Gay marriage is voted down in NY

I've heard a bunch of irrational arguments against gay marriage (the procreation argument, the status quo argument), but this one must take the cake:

“Certainly this is an emotional issue and an important issue for many New Yorkers,” said Senator Tom Libous, the deputy Republican leader. “I just don’t think the majority care too much about it at this time because they’re out of work, they want to see the state reduce spending, and they are having a hard time making ends meet. And I don’t mean to sound callous, but that’s true.”

People are out of work, so let's metaphorically bash some fags? Really? That's your argument? How in the hell can you live with yourself Senator Libous?

We can't pass a law to end discrimination because the economy is bad? Can we not hold future votes on this subject on rainy days? On mornings when your toast is cold?

And I thought the Roman Catholic Church had some callous positions in this.

Tom Libous, winner of this week's (newly created) Simply Palaver Keyser Soze Award for Bigots! Congratulations Tom!

In which Greenwald goes off

And Lithuania thinks about doing the right thing:

Lithuania is currently embroiled in a bizarre and deeply confusing political controversy which reveals what happens when a country becomes gripped by extremist ideologies. Evidence has emerged that Lithuanian intelligence agencies allowed secret CIA prisons to be maintained in their country during the Bush era. Just because such prisons would be "illegal" under the so-called "law" of Lithuania and various international conventions to which that nation is a signatory, irresponsible leaders of that country are demanding "investigations" and even possibly legal consequences if it turns out crimes were committed. What kind of a backwards, primitive country would do something like this?
...
Just because they maintained a few secret prisons in violation of domestic and international law? What kind of crazy, purist, Far Leftist utopians are running that place? They need a heavy dose of pragmatism so they can understand all the reasons why so-called "crimes" like this can be overlooked -- just blissfully forgotten like a bad dream. Even worse, with intemperate and shrill language of the type they're throwing around, it's seems clear that the Lithuanian press is sorely in need of some David Broders, Fred Hiatts, and David Ignatiuses to explain to them that subjecting law-breaking political officials to "investigations" and "prosecutions" is quite disruptive and unpleasant when those crimes involve matters other than consensual sex between adults.
...
Thankfully, the U.S. remains a bastion of pragmatic sanity in this rising sea of accountability extremism. Unlike those strange Eastern Europeans and absolutist Western European purist judges, we know there are far more important priorities than "investigating" war crimes, compelling transparency, and holding political criminals accountable. As the rest of the world gets distracted by all this chatter about The Past, our President gallantly protects us from such divisive unpleasantries by aggressively blocking any war crimes investigations and concealing evidence -- even modifying decades-old transparency laws to do so if necessary. Even more inspiring, our patriotic media enthusiastically plays a crucial helping role; The Washington Post has known since 2005 in exactly which countries the CIA maintained its illegal, secret prisons but still refuses to say, even though they've now been banned by Executive Order and even though Lithuania and Poland are launching investigations which the Post could easily answer, but chooses not to.

And this is a pretty amazing part of the story too:

Jonathan Schwarz notes that in 2005, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Lithuania and visited a museum in Vilnius which once housed a KGB prison, where the Soviets tortured prisoners. That museum exhibits "solitary confinement rooms which were used to break down the prisoners and make them confess." Shockingly, "the walls are padded and soundproofed, made to absorb the cries and shouts for help," as it was the site of barbaric acts like this:
Prisoners either had to stand in ice-cold water or to balance on a small platform. Every time they got tired they fell down into the water.

I was afraid that this was going to happen. I honestly don't know what to do about it. If there are no consequences, there will be no changes. And if there are no changes, then we are going to continue to slide into a nation of men, not of laws.

My one and only post on this subject

Palin's book. Apparently she may be lying in parts. You don't say? How uncharacteristic. How unexpected. Then there's this:

A McCain adviser I just spoke to adamantly denied the claim, and provided a counter story: Palin was repeatedly urged by McCain aides to prepare for the interview, but refused.
Palin claims in her new book that she agreed to sit down with Couric partly because she felt sorry for her, after senior McCain adviser Nicolle Wallace told her that Couric suffered from self-esteem problems. It’s understandable that Palin would try to deflect blame for the interview: It was a disaster that hastened her unmasking as unqualified for the presidency.
“It’s not true,” the McCain adviser I just reached said, laughing heartily at the claim. “It’s ridiculous.”
The adviser also provided more details on the strategy the campaign adopted with Palin and the press, saying they feared making her available to groups of reporters because of her incompetence.
“She lacked the knowledge base to stand in front of the press corps that was traveling with her and answer questions,” the adviser said delicately. “Because of the success of the convention speech, the feeling was that she should be exposed to as many people as possible directly, not through a media filter. The way to do that was to do interviews with the anchors.” [Emphasis added]

Hold on a minute cowboy, before we laugh at Sarah, let's all remember that you assholes were willing to put that train wreck a heartbeat away from the Presidency. You shouldn't be giving anonymous hit quotes, you should be on your fucking knees apologizing to us.

