Update: Diversity Shouldn't Require Justification

On December 10, I wrote about Justice Antonin Scalia and his ridiculous argument that black students lack the ability to succeed at elite universities.

Also on record during those arguments before the Court were remarks by Chief Justice John Roberts who questioned the value of diversity in some instances, specifically whether black students would add anything to the classroom experience in, for example, a physics class.  These were remarks that I did not address in my blog post.

Update:

Yesterday, the New York Times published a response from Jedidah C. Isler, a National Science Foundation astronomy and astrophysics postdoctoral fellow at Vanderbilt University.  In it, she asked two questions that, in my perfect world, would stop the conservative Justices in their tracks.  
(The underline is mine.)

Last week during oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case about the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. posed two questions: "What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class?"  Followed by: "I'm just wondering what the benefits of diversity are in that situation?"... 

...As a black woman and astrophysicist, I immediately became defensive of my own worthiness... 

...The truly damaging part of Chief Justice Roberts's question is the tacit implication that black students must justify their presence at all. 

Black students' responsibility in the classroom is not to serve as "seasoning" to the academic soup.  They do not function primarily to enrich the learning experience of white students.  Black students come to the physics classroom for the same reason white students do; they love physics and want to know more.  Do we require that white students justify their presence in the classroom?  Do we need them to bring something other than their interest?...

eye'm thynkin':  Game, set, and match to Jedidah Isler.

You can read Ms. Isler's entire Op-Ed article here

Update: The GOP Make-a-Scandal Committee Locates Its Next Victim

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen

On Sunday I shared a story on Facebook under my Political Pollution banner about the GOP clearing IRS' Lois Lerner of the accusation that she targeted conservative non-profits.

Update:

The Republican led investigative committee is not, however, willing to concede defeat. (Surprise!) 

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) held a press conference on Monday to announce that his committee has filed four articles of impeachment against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and has asked President Obama to remove him from office.  Mr. Chaffetz claims that the commissioner "failed to testify truthfully.  The statements that he made to Congress were false... (He failed) to preserve and produce up to 24,000 emails relevant to the investigation."

what eye thynk:  #1 - Oh, great, another e-mail "scandal."  That worked so well last time.  

#2 - After enduring the Benghazi Select Committee debacle, one can't help but wonder if "failed to testify truthfully" is simply Republican-speak for "He didn't say what we wanted him to say."  

#3 -  This is my favorite:  John Koskinen didn't become Commissioner until after the so-called IRS "scandal" occurred.  That would be after the period that Mr. Chaffetz' committee just finished investigating--the same period for which they raked Lois Lerner over the GOP coals but could find no wrong-doing.  

But, hey, they couldn't hang Ms. Lerner, so it makes perfect sense to go after the guy who wasn't even around when this terrible thing they can't find happened. 

Good governing, Republican style.

Update: Ben Carson Explains How He Would Monitor Political Speech

Last Friday I wrote about Ben Carson essentially calling for the end of Freedom of Speech on campuses that receive federal funds. At the time, his thinking on how this would work was a little sketchy. A few days later, he cleared that up.

Update:

On Sunday, Mr. Carson appeared on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd who asked him if he really believed monitoring campus speech was a good idea and how he planned to make it work.

Ben Carson explained that he was "not just spouting off; I've thought about this...  The way that works is you invite students at the universities to send in their complaints, and then you investigate... It's not a violation of the First Amendment, because all I'm saying is taxpayer funding should not be used for propaganda.  It shouldn't be."

When Mr. Todd questioned how Mr. Carson's investigators would differentiate between propaganda and free speech, Mr. Carson said, "Well, that's why I said we're going to have the students send in.  And we will investigate."

what eye thynk:  Gee, thanks for clearing that up.

Ben Carson is known for playing loose and easy with Nazi metaphors. Amazingly, Mr. Carson seems to be totally unaware that asking students to turn in professors with whom they disagree is not unlike the Hitler Youth being expected to turn in their parents, their neighbors, or their friends for disagreeing with the Nazi mantra.  

Someone should really do a study of this man's brain.  The area that controls common sense seems to be malfunctioning.

Update: Home Depot "Good Guy" Parking Lot Shooter Charged

Last Thursday I wrote about two "good guys" with guns who tried to play hero and failed.  One of the stories was about a woman who thought it would be a good idea to pull her perfectly legal firearm out of her purse and fire it at suspected shoplifters in a crowded public parking lot.

Update:
"A 46-year-old Clarkston (Michigan) woman accused of firing gunshots at two men who were driving away from a Home Depot after stealing merchandise has been charged with reckless use, handling or discharge of a firearm.

Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez is accused of firing the shots Oct. 6 at Home Depot, 4150 Joslyn Road in Auburn Hills.  Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper said charges were filed Tuesday morning."

eye'm thynkin':  Maybe the next chowderhead with a gun  will think before donning his Batman cape.

Read more at Oakland Press

Update: Kevin McCarthy, "the New Dan Quayle?"

On Wednesday I shared a story  about House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R) admitting that Benghazi Committee #8 has nothing to do with the loss of American lives and everything to do with defeating Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Update:  

"As the uproar continued yesterday, McCarthy and GOP leaders spent the day scrambling to undo the damage.  That included the California Republican sitting down with Fox News' Bret Baier in the hopes of putting out the fire. McCarthy, the likely next Speaker of the House, stuck to an awkwardly worded script...

...On a rhetorical level, McCarthy didn't exactly inspire confidence.  At one point in the interview, he said, 'It wasn't what I, in my mind, was saying out there.'  Good to know.

Behind the scenes, some Republican insiders are quietly starting to refer to McCarthy as 'the new Dan Quayle.'  I don't think they mean it as a compliment...

...Senate Democratic leaders, meanwhile, urged Boehner yesterday to shut down the committee, ending this farce.  The outgoing Speaker is unlikely to pull the plug, however, on his own party's taxpayer-funded election stunt."

eye'm thynkin':  When you have become your own party's punchline, can you really expect people to respect any conclusions your committee may reach?  The "new Dan Quayle" indeed.

Read more at MSNBC

Update: Jeb and the Tale of the Anchor Asians

On Saturday, I wrote about Jeb Bush and how his continuous run of gaffs puts a question mark on the claim that he is the smarter brother.  One of the gaffs I included in my list was his use of the derogatory term "anchor babies," which Jeb tossed out after it seemed to go over so well coming from Donald Trump. 

Update:

                                                 (Reuters)

On Monday, during a campaign stop near the border between the U.S. and Mexico, Jeb tried to repair the damage his stand against birthright citizenship may have had on his appeal to Hispanic voters.  His explanation was, well, a bit awe-inspiring in its creativity.

"What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there's organized efforts, and frankly, it's more related to Asian people coming into our country and having children in that organized effort....Nothing I've said should be viewed as derogatory toward immigrants at all."

Last year, federal officials prosecuted 30 people in New York City who were involved in an illegal Chinese asylum mill; so, maybe that is what Jeb was referencing.   The problem with equating this to "anchor babies" is that, these Asian immigrants were not coming here pregnant in order to give birth to a tiny U.S. citizen.  As reported, the vast majority were attempting to claim asylum saying they were forced to have an abortion or sterilization in their home country. 

what eye thynk:  I can't help but shake my head at Jeb saying his remarks should not be "viewed as derogatory."  He practically repeats Donald Trump--a man whose entire campaign is built on being as derogatory as possible, especially on the issue of immigration--repeats him word for word but doesn't want to be viewed as derogatory?  What, he thinks that because the words are coming from a Bush that they are somehow miraculously cured of their offensiveness?

Anyway, on to the real point...  Jeb wants us to believe that hoards of pregnant Asian women are claiming forced sterilization in order to gain asylum in the U.S.  How would that work exactly?   Or maybe I'm wrong and his statement had nothing to do with the NYC case.  Maybe he just sees a lot of Asian women queued at our Southern border waiting for their chance to wade across the Rio Grande.

Either way, Jeb seems to be testing the American voter's gullibility quotient.  Maybe next time he should just let his aides repair his mis-speak.  After all, they've had a lot of practice.

Update: John Kasich and Ohio's Worsening Record on Education

Governor John Kasich at the Republican Presidential Primary Debate on August 6

Last month, I wrote about Ohio Governor John Kasich (R). I listed my likes and dislikes with an emphasis on Dislike #8:  the way failing charter schools had their "F" ratings expunged from reports in order to make them look better so those who run them (and who are, not incidentally, the state's largest political donors) could receive more state money.

Today, a friend pointed me to an article published by The Washington Post that puts an even worse light on education in my state of Ohio.

Update:

One of the key tenets of Mr. Kasich's education reform for Ohio has been expanding charter schools--despite the fact that the state's charter schools are reportedly the most troubled in the entire country. 

what eye thynk:  Hiding failing ratings and giving the same charter school operators more money to fail bigger is not the way to fix this problem.

Ohio's public schools enroll 90 percent of the state's students.  But under Mr. Kasich's stewardship, public school funding has gone down by half a billion dollars.  During the same period, charter schools have seen their funding increase by 27 percent. In fact, the state now gives charter schools more public funds per student than traditional public schools.  And still, Ohio's charter schools are rated below public schools.

