Rethinking the 1-to-99% Divide

Posted: January 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: The Bonus Class | 16 Comments

The WSJ and an author–Charles Murray–from the AEI weren’t exactly the sources that I thought I’d get an interesting perspective on class inequality and America, but it’s there and I did.  The Republican war cry of class warfare on every person that tries to point out that we are suffering hugely from income inequality and differences in burden for the responsibility of our country’s defense and continuation has been knee jerk and shallow. I’ve especially seen it play out in Willard’s deer-in-headlights performance when he tries to say he relates to the streets of America when no one can even enter most of the gated communities that shelter his houses and he casually offers bets of more money than most families see in months. Oh, and don’t forget those inconsequential speaker fees that represent more income in one year than most families see in ten.  You don’t have to watch VH1’s Housewife Horror show to know that these people are just not like the rest of the country.  I actually never get the feeling that Willard or the Wives care about the state of the country.  The Wives just want access to botox and champagne.  Willard just wants another entry on his resume.

I honestly don’t believe that most Americans want Mitt Romney’s life.  I don’t feel any envy towards him.  He seems so stilted and shallow that I frequently wonder how he functions without a wind up key.  Most Americans want their own lives with good paying, secure jobs that can help them meet their modest, American middle class dreams.  It’s hard to obsess on the benefits botox and vacation homes when you can’t figure out how you’re going to get all your kids through college and retire some day.

Now, I’ve read Murray’s assertion in the editorial that woman’s lib and civil rights caused all these problems and I don’t agree at all.  Most women went back to work because their husbands’ salaries couldn’t handle all the bills. I also don’t think that government programs bail out criminals and create them on a large scale.  Thankfully, he doesn’t spend much time in print blaming the working class for becoming poor and the poor for turning to crime. There are a few things he mentions that are worth thinking about.  The first is the idea of these 1 percenters that are sitting in this “super Zips”.  These are basically the gated communities where the ultra rich hide from reality.  He also suggests that every one try being a bit moral about their choices.  It’s like he’s talking to Newt Gingrich who is on his third wife who had how many affairs going on about the sanctity of marriage for every one else.  He’s also talking to Newt who goes on about poor folk and blah people living on food stamps while taking multimillion dollar checks from Freddie Mac to espouse his viewpoint as a history professor. Food stamps show lack of character.  Taking multimillion dollar consulting fees because you know the right people shows character?  C’mon. These folks are great at tut tutting the little people while doing completely dishonorable things themselves.

Changing life in the SuperZIPs requires that members of the new upper class rethink their priorities. Here are some propositions that might guide them: Life sequestered from anybody not like yourself tends to be self-limiting. Places to live in which the people around you have no problems that need cooperative solutions tend to be sterile. America outside the enclaves of the new upper class is still a wonderful place, filled with smart, interesting, entertaining people. If you’re not part of that America, you’ve stripped yourself of much of what makes being American special.

Such priorities can be expressed in any number of familiar decisions: the neighborhood where you buy your next home, the next school that you choose for your children, what you tell them about the value and virtues of physical labor and military service, whether you become an active member of a religious congregation (and what kind you choose) and whether you become involved in the life of your community at a more meaningful level than charity events.

Everyone in the new upper class has the monetary resources to make a wide variety of decisions that determine whether they engage themselves and their children in the rest of America or whether they isolate themselves from it. The only question is which they prefer to do.

So, while half of this ‘editorial’ got me steamed, this particular part got me hoping a few of the 1 percenters read the damned thing. We’re beginning to look like Bourbon France and that didn’t end too well as I recall.  Obviously, there’s the examples of Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet that show the gilded set can pay it forward. But, I think we have far too many Kardasians and far too many people that enable the cult of the Kardasians.  Murray should think long and hard about his diatribes against women working outside the home when they have to and a little more on the lunching lady set that leaves their kids bonded to their Nicaraguan Nannies.  He should spend a little bit more time on Daddy’s that run hedge funds that run up commodity prices and run banks that do illegal foreclosures on millions of people.  He focuses a bit too much on that stupid right wing meme of lazy selfish poor.  I’m sure the Kardasian clothing line is made by young girls kept in slave conditions some where in Asia. Also, what do you call Paris Hilton? What does her existence contribute to anything?