Hopefully, it'll be over quickly, but I fear it's just getting started.

The Catholic Church

Sigh:

The fight over a proposed same-sex marriage law here heated up this week as the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said that if the law passed, the church would cut its social service programs that help residents with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Steve Benen sums it up nicely:

.... I've always found the Book of Matthew rather beautiful: "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me...."
It goes on to say, "Unless you live in a city where gays can get married, in which case, to hell with it."
OK, it doesn't really say that last part, but the D.C. Archdiocese may be confused on the point.

I get the abortion issue, disagree with it, but understand that if you feel that abortion really is murder, then you must be inflexible on it. There is no compromise there. But gay marriage? Really? There's no room to compromise here? Fine. Know what? We'll keep our money:

In the last three years, Catholic Charities has received more than $8.2 million in city contracts, according to the City Council.
“This is a decision that the archdiocese will make on its own, and the city will be prepared to respond accordingly,” said Councilman David A. Catania, the sponsor of the bill.
Councilman Phil Mendelson, a Democrat, said the city would not, based on threats, broaden the exemptions the law offers to religious groups.
“Allowing individual exemptions opens the door for anyone to discriminate based on assertions of religious principle,” Mr. Mendelson said.
“Let’s not forget that during the civil rights era, many claimed separation of the races was ordained by God.”

The last statement is particularly powerful for me as parallels are drawn between the current efforts around allowing gays to marry and past efforts allowing races to intermarry and I suspect that in a few years the current arguments will look as ridiculous as the prior. There's just no reason for it.

And, once and for all, we're not saying that you are not free to practice your religion as you see fit, what we are saying is that if you are going to accept public money, then that money comes with civic responsibilities. Don't want to live up to the responsibilities? Fine, don't take the money.

I move back and forth between ignoring the Catholic Church and rooting against it. With the recent activity in Maine, and the current threats in DC, I'm going to the closet (no pun intended) and getting out my pom-poms.

Galbraith? You've got to be kidding me

Turns out he's not fully forthcoming:

Now Mr. Galbraith, 58, son of the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith, stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars as a result of his closeness to the Kurds, his relations with a Norwegian oil company and constitutional provisions he helped the Kurds extract.
In the constitutional negotiations, he helped the Kurds ram through provisions that gave their region — rather than the central Baghdad government — sole authority over many of their internal affairs, including clauses that he maintains will give the Kurds virtually complete control over all new oil finds on their territory.
Mr. Galbraith, widely viewed in Washington as a smart and bold foreign policy expert, has always described himself as an unpaid adviser to the Kurds, although he has spoken in general terms about having business interests in Kurdistan, as the north of Iraq is known.

I certainly thought he was very smart, influential and took what he had to say very seriously. I would have treated what he said with a greater degree of skepticism had I known that he was looking at $100 million windfall from the positions he was advocating as an "unpaid" advisor:

As it turns out, Mr. Galbraith received the rights after he helped negotiate a potentially lucrative contract that allowed the Norwegian oil company DNO to drill for oil in the promising Dohuk region of Kurdistan, the interviews and documents show.
He says his actions were proper because he was at the time a private citizen deeply involved in Kurdish causes, both in business and policy.
...
Mr. Galbraith says he held no official position in the United States or Iraq during this entire period and acted purely as a private citizen. He maintains that his largely undeclared dual role was entirely proper. He says that he was simply advocating positions that the Kurds had documented before his relationship with DNO even began.
“What is true is that I undertook business activities that were entirely consistent with my long-held policy views,” Mr. Galbraith said in his response. “I believe my work with DNO (and other companies) helped create the Kurdistan oil industry which helps provide Kurdistan an economic base for the autonomy its people almost unanimously desire.”
“So, while I may have had interests, I see no conflict,” Mr. Galbraith said.

He may not have been there officially, but his unofficial status certainly carried weight. And I'd be willing to be that he is the only one who doesn't see a conflict with what he's done. And what he's done is not only sleazy and unethical, it also is profoundly unhelpful:

As the scope of Mr. Galbraith’s financial interests in Kurdistan become clear, they have the potential to inflame some of Iraqis’ deepest fears, including conspiracy theories that the true reason for the American invasion of their country was to take its oil. It may not help that outside Kurdistan, Mr. Galbraith’s influential view that Iraq should be broken up along ethnic lines is considered offensive to many Iraqis’ nationalism. Mr. Biden and Mr. Kerry, who have been influenced by Mr. Galbraith’s thinking but do not advocate such a partitioning of the country, were not aware of Mr. Galbraith’s oil dealings in Iraq, aides to both politicians say.
Some officials say that his financial ties could raise serious questions about the integrity of the constitutional negotiations themselves. “The idea that an oil company was participating in the drafting of the Iraqi Constitution leaves me speechless,” said Feisal Amin al-Istrabadi, a principal drafter of the law that governed Iraq after the United States ceded control to an Iraqi government on June 28, 2004.
In effect, he said, the company “has a representative in the room, drafting.”

