Michigan to Test Welfare Recipients for Drug Use

Michigan Governor Snyder. Ain't he a peach?
Image from source, Think Progress

There are reasons why Republicans have a reputation for being both tight-asses and just flat mean. Here's one, in fairly bold letters. There is no particular evidence that welfare recipients are larger than average drug users as a population (in fact some studies show the opposite). So, what is the point of this kind of legislation, exactly? Shaming? And hey, where are all of the conservative "values" people when the children of those found to be using drugs are denied food and medicine? What about the children?

And of course, I'd like to know if any government assistance should require drug testing of recipients? Corporate welfare, perhaps? Why not?

[Excerpt]

Michigan Governor Signs Bill Requiring Drug Testing Of Welfare Recipients
 
Welfare recipients in some Michigan counties will soon be tested if they’re suspected of using drugs, under a set of bills signed into law by Gov. Rick Snyder this week. The Senate and House bills, which were signed into law Friday, will create a yearlong pilot program in three counties that will screen welfare recipients and applicants to determine whether or not they’re suspected of using drugs. If they are, the applicants or recipients must submit to a drug test. If the test comes back positive, they will be referred to a treatment program, and if they choose not to enter the program, they will lose their welfare benefits. Applicants and recipients will also lose their eligibility for welfare benefits for six months. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

The Gay Thing: 6th Circuit Rules FOR Gay Marriage Bans (Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan)

For an atheist, I have an unusual amount of things that are so intuitive and coincidental, that it makes me wonder if agnosticism might not be more my speed. Almost daily I have an odd occurrence, the repetition of an unusual word in disparate places, talking about an obscure celebrity, only to have them die the next day. Things like that. I had another one today. I thought, "What's going on with the 6th Circuit?"  They'd heard cases on marriage equality quite a while ago. The election is over, so I figured the timing was ripe. When were they going to rule? This was right before lunch. I did a quick couple of Google searches, and no news.

After lunch, boom, the news hit. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the gay marriage bans in their jurisdiction can stand. This is quite the departure, and provides a Circuit split, as every other Circuit Court that has ruled on the subject has ruled against such bans. In a week of bad political news (from my perspective), this was just the rancid icing on the moldy cake. I suppose it shouldn't bother me so badly, since we're on the edge of 34 states having marriage equality. Even my current state has me in the legal column.

But Ohio is my home state. We've talked about moving back there. If we moved tomorrow, in most of the states in our path, our marriage would be intact. It would wink off in the Texas panhandle, wink back on in Oklahoma, and remain so until we got to our destination. Where we'd promptly become roommates in Ohio. Clearly, this is no way to run a country. And I'm hoping, that's what the Supreme Court will think as well. The question is, when will the case even get there? If things move quickly, it could be decided by June of next year. Or maybe June of 2016. And there's no guarantee we'll win.

But I think we have a much better than even chance. Let's start with the 6th's decision. While I'm no lawyer or judge, I don't think this decision would pass in high school debate class. There's very little in the way of legal reasoning at all. It's mostly appeals to tradition, and--very oddly--an effort to duck responsibility. The court is actually saying it's not their place to decide. Not their place to decide a constitutional issue! It's absurd.

Actually, the entire battle from the anti-gay side has been absurd. I've been arguing this subject for years online and elsewhere, and there is literally nothing new to their arguments. The things that this court did latch onto have been argued down and defeated in dozens of previous decisions. These retread arguments would only sway judges who were groping for reasoning. And rather than answer the questions before them: a) can a state constitutionally ban gay people from getting married and b) can a state refuse to recognize a legal marriage from another state, were largely responded to with a, "What? Who? Us? You're asking us? It's not up to us." Crazy man. Crazy.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Gay Marriage Showdown Looms After Appeals Court Upholds Bans
 
The march toward gay marriage across the U.S. hit a roadblock Thursday when a federal appeals court upheld laws against the practice in four states, creating a split in the legal system that increases the chances the Supreme Court will step in to decide the issue once and for all. The cases decided were from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

The Gay Thing: Michigan Gay Couples Have Marriages "Suspended"

While it is true that I never dreamed as a gay kid in the 70s and 80s that I'd ever be legally married (unless it was a sham marriage to a woman, which I could barely imagine), I also never imagined that a legally married couple could have their marriage "suspended."

