TresSugar

Wild West! 22% Think States Have Right to Secede-Some Did!

CitizenSugar — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:30:16 -0700

Ride 'em cowboys! Here's a little poll for you state's rights-ers out there: a new Zogby poll shows that one in five Americans believe that any state or region has the right to "peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic." Those in the South and East agreed a little stronger with the notion of ditching the "United" part (perhaps because they've done it before?) and young people agreed with the notion much more strongly - 40 percent of them in fact.

It's one thing to believe in it - but would they support an secession effort by their state? Yup, 18 percent would buy in, with another 10 percent not being sure.

Though the South Carolina secession could be the most famous historical example of breaking away, the Times has a smashing tale of a rogue state fantasy of rebels in 1939 to grab chunks of Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana to form a new state, Absaroka. The plan was complete with license plates, a Miss Absaroka 1939, and a visit from a foreign King (of Norway.)

If this tale, combined with the fact that 22 percent believe a state can secede - should the US be fearing for the union? Would you support an effort to secede?

View 5 Photos ›

Source

Hillary Talks Sexism, Obama's Job Offer, and Mad Men to Vogue

TresSugar — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:00:35 -0800

Hillary Clinton finally sat down for a long-overdue Vogue interview. She offended editor Anna Wintour during the primaries by turning down the fashion mag out fear of looking "too feminine." And though she won't be on the December cover, the article is as substantial and satisfying as a cover story.

From night swimming alone to her favorite shows (Mad Men!), we see a side of Madame Secretary that all the vetting in the world would not unearth. See some of what she had to say below.

On visiting countries as a high-ranking female: "You can go to some countries and there's not a woman in the room. They don't even make the effort to give me the token woman minister. . . . And in lots of African countries the honorific for women is 'Mama.' So I had lots of people say to me, 'Mama, what about this; Mama, what about that?'"

On President Obama's job offer: "I was stunned after the election when President Obama asked me to consider this. . . . I really was very unconvinced. I did not think it was the right thing to do. I didn't want to do it. I just really had a lot of doubts, and I kept suggesting other people: Well, how about this person! How about that person! This one would be really good! But then a friend of mine called me and basically said, 'How would you have felt if you'd been elected and you'd called him and asked him to do this?' And that really made a big impression on me. How do you say no? And so . . . I said yes. And here I am."

On Mad Men: "That's how it was! That's why the women's-liberation movement was so shocking. It was like news from outer space"

See what else she had to say after the jump.

Rhode Island Governor Vetoes Same-Sex Funeral Rights

TresSugar — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:00:00 -0800

Rhode Island's state legislature thought it would be a good idea to give same-sex partners the right to plan each other's funerals when one partner passes away. It's a right married couples have, of course. But Gov. Don Carcieri said: not so fast! The socially conservative leader vetoed the bill because it's part of a "disturbing trend" threatening heterosexual marriage. I'm confused. How does a gay person planning a loved one's funeral have anything to do with someone else's marriage?

Those who support the veto point out that Rhode Island recognizes neither gay marriage nor civil unions. Still, many people are shocked that the governor would intervene to deny same-sex partners some comfort during a hard time. The state's attorney general has called the veto "cruel and heartless," and lawmakers in the Democratically-controlled legislature said they would work to override the veto. Hopefully they will succeed!

Global Totals: Bolivia Votes on States' Rights

CitizenSugar — Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:59 -0700

Exit polls are showing that Bolivia’s wealthiest province, Santa Cruz, voted to pass a measure yesterday that would grant them autonomy from the federal government. The federal government, lead by Evo Morales is calling this move “unconstitutional.”

Although a few hundred years and a couple of time zones separate the two, Bolivia is facing a heated smidge of the conundrum that Hamilton and Jefferson debated in the early years of the American republic: States' Rights versus Federal Government. The debate between the two sides in Bolivia was heated at best, violent at worst.

View 5 Photos ›

The area of Santa Cruz, the most affluent in Bolivia, has the most to lose if the federal government decides to move forward and nationalize their gas and oil industry. Their solution is to make like Jefferson and grant themselves greater autonomy, including the right to select their own regional governor (currently the federal government appoints all regional governors). Santa Cruz is only one of five states in Bolivia voting on this statute. To see what the federal government is up to, read more.

The federal government’s plan since Morales was elected has been to nationalize the oil and gas industries siphoning more money to the central government and to break up large landholdings, most of which are owned by those in Santa Cruz. The federal government’s position is complicated - but they claim that with this revenue, they can further reinvest in the nation’s infrastructure and provide land to those who have none.

The Bolivian central government stands by their belief that no state should have the right to control what they believe are the nation’s resources for their own benefit while the states claim that they have the right to self-determination by their federal government. Sound familiar?

