Griper Blade: The Tyranny of a Short-Term Majority

A majority taken collectively is only an individual, whose opinions, and frequently whose interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority. If it be admitted that a man possessing absolute power may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should not a majority be liable to the same reproach? Men do not change their characters by uniting with one another; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with their strength. For my own part, I cannot believe it; the power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.
-Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy in America."

That reasoned argument against what de Tocqueville called "the tyranny of the majority" is a total crock. A bunch of hooey. Liberal claptrap from a French intellectual with no real understanding of democracy. Never mind that James Madison agreed in the Federalist Papers, warning of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority" -- Madison was just some loonie leftist. The majority is all-powerful. If you can get enough people to agree with you, you can do anything you want to anybody. There are no such thing as rights, only privileges that can be voted away at any time. Get enough people together and you can even take someone's First Amendment rights away -- if people don't like what you're saying, they can use the power of democracy to shut you the hell up.

So sayeth that great American patriot Kenneth Starr. Best known for an unsuccessful witch hunt against then-President Bill Clinton, Starr is the dean of Pepperdine law school -- which makes you wonder what kind of education Pepperdine law students get for their money.

At issue was California's Prop. 8 -- a ban of same sex marriage. The state Supreme Court had previously ruled that gays and lesbians had the right to marriage. Prop. 8, which passed as a referendum, would remove that right and retroactively undo the marriages that have occurred since the court's ruling.

But, since the court ruled that marriage was a right, not a privilege, Prop. 8 became a classic example of the "tyranny of the majority" -- with a simple majority vote, Californians took a right away from a minority group. The ballot measure is now in California's Supreme Court, where Ken Starr -- representing Prop. 8 supporters -- argued yesterday that there's really no such thing as "rights." At least, not if you're in the minority.

"Swallow the bitter pill and act with diligence if one is weak, enjoy all one's rights if powerful: that's my doctrine," wrote the Marquis de Sade. Starr apparently agrees... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: Racism in the Civil Rights Division

The inauguration of Barack Obama will demonstrate how far we've come -- if not how far we have yet to go -- in dealing with the issue of race in America. In less than a week, we'll watch the first African-American president take office. Phrases like "once unimaginable" and words like "tearful" and "jubilant" will probably get worn out in the media -- both new and old -- in reporting of the event and reactions to it. No matter which side of the aisle you come from, you've got to admit that this is an inauguration a bit more historically noteworthy than the average. Obama represents more than just Executive #44.

But what few will note is that Obama's turn at the wheel represents a drastic change from just a couple of years ago. A new Justice Department report details illegal hiring practices within the department, where employees where chosen for ideological purity rather than experience or merit. As a result, Justice was peppered with young conservative ideologues and Bush loyalists. 150 of these came from Pat Robertson's Regent University -- a third-tier law school that, not surprisingly, does a lot less educating than it does indoctrinating. Justice, under the the leadership of John Ashcroft and then Alberto Gonzales, became home to young, right wing Christian evangelicals and neocons. It was less of a service to the public than a way to build the resumes of the future Republican leadership.

One of these young ideologues, Monica Goodling, pleaded the Fifth in congressional testimony about this debacle. "She forced many very talented, career people out of main Justice so she could replace them with junior people that were either loyal to the administration or would score her some points," a former Justice official told the Washington Post in 2007. The Justice Department -- a law enforcement agency -- had been thoroughly politicized... [CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: What Did You Do Today?

It's one of those election day traditions. Every four years, a bunch of media remote trucks show up at Dixville Notch, New Hampshire to report the earliest election results in the nation. The polls open at midnight and everyone in town casts their votes right away. The results? Barack Obama by a nearly three to one margin. Every single Dixville Notchian -- or whatever the hell you call them -- has voted and the results of this 100% turnout is McCain 6, Obama 15. It's the first time in forty years that the town has chosen a Democrat. Only a gazillion more votes to go.

Dixville Notch always has 100% turnout -- I think if you don't show, the Children of the Corn come by your house and stone you. The media gods must be appeased. Nationwide, many have already cast their ballots in early voting. Voice of America reports that "more than 28 million people in 34 of the 50 states" have already voted. The turnout for election day is expected to be even bigger.

"We have statistics that we can point to right now that suggest that 28.8 million people have so far voted in this election," Michael McDonald, an elections expert at George Mason University in Virginia told VOA. "We are expecting 40 million people when all the numbers are compiled. And that will be about 30 percent of the 136 million people that we are expecting to vote." If that 136 million figure is correct, that would represent a turnout of 64% of all eligible voters.

"We may quite literally see turnout of a magnitude that we have not seen in a century of American politics," he said...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Griper Blade: I, Robocaller

Robocalls. If you're a voter in one of the "battleground states," you're familiar with them. Right when you're in the middle of doing something liberal -- say, destroying the family by making cakes for same sex weddings -- the phone rings and a voice tells you "the truth" about Barack Obama.

