Ted Cruz, the Constitution, and a Conundrum

Friday, June 26, 2015, became a significant day in our nation's long history of fighting for, and in most cases (though often with excruciatingly long delays) eventually achieving, equal rights for oppressed or minority groups. With the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling (a disappointing stance by the court, but that's for another diatribe) in the Obergefell vs. Hodges case, the majority justices have dictated that marriage is an open right to all, protected by the Fourteenth Ammendment of the Constitution (and a litany of amicus briefs, empathy, and COMMON SENSE). The ruling deems all state laws inhibiting the rights of the gay community to lawfully wed are illegal. It also indemnifies the rights of all wedded gay couples at the federal level, a policy the federal government had been practicing the past several years but not officially articulated in law and thus always at risk of the changing whims of political tides.

It is in those concepts of Constitutionality and the shifting nature of political debate and climate that I had some ponderings reading a few quizzical thoughts in the paper.

In an article produced by David Lauter and Mark Z Baraback of the Tribune Washington bureau, “Marriage decision quickly splits '16 presidential race,” a cataloging of Republican presidential candidates' positions on the Obergefell decision read as one would expect, with most hopefuls towing the party line, some harder than others as they try to feed their bases. That's when I found a reference to everyone's favorite Canadian that left me puzzled, then jocular at it's fundamental hypocrisy.

Stand Who's Ground?

I know I barely write here anymore. And I know I am a good week or two late with any post about the Trayvon Martin Tragedy, but I started this blog to scratch that writing itch, and the other day I had just read too much and decided to finally put some thoughts done on a page. Not sure if this helps any conversation, but I am too frustrated as a citizen not to at least voice displeasure.

I have no idea what "Stand Your Ground" means in a moral or intelligible sense. I understand it's interpretation through most of the draconian, absurdly fearful laws that have been past in this country - and it should be noted how often these laws exist in states the gun lobby has wide influence, because behind these laws is the conceit of "get a gun, carry it, use it, you'll feel safer." "Stand Your Ground" meant that if you felt threatened in the protection of your self, family or property, you could use deadly force without the need to first attempt retreat in order to defend yourself. Now while that may seem nice and tightly conceived, it leaves open some scary doors.

Ode to Uncle Jack

TO UNCLE JACK:

I live next to the oldest family owned tackle shop in the United States. It's a block away from my place in Baltimore. I thought that was fascinating when I found that out. I went in one day and was immediately immersed in the world of fresh water fishing again. I wish I got to share that with Uncle Jack, he would have loved it. 

I haven't been fishing in years, and yet walking into that store it was hard not to feel the pull of the water again, that itch to drop a line, let it sit a little longer, something will bite, and even if it doesn't, would you rather be doing something else? I could see why Uncle Jack loved it so much. 

Another thing struck me about the store - a few guys just hanging out enjoying each others company, talking fishing, making jokes,and laughing.

Stocks, Tickets, and Being the Exception to the Rule

I'm going to link the national issue Congressional financial trading, with the very local issue of Baltimore political officials getting free concert tickets, but you'll have to be patient.

Last Thursday the House finally passed the long overdue STOCK ACT, or the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act.

Editors Note: Of course I wrote this right before last night's Daily Show focused on ripping apart this bill, so I will say this now for those who care, I did not do this to just run with their arguments, though a lot of what they poked fun at I will poke fun at as well.

The act simply spelled out what all crooks on the hill should have known was wrong in the first place. It prohibits federal employees (congressmen - I don't use PC terms like Congress People, just think of how stupid that sounds) from using "any nonpublic information derived from individual's positions as a Member[s] of Congress or employee[s] of Congress, or gained from performance of individual duties, for personal benefit."

In other words, if a congressman knew that some piece of impending legislation, or regulation, or budget allocation would either boost or hurt a company's stock holdings, he couldn't take that knowledge that is nonpublic and privy to him, and use it for his financial gain, by say quickly unloading a stock before a company takes a hit or benefits from said congressional action.

Howard Beale Leads the Republican Ticket

A quick test for my loyal readers (beat for laughs) -

You've got to say, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: "I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

Was that quote from:
A) The end of a famous monologue by Howard Beale (played by Peter Finch) in the classic 1976 Sidney Lumet film Network.
B) An utterance one would expect to hear at a GOP primary rally as a candidate tries to court the conservative base.
C) All of the above

Citizens United vs. Stephen Colbert

I am a big fan of Stephen Colbert. I find his show hilarious, often firing on many levels. I love watching one of his long satirical bits play out between two commercial breaks, ending with a biting conclusion underscored by Colbert's character's earnestness. So it is probably no surprise that I love what he is doing with his Jon Stewart’s his “Definitely Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert Super PAC.”

It makes sense that the performer's quasi-political organization is making its way into a lot of news stories lately, particularly anything that discusses Super PACs, what they are, and the immediate way they are influencing the current political landscape, most easily seen in the squabbling for the Republican presidential nomination.

So in the many stories I perused in my Colbert-fandom (and aimless boredom), I was a little taken aback when I read freelancer E.D. Kain's piece in The Atlantic, “Stephen Colbert's Real Advantage: Free Speech.” In what has largely been anywhere from a love-fest to a shrug from many media outlets when discussing Americans for A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow, Kain seems a bit skeptical, maybe even displeased. Of course, it is not necessarily Colbert's Super PAC itself that bothers Kain as much as how Colbert's Super PAC is a flashpoint for the populace distaste for the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in what is now referred to as the Citizens United case.

America Changes the Voting Age to Six

I'll try not to do this often, finding just one story and running with it, and I'm sure if I perused additional papers I could find a few articles to throw in the heap. But reading my Sunday Baltimore Sun, I came across a wire service article from Tribune that originally ran in the LA Times, and it made me bristle.

Alana Semuels did a great job painting the scene of a Rick Santorum rally in South Carolina, but I have to hope she was nearly choking on the undertones of hypocrisy in the room.

Routinely through the stump speech, Santorum lobs vague charges against Obama and the government about its lack of fiscal discipline, all to great cheers from his supporters.

But when you start to read more about these supporters, there seems an incongruency to what they say they want in a candidate and a government, and how they live and would like to keep living.

Semuels spoke to 54-year-old Nancy Garvin, who likes Santorum's small government message since she “wants to see expenditures cut 'in half.'”

But read just one paragraph farther, and Garvin seems to miss just what that might mean to her.