September 30 - Monday Quote

I came across this quote in Time magazine this week, and my head wanted to explode.

Wayne LaPierre, who, as spokesman and CEO of the National Rifle Association, has single-mindedly fought any and every attempt to regulate guns in this country, demonstrated untoward chutzpah with this statement, issued after this month's Navy Yard shooting.  

monday quote:   Let's fix this broken system right now which nobody wants to fix.  (Wayne LaPierre, author and gun activist, 1948 -    )

How Would God Judge?

It's Sunday, traditional day of worship for those of the Christian faith.

what eye thynk:    What a great question!

Quick Fact: New Jersey Judge Rules That Same-Sex Couples Should Be Allowed to Marry

In 2012, the Democratic led legislature in New Jersey passed a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in their state.  Governor Chris Christie (R) vetoed it.

Since 2006, New Jersey's constitution has guaranteed equal protection under the law for same-sex couples, including the right to join in a civil union, but not to marry.  Back in 2006, all federal benefits were denied to same-sex couples under DOMA, so giving same-sex civil union couples and married opposite sex couples equal state benefits was judged to comply with the equal protection guarantee.  

On Friday, Mercer County Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson ruled that, based on the Supreme Court's June DOMA ruling and the subsequent extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples in states with marriage equality laws, that by New Jersey denying same-sex couples the right to marry, the state is in turn denying them federal rights now available to legally married couples--and thus is no longer in compliance with the constitution's equal protection guarantee.  (Not all federal benefits are available to civil union partners, including those dealing with immigration, health care and tax issues.)

"Under these circumstances, the current inequality visited upon same-sex civil union couples offends the New Jersey Constitution, creates an incomplete set of rights...and is not compatible with a reasonable conception of basic human dignity."

She ruled that New Jersey could begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses on October 21, 2013.

Governor Christie plans to appeal Judge Jacobson's decision to the New Jersey State Supreme Court.

Give it up, Mr. Christie.

Eye Recommend --- A Republican Ransom Note

A REPUBLICAN RANSOM NOTE, by The New York Times Editorial Board --http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/27/opinion/a-republican-ransom-note.html?_r=0

The House is willing to put millions of American lives in jeopardy and to threaten world-wide economic catastrophe.  It's as though they have become this giant mindless marauding beast, deaf to everything but their own roar of defiance.  We have reached the point where the President may have to do the unthinkable in order to make the Republican mob hear "Enough!"    

As our budget deadline looms and the debt ceiling crisis rises just over its shoulder, this New York Times editorial sums up the situation. (Any underlines are mine.  My comments are indented and printed in italics.)

"On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew sent the House a very serious warning that, for the first time, the United States would be unable to pay its bills beginning on Oct. 17 if the debt ceiling is not lifted.  House leaders responded on Thursday with one of the least serious negotiating proposals in modern Congressional history:  a jaw-dropping list of ransom demands containing more than a dozen discredited Republican policy fantasies.

We'll refrain from deliberately sabotaging the global economy, Speaker John Boehner and the other leaders said, if President Obama allows more oil drilling on federal lands.  And drops regulations on greenhouse gases.   And builds the Keystone XL oil pipeline.  And stops paying for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.   And makes it harder to sue for medical malpractice. And, of course, halts health care reform for a year."

Some Republican members of the House were quoted this past week as saying they were forced to make their demands because the President will not negotiate with their leadership. They have conveniently forgotten that the last time President Obama and Speaker Boehner negotiated and reached a budget agreement, House membership rejected it out of hand. Their idea of negotiation seems to be give-me-exactly-what-I-want-and-then-I'll-ask-for-more.  

"The list would be laughable if the threat were not so serious.  A failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a default on government debt, shattering the world's faith in Treasury bonds as an investment vehicle and almost certainly bringing on another economic downturn.  Unlike a government shutdown, a default could leave the Treasury without enough money to pay Social Security benefits or the paychecks of troops.

The full effects remain unknown because no Congress has ever allowed the government to go over the brink before."

But then, no Congress has ever been in the hands of this specialized species of Representative--a childish, tone-deaf, unable to see beyond their own ego breed that has cowed a weak Speaker into, not only following their fantasy parade, but into encouraging their one-minded demonstration of stupidity in order to preserve his own seat at the head of the table.

"Any sober-minded lawmaker should realize that the danger of trifling with the debt limit is far too high.  But Mr. Boehner has been encouraging his members to toss their pet projects...onto the towering list of demands...

...The absurdity of the list shows just how important it is that Mr. Obama ignore every demand and force the House extremists to decide whether they really want to be responsible for an economic catastrophe.  He made a mistake by negotiating in 2011, hoping to reach a grand bargain; that produced the corrosive sequester cuts.

To prevent the House from making every debt-ceiling increase an opportunity to issue extortionist demands for rejected policies they can achieve in no other way, the president has to put an end to the routine creation of emergencies once and for all by simply saying no."

The possible consequences are terrifying; but Tea Party conservative Republicans have got to be shown that the word "no" can be applied to them.  Only then will there be any chance that they will take a step away from conservative lobbyists like the Koch brothers and realize that there are other voices in this country, and we aren't singing "Hallelujah!"

Public Carry Gun Permit for the Blind? No Problem in Iowa.