Who makes robocalls? That should be obvious from the name -- robots. Clearly, they see the McCain-Palin ticket as being stronger for their radical robot agenda. The metal men, with their fierce laser beam eyes and computer brains, want nothing more than to see McCain elected.

Why?

I looked up the Three Laws of Robotics and discovered a chilling fact. See for yourself:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

My discovery? That there's nothing barring a robot from lying. You could argue that losing an election would constitute "harm" for Barack Obama, but robots -- with their merciless calculations -- could see McCain losing as an equal harm. The second law could be overriding the first, since offense and defense are merely different positions in the same game. Team McCain orders the robots to make the calls, so the robots do it. The harm caused to Obama by doing it is rendered neutral by the harm caused to McCain by not doing it.

And doing it they are. Oh, yes indeed. Doing it they most certainly are...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

ACLU: Justice Dept. Institutes 'Racial Profiling as a Matter of Policy'

clipped from www.aclu.org New FBI guidelines governing investigations were released today after being signed by Attorney General Michael Mukasey. The guidelines replace existing bureau guidelines for five types of investigations: general criminal, national security, foreign intelligence, civil disorders and demonstrations.  The ACLU has been vocal in its disapproval of the overly broad guidelines, citing both the FBI’s and DOJ’s documented records of internal abuse.   The new guidelines reduce standards for beginning “assessments” (precursors to investigations), conducting surveillance and gathering evidence, meaning the threshold to beginning investigations across the board will be lowered.  More troubling still, the guidelines allow a person’s race or ethnic background to be used as a factor in opening an investigation, a move the ACLU believes may institute racial profiling as a matter of policy.

The piece goes on:

“The attorney general today gave the FBI a blank check to open investigations of innocent Americans based on no meaningful suspicion of wrongdoing,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “The new guidelines provide no safeguards against the FBI’s improperly using race and religion as grounds for suspicion. They also fail to sufficiently prevent the government from infiltrating groups whose viewpoints it doesn’t like. The FBI has shown time and time again that is incapable of policing itself and there is good reason to believe that these guidelines will lead to more abuse.”

Poll: Obama Leads Wisconsin

clipped from strategicvision.biz Below are the results of a three-day poll of likely voters in the state of Wisconsin. Results are based on telephone interviews with 800 likely voters in Wisconsin, aged 18+, and conducted September 26-28, 2008 by telephone. The margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points. 1. If the election for President were held today would you support the Democratic ticket of Barack Obama and Joseph Biden or the Republican ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin? Obama/Biden 49% McCain/Palin 40% Other 2% Undecided 9% 6. Which presidential candidate do you believe would be best able to handle the economy, Barack Obama or John McCain? Barack Obama 56% John McCain 37% Undecided 7%

This one's a little personal. If I see one more electoral map that shows the Badger state as a toss-up, I'm going to hurt someone. Wisconsin isn't going McCain, it hasn't gone GOP since the Reagan landslide.

Other fun results; Bush is really unpopular here -- only a 15% job approval rating. More evidence that McCain's done here.

He's still spending money here, though. You can't watch TV for an hour without seeing a McCain ad.

Glad to see him blowing that cash on a lost cause.

Poll: Most Oppose Same-Sex Marriage Ban in CA

clipped from news.yahoo.com A majority of California voters oppose a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, though they are evenly split on the practice itself, according to a poll released Wednesday. The ballot question essentially will ask voters to prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage, which was approved this year by the California Supreme Court. A majority of likely voters, 54 percent, oppose ending gay marriage, compared with 40 percent who support it, the poll said. The result is similar to the findings of a Field Poll in July, which found that 51 percent of likely California voters opposed ending gay marriage, while 42 percent said they supported it.

This despite the polls showing that the public is split on approval of the marriages themselves -- 47%-47%. The lesson here is that you don't have to approve of a practice to recognize someone's right to do it; that's what you call yer "tolerance."

Griper Blade: The Good Fight

I want to share a fun fact; the vast, vast majority of people think George W. Bush sucks. And there's this guy who's running for president who's close to Bush. This is a problem for that guy:



Yeah, it's not the newest poll, but that's kind of the point. Rev. Wright is a dead issue -- George W. Bush is not. And, while people may not like Jeremiah Wright, there aren't many who would argue that he's screwing up the country. Wright is not a national disaster, Bush is. In fact, Bush is such a disaster that the GOP was stuck with a little bit of a problem -- how to deal with him in their national convention?

They had to have him speak. It would be huge -- and counterproductive -- news if he weren't to address the convention. So they decided to hide him. Bush will address the RNC on the day most people won't be watching. Bush is scheduled for Labor Day evening -- a massive media black hole. The only way to get fewer viewers would be to have him speak on Christmas.

