- Commenting Rules. Read these before you comment. Really. I'm not kidding.
- Sharing material from Stonekettle Station. Read this if you're thinking about reposting, linking, quoting, or just plain stealing material from Stonekettle Station. Seriously, read this before sharing, otherwise I will unleash the badgers.

- Stonekettle Station's Greatest Hits: The good stuff, it's in here!
- Reader Links: Sites recommended by readers, pimp your site today!

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

30 Pieces of Silver

So, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer vetoed SB 1062, did she?

Exactly as predicted.

Exactly as she was encouraged to do by an outraged country.

Impressed?

Are you impressed that Jan Brewer bowed to “common sense” and “human dignity” and the US Constitution?

Are you?

Because you damned well shouldn’t be.

Brewer simply gave in to pragmatism and she deserves no credit for her moral cowardice whatsoever. None.

Brewer, along with Arizona conservatives such as John McCain who called for the veto, deserve nothing but contempt.

Brewer should have signed the bill instead of vetoing it.

That’s right.

Governor Jan Brewer should have put Arizona’s money where conservative mouths are and signed SB 1062 into law and made religious Apartheid a reality in Arizona right along with Russia and Iran.

 

And then – and then – Brewer and the ideological fanatics of her party should have been forced to live with the consequences.

 

Oh now, don’t get me wrong.

I’m sincerely glad that the people of Arizona won’t have to suffer for the bigotry of a handful of religious zealots. 

I’m relieved that sanity, for whatever reason, prevailed in the eleventh hour and that LGBT people in yet another US state won’t be relegated to even worse treatment at the hands of Evangelical Christianity.

But, Folks, look here, nothing, and I mean nothing, demonstrates the bottomless hypocrisy and the absolute moral cowardice of the religious fanatics who’ve taken over the Arizona legislature than this veto.

Nothing.

Arizona Republican Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake urged Governor Brewer to veto SB 1062, because, according to McCain, implementation of the law would be “devastating.”

Devastating to the state. Economically.

Devastating to business. Financially.

Devastating to Republicans. Politically.

But not devastating to actual people – especially the gay ones who are apparently not John McCain’s concern.

Last Monday, conservative state senators Bob Worsley, Adam Driggs, and Steve Pierce sent a letter to Governor Brewer, asking her to veto SB 1062.

But just days before, all three joined the Arizona Senate Republican caucus in voting for the bill.

That’s right, they voted for the bill, but then asked the governor to veto it.

After Republicans passed the bill and sent it to Brewer’s office for signature, and only after the scope of the resulting national outcry became apparent, Worsley confessed to reporters. "I have not been comfortable with this for some time."  

I have not been comfortable with this for some time?

Haven’t been comfortable with this for some time?

Jesus Haploid Christ, Worsley, what the fuck?

Worsley wasn’t comfortable with it, but he went right ahead and voted for SB 1062 anyway instead of taking responsibility for his own conscience.

He knew it was wrong, but instead of standing up and forcefully speaking out and holding his own party to public account, instead of demonstrating the superior moral conviction he and those like him loudly and repeatedly claim for their religion, he just went along with it anyway.

Worsely, Driggs, and Pierce weren’t comfortable with a bill that they voted for, that would have legalized blatant religious discrimination at their own dirty hands, but they voted for it anyway?

And what were they going to do then if Brewer signed the bill into law? Live with their discomfort?

Ask yourself something: if they could live with that particular discomfort, if their religious convictions could tolerate that discomfort without damning them to Bible Hell, then why can’t they live with the discomfort of being around gay people?

McCain, Worsley, et al, are so, so utterly typical of these hypocrites.

They are leaders in a party and a religion that has done nothing but villainize LGBT people at every turn – and then, what? They’re not comfortable when that same rabid fanaticism attempts to marginalize those self-same people? 

This is so, so goddamned typical of John McCain. A man who spent his entire presidential campaign relentlessly demonizing his opponent, and then had the unmitigated gall to pretend that he wasn’t responsible when his own fanatical supporters – and his own running mate – resorted to calling Barack Obama an Arab and a Muslim and unAmerican and a subhuman mongrel in the national media and continue to do so to this very day.

McCain, Worsley, Driggs, Pierce, and Brewer are so utterly typical of this yellow-eyed breed of modern conservative fanatic – who, in the US House, voted last year to shut down the federal government, and then cried foul when they had to live with the backlash. And who, just last month, voted to shut the government down yet again … but then quietly urged Speaker John Boehner to make a deal with Democrats to increase the US debt ceiling in a clean resolution and keep America running so they didn’t have to suffer the consequences of their lunacy yet again.

These people know they are wrong.

They know it. Quod erat demonstrandum.

They know it, they absolutely know they are on the wrong side of history.

And yet they persist – just so long as they don’t have to live with the consequences.

Brewer vetoed SB 1062 for a number of reasons:

- because it could have cost Arizona the 2015 Super Bowl.

- because it could have significantly harmed Arizona’s tourist industry.

- because it could have cost Arizona business, particularly from  Marriott Hotels, Apple, American Airlines and Yelp, in addition to hundreds of conferences, seminars, and retreats.

- because it would have inevitably resulted in endless lawsuits, costing Arizona millions upon millions of dollars in litigation.

- because it would likely have cost Republicans their majority in the Arizona state government.

- because it would have negatively affected Republican prospects in the 2014 midterm national elections.

- and because it would have had an impact on the 2016 presidential race.

- and most especially since it might have directly resulted in unintended discrimination against Christians.

And so, when it came right down to it in Arizona today, rather than do what was right because it was the right thing to do, rather than strike down the bill because it would have legalized religious segregation as if Arizona was a state in Russia instead of America, Brewer at the behest of her oh so smug religion and her oh so morally superior political party vetoed SB 1062 not because it was blatantly counter to everything the United States stands for but rather because it would have cost Arizona money.

When Brewer was forced onto the global stage to very publicly choose between state sanctioned Apartheid and the almighty American dollar, not to mention political power, Brewer did the predictable thing.

She did what these people always do when forced to chose between conviction and profit.

She took the money.

So much for republicans’ vaunted ideals.

So much for the superior morality of conservative religious conviction.

The simple truth is that if these people really believed in the rightness and righteousness of their religion, they would have passed the bill and to hell with the consequences. 

Make no mistake whatsoever, Folks, if Arizona republicans could have gotten away with it, if they could have signed this bill into law and only gay people and non-Christians would have been negatively affected, they damned well would have – that was the entire point of SB 1062 in the first place.

Instead, Brewer’s veto lays bare the hypocrisy of this blighted ideology and shows it for what it really is:  hate for hate’s sake and nothing more.

Common sense, human dignity, and liberty did not prevail today in Arizona.

Right won out only because these people worship power and money far more than they love their small and hateful God.

