|#
But the Gloucester County Times declined to back Norcross, instead supporting Fuentes and Republican Stepfanie Velez-Gentry, who has attracted national attention because she owns a company that sells sex toys to women
Only in NJ, never in Alabama.
Spartacus|11.4.09 @ 8:38AM|#
Also opposing the measure, but for different reasons, was a voter in Bangor who did not want to be identified.
“I voted no,” he said. “It’s a drug. I mean, what’s next, medical cocaine?”
Priceless.
TP|11.4.09 @ 8:41AM|#
No, not cocaine, but maybe medical LSD and MDMA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/scie.....h-benefits
|11.4.09 @ 8:42AM|#
LOL. And after that they will come up with medical opium. Do you have to be stupid to be in public office? Is that a job requirement?
Cabeza de Vaca|11.4.09 @ 8:52AM|#
“I voted no,” he said. “It’s a drug. I mean, what’s next, medical cocaine?”
I guess this guy doesn't know that cocaine is used for nasal surgeries.
Tim|11.4.09 @ 9:47AM|#
He must not know that all the things people get at drug stores either OTC or prescription are drugs, or that alcohol is a drug.
JB|11.4.09 @ 10:09AM|#
Not to forget the caffeine that this fucker drinks.
Hey fuckhead in Bangor, you are a drug-user.
Mango Punch|11.4.09 @ 8:42AM|#
Thoughts on elections:
1) healthcare "reform" will be watered down and delayed
2) Dems will be scared and move away from president
3) Pols will focus on pupulism in their own districts
4) This will result in them pursuing populist policies especial
in terms of finance reform
= Bad
|11.4.09 @ 8:43AM|#
I disagree with number 4. I don't think people are angry for fincance reform. They just want the government to stop bailing people out.
TP|11.4.09 @ 8:54AM|#
I think NJ voters equated Corzine with Goldman Sacks, thus, bailouts. What people don't realize is that it was Hank Paulson that forced Corzine out of GS in 1998. Corzine wanted to bailout some hedge fund with compny funds and Paulson opposed it. So, according to Paulson's logic, it's OK to bail people out, as long as it's government money being used.
Attorney|11.4.09 @ 9:10AM|#
Anything that derails (further) gov't takeover of healthcare can't be all bad.
|11.4.09 @ 8:46AM|#
I wish the guy in NY 23 had won. But, really, I don't know anything about him. Maybe he really is a clown. So, it is hard to be that upset about it. More importantly, whoever the Democrat is he won't do near the damage that Scuzzafuza would have done. Whenever a liberal gets elected with as a Republican, they do nothing but make every crackpot government scheme "bi-partisian". Fuckheads like Specter and Jeffords have done more damage to this country than the biggest, big government liberal.
|11.4.09 @ 8:55AM|#
It's been postulated that NY 23 would have gone R if Scuzzafaza had not dropped out of the race at the last minute after claiming 5%+ of the votes that might have gone red.
|11.4.09 @ 8:58AM|#
It would have been fun to see the guy win if for no other reason than to stick it to both parties. Even if the guy turned out to be a nut, it is not like he would be the only one in Congress
Tony|11.4.09 @ 10:28AM|#
Funny how you always argue in favor of shaking things up and sticking it to the man when the candidate doing so is a right-wing conservative nut.
|11.4.09 @ 10:54AM|#
Funny how people tend to support candidates who agree with the positions they do.
prolefeed|11.4.09 @ 10:56AM|#
It's a House seat. There will be a rerun of the election in one year. The Dems won the skirmish, but the people who want more third party candidates -- and the people trying to kick RINOs like Olympia Snowe out of the Republican Party -- won the battle.
|11.4.09 @ 8:58AM|#
according to Paulson's logic, it's OK to bail people out, as long as it's government money being used.
Not just Paulson, I'm afraid.
Mad Max|11.4.09 @ 8:59AM|#
‘there will eventually be legal penalties for people who refuse to sanction homosexual "relationships."’
What do you mean ‘eventually?’ Supporters of traditional marriage are already threatened with compulsory legal exposure. The government discloses the identities of those who contributed to traditional-marriage campaigns, and private harassment commences. For example, this item in Reason gives an example of a guy who got fired from his job (under pressure from the gay-libbers) after the state government caused his support of Proposition 8 to become public. A lawsuit against California’s compulsory-disclosure law discusses other retaliatory harassment
And here’s this from the article about Maine’s gay-marriage vote:
‘The National Organization for Marriage also contributed heavily to the repeal campaign; it is under investigation by Maine’s ethics commission for possibly flouting state campaign finance laws by refusing to reveal its donors.’
