Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

President Barack Obama Stumps for Hillary Clinton in Bexley, Ohio

Photo by Greenlee Gazette staff photographer, Dona Roudabush
 It was worth the wait. After dodging some strong-arm GOTV tactics at a Hillary Clinton southside field office, obtaining tickets to the event at the OSU campus field office, waiting in line today for an hour, and then standing in an auditorium for three hours, we finally got to see and hear President Barack Obama. Aware that this would be our last chance to see Obama in person while he's still president, we went through the hoops to get the tickets, and endured the wait, and I'm glad we did.

Don't get me wrong, there were issues. One of them is just being stuck in a room with the same people for several hours with nothing much to do but wait. We couldn't even really sit (unless we wanted to have butts in our faces), because there were no bleachers but for the close-up red ticket holders. Worse, we only had the "doors open" time on our tickets, and had no idea when the prez was due to arrive. Had we known it would be three hours, we likely would have left, so I'm actually kind of glad we didn't know.  [Story continues below]



Also on the down side was the audio system at Bexley's Capital University Field House, which was wholly inadequate to the task, forcing Obama and other speakers to have to shout into the microphone. There should probably have been some sort of program, or even some kind of warmup act or something for the crowd to focus on for the first two hours of waiting. About 4:30, there started to be a few speakers, from Franklin County Prosecutor hopeful Zach Klein to Senate candidate Ted Strickland, and the university Dean. But that first two hours there was nothing, besides Capital's band playing off in a corner somewhere. We were getting restless, and our feet were getting tired.

Photo by Greenlee Gazette staff photographer,
Dona Roudabush
But then, the main event. President Obama arrived to thunderous applause, and boundless enthusiasm. This guy is still--quite obviously--loved by Democrats. You could be forgiven for almost forgetting that he wasn't running for anything! But he didn't give Hillary Clinton short shrift, not by a long shot. His was a full-throated, loud, clear endorsement of Clinton, and he was quite convincing. He gave Donald Trump some decent ribbing, to the point that Trump would be steaming if he were there. I hope someone shows him a highlight reel.

I'm gonna miss this guy. Clearly, a lot of people are. I'm glad I went.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Bombshell: Trump Would Delegate Presidency to Vice-President if Elected, According to Kasich

Future "Vice President" Mike Pence?
This should disqualify Donald J. Trump for the presidency, should in fact effectively end his candidacy. If Ohio Governor John Kasich is to be believed--and why shouldn't he be--Trump's plan is to become a figurehead president, essentially in charge of American morale, while his Vice President does the work.

This is hardly a complete surprise as an eventuality. But it is a shocking thing to find out in advance. Nobody ought to really believe that Trump wants the day-to-day grind of the job of the Presidency. He wants the title, the prestige, the ego-stroking, the political "happy ending" (double-entendre intended and encouraged). But this means this cult of personality frothing at the mouth for Donald J. Trump, celebrity? Would be getting TRUMP stamped on the front of the White House, while President Pence runs things.

That ought to freak out anyone who isn't a far right-wing social conservative. That ought to become the biggest news story going. It should be drowning out Mike Pence's speech (which is happening as I type this). Hillary Clinton should hit this, and hit it hard: Donald Trump has no intention of doing the job of president.

[Excerpt]

Trump's offer to Kasich to be running mate: Be in charge of both domestic, foreign policy 

CLEVELAND — John Kasich could've become America's chief operating officer, the most powerful vice president in U.S. history, if only he'd said yes to becoming Donald Trump's running mate, several Kasich sources told The Dispatch.. .

Read more at: The Columbus Dispatch

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Forget Pot; Why Hasn't Big Liquor Fixed Antiquated State Laws?

This past election cycle, I was onboard our "Legalize It" effort here in Ohio, both for personal and logical reasons. Marijuana should be regulated, taxed and legal in my estimation. It is demonstrably safer than alcohol, which is legal. Moreover, there is a wave of acceptance sweeping the nation for legal pot, rivaled only by the same-sex marriage wave that successfully swept through over the last several years. So, why not?

Ah, dare to dream.
But when you think about it, it's rather amazing that pot is making such headway, when liquor has such a confusing and often times stupid set of restrictions in place against it, from state to state. I'm not talking about age restrictions, here either. I really don't have much problem with 21-and-over being the place we draw the line. Though, honestly, it does make you wonder why "adulthood" is legally scattered from 18-to-21 depending upon what area of law we're talking about. But that's another issue for another day.