The deal is there is a cultural divide and we do need to reevalute our commitment to our society and country.  I do think the ultra rich are getting less honorable all the time.  Just as an example, look at the numbers of young men and women that serve in the military these days.  Military colleges used to be places where very rich and socially well-placed young men wound up. That just doesn’t happen any more.  I think that we’ve quit instilling service to country in people. I doubt we’d hear JFK’s words “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” coming from the lips of any of the wealthy denizens in congress these days.  If a WSJ lecture from an AEI fellow gets that conversation started, then I’m all for it.

David Brooks Stands up for Fellow Rich Man Mitt Romney

Posted: January 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Media, Republican presidential politics, Surreality, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , | 11 Comments

I just read David Brooks’ latest column, and thanks to Charlie Pierce, for once it didn’t make me feel like throwing my computer across the room. If you haven’t yet read Brooks’ defense of Mitt Romney’s wealth, please do so ASAP.

Brooks read the new book about Romney by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, and what he took from it is that–because of the gumption he must have inherited from his industrious Mormon ancestors–Mitt worked really really hard and pulled himself up by his own bootstraps! We shouldn’t be hard on Mitt for being one of the .01% of the 1%, because hard work was in his DNA or something. Brooks:

Mitt Romney is a rich man, but is Mitt Romney’s character formed by his wealth? Is Romney a spoiled, cosseted character? Has he been corrupted by ease and luxury?

The notion is preposterous. All his life, Romney has been a worker and a grinder. He earned two degrees at Harvard simultaneously (in law and business). He built a business. He’s persevered year after year, amid defeat after defeat, to build a political career.

Romney’s salient quality is not wealth. It is, for better and worse, his tenacious drive — the sort of relentlessness that we associate with striving immigrants, not rich scions.

Where did this persistence come from? It’s plausible to think that it came from his family history.

OMG! So Mitt’s success in business and politics had nothing to do with his father George Romney’s being head of American Motors, Governor of Michigan, and presidential candidate? It had nothing to do with with his dad’s Washington connections? Never mind, just read Charlie Pierce’s response. It’s priceless. Here’s that last part of it (Brooks quotes are in italics; Pierce quotes in bold):

George Romney, Mitt’s father, was born in Mexico. But when he was 5, in 1912, Mexican revolutionaries confiscated their property and threw them out. Most of the Romneys fled back to the U.S. Within days, they went from owning a large Mexican ranch to being penniless once again, drifting from California to Idaho to Utah, where again they built a fortune.

(Jesus, things really picked up there. One minute, Miles is eating beans and gravy in a Mexican shack and, the next minute, his grandson is heading up American Motors. What could have intervened in the meantime? Oh, I remember now. Big Business and Big Government! George Romney went to Washington, worked as a congressional aide and then became a lobbyist for the aluminum and auto industries. He also worked to the NRA during the New Deal. His contacts fast-tracked him into the upper echelons of the American automobile industry, whence he went into politics. These are avenues of immigrant striving that are largely closed to, say, Willard Romney’s gardener, and, very likely, to his grandchildren, too.)

It is a story of relentless effort, of recovery and of being despised (in their eyes) because of their own success. Romney himself experienced none of this hardship, of course, but Jews who didn’t live through the Exodus are still shaped by it.

Mitt Romney can’t talk about his family history on the campaign trail. Mormonism is an uncomfortable subject. But he must have been affected by it.

