Archive for November, 2008

h1

eHarmony Settles Lawsuit and Now Forced to Individuals Seeking Same Sex Relationships

November 20, 2008

The Wall Street Journal reports that online dating service, eHarmony has settled a lawsuit asserting that eHarmony violated New Jersey’s Laws Against Discrimination by not offering services to individuals interested in the same sex:

In what seems like a novel claim to our ears, the Garden State asserted that eHarmony violated the state’s Law Against Discrimination by not offering a same-sex matching service. New Jersey got involved following a complaint by Eric McKinley, a gay match-seeker in the state.

eHarmony has denied violating the law, claiming that its business model has been based on its expertise to date. The company says it has researched thousands of opposite-sex marriages to understand what makes opposite-sex couples compatible.

But, as a result of the settlement, eHarmony next year will launch a same sex matching service called Compatible Partners, which will be marketed in gay and lesbian media outlets, according to a FAQ that the company released today. The document makes clear that users of eHarmony.com will not be matched with users of the new site, compatiblepartners.net.

As you can see, eHarmony, through this settlement, is being forced to enter into a new economic playing field that is already crowded. There is gaymatchmaking.com, alternativeconnections.com and host of other niche sites which specifically cater to gay men and women. Forcing this sort of econmic undertaking is akin to forcing Wal-Mart to maintain a stock of foie gras and beluga caviar or as Michelle puts it, a meat eater suing a vegetarian restaurant because they don’t serve meat. This governmental intrusion by the Jersey AG is an affront to the basic tenets of economic liberty in this country.

It is unfortunate that eHarmony bowed to this pressure. I would have loved to see this work its way through the court system for determination regarding how much the government can interfere in a business model. In order to compete with established same sex dating sites, eHarmony is going to have to sink major funds into research and maintenance of this compatiblepartners.com site which may very well be a financial sinkhole.

What’s next? If some adulterer who can’t find someone to cheat on his wife with at Ashley Madison (online dating for married peope) gets angry that eharmony doesn’t condone cheating, will he sue?

- Yossarian

h1

California to Uphold the Will of the People?

November 20, 2008

As we posted yesterday (skip down one or two posts), the California Supreme Court is taking up the issue of the legality of Proposition 8, which 52% of Californians voted for. The issue appears to be whether or not the Proposition was an amendment (which is cool) or a revision (less cool):

All the suits argue that Prop. 8, drafted as a state constitutional amendment, makes such drastic changes that it amounts to a revision of the Constitution.

Unlike constitutional amendments, which can qualify for the ballot with signatures on initiative petitions, revisions can be placed on the ballot only by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature or a state constitutional convention.

The state’s high court has defined a constitutional revision as a fundamental change in government structure and has struck down only two initiatives as revisions.

The last time was in 1991, when the court overturned provisions of a measure that would have required California courts to follow federal standards on criminal defendants’ rights rather than relying on the state Constitution to grant broader rights.

Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that it is a revision because it deprives a historically persecuted minority of fundamental rights and leaves courts powerless to intervene.

The article notes that Justice Kennard was the only justice who voted to deny review of Proposition 8 and it may be  bad sign for opponents of the bill:

While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.

Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.

“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.

For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. Because it appears that validation or invalidation of prop 8 will turn on the technicality of revision vs. amendment, I don’t foresee this going federal. It is pure interpretation of state law.  There goes my theory of moderating an Obama Supreme Court appointee.

h1

Franken Celebrates His Undereducated Voting Base

November 20, 2008

In this article, Angry Al’s lawyer pays homage to ACORN and the uneducated voter.

“People who voted for Coleman are more likely to have taken the SAT in their lifetime,” he said. “They’ve filled in circles. Franken voters are probably not college-educated. They’re new voters and immigrants. They’ve been brought in by groups like ACORN, from the inner cities. They’re more likely to make mistakes. I’ve bounced this off of minority people, and they agree with me.”

This celebration of the uninformed, coupled with the lack of awareness of Obama voters speaks volumes in a negative way about the future of the American voter. You can’t win a battle of ideas if the people you are trying to win over aren’t paying attention to the battlefield.

- Yossarian

h1

California Supreme Court to Determine Constitutionality of Amendment to its Constitution

November 19, 2008

The voters of the state voted to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriages and now the California Supreme Court is going to see if that decision by the people was Constitutional: The AP Reports:

California’s highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state’s new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court’s decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

[...]