There are U.S. Supreme Court precedents that Jim Crow governments in the South couldn’t force the NAACP to disclose its membership lists to the public, because this might expose those members to harassment. Even if the actual harassing is being done by private parties, it is the government which forces people to out themselves to the public, thus exposing themselves to the retaliatory impulses of the gay-libbers.
|11.4.09 @ 9:02AM|#
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17568
I sent that link to hit and run yesterday. They won't touch it of course. But, that is a serious free speech issue. And that is what is coming in the future if the left gets its way.
|11.4.09 @ 12:10PM|#
No, it's not so much a free speech issue as an employment contract issue. He's a state employee and subject to the terms and conditions of his employment contract and rules of conduct for state employees.
The Gobbler|11.4.09 @ 9:00AM|#
GOP wins governors mansions in Virginia, New Jersey
For the first time in my adult life, I'm proud to be an American.
TP|11.4.09 @ 9:13AM|#
Yeah, so now in the "Police State" known as NJ, we have a former Federal Prosecutor in charge of the State Police. This will be fun.
Colin|11.4.09 @ 10:35AM|#
On Fox last night, they were beaming over the fact Christie never lost a case as a US Attorney.
But no one asks why he never lost.
I never liked Corzine, but Christie seems really spooky.
|11.4.09 @ 9:02AM|#
Is upstate New York completely void of decent looking pols?
I see you haven't spent much time in "upstate". It's not just the politicians who are ugly.
|11.4.09 @ 9:06AM|#
Fucking server squirrels; I try to fix my error (in), and
I get a "Please comment in English" message. WTF?
|11.4.09 @ 9:16AM|#
So could it be Reason changed the whole website fucking up our conversation forever just because there was an occassional long comment in German? Seriously, have non-English comments been rampant? And does this mean no more Latin terminology from the lawyers in the group?
Reason, why do you hate your readers?
|11.4.09 @ 9:19AM|#
This is a libertarian website. Since when were Libertarians English only? Who the hell is their web master? Lonewacko?
|11.4.09 @ 9:25AM|#
just because there was an occassional long comment in German?
"No one who speaks German could be an evil man."
|11.4.09 @ 11:01AM|#
"Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohne Gift; alein die Dosis macht das ein Ding kein Gift ist." -- Paracelsus
"Wast -- tost du? Wast -- fulst du? Wast -- bist du? Doch nur ein tier." -- Rammstein
anarch|11.4.09 @ 10:50AM|#
Quamquam amicus curiae non sum, aliquando puto lingua latine optimus est.
|11.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
Mad Max|11.4.09 @ 11:07AM|#
Dies Iræ, dies illa,
Solvet sæclum in favilla,
Teste David cum Sibylla.
Quantus tremor est futurus,
Quando Judex est venturus,
Cuncta stricte discussurus!
Tuba mirum spargens sonum
Per sepulchra regionum,
Coget omnes ante thronum.
Mors stupebit et natura,
Cum resurget creatura,
Judicanti responsura.
Liber scriptus proferetur,
In quo totum continetur,
Unde mundus judicetur.
Judex ergo cum sedebit,
Quicquid latet, apparebit:
Nil inultum remanebit.
Quid sum, miser, tunc dicturus?
Quem patronum rogaturus?
Cum vix justus sit securus?
Rex tremendæ majestatis,
Qui salvandos salvas gratis,
Salva me, fons pietatis.
Recordare, Jesu pie,
Quod sum causa tuæ viæ:
Ne me perdas illa die.
Quærens me, sedisti lassus:
Redemisti crucem passus:
Tantus labor non sit cassus.
Juste judex ultionis,
Donum fac remissionis
Ante diem rationis.
Ingemisco tamquam reus:
Culpa rubet vultus meus:
Supplicanti parce, Deus.
Qui Mariam absolvisti,
Et latronem exaudisti,
Mihi quoque spem dedisti.
Preces meæ non sunt dignæ:
Sed tu bonus fac benigne,
Ne perenni cremer igne.
Inter oves locum præsta,
Et ab hædis me sequestra,
Statuens in parte dextra.
Confutatis maledictis,
Flammis acribus addictis:
Voca me cum benedictis.
Oro supplex et acclinis,
Cor contritum quasi cinis:
Gere curam mei finis.
Lacrimosa dies illa,
Qua resurget ex favilla
Judicandus homo reus.
Huic ergo parce, Deus:
Pie Jesu, Domine,
Dona eis requiem.
|11.4.09 @ 11:20AM|#
I can see why Monty Python only used the last two lines -- if the monks had quoted the entire chant the movie would have been four hours long.
|11.4.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Originally, the scene with Lancelot running up to the wedding to hack everyone to pieces was to repeat in an loop three hours long.
