Issues of a Domestic Nature (READ WARNING ON PAGE 1 BEFORE POSTING)

Blink

Rookie
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
21
Reaction score
19
Points
3
It looks like the issue is with the wording of the current law.

"Current Alabama law says probate judges “may” issue marriage, but doesn’t force them to do so."

I don't know why they wouldn't simply update that to say judges shall. Currently those judges are technically in compliance with the law. Force them to choose between their ideals and their career, and see how committed they are.

The legislature gave them an out. This is the governmental equivalent of doing your kid's homework because they refused to do it.

FWIW @King Stannis this is like 6 of 68 judges in one of the most conservative states in the country.
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
12,422
Reaction score
15,904
Points
123
It looks like the issue is with the wording of the current law.

"Current Alabama law says probate judges “may” issue marriage, but doesn’t force them to do so."

I don't know why they wouldn't simply update that to say judges shall. Currently those judges are technically in compliance with the law. Force them to choose between their ideals and their career, and see how committed they are.

The legislature gave them an out. This is the governmental equivalent of doing your kid's homework because they refused to do it.

FWIW @King Stannis this is like 6 of 68 judges in one of the most conservative states in the country.
The point was to protect those judges and others like them. Even though it seems counter-intuitive that any judge would use their religious beliefs to interpret the law.

The Bill was written and passed not as a favor to the LGBT community. Rather the opposite.
 

Blink

Rookie
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
21
Reaction score
19
Points
3
The point was to protect those judges and others like them. Even though it seems counter-intuitive that any judge would use their religious beliefs to interpret the law.

The Bill was written and passed not as a favor to the LGBT community. Rather the opposite.
The more I think about it, I agree. I initially saw this as a move accompanied with a groan and an eye roll. It's looking more like a wink and a nod.
 

Green Demon

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
1,119
Points
113
I won't limit to one side of congress on this one the fact that its funded on a time and fund limited basis is a stain on all those involved. I mean its a fact of healthcare in this country, but that is a different though related issue that should be given priority because of what they have and continue to go through.

Jon Stewart chokes up, slams lawmakers at hearing on 9/11 first responders fund


Jon Stewart's latest impassioned plea to help 9/11 first responders sickened by the attack is giving the issue new urgency in Washington. Dozens of police, firefighters and others joined Stewart at an emotional Capitol Hill hearing Tuesday where the former "Daily Show" host blasted Congress for allowing a fund that was set up to pay for their health care run short of money.

"I can't help but think what an incredible metaphor this room is ... a filled room of 9/11 first responders and in front of me, a nearly empty Congress. Sick and dying, they brought themselves down here to speak to no one ... shameful," Stewart said at the outset of his remarks.

Stewart has seen funding for these victims get held up before and he's worried it will happen again. Congress didn't pass the bill on the first try but four years ago allotted $7.4 billion to last through 2020. But there were so many claims — from 22,000 people who got sick after serving at ground zero — that the money has almost run out and earlier this year payouts started getting slashed in half.

Many lawmakers were unaware of that and Stewart was clearly looking to redirect attention to the issue. And to the fact that there is a bill members could act on that would ensure the fund can pay benefits for the next 70 years. Democratic Committee Chair Jerry Nadler, said his committee would vote on an extension Wednesday.

There's a lot of bipartisan support even from fiscal conservatives who have balked at the price tag in the past. Cordes asked one key player, Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, if he supports replenishing the victims fund. He said he does.

They can claim ignorance I guess and they are going towards correcting their mistake, but for all the hay they make about supporting first responders and doing every thing we can for them. It would be nice if they they could stay on top of funding for those type of people on one of this countries darkest days.
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
12,422
Reaction score
15,904
Points
123
Good decision by Haaavard. With all the applicants who apply I'm sure they will be able to pick one who doesn't like to use racial slurs to replace him.

View: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1140763071209713665?s=21
It amazes me that kids don't sanitize their accounts before applying to college.

I'm surprised Fox News and Co. have not made this a bigger issue.

