6.27.2003
A day unto its own
Let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. [Amos 5:24]
Much has been written (and much more will be, no doubt) about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling striking down sodomy laws. For those of us in the west, the news came early in the day – a burst of elation to start the day with. As the day wore on, the euphoria grew even more, and it became apparent it would be no ordinary Thursday. The scope of the ruling … the vigor of Justice Kennedy's opinion … a dawning realization that it wasn't just about gays, but for everyone … a rekindling of the hope that one day all persons will be able to marry their chosen love … the recognition that love and decency and privacy won out .. the sense of, yes, emancipation … all these emotions and feelings, the copious laughter and happy tears, conflated and made clear that yesterday, June 26, 2003, would be one of those extraordinary passages like the moon landing or a lover's death or a first kiss or a time of national tragedy, or any of the other indelible times of life that we look back upon and say to one another, "Where were you when…?"
No, it was not just any other day. Truly, it was Independence Day.
[A note: WWP is now taking a rest and is signing off 'til Monday. He has to get to work on that homosexual agenda, don't ya know? Have a good weekend.]
The reviews are in
Worldwide Pablo presently is inundated with comments about Thursday's events, coming from every conceivable political corner. Here's just two of the reactions to yesterday's Supreme Court decision in the Texas sodomy law case, from different ends of the political spectrum:
From Lindsay T.: A striking decision, much broader in scope than I expected. I thought they would take the equal protection route. See O'Connor's concurrence as it would produce an easy and narrow ruling.
I was surprised and delighted to see the vigor of the analysis of Bowers' errors and the grounds for reversal. In so doing the court has opened the door for the marriage argument. They've separated moral arguments out of a rational basis test, which will leave opponents of marriage little if anything to lean on.
In the process they have also reinforced Roe v. Wade and privacy law in general.
Although Scalia is his usual snorting, bullying self once you get past the rhetorical excesses his analysis marks him as once again as the smartest member of the court. He rightly notes the constitution doesn't say anything about privacy and as a result you can't get where the majority ended up (on the other hand, if one accepts, as nearly everyone does, that privacy is an incorporated if not specifically defined element of liberty, then Scalia is simply taking a different view of interpretation of the constitution). I don't always agree with him but his analysis of the law is always interesting and expressed with laserlike precision. Alas, many people don't get a sense of the dynamics of court debate because they get hung up on his being a rhetorical bully and assume his substantive comments don't need reading or, if read, thought.
[Thanks, Lin.]
From Bob R.: So...
In Justice Scalia's dissent (is Justice Scalia an oxymoron?), he states (from the bench, no less): "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
Now, I don't make it a point of reading every Supreme Court ruling that comes along, but I've read more than a few in my time, and it strikes me as very unusual that a Justice should so literally disclaim prejudice, and use words such as "I" and "me." Being a bit defensive, is he?
But let's just accept his sincerity for a moment, and move further along in:
...Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.
If Scalia truly and respectfully believes that the Court, in today's ruling, has established a precedent allowing gay unions, then can we expect him to support us when the first gay unions case reaches the Court?
[Thanks, Bob.]
An analysis: An incisive report appears in yesterday evening's San Jose Mercury News:
Kennedy's opinion connected sodomy laws to anti-gay discrimination and more fundamental assaults on personal liberty. And in a move that is sure to anger social and religious conservative groups, he invoked the reasoning in controversial abortion cases - Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood - to justify the court's decision.
"Rarely would you see a justice so confident as to invoke controversial abortion doctrine in an opinion on another matter," said [one observer]. "That's part of what makes this ruling so sweeping. This is about the right to be free from governmental interference in the most private parts of your life."
That about sums it up. All in all, a pretty good day.
Other reading material: If you want to read a blow-by-blow account of yesterday's decision, the reaction and the dynamics inside the Supreme Court (even as it was announcing the decision), click here. And as usual, Legal Times has a good wrap up.
Strom Thurmond: So the original Dixiecrat is dead. Chuck C., friend of WWP, wonders: "Anyone else think maybe Strom heard about yesterday’s Supreme Court announcement and just died?" Could be, Chuck, could be.
