TresSugar

State of the Nanny: What Was Banned in 2008?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:00:34 -0800

From banning cigarette sales in San Francisco and Boston drug stores to ticketing people who are annoying in public by words, motions, or signs (interpret that!) in a Michigan city, nanny state laws cans quickly go from public service to first amendment violations. Check out the video below for a quick, and biased, summary of what was banned in '08.

Christian Fraternities Not Always Welcome on Campus

CitizenSugar — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:00:00 -0800

Water may be the only wet thing at Christian fraternity Slip-n-Slide parties, but their existence on college campuses has been met with resistance across the country.

You would think by not drinking, rejecting hazing, and promoting public service they would be a college administrator’s dream, but only accepting Christian members has earned them an exclusionary reputation. As if all fraternities weren’t!

The University of Florida refused to grant Beta Upsilon Chi official status for that exact reason. The Christian fraternity filed a federal discrimination suit against the school because they could not have a meeting place or recruit on campus without official fraternity status. For the rest of the story, read more.

But while Beta Upsilon Chi fights to be recognized, at the University of New Mexico another Christian fraternity’s unofficial status was the loophole it needed to turn down a Mormon. Because it runs through the Student Activities Center - and is not part of the Interfraternity Council - it is not subject to regulations that would otherwise prohibit it.

A UNM student activity organization must follow Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on race, color, or national origin; however, Christian fraternities argue that the First Amendment protects their right to associate.

Phew! Sounds like they have to decide which is more important - the right to associate with whomever you choose or the right to not be discriminated by religion. What do you think?

Source

Women Worry That Obama Is Throwing Them Under the Bus

TresSugar — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:42:32 -0800

Back in January, feminist magazine Ms. hailed Barack Obama as a super feminist. But the president's recent tepid response to protecting abortion rights might mean that the love affair with Obama is about to end for many women. Over at the Daily Beast, women's rights activist Amy Siskind argues that the Stupak amendment, which treats women's rights as a political bargaining chip that can be traded for healthcare reform, is just one more example of how Obama couldn't care less about women . . . except when he's trying to win their votes of course. She writes:

He appointed fewer women into his cabinet than President Bill Clinton. He surrounded himself with czars, more than 90 percent of whom are male. He appointed Larry Summers, of "girls are inferior in math and science" fame, to a key economic post. He played basketball, golfed and fished with men and men only. He had beers with Skip Gates, but ignored it when Rihanna was almost strangled to death. And so on.

Of course it's not all bad. Ms. released a report chronicling the giant strides Obama made for women during his first 100 days in office. These actions included: signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, instituting a new ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, establishing the White House Council on Women and Girls, and overturning the "global gag rule" in order to re-fund global family planning organizations.

Has the Obama administration let you down when it comes to women's rights?

Teen Suspended For Telling Muslim-American to Take Off Hijab

TresSugar — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:00:00 -0700

Heather Lawrence, a 16-year-old from Spring Hill, FL, may want to rethink what it means to be a patriotic American.

A junior ROTC member who wants to enlist in the Army next Summer, Lawrence was recently suspended for chastising a fellow student in the halls who was wearing a hijab, saying, “Take that thing off your head and act like you're proud to be an American." She first took offense at the girl when she noticed that she didn’t stand for the pledge of allegiance. Lawrence's parents, outraged that she was suspended for five days, are thinking of taking legal action. (The girl Lawrence confronted didn't complain, but a teacher overheard the remarks and reported her.)

Lawrence’s parents say that it’s Heather’s First Amendment right to “speak her mind,” but Springstead High’s principal sees Heather’s behavior as a of violation the district’s policy against bullying and harassment. According to a school staffer who asked Lawrence why she confronted the student, her harassment seemed to have a prejudicial tinge. "She began to rant,” said the staffer, “that she was enlisting and was going to Iraq and that basically because the girl looks Middle Eastern, that makes her an enemy because all Iraqis are Middle Eastern."

We’ve talked before about how Muslim women wearing hijabs seems to set a lot of people off. As for having to say the pledge of allegiance, last year the US Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a provision in Florida law mandating that people must stand for the pledge.

