Law

When I found out California and Florida were state's #29 and #30 in the banning of same-sex marriage, I was aghast. Yet what really pissed me off was the fact that the Church of Latter Days Saints alone spent 20 million dollars in pushing for a ban on same-sex "marriage" in California.

Why the outrage? Because it proves my point about the anti-gay marriage laws : they are laws meant to use civil law to enforce a Christian Nationalist and Dominionist article of faith. The passing of Proposition 8 shows The Church's hand in legislating, crossing the constitutional line that is meant to separate Church and State.

It's not the only reason why I believe anti-gay marriage laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act, are anti-constitutional. I believe all marital rites performed by the state should be banned. The word "marriage" should be stricken out of the books and replaced with "civil union" and "marriage" and marital rites should be the domain of churches. For that matter, civil "marriages" should be replaced by civil unions that would not be able to discriminate based on sex, gender, ability or citizenship status as well have full "family rights" under domestic, family and inheritance law. You want a "marriage"? Then go to your church, temple, mosque or sinagogue to get one.

This takes me to the obvious question : Why in the world are gays fighting for marriage by the state if it is absolutely obvious that marriage is a religious construct?

I just received this on an email from People for the American Way  on the matter of Sarah Palin and her comments about the Supreme Court :

Sarah Palin may not have been able to think of a single Supreme Court case beyond Roe v. Wade that she disagrees with, but that's not true for John McCain and his panel of right-wing judicial advisors. Here are just a few of the cases on their hit list:

· Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran—reversal would invalidate important state laws protecting HMO patients’ rights in more than 40 states
· Grutter v. Bollinger— reversal would forbid affirmative action aimed at promoting educational diversity in higher education
· Nevada v. Hibbs—reversal would prevent state employees from obtaining effective relief for violations of their rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act
· Davis v. Bandemer—reversal would allow even blatant partisan gerrymandering in redistricting
· Lawrence v. Texas—reversal would authorize criminal prosecution of private, consensual sex by adult same-sex couples
· Tennessee v. Lane—reversal would allow states to deny physical access to the courts to the disabled
· Massachusetts v. EPA—reversal would permit the EPA to refuse to regulate the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new cars

John McCain's plan for the Supreme Court is as simple as it is dangerous. He has promised to nominate “clones of Roberts and Alito”.

The Supreme Court is on the ballot this election. McCain would hand the court over to the Right for the next 40 years.

The freedom loving sheriff of Denver aided and abetted by the city's major, has created a detention pen full of cages just in time for the DNCC. The place is not even a correctional facility --it's is cages inside an abandoned warehouse with no visible water, bathrooms, ventilation or access to phones and lawyers.

Oh, did I mention this detention place full of human cages was supposed to be a secret?

Denying due process to people without US citizenship, residency papers, green cards or a visa is becoming a business racket for private prisons and private security (aka paramilitary) companies.

The more people are thrown into those jails, the more money the concentration camps make.

Welcome to the new American economy.

h/t American Humanity

I would have subtitled this video "America's New Civil War".

From the production company :
The New York Times and the Washington Post have recently reported on the "System of Neglect," namely, the state of immigration detention center conditions. As told by her sister June Everett, watch the story of Sandra Kenley, a 52- year-old grandmother, who after living in the U.S. legally for 33 years, was subjected to these very conditions and died in immigration detention.

So Kos uses his blog, just like Michelle Malkin, to parachute on the AP controversy and call himself a hero. In the post not only does he quote an AP article (something I had done earlier that day for fisking purposes), but proceeds to dump on both Rogers Cadenhead, Bob Cox and Ron Coleman for having the temerity to talk with the AP about guidelines :

"The dumbasses at the Media Bloggers Association, of course, are walking right into that meeting because they crave nothing more than creating the impression that they, you know, represent bloggers (they don't)."

This, mind you, after the fact that Rogers had asked for those guidelines. Here's the back story :

Yesterday was intense day that I think was made worse by an article written by Scott Hansell over at The New York Times. Not only did he describe bloggers as "free wheeling", but Hansell made it look like the boycott started by netroots bloggers that spread through the blogosphere was going to be over once the Associated Press had discussions "with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association" that would produce "guidelines" to impose on bloggers.

We don’t want to cast a pall over the blogosphere by being heavy-handed, so we have to figure out a better and more positive way to do this,” Mr. Kennedy said.

Mr. Kennedy said the company was going to meet with representatives of the Media Bloggers Association, a trade group, and others. He said he hopes that these discussions can all occur this week so that guidelines can be released soon.

Still, Mr. Kennedy said that the organization has not withdrawn its request that Drudge Retort remove the seven items. And he said that he still believes that it is more appropriate for blogs to use short summaries of A.P. articles rather than direct quotations, even short ones.

“Cutting and pasting a lot of content into a blog is not what we want to see,” he said. “It is more consistent with the spirit of the Internet to link to content so people can read the whole thing in context.”

Even if The A.P. sets standards, bloggers could choose to use more content than its standards permit, and then The A.P. would have to decide whether to take legal action against them.

The last paragraph is not only the other (after the free wheeling adjective) offending point of this article. It gets picked up by none other than The Associate Press, which goes on to "report" (and here I am breaking to boycott in order to fisk them)

NEW YORK - The Associated Press, following criticism from bloggers over an AP assertion of copyright, plans to meet this week with a bloggers' group to help form guidelines under which AP news stories could be quoted online.

Jim Kennedy, the AP's director of strategic planning, said Monday that he planned to meet Thursday with Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, as part of an effort to create standards for online use of AP stories by bloggers that would protect AP content without discouraging bloggers from legitimately quoting from it.

The meeting comes after AP sent a legal notice last week to Rogers Cadenhead, the author of a blog called the Drudge Retort, a news community site whose name is a parody of the prominent blog the Drudge Report.

The notice called for the blog to remove several postings that AP believed was an improper use of its stories. Other bloggers subsequently lambasted AP for going after a small blogger whom they thought appeared to be engaging in a legally permissible and widely practiced activity protected under "fair use" provisions of copyright law.

In response, the AP indicated it would seek to create guidelines, though even that idea triggered further protests. Michael Arrington wrote on his TechCrunch blog Monday that AP "doesn't get to make its own rules about how its content is used, if those rules are stricter than the law allows."
FULL ARTICLE AND SOURCE

It is outrageous that the AP, with the help of one of it's members (The New York Times), is spinning this Thursday as some sort of workshop that they will use, with the help of the Media Bloggers Association, to tell bloggers what is Fair Use.

And it is what I was twittering about with Jay Rosen last night. Jay and I reckoned there was what it seemed a "diffusing" element to the way the news were being report from Hansell down. He picked up on it as "the journalists' attempt to calm things down". I described as "there's an interesting diffusing dynamic going on, starting @ NYT" that had been preceded by the following twitts :

blogdiva: @jayrosen_nyu what a lot of your media peeps fail to mention is that no matter what AP says about use of their content there'll be a boycott
about 10 hours later · Reply · View Tweet

blogdiva: @jayrosen_nyu the boycott is not going to end after Ap meets the MBA because the issue here is that they don't get to say what is fair use
less than a minute later · Reply · View Tweet

It wasn't until after I spoke with Robert Cox that it hit me : Yes, indeed, people are reading these as "appeasement" quotes from AP. It does look like the article are meant to diffuse the issue and they're doing so by using Robert Cox's meeting as part of their damage control.

We will deal here with the first part of the discussion which is about Rogers' C&D, the agreement he brokered with the AP and the Thursday meeting. The second part, which is about the reorganization of the Media Bloggers Association and how to become a member will be posted separately.