If you wants it, you points to it, you
sick, degenerate drinker you!
But NOT on Sunday!!! Heathen!!!
The reason for my interest in this issue has to do with having moved back to Ohio after 20 years in Las Vegas. Liquor laws in Las Vegas are quite liberal, and I was used to being able to run down to Lee's Discount Liquor and buying whatever I wanted, just about whenever I wanted. Prices were reasonable, and there was a lot of competition. You could by most kinds of alcohol just about anywhere in Vegas, from a liquor store to a Walmart, to a grocery, corner quickie mart or even Sam's Club or Costco. Obviously, a dedicated store would have more varieties in both brands and higher proofs, but if you wanted honest-to-god vodka, you could find it just about anywhere.

Not in Ohio. Ohio restricts where you buy it, and when you can buy it. Beyond that, they further slice it by what kind of alcohol, and what proof. I can walk into most grocery or warehouse stores and pick up wine, beer and a bewildering variety of beer- and wine-based pseudo liquors. Sometimes, if you're diluted by half. No joke. Watered down. Most times, if you want a full variety of choices, you have to go to a dedicated state-run liquor store, or be lucky enough to have a grocer that has a full-fledged liquor store within their store. Most don't. Even stores that say they do often don't. Those that do charge far more than I used to pay back in my desert home. And there are restricted hours. Want to pick up something for a party before 1pm on a Sunday? Tough.
lucky, they also have spirits. But virtually always, those spirits are
Paradise in Las Vegas!

Dedicated stores are often dingy, sorrowful looking affairs that make you feel dirty when you walk in the door. If they have any browseable liquor, it's the cheap stuff, with top-shelf brands behind the counter. You literally have to point to what you want, and have them hand it to you. It feels like you're buying porn or something. But there is a world outside of Ohio, and even Las Vegas for that matter. When we've ventured out of our newly re-adopted state, we've made stops in other states, checking out how they do things. West Virginia has more liberal laws, though I can't say the stores I've visited have been particularly inviting. Pennsylvania may have arcane laws, but I must've hit one store at the right time in Pittsburgh, because it had a decent selection, and decent prices. Still nothing like Sin City. Iowa offers a decent grocer-based option, with separate-but-attached liquor stores by the main grocery. Prices are better than Ohio, if not great. And time restrictions are also better.

Binny's! Now that's what I'm talking about!
That was a reasonable option on our recent visit, and we were set to pick up a carload for our home bar. But we ran out of time, and just didn't get around to it. Undeterred, we decided to find something on the way home. At a gas fill-up in Illinois, we noticed our truck stop had a dedicated liquor store. Cool! We grabbed a couple of bottles of whiskey (priced above Nevada, but below Ohio), but were told, in broken English, that we were too early. No sales on Sunday before 10 am! It was 9:15. Okay, then, back on the road. I plugged my request into my phone, and huzzah!!! A liquor discount store in Champaign called "Binny's." And it was right off the freeway!

This is not an ad, but let me tell you, it was a real discovery. It was like Vegas, only better actually. Illinois may very well have perplexing liquor laws that I'm not privy to. But this store was big, it had huge variety. It had low, low prices. And the people were super-friendly. Even Lee's Discount Liquor didn't manage that, most days. Suffice it to say, we stocked up. And just for example, a handle-bottle of JD was at least $20 cheaper there, no joke.

But all of this got me to wondering: why is it this way? Why does each state have a hodge-podge of antiquated, religiously tinged, ridiculous liquor laws in almost 2016? I realize, even Ohioans don't have it as bad as some other--particularly Southern--states, whose laws can be downright bizarre. But why do brewers, distillers and other liquor companies put up with it? Why would they make special, diluted spirits just for Ohio? These are huge companies in some cases. Isn't there a liquor lobby? Wouldn't Lee's or Binny's like to have big box stores in Columbus or Cincinnati? Wouldn't Costco, Sam's or even Kroger? I really don't get it. But I'd like to see a ballot initiative! Maybe if the liquor lobby scratched the marijuana lobby's back. . .

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Trumpgasm in Ohio: Details, Facts Don't Matter

I'm greatly distressed by the state of our politics, particularly as it applies to the GOP race for the presidency. The continued success of carnival barker Donald J. Trump has just beaten me down. As bad as Trump himself is, I'm actually more concerned about his true believers. I'm somewhat bolstered by the fact that he has a 25% hold on the portion of primary voters of a portion of the electorate that boils down to a significantly smaller number of people than it appears on the surface. But I'm worried that America has become enough of an Idiocracy that he'll convert enough xenophobic, anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-liberal, anti-Hillary people to actually do damage.