From Lindsay T.: A striking decision, much broader in scope than I expected. I thought they would take the equal protection route. See O'Connor's concurrence as it would produce an easy and narrow ruling.
I was surprised and delighted to see the vigor of the analysis of Bowers' errors and the grounds for reversal. In so doing the court has opened the door for the marriage argument. They've separated moral arguments out of a rational basis test, which will leave opponents of marriage little if anything to lean on.
In the process they have also reinforced Roe v. Wade and privacy law in general.
Although Scalia is his usual snorting, bullying self once you get past the rhetorical excesses his analysis marks him as once again as the smartest member of the court. He rightly notes the constitution doesn't say anything about privacy and as a result you can't get where the majority ended up (on the other hand, if one accepts, as nearly everyone does, that privacy is an incorporated if not specifically defined element of liberty, then Scalia is simply taking a different view of interpretation of the constitution). I don't always agree with him but his analysis of the law is always interesting and expressed with laserlike precision. Alas, many people don't get a sense of the dynamics of court debate because they get hung up on his being a rhetorical bully and assume his substantive comments don't need reading or, if read, thought.
[Thanks, Lin.]
From Bob R.: So...
In Justice Scalia's dissent (is Justice Scalia an oxymoron?), he states (from the bench, no less): "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means."
Now, I don't make it a point of reading every Supreme Court ruling that comes along, but I've read more than a few in my time, and it strikes me as very unusual that a Justice should so literally disclaim prejudice, and use words such as "I" and "me." Being a bit defensive, is he?
But let's just accept his sincerity for a moment, and move further along in:
...Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.
If Scalia truly and respectfully believes that the Court, in today's ruling, has established a precedent allowing gay unions, then can we expect him to support us when the first gay unions case reaches the Court?
[Thanks, Bob.]
An analysis: An incisive report appears in yesterday evening's San Jose Mercury News:
Kennedy's opinion connected sodomy laws to anti-gay discrimination and more fundamental assaults on personal liberty. And in a move that is sure to anger social and religious conservative groups, he invoked the reasoning in controversial abortion cases - Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood - to justify the court's decision.
"Rarely would you see a justice so confident as to invoke controversial abortion doctrine in an opinion on another matter," said [one observer]. "That's part of what makes this ruling so sweeping. This is about the right to be free from governmental interference in the most private parts of your life."
That about sums it up. All in all, a pretty good day.
Other reading material: If you want to read a blow-by-blow account of yesterday's decision, the reaction and the dynamics inside the Supreme Court (even as it was announcing the decision), click here. And as usual, Legal Times has a good wrap up.
Strom Thurmond: So the original Dixiecrat is dead. Chuck C., friend of WWP, wonders: "Anyone else think maybe Strom heard about yesterday’s Supreme Court announcement and just died?" Could be, Chuck, could be.
6.26.2003
Georgie's Choice
Our president: He's in real bind today, ain't he? GWB is already on record as saying that the three dissenters in today's Supreme Court decision on the Texas sodomy case just happen to be the very model for judges he wants to appoint to judicial vacancies. Worldwide Pablo wonders: Is this what the president calls "governing from the middle"? Is this his idea of being a "uniter not a divider"?
Perhaps the president hasn't noticed, but while he wasn't looking the world changed (probably faster than he counted on). Opinion polls indicate Americans support gays and their issues, and these numbers grow every day. It will be interesting to see how the president reacts to today's decision: Will he embrace it? Ignore it? Distance himself from the dissenters he so keenly admires? Each of these responses poses the same political problem: how to reach out to the middle of American politics, yet retain the core support from social and religious conservatives? Deep down, the president must know he's screwed – and that he did it to himself.
Perhaps the president hasn't noticed, but while he wasn't looking the world changed (probably faster than he counted on). Opinion polls indicate Americans support gays and their issues, and these numbers grow every day. It will be interesting to see how the president reacts to today's decision: Will he embrace it? Ignore it? Distance himself from the dissenters he so keenly admires? Each of these responses poses the same political problem: how to reach out to the middle of American politics, yet retain the core support from social and religious conservatives? Deep down, the president must know he's screwed – and that he did it to himself.