Mr. Kasich also continues to push for making more public money, in the form of vouchers, to be used at private schools, most of which have religious affiliations. In 2010, the year before Kasich became Ohio's head executive, the state spent $99 million in public funds to pay for private school tuition. In 2014, the amount was $200 million.

I have never supported public money being used to pay for private, religious schooling.  If you want your child to attend a school run by a church, be prepared to pay for it yourself.  My tax dollars should not be used to guarantee your child has Bible studies as part of his curriculum. 

In an apparent brush-off  of 200+ years of the separation of church and state, Mr. Kasich forced his support for a religious influence in Ohio's education system when he made known a more detailed list of requirements in a bill designed to create a student mentoring program. The bill said a school could partner with a business, civic OR faith-based community to set up the program and receive state funds to finance it.  When Mr. Kasich announced a more detailed list of requirements, that "OR" had become "AND." Any public school requesting money from the state's student mentoring program is now required to include  a church or faith-based organization. 

He has insisted on evaluating teachers based on standardized test scores in math and reading even though experts have warned that his method is so unreliable as to be judged invalid.

None of his ideas seem to be working.  A recent White House report calculated that the achievement gap between the highest performing schools and those at the lowest level is larger than the national average.

His latest gambit seems to be changing the way the state can take over a school district they see as "failing."  A new and controversial bill gives CEO-type power to the mayor of a city whose school district has received a failing grade from the state.  With it, the mayor can override educator union contracts, strip power from voter-elected school boards, and appoint school board members of his own choosing.  

The Ohio House and Senate held hearings, debated and passed this bill in just one day in what critics are calling a secretive process.  Governor Kasich signed the bill into law in July.

Perhaps inspired by Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker, secondary education has also been targeted by Mr. Kasich.  He spoke with The Columbus Dispatch following a meeting with presidents of Ohio's two- and four-year state colleges and universities, "I reserve the right...to say that with the course of the next year, if they do not enact these changes...I think you just start cutting funding and tell them to deal with it."

That's Governor and Republican presidential candidate John Kasich's way of saying "My way or the highway"--a pretty typical attitude in today's GOP.  

Nothing to get upset about in this case.  After all, it's only public education. Vouchers are still available to those willing to pray where they learn--though the Governor does not guarantee that your child's education will necessarily improve by the introduction of Jesus into his or her school day.

Update: Leaders of Rand Paul's PAC Take Leave of Absence After Indictments

On Wednesday I wrote about three men involved with the Rand Paul campaign being indicted for dirty dealings in 2012 when they all were working on Rand's father's campaign.  More on that here.

Update:
Two of the men, Jesse Benton, general consultant for Rand's America's Liberty PAC and John Tate, the super PAC's president have decided to take a leave of absence from the Rand Paul campaign "to vigorously fight to prove that they are innocent of these charges."

That fight may prove problematic in view of the fact that former state Senator Kent Sorenson, the man these three are accused of bribing, has already entered a guilty plea.

No word on whether the third man indicted, Dimitri Kesari, will continue to work for Mr. Paul's organization.

Update: The Senate-47 Letter - a GOP "Joke" and the Money Connection

what eye thynk:   Yesterday I wrote a long blog that included the text of the Logan Act, its history, what the Supreme Court has had to say about it, text from the Senate-47's letter to Iran, responses from the President and from Iran, along with my opinion that the letter is an act of treason.  You can read the full post here.

Update: 

#The Senate-47 seem to be surprised by the backlash over their letter to Iran. 

Another indication that, when it comes to governing responsibly, they are totally clueless.

Two unnamed Senate aides separately described the Iran letter as a lighthearted, "cheeky" reminder of Congress' role in government. 

Apparently the memo is out and "cheeky" has been designated as the official word to use when asked about the letter.

One aide went on, "The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations."

"No sense of humor?!"  Yeah, that nuclear war, what a laugh riot!  

What exactly are we supposed to find funny, humorous, or chuckle-worthy about a nuclear weapons agreement?  

And someone needs to remind these GOP idiots that this nuclear agreement is NOT just between Iran and the U.S.  Negotiators from the United Kingdom, France, Russian, China and Germany are all part of the team.  None of these other foreign leaders seem to have gotten the joke either, so maybe the Senate-47's punchline isn't as funny as their aides would have us believe. 

I wonder what these people are saving their brain function for, because they certainly aren't using much of it in Washington these day.

Looking on the bright side, maybe the backlash over their ill-conceived letter to Iran will make these bubbleheaded Republican Senators think twice before they decide to offend more people or make the U.S. look even more foolish by sending warning letters to the other world leaders, you know, the ones who think a signed nuclear arms agreement with Iran just might be a step forward in preventing a nuclear war.