They won’t do what’s right, but they can usually be counted on to do what is profitable.

And let that be a lesson for future battles.

 


 

Previous essay on this topic: Arizona Goddam

128 comments:

  1. She should have left it on her desk, and let it become law. By vetoing it, she becomes the bad guy, along with the 'outside interests' who urged a veto. If the legislature thinks passing the law was a mistake, they should be forced to repeal it. Now the legislature can run in November that they passed their "Religious Freedom Bill", only to be stymied by mean Jan Brewer and these outside forces. David and Goliath red meat imagery for the base to eat up and prove that they are under siege - just so that these same legislative fools can be reelected, and drag the state through even more shenanigans like this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dang it Marc, you said it before I did!
      I agree, it's all about appearances, now the claim can be made that "furriners" are ruining the "Great State of Arizona". ...

      Delete
    2. That is precisely what I've been thinking these bills in all these states are: a get out the vote ploy for the November elections. Blatantly cynical. The sad part is that they know their own base so well that it will work very well.

      Delete
    3. If this was a cynical ploy to get their voter base riled for the election, you have to admit that it was a pretty impressive one. Dirty, yes. Underhanded, yes. Stealthy, yes.

      However, if nothing else, one should admire such deviousness.

      Delete
    4. Nothing admirable about it.

      Delete
    5. Looks like the white man is in trouble.

      Delete
    6. She supposedly can't run again, so she is the bad guy in the eyes of the christian taliban. But it doesn't hurt her politically, and it allows the other so called christian to say, but I did vote for it.
      And did you see the reason the guy who voted for it but now wanted it vetoed?
      he said they didn't realize it would come up 'so fast'. Does that mean they wanted it to surface around election time? Or after?

      Delete

  2. Jim,

    While I agree with your point, I think by not acknowledging the financial pressure exerted by a wide spectrum of society that said they would not condone, and in fact they would condemn this behavior, you are missing the missing the positive point that was made.

    Danny

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, I'm not missing it, Danny.

      And yes, you're correct, that's great, the threat of financial punishment finally made some of these jackasses see, well, if not reason then at least pragmatism.

      But that's exactly my point.

      Delete
    2. Danny did you actually read the post and understand the title?

      Delete
    3. Yes, I did, and as I stated, I agree with Jim's point. My point is that enough 'good men' did not 'do nothing', and as a result 'evil did not triumph'. I would rather dwell on that, and not on the lack of backbone, conman sense, and arrogance of the idiots who thought this bill was acceptable.

      Danny

      Delete
    4. It wasn't the "good men" who got this stopped - it was the "money men". The good men had nothing that Brewer and the Arizona would listen to & they had nothing to do with stopping the bill.

      These folks NEVER give up - the ONLY solution is to defeat them at the polls - that is where the "good men" are needed.

      Delete
    5. "Conman sense?" I think you nailed it.

      Delete
    6. Greg - ETC(SW) USN - RetiredFebruary 27, 2014 at 5:00 AM

      I don't think you can say that " . . . 'good men' (or women) did not 'do nothing' and as a result 'evil did not triumph.'" Evil did not triumph because men and women with a flawed sense of their own religion and righteousness were forced to accept the reality that their position would hurt many other interests (including the influential financial ones) rather than simply stand up to the religious bigotry and do the right thing because it was the right thing to do. If good men and women were to do 'something,' they would have stood up and said we won't accept this law because if harms people who are already being demonized for no other reason than they're different. Not a single one of these cowards did that. Jan Brewer's veto, instead of citing that it doesn't address any kind of religious liberty issue (paraphrasing one of her arguments), should have said that this bill was nothing more than a hateful attempt to marginalize a segment of her state's population and she wouldn't stand for it on those grounds. None of these 'good men' and women would say that. Why, because they, and their base, don't really believe that. Evil did not triumph yesterday, but not for lack of trying. The practitioners of evil simply lost their nerve and caved.

      Delete
    7. Danny, honey, the whole point of the article is that there were no "good men." "Good men" didn't do shit cause there weren't any. IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. PERIOD. I wish she had signed the damn thing and Arizona would've had to live with the consequences and get their ass kicked. Next time, they'll be slicker and figure out a way to pass an apartheid bill that won't affect them financially or politically. That's why my Stonekettle God (all praises be unto him), ends his essay with the words "And let that be a lesson for FUTURE battles."

      Delete
    8. The good men who did something were the people who stood up and said that they condemned the bill, and the evil it stood for. They wrote letters, and threatened the haters where it hurts, in their wallet.

      Rather than dwell on the Arizona idiots, I prefer to focus on the wide range of people who stood up and said that the bill was wrong, and had no place in today's America, and would not be tolerated in tomorrow's America either.

      Danny

      Delete
    9. The fact she vetoed the bill does not ameliorate the fact that the bigoted citizens of Arizona elected the moronic legislature that produced the legislation in the first place. That fact alone renders Arizona a pariah state and should be Boycotted by all fair minded people until such times as those same Citizens show that they have the back bone to rid themselves of these dinosaur homophobic, so called "christians" (lower case intentional) I also think the NFL should run from Arizona asap and as fast as possible in order to protect themselves from associated guilt.......

      Delete
    10. Danny, I agree with you on this. Whoever decided at American Airlines, NFL or any other Corporation to send a letter to arizona is a "good guy". Granted, for them, there was the thought of money involved; like moving the super bowl or an airline hub but they wrote the letter anyway. Whether they would have actually moved out of arizona or not, the threat was still there. For the republicans, it was all about the money and those "good guys" know it and they slapped them in the mouth with it. All I can say is this, " the true entity that watches over us works in mysterious ways and that is what happened in arizona.

      Delete
  3. Jesus wept. You got some fine grade A wing nuts there. I seriously wonder about America with these scrofulous fools in elected office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not an American, you don't just worry the rest of The World, you scare the living crap out vast swathes of It!
      This being written on Monday 3rd of March 2014, with the situation in The Ukraine slowly circling the pan, I have to also admit that you guys don't have the monopoly on scaring the living crap out of the rest of your fellow beings on The Spaceship Earth. The Russians are quite capable in that direction.

      Delete
  4. It is a shame that money trumps everything. Threaten to stop the flow of money and even RWNJs will back down. Had not the Chamber and other businesses opposed this bill, it would be the law in Arizona.

    This is why Republicans choose not to hear many people in this country who do not have money. If you don't have money/lobbyists to support your cause, you're not heard. Poor people have no voice, because they have no money.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The phrase that repeatedly comes to mind is "morally bankrupt". What a sad commentary on those who are supposed to be representing the best interests of their constituents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Make no mistake--the only interests they represent are their theirs and those of their owners.

