Politics '12: Election year shenanigans.

[metroid composite]

Oh well yes, I think I just want a third party.  Any third party >_>

[NotMiki]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/10/stephen-colbert-leads-jon_n_1197068.html

Speaking of candidates not on ballots...

[Idun]

Jésus. That's hilarious considering how SC is considered about as "liberal" as LA, AL or MS! It's weird how if you're not "progressive," you're "conservative," but from my little experience with SC in spurts, I get ba~ad mojo vibes from that place.

[Laggy]

They probably voted for Stephen Colbert the character

[NotMiki]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-toronto-mayor-decries-ottawas-sneaky-reversal-on-gay-marriage/article2300179/

So Steven Harper's government just said that the marriage any foreigner who had a gay marriage in Canada but whose place of residence does not permit gay marriage is a nullity.  Not married, never was.  This is going to create profound practical difficulties for people affected by it, including the inability to obtain a legal divorce and status and tax consequences (possibly retroactive to the time of their supposed marriage).  Um, what the fuck, Canada?

[Idun]

Several sites are joining reddit in its blackout action on January 18th, when people testify against approving Protect IP Act, or SOPA. I think this is cool, because several outlets such as reddit will livestream the political activity providing up-to-date info during the course of debate! I will break something if approval of their acts censors UBUWeb, because I spend more time on that arts database than I do with myself.

http://blog.reddit.com/2012/01/stopped-they-must-be-on-this-all.html

[Idun]

NDAA. SOPA.

FML. BBOBAMA.

[metroid composite]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-toronto-mayor-decries-ottawas-sneaky-reversal-on-gay-marriage/article2300179/

So Steven Harper's government just said that the marriage any foreigner who had a gay marriage in Canada but whose place of residence does not permit gay marriage is a nullity.  Not married, never was.  This is going to create profound practical difficulties for people affected by it, including the inability to obtain a legal divorce and status and tax consequences (possibly retroactive to the time of their supposed marriage).  Um, what the fuck, Canada?

Reading the article, it seems it's not the government saying this, but the courts.  (The government is reiterating that they are pro gay marriage).  And it's coming up in cases like...a British man and an american man with a British civil-union come to Canada to get a divorce, and the courts are like "Umm...technically we can't do that."

So, I mean, sure: rejigger the rules of the courts so that they can cover these cases.  But I don't think it's time to scream at Harper for being a bigot, since it wasn't really his branch of government that caused the stir in the first place.

[NotMiki]

I think you're misreading the articles.  No judge had yet ruled on the matter, but Canada's Justice Department was actively arguing for an interpretation of Canada law that invalidates some foreign gay marriages to a judge who was deciding a divorce case.  It may be that the proper reading of Canada law is that those marriages are indeed invalid, but the point is Harper's government was advocating for that position.  The Justice Department has no obligation to involve themselves in this case in the first place.  the only reason they're even a party is to argue in favor of nullifying gay marriages.  Harper's now arguing that he had no control over the actions of his own Justice Department, but if you think the Justice Department decided to intervene in a civil case on a hot-button political issue with far-reaching consequences without consulting the higher-ups, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

"...the Justice Department had taken a legal position that same-sex marriages involving non-residents are invalid – and cannot be dissolved – unless they are recognized as legitimate in the couple’s home country."

Massachusetts ran into essentially the same problem with gay marriage back in '06, but in the case of Massachusetts, the Attorney General's office never argued in favor of invalidating marriages - a judge reached that result on their own.  The legislature fixed the law in '08 after Mitt Romney, who argued publicly that he did not want MA law to be changed, left office.  Romney is a scumbag, but even he didn't go as far as Harper's Justice Department did.

EDIT: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justice-minister-declares-all-same-sex-marriages-legal-and-valid/article2301691/

Ok, that was a quick about-face.  The Justice Department saw which way the wind of public opinion was blowing, tucked their tails between their legs, and reversed its position today and now is arguing that the marriages are in fact valid.

[metroid composite]

Meanwhile, in a country where politics should not be taken seriously...

Let's all take a moment to laugh at Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Jon Huntsman:

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-rejects-republican-primary-ballot-appeal-211244364.html

[Dark Holy Elf]

Jim: For what it's worth, I rather suspect the crown attorney (attorneys? Justice department? Not sure where the strategy originated) in this case did operate without consulting the higher-ups. I have no love for Harper, but one thing he has consistently done is try to downplay gay marriage as an issue (opting to stick with the status quo) and muzzle the socially conservative activists in his own party on the subject, since his government is reliant on moderate Ontario. Or, if you prefer, it's not so much that the government "saw which way the winds of public opinion were blowing" because this is already well-known to be the way Canadian public opinion lines up on the issue, and you can be damn sure the Conservative government knew it.

[NotMiki]

I'll take your word for it.  Even so, one of the articles points out that this is the second time the Justice Department intervened in a gay marriage validity case in the past few months.  The first one was to say that UK civil unions, which are treated as mariages under UK law, should not be treated as marriages under Canada law.  A narrower issue, but the fact that both cases got brought means, at the very least, that if Harper didn't want gay marriage to be an issue, the higher-ups in the Justice Department - who I assure you oversee the novel legal positions staff attorneys take as a matter of course - didn't get the memo.

[metroid composite]

the higher-ups in the Justice Department - who I assure you oversee the novel legal positions staff attorneys take as a matter of course - didn't get the memo.

You know, I have relatives who work in the government of Canada.  From the stories they tell, a memo being missed would not surprise me at all.

