Leave a Comment Sagesse
Another day, another head-shaking Saunders column on Prop 8
August 19, 2010
by Adam Bink
So I love to visit the Bay Area, and do so as often as I can. I usually stay with a friend at her place in Pacific Heights and, whether there for business or vacation, always have a morning routine. I take a short walk down the street to La Boulange- in my opinion one of the best local bakeries there is in America- get a copy of the SF Chronicle and NYTimes, and sit down to my big bowl of granola with yogurt and honey.
My plan with this routine is to start the morning relaxed and calm, but invariably there’s a Debra J. Saunders column in the Chronicle, and I masochistically read it, and by the time I finish it, my blood pressure is up and my plan is semi-ruined. Such is my life. I read one last year arguing that if UC-Berkeley students really wanted to make a difference against planned massive tuition hikes, they should stay in class to show how much they value education instead of committing civil disobedience outside of class, which gained headlines across the country. Oy.
I’m not in the Bay Area at the moment, but Tuesday’s column on Prop 8 and Brown’s/Schwarzenegger’s decision to not defend it was no exception (as have many of her recent pieces on Prop 8, as we’ve written in this space). In it, she thrashes Brown, the Attorney General whose job she claims it is “to represent the people in court”, and goes on to lambast him at length. In response, Brown’s spokesperson said:
“The attorney general’s job is to make sure that California stays within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.”
And: “To say that state resources should be used defending a law that no one thinks is constitutional, I don’t think holds up.”
I think that’s right, and I am curious whether Debra thinks it’s the attorney general’s job to uphold any law passed by voters. What about Colorado’s Amendment 2, struck down by the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans, which would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from enacting laws to protect gay/lesbian individuals as as protected class? What about Jim Crow laws?
Here’s the difference between Debra and I. I think Debra sees the office of Attorney General as a cold bureaucratic desk where the person put behind it is responsible for defending any state law. And to some degree, I see a need for a state to have a chief legal officer. Problem is, that’s not what the office of Attorney General is, nor should be. When I voted in New York State, I didn’t just vote for Eliot Spitzer to be the state’s chief legal officer. I did so because of his progressive views on the constitutional right to equal protection and a right to privacy. The office of Attorney General has become more than just a cold legal desk- it’s become a way for, in Brown’s case, make sure fundamental rights are protected and the majority doesn’t have tyranny over the minority. And while I agree with the need for a chief legal officer and a role for him or her, I also believe it is not a bad thing that Jerry Brown exercise his views on what is constitutional, either, which is good for the state of California.
And on Saunders’ statement here:
Problem: The California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 by a 6-1 vote – which tells you there’s room for debate.
Actually, the court did not rule on the constitutionality. As UPenn’s Tobias Barrington Wolff wrote:
In that first round of legal challenges to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8 under any provision of the U.S. Constitution. It was asked to decide only one question — whether state law permits a ballot initiative to be used in putting the fundamental rights of a protected minority up for popular vote. Appallingly, the California Supreme Court said that such a use of the ballot was no problem. But that had nothing to do with any of the constitutional issues that Judge Walker ruled on this week.
So there is more than one way to respect the will of the voters, and make sure the state of California stays within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.
Filed under: Community/Meta
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
91 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Kathleen | August 19, 2010 at 12:28 pm
This article has video from today's protest in San Diego: http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/19/county-wastes-ov…
2.
Skemono | August 19, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Man, they never get tired of repeating that lie, do they?
3.
paul | August 19, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Hi Adam…
I'm sorry to hear that you let Saunders ruin your day. You have to know by now that she's trash talk and not worth the paper she's printed on. The Chron needs to appear balanced and she's a pawn in that game. It's a "shctick" (spelling?) …like Ann Coulter and a few others who "give them what they want" in order to stay employed.
Don't let her ruin your omelet Adam…she's not worth it.
Gotta laugh at the silliness…
4.