Trump is a buffoon, and always has been. He's played fast and loose with the truth* to his own advantage in business and celebrity, since we've known who he was. He has roughly a third-grader's vocabulary and oratory style. And a third-grade bully's at that. His vocabulary is so stunted, that even after one of his huge applause lines, rather than expounding on what he's said, he just repeats the same words again and again, with his limited set of bombastic adjectives. But worse than his relentlessly negative and abrasive style, is his tenuous grasp of basic facts.

In just the last couple of days, Trump has unleashed a stream of easily disproven statements. Sometimes badly conflated and distorted memories, sometimes wildly exaggerated claims, sometimes just stream-of-consciousness lies. And none of it matters. None of it shakes off his true believers. Not the open racism, not the untruth of his claims, not the vagueness of his promises, not the true horror of having this reactionary, thin-skinned bully in control of the nuclear football. The same people who decried President Obama's "lack of experience" and "celebrity," are eating up every horrifying utterance of this braying egotist.

Even Ben Carson--once thought to be supplanting Trump as front-runner (a horror in itself)--briefly jumped aboard Trump's recent big lie about Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, as the buildings fell. He quickly had to issue a "my bad!" retraction, which I suppose should be heartening. After all, Carson has had his own string of easily disproven statements recently. And they initially didn't seem to matter to his own base. But Carson has been slipping since then. Maybe that should cheer me up?

But I come back around to distress. How can such a large group of Americans be so vaguely pissed off, so ready to win, that they'll gladly make this cult-of-personality, reality TV star made of pure id the most powerful man in the world? Can the GOP really let this happen?

*Perhaps the most baffling claim in all of this, is the Trump supporters' claim that "Trump speaks the truth." He doesn't. He speaks what ever crosses his mind, often changing direction mid-sentence, often several times. He speaks in parentheticals--sometimes within parentheticals--wherein he more than occasionally contradicts the point he started out making. He is the embodiment of "truthiness," Stephen Colbert's "gut feel" explanation for believing something that feels right, even if the details are all wrong. And his supporters--who are almost to a person, Hillary haters who love to throw out that she's a "liar"--simply don't care. Yes. I'm distressed.

[Excerpt]

Trump wastes no time bashing Kasich during Columbus speech



The day began and ended in a fight over Donald Trump’s incursion into the home turf of 2016 presidential rival John Katich. In between, Trump tweeted that the Ohio governor is a “dummy” and “one of the worst presidential candidates in history.” And in a speech before 14,000 at the Greater Columbus Convention Center, Trump pointed to polls showing the billionaire re-establishing his lead both nationally and in early voting states — with Kasich far behind. . .

Read more at: The Columbus Dispatch


Monday, November 2, 2015

Ohio’s Confusing Marijuana Fight: Why Do Some Progressives Oppose?

Adding to my previous post on the marijuana vote in Ohio on Tuesday [Vote Yes on 3, No on 2], Bob Cesca has this outstanding piece in Salon. Check it out.

[Excerpt]

Ohio’s head-scratching marijuana fight: Why do some progressives oppose legalization?

While Ohio politics are normally unremarkable unless in a presidential election year, the midwestern swing-state will vote this week on the “Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Issue 3,” a ballot measure that would legalize recreational and medicinal marijuana use. This is a controversial constitutional amendment that’s almost evenly split across supporters and opponents. The most recent polling shows supporters barely outpacing opponents by one percentage point, 44 to 43. . .

Read more at: Salon

To Weed or Not to Weed? Ohio Voting on Legalized Pot on Tuesday

2015 is my first election back in Ohio, after 20 years away. And though there isn't much on the ballot in this off-year election, short of some local municipalities, Ohio does have a short list of ballot initiatives on the slate. One has to do with voter redistricting, and seems like a no-brainer. The two others seem to have Ohioans rather confused. And have created some odd alliances on both sides.

Marijuana decriminalization--both medical and recreational--is on the ballot, specifically the "Yes on 3" side. It has attracted all sorts of medicinal marijuana supporters, from many different walks of life, not the least of which are the families of patients who could greatly benefit by both the legalized sale of marijuana pharmaceuticals and from the installation of the International Cannabinoid Institute, a medical research facility that would be built only if Issue 3 passes. It's also supported by a large number of people who enjoy recreational marijuana, would like to try it if it were legal, and those of us who simply think pot prohibition is silly in this day and age. In addition, it has the support of those who think that law enforcement and prisoner incarcerations ought to be focused on "real criminals."