The court directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit their arguments for why the ballot initiative should not be nullified by Dec. 19. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5. Oral arguments could be scheduled as early as March, according to court spokeswoman Lynn Holton.

[...]

But they also agreed that the cases present the court’s seven justices – six of whom voted to review the challenges – with complex questions that have few precedents in state case law.

Depending on how the California Supreme Court treats this, we may be seeing gay marriage get to the Supreme Court. By “depending,” I mean that the California Supreme Court has to consider very carefully which cases it is going to use in its decision. If the Supreme Court interprets federal law such as Romer v. Evans or Lawrence v. Texas, we will see a state interpreting shaky federal precedents which is pretty much a green light straight to the Supreme Court.

If oral arguments occur in March and we assume that PE-BHO won’t have to replace Justice Stevens or Breyer until the end of the year, we might actually ssee him put in a position where he will have to moderate his choice for next justice and maybe skip Judge Sotomayor.  Gay marriage as a national issue will not be goo for PE-BHO, especially among African-Americans. In California, African-Americans, who came out in numbers greater than ever before due to the presence of BHO on the ballot, were the deciding votes in getting Prop 8 passed.

UPDATE: The professors have an interesting take regarding whether or not the initiative itself to ban gay marriage was legal in the first place. 

h1

The Big Three Burning Through Cash While on Capitol Hill

November 19, 2008

Could I borrow $25 Billion, once again I forgot my diamond studded wallet on my private jet?  It seems that while the Big Three Auto makers were pleading for cash, their private jets were waiting for them down on the Tarmac.

Hotair via ABCNews reports:

The CEOs of the big three automakers flew to the nation’s capital yesterday in private luxurious jets to make their case to Washington that the auto industry is running out of cash and needs $25 billion in taxpayer money to avoid bankruptcy.

The CEOs of GM, Ford and Chrysler may have told Congress that they will likely go out of business without a bailout yet that has not stopped them from traveling in style, not even First Class is good enough.

All three CEOs – Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli of Chrysler – exercised their perks Tuesday by flying in corporate jets to DC. Wagoner flew in GM’s $36 million luxury aircraft to tell members of Congress that the company is burning through cash, asking for $10-12 billion for GM alone.

The jets cost $20,000 just to fly to and from Washington…and you want more of my money?  (Actually according to republican Congressman Knollenberg, It’s not my money…it belongs to Congress).  Moreover, Ford CEO, Alan Mulally, flies to and from Detroit from Seattle every week because he did not want to relocate to Detroit upon taking his job.  That is millions of dollars per year, because your CEO doesn’t want to move?  Really?!? 

I have an idea.  First cut off all of your fat and reckless spending, then come to me begging for cash.  Does no one else see how a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing could help this situation.  I guarantee the US Trustee would not allow the use of these jets, and any other negligent spending.  I bet he would force the Big Three to put the jets up for auction on ebay.  Chapter 11 would actually promote the possibility of long term growth.  An influx of cash would not discourage horrible fiscal policy, and in some ways validate said fiscal irresponsibility.  Romney  and AP are with me, why isn’t Congress?

-reagan21

h1

Al-Qaida Insults Obama

November 19, 2008

From the AP:

Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri insulted Barack Obama in the terror group’s first reaction to his election, calling him a demeaning racial term implying that the president-elect is a black American who does the bidding of whites.

The message appeared chiefly aimed at persuading Muslims and Arabs that Obama does not represent a change in U.S. policies. Al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites Wednesday, that Obama is “the direct opposite of honorable black Americans” like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.

Al-Zawahri also called Obama—along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice—”house negroes.”

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term “abeed al-beit,” which literally translates as “house slaves.” But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as “house negroes.”

PE-BHO should just ignore this part as it would only demean the office of the President to respond to such an ad hominem attack. However, it is in PE-BHO’s best interests to respond to this part:

He said Obama’s plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

“Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them,” he said.

Al-Zawahri did not threaten specific attacks, but warned Obama that he was “facing a Jihadi (holy war) awakening and renaissance which is shaking the pillars of the entire Islamic world; and this is the fact which you and your government and country refuse to recognize and pretend not to see.”