The naysayers
Worldwide Pablo agrees with Andrew Sullivan and his take on Justice Scalia's dissent. Relying on "morality" for the basis of laws (rather than the presence of a compelling interest or a constitutional guarantee) really means let's just keep doing it the way we've always done it, right? Sullivan's point is that anti-sodomy laws have little or no purpose other than to stigmatize the 3 percent or so of the population that has no "non-sodomitic choice." And curiously, the reasoning in Scalia's dissent could be used to justify … gay marriage! WWP agrees, and is intrigued.
And then there's the curious dissent by Justice Thomas. Weird, weird, weird.
And then there's the curious dissent by Justice Thomas. Weird, weird, weird.
A victory, of sorts
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its long-awaited decision in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down the Texas statute that criminalized certain sex acts for gays but which are permitted for straights. Today's decision is based on the grounds that private sexual acts are no one's else's business, but strangely, not on the grounds states must treats gays and straights equally.
Worldwide Pablo can hardly overstate the significance of this decision. It is a watershed important and a welcome turn of events. But beneath the hoopla over today's news lies the fact that it took no less than a decision from the Supreme Court (and a divided one, at that) to validate an idea as elemental and basic as privacy. Also worrisome is the fact that the Court ignored equal protection arguments and could not bring itself to endorse the idea of equal treatment for gays. A bright spot about today's decision is that it should quell, if only for the moment, the notion that gays and lesbians, their lives, their relationships or their aspirations can simply be legislated out of existence. Perhaps that alone is enough.
WWP is disappointed, but not surprised, however, at the minority dissenting votes, coming not so unexpectedly from the very three jurists the president has singled out as examples of the kind of judges he wishes to appoint to vacancies in the federal courts (including the Supreme Court itself). WWP asks: Are such jurists – so fossilized by their 19th-century notions of science, equality and jurisprudence – really qualified to be lifted up as such examples? Or to be elevated (as is rumored of Justice Scalia, should Chief Justice Rehnquist retire)? Permit WWP to say out loud what others will only whisper: Jurists who cannot grasp the basic idea of treating citizens equally (and more dangerously, who cannot recognize a fundamental privacy right in personal sexual behavior) are fit neither for admiration nor elevation. And perhaps neither, he dares to suggest, for the jobs they presently occupy.
Here's a link to read the decision for yourself.
Worldwide Pablo can hardly overstate the significance of this decision. It is a watershed important and a welcome turn of events. But beneath the hoopla over today's news lies the fact that it took no less than a decision from the Supreme Court (and a divided one, at that) to validate an idea as elemental and basic as privacy. Also worrisome is the fact that the Court ignored equal protection arguments and could not bring itself to endorse the idea of equal treatment for gays. A bright spot about today's decision is that it should quell, if only for the moment, the notion that gays and lesbians, their lives, their relationships or their aspirations can simply be legislated out of existence. Perhaps that alone is enough.
WWP is disappointed, but not surprised, however, at the minority dissenting votes, coming not so unexpectedly from the very three jurists the president has singled out as examples of the kind of judges he wishes to appoint to vacancies in the federal courts (including the Supreme Court itself). WWP asks: Are such jurists – so fossilized by their 19th-century notions of science, equality and jurisprudence – really qualified to be lifted up as such examples? Or to be elevated (as is rumored of Justice Scalia, should Chief Justice Rehnquist retire)? Permit WWP to say out loud what others will only whisper: Jurists who cannot grasp the basic idea of treating citizens equally (and more dangerously, who cannot recognize a fundamental privacy right in personal sexual behavior) are fit neither for admiration nor elevation. And perhaps neither, he dares to suggest, for the jobs they presently occupy.
Here's a link to read the decision for yourself.