#An interesting money angle to the letter: 

Leaders of the Israel Project and the Zionist Organization of America sat in the balcony with Sheldon Adelson during Netanyahu's speech to a joint session of Congress last week, applauding loudly.  Adelson and these two organizations are major investors in GOP campaigns, including the campaign war chests of many of the Senate-47.  Freshman Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) alone received $350,000 from these groups.  Adelson, who has promised to spend close to a billion dollars during the next presidential campaign, moved most of his 2014 donations to Super PACs that shield the amounts and the recipients of his largess, so there is no way of knowing how many of the Senate-47 are numbered among his personal Retainer Squad.

The Israel Project is seriously promoting the Senate-47's letter to Iran in the hope that it will force Congress to vote on new sanctions on Iran before a nuclear agreement can be finalized. 

America's big money men, no longer satisfied with running the country, are now intent on ruling the world.  Megalomania at its finest.

I wonder, if megalomania were a crime, would a world court find the U.S. Supreme Court complicit? 

Update: Buddy Tries to Help Steve Scalise, Gets Caught Lying

On December 30, I wrote about Steve Scalise (R-Louisiana) and his appearance before EURO, a white supremacists group led by former KKK head, David Duke.  You can read that post, "Rep. Steve Scalise--Clueless in Louisiana? here.

Kenny Knight, long time associate of David Duke

Update:  In an effort to help Mr. Scalise out of a tight spot, Kenny Knight, a close associate of and long-time political advisor to David Duke, told Slate that, yes, he had booked Steve Scalise to speak that day, but he booked him for a meeting of the "Jefferson Heights Civic Association, which was largely comprised of elderly people who lived in his and Scalise's neighborhood."  He said it was just a coincidence that David Duke's group was meeting in the same room later that day and the media has the whole story wrong.  Mr. Knight told The Times-Picayune that he "was not a member of EURO and did not arrange for any speakers at the 2002 conference."

Unfortunately for Mr. Knight, news reporters have a habit of checking facts, and the facts say that Mr. Knight is a liar.  Documents filed in Louisiana identify Kenny Knight as treasurer of David Duke's organization.  A membership directory published in a news release for the 2002 conference where Mr. Scalise appeared also lists Mr. Knight, not only as a member, but as one of the scheduled speakers.

When a Times-Picayune reporter contacted Mr.Knight to ask him about the apparent discrepancies, Mr. Knight hung up on him twice.  Eventually, Mr. Knight answered, "Is that 15 years ago?  I don't even remember that.  I'm not communicating any more with the news media.  I'm finished with y'all." He suggested that if there were any further questions, the reporter should ask David Duke directly.

When a Washington Post reporter did just that, Mr. Duke said that he "recalled Knight reaching out to Scalise in the weeks before the conference to come and update attendees on state affairs, and that Scalise accepted without reservation."

Funny how Mr. Knight's memory was so clear in the A.M. and so fuzzy by the afternoon.  And I had to smile a little when it was David Duke himself who put the nails in both Steve's and Kenny's coffins. 

If Mr. Scalise and Mr. Knight believe this group stands for something so righteous that one of them will serve as treasurer and another will accept a speaking engagement "without reservation," why the attempt to hide their participation? 

The hatred that feeds White-pride isn't so pretty when the sun shines on it, is it, boys? 

Update: Neil deGrasse Tyson Responds...Brilliantly

Yesterday I wrote about how easy it is to annoy a conservative, concluding that from Tiaras to Cosmos, it's all offensive to the far-right.  You can read that post here. 

Update:  
President Obama chose to ignore the vitriol posted about his posing with a Girl Scout troop while wearing a tiara.  In one genuine, warm and supremely human moment, he gave these five little girls a memory that will last a lifetime, and the far-right responded with their usual hatred.  Acknowledging their vileness would be pointless.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, however, did respond to those who took offense over his Christmas morning tweets.  And he did it brilliantly: 

 "My sense in this case is that the high rate of retweeting is not to share my enthusiasm of this fact, but is driven by accusations that the tweet is somehow anti-Christian.  If a person actually wanted to express anti-Christian sentiment, my guess is that alerting people to Isaac Newton's birthday would appear nowhere on the list.  Going to post about Earth's perihelion in the New Year.  Just a head's-up in case people want to avert their eyes over that one."

Personally, I'm going to spend the next few days looking forward to finding out how Mr. deGrasse Tyson will make "perihelion" funny.

And, Mr. President, my tiara is ready when you are.

Update: Koch Brothers Organization Under Investigation in North Carolina

UPDATE:
On September 26, I wrote about the Koch brothers organization Americans for Prosperity mailing what they identified as an "official application form" to voters in North Carolina.  Not only was the mailing not official in any way--the North Carolina Board of Elections knew nothing about the mailing until they began to get questions and complaints--but it contained incorrect information including contradictory registration deadlines, return envelopes printed with a non-existent address and incorrect directions on how to contact the state Board of Elections.  You can read more here.