He said Obama’s victory showed Americans acknowledged that President George W. Bush’s policies were a failure and that the result was an “admission of defeat in Iraq.”

We are still unclear as to what PE-BHO’s Middle East policy will be. He ran early hard left indicating a time table to pull out, but he moderated his position near the end. That is the great unknown and the biggest problem in electing a man with no record who was put into office on malleabe promises. I hope he succeeds and understands that victory in Iraq is necessary to establish Basra and Baghdad as economic centers of the middle east in the same vein as Dubai and Abu Dhabi. There has already been much progress in Baghdad metro and it would be a shame to see Al Qaida come in and infect it on the weakness of American foreign policy.

h1

Stevens Fail

November 19, 2008

Ted Stevens has lost his senate seat in Alaska. The Democrats are two seats away from allowing a full invasion of Naboo and building the Death Star (Coleman recount and Chambliss runoff). Obi Wan is dead and is working with the Empire as a ghost. The Old Republic is gathering its forces but all we have are a bunch of ewoks and a sexy Wookie librarian out in the woods. There is word that there is a young jedi out in the wasteland of Louisiana but he is still training. He can’t lose his hand to the dark lord (not racist). The resistance will persist.

h1

Joe the [Future Congressman (R-OH)] endorses Jindal

November 19, 2008

The true voice of the Republican party in the 2008 election has come out and anointed Jindal as our One: 

Q: The Republican Party was dealt another devastating blow [on Nov. 4]. In your opinion, what do you feel the party needs to do in order to successfully regain control of the government? Also, what should disappointed conservatives like yourself do following the election?

A: The party should remember that they are conservative Republicans — that has been forgotten. They no longer hold to their ideals. They blow with the wind on just about every public opinion poll. So they are not right-wing; they are trying to show that they’re middle or even left-of-middle sometimes. You have to remember two years ago, the Democrats loved John McCain. That is not what this is about. If you’re a party, you have to stick to your ideals. The frontrunners in the Republican Party have definitely seem to forgotten that. Governor [Bobby] Jindal of Louisiana seems to have the right idea. We have got to get back to the grassroots of the Republican Party and not apologize for being conservative

I will never crap on Gov. Palin because she can run circles around any one on energy issues. Unfortunately, this became an election regarding the economy. While Obama didn’t know his behind from his head about the economy, he did not make a fool of himself the way that McCain did. Obama sat in his wading pool of blissful ignorance and smiled his unintelligent smile giving people hope and change while the economy floundered. He still doesn’t know jack about how to fix it and never had a proving ground to show that he had the ability. Right now, B-JInd has the perfect venue to prove that he can turn around an economy. Louisiana was bad before Katrina and only became marginally worse after. Jindal should be able to turn the state around unless the one screws up the federal government to a point beyond no return. Let’s see what Jindal can do.

h1

U.S. Auto Industry: How Filing Chapter 11 Could Work

November 18, 2008

Union contracts strangling the Big Three automakers with unmanageable terms, CxO level management making VERY bad decisions with respect to product development, distribution channels, operations management, and negotiating with the unions (GM has 7,000 dealers while Toyota has under 2,000 where both have about the same 20% market share of the U.S. market), and clearly the red ink is so RED, it makes the rest of the American taxpayers wonder why they (with an average salary/benefits of around $40/hr) should pay to bail out three unprofitable companies, so severely mismanaged and unprofitable (with no prospect of getting out of the deep end), who pay their workers an average of $70/hr (salary/benefits).  It took the union leaders and Big Three management to get in this hole – they’ll need to look in the mirror and give up some of their “wants” just like anyone else in financial trouble.  Even those not on the production line, retired workers, or those forced to retire while keeping benefits and pay maintain unbearable fixed costs on the Big Three – costs they in turn must build into a decreasing demand for their vehicles.  John Gapper of the Financial Times makes the case for letting them enter Chapter 11 and restructure their obligations, the only sure way to actually get some concessions instead of a taxpayer handout … so they can emerge as profitable entities.

- AP

 

The view that the Detroit big three should be pushed into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and not simply be bailed out by the US government, is growing.

The big three argument against this, apart from the general view that they only need a helping hand, is twofold.

One is that it is very hard to get debtor-in-possession financing at the moment to allow an orderly Chapter 11 bankruptcy to proceed. If they are not rescued, their argument goes, they face the harsher Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and chaotic liquidation.