This is now the third state where same-sex marriage has become legal, only to have a "stay" put in place, because, horrors, the gays will bring Armageddon don'cha know? Except that we've been getting legally married in the United States now for ten years, to no ill effect. Unless conservatives want to switch from President Obama to gays for everything negative in the country. Wouldn't put it past 'em.

Michigan's jackwagon Governor, Rick Snyder,
image from source, Think Progress.

Anyway, I was half of one of those couples who got married in California in 2008, and was once in much the same position. Married for four months, then in limbo, then married legal in California, but in a little pocket universe where no new marriages could happen. And five years later, we were fully legal again, and right after, legal federally. But not in my home state of Ohio or adopted state of Nevada (though there are lawsuits with a good shot of fixing that in both states). And right after federal recognition, Utah had a brief window of legal marriages that was also stayed. In that case, Utah's recognition is withheld, but they get federal recognition too. So, I've got to think the same will happen here.

Ultimately, I think most people think this will all be in the rear view within a couple of years. Barring some incredible change in momentum, and some really twisted legal reasoning from SCOTUS, marriage equality is coming to the fifty, nifty United States. And, if I end up stunned that this doesn't come to pass, the worst case scenario is that at minimum, the 17 states (plus any other stragglers that get through) will still be legal. Either way, it's here to stay. So, I just wish these ridiculous, pointless stalling tactics would just end.

[Excerpt]
 
Michigan To 322 Married Same-Sex Couples: Recognition Of Your Marriages Is ‘Suspended’

Following Tuesday’s decision by Sixth Circuit staying the marriage equality ruling in Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) announced that the 322 couples that legally married Saturdaywill have their rights suspended as the case proceeds. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

The Gay Thing: Michigan's Ban on Gay Marriage Ruled Unconstitutional

And the marriage equality hits keep on coming! It's getting hard to keep count though, especially with Utah's brief run of marriages, and then the stay. So, Michigan makes 18 states where gay couples can actually marry, though a stay could be coming. For at least this weekend, in one county, there is marriage equality in Michigan!

There are now several states that could count as states number 19, 20, 21 and beyond, but they're up in the air from these stalling tactics. Most people who follow these things seem to agree that it will be heading to the Supreme Court sooner rather than later, maybe in the next year or so. If it all goes well (and all indications seem to be that it is), we could leapfrog to 50 states without this state-by-state countdown. Here's hoping.

[Excerpt]

FEDERAL JUDGE STRIKES DOWN MICHIGAN'S BAN ON GAY MARRIAGE: VIDEO

A federal judge has struck down Michigan's ban on same-sex marriage. Back in September 2012 Towleroad posted about April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse, a Detroit couple suing the state of Michigan over its ban on gay adoption, who expanded their lawsuit to take on the state's marriage amendment. In March 2013 we reported that Federal Judge Bernard Friedman stayed his decision in the matter until after the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA. And last July, Friedman ruled that the couple could proceed with their challenge. . .

Read more at: TowleRoad

The Gay Thing: Michigan Republicans Want to Regulate Your Sexy Times

Remind me again please, which party is it that is against government regulations? And exactly how can the state presume to "regulate" sex and procreation anyway? Are GOP busybodies unaware that a) people have sex--and babies--without getting married, b) people sometimes have sex--and no babies--even if they are married. This is extra dumb reasoning, in a desperate attempt to find a legal reason why gay people can't get married. Why don't they just come out and say it: they think gay people are "sinners" and that their relationships are inferior to straight ones? Because that is the bottom line, and everybody knows it.

[Excerpt]

Michigan Fighting To Keep Ban On The Gay Marriage ‘To Regulate Sexual Relationships’ Like That’s A Good Thing



Oh sigh. We are so tired of these dead-enders who can’t accept that the gay agenda is totes coming to your town, thanks to that raging gay homosexual judicial activist (but only when he rules against the right; otherwise he’s just doing what Thomas Jesus Jefferson would have wanted) Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was all, like, “Huh, why do we have some dumb law that makes gays unequal when we are ‘Merica and are supposed to be super hot for equality?” (We are paraphrasing a little. But just a little.) . . .