Yesterday, Joshua Lawson, a spokesman for North Carolina's board of elections, said that an investigation was underway over the mailing after a formal complaint was filed by the state's Democratic leadership.  

Americans for Prosperity has admitted to making "a few minor administrative errors."  Wrong dates...a non-existent address...misidentifying how to contact the board of elections...and let's not forget identifying their mailing as "official" when it was anything but.  These are "minor" mistakes?  While they admit their errors, the Koch organization did not say whether they had any intention of sending corrected mailings to those who received their erroneous information.

The report I read said that Americans for Prosperity has been caught mailing similarly incorrect information to voters in other states. (Slow learners or just confident in the belief their money would ensure they'd never actually be challenged?)

While this new investigation is just beginning, the case against new and restrictive voting laws recently passed by the North Carolina legislature is currently being heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  These new  laws reduce early voting days and add a requirement that voters have a state voter I.D.  One of the new regulations being reviewed by the court restricts voter registration drives.  One of the judges considering these restrictions asked state attorneys "Why does the state of North Carolina not want people to vote?"

This would seem like an excellent question to be posed to every Republican led state where new laws have been passed that make voting into a privilege to be earned instead of the American birthright our founding fathers envisioned. 

As a follow up question, I'd like to ask the GOP, "What are you so afraid of?" 

Update: Air Force Does an About-Face on Pledge Issue

U.S. Air Force Cadets pictured during commencement at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs

Update:
Last Sunday, I wrote a post exposing the U.S. Air Force's uncompromising position on having enlistees sign a pledge ending in "so help me God."  You can read the details here.

In this case, it didn't take long for a change to be implemented.  Effective immediately, the Air Force will join the Army and the Navy in allowing enlistees to choose to omit the phrase "so help me God".
  
Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James issued a written statement explaining the Air Force's new position: "The Air Force will be updating the instructions for both enlisted and commissioned Airmen to reflect these changes in the coming weeks, but the policy change is effective now.  Airmen who choose to omit the words 'So help me God' from the enlistment and officer appointment oaths may do so."  Air Force officials are "making the appropriate adjustments to ensure our Airmen's rights are protected."

And all it took was the prospect of a lawsuit that the Air Force was almost certainly going to find itself losing.

When asked about the young man who wanted to re-enlist and who seems to have been the catalyst that brought about this change, the Air Force said his paperwork "will be processed to completion."

Chalk one up for the proverbial squeaky wheel.

Update: Methodist Appeal Committee Re-Instates Defrocked Minister Frank Schaefer

UPDATE:  
Wa-a-a-ay back in December, I shared an article about the defrocking of Methodist minister Frank Schaefer after he performed a same-sex wedding ceremony for one of his three gay children.:
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2013/12/eye-recommend-defrocking-of-minister.html

I found it sad that a church could exclude a man like this and ask him to deny his own progeny the rite of marriage.  In a church that claims to be inclusionary, this made no sense to me.  

Yesterday, a Methodist appeals committee overturned Mr. Schaefer's defrocking.  The nine-member panel made up of clergy and lay people decided that the action taken last year was more a retaliation for Mr. Schaefer's refusal to promise never to perform another same-sex marriage ceremony than a punishment for having performed one in the first place.  A representative for Mr. Schaefer cited the case of two Methodist ministers in Washington State who were given 24 hour suspensions after they performed same-sex marriage ceremonies.

Mr. Schaefer explained his decision to celebrate his son's same-sex marriage this way: "I did this as an act of love.  He had been harmed and hurt by the message of the church that said you can't be homosexual and go to heaven."

While the United Methodist Church's official Book of Discipline continues to define marriage as between a man and a woman and forbids the ordination of "self-avowed practicing homosexuals," there are examples of gay clergy serving in the Methodist church, and hundreds of Methodist ministers have signed a document stating their willingness to perform same-sex marriages.  That document begins, "Even as we sign, we repent that it has taken us so long to act.  We acknowledge our complicity in the church's discriminatory policies that have tarnished the witness of the Church to the world."

Conservative Methodists see the committee's decision as the end of a united church.  Reverend Rob Renfroe, president of Good News, a United Methodists organization that opposes same-sex marriage said, "This will be confirmation for traditionalists that we are deeply divided and may not be able to live together.  When we have people who are not only disobedient, but who find a way to not have to keep the covenant they have made with the rest of the church, it helps us to see that maybe we are so different that we've come to the end of the road together."

