Category Archives: Random Blogging

“Morality” Policies and Political Realities

In Indiana, I cannot buy wine (or any kind of liquor) if I go to Costco or my local grocery on Sunday. Since–like most women in America today–I work during the week, Sunday is my preferred day to shop. Thanks to the Indiana legislature’s determination to protect my morals and their pocketbooks, I have the choice of making an extra trip, or changing my preferred shopping day, in order to buy wine.

As a matter of public policy, this is insane. I do not drink less because of this policy (actually, being a woman of a “certain” age, I pretty much limit my imbibing to one glass of red wine with dinner anyway). My dinner party guests are not deprived of a nice vintage due to this policy. It is simply inconvenient and annoying.

Periodically, there is an effort to change the law that forbids Sunday sales by groceries. We are seeing such an effort now, with advocates of change pointing out that we can drink at restaurants or bars on Sunday, so it seems silly and inconsistent to prohibit the purchase of spirits at the grocery.

What are the policy arguments being made by those defending the status quo? According to my morning paper, those arguments are:  1)Hundreds of neighborhood liquor stores might go out of business if groceries are allowed to compete. 2)There will be more drunken driving. 3) Remember the Sabbath.

Let’s take this one at a time.

  • If liquor stores cannot compete, then they should be allowed to fail. It is not government’s job to protect them, just as it isn’t government’s job to protect the corner hardware store from Lowe’s.
  • I hate to point this out, but the prediction that drunkenness, or drunk driving, will increase assumes that no one is drinking at those restaurants and bars, or buying enough liquor on, say, Thursday, to last until Sunday. This assertion is clearly not grounded in logic. Or reality.
  • Sunday isn’t MY Sabbath, nor is it the Sabbath of 7th Day Adventists, or atheists, or many others. And even if it were, the Establishment Clause prohibits the use of government to advance religion.

Of course, this was originally ALL about “it’s the Sabbath.” It was about reminding us heathens that this is a Christian (Protestant) Nation, thank you very much.  Most states have moved beyond this; not Indiana. Here in the Hoosier state, it has become a source of campaign cash from the liquor store lobby for those politicians willing to protect those stores from competition by making my life just a bit less convenient.

I’m sure they consider it a fair trade-off.

Is Obama’s Nobel Prize Unconstitutional?

That’s the argument some right-wing lawyers are making. My own reaction was not dissimilar to that of the Florida congressman who said “If Obama cured world hunger, the Republicans would accuse him of causing overpopulation.”

Jack Balkin, the eminent Yale legal scholar who blogs at balkinization, says it more eloquently–and more authoritatively.

This episode has led me to two conclusions. First, the Washington Post Op-Ed section does not appear to have a lawyer on hand to keep it from embarrassment. It does not take much research to discover that the argument in this piece is frivolous. But no research was done.

Second, I have noticed an increasing lack of seriousness among some members of the modern conservative movement. We see it in the tea party protests, in the work of talk show hosts and political commentators, but now even in the work of accomplished lawyers and intellectuals who should know better. It is one thing to disagree with a sitting president’s policies, but in our deeply polarized and poisonous political environment, an increasing number of politicians, operatives, and intellectuals now proclaim almost reflexive opposition to anything associated with President Obama or anything he does, says, or supports. Indeed, in this case, Rotunda and Pham have gone well past arguing that things that President Obama favors are unconstitutional; now they argue that things are unconstitutional because somebody wants to honor him.

It is increasingly difficult to parody what politicians and intellectuals will now say or do. Anything one can think of is already topped by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

This may be good politics, but I doubt it. It is certainly not sound legal argument.

We Seem to be Going in the Wrong Direction

Is there something in the water?

In Louisiana, a Justice of the Peace refuses to perform inter-racial weddings, insisting that such “racial mixing” produces children who are not accepted by either whites or blacks.

In Paraguay, two women were tortured and killed after being accused of being witches. According to reports, Dorotea Colmán, 50, and María Espínola, 23, died after being submitted to three days of brutal torture by members of the Bya Guaraní ethnic group in Santa Lucía, 220 miles north of Asunción. The women were hung upside down, beaten with sticks and had boiling water poured on them.

In Congress, we are regularly treated to comments by elected officials– Michele Bachman and someone named King from Iowa come to mind, but there are plenty of others–that are not simply stupid (that would be a very long list!) but paranoid and delusional.

Anyone have an explanation for this explosion of irrational behaviors?

Maybe in this age of blogging and 24/7 news cycles, we’re just more aware of crazies who’ve always been around. I hope that’s the answer, because otherwise, I feel as if I went to bed in the 21st Century and awoke in the 16th.

This Says It All

I was about to post on the surprising award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama when I read this.

It expresses my own thoughts on the matter, and does it better than I could.

Excuse Me??

According to an article in the Huffington Post, In 1568 Montgomery Highway v. City of Hoover, the Supreme Court of Alabama this week upheld the constitutionality of an Alabama statute prohibiting the sale of “any device designed … primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.” The law was targeted primarily at the sale of such objects as vibrators and dildos.”

Evidently, the Alabama Court agrees with Justice Scalia that the Bill of Rights doesn’t protect a right to privacy, and that it is government’s job to impose religious morality on the citizenry.

Next thing you know, the state will post signs telling us that such activities will cause us to go blind!
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/sex-and-sin_b_308732.html