Proposed medical marijuana research facility in central Ohio,
International Cannabinoid Institute (ICI).
So, who are the "No on 3" people? That's where it gets a little weirder, and even a little opaque. Some are prohibitionists, oft-times conservative people who adamantly oppose the legalization of marijuana in any form. Some are pro-medical, but anti-recreational (though they rarely give reasons, are scarcely asked why). Some are undoubtedly from the shadowy network of people who currently supply illegal weed to the masses. It's not too much of a stretch to think some are probably also decidedly less savory folks who deal in scarier drugs than weed. Oh yeah, and it includes idealistic stoners.

"What?" you might wonder. Why would (one would think, ordinarily liberal) pot smokers be against legal weed? That has to do with how Issue 3 came to be, who came up with it, how it was funded, how it is worded, and who stands to get rich. It also--oddly, to my way of thinking--hinges upon the word "monopoly." But how did it come to this?

Boiled down, it goes something like this. Advocates have attempted many times to get a legalization plan before the voters, and they've always come up short for one reason or another. This time, a group of investors came together, and devised the 2015 plan, and they got the signatures. The details of the plan are complex, but amount to initially allowing the investors--those who devised the plan--to own the initial grow sites, 10 in all around the state. These grow sites are to be vast, indoor, year-round growing facilities, and they will distribute the product to the various dispensaries around the state. And every citizen over 21 can apply for a license to home grow a set amount for themselves.

By definition, it's not a monopoly, though many have likened it to an oligopoly. This is because the assorted investors (apparently 50 or so individual for the grow sites, many more likely involved in each site) are seen as a cabal, as a single unit. I personally think this is a stretch, and don't see how there would be a lack of competition with so many sites and people involved. And I certainly don't think it sets up any more dire of a situation than we have with virtually any industry, commodity or service in the United States.

Which is why I come back around to wondering, why do pot aficionados suddenly care so much about monopolies? And that makes me wonder even more, who was behind getting that concept, that word, so ingrained in the opposition toolbox? Particularly when you find out that Issue 2, a state-written proposition, was created using the word monopoly, and was crafted to thwart Issue 3. This sets up the strange scenario where Issue 3 could decriminalize pot, and Issue 2 could nullify issue 3 in the same election. Or some other combination of pass/fail, depending upon how the vote goes.

Inside the proposed research facility.
It's got a lot of people confused. Matters aren't helped by the fact that the prohibition side has co-opted the graphics and messaging of the pro-legalization side, down to copying their (possibly ill-advised) cartoon mascot! And let's face it, any time you tell voters to vote "Yes" on one thing and "No" on another, in the same election, you're going to cause some confusion.

Here's my take: Vote Yes on 3, and No on 2. This will legalize medical and recreational use in Ohio. It will decriminalize home grow. It will come with restrictions and guidelines, true. Yes, my friends, to get this on the ballot and through a vote, it had to. Is it perfect? Probably not. But let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, here. Get it legal. Get it moving. Find out what works. Find out what doesn't. Rather than waiting around for a "perfect world" proposition that may never come, put your energies into tweaking and retooling this plan in the future, if necessary. It would be a much more realistic way to go.

Meanwhile, small-time users and home growers won't go to jail. Sick people can get relief, whether they are the doctor-going type or not. Ohio gains tax income, and a potential boon to the economy. And yes, some people will get rich off it. Someone gets rich off of every industry. Be one of them! There will be ample job opportunities, and countless ways to get involved. Were there great odds you were going to own a facility capable of doing this anyway? Would you rather enrich drug dealers and cartels? Really?

Vote Yes on 3, and No on 2

That's my take.




[Full disclosure: I have family members involved in the effort to pass Issue 3, most notably on the medical side. While this has certainly helped sway my opinion on the matter, it has also allowed me to become informed on it, to the point where I believe I'd hold this opinion regardless. Thanks.]

Monday, July 20, 2015

2016 GOP Clown Car Update: Ohio Governor John Kasich Piles In



When I lived in Nevada, I assumed our governor, Brian Sandoval was going to make a 2016 play for the White House. Given how many GOP candidates there are, I suppose he might as well. Now, I've moved to Ohio, and my new governor, John Kasich is going to run. He'll be the 17th major candidate to declare, when he makes it official on Tuesday. For now, I have this Twitter post to show that he's actually going to do it.
 
