American Politics XXI

[DanteGabriel]

You might if a) your "error" was most likely quite intentional; b) it was something you did often; and c) it influenced the opinions of millions of viewers.

Pretty much. I don't buy for a second that Hannity's horseshit was accidental.

[Lord O' Bones]

You might if a) your "error" was most likely quite intentional; b) it was something you did often; and c) it influenced the opinions of millions of viewers.

I would never be in that situation. Are you telling me that it's realistic to expect from anyone to apologise for... what? What is your acceptable timeframe of apology? How long before it's a real apology? What's the protocol on this?

We all know Hannity is not apologetic for being caught. Just chagrinned.

How is Fox News to blame for not leaving his insincere apology up for longer than it was?

I don't give a fuck if he/I/anyone else wasn't sincere, I still wouldn't apologise all week.

Pretty much. I don't buy for a second that Hannity's horseshit was accidental.

Nor do I, lest this gets missed.

[LCOTNW]

I am a little out of touch on the whaling thing, but I think the International Convention on Whaling is the legal apparatus to regulate whaling on the high seas.

If I recall correctly, there are exceptions allowed for certain purposes.

[Watcher]

There's an interesting development happening in the NY-23rd district. The recent election between Dem Owens and Conservate Hoffman may not be over. When Hoffman conceded i he was down by over 5,000 votes. It's been discovered on the recount that's he's only about 3,000 votes behind. Since there were over 10,000 mail-in ballots sent out there is a small chance he could make up that difference if those ballots are overwhelming for Hoffman.

If that happens Owens would have to step down. Since Hoffman wasn't contesting the election at the time Owen was sworn in he was still legally a member of congress.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Watcher,

This is from the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/12/o...n_n_355696.html

From the article:

The state Board of Elections wrote to the House clerk last week explaining that the state hasn't certified the election because there wasn't an official winner yet.

Since he still leads by about 3,000 votes and the Hoffman campaign hasn't contested the race, Owens' swearing-in was legal.

But if recanvassing produces a different result, the Democratic-led House would have to determine how to proceed and whether Owens must be replaced by Hoffman. [emphasis added]

Okay, is there a real chance that if the count shows Hoffman is the winner that the House wouldn't accept Hoffman as a Representative and insist Owens must remain?

[Andriy Czarchenko]

There´s no need to think about such scenarios. There ain´t anywhere close to 10000 ballots to count and Scozzafava will have a lot of the remaining votes. The head-to-head between Owens and Hoffman would have to be some insane numbers for Hoffman to win.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Czar,

Regardless. I can't imagine any circumstance where the House would refuse to accept Hoffman or allow Owens to remain if Hoffman won and Owens lost. That would be political suicide.

[Elrostar]

Hoffman has said that he is willing to serve in Congress if it turns out he was the winner of the election... not surprisingly.

But an important thing to remember is that Hoffman conceded. It's not like the election result was ever contested. So for this to be turning up now... certainly, if it turns out Hoffman wins there's no question that he should be seated in the House. And I don't think anyone really thinks he won't be (do they?). But it's not like he withdrew his concession when he realized there were still votes left to count.

The reason he conceded seems to have been that he thought he did poorly in his home county, but it turns out that they undercounted the votes for him there. That's a bit of an oops, if you ask me.

Still, as people have said, there were 10200 absentee ballots mailed out, with a difference of 3000 now, it seems unlikely that the result will be changed. But it's still possible. Absentee ballots are often military people (obviously) and no-one really knows how they'll vote in this case. They might have voted for Scozzafava, since she's the Republican candidate, for instance.

[Watcher]

If Hoffman somehow wins and Congress refuses to replace Owens impeachment trails should start. That would be as a black and white violation of the Constitution as one can get. A more realistic question is would the recount effort be over before next years election mutes the entire mess.

[Ormond]

If Hoffman somehow wins and Congress refuses to replace Owens impeachment trails should start. That would be as a black and white violation of the Constitution as one can get. A more realistic question is would the recount effort be over before next years election mutes the entire mess.

Impeachment? Is that possible?

Congress itself is who "impeaches" a member of the executive or judicial branch of government. But who would "impeach" members of Congress? We don't have any federal recall mechanism. Wouldn't people just have to wait until November 2010 and hope the rascals were voted out?