In Iowa, a blind person can get a gun license and even a permit to carry that gun in public.  County licensing agents report that they have issued public carry permits to persons who could not legally drive a car and who could not see to fill out the application form.   No one is legally challenging the issuing of public carry permits to the blind.  Iowa state law does not permit their sheriffs to deny a person the right to carry a weapon based solely on physical ability.  Jane Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa claims that to deny a gun license to a blind person would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

what eye thynk:  Look, I'm all for giving the other guy a fair chance. I'm for wheelchair ramps, automatic doors in public buildings and assistance to visually or audibly impaired people in the classroom and in life.  I'll write a nasty note and leave it on the windshield of a car without a handicapped permit  when I see one in a specially marked parking space.  I am open to changes in my daily life that make things easier for those who don't have the luxury of my physical capabilities.  But, really, there has got to be a point when common sense comes into play. 

Other states require those applying for gun permits to prove proficiency by taking a field test to demonstrate they can hit a target.  Some states require a vision test.  To date, there have been no challenges to the Americans with Disabilities Act that would prohibit these requirements.

I did some more looking into the issue of guns and the blind when I first read about Iowa and found that there are skeet shooting clubs for the blind where they use specially designed clays that give off a sound that the blind shooter uses to track his target. That makes sense to me and I admire that this can be done.  

A gun permit for the blind so they can participate in shooting sports specially designed for them? Absolutely.  But giving a person who cannot see well enough to get a drivers license or to fill out a paper application a license to carry a loaded gun into a public place is a tragic error just waiting to happen.

What next, blind airline pilots trying to land a plane by listening to a pinging runway?  Public accommodations for the physically handicapped?  Yes! But not at the cost of public safety.  Once more: common sense, Iowa, common sense.

Ted Cruz and My (Poor) Attempt at Channeling Dr. Seuss

On Tuesday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) stood in the Senate chamber and gave a long rambling "speech" in which he quoted, among other literary works, Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham.  This was Ted Cruz' attempt to persuade his fellow Republicans to vote against the spending bill passed by the House--the same bill that Mr. Cruz has been loudly supporting for months both in his home state and in Washington.  His end objective, of course, was the defunding of the ACA.

what eye thynk:   It would appear that Dr. Seuss' children's book was too long or too complicated for this Texas Republican to understand.  He tried to use the book to say that people don't like the ACA and will not "eat it" just like the creatures in the Seuss classic did not like green eggs and ham.  But Mr. Cruz missed the whole point of the book--that, in the end, when these creatures tried green eggs and ham, they found they loved them.  It is a children's lesson in being open minded--something that is beyond the ken of most Republicans these days, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that Mr. Cruz missed the point.

There was one Republican surprise this week, however, and that came from the voice of Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).  On Wednesday, Mr. McCain rebuked Ted Cruz and the far right spectrum of his party for their obsession with the ACA to the exclusion of other important issues. 

"Many of those who are in opposition right now were not here at the time, and did not take part in the debate and I respect that.  But I'd like to remind them that the record is very clear of one of the most hard-fought, fair--in my view--debates that has taken place on the floor of the Senate in the time that I've been here. 

And then I'd remind my colleagues that in the 2012 election, 'Obamacare,' as it's called--and I'll be more polite, the ACA--was a subject that was a major issue in the campaign.  I campaigned all over America for two months, everywhere I could, and in every single campaign rally I said, 'And we have to repeal and replace Obamacare.' 

Well, the people spoke.  They spoke, much to my dismay, but they spoke and they re-elected the president of the United States."

Lost in Ted Cruz' Senate tantrum this week were comments about how Republicans have to stand up for the principles of democracy, namely responding to the will of the people.  This has been a theme of the Republican Party since 2008--a theme that contradicts everything they have tried to do--or rather undo--in Congress for the past five years.  

Mr. Cruz, the country had an election.  Your party lost.  That means the majority of the people did not vote for your ideas; they chose the other guy's instead.  Continuing to fight the same fight while insisting that you are fighting for the will of the people is nothing but egotistical self-delusion.  To put it another way:

We had an election, you lost.

Now let me tell you the cost.

It means that the guy who now sits up high

Has ideas that we don't want tossed. 

Quick Fact: Salvation Army Says Gays and Their Parents Should Die

Earlier this Summer, Salvation Army Media Relations Director Major Andrew Craibe appeared on a public radio show hosted by Serena Ryan to discuss a proposed boycott of the Salvation Army by LGBT parents in protest of that organization's anti-gay stand.

Ms. Ryan asked Mr. Craibe about the Salvationist Handbook of Doctrine, the manual used by the Salvation Army to train their members.  There are several references to homosexuality, including one section that cites Romans 1:18-32 which they believe is an admonition from God that homosexuals and those who support them deserve to die.   

From that interview:

Ryan:  According to the Salvation Army gay parents deserve death.  How do you respond to that as part of your doctrine?  

Craibe:  Well that's part of our belief system.

Ryan:  So they should die.

Craibe:  You know, we have an alignment to the Scriptures, but that's our belief.

Ryan:  You're proposing in your doctrine that because these parents are gay, that they must die.

Craibe:  Well, well, because that is part of our Christian doctrine.

Ryan:  But how is that Christian?  Shouldn't it be about love?

Craibe:  Well, the love that we would show is about that, consideration for all human beings to come to know salvation.

Ryan:  Or die.

Craibe:  Well, yes.

Guess who won't be getting any of my spare dollars this holiday season...or ever again.

******** 

Romans 1:18-32 can be found here:  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1:18-32&version=esv  

An interpretation of the same verses from a different Christian viewpoint, can be read here:
 http://www.godswordforyou.com/bible-studies/romans/181-study-three-why-a-righteousness-from-god-is-necessary-part-1-romans-118-32