What do you think of Lawrence’s treatment of the hijab-wearing Muslim-American and her subsequent suspension? When does patriotism go too far?

Should a Girl Have a Right to Wear Pro-Life Shirt to School?

TresSugar — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:00:05 -0700

When she was in the seventh grade last year, Anna Amador wore this graphic t-shirt to school for National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day. Her principal ordered her to change out of the "growing, growing, gone" shirt, a decision Anna's mom says violated her First Amendment rights. Now, on Anna's behalf, her mom is suing the school in federal court.

The school claims that the t-shirt, which shows a growing fetus, violated dress-code regulations against clothing with suggestions of "tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter." It seems like the shirt falls under these broad rules, but the girl argues that the school inconsistently applied the dress code based on the subjective opinions of officials.

Do you think Anna had a right to wear this shirt?

Que Pasa? Understanding California's Prop 8 Hearings

CitizenSugar — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:44:40 -0800

Crowds gathered outside San Francisco's Supreme Court today while inside the court argued the hair-splitting details of the California Constitution and what it takes to change it.

The court has 90 days to make two major decisions: First, whether Prop 8, which eliminated the right to same-sex marriage, should be upheld or overturned. And second, whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages that already took place should remain valid.

It comes down to two words, really - amend and revise. The court needs to decide whether Prop 8 amends the constitution or revises it. The difference? A revision is a fundamental change that no ballot proposition can pass. It requires support from two-thirds of the state legislature and a follow-up majority vote by the people. Because same-sex marriage was deemed an "inalienable right" by the court last year, gay-rights proponents see it as a revision. On the other hand, an amendment is a routine change that simply requires a majority vote, like Prop 8 got with its 52 percent, and no legislative approval.

So while we wait till June for a decision, a new question emerges: Should it be harder to change a constitution?

Source

View 5 Photos ›

Michelle Obama Dishes Secrets to White House Staffers' Kids

TresSugar — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:00:00 -0700

On Take Your Kids to Work Day yesterday, Michelle Obama took questions from 170 children, ages 7 to 14. She later called the grilling her "first official press conference."

"They asked me a ton of questions," the first lady said, "and they were hard." So what did these intrepid, young reporters find out for us?

On her dream White House job: First lady. "I think I have the best job in the White House. I don't have to deal with the hard problems every day," she said. "Because I don't get paid, I get to do whatever I want."

The worst part of the White House: Running on the treadmill every morning.

On breaking the rules: "Every now and then I have this thing that I like to do with some of my staff members," she admitted, "we sneak out, without telling anybody, and we go and test out all the fun places to eat in DC. I went to Five Guys [the burger chain] and nobody knew it." An aid later amended that this didn't mean she went without the Secret Service. Too bad!

To see what else Michelle had to say, read more.

On new dog Bo: He "likes to chew on people's feet and cause commotions. Oh, he is a crazy dog."

On no longer cooking: "I don't miss cooking," she said, "I'm just fine with other people cooking. Their food is really good."

What she'd do in the event of a major disaster: "I'd wake my husband up if it were at night. And I'd tell him, hey, buddy, you're the president, get down to the Oval Office and call some leaders."

Well, good to know!

Source

How Republican Meg Whitman Plans on Winning Women's Vote

TresSugar — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:00:00 -0700

Last week San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom announced his candidacy for CA governor with a tweet heard round the state. But he's not the only candidate with technological savvy. Meg Whitman, the former CEO of Internet giant eBay, announced her bid back in February. Whitman, a Republican, wants to become the first woman to run the golden state. She was a national co-chair of John McCain's campaign, but her work experience lies in the private sector.

I chatted with the chair of Meg's Women's Coalition, Jillian Manis, to find out how Meg plans to appeal to women for votes. From our conversation, I got the sense that Meg sees herself as a different breed of Republican than, say, a certain female governor from Alaska.