I prefer to agree with the Mr. Schaefer: "Today there was a very clear and strong signal from the church, and that message is 'Change is on the way.'  One day we will celebrate the fact that we have moved beyond this horrible chapter in our church's life."

Amen to that.

Update: How Far Will the GOP Go to Deny Health Care to Virginia's Poor? Pretty Damn Far.

Ex-State Senator Phillip P. Puckett

Update:  The Fight for Expanded Medicaid in Virginia
Back in April, I wrote a "Quick Note" article about the fight by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) to expand Medicaid under the ACA in order to provide health care for 400,000 of his state's poor:
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/04/quick-notes-aca-and-medicaid-expansion.html

I explained the empasse in Virginia this way:

Most of the states that have refused to expand Medicaid are completely in Republican hands--both legislature and governor.  But one fight is different.  Virginia's Governor Terry McAuliffe (D), is trying to expand Medicaid for 400,000 poor Virginians who fall into the ACA coverage gap--people who cannot afford the ACA but are not quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid as it currently stands in Virginia. Mr. McAuliffe  is facing Republicans in Virginia's House of Delegates who say they are willing to shut down the entire state government in order avoid the expansion.  The Governor even proposed a two-year trial expansion--the period when the federal government would pick up 100% of the cost--which could be canceled if it was unsuccessful.  The Republican led House Appropriations Committee killed it in committee.

With a deadline of June 30 looming, (if no budget is passed by then, the state of Virginia will effectively close), the Hold-the-Budget-Hostage-Over-Medicaid fight just got a little dirtier. The Republican dominated House of Delegates refused to consider the budget if the healthcare provision was included.  The Virginia Senate, which was split evenly with 20 Republicans and 20 Democrats could not muster a majority.  Republicans decided the solution was to bow to the gods of dirty politics; all they needed was a Democrat who was willing to play their game. 

Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported that Virginia's Republicans had found a willing participant in State Senator Phillip P. Puckett (D).   You see, Mr. Puckett has a daughter, one Martha Ketron, and Ms. Ketron wants to be a Juvenile Court judge.  It was reported that, if Mr. Puckett would resign, Virginia's Senate Republicans would be only to happy to make sure that happens.  In order to sweeten the deal, and in acknowledgement that Mr. Puckett would be voluntarily giving up a well-paying gig as State Senator, Terry G. Kilgore (R), a member of the House of Delegates and chairman of Virginia's Tobacco Commission, canceled a meeting on Wednesday in order to "interview" Mr. Puckett for the position of deputy director of the Tobacco Commission.  

That weekend news report resulted in swift and vehement backlash against Mr. Puckett.  Mr. Kilgore called the attacks on Mr. Puckett "reprehensible."

Perhaps, but the fact remains that Mr. Puckett did formally resign from the Virginia Senate on Monday, leaving his district--one of the poorest in the state and one that would greatly benefit from the passage of a budget that included the Medicaid expansion--without representation while handing the Republicans a 20-19 majority.  With no chance of a special election happening before the June 30 budget deadline, the Senate can now remove Governor McAuliffe's health care provision and forward the neutered budget to the House of Delegates for their approval.  Governor McAuliffe would then find himself in the unenviable position of vetoing the budget and closing his state down or of signing the budget thus leaving 400,000 Virginians without healthcare.

The only hope left seems to be three moderate Senate Republicans who previously had indicated they were open to supporting the Medicaid expansion.  Now that their party holds a slim majority, however, they have been silent about whether they will continue their support or give in to party loyalties.

Ex-State Senator Phillip P. Puckett's obvious self-serving resignation puts him beneath contempt and the fellow-Virginians he pledged to serve are left at the mercy of a state GOP that appears to have given up even the pretense of fair and honest governing with their convoluted yet obvious machinations.  

As one pundit remarked:  "Imagine what would be possible if conservative policymakers invested this much effort in actually helping working families."

Imagine indeed.   

Updates: Same-Sex Marriage in Idaho (a Stumble) and Arkansas (a Roadblock Removed)

Update:  Idaho 
Yesterday, I wrote about Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale's decision to declare Idaho's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.  
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/05/quick-fact-and-another-states-ban-bites.html

Judge Dale said that the state was not likely to prevail in any appeal attempt and did not to issue a stay on her opinion, but said same-sex couples would be permitted to marry in Idaho beginning today at 9:00AM.  

The three judge panel that comprises the U.S. Court of Appeals for that state has over-ruled Judge Dale and issued a temporary stay to give the state of Idaho time to decide if they will, in fact, appeal the judge's decision.

A step backward, but only a small one...more like a stumble to the side. Disappointing, but not unexpected and not insurmountable.