I'd say his odds are long to make a splash. But he does have a little residual FOX "News" mojo, though I think opponent Mike Huckabee--also a FOX veteran--may have the edge there. Good luck, Governor. If this plays out like 2012, you'll at least have a shining moment for a week or so before the campaign is over. And truthfully? If I had to pick a GOP candidate? You could do worse. So much worse. He still would trail behind even the lowest polling Democrat for me, though.
 
 

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Back to Ohio: Why do the Roads in Central Ohio Suck so Badly?

There was a common joke I heard in my youth, that the state flower of Ohio was the orange construction barrel. Every spring, the barrels would spring up, complicating any work commute in every direction. When I moved to Las Vegas in the early nineties, I realized that it's not a geographic thing, particularly. For the entire two decades I lived in the Vegas valley, I don't remember a time when Interstate 15 didn't have construction somewhere along its stretch through town.

Upon my return to Ohio this year, I had another revelation. There are huge differences between these two places as to what's going on behind those barrels. In Las Vegas, if there is a choke point on a highway, they fix it. If there is too much traffic trying to join or exit a freeway ramp on a daily basis, they build new interchanges, either replacing the existing exits, or adding new ones at different intersections. Complicated pinch points yield astonishing changes, like fly-overs, superstreet intersections, criss-crossing (and high-flying) ramps, extending and expanding roads that were previously inadequate, access roads, express lanes, and other improvements. Yes, Vegas still has The Spaghetti Bowl, and the Rainbow Curve--nobody's perfect--but by-and-large, if a section of town experiences terrible traffic, NDOT goes to great lengths to find a solution, and usually a quick one.

Not in Ohio. Sure, there have been changes. During my 20 year absence, State Route 161 was rerouted and expanded (with the efforts of Limited owner, Les Wexner), I-670 was completed as something of an innerbelt from Downtown Columbus to the Airport (it peters out in the suburb of Gahanna). I'm sure there have been other improvement projects (I saw a novel interchange at Roberts Road and west I-270, for example), and roundabouts have sprung up in both logical and unnecessary locations. Roundabouts seem to be a prestige thing for some reason, even in Las Vegas. But there are a distressing number of congested areas that are absolutely inadequate, and were inadequate in 1990, 1980, 1970.

Many of the freeway exits and junctions, for example, are of the original design: cloverleafs. They force drivers to cross each other, often requiring not only cooperation with other drivers (yeah, right), but also snap decisions. One in particular, at I-270 and State Route 3, allows almost no time to complete the maneuver. It's been that way since it was built. Traffic jams abound, and need have no other cause beyond competing drivers trying to cross each other to exit and enter.

Getting off the freeway, things can be just as bad on surface streets. Traffic jams can happen anywhere, at any time, and have no obvious cause. I can't tell you how many times I've found myself driving on a major road, and having to make a snap decision, because my lane is coming to a sudden surprise end or "turn only." Attempting to drive about three miles down State Route 256 (a major road), I had to change lanes three times to continue south, and this occurred no matter which lane
you're travelling in. Going through the town of New Albany (Les Wexner's baby), there are sequential intersections where through travel requires shifting lanes twice, neither particularly intuitive. I find this all over the place, left lane, right line, or middle lane (if there is one). Even in prestigious areas like Grandview Heights.

And while I'm on a rant, I'll point out that this is a state of few legal U-turns, and many intersections with signs that say, "No turn on red, except curb lane." Both of these things cause traffic tie-ups, the former because it forces drivers to make snap decisions, and the latter because many Ohio drivers are clueless, and read the sign as simply "No turn on red." That's a problem that funding roads can't fix, I suppose. Many Ohioans can't properly yield either, whether at roundabouts (something that I admittedly had problems with at first), or on continuous turn lanes. People in Ohio are also permitted to talk on the phone while driving without the assistance of Bluetooth, which is a huge traffic issue, just from my own observations.

But because of these side-issues about the driving-challenged in Ohio, improved infrastructure is just that much more important. And it's not getting done. I just wonder why. Yes, it's expensive. But it's important. I'd also like to point out that in Las Vegas, we had no city tax, no state tax, and property tax that was about 1/3 the amount in central Ohio. With all of this extra cash at their disposal, where does the tax money go in Ohio? Sure, those orange barrels are out all over the place, so clearly a lot goes to fixing the existing roads after the harsh winter destruction every year.  But here we are in the middle of May, and every excursion out of my house in Reynoldsburg is like a driving obstacle course. So, even that isn't getting done at a very rapid clip.