Mike M.|11.4.09 @ 9:10AM|#
My advice to all of the moderate, Blue Dog type Democrats in Congress is free and simple:
Run away as fast as you possibly can from the radical leftist agenda of Nancy "Bela" Pelosi, Barack Obama, and all the rest of the anti-American, anti-capitalist scum surrounding him in the White House that he's spent his entire life with.
If you do this, there's still a chance you could salvage your political futures and regain some of our respect. But if you don't, I guarantee that you will be utterly destroyed in the elections next year. It will be a replay of last night all over America.
|11.4.09 @ 9:16AM|#
This is one of those times where controlling the media hurts the Democrats rather than helps them. The Dem media and the conventional wisdom purveyors like David Frum will spin last night as no big deal. So, rather than engaging in any self reflection or mid course correction, the Dems will talk themselves into believing that Obama is still popular and that the only people angry about how things are going are a few fringe nuts. Honestly, what do people like Frum and Gregory hope to accomplish by denying reality?
Mike M.|11.4.09 @ 9:45AM|#
I agree. I hope they believe their own B.S., and I think they will.
Obama is a pretty good liar, but he isn't a true political pragmatist on the inside like Bill Clinton was. He's a true believer; a hard core ideologue. He won't give up his lifelong agenda for anything, so look for a bloodbath in a year.
TP|11.4.09 @ 9:21AM|#
Yeah, we can all vote for the anti-American, anti-capitalist scum that surrounded George W Bush in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Then, in 2012, 2014, 2016 etc. we can do it all over again, voting for all the anti-American, anti-capitalist scum surrounding whoever. Where exactly does this circle jerk get us?
smartass sob|11.4.09 @ 9:52AM|#
If it really mattered who one votes for, we would never have been given the franchise. ;-)
hmm|11.4.09 @ 9:16AM|#
I really wish a more practical approach was taken to gay marriage by all sides. It pisses me off that people are not treated as equals by our government. The only problem most people have is the stupid word marriage. I don't know anyone and see very few people who don't think everyone should have the same rights. It's just the stupid fucking word marriage that gets in the way.
guy in the back row|11.4.09 @ 10:04AM|#
Judging from history, I think there are lots of people who are just fine with various groups of people not havign the same rights as everyone else.
Warty|11.4.09 @ 9:30AM|#
The fucking server won't let you use foreign words, and it hates my donmarquis.com link, but it allows the fucking anonymity bot to spam. Fuck you, server.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson|11.4.09 @ 9:33AM|#
The Beanos are like the McPoyles of H&R. You just can't keep them out.
|11.4.09 @ 9:19AM|#
I don't know anyone and see very few people who don't think everyone should have the same rights.
Apparently, you don't know any religious fundamentalists or progressives.
|11.4.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Or any black people, Mexicans or any of the large majority of the country who vehemently oppose gay marriage.
The Gobbler|11.4.09 @ 9:20AM|#
Last night, I heard some Democratic bitch say that Christie's win is actually a vote of confidence for the Obama agenda because Christie represents change. I shit you not.
|11.4.09 @ 9:23AM|#
My favorite is the "this was an anti-incumbant election not an anti-democrat election" spin. Well yeah, but aren't the Democrats the incumbants?
TP|11.4.09 @ 9:41AM|#
All of the NJ Democratic Assemblymen got reelected. As did all of my county's incumbent Dems. Damn, my lawyer was running for county freeholder and lost. People in NJ think Christy is going to clean up corruption because he was a federal prosecutor. Good fucking luck.
|11.4.09 @ 9:47AM|#
I don't know but I have been told that a lot of the real power and real corruption is at the local level in New Jersey. There isn't that much you can do one way or the other from Trenton.
TP|11.4.09 @ 9:54AM|#
Example: George Norcross III controls the State's Democratic Party in most of Southern NJ. He's never been elected to anything, ever. He just has a lot of money to throw around. Now, he just got his brother elected to the State Assembly in Camden County (the incumbent Dem didn't run). He's already being considered to take the recently vacated State Senate seat without ever serving a day in office.
|11.4.09 @ 9:32AM|#
"Good evening; I'd like to spend a few moments with you, to tell you about my political party, the Anti-Incumbent Party.
"Our slogan: YOUR TIME"S UP- NEXT!"
That might help.
|11.4.09 @ 10:15AM|#
I don't know if it qualifies as a "mascot" but I'm thinking a guillotine would be an excellent starting point for the logo.
Mango Punch|11.4.09 @ 10:36AM|#
I'm thinking a guillotine would be an excellent starting point for the logo.