At a minimum this should be fully investigated to see what, if any, laws were broken and Galbraith should be forced to account for his actions and the deliberate mis-perceptions of those actions he himself helped to create.

He should not just be allowed to take his $100 million and go quietly away.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald checks in:

Galbraith was one of the most vocal Democratic supporters of the attack on Iraq, having signed a March 19, 2003 public letter (.pdf) -- along with the standard cast of neocon war-lovers such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Danielle Pletka, and Robert Kagan -- stating that "we all join in supporting the military intervention in Iraq" and "it is now time to act to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from power." As intended, that letter was then praised by outlets such as The Washington Post Editorial Page, gushing that "it is both significant and encouraging that a bipartisan group of influential foreign policy thinkers, veterans of both Democratic and Republican administrations, has signed on to a statement of policy on Iraq that makes sense on the war." Throughout 2002 and 2003, Galbraith appeared in numerous outlets -- including repeatedly on Fox News and with Bill O'Reilly -- presenting himself as a loyal Democrat firmly behind the invasion of Iraq. In 2002, he was an adviser to Paul Wolfowitz on Kurdistan.
After playing a key role in enabling the invasion of Iraq, Galbraith first became one of a handful of U.S. officials who worked on writing the Iraqi Constitution, and after he resigned from the government, he then continuously posed as an independent expert on the region and, specifically, an "unpaid" adviser to the Kurds on the Constitution. Galbraith was an ardent and vocal advocate for Kurdish autonomy, arguing tirelessly in numerous venues for such proposals -- including in multiple Op-Eds for The New York Times -- and insisting that Kurds must have the right to control oil resources located in Northern Iraq. Throughout the years of writing those Op-Eds, he was identified as nothing more than "a former United States ambassador to Croatia," except in one 2007 Op-Ed which vaguely stated that he "is a principal in a company that does consulting in Iraq and elsewhere." When he participated in a New York Times forum in October, 2008 -- regarding what the next President should be required to answer -- he unsurprisingly posed questions that advocated for regional autonomy for Iraqis generally and Kurds specifically, and he was identified as nothing more than the author of a book about the region.
What Galbraith kept completely concealed all these years was that a company he formed in 2004 came to acquire a large stake in a Kurdish oil field whereby, as the NYT put it, he "stands to earn perhaps a hundred million or more dollars." In other
words, he had a direct -- and vast -- financial stake in the very policies which he was publicly advocating in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and countless other American media outlets, where he was presented as an independent expert on the region.

And the NY Times feels misled:

Since that time, Mr. Galbraith has written several opinion articles for the Op-Ed page in support of Kurdish independence and security. These articles should have disclosed to readers that Mr. Galbraith could benefit financially from an independent Kurdistan that would not have to share oil revenues with Iraq.
Like other writers for the Op-Ed page, Mr. Galbraith signed a contract that obligated him to disclose his financial interests in the subjects of his articles. Had editors been aware of Mr. Galbraith's financial stake, the Op-Ed page would have insisted on disclosure or not published his articles.

We'll see what comes of this. Unfortunately, I'm betting on not much at all. Hope the $100 million helps cleanse the blood on his hands.

Shadow of the Wind

Here is the overview of this book from bn.com:

In the postwar calm of 1945 Barcelona, ten-year-old Daniel Sempere awakes from a nightmare and, to his horror, realizes that he can no longer remember the face of his deceased mother. In an effort to divert his son's attention from this sharply felt fear and loss, his father, a rare-book dealer, first swears Daniel to secrecy, then takes him to a clandestine library where Daniel is allowed to select a single book.
Entranced, Daniel picks a novel, The Shadow of the Wind, written by the enigmatic Julián Carax, who is rumored to have fled Spain under murky circumstances, and later died. As Daniel begins to search for other works by his favorite new author, he discovers that they have all been destroyed -- torched by a mysterious stranger obsessed with obliterating Carax's literary legacy from the face of the earth.
Though Daniel's copy of Carax's novel is the last in existence, he's unwilling to part with it at any price and dedicates himself to revealing the truth about Carax. Aided in his quest by the good-humored Fermín Romero de Torres, a former beggar whose "difficult life-lessons" enable him to keep a step ahead of trouble, Daniel begins to uncover a tale of murder, madness, and secrets that might best be forgotten. And as he wends his way through Barcelona society, both high and low, he comes to realize that his own part in The Shadow of the Wind is more than that of a mere reader.