6.25.2003
Judgment Day
According to legal insiders, tomorrow (Thursday) should be the final day of the current session of the U.S. Supreme Court. There are just five decisions left pending, most of them headline acts (Nike's commercial free speech case among them). But Worldwide Pablo has his eye on just one, Lawrence v. Texas. Local blogger Jack Bogdanski describes the case as the Court's chance to repent of its "dogma on the right to privacy -- specifically, whether states can outlaw sodomy between consenting adults of the same gender." Here's hoping, Jack.
Expect the Court to start announcing these decisions at 7 a.m. PDT. Good places to check online are SCOTUS Blog ("Supreme Court Of The United States," get it?) or CNN Law. And as Jack suggests, it's also possible there will be a retirement announcement tomorrow or shortly after the term comes to a close. In which case, expect a noisy and politically charged summer at the capitol.
Expect the Court to start announcing these decisions at 7 a.m. PDT. Good places to check online are SCOTUS Blog ("Supreme Court Of The United States," get it?) or CNN Law. And as Jack suggests, it's also possible there will be a retirement announcement tomorrow or shortly after the term comes to a close. In which case, expect a noisy and politically charged summer at the capitol.
Kill the Wabbit
Sign of the times, Part I: For what must be the umpti-umpth time in his life, Worldwide Pablo attended a baby shower Tuesday. After nearly a half century of attending these sorts of festal gatherings, WWP (no children, and not allowed to be married, he reminds you) thinks it’s payback time: He's threatening to hold his own shower, for no reason whatsoever except to collect back on the lifetime of gifting (unrequited, need he say?). Oh, yes, he knows that's un-Christian; but darn it! Fair is fair. Isn't it his turn to register at Target? Or Nordstrom’s?
Or maybe it should be an Oregon state liquor store? (Early warning: There is an important birthday coming up. Think gin.)
Sign of the times, Part II: Tuesday’s shower was held for a WWP friend, thirty-something and professional. The new mother-to-be is proudly single and confidently chose to be pregnant by artificial insemination. Thirty years or more ago, people would tut-tut about such an event (usually viewed as a “disgrace”) in gossipy, hushed tones. But not today. The remarkable fact is the circumstances for this happy moment never crossed anyone’s mind yesterday. It’s completely a non-issue.
Which gives rise to the question: What does it really take to make a family? Some would have you believe it’s sex or a set of complementary genitalia. But WWP and others know better. The answer to a happy family, as it has been from the beginning, is love.
Sign of the times, Part III: By the way, a raucous conversation broke out at WWP’s table during the opening of gifts. One of the presents (a video of children’s stories) caused WWP to recall the classic cartoons from his own childhood (yes, they had television then, O ye smart alecks). Among the WWP’s favorites were the famously wacky Looney Tunes, which often invoked classical music for background, or even sometimes opera music and the accompanying libretto as motif. (WWP thinks the producers were trying to introduce young viewers to classical music; but, in fact, all it did was introduce a new, impressionable generation to watching television.) Nevertheless, who can ever forget Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny in the classic rendering of Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” from Die Walküre? (Also famously used in Apocalypse Now.)
The genius from Bayreuth never sounded better.
PS: Does anyone else remember the "Seinfeld" episode on the same theme? WWP still gets a big chuckle over it.
Or maybe it should be an Oregon state liquor store? (Early warning: There is an important birthday coming up. Think gin.)
Sign of the times, Part II: Tuesday’s shower was held for a WWP friend, thirty-something and professional. The new mother-to-be is proudly single and confidently chose to be pregnant by artificial insemination. Thirty years or more ago, people would tut-tut about such an event (usually viewed as a “disgrace”) in gossipy, hushed tones. But not today. The remarkable fact is the circumstances for this happy moment never crossed anyone’s mind yesterday. It’s completely a non-issue.
Which gives rise to the question: What does it really take to make a family? Some would have you believe it’s sex or a set of complementary genitalia. But WWP and others know better. The answer to a happy family, as it has been from the beginning, is love.