The second argument is that any form of bankruptcy will be counter-productive because people will stop buying vehicles from any company in bankruptcy. They will not believe that any warranty or servicing agreement will be honoured in future.

The first argument is weak since the government could provide financing for Chapter 11 rather than trying to keep the companies going in the present form. That would provide more assurance that a big restructuring would take place.

The second argument has more weight, but not enough to be a barrier. Americans are already used to travelling on bankrupt airlines – although that involves a shorter-term contract – and, if all of the big three are thrust into Chapter 11 at the same time, any stigma would probably be reduced.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, the New York Times business columnist, comes down in favour of Chapter 11 this morning, and has an interesting analysis of how the restructuring of a combined General Motors/Chrysler might work.

It would involve shedding several brands, possibly including the Chrysler brand itself, and reducing capacity heavily. There are lots of entrenched interests that would fight that, notably GM and Chrysler dealers, but it has the ring of necessity.

h1

Proposition 8 Protestors Getting Out of Control

November 18, 2008

This video is via hotair. Stories and videos like this have been coming out since election day and rather than dying down, they have only been escalating.  It’s as if all these angry liberals who wanted to vent at a McCain victory needed to put their hopechange frustration elsewhere. Michelle has a description of what happened:

After just singing and worshiping God for a while, Roger decided that we should all hold hands in a circle and continue singing. So we did.

Someone (Actually a person who came up and hugged and kissed some of us who he knew from the past) convinced some people that we were there to protest against the no on 8 campaign.

Then some guy who was dressed up like one of the sisters (The sisters of perpetual indulgence is a group of men who dress up like nuns and call themselves the spiritual authority of the Castro.) took a curtain-type thing (Which I think they use to curse people) and wrapped it around us.

Then a crowd started gathering. We began to sing “Amazing Grace”, and basically sang that song the whole night. (At some points we also sang “Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” and “Oh the Blood of Jesus”.) At first, they just shouted at us, using crude, rude, and foul language and calling us names like “haters” and “bigots”. Since it was a long night, I can’t even begin to remember all of the things that were shouted and/or chanted at us. Then, they started throwing hot coffee, soda and alcohol on us and spitting (and maybe even peeing) on us. Then, a group of guys surrounded us with whistles, and blasted them inches away from our ears continually. Then, they started getting violent and started shoving us. At one point a man tried to steal one of our Bibles. Chrisdene noticed, so she walked up to him and said “Hey, that’s not yours, can you please give it back?”. He responded by hitting her on the head with the Bible, shoving her to the ground, and kicking her. I called the cops, and when they got there, they pulled her out of the circle and asked her if she wanted to press charges. She said “No, tell him I forgive him.”

Afterwards, she didn’t rejoin us in the circle, but she made friends with one of the people in the crowd, and really connected heart to heart. Roger got death threats. As the leader of our group, people looked him in the eyes and said “I am going to kill you.”, and they were serious. A cop heard one of them, and confronted him. (This part is kinda graphic, so you should skip the paragraph if you don’t want to be offended.) It wasn’t long before the violence turned to perversion. They were touching and grabbing me, and trying to shove things in my butt, and even trying to take off my pants – basically trying to molest me. I used one hand to hold my pants up, while I used the other arm to hold one of the girls. The guys huddled around all the girls, and protected them.

The LA Times has discussed the issue going to the Supreme Court and getting decided by one man pretty much, Justice Anthony Kennedy. If such a thing were to happen, it would be the ultimate testament to overturning Marbury v. Madison (no, not all of us advocate that). The will of one man would override the majority of voters of the state of California who amended their Constitution.

To touch briefly on the subject itself, I (Yossarian, speaking for himself and no others on this site) don’t have strong feelings either way towards giving same sex couples visitation and inheritance rights beyond joint tenancy. What I do care about is keeping this as a state issue and not making it federal by amending the US Constitution or having a federal court make national law on the issue. We can cross that “full faith and credit” bridge when we get there. The best way to win over an idea is to change hearts and change minds. You can’t win concensus through fear by sending white powder to Mormon churches or attacking old ladies. I seriously doubt that Californians want this made into a law borne out of violent coercion.

Some ardent prosecutor can make a good political case for himself or herself out in Cali by getting on these protestors

Michelle has more on the escalating violence here, here, here and here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.