(We pause here for a moment to ask two important questions: a) Are there any editors at the New York Times op-ed page? And, b) Are they all freaking drunk or what? Yes, Willard Romney’s distant ancestors had it tough. This has little or nothing to do with why Willard is acting like a rich foof on the campaign trail for the second consecutive presidential election cycle. Go back far enough, and David Brooks’s family are low-browed slouching primates eating antelope with their hands in the Serengeti. This would not excuse bad table manners on his part. And Mitt Romney does not decline to talk about his Mormonism on the campaign trail because it’s too painful. He declines to talk about it because half his lunatic, Bible-banging base thinks it’s a cult in which is worshipped Satan’s longjohns.)

His wealth is a sideshow.

(Hell, Willard doesn’t even know he’s rich. That’s how all that money snuck off to the Caymans when he wasn’t watching. To hell with better reporters. Can we at least have a superior class of courtiers?)

Thanks to Charlie Pierce, a David Brooks column just made my day. I hope my good mood holds through the South Carolina returns tonight.

Saturday Reads: South Carolina Primary Edition

Posted: January 21, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: Mitt Romney, morning reads, Newt Gingrich, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, poverty, racism, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , | 33 Comments

You're despicable!

Good Morning! It’s Saturday, and tonight is the South Carolina primary and Sky Dancing will be following the results tonight. But I have cartoons on my mind. Last night I was watching Hardball, and there was a discussion of Newt Gingrich’s hissy fit at the beginning of the CNN South Carolina debate on Thursday night. Here’s the video:

Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, and Eugene Robinson discussed Newt’s performance and decided that he hit all the right notes for South Carolina–anger at the media and the “elites,” a sense of being victimized by the power structure–and in fact may even beat Romney tonight. But the best part was when Eugene Robinson said when Newt said “despicable,” he (Robinson) couldn’t help thinking of Daffy Duck.

It’s such a perfect image for Newt’s self-righteous, overblown act. And it is an act, as far as I’m concerned. I loved the way he turned around the question about what he did to his ex-wife by talking about how *he* felt pain, not that he caused pain to his wife Marianne or anyone else. Here’s how I’ll forever think of Newt Gingrich from now on–as Daffy having a hissy fit.

And here’s what I’d like to say to Newt Gingrich:

Just one more …. What I’d like to do to Rick Santorum:

I know, I know, this is supposed to be a morning news post. So here are a few news and opinion links for you.

The latest polls suggest the South Carolina primary will be very close. The Clemson Palmetto poll has Gingrich in the lead.

“We expect a reaction by the electorate to the personal revelations about Gingrich to be registered on Saturday, however, we do not think it will be substantial enough to erase the lead Gingrich has over Romney,” said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard.

“Our head-to-head matchup of the candidates has consistently shown Mitt Romney competitive. The margin for Romney has evaporated this week, and we believe that Gingrich — who led our December poll with 38 percent to Romney’s 21 percent — will win the South Carolina primary,” he said.

Among poll respondents who had chosen or were leaning toward a candidate, this third Palmetto Poll showed Newt Gingrich (32 percent) leading the field over Mitt Romney (26 percent), up slightly from a month ago. Ron Paul came in third (11 percent), about even with his December poll rating. Rick Santorum remained in fourth place (9 percent), despite a significant jump over his ranking last month.

Wow! What an amazing turnaround for Daffy, I mean Newt. The NBC News Marist poll (PDF) showed the race tightening before the debate and even more so afterwards. And today’s Gallup tracking poll showed that Romney’s lead over Gingrich nationally has shrunk dramatically.

Mr. Romney’s position nationally as the front-runner appears to be weakening. In the latest release of Gallup’s tracking poll, conducted Sunday through Thursday, Mr. Romney leads Mr. Gingrich, 30 percent to 20 percent. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Paul are each supported by 13 percent.

At the start of the week, Mr. Romney had a 23-point advantage over Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Santorum. These results only partially reflect the events of the week, including the departure of Rick Perry on Thursday, the focus on Mr. Romney’s taxes, Mr. Gingrich’s two debate performances and the revelation that Mr. Santorum had apparently won the Iowa caucuses after all.