JonT | August 19, 2010 at 12:38 pm
'Problem: The California Supreme Court upheld Prop. 8 by a 6-1 vote – which tells you there’s room for debate.
Actually, the court did not rule on the constitutionality.
'
Heh, why do they keep mis-characterizing that decision?
Oh right, they thrive on BS, keep forgetting that. Actual facts are irrelevant for these "people".
(scare quotes intentional
5.
Bob | August 19, 2010 at 12:45 pm
well maybe that puts Anonygirl a little more at ease, the straight couples stepped over the protestors and so were not prevented from getting their licences after all.
6.
Ann S. | August 19, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Sigh.
Saunders is like the pet conservative they keep around as a token at the Comical. If only she could write. Or reason.
7.
adambink | August 19, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Thanks paul. I try not to let it.
Yeah, a lot of papers got scared by all the "lllllllllliberal" tag and hired people like Saunders, who apparently is a longtime Republican operative to boot.
8.
Kathleen | August 19, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Target boycott flashmob
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7leov_cxssE&fe…
9.
Kathleen | August 19, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Actually looks like one of the couples was smiling and taking video/photos of the protest.
10.
AndrewPDX | August 19, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Grr… that's the problem with most newspapers… there's no 'news', just 'hype'.
About the only part of a newspaper I can stomach reading is the funnies.
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
11.
Bob | August 19, 2010 at 1:08 pm
love it
12.
Tigger | August 19, 2010 at 1:13 pm
What in the hell are the H8ters gonna do when they lose in the public arena AND the courts when all the old curmudgeons die off?
13.
Bob | August 19, 2010 at 1:13 pm
ya'll know I meant the flash mob scene at Target love it, a little live theatre to liven up the day, would be interesting to interview some of those customers to see if they got it. the messge I mean
14.
Kathleen | August 19, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I particularly like the horn section.
15.
tim | August 19, 2010 at 1:19 pm
The fundamental problem I have with the Attorney Generals office of any state is that its just a politic position pushing partisan ideals. When Spitzer was attorney general he filed thousands of lawsuits against companies for the barest of reasons. Most of these lawsuits were dropped but not after tremendous cost to the company involved either through bad publicity or cost of paying lawyers. Brown is doing the same thing – he is choosing not to enforce this law for partisan political reasons. In this case it helps my cause – but is it still the right thing to do for an AG?
On a side note:
Pacific Heights, morning walk, granola (with honey no less), and NYT? One wonders why they call you elitists.
(outside the food section I find little value in the NYT)
16.
Kathleen | August 19, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Shareholder groups file resolutions asking Target and Best Buy to review their political giving policies: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM…
17.
tim peterson | August 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm
prop8.org is officially for sale. This will be an important tool for either side. This site gets heavy traffic without even being related to the topic. Indexed and ready to go. Visit prop8.org or email prop8.org4sale@gmail.com
18.
Josiah | August 19, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Most newspapers are still a hell of a lot better than television news (though that's damning by faint praise).
19.
Carpool Cookie | August 19, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Some of them are already shifting over to hazing illegal immigrants. I think that's the new trend.
20.
Ipse Dixit | August 19, 2010 at 2:29 pm
<blockquote cite="Saunders">As AG, it's Brown's job to represent the people in court.
What about the people who elected him? I.e., Democrats. Shouldn't they get some representation from the guy they elected? I mean–good gawd!– what does a majority have to do to get some rights in this country?!
21.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 19, 2010 at 2:35 pm
And we all know that Debra Saunders will continue to write her column in a way that panders to her wingnut, neo-con, rabidly bigoted readership.
22.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm
Note to self: Kinda helps to click the box before clicking submit.
23.
Ipse Dixit | August 19, 2010 at 2:36 pm
(quoting for Saunders)
24.
Gery Weisschadel | August 19, 2010 at 3:22 pm
I don't believe that the facts are irrelevant to them, I believe they KNOW the facts are irrelevant to their audience who are QUITE prepared and happy to have the talking heads do their thinking and analysis for them.