It's a daily aggravation, for me. I can only assume that your average Ohioan has come to accept the status quo as "just the way things are." When stuck in a traffic jam on East Broad Street out in the relative boonies of Blacklick to Pataskala at 2pm on an odd Saturday, they must just shrug, and think, "it's always been this way." But it doesn't have to be! I've seen it done better! There are many things about my Vegas experience I could bitch about, but attention to infrastructure isn't one of them. Why does Ohio allow this woefully inadequate condition to go on indefinitely?

Thursday, November 6, 2014

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

Monday, October 13, 2014

The Gay Thing: New Marriage Equality Landscape

I was on vacation all last week, so I wasn't able to comment on the stunning* developments in the marriage equality movement over the past stretch of days. In the past week, we've gone from 19 states and Washington, DC, to DC plus thirty. And the number will likely grow to 35, given the fact that there are a few holdouts in those states already covered by a Circuit Court decision. That's nearly double, in what will amount to a few weeks.

Image from Wikipedia. Dark blue represents those states
with full marriage equality. For the full key, see: Wikipedia.
Ironically, the marriage equality movement would likely not be where it is without the anti-gay movement. When marriage equality seemed to be on the horizon in Hawaii back in the 1990s, a tsunami of pre-emptive anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments hit the whole country. Caught by surprise, the notoriously nebulous gay rights movement (gay agenda my butt) had no working strategy. While we had all of the good, legally sound arguments, they just weren't at the forefront, and attitudes were still much less supportive at the time. Add to that, the fact that only abortion and gun legislation draws arch conservatives to the polls more reliably, and you really had a perfect storm.

But, as I said, opinions were slowly shifting, and those good arguments started to stick their landings. Except for some blatantly anti-gay judges (looking at you Tennessee and Arkansas), there was simply no way for the judiciary to decide any other way: same-sex couples should have the same rights, responsibilities and benefits that opposite sex couples receive. Calls to tradition, religion and "nature" simply aren't effective in a court of law. Thankfully.

Now, interestingly, my marriage is suddenly effective in my state of residence (though the nutbars at the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage are still trying to intervene). My husband's home state recognizes us too. In three of the four states we just visited (Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania), we were also legal. But, unfortunately, in my home state--a state we may move to in the months or years to come--we are not recognized. Our marriage winks off when we cross the border into Ohio.

Ohio (and Kentucky, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee and the rest of 'em) should be embarrassed. So should those who are still fighting in states covered by the cases the Supreme Court chose not to review. You're being a roadblock just to be a pain at this point. You're dragging your feet for the sake of delay. Knock it off. These are real peoples' lives.

*It should be noted that the Supreme Court's decision to do nothing with all of the cases before them on this topic really was stunning. I don't think I have seen a single pundit, blogger or even commenter who seriously considered the possibility. Most thought they'd take up one or all of the cases, and I think most gave us fairly decent odds of winning. 5-4 or 6-3 were both speculated, with a fear that it might go 4-5, with us losing. There was a smaller group of people who thought they might just sit on all the cases indefinitely, putting them into legal limbo. But I don't recall "refusing to hear the cases" as anything other than a bullet-point nobody thought would really happen.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

Ohio Cops Get Off After Shooting Black Guy at Walmart

John Crawford III
I'm having a tough time figuring out the elements of this story. You have a cop shooting, which--let's face it--usually turns out well for the cops. The victim was a black guy, so that goes double. And he was (sorta) armed. That's where it gets sketchy. The victim was carrying a BB gun, an item for sale at the Walmart in question. Though the witness who called the cops alleged, initially, that the guy was aiming the gun at people. The surveillance video does not bear this out. At worst, he had the thing over his shoulder at one point, unless there is missing video or something. But, you might think, guy with a gun: threatening. Right?

But hold on. This was in Ohio, which is an open carry state. And how many of us has seen those Open Carry nuts, with an assault rifle* slung over their back or chest, buying a burrito at Chipotle or patrolling the aisles of a Home Depot? So, even if this guy "looked threatening," he wasn't even doing something that gun rights advocates would even think was unusual. So, how is it that the cop who shot the guy isn't culpable? Why is it that so many police seem to have a shoot first, ask questions later policy, and why is it that they seemingly always get out of it, even if they make a tragic mistake? And another thing: why is it that conservatives--who typically are distrustful of government in almost any form--nearly always also side with the cops in these cases? It's worth pondering, if only for the psychological riddles.