The NYT reports that Romney’s people are in shock over the sudden reversal of their fortunes.

With Mitt Romney facing the biggest challenge to his presidential aspirations since he announced his candidacy, his aides acknowledged Friday what seemed unthinkable just seven days ago: He could lose the South Carolina primary….

Having been stripped of his victory in Iowa on Thursday after a recount that gave the state to Rick Santorum, Mr. Romney now is in danger of being defeated in Saturday’s primary here by Newt Gingrich, who had been declared dead not once but twice in the past year, including less than two weeks ago when he finished fifth in New Hampshire. A new Clemson University poll of South Carolina voters released on Friday showed Mr. Gingrich with a six-point lead over Mr. Romney. It was within the survey’s margin of sampling error but captured a dynamic shifting in Mr. Gingrich’s favor.

At this stage of a primary election, campaigns work hard to manage expectations so they can put the best possible face on the actual voting results; Mr. Romney’s aides were no doubt being mindful of that as they spoke in relatively gloomy tones.

But, as Mr. Romney faced attacks from all sides, renewed questions about his own stumbles and whether he is conservative enough for the grass roots of his party, there was a real aura of apprehension coursing through his campaign. With his prospects of wrapping the race up quickly apparently diminished, Mr. Romney and his strategists began preparing his staff, his supporters and his financial bundlers for a longer and rougher march toward the nomination.

Boo hoo hoo. Poor Richie Rich! Karl Rove must be having a conniption fit. Honestly, I’d be worried if I thought the Republican insiders would ever give the nomination to Newt; but frankly, I’m still a lot more worried about Mitt winning it.

Charlie Pierce is down in SC right now. Let’s see what he has to say about all this.

It was always going to happen this way — Newt was going to go back into his wheelhouse, ripping the media and spouting in the general direction of the White House whatever pile of pejorative adjectives popped into his head at the moment. He tried, lamely, to be a statesman, and the party faithful ignored him. Once he became the vandal he was born to be, the political arsonist among the abandoned tenements of Republican thought, he was bound to take off again. The base doesn’t want someone whose ideas on job creation will triumph because they are superior to the president’s. They want somebody who can beat him bloody, vicariously, on their behalf, somebody who can “put him in his place.” They want someone who will kill the administration just for the sheer fun of watching it die. That’s why Newt’s fortunes took off after he slapped around Juan Williams on Monday night, and that’s why they went into hyper-drive on Thursday when he declared to be “despicable” any public mention of the chronic staff-banging that wrecked his second marriage and that helped wreck his speakership. Sooner or later, he was going to light the whole race on fire just to giggle over the flames, and that meant he had to come do it in South Carolina, and that meant he had to come do it in the upcountry around Greenville, where the base of the base always has been located, where people can be found who will gleefully join him around the bonfire, where is located the ancient home office of American treason.

“Look,” says Kellen Giuda, the young National Coalitions Director for the Gingrich campaign, waving his hand over a map of the state that hangs on the wall not far from The Cold War Room, “this area down here in the South, this was always more moderate. This is where McCain won last time. Up here, around Greenville, that’s always been the more conservative area. This time, people concentrated their effort down there near Charleston, because they wanted to get that whole military vote down there locked up. But, now, they’re starting to see that this is the place where the conservative vote really come from.” The endorsements are coming thick and fast now — Rick Perry! Michael Reagan! One-hundred Tea Party leaders from around the country! — and they are settling on Newt, and not on Rick Santorum, because Santorum, while admittedly a dick, is not an angry bully of a dick, and that’s what the base is looking for. In fact, the Gingrich campaign tore up its schedule on Friday, and will now have the candidate working the upcountry districts around Greenville hard all primary day.

“An angry bully of a dick.” Just what we need in the White House.