Read more at: Wonkette

The FOX "News" Guy (Who Was Punched by the Union Guy) Started It!

I've never been in a union, and have in fact had a few unpleasant run-ins with unions. So, I'm not a knee-jerk union supporter. But you know what? When FOX "News" and every tool in the right-wing shed are anti-union? It doesn't take much for me to realize where the battle lines are drawn. One tip-off is that you rarely hear the word "union" without the word "thug" closely following it, in right-wing world.

But they were proven correct the other day, when FOX "News" failed comedian journalist reporter guy Steven Crowder was slugged by a union dude. I mean, this Crowder dude was just minding his own business, milling around amongst the protestors of Michigan's rammed through anti-union law, and some thug up and punches him! For no reason! [Story continues below]


Well, not quite. The first tip-off was the abrupt edit before the punch. The second tip-off (which should really always be the first) was that this is FOX "News" we're talking about. Their stock-in-trade is running doctored videos to bolster faux outrages to stoke the anger/hatred/fear of their lowbrow watchers. Just ask Shirley Sharrod.

[Excerpt]

Steven Crowder Tent-Gate: 12/11 Was An Inside Job

Remember that awesome video of stereotypical union thug cold wailing on stereotypical Fox News douche Steven Crowder at the Michigan anti-”Right to Work” rally this week? Of course you do, it’s embedded above. Probably you watched it and were like: “I shouldn’t be laughing at this because I’m a hippy Wonketteer librul who knows violence solves nothing, but DAMN! Dude dropped Crowder like Tyson dropped Spinks. . .” 

Read more at: Wonkette

Michigan Gov. Snyder: "Right to Work" Law is Not Anti Union

Image from source, Mediaite

By now, we're so used to politicians lying to us, we barely notice anymore. We can watch while Newt Gingrich flips from skewering Mitt Romney in the primary, to being one of his biggest (no pun intended) supporters just weeks later. And in many of those instances, he was flipping to an opposite position. Somewhere he was lying. We'll shrug our shoulders while President Obama "evolves" on gay marriage, knowing all along that he was most likely for it all along, but being politically careful with his answers. Still a lie. This is one area where we can probably safely say, everybody does it in politics, and quibble about who does it worse.

But when it gets ridiculous is when they lie brazenly, obviously, stupidly. How Michigan's Gov. Snyder could pretend that the "Right to Work" law he signed--after it being rammed through the legislature--is pro-union, pro-worker? It's just insulting.

[Excerpt]

Morning Joe Panel Stunned As Gov. Rick Snyder Asserts ‘Right To Work’ Is Not ‘Anti-Union’

Gov. Rick Snyder stopped by Morning Joe on Wednesday following Michigan’s passage of controversial “right to work” legislation and defended the state’s move. It’s not anti-union, he said; it’s “pro-worker.” Not everyone on the panel was convinced, pressing Snyder on his assertion. . .

Read more at: Mediaite

Michigan GOP Overreacts to the Word "Vagina"

Honestly. If the GOP is insisting upon ramming through law after law restricting a women's right to choose, how in the world can they object to the word vagina. I mean, come on, I'm a gay guy who probably thinks about that word less than anybody, but even I don't find it to be an offensive word. And it was funny! A well-crafted joke up against humorless, tight assed busybodies. Well, the GOP isn't well known for its well developed sense of humor (see: Miller, Dennis).

[Excerpt]

Vaginas Must Be Republican Kryptonite

". . . I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours? And, finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no’."

Read more at: Friendly Atheist 


UPDATE: I must say that in the comments section was perhaps the funniest euphemism for "vagina" that I've ever seen: Satan's coin purse. 