While she's fiscally conservative, Meg is pro-choice and has a bit of a tangled stance on gay marriage - she voted for Prop. 8 because she personally feels marriage should be between a man and a woman, but she claims to respect everyone's position. In other words, she doesn't want to make opposition to same-sex marriage a crucial plank in her platform. Here's a recap of my conversation with Jillian.

Why will Meg appeal to women?
First of all, I don't think women vote for a gender. I really don't think they vote for a party for the most part, either. I think they vote for the person. And I think that Meg is a person that represents a leadership perspective that is both domestic and global, which will be extremely helpful right now as this world is flat and we do need to create relationships with other states and countries to move our state forward. (By working at eBay) she understands what interdependence is, what community building is.
Positions on female reproductive rights, especially abortion, typically separate the two parties. How does Meg explain her pro-choice position, since it's unlikely for a Republican candidate?
I think Meg has always preached inclusion. I think she very much respects people's choices. . . She's not going to force her own personal choices on others. That's not about working together that's about driving each other apart. I would say I'm socially moderate and fiscally conservative, but that has been redefined here in California and definitely in the Republican party. We are definitely more progressive and more inclusive than the rest of the country vis-a-vis our party. I know Sarah Palin doesn't represent me.
So Meg is pro-choice because she doesn't want to force her own choices on others. How was her Pro Proposition 8 stance consistence with her stance on abortion?

To see Jillian's response to this question, and for more on Meg's thoughts on gay marriage, read more.

Meg never gave money to Prop 8. She never made a public stand on Prop 8. It basically came down to when she went into the voting booth she voted for her personal choice. And that is something we have to respect. It doesn't mean she's going to change the laws. I am personally pro-life, but I am publicly pro-choice. I would never force my choice, nor would she, on somebody else.
Miss California came out against gay marriage personally, which she says cost her the crown. Obviously Miss USA and governor are different, but do you think that Meg's personal support of a constitutional amendment that ended gay marriage could derail her chance to be governor?
Well, I would hope not because we have too many big problems on our plate here in California and everything that Meg Whitman represents should be weighed equally. . . Her ability to stimulate this economy, to give people jobs, to re-energize, to apply technology to make government more efficient, to look at clean tech solutions for our environment, these are things that we should look at. . . So to make gay marriage the center piece of this election than shame us! And by the way we need to respect her as she's respecting us. And she does respect a women's right to choice and she does respect every body's choice.

From what you've read, do you think Meg sounds like a different kind of Republican candidate, or do you find her stances predictable?

Source

Should Congress Ban Michelle Obama From Policy Work?

CitizenSugar — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:00:44 -0700

As first lady, Michelle Obama has brought the cameras and awareness to a variety of issues. She's promoted sustainable food, highlighted the work of nonprofits, and honored female vets.

Back in 1993 (when Hillary was mixing things up in the White House), a federal appeals court ruled that the first lady was functionally a government employee. That means she (or maybe someday he) could participate in policy debates like a member of the administration.

Now House Republicans are pushing for an amendment that would overturn that decision. The new rule would force Michelle Obama to do her policy work in public, because she would be considered an "outside advisory panel." Essentially, it would keep presidential spouses from working on policy issues within the administration.

Regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo, do you think it's right for the first lady to have a policy role?

Bush Memos Released - What's Been Hiding?

CitizenSugar — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:24:29 -0800

President Obama can't keep a secret. Yesterday, his administration released antiterrorism memos that claimed exceptional powers for Bush in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001. The Obama administration also revealed that the CIA destroyed about 100 videotapes of terror suspect interrogations.

In the memos the Justice Department said:

Gave the US military approval to attack apartment buildings and office complexes in the US.
Approved high-tech surveillance against US citizens.
Claimed the ability to suspend treaties unilaterally.
Said the president could take actions to combat terrorism without Congress's approval.
Claimed the the military could search and seize terror suspects in the US without warrants.
Paved the way for the suspension of First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights if the fight against terror required it.

The final bullet point really troubles me. How can you protect freedoms by taking away freedoms? That claim, made in October 2001, was eventually revoked in October 2008, because it was too extreme. Some of the other opinions were rescinded five days before Bush left. What's your reaction to these memos?