[Excerpt]

Cops Escape Charges For Killing Walmart Shopper Holding A BB Gun Sold At The Store

A grand jury decided not to file charges Wednesday against police officers who shot and killed 22-year-old John Crawford III inside a Beavercreek, Ohio, Wal-Mart for carrying a BB gun. They rejected charges of not just murder, but also reckless homicide and negligent homicide, finding instead that there was no probable cause to charge officers with anything. One of those officers is already back on the job. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

*PS. I don't care--at all--if "assault rifle" is the right term here. I know you gun fetishists are particular about gun terminology, but it has zero to do with the point: yahoos carrying big-ass guns.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

The Gay Thing (Again): Ohio Must Recognize Out-of-State Marriages

While this is great news for my home state, which does have one of the nation's more draconian anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments, it seems like it shouldn't be news. Of course Ohio should have to recognize marriages performed in other states. The already do. The straight ones. And they even recognize marriages of closer relations (like first cousins) if performed in other states. Not doing so previously, really didn't make a lot of sense. So, good! But of course, allowing the couple down the street who were married out of state to be married, while preventing the one down the block from getting married doesn't make a lot of sense either. So, this is ultimately another domino on the road to 50-state marriage equality. Can't happen soon enough.

Image from source, USAToday
[Excerpt]

Judge: Ohio must recognize other states' gay marriages

A federal judge Monday ordered Ohio authorities to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states, the latest court victory for gay-rights supporters. Judge Timothy Black called Ohio's gay marriage ban both unconstitutional and unenforceable. . .

Read more at: USA Today

Thursday, December 19, 2013

FOX "News" Uncovers Voter Fraud in Ohio: .0003% Worth!

Image from NewsCorpse
Ah, FOX "News." Does your faux outrage know no bounds?

[Excerpt]

War On Voting: Fox News Exposes Voter “Fraud” In Ohio
 
Husted revealed that records indicate that seventeen undocumented immigrants actually voted in the 2012 election. In a swing state like Ohio that translates to about 0.0003% of the more than five million votes cast. Since President Obama won the state by 449,000 votes, the seventeen “fraudulent” votes would have had a negligible effect on the outcome. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper Found Hanged to Death

Image from source, NBC News
This is sad news to nobody.

[Excerpt]

Cleveland kidnapper Ariel Castro found dead, prison official says

Ariel Castro, the Cleveland man who was sentenced to life in prison plus 1,000 years in July after pleading guilty to imprisoning and raping three women for a decade, was found dead in his jail cell, a prison spokeswoman said early Wednesday. . .

Read more at: NBC News

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

Ohio Attorney General: No Legal Pot in Ohio

Image from source, Raw Story
That does it! Ohio keeps adding to the reasons that I shouldn't move back, and now they've clinched it!

[Excerpt]

Ohio Attorney General rejects ballot measure to legalize marijuana

A ballot measure that would legalize marijuana in Ohio was rejected on Monday by the state’s attorney general, who said the petition was not “fair and truthful.” The group Responsible Ohioans for Cannabis collected enough signatures to submit the ballot measure to Ohio Attorney General Mike Dewine’s office for approval. The ballot measure would have allowed voters in Ohio to approve or reject the End Ohio Cannabis Prohibition Act in the next election. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

The Gay Thing: Judge orders Ohio to Recognize Gay Couple’s Marriage

I'm not an attorney, nor am I any kind of legal expert. But I have to think this is a foot in the door to getting marriage equality in Ohio. Crossing fingers, because I may be moving back there one day.

[Excerpt]

Judge orders Ohio to recognize gay couple’s marriage

A federal judge ordered the state of Ohio on Monday to recognize the marriage of two gay men, one of whom is dying. According to Towleroad, Judge Timothy Black ruled that Ohio must list John Arthur as “married” on his death certificate and name his partner of 25 years, Jim Obergefell, as his “surviving spouse. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Charles Ramsey, Hero in Cleveland, Talks to Anderson Cooper

I love this interview. Charles Ramsey, the hero who rescued Amanda Berry and the others involved in that horrible decade-long kidnapping/captivity crime in Cleveland is a marvel of "no bullshit." It's funny, because I heard an LA-based talk show talking about him on Wednesday, lamenting the stereotypical "black next-door neighbor" they trot out on the news.



Ordinarily, I know what they're talking about, and it isn't just a black thing either. It always seems like morons, white, black or varying shades of beige, giving their goofball analysis of what happened in their neighborhood. Not this guy. He may not have eloquent diction, but he is spot on in his analysis of the situation. There isn't an ounce of pretension, not a bit of what he has to say that sounds remotely put-on for television, or embellished in any way. I think this guy is awesome. And I think Anderson Cooper did a great job interviewing him too. And by the way, I think Charles' assessment of Cleveland's 911 dispatchers is pretty spot on too.