I will agree that it's all about emotional knee jerk reaction. People are far more mallebale when their emotionals are engaged… especialy when it comes to fear and outrage.
It's a tactic as old as mankind, and mankind is stuid enough to fall for it again and again, and again.
Let's face it, people are lazy when it comes to research and are quite willing to let those who appear willing to do their research for them, spoon feed the "results" into their gaping maws whilst clamouring for more.
Call it manipulation, spin, what-have-you but until people are willing to do their own research and fact checking, this ploy will work as mentioned, again, and again, and again.
Why do you think there's been such a hue and cry among the Prop 8'rs for secrecy? The better to fool you with my dear.
25.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 19, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Oh, Kathleen! I love it!
26.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 19, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I like the crossword puzzles, the sudokus, the cryptoquips, and the jumbles.
27.
Sagesse | August 19, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Subscribing.
28.
Bolt | August 19, 2010 at 3:32 pm
Thanks Adam, it's 10:30 P.M., and I'm craving granola and honey. I'm sorry that Sandra raised your blood pressure, and I understand how that feels.The news has us. Fortunately for us, Gerry Brown can strike back.
“The attorney general’s job is to make sure that California stays within the confines of the U.S. Constitution.” And: “To say that state resources should be used defending a law that no one thinks is constitutional, I don’t think holds up."
One thing is certain, we will always have some ignorant asshole who wants to tell us how to live our life, and they get noisy when we make gains. Let them eat our dust.
29.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 19, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Yes, Bolt, I agree. Let them eat our rainbow-colored, fruit-flavored fairy dust. If they eat enough of it, it just might sweeten them up enough to turn them into decent human beings.
30.
Alex | August 19, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Does the appeal and supreme court have stricter standing rules than the trial courts?
31.
Michael | August 19, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Debra Saunders believes the job of our California Attorney General is to promote the immoral anti-gay agenda, period. She is in favor of Big Government being high jacked to create a Christian Taliban version of Iran right here in America. The rest of us decent Christians reject her immoral and unbiblical stance on equality.
32.
JonT | August 19, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Yeah, that was impressive – wonder how they managed to get all the instruments in
33.
JonT | August 19, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Yes, of course you are right.
It does seem to work quite well for people who like others to do their thinking for them.
34.
Dpeck | August 19, 2010 at 4:24 pm
"Brown is doing the same thing – he is choosing not to enforce this law for partisan political reasons."
No. He understood that the amendment was unconstitutional and that therefore the AG could not defend it in court. He didn't 'choose'. And he didn't choose to 'enforce' anything. And it wasn't a law. And it wasn't for 'partisan political reasons'.
35.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 19, 2010 at 5:25 pm
It's called disinformation, and it's the key tool for mind control. Loud repetition is how it's applied. All you need is a bunch of people willing to believe anything and behave in lockstep, and you have yourself a movement/army/fascist takeover. Fight on, P8TT!
36.
Elizabeth Oakes | August 19, 2010 at 5:29 pm
How is that fruit-flavored fairy dust on granola, I wonder?
37.
Grammar Queen | August 19, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Why do folks have problems with pronouns that follow prepositions? In using words like: between, with, for, before, after, according to, the correct pronouns are: me, her, him, us, them (not: I, she, he, we, they). Example: "The difference between that fugly cunt and *me* is…."
38.
JonT | August 19, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Ultimately Elizabeth, we (the human race), are going to have to find a way of excising this stupidity cancer.
It's sometimes funny to me (and sad) that what is supposedly the last remaining 'superpower' has so much intentional stupid within, working so actively to undermine our future.
Education and knowledge. That's their enemy, and ultimately, our salvation.
And now? Bedtime. Good night
39.
mike | August 19, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Is not a lie
The California Supreme Court lack the "cojones" to stop the "mob of bigotry".
They did not rule on whether Prop 8 was within the boundries of the Constitution – but rather, whether a majority can use the voting process to change the Constitution. – and they gave an affirmative reply to that question, and that question only.