Mitt Romney: "We didn't win by a lot, but we won by enough"

Worst victory quote EVER! All of the remaining GOP candidates (and, frankly, the departed ones) are so horrible, I really don't care at this point. But Mitt Romney won Michigan and Arizona. Whoop-de-do. Wake me when Newt Gingrich's billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, stops giving him money, and this gets down to a two-man race, with crazy Ron Paul on the fringe.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Really, REALLY Big Government: Benton Harbor, Michigan

For my badger friend from the other side of the political aisle. . .watch this.

Michigan GOP Taking Over a Town? Strips Voting Rights?

Image from source, Detroit News

What does "limited" or "small" government mean to you? It's the mantra of the so called (dwindling) tea party. Nearly every prominent Republican touts it, as do all of the right-wing talk radio personalities. Get government out of our lives! Government does nothing right! Government isn't the answer to the problem, government is the problem!

So why do the Republicans govern so differently from their big talk? Why do conservatives want to be able to strip my right to marry in California? Why do conservatives want to decide what goes on in any given pregnant woman's uterus? Why do they think they can just decide to get rid of things that unions fought for? Why do they think that a certain brand of a certain sect of a certain religion ought to have the rule of law over people who are not of the same faith? And when you've answered all of those questions, what about the crap that's going down in Michigan?

When The Rachel Maddow Show began commenting on the ridiculously overreaching policies going into effect in Michigan, many on the right laughed her off. Oh, she's just a "True Twit," making mountains out of mole hills. But what Rachel was getting at seems to be coming to pass. Legislators in Michigan think that if a town isn't doing so well, they can appoint somebody to swoop in, and take over, duly elected representatives be damned. How is this small government?

[Excerpt]

Emergency manager cuts roles of Benton Harbor officials



In a move believed to be the first under sweeping new state legislation, Emergency Manager Joseph Harris suspended decision-making powers of city officials Friday.


Officials only can call meetings to order, adjourn them and approve minutes of meetings as part of the order issued Friday. . .

Read more at: The Detroit News

Michigan's GOP Passes Law That Could Cancel Whole Towns?

Yeah, I think he's trying to drop a deuce. . .

Whatever you think of politics, or where you are on the conservative/liberal spectrum, you must acknowledge that what is going on in state politics right now is unusual. Republicans were swept into both national houses of Congress, many state houses and state Governorships. I maintain that the GOP tsunami was because of a) fickle voters; b) whiny, not voting Democrats; c) low-information voters, otherwise known as FOX "News" viewers; d) the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision and the resultant flood of corporate cash into the election cycle.

There are other reasons in the mix, but the fact is that this GOP wave was allegedly driven by a bad economy that wasn't getting better, and the (misguided) belief that Republicans would focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. But they haven't. Like they usually do, they've come down like a hammer, smacking everything they don't like. Gay marriage. Abortion. Unions. You'd think they'd been out of power for decades rather than a couple of years. All the while, they're doing their corporate masters' bidding, enacting legislation that is preferred by--let's just say it--people like the Koch Brothers. Particularly the newbie GOP Governors.

We've seen what Wisconsin Scott Walker's idea of governance is. And he's one of a dozen or more trying to just crush anyone and anything that gets in their way of conservative utopia. Or rather, they call it conservatism. It certainly isn't. That trick they pulled in Wisconsin to cram through the union smashing bill? Hardly conservative.

And how about this one? In Michigan, they're giving unelected people the power to overrule elected officials. Taken to its extreme, it could lead to the dissolution of school districts and town governments. I can't imagine how freaked out conservatives would be if they heard that Democrats even fantasized about such an idea.

[Except]

Emergency financial manager bill clears state Senate


. . .it could lead to intervention or, in the worst cases, the state installing an emergency manager who could cancel employee contracts, fire administrators or declare bankruptcy.

The law would include new triggers to allow the state to step in. For example, a city or school district that misses a payday or ends a year with a deficit of 5% or more of its budget could get a financial review. . .

Read more at: Detroit Free Press

And then there is this perspective:

[Excerpt]

Michigan is under siege. Is Anybody Watching?


. . .If I had been watching anyone but Rachel Maddow last night I never would have believed what I heard. Rachel, so far, isn't given to exaggeration or hyperbole. She does her homework. She has a staff who work tirelessly to get things right. But I heard what I heard, and what I heard is that Michigan's governor is on his way to one-upping Wisconsin's Governor big time. He not only wants to kill the unions, he wants to take over whole villages and towns and give them to his own private Genghises of Nottingham. . .
 
