Kim Davis

It occasionally happens that I agree with Lindsey Graham, and this is one of those times.  He says that if Kim Davis feels she cannot carry out the responsibilities of County Clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, she should resign.  (Personally, I don't mind if she uses up her vacation days while she's in jail — it's the kind of thing vacation days are for.)

Her mother was county clerk for thirty-seven years, and Kim Davis worked under her mother.  Her son works in the office now, and probably expects to be elected to his mother's job when she's ready to retire.  That's small town politics.  It's extremely likely she ran unopposed, or against some token Republican candidate.  (Yes, Kim Davis is a Democrat.)

Some states are enacting legislation which would allow public officials to refuse to perform their duties when those duties conflict with their religious convictions.  We can be quite certain that such laws will be invalidated by Federal courts, but the process is likely to drag on and on, and get pretty boring before it's over.

Catholic judges can't refuse to issue divorce decrees, and Muslim postal workers can't refuse to deliver copies of Playboy because the centerfold isn't wearing a hijab.  As Donald Trump says, this is a nation of laws.  I hope Ms. Davis enjoys her moment of celebrity, but the chief significance of this particular instance of conscientious objection is that it is further splitting the Republican party.

Catching up

Stuff has been happening, and I've been either too busy or too lazy to blog: hence, some quickies.

Domestic Terrorism
Speaking of catch-up, yesterday the New York Times caught up with my previous post about the greater terrorist threat in the USofA, albeit citing a new source.  Check it out.

Greece
Greece's creditors continue to demand more austerity in exchange for keeping Greece out of default.  Accepting such demands will exacerbate Greece's already drastic economic problems.  Do the creditors really continue to believe in austerity, or are they trying to monkey-wrench the Syriza government?  The latter seems increasingly likely.

Racist Symbology
Symbols are important in the context of human psychology, so it is not surprising that racist Southerners cling to their Confederate banners, statues of John C. Calhoun, and similar bric-a-brac.  Also, it is not surprising that most black Americans want to see the last of such gewgaws.  Still, the First Amendment protects even the most hateful expression, so cowardly Republicans saying "the states should work it out on their own" unwittingly have a point.  (On the other hand, Confederate symbols represent not only racism, but treason against the government of the USofA.  Are the "Sons of the Confederacy" really endorsing treason?)

(Tweet: #ConfederateTakeDown - Replace #SouthCarolina #BattleFlag with WHITE flag! They DID surrender! Hooray for #heritage and #SouthernPride!)

Obamacare
Well, the Supremes said we still can have it, and it's better than nothing — but we still must do better.  I don't see any opportunity for a real national health insurance system at any time in the near future, but then I would have said the same, not that many years ago, about...

Same Sex Marriage
Congratulations to the LGBT community!  Granted, the "T"s still need a lot more public acceptance, but the right to marry won't be one of their problems now.

Legal Insanity
Let's face it — none of us can claim to be a paragon of "mental health."  James Holmes is nuts, and so is Dylann Roof, and the same is or was true of Dzokhar Tsarnaev, Nidal Malik Hasan, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, Josef Stalin, Idi Amin, and a bunch of other mass murderers.  Just the same, you can't convince me that any of them were unaware that what they were doing was wrong.  I don't approve of the death penalty, but just the same, a person has to be totally delusional before he meets the criteria for legal insanity, and that's as it should be.  Behavior must have consequences.

The Supremes

When you stop to think about it, John Roberts was right, in a way.  Times have changed.  Back in the 1960s, southerners wanted to keep blacks from voting because they were black.  Now, they want to keep blacks (and Latinos) from voting because they vote for Democrats.

Given the dismal state of Congress, the chance of it "fixing" Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act anytime soon is very unlikely.  Personally, I think Section 5 should apply to all states and counties, because you don't have to be a racist to take an interest in voter suppression.  Also, considering how clever our programmers are, wouldn't it be possible to develop computer algorithms to create rational (rather than politicized) voting districts in every state?  (Perhaps the criteria could be crowd-sourced.)

As for the Defense of Marriage Act, I was hoping for something better than the usual five-four split, but you take what you can get.  The California marriage case, which turned on the litigant's standing to sue, was more a matter of ducking the issue than a statement about marital rights.  I wonder if the nine of them got together and negotiated which of them would vote on one side or the other?

Divorce Lawyers Back Same-Sex Marriage

Okay, I made that up — but you know it's true.

As for Our President's "endorsement," whether or not it was predicated by Joe Biden's alleged "gaffe," it really doesn't matter.  The social/religious conservatives who actually care about the issue — the white ones, that is — weren't going to vote for him in the first place.  The black ones will vote for him anyway — he's still black, kinda.  Well, he's as black as he ever was.

The basic idea we ought to recognize here is that, since most Americans are straight and have straight offspring, not many give a damn about same-sex marriage one way or the other.  Oh, yes, they have opinions, but those opinions will not influence their votes.  However it works out, it will not make a damned bit of difference in their lives (except for the divorce lawyers.)

Since the Wall Street money seems to have taken a major turn towards Romney, Obama has no reason to desist from the populist rhetoric that can help him win in November.  I know that recent polls indicate that Americans say they don't resent the super-rich — and really would like to be super-rich themselves (surprise!) — but, you know, generating resentment is easy.  The Republicans have been doing it for years — against "welfare queens," immigrants (legal and/or illegal), alleged "socialists," and anybody else who might not be white, Christian, or totally ignorant.

Obama might lose in November — but it won't be because he (halfheartedly) endorsed same-sex marriage.  It will be because the real faggots are running his campaign, and he's too limp-wristed to do what he needs to do to win.