      Delete
  6. Don't cry for me Arizona
    The truth is you have no backbone
    All through my time here
    You've drifted farther right
    I'll keep my promise
    To get the hell outta here

    ReplyDelete
  7. If she were a moral person she would have vetoed it the second it hit her desk instead of waiting until the threat of loss of money, power, election showed her true colors. She should not be praised for vetoing it after sitting on it for days. It shows she really supports the immorality of discrimination except when it affects her capitalistic greedy pocketbook. Just like the other conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg - ETC(SW) USN - RetiredFebruary 27, 2014 at 5:02 AM

      Exactly!! The shrewd politician just waited until there were enough dissenting voices to provide cover.

      Delete
    2. i suspect she realized it was going to blow up in her face, no matter which way she bent. but you're right -- not vetoing IMMEDIATELY just makes her look like ... the person she obviously IS.

      Delete
  8. I was listening to the BBC World News on the way home from work tonight and the news anchor interviewed some GOP nutjob/former congressman from Chicago who vilified Brewer because she had now encouraged these gay activists to openly practice religious discrimination. He said the right is afraid of these gay activists who persecute them and their values, bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. He was practically foaming at the mouth and you could hear hint of "what an asshole" in the anchor's voice when she pointed out the hypocritical statements he was making. He was beyond moronic. The batshit contingent is out of anything constructive or positive to contribute to the leadership of this country so they're just drumming religion-based fear into everyone they can. Hit 'em where their faith is, that which they lean on and value and you can bend them to fit your agenda.
    Also, Ohio has succeeded in gutting the voter's rights act just so they can disenfranchise that segment of church-going voters. Make up your mind, wingnuts-you can't have it both ways.
    Disgusted Pam in PA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ohio disenfranchised the Black church-going voters, not the white ones, which is the only church group that matters to the GOP

      Delete
  9. I graduated high school in Arizona. I only attended my Senior year, having moved from ChIraq. This was about 20 years ago. They didn't have Martin Luther King Jr.day! It was a bit of culture shock, even at my young age, given I just left Chicago and it was the norm there.

    That left a sour taste in my mouth, and I moved shortly after graduating. But to say this whole recent ordeal came as a shock to me, would be a lie. People should realize, just because it wasn't signed into law, doesn't mean that they are "welcome" any further then their dollar goes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, Rob Mac (and ethiessen1). Brewer vetoed the bill after several days only because it was politically and economically expedient. The haters are still there and still in power.
      I feel very sorry for the many rational people who make Arizona their home--maybe they'll move--or vote all the idiot haters out of office.

      Freckles

      Delete
  10. This is no surprise to me. As soon as I heard the superbowl committe was watching the progress of the bill, i knew it was dead in the water.

    But Jim, it is about religious freedom, the national religion being football.

    The B.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The only reason Martin Luther King's Birthday is a holiday in Arizona is because the NFL threatened to not only pull the Super Bowl, but also to relocate the Arizona Cardinals to another state. Always, always follow the money...these assholes claim they have morals and that they represent a loving God, but the truth is that they are always in the pursuit of money and power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The NFL cannot force any team to relocate anywhere and that was never threatened- I know, I lived it. Don't make crap up.

      Delete
    2. The NFL DID pull the Super Bowl (XXVII). That lent credibility to the implied threat to move the next one. Moving the Cardinals, who had just arrived, would be a whole different matter.

      Delete
    3. If the NFL could force a team to move, there would be a team in Los Angeles now. Instead, three different teams have moved OUT.

      Delete
    4. Sigh. Once again, it was not just the NFL. There were a lot of us who voted to reinstate MLK day after it was rescinded by then-governor Evan Meacham. The first time it was put on the ballot, it lost by a thin margin. The second time, it won. Yes, it was after the NFL's threat, but although that might have swayed some people to vote in favor, I know a lot of people who, although initially in favor, voted against it just because of their strong-arm tactics. This does remain: Arizona is the only state where the voters themselves approved the MLK holiday.
      There are a lot of things I truly hate about the state I have lived in most of my life, but that is not one of them.
      However, I am leaving, never to return.

      NaluGirl

      Delete
  12. Our national religion is now $$$$$

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fantastic post! Thanks for so clearly voicing our outrage.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but it has been so for YEARS now, that's why we have Citizens United and a host of other money related problems. It was "no man can serve two masters" this weekend in the RC gospel reading; I would say we here in America (at least the people in power) took up with Mammon long, long ago.

      Julie

      Delete
  13. This is the sad thing about Arizona and so many other Republican dominated states: They rarely ever do the right thing for right reason. When do the right thing, it is usually because money is involved. While many people around the nation applaud Governor Brewer for expanding Medicaid under the ACA, what she really did was restore what she herself had taken away in 2011.

    You see, the voters of Arizona (by referendum) had decided that poor and working poor adults with no children should have access to medical care. But, in 2011, in order to pay for corporate tax cuts, Governor Brewer and the Republicans in the Arizona Legislature decided to say "fuck you" to the voters and poor childless adults. Then came along the promise of a lot of federal dollars under the Medicaid expansion as part of the ACA and the begging of the medical industry in Arizona to allow the expansion.

    So, in 2013, after already done the wrong thing in 2011, Governor Brewer and a handful of legislative Republicans voted with Democrats to "expand" Medicaid in Arizona. Again, not doing it because the poor and working poor deserve medical coverage, but because of money.

    http://phoenixjustice.blogspot.com/2011/01/let-them-eat-cake.html

    http://phoenixjustice.blogspot.com/2011/02/let-them-eat-cake-second-helping.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Jim, these were my sentiments exactly. Call me Machiavellian if you will but if Governor Brewer had signed the bill, it would have easily been overturned in the Federal courts and in the meanwhile, the shit storm this issue raised would have continued to grow and intensify and would have further damaged the Republican brand among the citizens of Arizona and the nation at large. In the long run strategic view, I think this could only have benefited us (us = I'm gay).

    They made their bed. They should have been made to sleep in it.

    With consideration to the religious right's disingenuous but "deeply held and sincere religious beliefs", quoting from an AndrewSullivan.com reader, "The two biggest cases cited for these laws are the photographer in New Mexico and the baker in Oregon, Sweet Cakes by Melissa. The Portland, OR alt-weekly, the Willamette Week, contracted Sweet Cakes for a host of cakes for other seemingly unChristian occasions, like babies out of wedlock, divorce party, pagan solstice, and stem cell success. All were agreed to by the company." You can read the not so surprising results here - http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. I actually think Worsely and crew's discomfort only began after the backlash and threat of financial repercussions began....not comfortable for some time my ass! If it had been cheered and passed, they would have taken the accolades with bows and smarmy smiles.

    ReplyDelete
  16. FINALLY!!! Finally, someone said the very thing that I have been screaming for at least one of those pecker-headed pundits in the national media to say to all those people who were wrestling with how to deal with this ridiculous "religious freedom" bill.