By doing so, the California Supreme court muddy the waters…..as their decision allows non-Constituitonal Props to be put up for a vote. (i.e., allowing the majority to victimize the minority at will)
One could attempt idiotic laws such as prohibiting Ice Cream Parlors from serving Cookies & Cream : as a majority of Californian might regard that specific ice cream flavor as an aberration of God's Natural laws and pushing our children to embrace the ideals of inter-racial marriage.
Or worse, the majority of voters might pass Constituional Amendments which prohibit the sale of vanilla and chocolate flavors on the same establishments – as ice cream parlors employees could use the same spoon to scoop vanilla, right after scooping chocolate…..who wants their vanilla ice cream contaminated with chocolate flavor ?!
What about Passion fruit flavor ? That's too exotic for California's Sacramento conservatives – it should not be sold – period !
For that matter – any "fruit" ice cream…should be ban as well.
Of course….all these moves are quite Constitutional !!!
Provided, the majority votes in favor of such Constituional Amendments.
LOL
40.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 7:26 pm
Shouting, YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adam & Eden & Rick, this protest deserves it's own topic here in Prop8TT.
Everyone please read this article. please. This one Kathleen posted-
This article has video from today’s protest in San Diego: http://sdgln.com/news/2010/08/19/county-wastes-ov…
This is what the NOM Tour Tracker did and how it is reverberating and living on. Do you remember the video from Madison Wisconsin, the Pro Equality counter protestors shouted as they marched dwn the street “Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right,”
In San Diego they chanted the same thing-
“Gay, straight, black, white; marriage is a civil right,”
To every member of San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality (SAME) and other marriage-equality supporters in San Diego I am with you. If I could be with you in person I would be. You are my HEROS, every one of you. You are a HERO in the fight to end DISCRIMINATION against GLBT people. You are all heros, all of you.
41.
Marlene | August 19, 2010 at 8:14 pm
For that, Tigger we need to go to the musical Sou Pacific:
[youtube
42.
Marlene | August 19, 2010 at 8:19 pm
Michael — Isn't it a big ol' heap of hypocrisy flung by the religious reicht and conservatives when they claim to want smaller government, yet they want to dictate when it comes to personal liberties??
43.
Phil L | August 19, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Sweet! So they're coming under fire from shareholders now!
44.
Phil L | August 19, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I agree, and I see the error far too often.
The way I figure it out is by sounding out the sentence without the other person named. I would never end a sentence with the word "I".
Examples:
"I will join the counter protest."
Would therefore become, "Grammar Queen and I will join the counter protest."
"Straight Grandmother will be going to the counter protest with me."
Would therefore become, "Straight Grandmother will be going to the counter protest with Grammar Queen and me." (If I'm not mistaken, "Grammar Queen" and "me" could possibly change places without making the sentence incorrect.)
—
At any rate, I too am a bit of a straight-acting grammar "queen".
45.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 9:49 pm
This went on my Facebook page.
46.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 9:50 pm
GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!
47.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 9:54 pm
So do you own it? Are you looking to make money off of it?
48.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 9:57 pm
Michael I would so appreciate it if every once in a while you would use the word, Discrimination. Yes I know it takes longer to type then Equality, but Judge Walker used it 59 times in a 138 page verdict. The word Discrimination is a strong word and a word I wish we all would use more.
49.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Well, in a word, YES.
50.
Chris in Lathrop | August 19, 2010 at 10:00 pm
@Jon T: You're absolutely right! I think a great deal of the problem boils down to the educational system, especially K-12. I've watched, outraged, over the years how the Republican party is systematically hamstringing education, using it to brainwash children into multiple-guess thought patterns and factoid absorption (be those factoids true, false, or spun more to their thinking) rather than teaching kids how to think, cutting funding, and decrying 'liberal' professors in colleges and universities in order to have themselves a nice crop of little Republi-bots to vote GOP for a lifetime.