Read more at: DagBlog

Kalamazoo, Michigan Upholds Gay Rights in Vote

As of this writing, there is still no result in Maine or in Washington on the gay rights issues on the ballots there. Having been battered 0-30 in various state votes, a win in Maine would be a pleasant surprise, but I'm not ready to get my hopes up. This is, as I've stated numerous times before, something that shouldn't even be up for a popular vote.

Still, there is some good news. In Kalamazoo, Michigan, a gay rights measure passed. How 'bout that?

[Excerpt]

Kalamazoo, MI Gay Rights Ordinance VICTORY!

Kalamazoo residents approve nondiscrimination ordinance

“Our campaign started with a very basic idea, and today voters confirmed that we are One Kalamazoo,” said Campaign Manager, Jon Hoadley.

With only absentee ballots outstanding, 65 percent of Kalamazoo voters have approved Ordinance 1856 by a vote of 6,463 to 3,527, adding protections for gay and transgender people to the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. This margin is larger than the number of outstanding absentee ballots that are currently being counted. . .

Read more at: iQreport

GOP Vote Caging Found Illegal

Image from source, Raw Story

While the conservatives dither about "voter fraud" and ACORN, the real fraud is being perpetrated by--can you guess--the GOP! Don't say you didn't see that coming.

[Excerpt]

Judge: GOP's voter purge a 'violation of federal law'

The American Civil Liberties Union is trumpeting a judge's decision in Michigan which brings to a halt the practice of eliminating voters from rolls if their mailing address is found to be invalid.Recently, the GOP chairman in Macomb County, Michigan, detailed a plan to use a list of foreclosed homes to challenge voters. His pronouncement drew an immediate backlash, with predictions that the plan would "backfire. . ."

Read more at: RawStory

Obama Campaign Sues to Stop Vote Caging

Image from source, The Page

Yes! This is a move that will greatly increase liberal enthusiasm for the Barack Obama campaign. Not that it was waning, exactly, but we've been feeling a little glum with all of the attention (yes, plenty of it here too) with Grampa McCain and Caribou Barbie.

Voter caging is a proven and despicable practice that Republicans have used in the past, and are trying to use again to prevent people from voting. It's been a grave worry for liberals, because Republicans are very careful to cull largely Democratic voters from the voter rolls. Obama's decision to try to do something about it is a very welcome turn.

[Excerpt]

Obama Team Files Suit Over Alleged Voter Suppression Plan

On afternoon conference call, Obama and Michigan Democratic officials say they’re seeking an injunction to block alleged “caging” by the state GOP — using home foreclosure lists to seek to block residents from voting. . .

Read more at: The Page

Much Ado About Nothing: Clinton Protesters

Photo from source, Boston Herald

I was very worried about the protests that were supposed to occur in Washington DC yesterday, due to the attempts to settle the Michigan and Florida disputes. Blogs were abuzz with stories about thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters being bussed in to add pressure to the rules committee. It was compared to the Brooks Brothers riot in the 2000 Florida recount. I worried that Rush Limbaugh's "dream" of riots in Denver would be happening early in DC. It was predicted to be 10,000 strong.

Well, it wasn't even close. But on the TV machine, they still made it look more impressive than it was. Here is an excellent write-up from AmericaBlog, to give you an idea of what the protest represented.

[Excerpt]

Some perspective on the media's attempts to overblow yesterday's protests at the DNC meeting

Given the actual size of the protests yesterday, there has been an inordinate amount of attention paid to the protesters by the traditional media.Buried in the NY Times article today, after vivid descriptions of the antics of some attendees, was this line:

"Mr. Wexler received the brunt of the anger from a few dozen supporters of Mrs. Clinton who were seated on the ballroom floor."

That's right. The media is basing its hyperventilating over a small number of people -- who were joined by maybe a couple hundred outside. . .