    Not one person has deigned to say that Brewer should have just let it come into law. This bill outlines exactly what the elected representatives of the state of Arizona believe they have been sworn into office to promote and support. The complete lack of conviction by those in the legislature to stand up against this, for the simple reason that it was the right thing to do, never occurred to them.

    I wanted them to suffer the consequences of their convictions. Because now, the Brewer's veto, everyone will smile and we'll pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves what a wonderful and conscientious people we are for not allowing this thing to come into law. And we will act like this is another fine demonstration that we have killed the zombie of discrimination and bigotry, and that there is no need to continue to fight this battle. All those gays and blacks are simply making mountains out molehills. We have put these bigots in their place. But all of these legislators will still go to work today and continue to try and find ways to chip away at this kind of thing. It is what they have excelled at doing for decades. Slowly shifting the window of acceptability until the vile becomes the mundane mainstream view.

    Until bigots are forced to defend their actions in the bright lights of the public forum, we will continue to see attempts to slip this kind of blatant discrimination into law all over the country. I am so tired of hearing our media prefacing their discussion about laws such as this with the statement, "It is a bill which SOME PEOPLE SAY, enshrines discrimination into law".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I watched a few minutes of the Today show at my gym yesterday morning and some Malibu Barbie, Girl Reporter, babbled something about "religious freedom" while assuming her concerned "Frownie Face".I'm sure I missed some "both sides" blather because I started screaming at the set, as I am wont to do when these programs are on.

      Great post as always, Jim.

      Delete
  17. Most of this (these various bigot bills) are an anathema to most Canadians.The fact that people, esp. politicians, even feel comfortable expressing these views publicly leaves me shaking my head.. institutionalized hate in 2014, wow. Free speech does not mean expressing biogtry and hatred... although we surely have our share of assholes of various stripes. TG most Americans see what's happening.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I knew that when big money started talking, Brewer would cave. I didn't think it was because of some great moral conviction of hers. As a lesbian, I am glad that it didn't get passed. As a progressive Christian who actually believes we should follow Christ's example of feeding the poor, uplifting the oppressed, and providing mercy to the immigrant, I am glad it didn't get passed. And just for the record, my seminary class decided the H in Jesus H Christ is actually Hezekiah. (Trust me, it's a funny joke if you're a seminary nerd)

    ReplyDelete
  19. you have disrespected wolves and other animals that have yellow eyes. please apologize.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Great points Jim!! But the fallacy all of us have is that we allow OUR own sense of morality color our expectations of the GOP and this religious wing nut group. The GOP has not given a rat's ass for morality since I was able to vote in the 1970s. The core of the GOP has been making money for themselves and their buddies at the expense of every one less fortunate than them.

    So of course Brewer vetoed this act because of the economic effect it would have to the state. Economic power is the ONLY power to the GOP. The GOP was blindsided by Obama getting elected as they can not grasp the concept of the common man voting. This is why they are so focused on gutting the voting rights of anyone they consider a threat, minorities, poor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. Because the Republicans fear and expect the common man and the poor to do exactly what they, the Republicans, have done; vote themselves all of the advantages and perquisites.

      Delete
  21. Well said Sir. I really enjoy your thoughts on these subjects. I to am happy that it did not come to pass and I was hoping it did get signed into law so the good people of Arizon would be able to refuse service to bigots and haters because of their sincerely held beliefs that those things are grave sins and they don't want ot support or encourage anyone who commits those sins.
    I found the Anderson Cooper interview interesting in that the fellow he was interviewing couldn't ever see someone telling an unwed mother or a divorced person that they would not be served because of their sincerely held, Christian belief that these are grievous sins.
    The best we can hope for is that the memory of this debacle stays fresh through the election and the good people of Arizona remember who the real bad guys are. .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alric, I saw the Anderson Cooper interview this morning--the fellow he was interviewing couldn't come up with ONE instance in AZ where someone had been "forced" to serve a person against his "personal religious beliefs." There are no official gay marriages in AZ because it continues to be illegal there. It also continues to be legal to discriminate against gays in AZ because they were not included in the Equal Rights Act, even though they should have been.

      Freckles

      Delete
  22. Methinks Lord Bertrand Russel best described people like Brewer, Gohmert and their ilk.
    "The savage, like ourselves, feels the oppression of his impotence before the powers of Nature; but having in himself nothing the he respects more than Power, he is willing to prostrate himself before his gods, without inquiring whether they are worthy of worship. Pathetic and very terrible is the long history of cruelty and torture, of degradation and human sacrifice, endured in the of placating the jealous gods: surely, the trembling believer thinks, when what is most precious has been freely given, their lust for blood must be appeased, and more will not be required. The religion of Moloch--as such creeds may be generically called--is in essence the cringing submission of the slave, who dare not, even in his heart, allow the thought that his master deserves no adulation. Since the independence of ideals is not yet acknowledged, Power may be freely worshipped, and recieve an unlimited respect, despite its wanton infliction of pain."
    Lord Bertrand Russel..."A Free Man's Worship" 1903

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've really got to go back and read more Russell. Damn that's as good as Jim.

      Delete
  23. Come on, guys. Brewer did the right thing. Picking apart her intentions and motives gets us nowhere. It seems like people want animosity and conflict. I am a gay man who has seen so much progress in terms of how straight people see us these days, and I am very thankful for that. I fully understand that people in Brewer's age group don't "get" why people of the same sex would want to be together--in her day, nobody talked about it and hence it didn't exist in their minds (even though I've learned that gay life was going on right under their noses all the time, to a surprising extent). It is time for us to show some grace in this situation and just say thank you. I am so tired of all the acrimony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "People in Brewer's age group"? I'm just a few years younger than that old bat and I've NEVER been bigoted like her about "gay life"! Many many others in my age bracket (and older than she is) feel the same way! When I was young[er] I may have been naive, but I was never hateful. And I'm freaking tired of people thinking that because someone is over 50 [or so], s/he gets a "free pass" on racist/sexist behavior. (See Paula Deen and remember that "20 years ago" was the late 1980s, not 1940s.)

      She "did the right thing"? She went through the motions, it's true, but it was not about stopping a detestable bill from becoming law, it was about the money -- all about the money. She gets no credit from me for that. Read the "fine" essay again, as it says it much better than I can!

      Tell you what. I'll stop my part in "all the acrimony" when the others stop trying to pass laws that make LGBT people (and, often, women) into something less than full citizens with exactly equal rights. Until then, I'm bitching.

      Delete
    2. If you want to thank people for not pissing on you, that's your right. Feel free to check out of all the "acrimony."

      But don't demand that the rest of us do it. Demanding that the oppressed be nice to their oppressors is aiding and abetting the folks doing the oppressing. And it's one of the key ways the people in power stay in power--Making the oppressed look like bad people for being "uncivil."