The chilling effect is people who can't think beyond the information given (as we've all well noticed here) and I think explains even the fact of one 2004 voter–sorry, couldn't cite except to say Anthrax's Scott Ian mentioned it–who figured John Kerry was the smarter candidate, but they were voting Bush anyway.
Wild speculation, I know, but my point is that a properly educated populace probably would never have wasted enough signatures to put Prop 8 on the ballot in the first place. Nor Prop 22 for that matter. A properly educated populace would have seen through the fallacies and fear-mongering, IMO.
51.
Andrew | August 19, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Well, to start, the Supreme Court has the option of picking and choosing its cases regardless of standing or relevance. In this way, the standing rules are so strict that even two parties with thirty legs to stand on are not necessarily going to get their case heard.
In the appeal court unlike the Federal District Court (where Judge Walker presides), standing can only be determined if there is harm done directly to the appealer. However, the intervenors were allowed to intervene because the trial was already going to happen and there was already vested interest in the trial. Now on appeal, the DI's have to show SIGNIFICANT reasons for their place in the appeal whereas to intervene, they simply needed to have an interest in intervening.
52.
Brad Larsen | August 19, 2010 at 10:26 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/17/bloom.prop….
53.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Yes I would, I would go to the protest with you. I was in Washington DC for 2 days in May. I contacted GetEqual prior to leaving France and voluntered that if they had anything going on in DC the two days I would be there, to please let me know so I could participate. Sadly they had nothing going on those two days.
I do what I can from afar, donate money and encourage and educate over the internet. I bought a huge Rainbow Flag online and had it shipped to Indiana. It was flown in the Counter Protest to NOM in Indianapolis Indiana. I wasn't there but my Rainbow flag flew anyway.
So Straight Grandmother, if she could, would be right there shoulder to shoulder standing up, or even sitting in, to end Discrimination against GLBT people.
Additionally I just called Gregg Steinhafel, 612-696-6234, the CEO of Target and left him a voice mail that I was calling from France and that this has now gone Viral that I heard about this in France. I said that they should make an equal contribution to a local GLBT organization, not the HRC. I left my name and city and I am sure the voice mail probably picked up my phone number which proves I was calling from France.
Sitting "nicely" on the back of the bus gets us nowhere. Get Up, Get Out and Protest!!!!!!!!!!!!
54.
Straight Grandmother | August 19, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I searched to find out who major shareholders of Target are over at the EDGAR search engine at the SEC.
If I am reading this right it looks like
BlackRock Inc.
40 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022
owns just under 5% of Target Stock.
Here is my source- http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27419/0001…
I am not familiar with these filings so it might alternately show that Target owns 4.98% of BlackRock.
Either way I want to let BlackRock know that their interrest in Target is at risk, so I sent an e-mails to
Brian.Beades@blackrock.com
Bobbie.Collins@blackrock.com
and asked them to forward them to the CEO
Laurence D. Fink
You can see the naming convention for their e-mails so I will take a shot at sending an e-mail to Laurence.Fink@Blackrock.com
Target needs to make this right, and I am going to add to the others who are putting on pressure.
55.
Alan E. | August 20, 2010 at 12:03 am
Not how you can get through an entire Debra Saunders article. I usually skim it if I do read it.
56.
Straight Grandmother | August 20, 2010 at 12:03 am
Brad, thanks for the link to the CNN article. I saw this previously but perhaps others missed it.
57.
Alan E. | August 20, 2010 at 12:05 am
not *sure* how.
58.
Alan E. | August 20, 2010 at 12:08 am
Which La Boulange do you go to? The one on Polk?
59.
Alan E. | August 20, 2010 at 12:14 am
"It is I." is a correct sentence. You use "I, he, she, we, they" if the verb is "to be."
60.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 20, 2010 at 12:19 am
OT, but thought everybody could use a little Southern humor. I got this in an email this morning, and just wanted to pass it along to give everybody' a good laugh to start the weekend off with.