UPDATE: It has come to light that Ramsey has a troubled past that includes several cases of domestic violence. This makes him a flawed hero, to say the least. But, America loves tales of redemption (see: Mark Sanford), and maybe this is Ramsey's. For what it's worth, it seems that Ramsey's brushes with the law are a decade and more old.

Rush Limbaugh Connects Cleveland Kidnapping with Hawaii Five-O

On Monday night, after hearing all day about the three women (and one child) held captive over a decade in a Cleveland, Ohio house, I turned on Hawaii Five-O on CBS, as I'm wont to do. And I was surprised to find that the episode's plot bore some resemblance to the awful real-life story. Most of the details were different, but it dealt with long-term kidnapping and imprisonment of women. I thought nothing more than that it was an odd coincidence, and was surprised there wasn't a disclaimer, or a scuttling of the episode until later in the season.

Leave it to Rush Limbaugh, classy guy that he is, to try and connect the plot of the episode--having to do with welfare fraud--with the real-life tragedy. And then, to Cleveland voting for Obama? Hey, Rush, America voted for Obama! He's really such a pig.

[Excerpt]

Limbaugh links Cleveland kidnappers to Obama and welfare benefits

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh on Tuesday found a convoluted way to use the CBS drama Hawaii Five-0 to link the story of three kidnapped women in Cleveland to President Barack Obama and welfare benefits. Limbaugh admitted that he had “no idea” about why Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michele Knight had been kidnapped and then were able to escape after 10 years. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Friday, March 15, 2013

Sen. Rob Portman Has Change of Heart on Gay Marriage

Senator Rob Portman (R-Ohio) was on the short list for Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential running mate in 2012. So, you can't say he doesn't have at least the establishment GOP cred. Interesting then, that Portman has come out in defense of marriage equality. Portman has a gay son, which has influenced his position on the matter, much like former Vice President Dick Cheney.

So, every time you hear that a C-list celebrity is gay, and want to say "who cares," here's further evidence that a person's personal knowledge of gay people they are fond of, does influence their attitude toward gay people, usually for the better. Thank you, Senator Portman, and to your son as well.

[Excerpt]

CNN Exclusive: One conservative's dramatic reversal on gay marriage



You probably recognize Sen. Rob Portman from his tireless campaigning for Mitt Romney in 2012. He was even on the short list to be Romney's running mate. He's been a leading Republican voice on economic issues for four decades. . .

Read more at: CNN

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

President Barack Obama Wins Re-Election, Democrats Victorious

I'm sure I'll have a lot more to say about the 2012 election tomorrow, and in the days to come. For now, as I write this, it is nearly midnight Pacific time. Which is pretty early, when you consider everyone thought this race was so close and would go well into the night, if not for days or weeks. Nope. Before 8:30 pm, we knew that President Obama had won re-election. Of course, the Mitt Romney campaign clung to hope, and refused to concede Ohio for a while, but in the end it didn't matter. . .for all the huff and puff of how important Ohio was? Even though he won it, Obama didn't need it to win. [Story continues below]


Almost across the board, Tuesday night was a happy night for Democrats. We retained the Presidency. We retained (and picked up seats in) the Senate. We reduced the majority in the House. We got Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth and Tammy Baldwin into Congress. Alan Grayson returns to the House of Representatives, and Sherrod Brown defeated that twerp Josh Mandel.

On top of this, there were four marriage equality battles across the country, and we won--get this--all four of them!* This is a victory of unprecedented scale. In 32 previous battles, we lost them all. Obviously and clearly, the tide has turned. Momentum is seriously on our side. And hey, Tammy Baldwin is now the first openly gay Senator! A fantastic, dare I say fabulous night for gay Americans.

There were many other victories for Democrats, eclipsing to the point of irrelevancy most Republican scores. They won no unexpected states. They have at least three candidates clinging to the hope of victory (still undecided at this writing), Michele Bachmann, Allen West and Dean Heller, but in sight of a loss. I'll cross my fingers on those.

Much more to say, obviously, but I think this is it for me until Wednesday evening. Thank you, America! I was just as nervous as last year, but it turns out that I'll continue trusting former superhero, current demigod, Nate Silver.


*One caveat: at the time of this writing, Washington was on the road to victory in the marriage equality fight, but it wasn't yet officially decided. Just FYI.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...