      Delete
    3. ^^^^^ stunning riposte! thanks. :) xx

      Delete
    4. I meant howdidigethere's specifically there, but I have to hand it to you too Ruby! :D

      Delete
  24. "...Brewer at the behest of her oh so smug religion and her oh so morally superior political party vetoed SB 1062 not because it was blatantly counter to everything the United States stands for but rather because it would have cost Arizona money."

    Jim, a wonderful post (as usual), but I have to disagree with you on the above statement. Despite the ideals you fought for, and what we were all schooled to believe in our youth, I have become just cynical enough to believe that what America "stands for", at least at this particular place and time, is money and only money. Money, its acquisition, and its protection. We see it over and over again in so many, many guises. Here, of course. Current education reform is about turning schools into money making ventures for Pearson and other textbook and testing companies. The ACA and health"care" reform is about handing millions of new clients (read dollars) over to insurance companies. How much of our military infrastructure is now outsourced and making millions for Halliburton, Xe, and other profit oriented ventures?
    Add to that love or even worship of money the fact that so many of a particular flavor of people (mostly white, mostly evangelical fundie flavored Christians, and led by mostly but not exclusively men) cannot, simply *can not* comprehend that loss of privilege does NOT equal "reverse discrimination" - and welcome to AZ, FL, and apparently several other states around this country. And even at that, when they have to choose between privilege (which they would frame as principles or "rights" or religion) and money, money will win.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yeah, but this is how sanctions or the threat of sanctions works. (Don't let anyone tell you they don't. In the past, they have taken a while to sink in for some countries - South Africa, frex - but they do work. You don't hear countries shrugging and saying "Fuck off, we don't want your money." No, they bluster and threaten back, but they _worry_ and many, many times, they have knuckled under before sanctions are in place. The more economically enmeshed they are in global commerce, the more seriously the threat, though.) No idiot dictator or effed-up country does the right thing for the right reasons (obv) but the more they are pushed to understand that these things must be accepted and conformed with, the less they try to push these hateful agendae. And that gets internalized by both the politicians and the populace.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Money does run everything, and I think that's why GLBT activists pointed out, from the very start, the economic impacts this bill would have. Sure, there were a lot of Facebook memes on equality and on treating people well (you know, Golden Rule and all that), but when the lobbyists spoke, when the spokespeople were interviewed, they spoke on economic points, instead of trying to speak to treating people with dignity. We already know that argument doesn't work. You have to hit politicians where it hurts, and morality is not that button.

    I agree though. It's horrible. The whole spectacle was horrible, and as a person, it makes me really sad that this will actually be a point in those legislators' **favor** with these voters when election time comes around again.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This kind of political ploy is all too common. Introduce a ridiculous bill to please some bunch of not-too-smart constituents, and trust to the rest of Government to keep it from actually going anywhere. If Gov. Brewer hadn't vetoed this bill, the courts would have stopped it before it went into effect. We hope.

    But there's always a nasty "what if?". What if it actually happens? Now what? Arizona has experience with this; check out Gov. Ev Mecham. (He's the guy responsible for the Martin Luther King Day kerfluffle, as well as other disasters.)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thing is, of course, that unlike many states, Arizona's anti-discrimination statutes do NOT include LGBT individuals.
    Thus it has been, and remains, legal to refuse to hire or do business with those icky folks.
    As Jim, and others, have said the whole damned thing was political theater.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yep, if it wasn't, those calling for the veto would have said it's a morally wrong law, not that it would be bad for Arizona to pass it. Not one did, that I heard of.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It amazes me the way this became the insanity it was....whoever orginally brought this to the State deserves to be saddled and rode out of town on a rail.

    Funny thing is that even as a resident of the state of Christie....I feel bad for these folks in Arizona.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You feel bad for those folks in Arizona ... who voted for the majority of the legislature?

      Delete
  31. It got REAL. A Superbowl was at stake!

    ReplyDelete
  32. One wonders why these born again biblical politicians don't all move to Uganda where their like-minded soul-mates reside - no hate Bills need to be signed into law there, they've already done that years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  33. One wonders why these born again biblical politicians don't all move to Uganda where their like-minded soul-mates reside - no hate Bills need to be signed into law there, they've already done that years ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uganda is full of Black People .

      Delete
    2. Ah but that's a good question. The laws in Uganda were passed when AMERICAN right-wingers (Rick Warren for one) donates big bucks to the "local government" in exchange for passage of these laws. Here Warren is all brotherly love including giving Democrats a chance to respond while hiding the knife behind his back. Every time I hear his name I check if he's in back of me ready to strike

      Like Jim I would rather the opposition was "honest" enough to own their hate instead of wrapping it in bewildered confusion that the crazy liberals thought this TWO PAGE BILL said anything about bigotry - it was only about protecting those delicate flowers of Christianity because if not protected soon the Super Bowl half-time show would have been Christians vs Lions and not talking about the ones from Detroit. Bone Finger also took her time to appease her base instead of immediately saying this is morally wrong - then going into detail to make the base happy - Jon Stewart's bit last night was perfect as well as pointing out that the "War on Christians" is another Fox invention. Perhaps Dems can start writing bills that no child under 18 is allowed to tune in Fox and adults may only watch Fox an hour a day. That hour must be offset by another hour of news from MSNBC because recommending Al Jazerra would have them going even crazier. Marlene

      Delete
    3. Based on their plummeting ratings, pretty much the only way you would get anyone to watch MSNBC these days would be to mandate it.

      Delete
    4. Same for Fox Anon You forgot to mention that in your fair and balanced comment.

      Delete
  34. Wasn't there something similar to this just a few years ago in Ohio? I seem to recall businesses putting signs in the window in support of something like this and suddenly losing lots of sales. Epistemic Closure is a terrible thing.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: watching the Republican party is like watching a stage magician. 95% of what you see and hear is only a distraction. The party doesn't care about gay marriage, or the debt ceiling, or Obamacare. All their pointless bluster on those topics is just waving a red cape in front of the conservative voters. If you want to know what they really care about, look at what they actually accomplish. They've strangled government agencies with the sequester. They've fought off regulation that would eat into corporate profits. The Republican party's real agenda is always to benefit its corporate donors. Period, end of story. Everything else is a circus act, complete with clowns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seemingly torn forever between "My Sweet Lord" and "Oh, my sweet gold!", the Republicans just don't know which way to jump, so they do both by turns. If it wasn't so sad, it'd be funny. What *isn't* funny is the fact that so few people are paying enough attention to actually witness the spectacle, and those who make it their business to know these things predict a possible Republican Senate in '15. *sigh*...

      Delete
    2. Yes, Dan, exactly! 95% may be low.