We Southern Women…
Southern women know their summer weather report:
Humidity
Humidity
Humidity
Southern women know their vacation spots:
The beach
The rivuh
The crick
Southern women know everybody's first name:
Honey
Darlin'
Shugah
Southern women know the movies that speak to their hearts:
Fried Green Tomatoes
Driving Miss Daisy
Steel Magnolias
Gone With The Wind
Southern women know their religions:
Baptist
Methodist
Football
Southern women know their cities dripping with Southern charm:
Chawl'stn
S'vanah
Foat Wuth
N'awlins
Addlanna
Southern women know their elegant gentlemen:
Men in uniform
Men in tuxedos
Rhett Butler
Southern girls know their prime real estate:
The Mall
The Country Club
The Beauty Salon
Southern girls know the 3 deadly sins:
Having bad hair and nails
Having bad manners
Cooking bad food
More Suthen-ism's:
Only a Southerner knows the difference between a hissie fit and a conniption fit, and that you don't "HAVE" them, you "PITCH" them.
Only a Southerner knows how many fish, collard greens, turnip greens, peas, beans, etc.., make up "a mess."
Only a Southerner can show or point out to you the general direction of "yonder."
Only a Southerner knows exactly how long "directly" is, as in: "Going to town, be back directly."
Even Southern babies know that "Gimme some sugar" is not a request for the white, granular sweet substance that sits in a pretty little bowl in the middle of the table.
All Southerners know exactly when "by and by" is. They might not use the term, but they know the concept well.
Only a Southerner knows instinctively that the best gesture of solace for a neighbor who's got trouble is a plate of hot fried chicken and a big bowl of cold potato salad. If the neighbor's trouble is a real crisis, they also know to add a large banana puddin!
Only Southerners grow up knowing the difference between "right near" and "a right far piece." They also know that "just down the road" can be 1 mile or 20
Only a Southerner, both knows and understands, the difference between a redneck, a good ol' boy, and po' white trash.
No true Southerner would ever assume that the car with the flashing turn signal is actually going to make a turn.
A Southerner knows that "fixin" can be used as a noun, a verb, or an adverb.
Only Southerners make friends while standing in lines, … and when we're "in line,"… we talk to everybody!
Put 100 Southerners in a room and half of them will discover they're related, even if only by marriage.
In the South, y'all is singular, all y'all is plural.
Southerners know grits come from corn and how to eat them.
Every Southerner knows tomatoes with eggs, bacon, grits, and coffee are perfectly wonderful; that red eye gravy is also a breakfast food; and that fried green tomatoes are not a breakfast food.
When you hear someone say, "Well, I caught myself lookin'," you know you are in the presence of a genuine Southerner!
Only true Southerners say "sweet tea" and "sweet milk." Sweet tea indicates the need for sugar and lots of it — we do not like our tea unsweetened. "Sweet milk" means you don't want buttermilk.
And a true Southerner knows you don't scream obscenities at little old ladies who drive 30 MPH on the freeway. You just say, "Bless her heart" … and go your own way.
To those of you who are still a little embarrassed by your Southerness: Take two tent revivals and a dose of sausage gravy and call me in the morning. Bless your heart!
And to those of you who are still having a hard time understanding all this Southern stuff, … bless your hearts, I hear they are fixin' to have classes on Southernness as a second language!
And for those that are not from the South but have lived here for a long time, all y'all need a sign to hang on y'alls front porch that reads "I ain't from the South, but I got here as fast as I could."
Southern girls know men may come and go, but friends are fahevah!
Now…… Shugah, send this to someone who was raised in the South or wish they had been! If you're a Northern transplant, bless your little heart, fake it. We know you got here as fast as you could!
Enjoy, everybody!
♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥
Richard and BZ
61.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 20, 2010 at 12:29 am
Michael–I wonder if Debra Saunders has ever read Margaret Atwood's book the Handmaid's Tale, which shows exactly what her "utopia" of a theocracy would actually look like?