I think that's already taken by the house of Lancaster.
|11.4.09 @ 9:41AM|#
Also in the news today:
Warren "Stop whining and pay your fair share of taxes, you evil rich people" Buffett is shopping for tax credits, to reduce the taxable income of Berkshire Hathaway.
Shut the fuck up, Warren Buffett.
|11.4.09 @ 9:46AM|#
Motherfucker also makes big money from life insurance and trusts and then magnanomously claims that estate taxes (which help his business) should be higher.
Mike M.|11.4.09 @ 10:19AM|#
Yeah, I don't get it. If he's so guilt-ridden about being rich, what the heck is stopping him from giving all his money to the government? What a jerk.
|11.4.09 @ 9:47AM|#
Maine voters repeal law allowing gay marriage; votes to legalize medical marijuana.
Small note of correction here. Medical MJ has been legal in Maine since 1999. Question 5 expanded the list of conditions for which it can be recommended, and also established a system for state-licensed nonprofit dispensaries.
TP|11.4.09 @ 9:58AM|#
Is there a state definition of nonprofit, or do they follow the IRS definition? Because an owner can still draw a salary under IRS guidelines, I believe.
|11.4.09 @ 10:55AM|#
Here's the actual bill:
http://www.mainepatientsrights.org/Petition MEDICAL MARIJUANA.pdf
Section 2428 addresses nonprofit dispensaries. There are quite a bit of stipulations and other details, but this is the clearest definition of what they mean by "nonprofit" that I have found:
"A nonprofit dispensary must be operated on a not-for-profit basis for the mutual benefit of its members and patrons. The bylaws of a nonprofit dispensary and its contracts with patrons must contain such provision relative to the disposition of revenues and receipts as may be necessary and appropriate to establish and maintain its nonprofit character. A nonprofit dispensary need not be recognized as a tax-exempt organization under 26 United States Code, Section 501(c)(3) and it not required to incorporate pursuant to Title 13-B."
So yeah, make of that what you will. Sounds to me like they're ignoring other legal definitions of "non-profit", and are simply defining a "non-profit dispensary" in this bill.
Isaac Bartram|11.4.09 @ 11:27AM|#
The IRS definition of a non-profit is strictly for tax purposes; ie, whether donations to said organization can be deducted from one's income for income tax purposes.
Each state has its own rules for not-for-profit corporations in its own corporation laws.
guy in the back row|11.4.09 @ 10:09AM|#
Re Bloomberg: it was great watching NY1 last night and at one point seeing him at 49% and Thompson at 48%. Man, he must have been pissed at spending all that money! One of the commentators said Bloomberg spent $35,000 per hour to get elected.
Too bad Obama dissed Thompson so badly last month, if Obama had supported him liek he did Corazine there might be a democratic mayor in NYC today.
Citizen Nothing|11.4.09 @ 10:20AM|#
This is a big, big day for Citizen Nothing, boys and girls. For
only the second time in 30 years of voting (no, really), I marked
the ballot for a winning candidate.
My main (political) man, a superb local excavator and truck
driver, who did a most excellent job digging my basement 18 years
ago, was reelected as township trustee.
The taste of victory! How sweet! How elusive!
TP|11.4.09 @ 10:40AM|#
Now, God forbid, your basement walls will start cracking, or the house will start sinking.
guy in the back row|11.4.09 @ 10:20AM|#
If anything he's a plutocrat, like St. FDR. His noblesse oblige causes him to structure society for the betterment of the poor people, who are obviously too stupid to know their own best interests.
EJM|11.4.09 @ 10:22AM|#
It looks like GM's decision to hold on to Opel/Vauxhall is now angering Russia (in addition to Germany).
(The story cluster that I plugged last night apparently has since expired.)
Citizen Nothing|11.4.09 @ 10:23AM|#
Don't go talking about my excavator like that, g.i.t.b.r.
Oh - you meant Bloomberg. Threaded comments are addling my brain.
|11.4.09 @ 10:23AM|#
Well, Bloomberg won, that nanny statist piece of fucking shit. Screw you, New Yorkers; I'm glad I left just in time to avoid the full run of Mikey's reign. But you fucking twats seem to like Nurse Mike, so suck it up.
And he looks like a dick in that tiny jacket.
|11.4.09 @ 10:30AM|#
In NYC's defense, how bad was the Dem he was running against? Hard to imagine him being worse than Nanny Bloomberg. But anything is possible.
|11.4.09 @ 7:12PM|#
If it really was just the marriage word people objected to, then domestic partnerships would have passed in Washington by more than 51%.
Sorry but people are just fucking dicks about this shit.
Michael Ejercito|11.5.09 @ 12:38AM|#
Indeed, many of them are.
I have no objection to same-sex couples receiving equal rights in a separate institution.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245