      Delete
  36. Thank you so much for finally saying what needs to be said about John S. McCain. America's hero...maybe, but he's still a champion flim-flam artist. I appreciate you calling him out.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Maybe it's only me, but with all the other states 'debating similar laws", this crap is not going to stop. As long as there are two fucksticks to promote this thought, this bigoted shit will keep on coming. It will never stop. Am i wrong? Please someone say yes.

    ReplyDelete
  38. At least Michael Sam won't have to worry about a law encouraging discrimination against him if he is drafted by the Cardinals.
    Then there is Jack Buckman who actually believes the NFL has no moral decency if it allows men showing with gays. Yet he has no problem with the NFL's morals when its players rape and murder people. It is good to hear that some of his clients have fired his lobbying rim over his views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg - ETC(SW) USN - RetiredFebruary 27, 2014 at 11:49 AM

      Worth pointing out . . . If Michael Sam was drafted by the Cardinals he would be in a state that has no specific protection for sexual orientation in employment. He could still be fired, under current Arizona law, just for being gay. I know there are many employers whose policies protect sexual orientation, as they should, but that's their policy, not the law in AZ.

      Also, PSSST, Jack Buckman. You've been showering with gays for years. You just didn't know it.

      Delete
  39. Hot damn! Where has this blog been all my life? Why haven't I stumbled across it until now?

    Crankily yours,
    The New York Crank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greg - ETC(SW) USN - RetiredFebruary 27, 2014 at 11:50 AM

      Go surf the "Greatest Hits" (link above). The good stuff really is in there.

      Delete
  40. Sadly I think 'The Skids' got it right with their 1979 single: 'Working For The Yankee Dollar'.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Wow. Once more, you have given me a totally different perspective on an important issue. Good job! I thought the whole thing was stupid before, but now I realize it's much, much worse. Before the veto, I was having images of employees standing at the door profiling potential customers by their outward "gayness" and god help you if you look gay. (whatever that means). Now, I think that everyone should boycott Arizona just on general principle because this kind of stupidity is self perpetuating. They will just keep re-electing these idiots and the cycle will repeat, ad nauseum. Why should we reward these idiots with a super bowl, etc, because they stepped back from the precipice at the last possible second in a drama to get re-elected?
    Right now, the Telluride Ski Resort is hosting "Gay Ski week", which, as far as I can tell, is an excuse for a giant week long party. And, this year the pot is legal. The Ski resort doesn't prohibit gays any other time, so basically its just business as usual. I challenge anyone to see who's "gay" when they are dressed up in ski clothes. The main highlight of the week is an AIDS benefit with fashion show (all folks welcome, no matter your preference) to raise money for education and research. This has been happening for years and nothing horrible has happened. No one has been contaminated or changed over to the "dark side" due to this event. Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disney World had something similar and the fundamentals freaked out and threatened a boycott.

      Delete
    2. Susan Ray--so glad to hear about Telluride! My son ( with his masters' degree) ran the ski lifts there for many years.

      Freckles

      Delete
  42. Jim, again you've hit it on the head!! Thanks for the post! Michael.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Why anyone would cross the borders of Arizona is beyond me! Many retirees have purchased homes there and none of them I know are even discussing this matter....but, they are all Republicans!

    I agree that this was all about money! Detest Brewer, McCain and their Republican State Legislature. McCain has always talked out of both sides of his mouth and will go down in history for having picked the idiot Sarah Palin as his running mate! He is up for reelection in AZ and should be voted out of office!

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think it's safe to say that the religious extremists won't be seen wearing hair shirts and self flagellating as they parade the streets. Not while Saks Fifth Avenue survives. As long as they clothe their hunger for power in moral outrage they're screwed. Not that power and religion are mutually exclusive, but now a days they make stranger bedfellows than same sex lovers do.

    ReplyDelete
  45. This is a tempest in a teapot. Brewer vetoed the law because it purports to solve a problem that doesn't exist: "Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona." and "I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated." It is neither a great victory nor an act of cowardice or hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "they voted for the bill, but then asked the governor to veto it"

    That way, the record will show they each voted CONSERVATIVELY (that's good when election time arrives), AND Brewer's vetoing will prevent them from having to being responsible for a negative economic impact on Az!!!

    Freeportguy

    ReplyDelete
  47. http://philosophyinatimeoferror.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/god-didnt-die-he-was-transformed-into-money-an-interview-with-giorgio-agamben-peppe-sava-libcom-org/

    ReplyDelete
  48. Jan Brewer vetoing SB 1062: Right-wing greed at its finest. I know a few Christians who are sincere in wanting to help anyone in need, they don't preach and they don't judge, and live very simple lives. These right-wing "antics" horrify them. I wish more people were like them and less were like the proponents of SB 1062 hate.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This whole thing has been a feint, of course. RWNJ pols in Kansas and other states have been pushing the same crap, but they are happy to let the ones in Arizona go first, since they historically don't seem to mind leading dick first for the cause. Now the wording can be changed for the next try. There are a lot of "americans" who are very unhappy that Uganda and Russia are leading in this race to the bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I too was hoping that she would sign the bill. Bring up the Religious Conservative ugliness to the full light, so that even the blindest could see it in all its glory.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think Brewer should let the legislature loose in Arizona. Sign every stupid bill they put up to the Governor's office. Then leave. She is term limited anyway. Then see just how they do with the nut bags running the state. Not a soul on this planet would cross that state line unless they were too old to screw, really white and owned a spot at the RV fest in Quartzite. The Mexicans will stay because it is their home. The Mexicans are okay because they are sort of Christian you know,Catholic and they make wonderful servants. Oh and they don't tend to be gay, or so the white folk think as they ride to their Baptist church service on the Seniors Only bus. This is not a fictional thing I have seen it. I have worked there off and on for years. I don't have to any more and that is a relief. I live in Nevada and if I never go back to Arizona it will suit me. Nevada is full of redneck fools but we have no way to equal Arizona.

    ReplyDelete
  52. What most people don't seem to realize is that it is STILL legal to discriminate against LGBT people in AZ. Their anti discrimination laws don't include LGBT. This jaw wasn't necessary if someone wants to deny service, housing, or employment based on sexual orientation or gender identification there is no AZ law or Federal law that prevents it. Until there is a Federal law protecting LGBT civil rights it is left to state and local governments to decide if they wish to include LGBT persons as equal under the law. In less than half of the 50 states are LGBT equal and NOT in the nation as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kansas - http://www.kslegislature.org/li/b2013_14/measures/documents/hb2453_01_0000.pdf

    Tennessee - http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB2566

    Mississippi - http://openstates.org/ms/bills/2014/SB2681/documents/MSD00055572/

    Idaho - http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2014/H0427.pdf and http://legislature.idaho.gov/legislation/2014/H0426.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zoe - You missed out Oregon. (Though in our case it's going to be a referendum rather than direct legislation - and ironically, it'll almost certainly be sharing the ballot with an initiative to repeal Measure 32, the Beaver State's equivalent to Prop 8.)