I wasn't as crazy about this book as were many of the reviewers on the site. I had two issues with it, first I thought the prose was extremely clunky in sections - it felt like a poor job of translating rather than poor writing, which was too bad because it intruded into the story. Second, I had trouble keeping track of Daniel. He starts off as a 10 year old boy who quickly becomes very precocious and at times unbelievable. He feels like a 25 year old man in a 13 year old body at some points in the story. It could be that I'm aging and out of touch, but it didn't feel credible to me and, like the translation issues, got in the way of the story.

Which is too bad because the story is a good one, easy to fall into, good characters (except the problem I stated with Daniel) and is a book that you want to keep reading (even if you do figure out early on who the mystery man pursuing Carax's books is).

I'd recommend it, but not strongly, 3 of 5 stars from me (and my streak of good books continues).

Superfreakonomics

Haven't read it, but it seems to be generating a great deal of discussion, particularly the section on global warming. Elizabeth Kolbert has a pretty scathing review in this week's New Yorker:

By 1880, there were at least a hundred and fifty thousand horses living in New York, and probably a great many more. Each one relieved itself of, on average, twenty-two pounds of manure a day, meaning that the city’s production of horse droppings ran to at least forty-five thousand tons a month. George Waring, Jr., who served as the city’s Street Cleaning Commissioner, described Manhattan as stinking “with the emanations of putrefying organic matter.” Another observer wrote that the streets were “literally carpeted with a warm, brown matting . . . smelling to heaven.”
[...]
Then, almost overnight, the crisis passed. This was not brought about by regulation or by government policy. Instead, it was technological innovation that made the difference. With electrification and the development of the internal-combustion engine, there were new ways to move people and goods around. By 1912, autos in New York outnumbered horses, and in 1917 the city’s last horse-drawn streetcar made its final run. All the anxieties about a metropolis inundated by ordure had been misplaced. This story—call it the Parable of Horseshit—has been told many times, with varying aims.

[...]
But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are. Leaving aside the question of whether geoengineering, as it is known in scientific circles, is even possible—have you ever tried sending an eighteen-mile-long hose into the stratosphere?—their analysis is terrifyingly cavalier.
[...]
To be skeptical of climate models and credulous about things like carbon-eating trees and cloudmaking machinery and hoses that shoot sulfur into the sky is to replace a faith in science with a belief in science fiction. This is the turn that “SuperFreakonomics” takes, even as its authors repeatedly extoll their hard-headedness. All of which goes to show that, while some forms of horseshit are no longer a problem, others will always be with us.

I hate these mealy-mouthed, afraid to offend reviews. They should just tell it like it is for once.

Wow. I don't know if I'll read the book, I haven't read Freakonomics yet, but this review certainly puts it much further down on my wish list.

I like it

More things like this please. Actions should have consequences:

The left's pressure on centrist Democrats has steadily grown since the health care debate began but MoveOn.org and Democracy for America today launched the most direct threat yet: together, they've secured commitments from 66,000 members to donate a total of $3.5 million to support primary challenges against any Democratic senator who joins a Republican filibuster to block an up-or-down vote on health care reform. The groups announced the commitment in a fundraising email to supporters today.

Wrong Headline?

Instead of "Dems lose 2 governor's races", shouldn't the headlines read, "Dems add to majority in House"? After all, those are the races that are going to drive the Obama agenda, not the state-level ones. The sub-head should read, "Pressure increasing to deliver on campaign promises."

And if they don't? Well then they deserve to get buried in 2010.

Gail Collins, as usual, nails it:

In Ohio, citizens marched to the polls on Tuesday and voted to allow gambling casinos in the state. This was a obviously a message to President Obama that independent voters are not happy with the way the health care bill is going.
Really, I don’t see how else you can interpret it. Ohioans were looking forward to the lower insurance costs that would come with a robust public option, and if the president can’t deliver, they’re planning to pay their future medical bills with their winnings at the roulette wheel. Also, people here in Cincinnati rejected a proposal that would have made it harder for the city to expand mass transit. Obviously a repudiation of the entire cash-for-clunkers initiative.
Meanwhile, both Atlanta and Houston voted on mayoral races, and in each city there is now going to be a runoff between a woman and a black guy. You think this is a coincidence? The meaning could not be clearer if the ballots had had a “maybe we should have gone for Hillary” line.
...
We have a dramatic saga story line brewing here, and I do not want to mess it up by pointing out that Obama’s party won the only two elections that actually had anything to do with the president’s agenda. Those were the special Congressional races in California and upstate New York. But obviously they reflect only a very narrow voter sentiment, since one involved a district that was safe for the Democrats and the other a district that had not been represented by the party since 1872.