62.
adambink | August 20, 2010 at 12:34 am
Scrambling to change my habits out of concerns about name-calling isn't in my nature, tim.
63.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 20, 2010 at 12:44 am
I don't know. Guess I'll have to go to the store and grab several straws of "Pixie Dust" (it's the closest thing we have in our local stores) and a box of Nature Valley Granola and try it. I do know it's delicious in a glass of milk.
64.
James Sweet | August 20, 2010 at 12:49 am
FWIW, I think there is a non-crazy case to be made that AGs have an ethical responsibility to defend the laws of their state no matter how stupid those laws may be.
My counter-argument is that, with that as the default expectation, an AG who refuses to defend a law must really mean it, and may be effectively staking her career on that decision.
But in any case, I don't think it's completely wingnut crazy to assert that the AG should have tried to defend this indefensible law.
65.
James Sweet | August 20, 2010 at 12:50 am
Saunders assertion that the California Supreme Court's vote indicates "room for debate" is wingnut-crazy though.
66.
Anne B. | August 20, 2010 at 12:51 am
just in the last few days I read a couple articles about different states deciding not to defend or continue to defend laws because they felt that they would lose in the end. One was a law in some state that required women to get physicals before abortions, or something like that. I forget the other one. So this is not unusual for a state to not defend a law.
67.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 20, 2010 at 1:05 am
@Alan E. Yes, you are correct with that, because when you are using a form of the verb "to be," that is considered to be a reflexive sentence, meaning that you are reflecting back to the subject, and therefore you do not have an object per se.
68.
Don in Texas | August 20, 2010 at 1:08 am
WE also should be aware that the correct usage is"different FROM," not "different THAN."
"His views were different FROM those of most people in his class."
69.
adambink | August 20, 2010 at 1:09 am
No, the one on Union next to the Bus Stop.
70.
fiona64 | August 20, 2010 at 1:42 am
The populace is being deliberately dumbed down because it's easier to control the ignorant.
Read Susan Jacoby's book, "The Age of American Unreason," to see the lengthy history of how we got here. I was infuriated by the time I finished.
When we have people voting for a president because they think he's a "regular guy I'd like to have a beer with" instead of an actual leader, people calling anyone who is educated and well-spoken an "elitist" and all of the other ridiculous things we've seen over the past few years, we are heading for an even bigger disaster than that which we have already weathered.
Love,
Fiona
71.
Lesbians Love Boies | August 20, 2010 at 1:49 am
Late to the Scribe party!
72.
Ann S. | August 20, 2010 at 1:55 am
Don in TX, is this possibly one of the many differences between US and UK English? I think in the UK they might say "different than".
73.
Mark | August 20, 2010 at 2:48 am
Saunders is correct…the Attorney General's job is “to represent the people in court”…and those people INCLUDE gay and lesbian individuals.
74.
Mark M. (Seattle) | August 20, 2010 at 2:48 am
It's done been sent along to the kin folk….
Bless your pea pickin heart
75.
PamC | August 20, 2010 at 3:03 am
lol, I learned to appreciate granola & honey (with milk and fruit) while attending the very conservative Wheaton College (in Illinois, yes *that* Wheaton, Billy Graham's alma mater). They always had big bowls of it set out for every meal in the dining hall.
Now, alas, I only eat it at the breakfast buffet in hotels, infrequently. I think we're living in a post-granola-biased society these days.
76.
PamC | August 20, 2010 at 3:05 am
…and p.s., one reason people avoid the NYT is that it's written at a 12th grade & up readability level. Just sayin'.
77.
MJFargo | August 20, 2010 at 3:12 am
In the Chronicle article, I responded to Saunders, asking "What is it she would want the Attorney General to say to the courts?" You don't just appeal something because you don't like the verdict. You need a reason. What, after all that was said in the trial, is the grounds to appeal this case? You can't bring in new evidence, you have to find some misapplication for the law by Judge Walker. Do the critics of Brown suggest what that would be? Of course, not. They're looking for a new forum to reargue a case that–it turned out–had not defense. Was it just poor/good lawyering that got Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional? It's avoiding the core subject to think this is about the personalities/politics/sexual orienations of the participants in the trial. Look at the facts and what should Brown appeal?