      Delete
  54. I don't honestly have anything to say regarding this article specifically. I followed a link from Being Liberal to read this article and found it refreshing. Then I spent an hour or so skipping around reading your rules and whatnot. Pretty much, I just wanted to say "hey" and to take this opportunity to thank you for your service to our country. I truly appreciate folks like you who do what you do so I can be free to be me. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hi, I guess I am not the only one who thinks 'Let them do what they want and take the whole thing to the critical mass.". Yes, I'd say let them get what they want and feel the consequences.

    But...if that really happens, I believe the whole result won't be a peaceful one. And many innocent people will suffer. Even worse, some will profit during the process...

    ReplyDelete
  56. The author is making cloud animals (seeing what they want to see) to fit their own political agenda. McCain has a history of being socially liberal to moderate. Brewer did the right thing. Yet they get ripped apart for one reason, they have a "(R)" behind their name. Now, for the state legislators who voted for it, but then asked for it be repealed...they are hypocrites and political cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  57. First, Jim... I think you *are* an asshole... but so am I, so it's not a negative, IMNSHO.

    What your post here states, I have been saying the same since before the decision was made.. you just said it a hell of a lot better than I have. Thank you for that.

    I have good friends that live in AZ (for the time being, they are now reconsidering), and for that reason alone, I am glad she did the right thing (regardless of the motivation).

    To the "Anonymous" going on about cloud animals... can you honestly say that what Jim (and many others, mind you) has said? Do you deny that the reasoning behind her veto was anything other than to protect the interests of the (R) party in AZ, or to keep the money coming in? Do you honestly feel that the reason it was vetoed was due to it being intrinsically *wrong*?

    I do, however, agree completely that they are definitely hypocrites and political cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I think the entire thing happened just according to plan. Of course she was going to veto it--that was part of this plan. The goal was to allow legislators to do the posturing to get the crazy religious vote. Jan took one for the team, to the benefit of legislators.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Excellent. Someone is finally talking about the elephant in the room.

    As a corporate diversity trainer I watched one Fortune 500 company after another implement diversity programs that addressed LGBT issues and employees and include Sexual Orientation in their non-discimination policies till now, nearly all have them and nearly all have it. I used to think it was because they wanted to do the right thing, but that was hopelessly naive. They did it because it saved them money, delivered better candidates for employment, and kept employees longer.

    Good result, but for all the wrong reasons. The humanity? Not so important.

    ReplyDelete
  60. theotherlee, I'm sorry, but I see this article as a hack job trying to paint all Republicans as evil. You may ask how I came to that conclusion. For me, my conclusion is based on the author saying the (R)s are wrong, regardless of which side of the issue they are on. As a moderate, I can say without reservation, that many of the posters here, and the author, have an agenda to promote a certain mindset based on political affiliation. I honestly could care less what was the driving motivators were for the governor. The right decision was made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... based on the author saying the (R)s are wrong, regardless of which side of the issue they are on

      Sure. That's what I said. All republicans are evil. Boy, I hope you didn't miss that part where I said all Christians were evil too. And everybody who lives in Arizona is evil. And...oh, hell, you know, evil is everywhere. You can tell that's what I said, being as I used the words "all" and "evil" so many times in the text.

      As a moderate, I can say without reservation...

      Oh, as a moderate you're an expert on my big gay "agenda" then, are you? Well, as a moderate, I guess you've found me out, Sir. Well done.

      You may, if you like, visualize me rolling my eyes here.

      Delete
  61. If you're going to slam Brewer for her pragmatism in vetoing a blatantly anti-gay bill, then slam Lincoln for his naked pragmatism in signing the Emancipation Proclamation, by which he abandoned his most beloved moral principles, including the defense of the U.S. Constitution and belief in democracy.
    Lincoln signed this decree via his authority as commander-in-chief during a time of national emergency. Congress had no role to play in it. He signed it not on the basis that he considered slavery immoral (although he believed as much privately) or unconstitutional (which slavery most definitely was not, especially in the wake of the Dred Scott decision), but because slaves in Confederate states were considered essential assets to the rebel war machine. Freeing the slaves behind enemy lines (but not in Union state, such as Missouri, where slavery continued) dealt a devastating blow to the Confederate cause. In retrospect, Lincoln made a nakedly pragmatic move that was the exactly right one to make at that moment. So ease up on Jan Brewer and congratulate her for making the right call, regardless of her public reasons for doing so. Let's face it, the best politicians make their decisions on the basis of a mix of personal conscience and hard-headed pragmatism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, I understand what you're saying, I do, and I concede that you are correct in broad strokes.

      But you're leaving a few important things out.

      Tell you what, you have my word, if Brewer now follows through and vacates her party's and her religion's anti-gay position and supports full rights (including the right to marry), for LGBT people, in her state and all others, as Lincoln eventually supported full citizenship for the slaves he freed, I'll do as you ask and sing Brewer's praises - and you may hold me to it. I'll formally apologize for questioning her moral courage in this post and hail her pragmatic change of heart.

      Hell, even Lincoln welcomed the rebel South back into the union, I'll be happy to welcome Brewer to the ranks of former republicans (you know, like me).

      And just for the record, again, I agree with the gist of your comment. I sincerely do. I really don't have a problem with pragmatism in a politician per se, and in point of fact I'd like to see a lot more of it on both sides of the aisle instead of chest beating ideology and fanatical obstruction in support of political principles.

      That's the whole point of this article, Mike. Like you, I think she made the right call, but I protest that it's a single case for cynical reasons instead of the beginning of an actual change of rudder - as it was for Lincoln.

      Delete
    2. Lincoln also pragmatically suspended the writ of habeas corpus, imprisoned tens of thousands of political dissenters, waged total war against southern citizens (rape, plunder, burning of houses and whole towns during winter, summary executions, 50,000 dead civilians), taxed alcohol and tobacco, introduced the first federal income tax and draft, executed thousands of dissenters who were drafted but deserted, closed hundreds of newspapers that criticized him or the war, destroyed the value of the currency by revoking the gold standard, and deported a sitting member of Congress. All of this was blatantly unconstitutional, but he had to be pragmatic, right?

      No, you won't publish this. You are a typical Liberal. When your flimsy arguments begin to crumble, you run and hide. In your case, you create a diversionary argument by parsing some word or phrase, or you affix a label thinking you can dismiss the argument out of hand. Then you cower behind your moderator buttons. I figured you for more fight. To find out you are a coward was very disappointing.

      Delete
    3. And yet you hide behind anonymity. How easy is it to call someone out when you have no skin in the game. If I were into calling names, I would say, Typical Tea Partier.