Update:   Arkansas
Last Saturday, I wrote about another same-sex marriage case, this one in Arkansas.  
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/05/quick-fact-another-state-loses-its.html

In this case, Judge Chris Piazza also ruled that a state ban on same-sex marriage did not pass the constitutionality sniff-test.  He also did not believe that the state would prevail on an appeal and said same-sex marriages would be permitted to go forward in Arkansas immediately.

While some state offices did issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and some marriages did go forward, most state clerks declared they would refuse to issue licenses to same-sex couples, stating that they were protected by an Arkansas state law that prohibited them from doing so. The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with them and halted any additional licenses from being issued.  They ruled that Judge Piazza's decision did not address the Arkansas state law banning government clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples; and without a license, the marriages could not continue.

Yesterday, Judge Piazza took care of that little roadblock by expanding his initial decision to include that prohibition, saying that the law prohibiting the issuance of such marriage licenses was also unconstitutional.  

Take that!

Update(s): 1. Methodist Anti-Gay Marriage Trial Halted 2. Republican ACA Fight Continues to Crumble

Update:  Methodist Anti-Gay Marriage Trial Halted
A few weeks ago I wrote about the de-frocking of a popular Methodist minister after he performed a same-sex marriage for his gay son and his partner. 
 http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2013/12/eye-recommend-defrocking-of-minister.html
  
At that time, Methodist church hierarchy seemed to expect the same results in similar cases that were awaiting judgement.  

Turns out, there are some Methodist bishops who won't be joining the same-sex marriage witch hunt.  Bishop Martin McLee, who heads the United Methodist Church's New York district announced he will not pursue the trial of Reverend Dr. Thomas Ogletree, who, like the ex-Reverend Frank Schaefer, was also charged with performing a same-sex marriage ceremony for his son and his partner.  Bishop McLee made the announcement at a news conference, saying that trials over this issue would immediately cease in New York and calling on church officials across the country to stop similar prosecutions.

A spokesman for Rev. Ogletree said, "There's no talk of guilt or wrongdoing or any penalty. It's just the case goes away."

Mr. Schaefer is continuing his fight for LGBT members of the church.  This is from Mr. Schaefer's closing statement to the Methodist church court that defrocked him:

He has since been welcomed as a guest speaker at Fopundry UMC in Washington C.C. and will be speaking and meeting with members of the church in Boulder, Colorado later this month.

Too bad the powers that be in Pennsylvania weren't brave enough to take the same stand in the trial of Frank Schaefer; but Bishop McLee's decision is one step, one very welcome step.

Update:  Republican ACA Fight Continues to Crumble
Next week is looking to bring a victory of sorts for President Obama and the Affordable Care Act.

While Tea Party Republicans were focused on the Conservative Political Action Conference--where tired calls to continue the fight for full repeal of the ACA were the theme--establishment Republicans in Washington were putting the finishing touches on three bills that signal (finally!) a public, and in writing, Republican acknowledgement of the ACA as the law of the land.  The bills, introduced by House Speaker John Boehner (R) on Friday, tackle elements of the law that both parties agree need to be improved: drafting errors, oversights and unintended consequences of the law.

Mr. Boehner has gotten a number of Republicans to join with Democrats so that the bills will be considered under a suspension of usual House rules, a sign that both parties do not expect much debate.

Tea Party-ers will undoubtedly continue to rant about the need to repeal the ACA while railing against party leadership for giving in to that "socialist in the White House."  I expect there will be many Republicans who continue to promise a full repeal of the health care act "if I am elected;" but as more and more people sign up for health care and realize its benefits far outweigh its faults there will be fewer and fewer who buy into the Obamacare-must-go argument.   

It will be a slow but welcome death.

Update(s): Arkansas' ACA Private Option Gets a Second Look and Indiana Same-Sex Marriage Ban Postponed

Update:  Arkansas ACA "Private Option" Gets a Second Look

Last week I recommended an article about the private option plan that the federal government had approved for Arkansas to use in expanding Medicaid type insurance for that state's poor.  
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/02/eye-recommend-in-arkansas-private.html

At that time, the plan's success was evident, but in jeopardy.  Incumbent conservative Republican state legislators were finding themselves in the crosshairs of  even-more-conservative Republican legislative candidates who are focusing their mid-term campaigns on attacking those incumbents who voted for the ACA private option plan.  The would-be legislators sole argument seems to be that it is supported with money approved by President Obama's signature health care law, which Republican indoctrination has labeled a "bad thing" to be fought against at every opportunity.

This week, the state legislature in Arkansas endorsed a plan that attempts to protect their jobs while at the same time silencing their critics.  Rather than repeal the private option, their proposal would keep it intact, (thus saving themselves from trying to explain to their constituents why they decided to take their health insurance away); but would make it illegal for any government agency to spend any appropriated money to assist those looking for help in accessing the plan.  In other words, they'll keep the option; but they don't want anyone to know it exists.  