78.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 20, 2010 at 3:21 am
I just figured we could all use a good laugh, the way things have been going. Glad you like it!
79.
MJFargo | August 20, 2010 at 3:25 am
Well, it was the US Supreme Court that raised the whole issue of standing in the first place in the Arizona case cited to the Propronents. So, it's a double-death knell in my opinion. While anything can happen, the fact that the 9th raised that particular case–for me–signals they have serious doubt that the DI's are on firm ground here. I'm not looking for silver-linings (granola, maybe…with strawberries), after that whole emotional turmoil with the stay being extended, I (with the help of many here) looked at what the implications of naming the Arizona case actually meant. "Oh, when you bring this appeal, let's start HERE" and then citing where the 9th had been called out by SCOTUS on even hearing a case (the Arizona one) where the applellant didn't have standing…. Well…let's just say, I calmed down.
80.
Sylvia | August 20, 2010 at 3:42 am
Adam Bink, thanks for the post, and more importantly, the follow-up commentary on sassy Saunders' article.
81.
Kathleen | August 20, 2010 at 4:21 am
NY state pension fund, which owns 3.8 M shares of Target w/market value $283M, is considering co-signing the resolution.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/19/nation/la…
82.
Mark | August 20, 2010 at 4:28 am
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade,
You've got to be carefully taught.
You've got to be taught before it's too late,
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate,
You've got to be carefully taught!
- RODGERS AND HAMMERSTEIN
83.
Ann S. | August 20, 2010 at 4:49 am
I don't know if this has been posted before (way behind on my emails): http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/gerard-br…
From Mother Jones magazine: Why Gay Opponents Hated and Feared the Proposition 8 Trial
(Hint: there's no evidence on their side.)
84.
carpoolcookie | August 20, 2010 at 4:56 am
I LOVE THAT BOOK!
Truly "all caps" deserving!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-c80TeoonM
85. Frustration at Prop 8 rul&hellip | August 20, 2010 at 7:15 am
[...] the comment’s on last night’s piece, Straight Grandmother points us to those emotions becoming a flashpoint yesterday in San Diego. [...]
86.
Jon | August 22, 2010 at 9:13 am
Deb gets the facts so wrong so often that I no longer care about her opinions. It seems only fair to the right wing that the Chron really should feature a spokesperson for their point of view who isn't so clearly out of touch with reality.
87. Alliance Defense Fund: Lo&hellip | August 23, 2010 at 6:46 am
[...] to his great piece regarding ADF’s dishonesty, which was posted last night. See also a related piece I did on conservative pushback regarding Brown/Schwarzenegger’s position [...]
88.
- | November 16, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Saunders used to be ok, but a few years ago, she struggled, and seemed to overcome a bout of coultergeist.
Unfortunately, Saunders 's been out of remission for over a year, and her condition is more serious than it was before.
89.
- | November 16, 2010 at 7:06 pm
erm. afaik, Saunders herself isn't against "gay" marriage. she claims that now is too soon to legalize marriage for all adults. "americans" can't handle marriage freedom.
iirc, she similarly advises obama to not be "too" liberal. imo, it's a slimy "i'm just looking out for you liberals' best interests" tactic.
and otherwise, it seems she's decided to be a "spicy", "exciting" pundit, ala coulter, beck, lushbo, etc etc etc. overall, she's still more relaxed than the standard issue over-the-top (whining/bitching, grim/bitter, screaming murder, etc) rightwing pundits.
years ago, she seemed to play a more honest devil's advocate.
90.
Ronnie | January 30, 2011 at 5:46 am
LOL…they brought a band…that was awesome……<3…Ronnie
91. car repair insurance&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 1:10 pm
How to car repair…
[...]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[...]…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.