This is interesting: Catholic Leaders Challenge Gingrich and Santorum on Divisive Rhetoric Around Race and Poverty

More than 40 national Catholic leaders and prominent theologians at universities across the country released a strongly worded open letter today urging “our fellow Catholics Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to stop perpetuating ugly racial stereotypes on the campaign trail.”

In the lead up to Saturday’s primary in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich has frequently blasted President Obama as a “food stamp president” and implied that some African Americans are more content to collect welfare benefits than work. Rick Santorum attracted scrutiny for telling Iowa voters he doesn’t want “to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

The open letter reminds the two presidential candidates, vying for Christian conservative voters, that U.S. Catholic bishops have called racism an “intrinsic evil” and consistently defend vital government programs such as food stamps and unemployment benefits that help struggling Americans.

The full text of the letter is at the above link. Let’s face it, both Santorum and Gingrich are just cafeteria Catholics. They go along with the Church on abortion, birth control, and other anti-woman positions; but when it comes to war, capital punishment, and caring for the poor and downtrodden, they go their own way.

Speaking of Santorum, Politico reported on his SC closing argument: “values.”

The former Pennsylvania senator retreated to comfortable territory, the conservative Upstate region of South Carolina, to speak to huge crowds about values and cement his base on the eve of the state’s primary.

“It’s decision time as to what South Carolina is going to communicate to the rest of the country,” he told the crowd at a packed town hall meeting in Boiling Springs.”What is the Upstate going to say? Who are they going to stand behind? What message are they going to send to country as to who the conservative standard-bearer will be?”

“It’ll be you, Rick!” audience members shouted, applauding.

Polls show that tomorrow’s race here is really between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich: Santorum is competing for third place with Ron Paul. But the former Pennsylvania senator has vowed to continue his campaign to Florida, which votes Jan. 31. A strong performance in the conservative bastions of South Carolina can propel his argument that he is the real conservative in the race.

I know Santorum has no shot to win the nomination this year, but my guess is he’ll be back in 2016. I think he’s very dangerous to democracy, and IMHO we need to keep an eye on him. As for Ron Paul, I’m boycotting him in this post.

That’s all I’ve got. What are you reading and blogging about today?

Farewell Miss James

Posted: January 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: | 7 Comments

Etta James has died at the age of 73.

Etta James, the earthy blues and R&B singer whose anguished vocals convinced generations of listeners that she would rather go blind than see her love leave, then communicated her joy upon finding that love at last, died Friday morning, said her son, Donto James. She was 73.

She died of complications from leukemia at a hospital in Riverside, said Dr. Elaine James, her personal physician.

James had been in failing health for years. Court records in the singer’s probate case show she also suffered from dementia and kidney failure. Her two sons had been in a court battle with their stepfather over conservatorship of her $1-million estate. Doctors announced in December that she had chronic leukemia.

The first time I heard Etta James sing “At Last”, I went weak at the knees.  Her voice was like an entire choir of angels.  I was fortunate to be able to work with Miss James at the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival awhile back.  I’d already heard a lot about what it was like to work with her since I had a longstanding relationship with one of her drummers.  I did all the mics on the Gentilly Stage and helped with the front of the house mixing and speakers.  If you ever go to a concert, you don’t even know all that’s going on because it’s the sound stuff for the performers not the audience. You may have to give one person a bit more drum or a bit more bass or whatever it is they need to hear.  You can also add a little reverb for that angelic feel.  Anyway,  what a performance and what Etta James did with that Mic!  Not only did she sing into it, but she mimicked all kinds of sex acts with it.  She tongued it quite a few times and it went quite a few places that were surprising to me.   Needless to say, I put my work gloves on before I put the Mic back in the box.  But, I have to admit, that sitting on that stage, hearing that voice up close, was one of the real treat of my life.  I put a video down there.  You can see me on the left if you look really hard.

Sweet Dreams Miss James!!

Friday Reads

Posted: January 20, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , | 48 Comments

Good Morning!