It is my understanding that this kid became a Pro-Gun Rights activist after the shooting and featured prominently on various NRA and GOP outlets.
 

BMAN

Buttstuff
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
5,268
Reaction score
3,264
Points
113
Good ol Mitch thinks granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood is socialism. This guy can get fucked, I’ve had enough of him. Next to Trump, he probably is the biggest reason why we’re at the current political climate.
 

AZ_

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
35,756
Reaction score
36,569
Points
148
Good ol Mitch thinks granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood is socialism. This guy can get fucked, I’ve had enough of him. Next to Trump, he probably is the biggest reason why we’re at the current political climate.
There are few greater political villains in American history.
 

Green Demon

Sixth Man
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
1,119
Points
113
Good ol Mitch thinks granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood is socialism. This guy can get fucked, I’ve had enough of him. Next to Trump, he probably is the biggest reason why we’re at the current political climate.
He really doesn't get enough credit for being the reason that Congress does jack shit pretty much at all times. Like some of the extreme bipartisan-ism that has come to Washington wasn't really just a Trump thing this dude has been at the forefront. Here's a recent quote from Cocaine Mitch about Jon Stewarts comments on the Hill, just to show what a swell guy he is.

“I don’t know why he is all bent out of shape, but we will take care of the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund,” McConnell insisted, adding, “It sounds to me like he is looking for some way to take offense.”
Seriously fuck this dude, Jon Stewart handled the response pretty well though not that it would make a difference to Mitch.

So when Stewart reappeared from under his old friend Stephen Colbert’s desk on The Late Show on Monday night, he had a lot to get off his chest. Asked by Colbert if he was “bent out of shape,” Stewart replied, “No, Mitch McConnell, I am not bent out of shape! I’m in fine shape.” Then he added, “Well, I am out of shape,” before explaining that he is only “bent out of shape” on behalf of the first responders.

As for McConnell’s suggestion that he’s “looking for some way to take offense” after members skipped his hearing, Stewart said, “I feel like an asshole,” sarcastically calling the whole situation a “huge misunderstanding.”

“I didn’t know that they were busy,” he said of Congress. “I didn’t mean to interrupt them… with their jobs!”

“Honestly, Mitch McConnell, you really want to go with the ‘we’ll get to it when we get to it argument’ for the heroes of 9/11?” Stewart asked. “Listen, Senator, I know that your species isn’t known for moving quickly.”

“Would that be a turtle reference, Jon?” Colbert asked, alluding to a classic Daily Show bit.

“But damn, Senator, you’re not good at this argument thing,” Stewart continued. “Basically, we’re saying you love the 9/11 community when they serve your political purposes. But when they’re in urgent need, you slow-walk, you dither, you use it as a political pawn to get other things you want. And you don’t get the job done completely. And your answer to that charge is, ‘Yeah, duh, we’re Congress, that’s how we do.’”

As the camera zoomed in on his face, Stewart spoke directly to McConnell, expressing his last, best hope that the Senate majority leader won’t “jack us around like you’re done in the past.”

“So, if you want to know why the 9/11 community is bent out of shape over these past, let’s call it 18 years,” he said, “meet with them, tomorrow, as soon as possible, and don’t make them beg for it.”

“I beg of you, meet with them tomorrow,” Stewart added. “But you know what? If you’re busy, I get it.”

“Just understand that the next time we have a war or you’re being robbed or your house is on fire and you make that desperate call for help, don’t get bent out of shape if they show up at the last minute, with fewer people than you thought were going to pay attention, and don’t really put it out,” he said. “Just sort of leave it there smoldering for another five years, because that’s how shit’s done around here, Mister. I’m sure they’ll put it out for good when they feel like getting around to it.”

“No offense,” he concluded

Never mind the fact that his wife is another swamp creature in the Trump Administration unsurprisingly.
 

jking948

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
8,712
Reaction score
13,521
Points
123
Good decision by Haaavard. With all the applicants who apply I'm sure they will be able to pick one who doesn't like to use racial slurs to replace him.