Read more at: AmericaBlog

And another good write-up at: Boston Herald

A Note on the Democratic Primary Process

There is an issue that is not being addressed by any of the spokespeople for the Democratic Party, Barack Obama's campaign and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Much is said about "count every vote," and people on both sides talk about what is or isn't fair. The contentious battle yesterday to seat Michigan's and Florida's delegates (despite the fact that both states broke party rules), aired a lot of spurious and facetious verbiage about democracy, and the voting process that does not apply to party nominations.

Like it or not, we have only two major political parties in this country. So the primary process feels like it should be 100% democratic, one-man-one-vote. But that isn't the case. The parties are essentially clubs--they are not mentioned in the Constitution at all--who have the right to determine their own rules for selecting a candidate. And they do. That is why the Republicans and the Democrats can have different rules.

Now, the Democratic National Committee has a set of established rules that all Presidential candidates were aware of, going in. When Michigan and Florida broke the rules--whatever the reason was--the party was in its full rights to admonish and punish them. It wasn't necessary to seat delegates from either state, but yesterday was an attempt to do so.

For all of the cranky-pants out there still kvetching about the way it was settled, and who don't like the present nominating process, start now to work to change it. But not for this election, for the next one. You've got four years to work to fix it. Stop complaining and do something.

Clinton Plotting to Go All the Way to Convention?

Photo from source, IHT

It looks like Rachel Maddow's "doomsday" prediction was right. More and more pundits (now including Keith Olbermann) think that the battle over Michigan's and Florida's delegates will be disputed by Hillary Clinton's campaign no matter what the decision is. This allows her to take her objection into the Democratic National Convention. On August 25th. August twenty-freakin'-fifth.

All I can say is, if it does go to the Convention, it is bad no matter what happens. If she somehow wrests the nomination from Barack Obama, she bruises his supporters to the point of a sour grapes "I'll never vote for her" reaction. If she ultimately loses, she will have ruined her political reputation forever among a huge group of Democrats, and will bear the lion's share of the blame if Obama loses to McCain. Democratic higher-ups should be avoiding this scenario at all costs.

[Excerpt]

Democrats advised to seat only half of Florida and Michigan delegates

Democratic Party lawyers have determined that no more than half of the delegates from Florida and Michigan can be seated at the party's nominating convention in August, dealing a blow to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's efforts to seat the full delegations from these states. [snip]

In asking that the full delegations be seated, Clinton hopes to narrow Senator Barack Obama's delegate lead and bolster her argument that she may end up with more of the popular vote in the nominating contests - an assertion that the Obama camp disputes. . .

Read more at: International Herald Tribune

Possible Compromise for Michigan Vote?

I wouldn't count on either Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's camps to take this compromise. I don't think anything short of a re-vote--which has effectively been ruled out--would make everybody happy. This is a weird election.

[Excerpt]

Michigan Delegate Compromise Offered

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Michigan congressman proposed an alternate plan Monday for seating the state's delegates at the Democratic National Convention, awarding delegates based partly on Michigan's Jan. 15 primary results and partly on the popular vote in all the nation's presidential primaries.

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., in a letter to DNC Chairman Howard Dean, proposed that Michigan's 83 pledged delegates be chosen at congressional district conventions according to the results of the state's primary. . .

Read more at: Breitbart

Hillary Clinton Supports Michagan Re-Vote Plan

Photo from source, Huffington Post

Good for her. And good for Barack Obama. Hillary has been claiming Michigan as a "win," though she was the only major candidate on the ballot. Since it was the Michigan Democratic Party--not the voters--that was to blame for their exclusion from the delegation, it's only fair that they should have their voices heard. And with Barack Obama on the ballot, he's got a better than decent chance of winning those delegates. But, alas, poor John Edwards. Who knows, if the voters had been given a chance, he might have stuck it out a little longer.

[Excerpt]

Clinton Backs Michigan Revote Plan

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Saturday said she supported an effort by Michigan Democrats to hold a new primary in June.

"It needs to get resolved and hopefully Michigan by the end of this week will have done that," Clinton told reporters on her campaign plane between stops in Pennsylvania. "I think they are moving in an appropriate direction to have a revote. . ."

Read more at: Huffington Post