GOLD MEDALIST WAITS AT THE FINISH LINE FOR 28 MINUTES TO SHAKE HANDS WITH THE GUY WHO CAME IN LAST, by Cork Gaines --
http://www.businessinsider.com/dario-cologna-peru-roberto-carcelen-finish-line-2014-2
Because I'm a sucker for a feel-good story...
"In what will go down as one of the more touching moments of the Sochi Olympics, Swiss cross-country skier Dario Cologna won a gold medal and then waited 28 minutes to congratulate last-place finisher Roberto Carcelen of Peru at the finish line."
Mr. Cologna won a very close race, and could have immediately left the arena to begin celebrating his gold medal, instead...
"28 minutes later, and 11 minutes after every other skier had finished, Carcelen struggled down the final stretch. He was greeted by a standing ovation from the fans and grabbed a Peruvian flag from the crowd."
.
The Peruvian skier finished 87th and was met at the finish line by Dachhiri Sherpa of Nepal, who had finished eleven minutes earlier in 86th place.
"And then, to the likely surprise of everybody, Cologna appeared, still carrying his skis, to greet both competitors with a handshake. What a great moment and what the Olympics should be all about."
The End.
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.
With one misstep, laws restricting same-sex rights continue to crumble...
Kansas (the misstep)
When he was elected, Governor Sam Brownback (R) pledged to bring a conservative revolution to his state. For the past three years, he has supported far right Republicans and uber-conservative causes over moderates and common decency.
This week, Kansas took an unprecedented step backwards on human rights. The Kansas House advanced a bill that will allow employers and businesses, both public and private, to refuse service to anyone they believed to be gay. The bill would allow any employer to fire someone, or even refuse to hire them in the first place, based solely on their sexual orientation. Fired gay employees could be denied their right to unemployment benefits. A same-sex couple could be refused service at restaurants, movie theaters, bookstores, grocery stores, florists, etc. without repercussion. Government agencies would still be required to serve members of the LGBT community, but individual clerks would be empowered to refuse their assistance.
Republicans frame this as an issue of religious freedom, a necessary protection for those whose religious beliefs condemn gays and lesbians as heretical. State Representative Charles Macheers (R), one of the most ardent supporters of the measure, explained the Republican position this way: "Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful...It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill."
Yes, "discrimination is horrible", and dressing it up in a new suit and calling it "protection" doesn't change that fact. Moreover, advancing a bill that effectively hands the religiously righteous' a tool contrived to legally disenfranchise an entire segment of our society simply because they don't like them takes that egregiousness to a whole new level. Didn't we have enough of this in the last century?
Virginia (the crumbles)
In Wednesday's post, I noted that Virginia's new Attorney General Mark Herring (D) said he believed his state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Yesterday, federal Judge Arenda Wright agreed with him. In her ruling, she joined federal judges in other states by citing the 14th Amendment: "These laws deny Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection guaranteed under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."
Kentucky
This week, Judge John G. Heyburn III, federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, struck down part of his state's 2004 same-sex marriage ban. His ruling says that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages that have been performed in other states or other countries where same-sex marriage is legal.
The state had argued that marriage, which they identified as between one man and one woman, was part of "Kentucky's tradition."
Judge Heyburn's ruling addressed their argument by saying: "For years, many states had a tradition of segregation and even articulated reasons why it created a better, more stable society. In time, even the most strident supporters of these views understood that they could not enforce their particular moral views to the detriment of other's constitutional rights. Here as well, sometime in the not too distant future, the same understanding will come to pass."
Amen! ...and please, someone tell Kansas.
IN ARKANSAS, 'PRIVATE OPTION' MEDICAL PLAN COULD BE DERAILED, by Abby Goodnough --
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/us/politics/in-arkansas-private-option-medicaid-plan-could-be-derailed.html?_r=0
"Last year, the Republicans who control this state's Legislature devised a politically palatable way to expand Medicaid under President Obama's health care law. They won permission to use federal expansion funds to buy private insurance for as many as 250,000 poor people instead of adding them to traditional Medicaid, which conservatives disparage as a broken entitlement program.
But just as the idea is catching fire in other states with Republican or divided leadership--Iowa has adopted a version of the plan, and New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Utah and other states are exploring similar avenues--Arkansas may abruptly reverse course, potentially leaving the 83,000 people who have signed up so far without insurance as soon as July 1.
Facing pressure from conservative challengers in the May primary, several Republicans who supported the plan last year are now considering switching their vote when the Legislature votes to reauthorize its financing, possibly as soon as next week. The defection of just one Republican could kill the program, state officials said.
'You've got a very small minority of people who can derail this,' said Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat who helped engineer the plan but will leave office at the end of the year because of term limits...
...The threat to the Arkansas plan, known as the private option, underscores how the Affordable Care Act is an increasingly potent issue not just in congressional races, but also in state legislative contests. Though Republican legislative leaders support the plan, which would bring $915 million in federal funds to the state this year, any policy linked to the health care law remains anathema to many conservative voters."
And conservative Republicans have only themselves to blame for this. They have done nothing for the past four years but whip up anti-ACA sentiment at every opportunity. Now Arkansas Republicans find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have only two choices: 1. Support the ACA private option plan and take the chance of losing their legislative seat to a more conservative Republican, or 2. Vote to defund the plan and then try to explain to their constituents why they took away their health insurance.
Basically, it comes down to deciding between protecting the people they pledged to serve or deciding to throw those people under the bus in order to protect own their jobs.
At least one Senator has already chosen to sacrifice the people in her district for her own personal ambitions.
"State Senator Missy Irvin, a Republican who voted for the program last year, announced she would oppose reauthorizing the federal funds for it. Ms. Irvin is facing a primary challenge from an opponent who attacked her support of the private option as soon as he declared his candidacy on Jan. 29. Without her vote, the plan will need another supporter in the Senate to survive...
...For Amber Chote, (23), of Little Rock, who said she works three jobs to pay her rent and bills, getting insurance through the program has meant no longer having to go to the emergency room when she gets sick. 'Personally I feel like it's talking to children that are mad after losing a baseball game."
Which pretty much sums up modern-day politics--both state and federal--since the country elected a minority President in 2008.
Nevada
Nevada voters passed a ban on same-sex marriage in 2002. In 2012, a federal judge in Reno upheld the ban. The case was sent on to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On Monday, Nevada's Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto (D) filed a motion saying that the state's arguments defending the ban "are no longer sustainable."
Governor Brian Sandoval (R) agreed, "It has become clear that this case is no longer defensible in court."
What a difference two years can make! The case will continue on the docket of the Ninth Circuit Court; but with no one defending the state's position, is Nevada poised to become the 18th state to legalize same-sex marriage?
Virginia
Virginia has banned same-sex marriage since 1975. In 2006, they passed a constitution amendment in an attempt to strengthen the ban. A poll taken by Quinnipiac University last year showed that 50% of Virginia's registered voters support same-sex marriage while 43% oppose it.
Attorney General Mark Herring (D) says he believes the ban is unconstitutional and he will assist the Virginia couples who have lawsuits challenging it. "After thorough legal review, I have now concluded that Virginia's ban on marriage between same sex couples violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on two grounds: marriage is a fundamental right being denied to some Virginians, and the ban unlawfully discriminates on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender."
As Attorney General, he said he will continue to enforce the ban while the challenges make their way through the courts.
Will Virginia, a SOUTHERN state, be #19?
In honor of Valentine's Day...
monday quote: That’s who you really like. The people you can think out loud in front
of. (John Green, author, from An Abundance of Katherines, 1977- )