View: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1140763071209713665?s=21
It amazes me that kids don't sanitize their accounts before applying to college.

I'm surprised Fox News and Co. have not made this a bigger issue.

It is my understanding that this kid became a Pro-Gun Rights activist after the shooting and featured prominently on various NRA and GOP outlets.
Okay, I am going to play devil's advocate here a bit...

The kid is a high schooler, and frankly, I believe him regarding why he used the word. The big problem is that he did it and then, afterwards, became a small-time public intellectual. He was on news channels, advocates, etc. So, to that end, I get why Harvard rejected him. His language was absolutely inappropriate, he had a public face, and the university probably had hundreds or thousands of candidates who could replace him, do just as well, and not use racist language.

Still, part of me thinks that there is a really dangerous precedent set when universities do this kind of stuff. This decision is clearly political, even if that was not Harvard's intention, because of when they chose to take this action. Moreover, their statement does not do too much to quell the idea that there was political rationale.

I guess my question is if this is a meaningless decision, one with greater benefits than costs (if so, what are the benefits?), or one with greater costs than benefits (same question as above)?

My gut says it is the first option... but I suppose there are benefits to giving a non-racist kid the spot as well as consequences of rejecting a person because of politics (even if that was not the university's reasoning, it still is a connected cost).
 

King Stannis

The One True King
Administrator
Joined
Jul 12, 2014
Messages
12,422
Reaction score
15,904
Points
123
Reparations are the topic de jour.

What say you?

Make an argument for or against. Keep petty comments out of it.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,644
Reaction score
27,639
Points
135
Reparations are the topic de jour.

What say you?

Make an argument for or against. Keep petty comments out of it.
The issue is 150 years after the fact proving you are a descendent of slaves and does everyone get 100% if only one descendant was a slave?

Not all blacks are decedents or even close. For example, Obama wouldn't qualify, his Dad was born in Kenya and mom is white.

We missed our window to do something ethical about it 100 years ago. Lets work toward equality, because that is all we can do at this point.
 

-Akronite-

All-Star
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
7,685
Reaction score
6,053
Points
113
The issue is 150 years after the fact proving you are a descendent of slaves and does everyone get 100% if only one descendant was a slave?

Not all blacks are decedents or even close. For example, Obama wouldn't qualify, his Dad was born in Kenya and mom is white.

We missed our window to do something ethical about it 100 years ago. Lets work toward equality, because that is all we can do at this point.
To me, the clear moral choice is to be pro-reparations, but I would need to see a plan that covers these logistics because you are right. Overcoming the issue of "who exactly gets reparations" will be tougher than getting passed the shitty arguments, such as Mitch McConnell's nonsense. Yes, slavery was a long time ago, but the effects and the continued oppression thereafter cannot be ignored just because some white people don't want to feel "responsible" for it.

I found this testimony compelling: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/ta-nehisi-coates-testimony-house-reparations-hr-40/592042/

Yesterday, when asked about reparations, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered a familiar reply: America should not be held liable for something that happened 150 years ago, since none of us currently alive are responsible. This rebuttal proffers a strange theory of governance, that American accounts are somehow bound by the lifetime of its generations. But well into this century, the United States was still paying out pensions to the heirs of Civil War soldiers. We honor treaties that date back some 200 years, despite no one being alive who signed those treaties. Many of us would love to be taxed for the things we are solely and individually responsible for. But we are American citizens, and thus bound to a collective enterprise that extends beyond our individual and personal reach. It would seem ridiculous to dispute invocations of the Founders, or the Greatest Generation, on the basis of a lack of membership in either group. We recognize our lineage as a generational trust, as inheritance, and the real dilemma posed by reparations is just that: a dilemma of inheritance. It is impossible to imagine America without the inheritance of slavery.