I’m still sick so that’s why I’ve not been around much this week..  That flu led to a secondary infection and I’m really sick now.  I’m trying to negotiate the world of Health Care with no Insurance at the moment.  It’s awful.  This put me in the hospital last year when I had insurance.  Now, after a shot and some horse pills, I’m trying to improve on my own.

The Justice Department has moved against a file-sharing site just one day after the SOPA protests. Interesting timing, isn’t it?

The Justice Department seized Megaupload.com, one of the world’s most popular file-sharing sites, and several of its related sites on Thursday.

Prosecutors charged seven employees of Megaupload with criminal copyright infringement, conspiracy to commit racketeering and other charges.

Each faces up to 55 years in prison.

Megaupload, which operates sites such as Megavideo.com and Megapix.com, claimed to receive 50 million daily visitors, accounting for 4 percent of total Internet traffic. According to court documents, Megavideo.com was the world’s 52nd most frequently visited website.

The crackdown comes just one day after a massive Web protest against legislation to expand the power of law enforcement and copyright holders to go after infringing websites.

Prosecutors accuse Megaupload’s owners of generating more than $175 million in criminal proceeds and more than half a billion dollars in harm to copyright owners.

The authorities seized 18 domain names related to Megaupload and $50 million in assets.

New Zealand police arrested four of the alleged Megaupload employees in New Zealand on Thursday at the request of U.S. officials. Three of the alleged employees remain at large.

The NYT has some interesting details about the company.

According to a grand jury indictment, Megaupload — one of the most popular “locker” services on the Internet, which lets users anonymously transfer large files — generated $175 million in income for its operators through subscription fees and advertising, while causing $500 million in damages to copyright holders.

Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder Kim Dotcom, born Kim Schmitz, have been arrested in New Zealand, the Justice Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation said on Thursday; the three others remain at large. The seven — who a grand jury indictment calls part of a “Mega Conspiracy” — have been charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy, the authorities said.

The charges, which the government agencies said represented “among the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought by the United States,” come at a charged time, a day after online protests against a pair of antipiracy bills being considered by Congress — the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, in the House, and the Protect I.P. Act, or PIPA, in the Senate.

In response to the arrests, the hacker collective known as Anonymous said it had taken down the Web sites of the Justice Department,the Motion Picture Association of America, and the Recording Industry Association of America. All three sites were inaccessible late Thursday afternoon.

I got a really good laugh out of this James Kwak post responding to news of big spending Republicans at the  NYT.  All the spending proposals of the Republican candidates for president will increase the deficit.  Most of them are the usual huge tax cuts for megawealthy “job creators”.  Romney himself would be a big beneficiary of Gingrich’s plan.

The tax cuts proposed by the Republicans would more than wipe out the budget-balancing effects of the cuts that were agreed to as part of the compromise that was ultimately reached last summer to raise the debt ceiling. One part of that compromise called for a series of automatic cuts to begin next year with the goal of reducing the deficit by $1.2 trillion over a decade — cuts that some members of Congress are trying to avert on the grounds that they are too onerous. The Tax Policy Center has calculated that by extending the Bush tax cuts, Mr. Romney’s tax plan would add $1.2 trillion to the deficit in just two years. The tax plans offered by Mr. Gingrich and former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania would add more than that to the deficit in just one year, the center found.

“The amounts of revenue loss we’re talking about in one year is the kind of thing we’re used to seeing over a decade,” said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center.

Experts from across the spectrum acknowledge that the Republican tax proposals would benefit the wealthiest the most. Polls have repeatedly shown that a majority of Americans favor raising taxes on households earning more than $1 million a year to reduce the deficit

Kwak-writing at baseline scenario called his response the “Department of Duh” and had these figures. So, who is the fiscal conservative, hmmmm?