      Delete
    4. Boy, good thing you don't resort to labels, Anonymous.

      Or engage in personal attacks.

      Or fixate on one word or phrase.

      Yeah, that's a good thing. I'll have to work on that, thanks for pointing it out and setting the example.

      You are a typical Liberal

      And you are the standard issue anonymous troll. I'll be sure to file your observation right next the email I just got calling me a "typical warmongering conservative."

      Then you cower behind your moderator buttons.

      It amuses me that you seem to think you're the only obnoxious blowhard who shows up here. Or that you think your blustering boilerplate bullshit is somehow special, I see a hundred comments from babbling jackasses just like you every day.

      If you don't like how I run my site, then what are you doing here? I mean, really, what's that say about you?

      Do you really, really, think you're going to change my mind with your threats and insults and little passive-aggressive taunts? Really? I mean does that work for you, like ever?

      Anonymous, there are plenty of libertarian circlejerks on the internet where you'll be welcome, by all means head on over to The Blaze and don't be shy with the reach-arounds.

      I figured you for more fight. To find out you are a coward was very disappointing.

      Some anonymous asshole from the internet thinks I'm a coward? How oh how will I ever live with the shame?

      No, you won't publish this.

      Looks like you're as right about that as you are with the rest of your bullshit.

      Be a good little troll and fuck off now, Anonymous. Nothing from you will ever post again.

      Delete
  62. Jan only made the right choice because she cannot run for Governor again. If she was able to be on the ballot, I think she would have strongly considered signing it. She has nothing to lose in challenging the RW in AZ. This was agonizing to watch from Tucson. Her comment about the bill being "too broadly worded" was such an interesting one. It was worded so that it might, just might, have been used against the oh so sensitive RW Christians in this state rather than limiting the discrimination to the LGBT community as intended. With that statement, she implied that had they worded it narrowly enough, she would have signed it. Gawd, I so wish either Pima and the other sane Southern AZ Co. could become their own state or that we could transport Maricopa and Pinal sanz the City of Phoenix to Texas!!!

    ReplyDelete
  63. Jim, Like many other before me, I want to thank you for expressing your outrage at this issue and a number of others. It was so gratifying to hear/read what I have been thinking and feeling. Like a bad itch being scratched. I look forward to hearing more about your world view.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Excellent commentary. I agree with every word you stated. This move was nothing more than the sound of ki chink ringing loudly in her ears and the telephone calls made by those zealots telling her how to spin it so she can come out looking like St Theresa. I am not buying it and i don't think reasonable people bought it either. These people are talented hypocrites. They would cut down a tree and then stand on top of the tree and make a speech about conservation. I hope the voters use this little drama in their next election decision. I would rather have a liar in the house than a liar who is also a hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  65. If I may engage in a little tealeaf reading, a few excerpts from Brewer's not-signing statement:

    ...our immediate challenge is fixing a broken child protection system. Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk.

    Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty

    I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner's religious liberty has been violated. The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences

    I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.


    Some of the wording suggests Brewer isn't really worried about a religious backlash, but the same wording, if the fundies are paying attention, could be smelt as a fart in their general direction.

    The first bolded phrase, "Instead, this is the first policy bill to cross my desk" is a dig at the legislature, and thus the religious Republicans that control it.

    Then she notes the bill doesn't address a specific, present concern. Another slap at the leg for wasting their time on nonsense. Not her words, but that's the clear meaning.

    Then she sinks the nail she just drove in by noting there are no examples of anyone suffering the indignities the bill was supposedly meant to remedy.

    I like the last one best. She notes the bill might "create more problems than it purports to solve". Good word, "purports". Seems to me if her heart was with the fundies, regardless of the necessity of vetoing the bill, she'd find some way to signal that. One of the verbal dog-whistles they like so well. "Purports" can be read as "claims" with no linguistic gymnastics at all, and "claims" is a favorite of ideological detractors. "so-called" is another one.

    OK, I'm a tealeaf-reading Kremlinologist, probably making much ado about nothing, but...I dunno. (Disclaimer: I don't like Brewer one bit, and that airport photo-op she engineered for the sole purpose of waggling her finger in Obama's face on camera still rankles.) Just saying she might be more of a garden-variety Asshole Republican than a god-botherer. A distinction without a difference? To us, probably. To the JeezoNazis, maybe not.

    Then, too, she--or her speech writer--might have worded it that way just for people like me...

    ReplyDelete
  66. Best commentator I know on Arizona:http://roguecolumnist.typepad.com

    ReplyDelete
  67. I swear, if these wrong-headed morons would spend one-thousandth of the time & effort they waste in obstruction, hate/fear-mongering, underhanded tactics, and name-calling and instead use it in the service of working together to make a better place for us all to live, we'd be self-sufficient, civilized, and everyone would have flying cars. Thanks a lot, assholes.

    Pam in PA

    ReplyDelete
  68. Look, a politician is the lowest form of life. And Republican politicians are the worst of the worst. They are all pieces of shit, and that includes Brewer, McCain, Flake, and all the rest of them. Brewer did what she did for money, as you said.

    The there is one bright spot. I have never seen gays as worked up and active as I did during this fight. This woke some of the people up who can't find the time to get involved and fight for our rights. Maybe some of them will stay awake.

    The fuckheads in the Arizona Legislature will try again to do something to screw with us, but we showed that we can rally the forces against them. Who cares if we had to energize the money interests? That's the way politics works. You win by mobilizing the forces that help you win.

    There is nothing to admire about Jan Brewer or John McCain or Jeff Flake or Mitt Romney. But they woke up to the reality that we are here and we are here to stay and we have growing power. So let's put it to use. And the way to do that is to VOTE and get others to VOTE.

    Gene in Tucson

    ReplyDelete
  69. Question: If said bill in Arizona had been passed into law, how would business owners actually know a customer was gay? I mean, aside from obvious situations such as gay weddings, how would they know?

    Or would gay people be forced to wear, say, Pink Triangles?


    Land of The Free, hmmm.


    Yeah, we've seen where THAT one goes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They wouldn't. I know the bill protected any bigots from lawsuits brought by actual LGBTs, but I wonder what would happen if someone made a bad call and ended up discriminating against a straight person. Would the law protect from that sort of suit?

      Delete
  70. Master-chief,
    Quit reading my mind.
    Regards,
    TS Martin

    ReplyDelete
  71. I am a Christian, yet, I am just not a bigoted, miserable, judgmental person. I was appalled at the "Christian" support for this. It is as repulsive to Christians like myself as it is to those who do not have the belief. The right wing agenda is an embarrassing humiliation for many of us. We recognize nothing in it.

    ReplyDelete

Be sure to read the commenting rules before you start typing. Really.