-
Speaking of ELPAIS... here is what McCain knew and thought about Spain back in April of this year. (The link is from Ben Smith over at Politico. The translation is from Google(my Spanish is not that good).)
With Spain we must look ahead (Translated from the Spanish)
Quote attributed to John McCain:
"I would like [the president Zapatero] visit the United States. I am very interested not only in normalizing relations with Spain, but getting a good and productive relations with a view to addressing many issues and challenges that we face together"
Original Spanish Version
Me gustaría que [el presidente Zapatero] visitara Estados Unidos. Yo estoy muy interesado, no sólo en normalizar las relaciones con España, sino en conseguir unas relaciones buenas y productivas con objeto de atender muchos asuntos y desafíos a los que tenemos que hacer frente juntos"
Posted at September 18, 2008 1:33 PM in response to McCain's Spain-Gaffe Interviewer: McCain Not Confused, Just Ducking Question
-
Just my humble opinion but I think it is pretty clear (or at least not denied) that Wasilla was charging victims (or their health insurance).
"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."
The Chief (appointed by then Mayor Palin if I recall) then said said that he did not agree with the new law (banning the practice).
"Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."
If victims had been paying and now the city would have to cover the cost this quote makes sense, as the cost would now fall to the city. If Wasilla had not been charging victims this statement would be meaningless.
The Chief goes on to say that they bill the victim's insurance where possible. Not every one has insurance and even when a person does the payment is ultimately their responsiblity.
"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer," Fannon said.
According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.
This too is completely consistent with the city charging the victim.
Only in the context of the legislation banning the practice did the Chief then offer up the criminal paying. The fairly obvious inference from the Chief's comments was that job #1 was making suire the City did not pay and if the victim could not be charged then the person convicted should.
"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs," Fannon said.
"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things," Fannon said.
This inference is butressed by the Chief's final comment suggesting that in the future he will seek restitution.
"Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing."
There are no quotes from Sarah Palin. There is no cite to "official policy." But the Chief makes it pretty clear that policy or no, it was Wasilla's practice to charge victims.
If it was not, he could have easily made a statement much like his counterpart from Palmer:
Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.
Seems also not unreasonable to expect that if the Chief Fannon had misrepresented the City's position that he (or even the Mayor) could have offered to set the record straight.
Maybe I'm not being critical enough, but this seems like a reasonable foundation upon which to build an argument.
Again, just my own perspective.
Posted at September 11, 2008 6:45 PM in response to Rape Kit story - are the facts straight? Make Sure!
-
Just my humble opinion but I think it is pretty clear (or at least not denied) that Wasilla was charging victims (or their health insurance).
"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."
The Chief (appointed by then Mayor Palin if I recall) then said said that he did not agree with the new law (banning the practice).
"Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."
If victims had been paying and now the city would have to cover the cost this quote makes sense, as the cost would now fall to the city. If Wasilla had not been charging victims this statement would be meaningless.
The Chief goes on to say that they bill the victim's insurance where possible. Not every one has insurance and even when a person does the payment is ultimately their responsiblity.
"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer," Fannon said.
According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.
This too is completely consistent with the city charging the victim.
Only in the context of the legislation banning the practice did the Chief then offer up the criminal paying. The fairly obvious inference from the Chief's comments was that job #1 was making suire the City did not pay and if the victim could not be charged then the person convicted should.
"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs," Fannon said.
"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things," Fannon said.
This inference is butressed by the Chief's final comment suggesting that in the future he will seek restitution.
"Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing."
There are no quotes from Sarah Palin. There is no cite to "official policy." But the Chief makes it pretty clear that policy or no, it was Wasilla's practice to charge victims.
If it was not, he could have easily made a statement much like his counterpart from Palmer:
Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.
Seems also not unreasonable to expect that if the Chief Fannon had misrepresented the City's position that he (or even the Mayor) could have offered to set the record straight.
Maybe I'm not being critical enough, but this seems like a reasonable foundation upon which to build an argument.
Again, just my own perspective.
Posted at September 11, 2008 6:45 PM in response to Rape Kit story - are the facts straight? Make Sure!
-
Just my humble opinion but I think it is pretty clear (or at least not denied) that Wasilla was charging victims (or their health insurance).
"While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests."
The Chief (appointed by then Mayor Palin if I recall) then said said that he did not agree with the new law (banning the practice).
"Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon does not agree with the new legislation, saying the law will require the city and communities to come up with more funds to cover the costs of the forensic exams."
If victims had been paying and now the city would have to cover the cost this quote makes sense, as the cost would now fall to the city. If Wasilla had not been charging victims this statement would be meaningless.
The Chief goes on to say that they bill the victim's insurance where possible. Not every one has insurance and even when a person does the payment is ultimately their responsiblity.
"In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victim's insurance company when possible. I just dont want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer," Fannon said.
According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases.
This too is completely consistent with the city charging the victim.
Only in the context of the legislation banning the practice did the Chief then offer up the criminal paying. The fairly obvious inference from the Chief's comments was that job #1 was making suire the City did not pay and if the victim could not be charged then the person convicted should.
"Ultimately it is the criminal who should bear the burden of the added costs," Fannon said.
"The forensic exam is just one part of the equation. Id like to see the courts make these people pay restitution for these things," Fannon said.
This inference is butressed by the Chief's final comment suggesting that in the future he will seek restitution.
"Fannon said he intends to include the cost of exams required to collect evidence in a restitution request as a part of a criminals sentencing."
There are no quotes from Sarah Palin. There is no cite to "official policy." But the Chief makes it pretty clear that policy or no, it was Wasilla's practice to charge victims.