Representative Nate Bell (R) who proposed the new restrictions explained "We're trying to create a barrier to enrollment" in order to reduce costs.  When he was asked by Representative John Catlett (D) why he thought it was a good idea to withhold information about insurance options from the citizens of Arkansas.  Mr. Bell replied, "I certainly don't see the downside at all in not providing people with the opportunity to engage in something that I believe is bad for them."

Mr. Catlett:  "So you're saying we should (keep) our people ignorant?"

Mr. Bell:  "No sir, that's not what I'm saying."

Then I wonder what he thinks he IS saying?  And exactly why does he believe having health insurance "is bad?"  Is he willing to give up his state-paid health insurance to prove his point? 

Update:  Indiana Delays Same-sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment 

Wa-a-a-a-ay back in December, I wrote about the two year journey that Indiana's Republicans were on to get an amendment added to the state constitution designed to strengthen the same-sex marriage ban that is already law in Indiana.
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2013/12/same-sex-marriage-indiana-republicans_26.html

Getting a state constitutional amendment passed is (thankfully) an arduous process in Indiana. Two separately elected legislatures must pass the amendment--which explains the two year journey--then it must be approved by state-wide ballot.

The amendment passed by the last legislature included language that would also exclude civil unions:  "A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriages for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."  At the time I wrote that post, I pointed out that public attitude toward same-sex marriage has changed a lot in two years and public polls show the amendment would not be a state-wide ballot slam dunk.

The current Indiana legislature was faced with a dilemma:  vote on the amendment as it was passed by the previous legislature in order to get it on the November ballot and hope it is approved, or change some of the language, (particularly the clause addressing civil unions), and re-set the two-year clock to zero. 

Indiana's business community (always a voice that is heeded by the Republican Party), said they thought the amendment, in total, was a bad idea because it would make it difficult to attract businesses and the best employees to the area.  Yesterday, the Indiana legislature made a move that protects their standing with conservative/anti-gay marriage voters while still keeping themselves in the good graces of the business/money people in the state.  They voted to remove the civil union clause while keeping the rest of the amendment as written, essentially pushing any chance of the amendment becoming part of the state constitution until at least 2016.  

Conservative Republican organizations are already planning retribution.  Chris Plante, regional director for the National Organization for Marriage, who pushed for the ban to go forward: "Republicans who did this will most certainly be targeted."

With all the challenges of state laws pending in federal District Courts, this issue will undoubtedly be decided long before it comes up for another look from Indiana's lawmakers, so they're off the hook.  Darn it!  (Though I must congratulate them.  This was a 5-star example of political butt protecting.)

Quick Fact Update - Refusal of Service Bill in Kansas

Update 

Yesterday I wrote about Kansas' House advancing a bill that would give any business or individual, public or private, the right to refuse service to anyone based solely on their sexual orientation. 
 http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2014/02/quick-notes-same-sex-rights-this-week.html

The bill was expected to easily pass in the Senate where Republicans outnumber Democrats 32-8. However, Senate President Susan Wagle confirmed late on Friday that she would not present the bill to the Senate for a vote. "I believe that when you hire police officers or a fireman that they have no choice in who they serve.  They serve anyone who's vulnerable, any age, any race, any sexual orientation."

Proponents fired back that anyone who did not feel comfortable serving a gay citizen would be required to find someone else to take their place.  (The humiliation of being refused service in a restaurant, shop or government office was apparently not seen as a problem by the bill's supporters.  And I'm sure the gay heart attack victim would be equally comforted by the surrogate requirement while waiting for a different EMS technician to be called to the scene.)

Ms. Wagle's statement sounded fair and noble, until I looked further and found that the Kansas Chamber of Commerce had created a Facebook page dedicated to stopping the Refusal of Service bill that garnered 50,000 "likes".  

Thomas Witt, executive director of the Kansas Equality Coalition said "Political pages here, if they get 1,000 'likes,' they're pretty successful.  This has exploded in this state.  And it blew up in their faces."

In a further statement, Ms. Wagle said, "I believe the intent of the House was to protect religious liberties. We respect that, but the business implications are going to harm the practice of employment in Kansas."

I'll take the win against this discriminatory bill anyway I can get it, and I'd like to believe that Ms. Wagle recognized that aspect of the bill and refused to support it; but the cynic in me looks at Ms. Wagle's second statement and finds it is probably the more honest.  Kansas businesses calling for its failure had a lot more to do with the bill's demise than a sudden awakening of the Republican Party's quiescent sense of fairness.  Money always gets the bigger microphone.