As historian Ed Baptist has written, enslavement “shaped every crucial aspect of the economy and politics” of America, so that by 1836 more than $600 million, almost half of the economic activity in the United States, derived directly or indirectly from the cotton produced by the million-odd slaves. By the time the enslaved were emancipated, they comprised the largest single asset in America. Three billion in 1860 dollars, more than all the other assets in the country combined.
The method of cultivating this asset was neither gentle cajoling nor persuasion, but torture, rape, and child trafficking. Enslavement reigned for 250 years on these shores. When it ended, this country could have extended its hallowed principles—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—to all, regardless of color. But America had other principles in mind. And so for a century after the Civil War, black people were subjected to a relentless campaign of terror, a campaign that extended well into the lifetime of Majority Leader McConnell.

It is tempting to divorce this modern campaign of terror, of plunder, from enslavement, but the logic of enslavement, of white supremacy, respects no such borders and the guard of bondage was lustful and begat many heirs. Coup d’états and convict leasing. Vagrancy laws and debt peonage. Redlining and racist G.I. bills. Poll taxes and state-sponsored terrorism. We grant that Mr. McConnell was not alive for Appomattox. But he was alive for the electrocution of George Stinney. He was alive for the blinding of Isaac Woodard. He was alive to witness kleptocracy in his native Alabama and a regime premised on electoral theft. Majority Leader McConnell cited civil-rights legislation yesterday, as well he should, because he was alive to witness the harassment, jailing, and betrayal of those responsible for that legislation by a government sworn to protect them. He was alive for the redlining of Chicago and the looting of black homeowners of some $4 billion. Victims of that plunder are very much alive today. I am sure they’d love a word with the majority leader.

What they know, what this committee must know, is that while emancipation dead-bolted the door against the bandits of America, Jim Crow wedged the windows wide open. And that is the thing about Senator McConnell’s “something”: It was 150 years ago. And it was right now.
The typical black family in this country has one-tenth the wealth of the typical white family. Black women die in childbirth at four times the rate of white women. And there is, of course, the shame of this land of the free boasting the largest prison population on the planet, of which the descendants of the enslaved make up the largest share. The matter of reparations is one of making amends and direct redress, but it is also a question of citizenship. In H.R. 40, this body has a chance to both make good on its 2009 apology for enslavement, and reject fair-weather patriotism, to say that this nation is both its credits and debits. That if Thomas Jefferson matters, so does Sally Hemings. That if D-Day matters, so does Black Wall Street. That if Valley Forge matters, so does Fort Pillow. Because the question really is not whether we’ll be tied to the somethings of our past, but whether we are courageous enough to be tied to the whole of them. Thank you.
 

Lee

Gold Star Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,644
Reaction score
27,639
Points
135
To me, the clear moral choice is to be pro-reparations, but I would need to see a plan that covers these logistics because you are right. Overcoming the issue of "who exactly gets reparations" will be tougher than getting passed the shitty arguments, such as Mitch McConnell's nonsense. Yes, slavery was a long time ago, but the effects and the continued oppression thereafter cannot be ignored just because some white people don't want to feel "responsible" for it.

I found this testimony compelling: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/ta-nehisi-coates-testimony-house-reparations-hr-40/592042/
I honestly feel we would be past the effects of slavery if there wasn't so much systematic prejudice for so long. Example, as early as the early 70's redlining governmental loan programs were only offered in certain neighborhoods like the suburbs. This caused generations of blacks to not be able to qualify for homes because realtors wouldn't show them houses in the suburbs nor could they afford those houses. With generation after generation not able to purchase a house, equity growth never began.

Sadly this is a very real example and decently recent. Its still very hard to bring yourself out of the ghetto. Obama became president, but he was raised by a white woman and went to a private school.

Sadly the right wings refuse to understand all of the hurdles a poor minority has to get out of the ghetto. Middle class minorities are now able to thrive if they work hard, but this is no the case on trying to escape true poverty. I just see picking out slave decedents at this point to much of a hurdle and too narrow focus. We really need to help those in poverty, slave descendants or not.
 
Top