Sign of the times, Part III: By the way, a raucous conversation broke out at WWP’s table during the opening of gifts. One of the presents (a video of children’s stories) caused WWP to recall the classic cartoons from his own childhood (yes, they had television then, O ye smart alecks). Among the WWP’s favorites were the famously wacky Looney Tunes, which often invoked classical music for background, or even sometimes opera music and the accompanying libretto as motif. (WWP thinks the producers were trying to introduce young viewers to classical music; but, in fact, all it did was introduce a new, impressionable generation to watching television.) Nevertheless, who can ever forget Elmer Fudd and Bugs Bunny in the classic rendering of Wagner’s “Ride of the Valkyries” from Die Walküre? (Also famously used in Apocalypse Now.)
The genius from Bayreuth never sounded better.
PS: Does anyone else remember the "Seinfeld" episode on the same theme? WWP still gets a big chuckle over it.
Blown by the wind
A review, Part I: A friend of Worldwide Pablo returns from Ashland (OR) with this review of four plays presently being staged by the renown Oregon Shakespeare Festival. He writes:
"I was in Ashland last week (enjoying visiting with friends more than I enjoyed the performances). OSF's premiere of Daughters of the Revolution was the preachiest thing I've ever endured -- which is saying something, as [director] Libby Appel seems to think that preaching is the primary responsibility of the theatre, as her lovely-to-look-at but textually chaotic production of Richard II (my favorite history play) also demonstrated. Wild Oats is well-done good silly fun, although despite particularly decorative romantic leads this production won't erase the memory of the legendary 1981 OSF production in anyone who saw that. Some of Ken Albers's staging choices in Mid-summer Night's Dream, particularly eliminating physical appearances by some supernatural characters and relying upon voice-overs and cute lighting effects, were less than convincing, but Kim Rhodes manages to be both luminous and hilarious as Helena; it's the standout performance of the show." [Thanks, you-know-who.]
A review, Part II: The current film (“theatrical release,” for those of you live in southern California), A Mighty Wind lives up the promise of earlier works by the insanely creative team that brought us such off-the-wall cinema gems as Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show, among others. Wind hasn’t the full satiric bite of the earlier works by this team (which includes the talented Christopher Guest, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Ed Begley Jr., Paul Dooley, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, et al.), but it hardly matters. They breezily tweak and mock the '60s folk music scene and do so with an even and oh-so-barely understated respect for the genre. Though the lyrics tease (and are often laugh-aloud hysterical), the music remains true to the original style: toe-tapping, singable and evincing. Like all good satire, it pokes fun at, while loving, its subject. And the conclusion – a riotous send-up of the most famous folk trio ever – is simply not to be missed. A four-star delight.
"I was in Ashland last week (enjoying visiting with friends more than I enjoyed the performances). OSF's premiere of Daughters of the Revolution was the preachiest thing I've ever endured -- which is saying something, as [director] Libby Appel seems to think that preaching is the primary responsibility of the theatre, as her lovely-to-look-at but textually chaotic production of Richard II (my favorite history play) also demonstrated. Wild Oats is well-done good silly fun, although despite particularly decorative romantic leads this production won't erase the memory of the legendary 1981 OSF production in anyone who saw that. Some of Ken Albers's staging choices in Mid-summer Night's Dream, particularly eliminating physical appearances by some supernatural characters and relying upon voice-overs and cute lighting effects, were less than convincing, but Kim Rhodes manages to be both luminous and hilarious as Helena; it's the standout performance of the show." [Thanks, you-know-who.]
A review, Part II: The current film (“theatrical release,” for those of you live in southern California), A Mighty Wind lives up the promise of earlier works by the insanely creative team that brought us such off-the-wall cinema gems as Waiting for Guffman and Best in Show, among others. Wind hasn’t the full satiric bite of the earlier works by this team (which includes the talented Christopher Guest, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Ed Begley Jr., Paul Dooley, Parker Posey, Fred Willard, et al.), but it hardly matters. They breezily tweak and mock the '60s folk music scene and do so with an even and oh-so-barely understated respect for the genre. Though the lyrics tease (and are often laugh-aloud hysterical), the music remains true to the original style: toe-tapping, singable and evincing. Like all good satire, it pokes fun at, while loving, its subject. And the conclusion – a riotous send-up of the most famous folk trio ever – is simply not to be missed. A four-star delight.