Surprise, all the Republican candidates’ tax plans increase the national deficit! The numbers(reduction in 2015 tax revenues, from the Tax Policy Center):

  • Romney: $600 billion
  • Gingrich: $1.3 trillion
  • (Late lamented) Perry: $1.0 trillion
  • Santorum: $1.3 trillion

I guess that makes Romney the “fiscally responsible” choice, at least among the Republicans. But President Obama’s tax proposals would only reduce 2015 tax revenues by $222 billion. (That’s $385 billion in Table S-4 less $163 billion in Table S-3.)

Second surprise: The big winners in all of these tax plans are the rich! (That’s not just in dollars, but in percentage increase in after-tax income.)

Leave it to Nebraska to try to figure out a way to deny sexual preference status as a protected class.  This would deny legal protection against all kinds of things for members of the GLBT community in that state.  Religionists are interested in being exempted from civil rights legislation and would like to freely discriminate based on sexual orientation.

A new debate is brewing at Omaha City Hall and in the State Capitol over who can qualify as a “protected class” under discrimination laws.

City Councilman Ben Gray says he plans to place a measure to ban discrimination against homosexual and transgender people on the council’s agenda — as early as the end of the month or by late February.

But an Omaha state senator wants to bar cities and local governments from unilaterally creating such protected classes. Instead, the bill would grant such authority solely to the state.

The conflicting proposals are likely to reignite debate about more than a municipality’s rights. The conversation will center on sexual orientation, the rights of private enterprise, religion and civil rights.

Local business groups and religious-based organizations were pitted against a cadre of supporters of the anti-discrimination ordinance during Gray’s first attempt to place a similar measure on city books in 2010.

State and federal governments and the court system continue to wrangle with such issues. The U.S. Supreme Court last week upheld a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, a move that would often clear religious institutions to dismiss their leaders with legal impunity.

In the Legislature, State Sen. Beau McCoy’s Legislative Bill 912 would amend state law to prohibit local governments from creating new classes of residents protected from discrimination.

Such changes could only come from the Legislature, the proposed law says.

“It just merely says that if we’re going to change the protected classes … we need to come to the Capitol to do it so that it’s consistent across the state,” McCoy said. “If it’s the right thing to do, it ought to be the right thing to do border-to-border, not just in one city or municipality.”

In Omaha, Gray said he knows of gay or transgender people who have left the city “because they saw it as an unfriendly place towards them.”

“I’ve seen enough smoke that I think there’s a fire,” Gray said. “If we have a segment of our community that is not enjoying those freedoms, or are in fear of not enjoying those freedoms, government has an obligation to act.”

It’s nice to know there are a few reasonable people left in government there.  Nebraska is also in the limelight over the Keystone Pipe line decision made by President Obama. The governor believes the president made a mistake.  Interestingly enough, it was the complaints of Nebraska officials that put the project on hold.  Partisan politics any one?

Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Dave Heineman, whose state is a key part of the Keystone XL oil pipeline debate, expressed his disappointment with the final decision the Obama administration made yesterday to kill the project.

“I want to say I’m very disappointed,” Heineman told POLITICO. “I think the president made a mistake.”

“Really what he was saying in denying the permit was ‘no’ to American jobs and ‘yes’ to a greater dependence on Middle Eastern oil,” he said. “We want to put America back to work.”

The White House has used Heineman as political cover in the fight, pointing to the fact that the original route approved by the State Department was opposed by Heineman for ecological reasons. He said that his Legislature and his administration were working to get the final approvals in place and that the State Department should have approved conditionally while Nebraska worked out the final route. The company seeking to build the pipeline, TransCanada, was perfectly willing to begin construction at either end and finish in Nebraska, according to Heineman.

The administration pushed back yesterday that Heineman’s suggestion was wise but wouldn’t elaborate on whether it was legally possible to grant such a conditional approval.

Somebody must’ve gotten to the governor.  It certainly wasn’t the farming community.

So, that’s it for me today.  What’s on you reading and blogging list?

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →