In regard to that lunatic T****'s constant bullshit about dishwashers, I guarantee you, he's never used one in his entire over privileged useless life! He wouldn't know to scrape the bones & other detritus off of the plates first before putting them in the racks. He wouldn't know how to put the silverware in the baskets for them. He would put the sharp cutting knives in there, even though most manufacturers tell you to hand wash them. But then he's never hand washed a dish or knife in his entire rotten life!
If his shower heads weren't delivering enough water, he'd have ordered his maintenance people to remove the flow restrictors, which are just a washer with a tiny hole for the water to go through, it's easy to pop out, or modify the shower head to give more water, which I have done for myself & others. Because he wouldn't know how to do that! I've drilled out the part of several shower heads over the years. The plastic ones are easy, but drilling brass is a pain, because brass should have twist drill bits ground at a specific angle & standard twist drill bits are ground for steel or aluminum.
Keep something else in mind. I'm not even sure what he's talking about, an interesting point when MAGAs constantly refer to senile Joe. But if he is talking about the evils of limiting water, perhaps he should try living either in a poor place where plumbing saw its best days a century ago. Or he he could try a place where water is running out. Take his palace in Florida and put in one of the locales out west where they have water restrictions and listen to him gripe about how un-American water restrictions are. Good Lord, you just have to water your lawn when some are worried about water to bathe or drink. But I am using my own personal observations since I'm not sure what senile Don was talking about.
Re: Gay marriage opinion poll. I agree with EZ on the issue. I find interesting and puzzling the change in opinion. An opinion poll swinging by 9 points is enormous. While "Republicans" is not a static group, it is such a large change that, if it is not a fluke reading, indicates that some individuals have changed their minds. I don't think people change their minds on issues about values or social norms quickly. Through the 90's, 2000's and 2010's acceptability of gay marriage and open expression of homosexual orientation gradually increased. So why the sudden change?
I'm not surprised. The intense attack on all things related to gays, including library books, Disney World, school boards freaking out over possible "grooming", etc. the ultimate Republican goal is to outlaw gay marriage again.
Because MAGA has "normalised" hatred of The Other and worked hard to stigmatise gays? They came for women and trans people, they are coming for gay marriage and the rule of law, do not be surprised if they come after you.
In case you think they aren't coming for you .... by the way, these 'liberty-loving' folk want to label teachers and librarians who share 'pornography' (as defined) as "SEX OFFENDERS."
ACLU Press Release:
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina regulation that would enable mass censorship of books in school classrooms and libraries is set for automatic approval tomorrow, June 25th.
Titled “Uniform Procedure for Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials,” this regulation was crafted by Ellen Weaver’s South Carolina Department of Education and sets a statewide policy banning books that contain descriptions of “sexual conduct” and “excretory functions.” This broad definition could be used to remove a vast range of literature from South Carolina schools, including classics like The Canterbury Tales, 20th-century masterpieces like 1984, and even children’s books like Everyone Poops.
“Superintendent Weaver is seeking to hand unprecedented power to pro-censorship groups, overriding students’ freedom to read as well as parents’ right to direct their own children’s education,” said Josh Malkin, advocacy director at ACLU of South Carolina. “At a time when we can’t afford to lose more educators, the superintendent’s book banning policy would place mountains of paperwork and a threat of punishment on the backs of public school teachers and librarians. We’re calling on the superintendent to walk back this dangerous and draconian regulation.”
This broad-reaching policy is set to take effect automatically, despite the fact that it was not debated or voted upon by either the state Senate or House as process typically dictates. School districts can decide if this policy applies retroactively, however it is automatic going forward. Librarians have been left without guidance as to how to go forward with future purchases, and there’s worry that the districts that decide to defend books will be flooded with challenges. A similar policy in Iowa, for example, has already led to the removal of books including Native Son, Ulysses, and The Color Purple from schools.
Over the past year, pro-censorship organizations have tried banning books in bulk via local school boards in at least a dozen counties, but they have largely been thwarted when districts listened to parents, teachers, and librarians who actually read the books. As the ACLU of South Carolina has repeatedly explained, the regulation would undermine parental rights and harm public education by throwing open the floodgates for mass book bans by encouraging self-appointed censors to impose their beliefs on all South Carolinians via appeals to the State Board of Education.
South Carolina’s regulation is part of a troubling nationwide book ban trend. The American Library Association recently documented that in 2023, 4,240 unique book titles were targeted for censorship, and there were over 1,247 demands to censor library books, materials, and resources.
The ACLU and ACLU of South Carolina will continue to fight for a public education system where all students can see themselves, their experiences, and their histories reflected on library shelves — as well as where they can learn to think for themselves.
What you are saying is that Republicans and in particular, MAGAs, are embracing hypocrisy and totalitarianism. They want parents to have more say over what their children see and read. But they want to dictate to parents just what is allowed. They claim to believe in the way America does things. But that apparently does not include democracy where people can decide on their own religious beliefs and how to act. They keep referring to historical actions and documents to defend what they want to do. But they want to limit what history students can learn. More examples are plenty.
Why the sudden change on gay marriage? First, activists on both sides tend to be more motivated when out of power. Gay rights gained huge momentum during the Bush years, and anti-racism during the Trump years. Also, the answer lies in another piece mentioned in PS today: "Omnicause". Fighting for too many worthy causes can create animosity and be counterproductive. "Woke" and "BLM" went from narrowly focused causes to including many others. Those opposed to portions of one start to lump them together. "Pretending every cause is every other cause gives fuel to the view that there's a conspiracy to take over your life."
How many people do you know who changed their mind on topic where there is no new data, but only some noise?
Barack Obama changed his stated opinion on gay marriage between 2008 and 2012, but then it is easy to see how giving a certain answer at either time was calculated to support a political agenda. But that would not apply to people responding to a Gallup poll.
>>>Barack Obama was for legalizing gay marriage before he was undecided about it.
Then he was undecided about gay marriage until, as a matter of political strategy, he opposed it.
Then he opposed gay marriage as a matter of political strategy until he opposed it for religious reasons.
Then he opposed gay marriage for religious reasons until he explained that it should be a states’ rights issue.
And now Obama is signaling that it’s only a matter of time — a few more persuasive public opinion polls, perhaps — until he completes his 15-year cycle through the wilderness of cynicism, opportunism and cowardice, and once again declares his support for gay marriage.
It began in February 1996. Obama, then a candidate for the state Senate from a liberal South Side district, responded with a signed letter to an endorsement questionnaire from Outlines, a gay monthly based on the North Side. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” he said. In his response to questions from IMPACT, a local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political-action committee, Obama wrote, “I would support (a pro gay-marriage) resolution.”
But in October 1998, then-incumbent state Sen. Barack Obama filled out another questionnaire from Outlines: “Do you favor same-sex marriage?” it asked. “Would you support a bill to repeal Illinois’ legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? Would you co-sponsor it?”
To each question, Obama answered “undecided.”
During the 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate primary campaign, Obama announced he was opposed to marriage equality. In a lengthy interview with Windy City Times (which merged with Outlines in 2000) he told publisher Tracy Baim, “I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. … (If) Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.”
Wink, wink, in other words. Seems like Obama is saying: “I’m with you, but if I get too far out ahead of the public on this, it will backfire on me as well as gays and lesbians.”
Given Obama’s otherwise strong views favoring gay rights, many activists chose to see this as pragmatism rather than equivocation. But then, during the general election, he added a religious gloss to his opposition that Baim said deeply troubled some of Obama’s LGBT supporters.
“I’m a Christian,” Obama said in a WBBM-AM 780 interview in September 2004. “And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” In August 2008, when he was running for president, he added to this sentiment: “God’s in the mix.”
But this belief of his was so weak that he aligned himself with the pro-gay-marriage side in California’s famous Proposition 8 referendum measure banning same-sex marriage, and recently hailed the legalization of gay marriage in New York as “a good thing.” He said his “feelings are constantly evolving” on gay marriage, and indicated the issue should be left up to the states, not the federal government.
“He’s a constitutional lawyer, he knows better,” said Baim, whose 2010 book, “Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage,” thoroughly documented this uneasy alliance. “There are too many federal rights involved in marriage for it to be a state-by-state issue. Once again, he’s just parsing his words.”
Why? Perhaps because public approval of gay marriage tends to be weaker in next year’s battleground states compared with the country as a whole, where recent polling suggests a slight majority now supports the idea. Perhaps because support for gay marriage still lags among African-American voters, who supported Obama overwhelmingly in 2004.
However, all this humbug and hand-waving underscores doubts about his authenticity and is draining the enthusiasm of his ardent backers on the left. Meanwhile, those who stoutly oppose gay marriage aren’t fooled for a second that he’s on their side.
Marriage equality supporters have lately taken to wearing buttons that read “Evolve, already.” What these buttons should say is “Revolve, already: Circle back to 1996.”>>>
Thank you. I had no idea the history went back that far. But then Obama was the the first politician to say one thing while believing something different.
As Omar Little said, "It's all in the game"
I do think that many people became comfortable with gay romance and gay marriage starting in the 90's, and pop culture was a contributing factor. I don't have data to back it up, but my unscientific perception of acceptability of gay marriage was a gradual increase in the 70's then a set back in the 80's and then a gradual increase starting the the 90's. At the very least the portrayal of gay people on TV matches this pattern.
So people do change their minds, but such a large change in a short period of time is suspect.
Crimo: Going solely by the comments about the courtroom - some stated he surveyed the room before saying 'no' to the plea deal. Supposedly taking the moment to enjoy the attention his act made. We can't know what he was thinking but it sounds most heinous. Page: I sadly don't have as much Clarence Page in my life as I used to. His writing made you think and rarely offend - but whether you agreed or not - provided a solid POV. Adverbs: Listening to news stories the use of words "perhaps, arguably, might, implies, etc" are used to throw out an idea or POV without committing or defining the statements. Hawk Tuah: Where's the proud parent interview?
why do her parents have to be dragged into this? She's an adult, or at presumably old enough to be responsible for her own actions. That Hawk Tauh has gone viral shows that almost everyone knows what she's talking about.
It's much better than 'Cash me outside' girl from a few years ago.
Crimo... It's no surprise to me that he went back on the plea. Considering the calculated way that he committed his crime, inflicting the most damage in the most public and devastating way, reversing in front of the families continues his plan. He knows the horrors he faces in prison and wants to continue to hurt the victims and their families. But as sure as the sun rose this morning, his day will come. His day will come!
EZ - Decent crop of TotWs today, but the bear/people overlap is by far, the best.
Wonderful story by Mary Schmich about Ann Lurie. What a wonderful woman. I'm proud that my daughter works in the hospital that bears her name.
Let me remind you that if Trump backs out of tonight's debates (which I still think he will), I predicted that last week as well.
SCOTUS's ruling on "gratuities" is utter codswallop. I'm thinking that Thomas and Alito are looking to justify their corrupt behavior, among other things.
Loved the quote about swapping out the 10 Commandments for free lunches - a completely hypocritical, un-Christian an act by those professing to be followers of Christ.
I only got 5 out of 10 on the Chicago TC History quiz - but I didn't move to Chicago until 1987, so I thought I did pretty well. It appeared to me that the ones I got incorrect were before my time in Chicago.
I'll never understand the opposition to gay relationships at all either. And now the Republinuts have brought back the old tropes I remember from high school in the 80s, that gay people are pedophiles grooming your children. What disgusting bigotry. I see them bringing back the word "faggot" before too long.
HEY EZ, is there some reason why you can’t get .25 to display as .250 (i.a.) in your Sox Ignominy chart? If you need a quick refresher on formatting in Excel, please give me a shout.
Robert Crimo III seems like the worst kind of human being among us. Maybe the option of the death penalty at trial would have encouraged him to plead guilty and go quietly to his cell.
I think it may have. I think overly broad application and the unintended consequences of having a death penalty make it a bad public policy. But having it as an option did provide some benefits.
This case really challenges my strong aversion to the death penalty. But, I’d like to think that we can devise ways to prevent this kind of pre-trial victim abuse without bringing back a punishment that destroys innocent lives.
Well, I think that is certainly true, the other side of that coin is that there have been times where innocent people have pleaded guilty because they were so afraid of the death penalty.
“ Press watchdog Dan Froomkin says the network’s declaration that it won’t fact-check the debate in real time signals Trump that “he can lie without the threat of consequences”—and means Biden will have to burn up his own time to refute Trump’s malarkey.”
When your debate opponent spouts malarkey, that’s your opportunity to put a stake in him. Not something to outsource to observers. Biden’s got to be hoping that Trump spouts some BS. He can use Reagan’s line: “there you go again” while picking it to pieces.
Just read that CNN says no, the mode3rators will help Biden out, essentially. Just want to ask who fact-checks Biden? He tells some BIG whoppers as well!
Salute to reader Michael M. for remembering Mike Royko’s 1996 column re Dan Rostenkowdki’s sentencing! Without looking it up, I think Rostenkowski got nabbed for using the Congressional postage machine for sending materials to constituents that could be considered campaign materials? That’s what I recall, as opposed to bribes/extortion. That insight of Royko’s—that the rules kept changing, Rostenkowski didn’t—was one of the reasons people loved reading him. Nobody expected that take out of him. But I remember reading somewhere someone asking Royko whether he would do anything different in covering Daley, and he said he would have tried to be a little more understanding of Daley basically. The sort of thing I think that comes to you as you get older and can see the gray better between the black and white. Still, here’s why I feel sorry for Ald Burke on a personal level, but not politically: He had decades to understand things had changed. He had almost 20 years since watching Rostenkowski go to jail, alone. Burke knew exactly what he was doing.
I liked the segment from Bananas. Woody Allen made some good movies that are still worth watching. Of course, you have to be able to separate the art from the artist to do so.
Well …. Ronan Farrow generated a very harsh indictment.
The Soon Yi thing was creepy but not illegal and the fact that they are still together all these years later, and suggests that there was genuine love between them.
Soon Yi thing was MORE than creepy! This is a stray thought -- I wonder if women more than men think it's creepy/creepier? Lynne Allen Taylor, I think you might be with me!
It is creepy, but given her background, it’s not hard to understand. When one considers the extremely weird and wacky dysfunctional familial culture that she was brought up in (which included escalating emotional and physical abuse from her mother), the idea of getting romantically involved with mom’s boyfriend has a certain logic to it, if nothing else, as a kind of revenge. Probably not the course that a therapist would recommend, but there you have it.
In any case, they’ve been married for 26 years, and by all accounts, the marriage has been a happy and successful one, so I say good for them. It would be difficult to think of something that more perfectly fits the definition of “no one else’s business but their own”.
All this talk about Woody Allen inspired me to watch the documentary Allen vs Farrow. Woody Allen certainly seems to be a sexual predator according to that documentary.
Who exactly was his “prey”? The grown woman who began dating him at age 21, married him and adopted a couple of daughters with him? That’s one awfully unorthodox concept of a “victim”, is it not?
That documentary you watched was an orchestrated hit job, concocted and carried out by the Farrows (one critic noted that a more honest title would have been “Mia’s Story”). It has about as much credibility as a Koch brothers documentary that promotes climate denial.
I think Ronan Farrow’s personal stake in this matter kind of mitigates the harshness of his indictment. He’s gotten a lot of plaudits for his journalistic chops, which are probably deserved, but those plaudits don’t give him instant credibility on any and every pronouncement that he makes, especially when his own personal investment is so evident. A cursory examination of his background reveals an uncommonly taut, apron strung mama’s boy who was the recipient of extreme maternal favoritism, and was rigorously coached (brainwashed, probably more like it) by his mother from age three into believing that his father was a monster. That is why this widely renowned journalist has no compunctions about going around perpetuating a long discredited child molestation accusation against Allen.
In regard to that lunatic T****'s constant bullshit about dishwashers, I guarantee you, he's never used one in his entire over privileged useless life! He wouldn't know to scrape the bones & other detritus off of the plates first before putting them in the racks. He wouldn't know how to put the silverware in the baskets for them. He would put the sharp cutting knives in there, even though most manufacturers tell you to hand wash them. But then he's never hand washed a dish or knife in his entire rotten life!
If his shower heads weren't delivering enough water, he'd have ordered his maintenance people to remove the flow restrictors, which are just a washer with a tiny hole for the water to go through, it's easy to pop out, or modify the shower head to give more water, which I have done for myself & others. Because he wouldn't know how to do that! I've drilled out the part of several shower heads over the years. The plastic ones are easy, but drilling brass is a pain, because brass should have twist drill bits ground at a specific angle & standard twist drill bits are ground for steel or aluminum.
Keep something else in mind. I'm not even sure what he's talking about, an interesting point when MAGAs constantly refer to senile Joe. But if he is talking about the evils of limiting water, perhaps he should try living either in a poor place where plumbing saw its best days a century ago. Or he he could try a place where water is running out. Take his palace in Florida and put in one of the locales out west where they have water restrictions and listen to him gripe about how un-American water restrictions are. Good Lord, you just have to water your lawn when some are worried about water to bathe or drink. But I am using my own personal observations since I'm not sure what senile Don was talking about.
I don't believe it's just senility, he's also totally insane!
The only question is what kind of senility; Alzheimer's, fronto-temporal lobe, Lewy bodies or tertiary syphilis?
I'm guessing the last one! The same thing that killed Al Capone, who he mentions a lot, I wonder why?
Re: Gay marriage opinion poll. I agree with EZ on the issue. I find interesting and puzzling the change in opinion. An opinion poll swinging by 9 points is enormous. While "Republicans" is not a static group, it is such a large change that, if it is not a fluke reading, indicates that some individuals have changed their minds. I don't think people change their minds on issues about values or social norms quickly. Through the 90's, 2000's and 2010's acceptability of gay marriage and open expression of homosexual orientation gradually increased. So why the sudden change?
I'm not surprised. The intense attack on all things related to gays, including library books, Disney World, school boards freaking out over possible "grooming", etc. the ultimate Republican goal is to outlaw gay marriage again.
Because MAGA has "normalised" hatred of The Other and worked hard to stigmatise gays? They came for women and trans people, they are coming for gay marriage and the rule of law, do not be surprised if they come after you.
In case you think they aren't coming for you .... by the way, these 'liberty-loving' folk want to label teachers and librarians who share 'pornography' (as defined) as "SEX OFFENDERS."
ACLU Press Release:
COLUMBIA, S.C. — A South Carolina regulation that would enable mass censorship of books in school classrooms and libraries is set for automatic approval tomorrow, June 25th.
Titled “Uniform Procedure for Selection or Reconsideration of Instructional Materials,” this regulation was crafted by Ellen Weaver’s South Carolina Department of Education and sets a statewide policy banning books that contain descriptions of “sexual conduct” and “excretory functions.” This broad definition could be used to remove a vast range of literature from South Carolina schools, including classics like The Canterbury Tales, 20th-century masterpieces like 1984, and even children’s books like Everyone Poops.
“Superintendent Weaver is seeking to hand unprecedented power to pro-censorship groups, overriding students’ freedom to read as well as parents’ right to direct their own children’s education,” said Josh Malkin, advocacy director at ACLU of South Carolina. “At a time when we can’t afford to lose more educators, the superintendent’s book banning policy would place mountains of paperwork and a threat of punishment on the backs of public school teachers and librarians. We’re calling on the superintendent to walk back this dangerous and draconian regulation.”
This broad-reaching policy is set to take effect automatically, despite the fact that it was not debated or voted upon by either the state Senate or House as process typically dictates. School districts can decide if this policy applies retroactively, however it is automatic going forward. Librarians have been left without guidance as to how to go forward with future purchases, and there’s worry that the districts that decide to defend books will be flooded with challenges. A similar policy in Iowa, for example, has already led to the removal of books including Native Son, Ulysses, and The Color Purple from schools.
Over the past year, pro-censorship organizations have tried banning books in bulk via local school boards in at least a dozen counties, but they have largely been thwarted when districts listened to parents, teachers, and librarians who actually read the books. As the ACLU of South Carolina has repeatedly explained, the regulation would undermine parental rights and harm public education by throwing open the floodgates for mass book bans by encouraging self-appointed censors to impose their beliefs on all South Carolinians via appeals to the State Board of Education.
South Carolina’s regulation is part of a troubling nationwide book ban trend. The American Library Association recently documented that in 2023, 4,240 unique book titles were targeted for censorship, and there were over 1,247 demands to censor library books, materials, and resources.
The ACLU and ACLU of South Carolina will continue to fight for a public education system where all students can see themselves, their experiences, and their histories reflected on library shelves — as well as where they can learn to think for themselves.
What you are saying is that Republicans and in particular, MAGAs, are embracing hypocrisy and totalitarianism. They want parents to have more say over what their children see and read. But they want to dictate to parents just what is allowed. They claim to believe in the way America does things. But that apparently does not include democracy where people can decide on their own religious beliefs and how to act. They keep referring to historical actions and documents to defend what they want to do. But they want to limit what history students can learn. More examples are plenty.
Why the sudden change on gay marriage? First, activists on both sides tend to be more motivated when out of power. Gay rights gained huge momentum during the Bush years, and anti-racism during the Trump years. Also, the answer lies in another piece mentioned in PS today: "Omnicause". Fighting for too many worthy causes can create animosity and be counterproductive. "Woke" and "BLM" went from narrowly focused causes to including many others. Those opposed to portions of one start to lump them together. "Pretending every cause is every other cause gives fuel to the view that there's a conspiracy to take over your life."
How many people do you know who changed their mind on topic where there is no new data, but only some noise?
Barack Obama changed his stated opinion on gay marriage between 2008 and 2012, but then it is easy to see how giving a certain answer at either time was calculated to support a political agenda. But that would not apply to people responding to a Gallup poll.
Yes! And I called Obama out on this in 2011 in a column headlined, "Time for Obama to complete his 360 on gay marriage" https://www.chicagotribune.com/2011/07/06/time-for-obama-to-complete-his-360-on-gay-marriage/
>>>Barack Obama was for legalizing gay marriage before he was undecided about it.
Then he was undecided about gay marriage until, as a matter of political strategy, he opposed it.
Then he opposed gay marriage as a matter of political strategy until he opposed it for religious reasons.
Then he opposed gay marriage for religious reasons until he explained that it should be a states’ rights issue.
And now Obama is signaling that it’s only a matter of time — a few more persuasive public opinion polls, perhaps — until he completes his 15-year cycle through the wilderness of cynicism, opportunism and cowardice, and once again declares his support for gay marriage.
It began in February 1996. Obama, then a candidate for the state Senate from a liberal South Side district, responded with a signed letter to an endorsement questionnaire from Outlines, a gay monthly based on the North Side. “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” he said. In his response to questions from IMPACT, a local lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political-action committee, Obama wrote, “I would support (a pro gay-marriage) resolution.”
But in October 1998, then-incumbent state Sen. Barack Obama filled out another questionnaire from Outlines: “Do you favor same-sex marriage?” it asked. “Would you support a bill to repeal Illinois’ legislation prohibiting same-sex marriage? Would you co-sponsor it?”
To each question, Obama answered “undecided.”
During the 2004 Democratic U.S. Senate primary campaign, Obama announced he was opposed to marriage equality. In a lengthy interview with Windy City Times (which merged with Outlines in 2000) he told publisher Tracy Baim, “I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. … (If) Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.”
Wink, wink, in other words. Seems like Obama is saying: “I’m with you, but if I get too far out ahead of the public on this, it will backfire on me as well as gays and lesbians.”
Given Obama’s otherwise strong views favoring gay rights, many activists chose to see this as pragmatism rather than equivocation. But then, during the general election, he added a religious gloss to his opposition that Baim said deeply troubled some of Obama’s LGBT supporters.
“I’m a Christian,” Obama said in a WBBM-AM 780 interview in September 2004. “And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs, say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” In August 2008, when he was running for president, he added to this sentiment: “God’s in the mix.”
But this belief of his was so weak that he aligned himself with the pro-gay-marriage side in California’s famous Proposition 8 referendum measure banning same-sex marriage, and recently hailed the legalization of gay marriage in New York as “a good thing.” He said his “feelings are constantly evolving” on gay marriage, and indicated the issue should be left up to the states, not the federal government.
“He’s a constitutional lawyer, he knows better,” said Baim, whose 2010 book, “Obama and the Gays: A Political Marriage,” thoroughly documented this uneasy alliance. “There are too many federal rights involved in marriage for it to be a state-by-state issue. Once again, he’s just parsing his words.”
Why? Perhaps because public approval of gay marriage tends to be weaker in next year’s battleground states compared with the country as a whole, where recent polling suggests a slight majority now supports the idea. Perhaps because support for gay marriage still lags among African-American voters, who supported Obama overwhelmingly in 2004.
However, all this humbug and hand-waving underscores doubts about his authenticity and is draining the enthusiasm of his ardent backers on the left. Meanwhile, those who stoutly oppose gay marriage aren’t fooled for a second that he’s on their side.
Marriage equality supporters have lately taken to wearing buttons that read “Evolve, already.” What these buttons should say is “Revolve, already: Circle back to 1996.”>>>
Thank you. I had no idea the history went back that far. But then Obama was the the first politician to say one thing while believing something different.
As Omar Little said, "It's all in the game"
I do think that many people became comfortable with gay romance and gay marriage starting in the 90's, and pop culture was a contributing factor. I don't have data to back it up, but my unscientific perception of acceptability of gay marriage was a gradual increase in the 70's then a set back in the 80's and then a gradual increase starting the the 90's. At the very least the portrayal of gay people on TV matches this pattern.
So people do change their minds, but such a large change in a short period of time is suspect.
Crimo: Going solely by the comments about the courtroom - some stated he surveyed the room before saying 'no' to the plea deal. Supposedly taking the moment to enjoy the attention his act made. We can't know what he was thinking but it sounds most heinous. Page: I sadly don't have as much Clarence Page in my life as I used to. His writing made you think and rarely offend - but whether you agreed or not - provided a solid POV. Adverbs: Listening to news stories the use of words "perhaps, arguably, might, implies, etc" are used to throw out an idea or POV without committing or defining the statements. Hawk Tuah: Where's the proud parent interview?
why do her parents have to be dragged into this? She's an adult, or at presumably old enough to be responsible for her own actions. That Hawk Tauh has gone viral shows that almost everyone knows what she's talking about.
It's much better than 'Cash me outside' girl from a few years ago.
Crimo... It's no surprise to me that he went back on the plea. Considering the calculated way that he committed his crime, inflicting the most damage in the most public and devastating way, reversing in front of the families continues his plan. He knows the horrors he faces in prison and wants to continue to hurt the victims and their families. But as sure as the sun rose this morning, his day will come. His day will come!
EZ - Decent crop of TotWs today, but the bear/people overlap is by far, the best.
Wonderful story by Mary Schmich about Ann Lurie. What a wonderful woman. I'm proud that my daughter works in the hospital that bears her name.
Let me remind you that if Trump backs out of tonight's debates (which I still think he will), I predicted that last week as well.
SCOTUS's ruling on "gratuities" is utter codswallop. I'm thinking that Thomas and Alito are looking to justify their corrupt behavior, among other things.
Loved the quote about swapping out the 10 Commandments for free lunches - a completely hypocritical, un-Christian an act by those professing to be followers of Christ.
I only got 5 out of 10 on the Chicago TC History quiz - but I didn't move to Chicago until 1987, so I thought I did pretty well. It appeared to me that the ones I got incorrect were before my time in Chicago.
I'll never understand the opposition to gay relationships at all either. And now the Republinuts have brought back the old tropes I remember from high school in the 80s, that gay people are pedophiles grooming your children. What disgusting bigotry. I see them bringing back the word "faggot" before too long.
It’s hard to believe that those letters to Ask Any weren’t pulling her leg. She’s acknowledged it’s happened with some other published letters.
HEY EZ, is there some reason why you can’t get .25 to display as .250 (i.a.) in your Sox Ignominy chart? If you need a quick refresher on formatting in Excel, please give me a shout.
Will journalists continue to tergiversate by using weasel words like "perhaps, arguably, might, implies, etc"? Only time will tell.
Possibly.
Robert Crimo III seems like the worst kind of human being among us. Maybe the option of the death penalty at trial would have encouraged him to plead guilty and go quietly to his cell.
I think it may have. I think overly broad application and the unintended consequences of having a death penalty make it a bad public policy. But having it as an option did provide some benefits.
This case really challenges my strong aversion to the death penalty. But, I’d like to think that we can devise ways to prevent this kind of pre-trial victim abuse without bringing back a punishment that destroys innocent lives.
Well, I think that is certainly true, the other side of that coin is that there have been times where innocent people have pleaded guilty because they were so afraid of the death penalty.
I agree 100% on the autonomy of consenting people to form couples. But I think you misfiled this issue under “gender identity.”
Tied Eric with 8/10 on the Chicago TV quiz aided, as he said, by some lucky guesses (and some reasoning on items I didn’t really know).