6.24.2003
City of Woes
Portland is the news again, but as usual, for the wrong reason. Columnist Bob Herbert, writing yesterday in the New York Times, states: “While these may be the best of times for George W. Bush, this is not such a great moment for America.” Nor for Stumptown, either, apparently.
Iraq watch
Proof that Saddam is alive.
Nicely said
Andrew Sullivan is known as many things: neo-con, author, editor, political columnist, Internet pundit and blogger extraordinnaire. And, also as a person living with HIV/AIDS. On the 10th anniversary of his own HIV diagnosis (yesterday), he reflects on what means to be living in a time of AIDS. Worldwide Pablo, who knows a thing or two about the subject himself, could not have put it more beautifully. Keep at it, Andrew.
Brave new media world
The U.S. Senate on Monday took a jab at the most odious elements of the Federal Communications Commission’s recent back-room deal to allow the media giants to super-size themselves. The Senate bill would roll back the media saturation rules to 35 percent and restore the ban on most cross-ownerships of local newspapers and broadcast outlets. And in a snub directed squarely at the partisan FCC board, the Senate bill aims to break up of some of the existing monopolization in radio station ownership. The bill now goes to the U.S. House of Representatives, where the bill is certain to languish unless there is an outcry from the public.
The time to contact your U.S. representative is now. If we wake up one day soon to find ourselves dominated by a handful of media conglomerates, don’t say Worldwide Pablo and others did not warn you. Click here if you want a refresher course on the media power grab.
The time to contact your U.S. representative is now. If we wake up one day soon to find ourselves dominated by a handful of media conglomerates, don’t say Worldwide Pablo and others did not warn you. Click here if you want a refresher course on the media power grab.
6.23.2003
Glory, Hallelujah
Oh, good Lord! Is there anything more tawdry or pitiful, or more execrable, than the hyper-Americo-gloriania that passes for so-called patriotism than the dreck nationally broadcast tonight on network television? Worldwide Pablo, who regards himself as patriotic, gagged gently more than once at the overwrought and sanctimonious rah-rah from a parade of mostly has-been and ne'er-will-be "celebrities," who by dint of mild success in other wildly unrelated fields have been elevated to uber-patriot, apparently and transparently by nothing else but political affiliation with an address on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Glory, Hallelujah, indeed. Julia Ward Howe, God rest her soul, probably cannot stop from eternally puking over the erroneous, wrong-headed and blasphemous invocation of her beautiful prayer.
Glory, Hallelujah, indeed. Julia Ward Howe, God rest her soul, probably cannot stop from eternally puking over the erroneous, wrong-headed and blasphemous invocation of her beautiful prayer.
A note from WWP
Dear readers: Worldwide Pablo, never a technophile, is presently experimenting with a free online service to post his worldwide musings, using the service called "Blogger." In order to make the transition, however, it proved wise to move all of his previous files (those from last Friday and earlier) to an archive. The downside: The very recent archives will be offline for several hours, Monday to Tuesday, June 23-24. The good news is that the archive will soon be easily accessed, just by clicking on the link at the left, "WWP's old archives."
WWP hopes you enjoy the newly reformatted musings. The new method promises easier (and more frequent) access by WWP. He hopes you enjoy the update, and thanks you in advance for your patience as portions of "Worldwide Pablo" are updated.
WWP hopes you enjoy the newly reformatted musings. The new method promises easier (and more frequent) access by WWP. He hopes you enjoy the update, and thanks you in advance for your patience as portions of "Worldwide Pablo" are updated.
Monday's musings
In search of the middle ground: Two important decisions on affirmative action came down from the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, but yet to come is a result in the Texas sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, which depending on the outcome, could further polarize Americans in general, and the GOP in particular.