If it was not, he could have easily made a statement much like his counterpart from Palmer:
Palmer police chief Laren Zager said that to his knowledge, no sexual assault victim has ever been billed by the city of Palmer for an exam to collect evidence of a crime. Zager, who has been police chief since January, said he would never expect a victim to be burdened with the cost of a police investigation.
Seems also not unreasonable to expect that if the Chief Fannon had misrepresented the City's position that he (or even the Mayor) could have offered to set the record straight.
Maybe I'm not being critical enough, but this seems like a reasonable foundation upon which to build an argument.
Again, just my own perspective.
Posted at September 11, 2008 6:43 PM in response to Rape Kit story - are the facts straight? Make Sure!
-
It gets better (with a nod to Jed)
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/09/mccain-voted-against-biden-law.html
Posted at September 11, 2008 6:09 PM in response to Priorities: Rape Kits or Sports Complexes?
-
Maybe this will help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/post_156_n_125711.html
Posted at September 11, 2008 5:57 PM in response to Rape Kit story - are the facts straight? Make Sure!
-
Not to minimize the issue, but I note from the chart prepared by the Brennan Center that the measures appear to have already failed in 9 states (CA,CO,FL,GA,MD,MS,UT,VA,WA); and it looks as though the bills are already law in 2 states (DE,KS) and so appear to be pending in 8 others (IL,MA,MI,MO,NY,OK,SC,TN).
Posted at May 19, 2008 6:33 PM in response to CONFIRMED: 19 STATES HAVE VOTING REQUIREMENT COULD DISENFRANCHISE U.S. CITIZENS
-
There are some substantive rights that go with the decision(e.g., certain federal benefits accorded to legal marriages but not to domestic unions, recognition in other states).
But you are right about the underlying problem. Alas, there is little the Court can do about that. It can, and has however, removed the state sanction of the underlying societal problem. A small step perhaps, but one I think that must be taken.
Brown v. Bd. of Education did not make people immediately embrace each other regardless of race. It did however remove one important institutional sanction of racial segregation.
As you say, the societal problem remains. No mere name change is going to fix that. However, today's decision says the state cannot sanction the result of that societal problem. Further, as have other similar civil rights decisions, the decision makes available certain rememdies for denial of the rights that might not have otherwise been available.
As Lao-tzu said, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Without the first step, there can be no journey. Hopefully today was one step.
Posted at May 15, 2008 7:45 PM in response to Marriage in California
-
A couple of notes. I am not yet clear through the lenghty opinion but I think the Court has struck quite a blow for freedom and equality.
Relative to the California Constitution's Privacy Guarantee:
"In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry — and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society — the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.
Slip Opinion at 66
and,
"Thus, just as this court recognized in Perez that it was not constitutionally permissible to continue to treat racial or ethnic minorities as inferior (Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d at pp. 720- 727), and in Sail’er Inn that it was not constitutionally acceptable to continue to treat women as less capable than and unequal to men (Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d at pp. 17-20 & fn. 15), we now similarly recognize that an ndividual’s homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual’s legal rights.
In light of this recognition, sections 1 and 7 of article I of the California Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to withhold from gay individuals the same basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty (including the right to establish, with the person of one’s choice, an officially recognized and sanctioned family) that the California Constitution affords to heterosexual individuals. The privacy and due process provisions of our state Constitution — in declaring that “[a]ll people . . . have [the] inalienable right[] [of] privacy” (art. I, § 1) and that no person may be deprived of “liberty” without due process of law (art. I, § 7) — do not purport to reserve to persons of a particular sexual orientation the substantive protection afforded by those provisions."
Slip Opinion at 69.
Pretty powerful words. But wait, there's more.
In addressing the "Domestic Partnership is the same as marriage so what's the harm?" argument:
"Whether or not the name “marriage,” in the abstract, is considered a core element of the state constitutional right to marry, one of the core elements of this fundamental right is the right of same-sex couples to have their official family relationship accorded the same dignity, respect, and stature as that accorded to all other officially recognized family relationships. The current statutes — by drawing a distinction between the name assigned to the family relationship available to opposite-sex couples and the name assigned to the family relationship available to same-sex couples, and by reserving the historic and highly respected designation of marriage exclusively to opposite-sex couples while offering same sex couples only the new and unfamiliar designation of domestic partnership — pose a serious risk of denying the official family relationship of same-sex couples the equal dignity and respect that is a core element of the constitutional right to marry. As observed by the City at oral argument, this court’s conclusion in Perez, supra, 32 Cal.2d 711, that the statutory provision barring interracial marriage was unconstitutional, undoubtedly would have been the same even if alternative nomenclature, such as “transracial union,” had been made available to interracial couples.
Accordingly, although we agree with the Attorney General that the provisions of the Domestic Partner Act afford same-sex couples most of the substantive attributes to which they are constitutionally entitled under the state constitutional right to marry, we conclude that the current statutory assignment of different designations to the official family relationship of opposite-sex couples and of same-sex couples properly must be viewed as potentially impinging upon the state constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry."
Slip Opinion at 81 – 82.
Only then does the Court go on to the Equal Protection argument:
"The current statutory assignment of different names for the official family relationships of opposite-sex couples on the one hand, and of same-sex couples on the other, raises constitutional concerns not only in the context of the state constitutional right to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause."
Slip Opinion at 82.
My own humble opinion is that the Court did a pretty good job here. It is also worth noting that since the Court relied only on the California Constitution there is no available appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular case.
People are people, rights are rights. Happy day!
Posted at May 15, 2008 6:55 PM in response to Marriage in California
-
I have always been proud to be a Californian, but today... well I have never been prouder. Happy day to all!
Posted at May 15, 2008 4:52 PM in response to Marriage in California