Bonus, they can hide Cheney in the same hole. So, of course, they did. There was some question as to whether Darth Cheney would address the convention at all, but -- like Bush -- it turned out that the bigger story would be to not feature him. The only place to hide Bush and Cheney was out in the open...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]

Homeland Security Blocks Voter Registration Drive

clipped from www.mercurynews.com Just before Santa Clara County immigrants were sworn in as U.S. citizens, they got voter-registration cards and were shown how to fill them out. At the conclusion of the naturalization ceremony, most new citizens had signed the cards and handed them in to become registered voters. But in March, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services declared that the county registrar of voters must not hand out those cards until the recipients are officially citizens. And now voter registration has plunged by 82 percent. The new policy by the agency, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security, has caused outrage among local League of Women Voters volunteers as well as local congressional representatives. "Homeland Security has no jurisdiction over this. They can't limit voter registration," said U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, chairwoman of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee. "Who do they think they are?"

While it's tempting to see political interference here (Obama enjoys a big lead over McCain among Hispanics), the fact that this is California would make that stupid as all -- there's no way John McCain's taking that state.

More likely, this is just another example of how idiotic, clumsy, and disrespectful of citizens' rights DHS is.

Calls for Boycott of San Diego Hotelier

clipped from www.nytimes.com A hotel owner’s $125,000 donation to support a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in the state has become a flashpoint, with opponents calling for a boycott of two of his hotels and supporters highlighting the donation in a fund-raising letter. The hotelier, Doug Manchester, donated the money to support the collection of signatures to qualify the initiative, which would amend the state’s Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, for the November ballot. Efforts in 2006 on behalf of similar initiatives were not successful. But this year, an increase in donations from across the country helped qualify Proposition 8 in early June for the state ballot. Mr. Manchester said Wednesday: “This really is a free-speech, First Amendment issue. While I respect everyone’s choice of partner, my Catholic faith and longtime affiliation with the Catholic Church leads me to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.”

It seems to me that Manchester's allowing his "Catholic faith" to turn him into a bad businessman. After all, more marriages = more honeymoons = more money spent at hotels.

Besides, his Catholic faith requires a Catholic wedding -- does this mean he'd spend money to outlaw any wedding that wasn't Catholic?

In the end, it's just spin to excuse his bigotry.

Mass. Senate Votes to Let Out-of-State Gays Marry

clipped from news.yahoo.com Gay couples from across the country are one step closer to a Massachusetts wedding. The state Senate voted Tuesday to repeal a 1913 law used to bar out-of-state gay couples from marrying in the state. The move to repeal the law, which prohibits couples from obtaining marriage licenses if they couldn't legally wed in their home states, is driven in part by California's recent legalization of same-sex marriage. The House is expected to vote on the repeal later this week. Gov. Deval Patrick, whose 18-year-old daughter announced publicly last month that she is a lesbian, would have 10 days to sign it. The law was rarely enforced until Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state could no longer bar gay couples from marrying. Romney, then eyeing a run for president, ordered city and town clerks to enforce the statute, although some town clerks balked.

Like most of these kind of laws, it was an overlooked and previously antiquated protection of racism. AP tells us, "The law dates to a time when the majority of states outlawed interracial marriages."

Governor Patrick says the law carries a "a racist taint," which suggests he's up to signing the repeal.

Score one more for the sane people.

Griper Blade: Just One Good Reason

Here's a question that's both timely and informative; "Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex?" That question was asked of 1,052 California voters and their answers may spell bad news for opponents of same sex marriage in that state. 51% approved and only 42% disapproved.

Californians are now enjoying the fruits of marriage equality in their state, after a state Supreme Court ruling found that a ban on the issuing of licenses to same sex couples was unconstitutional. Writing for Slate, Yale Law professor Kenji Yoshino manages to explain the ruling in one paragraph:

Writing for the California high court, Chief Justice Ronald M. George first found that the exclusion of gays from marriage violated their fundamental right to marry, thereby drawing strict scrutiny from the court. This meant that the state would have to produce a compelling reason to bar gays from what the court deemed "the most socially productive and individually fulfilling relationship that one can enjoy in the course of a lifetime." In a crucial move, Chief Justice George rejected the state's argument that tradition was such a reason. Allowing tradition to thus entrench itself, he said, would have allowed for laws barring interracial couples. And, as he noted, the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on interracial marriage in 1948, almost two decades before the U.S. Supreme Court did in Loving v. Virginia.

Basically, the court found that there was no reason for same sex marriage to be illegal. It's a law that serves no purpose, other than to discriminate.

Which brings us to a second timely and informative question -- why should same sex marriage be illegal?...

[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]