The case gives Worldwide Pablo occasion to note that developments such as this Supreme Court case, along with other recent events, paint a potentially gloomy picture for the current administration. Having staked his political support with the camp of religious and social conservatives in the last presidential (s)election, he will find a very changed America for the 2004 race. In current opinion polls, Americans overwhelming say they support employment protection rights for gays, and almost as heavily endorse the idea that gay and straight lifestyles should be treated equally. Even the most contentious question of our day – gay marriage – is now close to a draw in the court of public opinion. Whither W? Stick with the usual political base, and he risks offending the suburbanized middle (think, soccer moms), who more and more reject the politics of exclusion. Or, switch horses, and he alienates the monied Phyllis Schafly-mindset that has come to define the modern GOP.
Is it a time bomb, or just a delicious political irony? The Guardian of London has a take on it. [Thanks, Rob S.] So too the Big O. [Thanks Chuck C.]
Pointing out the obvious? Further evidence that public opinion is already ahead politics: America’s very own gay reality show … it's called "The Tonys." [Thanks, Rob S.]
In search of the middle ground, Part II: The on-again, off-again waltz between Senate Dems and the GOP over judiciary appointments further illustrates the predicament described above (a quandary Worldwide Pablo will now simply refer to as "Georgie's Choice"). Negotiate with the Dems? No, ignore them! Oops, no, let's engage 'em! Which way is the wind blowing?
WWP has watched ping-pong games with less action. Read here and here.
In search of the middle ground, Part III: On the other hand, the Dems aren't exactly without their own blemishes. The point in this online "flash" video is well-taken … but enough, already! WWP Memo to Tom Daschle: Subtlety, and brevity, are the soul of wit. [Thanks, Ben F.]
Gnat news: Worldwide Pablo is entirely too serious today. Here's something fun: Today marks the beginning of … "Mosquito Awareness Week." After years of obscurity, those vector-control folk finally have their day in the sun.
When good news services go bad: Actual article (briefly) in today’s Yahoo! News. [Thanks, Chuck C.]
The case gives Worldwide Pablo occasion to note that developments such as this Supreme Court case, along with other recent events, paint a potentially gloomy picture for the current administration. Having staked his political support with the camp of religious and social conservatives in the last presidential (s)election, he will find a very changed America for the 2004 race. In current opinion polls, Americans overwhelming say they support employment protection rights for gays, and almost as heavily endorse the idea that gay and straight lifestyles should be treated equally. Even the most contentious question of our day – gay marriage – is now close to a draw in the court of public opinion. Whither W? Stick with the usual political base, and he risks offending the suburbanized middle (think, soccer moms), who more and more reject the politics of exclusion. Or, switch horses, and he alienates the monied Phyllis Schafly-mindset that has come to define the modern GOP.
Is it a time bomb, or just a delicious political irony? The Guardian of London has a take on it. [Thanks, Rob S.] So too the Big O. [Thanks Chuck C.]
Pointing out the obvious? Further evidence that public opinion is already ahead politics: America’s very own gay reality show … it's called "The Tonys." [Thanks, Rob S.]
In search of the middle ground, Part II: The on-again, off-again waltz between Senate Dems and the GOP over judiciary appointments further illustrates the predicament described above (a quandary Worldwide Pablo will now simply refer to as "Georgie's Choice"). Negotiate with the Dems? No, ignore them! Oops, no, let's engage 'em! Which way is the wind blowing?
WWP has watched ping-pong games with less action. Read here and here.
In search of the middle ground, Part III: On the other hand, the Dems aren't exactly without their own blemishes. The point in this online "flash" video is well-taken … but enough, already! WWP Memo to Tom Daschle: Subtlety, and brevity, are the soul of wit. [Thanks, Ben F.]
Gnat news: Worldwide Pablo is entirely too serious today. Here's something fun: Today marks the beginning of … "Mosquito Awareness Week." After years of obscurity, those vector-control folk finally have their day in the sun.
When good news services go bad: Actual article (briefly) in today’s Yahoo! News. [Thanks, Chuck C.]