“ Press watchdog Dan Froomkin says the network’s declaration that it won’t fact-check the debate in real time signals Trump that “he can lie without the threat of consequences”—and means Biden will have to burn up his own time to refute Trump’s malarkey.”
When your debate opponent spouts malarkey, that’s your opportunity to put a stake in him. Not something to outsource to observers. Biden’s got to be hoping that Trump spouts some BS. He can use Reagan’s line: “there you go again” while picking it to pieces.
Just read that CNN says no, the mode3rators will help Biden out, essentially. Just want to ask who fact-checks Biden? He tells some BIG whoppers as well!
“Experts say these words, along with vague citations to unnamed experts and insiders, should maybe jump out at the reader.”
Genuine LOL! I’ve heard it said.
Salute to reader Michael M. for remembering Mike Royko’s 1996 column re Dan Rostenkowdki’s sentencing! Without looking it up, I think Rostenkowski got nabbed for using the Congressional postage machine for sending materials to constituents that could be considered campaign materials? That’s what I recall, as opposed to bribes/extortion. That insight of Royko’s—that the rules kept changing, Rostenkowski didn’t—was one of the reasons people loved reading him. Nobody expected that take out of him. But I remember reading somewhere someone asking Royko whether he would do anything different in covering Daley, and he said he would have tried to be a little more understanding of Daley basically. The sort of thing I think that comes to you as you get older and can see the gray better between the black and white. Still, here’s why I feel sorry for Ald Burke on a personal level, but not politically: He had decades to understand things had changed. He had almost 20 years since watching Rostenkowski go to jail, alone. Burke knew exactly what he was doing.
I liked the segment from Bananas. Woody Allen made some good movies that are still worth watching. Of course, you have to be able to separate the art from the artist to do so.
I have no problem with Woody Allen as a person, because most of the bad stuff that was said about him were lies from Mia Farrow.
Well …. Ronan Farrow generated a very harsh indictment.
The Soon Yi thing was creepy but not illegal and the fact that they are still together all these years later, and suggests that there was genuine love between them.
"Manhattan" wasn't illegal but it was pretty darn creepy. Much as I love "Broadway Danny Rose," I think Woody is pretty creepy in general.
Soon Yi thing was MORE than creepy! This is a stray thought -- I wonder if women more than men think it's creepy/creepier? Lynne Allen Taylor, I think you might be with me!
I’m pretty sure Soon Yi is a woman, and at the end of the day, her opinion is the only one that matters.
Marrying your Mom’s former sexual partner who is the father of your brother seems pretty creepy to me. Just sayin’.
It is creepy, but given her background, it’s not hard to understand. When one considers the extremely weird and wacky dysfunctional familial culture that she was brought up in (which included escalating emotional and physical abuse from her mother), the idea of getting romantically involved with mom’s boyfriend has a certain logic to it, if nothing else, as a kind of revenge. Probably not the course that a therapist would recommend, but there you have it.
In any case, they’ve been married for 26 years, and by all accounts, the marriage has been a happy and successful one, so I say good for them. It would be difficult to think of something that more perfectly fits the definition of “no one else’s business but their own”.
All this talk about Woody Allen inspired me to watch the documentary Allen vs Farrow. Woody Allen certainly seems to be a sexual predator according to that documentary.
Who exactly was his “prey”? The grown woman who began dating him at age 21, married him and adopted a couple of daughters with him? That’s one awfully unorthodox concept of a “victim”, is it not?
That documentary you watched was an orchestrated hit job, concocted and carried out by the Farrows (one critic noted that a more honest title would have been “Mia’s Story”). It has about as much credibility as a Koch brothers documentary that promotes climate denial.
I think Ronan Farrow’s personal stake in this matter kind of mitigates the harshness of his indictment. He’s gotten a lot of plaudits for his journalistic chops, which are probably deserved, but those plaudits don’t give him instant credibility on any and every pronouncement that he makes, especially when his own personal investment is so evident. A cursory examination of his background reveals an uncommonly taut, apron strung mama’s boy who was the recipient of extreme maternal favoritism, and was rigorously coached (brainwashed, probably more like it) by his mother from age three into believing that his father was a monster. That is why this widely renowned journalist has no compunctions about going around perpetuating a long discredited child molestation accusation against Allen.