The normal operation is that the bureau side of the government operates as an autonomous unit.  Yes, they are answerable to the elected minister, but only if the minister decides to get involved.  If they don't, then it's just business as usual.  And to give Harper credit, apparently his government actually does manage and intervene (whereas the Liberals were much more too busy being...narcissists, I guess?)  Where any ruling party will get involved is if there's a big scandal on the news; then suddenly government representatives or their aides are showing up in bureau meetings, doing whatever they can to put out the fire.

And as you might expect, there are weaknesses in this system.  For instance, a news story gets run on a First Nations tribe that is dirt poor, can barely afford food, and the children are all sniffing glue.  Suddenly that tribe gets lots of funding allocated to it by the order of the minister.  But the three nearby tribes who have never had a news camera set foot on their tribal lands continue to be dirt poor and get little federal funding, or even have their funding reduced to give more money to the tribe that's in the news.  I wish I was exaggerating.

So...it doesn't surprise me that there would be things going across the Justice department's desk that the elected officials were not aware of.  Nor does it really alarm me that a politician probably wasn't involved or aware until recently--politician involvement is not always a net positive, because they care only about public image.

[metroid composite]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/jon-huntsman-mitt-romney_n_1208113.html

Damnit, Huntsman.  I thought you were cool

[SnowFire]

Huntsman ran out of money and staked everything on doing well in the New Hampshire primary...  which he did okay in, but not enough to keep at it.  What exactly did you expect?  Given that Huntsman was going to stop running, pretty much all members of the party are going to be expected to "endorse" and speak nice things about whoever the candidate is.  Why not gain a few points with Romney and endorse now?  (Okay, if he thought somebody else might win, you can argue he should endorse them, but seriously, from a left perspective, you'd surely lose *more* respect for a Gingrich or Santorum endorsement.)  I consider being a good politician an asset, largely, so yeah, not blaming him at all for that.

I hope that Huntsman doesn't lose all his stock among Republicans, and this will help keep him a "good Republican."  (Since I'd be fine with him being, say, president in 2016 if the Democrats nominate a lamer then, assuming Obama defeats Romney in 2012.  Alternatively, if Romney wins, there are certainly worse people to stick in the Cabinet than Huntsman.)

[metroid composite]

Hmm...yeah, you're right about pretty much everything.  Jon Huntsman is back to being cool in my books.

[superaielman]

Why would you as a pretty left of center type much like Huntsman? He's pretty dovish, but other than that he's pretty hard right of center. Suppose I can see the appeal of his willingness to call out the more extreme parts of the republican base for the anti science stuff, but eh.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I dunno, I'm pretty left-wing by US standards but I think Huntsman is pretty cool. "Pretty dovish" + "somehow more tolerable on gay rights than most of the candidates" + "calls out the party on their anti-science bullshit" (especially this) is a decent mix. Some of this is just low standards but yeah.

[Cotigo]

Considering who they're fielding, your options are... like Ron Paul or like John Huntsman, if you have to like anybody.

Huntsman's the obvious choice unless you're fucking crazy.

Though this would be partially solved by them taking Gary Johnson at all seriously.  He's too libertarian for my tastes in the end (One of the things I remember from my childhood when he was governor of NM was his solution to the public education problem was a voucher program to help parents afford for private schools instead of... just... allocating the money used toward those vouchers to better fund public schools.  Idiotic), but a lot better than the current field by half.

[superaielman]

Gary Johnson's running as a libertarian, I believe. He is oceans better than  Bob fucking Barr and is likely getting my vote for president.

[NotMiki]

Huntsman's positions are extremely right-wing for the most part, but for my money he wins the "Republican candidate I'd most trust with a gigantic arsenal of nukes" contest by oh wait it isn't even a contest.

[metroid composite]

I dunno, I'm pretty left-wing by US standards but I think Huntsman is pretty cool. "Pretty dovish" + "somehow more tolerable on gay rights than most of the candidates" + "calls out the party on their anti-science bullshit" (especially this) is a decent mix. Some of this is just low standards but yeah.

Not to mention...remember the Obama+Boehner compromise during the debt ceiling?  The bill that was much better than the one we eventually got--that cut deeper into the deficit, had a combination of spending cuts and tax increases?  Not to mention, the bill that really should have been taken just to prevent a downgrade in US credit rating?

Yeah, Huntsman was the only one of the current nominees who actually supported that bill and voted for it.

I mean...of the other nominees, I can forgive Ron Paul, because that's just his flavour of insanity (he votes against any bill with a tax increase I think--which is phenomenally dumb of course, but he has policies in other areas that I do like).

Everyone else obviously hates cooperation and likes making the US look bad internationally.  Basically the other five candidates are the arm of the Republican party which I never want to see in power, ever.

[Pyro]

Yeah, Huntsman was the only one of the current nominees who actually supported that bill and voted for it.

He wasn't in any position to vote for it, as it never came up to a vote.

As far as Jon Huntsman goes, his social stances are satisfactorily moderate, and he isn't liable to go off charging into war with China or anything, but his economic and tax policy is even more regressive than Romney's (i.e. the poor/middle class take on more pain/a larger price to attempt to close the deficit). Course all conservative economic policies deserve a good mocking laugh followed by a shotgun to the head, but still.

As far as the credit downgrade goes... does it even matter? Have you seen US borrowing costs? We aren't Greece, and everytime someone says we are you need to remember the differences between us are the reasons why they borrow at... 30% and we borrow at... 1.8%

It's likely to stay that way until the economy picks up again, too.

[NotMiki]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/4138?ref=fpblg

Ok Perry, joke's over.  Get the fuck out of my country.

[metroid composite]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/01/supreme-court-rules-congress-can-re-copyright-public-domain-works.ars

More copyrights.  Just what we needed!