V&V Gchats the Day, 11/10/10

In which two intrepid V&V bloggers discuss events of the day, ranging from disinformation to India to babies and bullies

Lady Blaga: hey Clevinger!

Clevinger: hi Lady Blaga! Do you ever read the Daily Dish? Andrew Sullivan’s blog?

Lady Blaga: I have read it, yes. Not very recently, though.

Clevinger: So, Sullivan had a couple of pieces in the last couple days that I found very thought-provoking, which is a nicer way of saying kinda depressing/infuriating. These pieces, along with other similar pieces I have lately read, are depressing for me for what they say about the people governing us, or those who seek to govern. When I see and hear politicians making claims that are basically untrue for the sake of gaining power, it makes me angry, but they can’t be faulted there. What bothers me more is that they are playing politics to the detriment of the country.

LB: I agree completely– although I don’t think it’s a new phenomenon, unfortunately

C: It’s the nature of politics to seek to gain power, yes. But in theory at least, you seek to gain power so that you can do what you think is best for the country. What I wonder is – are the Republicans who seek to undermine Obama at every turn doing so at a cost of damaging America?

LB: It seems clear to me that the answer to that question is yes. When you have Mitch McConnell saying out loud, to a reporter that the Republicans’ first priority will be to ensure that Obama is a one-term president…

that pretty much closes the case for me Continue reading »

Iowa, Activist Judges, and Ironically Undermining the Judicial System

As a native Iowan transplanted to DC, I am generally eager to point out the excellent qualities of my often-overlooked home state.  (Helpful hint #1: We’re not the one that grows potatoes.)  A note that I was particularly gleeful to share: In 2009, Iowa shocked the nation when its Supreme Court decided, unanimously, that a statute banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.  Money quote:

We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.

Within weeks, the state began issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, and despite howling from conservative circles, the world did not end.  God refrained from any smiting, and life went on quite as well as before.  Significantly better than before, in fact, for a previously disfavored subset of the population, which was finally able to enjoy the benefits that had been unfairly blocked from them before.

Unfortunately, some irate citizens were loathe to give up state-approved discrimination and decided that This Good Deed Could Not Go Unpunished.  Faced with the impossibility of changing the law to their favor, they settled for undermining the political system instead.  With the help of mounds of out-of-state money from groups like NOM, they set their sights on a forgotten prize: Retention Elections.  Every eight years, the seven members of the Iowa Supreme Court, on a rotating basis, appear on ballots so that the voters can decide whether to let them keep serving.  Three of the seven judges were up for retention in 2010.  Since the retention elections began in 1962, no judge had ever been denied retention.  The elections were refreshingly apolitical and unnoticed; in the past, approximately a third of all ballots left the space blank.  Until this year.

Headed by Bob Vander Plaats, a failed Republican governor nominee, Iowans with no sense of irony whatsoever rallied to vote out the judges who, while doing their duty of impartially examining the law, came to a conclusion the right wing didn’t agree with.  Holding signs that said “No Activist Judges!”, the conservative protestors showed their true beliefs: Judges who do their job fairly and honestly should be thrown out, while judges who will trample established law to appease the whims of the masses should be appointed.  Opposing this group was a motley crew of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents who, rightly, feared the precedent that could be set.  How could judges do their job with the impartiality necessary if they had to worry about backlash from the electorate?

Last night, the angry masses had their way, with none of the three judges making the simple majority that would have let them keep their jobs.  The three had stayed above the fray throughout, and after the fact released a statement that subtly dug at their attackers (emphasis added):

We wish to thank all of the Iowans who voted to retain us for another term.  Your support shows that many Iowans value fair and impartial courts.  We also want to acknowledge and thank all the Iowans, from across the political spectrum and from different walks of life, who worked tirelessly over the past few months to defend Iowa’s high-caliber court system against an unprecedented attack by out-of-state special interest groups.

What happens next is yet to be seen, but those who value a court system with integrity and honor have reason to worry.  We simply must hope that this will be only a blip that does not permanently deter the court from doing its job well, granting freedoms and happiness to Americans without having to answer to a majority unconcerned with the value of law.

V&V Gchats the Day, 11/1/10

In which two intrepid V&V bloggers discuss events of the day, ranging from baseball games to tea parties to rallygoers

Lady Blaga: hey Clevinger! how’s it going? how was your day?

Clevinger: hello! it’s going reasonably well, just finished listening to the World Series.  it’s over; the Giants won

Lady B: who were you rooting for?

Clevinger: tonight, the rangers, but I would’ve been cheering for the giants after tonight. I was cheering for a home clincher because it’s so much more exciting.  Games 1, 2, 6, and 7 were in sf; games 3, 4, and 5 in texas.  but sf won too quickly and won it in game 5, on the road

Lady B: ahh, that makes sense.  So what conclusions you can draw about the World Series? Maybe you can pull a David Brooks and find some moral meaning in it all.

Clevinger: Ha, well I was fond of this series for the simple novelty of it; there were neither Yankees nor Phillies, each having been overthrown in their respective Championship Series by relative upstarts.

Continue reading »

Halal Hamburgers, Heaven Forbid

Oh, France.  The Washington Post recently ran a disappointing story on an uproar caused by… fast-food inclusiveness:

Quick, a homegrown hamburger chain trying to compete with McDonald’s, began serving halal hamburgers last month in 22 of its 367 restaurants… The decision to serve halal burgers, with its bow to Muslim buying power, has produced an outcry among some political leaders, who regard it as an affront to France’s Christian traditions and official secularism. … Quick’s decision has roiled a number of mayors, from the political left as well as the right, in communities where the new halal restaurants are becoming popular.

Rene Vandierendonck, the Socialist mayor of Roubaix in northern France, charged Quick with discrimination when it turned its Roubaix restaurant into a halal-only operation.

“Halal”, much like the more familiar term “Kosher”, is simply a signifier that the food is in line with dietary laws.  Indeed, “neither the taste nor the texture is affected by halal practices; non-Muslim customers…seemed to find no difference in their burgers.”  One could argue that actual “discrimination” would be represented by a restaurant that refused to serve halal products, in effect blocking out Muslim clientele; instead, Quick has gone to lengths to reduce discrimination.  Sadly, it seems that the irony is lost on Mayor Vandierendonck.

France has lost face in the international community for seeming to embrace xenophobic tendencies.  Sarkozy’s recent assault on the Roma and the infamous veil ban are exposing a fear of the unknown that could undermine France’s ability to adjust to a changing world.  A depressingly large subset of the population seems to be unwilling to accept that the newcomers are not going to simply disappear; it is unrealistic and cruel to try deporting millions simply for being different.  The solution is rather to accept them and move on – conflicts will only end when small adjustments are made and it’s possible to integrate the “different” cultures into everyday life.

Promisingly, Quick is reaping rewards for their decision:

A six-month test last year in eight restaurants in Muslim-heavy neighborhoods showed a doubling of business after certificates were hung up guaranteeing that their beef was halal, the company said. … The numbers are not yet in since halal operations expanded to 22 Quick restaurants last month, but indications are that business is way up, [Quick spokeswoman Valerie] Raynal said.

Although the company is being villainized by some, the power of the market speaks loudly to a business trying to grow.  Over time, if cooler heads cannot otherwise prevail, perhaps the influence of money will make better tendencies mainstream.