(I am sure if such a thing happenned the vote winner would sue in the federal courts, so the issue would probably be resolved by the Supreme Court before November 2010. But I still don't think there is any way to get rid of members of Congress who would have voted not to seat such a person except the ballot box.)

[lokisnow]

a lawyer posted this on another board, and I think it's an interesting argument regarding the constitutionality of healthcare mandates. I'm certainly not legal-minded enough to counter it, but I would imagine that changing the language might change the constitutionality, as could changing from a fee to an incentive.

Otoh, I wouldn't think conservatives can claim that you can't force someone into a private contract and then also claim you can force someone to carry a fetus to term. Women get deprived of their right to choose, what do they get in exchange for their loss of liberty?

Forcing someone to buy health insurance is akin to forcing them to join (contract with) a Homeowners Association, rather than merely having to pay taxes. The difference is in the type of service: public v. private. Property taxes are used for public services (infrastructure, etc.) Homeowner Association dues are used for private services, primarily the enforcement of agreed-to regulations. If I do not want access to the private service (maybe I don't care what kind of roofing materials are used on everyone else's houses), I am not forced to buy it (or, in this case, join the HOA).

Health insurance is not a public service like a police force, military, or judicial system, it's a private service. So by creating a mandate, you're depriving people the right to contract for private services (or not) as they choose without giving them an exchange for said right. The only reason auto insurance mandates pass constitutionality requirements is that you're being given a privilege in exchange for your liberty.

By saying that the difference between public services and private services is irrelevant, you're indicating that at any point, the government can mandate I purchase Homeowner's Insurance, join an HOA, purchase full coverage for my vehicle, pay gym membership fees, pay for waste management services, buy premium cable television or high-speed internet, or anything else, so long as a majority in the government think it's a good idea to require everyone have it.

[Sariel]

LoB,

We need Sologdin. This is way out of my field. The International "Laws of the Sea" would be what they are in violation of or some sort of U.N. agreement/treaty regarding whaling. There have to be some sort of enforcement provisions in there.

What on earth makes you think that whaling is illegal? As far as I know, general or customary international law makes it quite clear that all states are entitled to harvest whales on the high seas unless the state in question has agreed otherwise; each coastal state has control over whales within its jurisdiction unless they've agreed otherwise.

There was an attempt to make whaling illegal as part of the Law of the Sea, but that was thoroughly rejected.

There has been some misguided claims from organizations like say Greenpeace that a ban on whaling on the high seas has been internationally recognized for so long it's considered "customary", but that neatly ignores the principle that any state consistently objecting to the emergence of customary international law will not be bound by said custom.

For any sort of international ban on whaling to apply to the Japanese, the Japanese would have to sign and ratify said agreement, which hardly sounds probable.

Norway allows whaling too, and exports the meat to a number of different countries.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sariel,

In your opinion is it okay to hunt species that are on the verge of extinction?

[The Iceman of the North]

In your opinion is it okay to hunt species that are on the verge of extinction?

What species would that be?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Iceman

What species would that be?

I was under the impression most species of Whales were having a fairly hard time. Am I incorrect?

Here's a link with a population list:

http://www.seaworld.org/animal-info/animal...es-fs.htm#table

What species are hunted by Norway?

[The Iceman of the North]

Both Norway and Japan are hunting Minke Whale. Recently it was declassified into a northern and southern species. The northern Minke Whale have a Least Concerned status by the IUCN. The Antarctic Minke Whale have not been classified yet by the IUCN, but there's probably about five times more of them than the northern variant.

[Sariel]

Sariel,

In your opinion is it okay to hunt species that are on the verge of extinction?

I don't really see how my opinion regarding the rights of other species has any importance in regard to whether it's legal or illegal to hunt whales.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't give a fuck if he/I/anyone else wasn't sincere, I still wouldn't apologise all week.

If you were a major media outlet and made all of the "errors" we see from Fox Noise, I'd expect you to apologize all year.

[Shryke]

The only way that kind of system functions, though, is with brutally rigid regulation of insurance companies. And it's still a fairly expensive way to achieve Universal Coverage.

[Peter Irving]

Well the homophobic jackass governor of Rhode Island vetoed a bill to give domestic partners the right to make funeral preparations

http://newsblog.projo.com/2009/11/ri-gov-c...es-domesti.html

Update: R.I. governor vetoes 'domestic partners' burial bill

4:05 PM Tue, Nov 10, 2009 | Permalink

Katherine Gregg Email

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- An opponent of same-sex marriage, Governor Carcieri has vetoed bill that would have added "domestic partners'' to the list of people authorized by law to make funeral arrangements for each other.

In his veto message, Republican Carcieri said: "This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue.

"If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide.''

The bill, also sponsored by state Sen. Rhoda Perry and state Rep. David Segal, would add "domestic partners'' to the list, in current law, of people who can legally make arrangements for a deceased person's funeral, cremation or burial to include domestic partners if the deceased person left no pre-arranged funeral contract.

The legislation defines a domestic partner as someone who was in an "exclusive, intimate and committed relationship" with the deceased and had lived with him or her for at least a year prior to the death; is at least 18, not married to anyone else, not related by blood and who was financially "interdependent'' with the deceased as evidenced, for example, by a joint mortgage, shared credit card or domestic partnership contract.

According to its sponsors, the legislation is designed to provide rights to domestic partners regardless of whether they are of the same or opposite sexes.

Carcieri cited at least two other reasons for his veto.

As written, he said the bill would allow the decisions of a "partner'' of a year to take precedence over "traditional family members,'' and he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.''

Carcieri said he was also uncertain "how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for year'' since there is "no official or recognized form'' of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island. He called this proviso "vague and ill-defined.''

Governor Carcieri has vetoed 24 other bills today

Describing himself as ''genuinely upset'' by Carcieri's actions, Rep. Segal said: "'I think the man is heartless and this has become a bad joke that has carried on for far too long.'' The joke? "His insistent, persistent need to assert himself by undermining the lives of gay people who love each other and want to be in committed relationships.''

Segal said Carcieri took his adamant opposition to same-sex marriage too far, since this "doesn't change the definition of the word 'marriage,' as evidenced by the fact the "overwhelming majority of people in the General Assembly who oppose gay marriage saw fit to support the legislation. ''

The legislation was prompted by one of the more heart-wrenching personal stories to emerge from the same-sex marriage debate.

At a hearing this year on one of the stalled bills to allow same-sex marriage, Mark S. Goldberg told a Senate committee about his months-long battle last fall to persuade state authorities to release to him the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, so he could grant Hanby's wish for cremation -- only to have that request rejected because "we were not legally married or blood relatives."

Goldberg said he tried to show the police and the state medical examiner's office "our wills, living wills, power of attorney and marriage certificate" from Connecticut, but "no one was willing to see these documents."

He said he was told the medical examiner's office was required to conduct a two-week search for next of kin, but the medical examiner's office waited a full week before placing the required ad in a newspaper. And then when no one responded, he said, they "waited another week" to notify another state agency of an unclaimed body.

After four weeks, he said, a Department of Human Services employee "took pity on me and my plight ... reviewed our documentation and was able to get all parties concerned to release Ron's body to me," but then the cremation society refused to cremate Ron's body.

"On the same day, I contacted the Massachusetts Cremation Society and they were more than willing to work with me and cremate Ron's body," and so, "on November 6, 2008, I was able to finally pick up Ron's remains and put this tragedy to rest."

"I felt as if I was treated not as a second-class citizen, but as a noncitizen," Goldberg told the Senate Judiciary Committee, an hour into the first hearing this year in the 13-year push by gay-rights advocates for the right to marry in Rhode Island, and the pushback from the Roman Catholic Church and other opponents.

Kathy Kushnir, executive directive of the advocacy group Marriage Equality of Rhode Island, called the governor's veto "unconscionable'' when "people are trying to piece their lives together, which is what Rhode Island is requiring them to do without legal recognition,'' and then when "faced with a time that could not be more difficult or more painful, not even being able to take care of funeral arrangements for their loved ones."

This story was originally published at 4:20 p.m.

It astounds me that we have such bigotted assholes in a governorship. I mean all the gays are asking for is the right to do funeral preperations is the guy such a biggot that he can't even sign off on that? I say that in 2010 its time to make sure he loses by a landslide.