Should wealthy Bolivians get to declare autonomy? Or will the vote serve to codify economic inequity? Do you think the government will uphold its word to spend the cash on country improvements?

Source

Flashback: What If You Had to Ask Permission to Get Married?

TresSugar — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 02:00:00 -0700

Sometimes empathy is the most powerful way of moving civil rights forward, which is why this PSA from 2005 is so effective. It depicts what it must feel like for gay people who are barred from legally marrying by showing a man walking from house to house asking strangers if can have his girlfriend's hand in marriage. Wow. (As of today, five states - New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa - have made gay marriage legal.)

Jon Stewart: How Could Senators Vote Against Antirape Bill?

TresSugar — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:00:00 -0700

Senator Al Franken recently sponsored the Franken Anti-Government-Contractor Rape Liability Bill. The legislative amendment states that the US government will not hire companies who make employees sign a contract saying that they will not sue if they are raped by other employees.

Franken was prompted by a female employee of a Halliburton subsidiary who was gang-raped by her co-workers in Iraq. She could not press criminal charges because it happened out of US jurisdiction, and she could not sue, because the fine print in her employment contract waived that right.

Franken's amendment should put an end to such atrocities, but not all members of the Senate were on board. The final vote was 68-30 in favor. Jon Stewart wants to know: how is anyone against this? Watch this clip from last night's Daily Show to find out how certain lawmakers justified their opposition.

Supreme Court Considers Legality of Crosses on Public Land

TresSugar — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:05:00 -0700

While the Supreme Court decides whether or not religious symbols can be erected on public land, one justice already has his mind made up. During the oral arguments on the legality of a cross at a World War I memorial, Catholic Justice Antonin Scalia more than hinted at how he is voting. Scalia said yesterday:

What would you have them erect? . . . Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star? . . . I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead.

Scalia definitely has no problem avoiding religious sensitivity. He seems to dismiss even the idea of a more inclusive memorial outright. Since the memorial was built more than 75 years ago, there could be a valid argument for preserving it for historical reasons, but it seems only right that today's memorials should not favor one religion. Then again, perhaps the separation of church and state goes even further to dictate that no religious symbols should be found on public land. That is the question the Supreme Court must decide.

What do you think? Should crosses be allowed on public lands, should religious memorials be required to be all-inclusive, or should religious symbols be banned altogether from public land?

Study Says: Single Women More Likely to Pursue Taken Men

TresSugar — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:00:00 -0700

As if single women were not stigmatized enough, researchers at Oklahoma State University, likening single women to certain species of "mate-poaching" birds and fish, claim that a study they conducted reveals that single women are more likely to pursue men who are taken than single.

Melissa Burkley, who conducted the study with her colleague Jessica Parker, told 184 heterosexual university student participants they would be involved in a study on sexual attraction. The volunteers (equal numbers men and women, half attached and half single), were told that a computer program would match them with an ideal partner.

The same photograph of Mr. Right and Ms. Right were presented to the respective groups. Half of them were told these ideal mates were single, the other half were told they were in romantic relationships. The results? When told Mr. Right was single, 59 percent of the single women were interested in pursuing a relationship, but a whopping 90 percent were interested when told he was attached. Men didn't seem to care either way, and the attached women in the groups seemed to slightly favor single men. To hear what the researchers had to say about the results, read more.

So what do researchers Burkley and Parker make of the results? They hypothesize that single women might be more drawn to attached men because they've been "prescreened' by other women.

Perhaps I don't know enough about research methods, but how does this speculation arise from the results? Also, although these researchers asked participants whether they'd actually pursue a relationship rather than merely ask if they found the ideal mates attractive as previous studies had, what does that mean exactly? They might consider it - but I find it hard to believe 90 percent of women would actually go after an attached man. What do you think about this study and whether or not it would actually translate into real-world action?

Oh Snap! China Goes All Out For Its Birthday

TresSugar — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:30:00 -0700

Bringing back memories of last Summer's epic Olympic opening ceremony, China went all out to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the communist state. While thousands celebrated the red revolution today, those who did not take part faced tight crackdowns. In fact, gatherings in cities other than Beijing and Hong Kong were banned, as were divorces! There were some anti-government protests in Hong Kong, however.

An American icon also took part in the celebrations, despite the US's historical issues with communist China and its human rights abuses. The Empire State building was lit up in red last night in honor of the anniversary. Protesters called the lighting inappropriate for a symbol of freedom and a "blatant approval" of totalitarianism.

To see more photos, read more.

View 15 Photos ›

Should Authorities Drop the Polanski Case If Victim Wishes?

TresSugar — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 07:00:00 -0700

It's been more than 30 years since celebrated director Roman Polanski, then 43, plead guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old, after apparently giving champagne and part of a qualude to her. He served 42 days in a maximum security prison and, right before sentencing, fled the country when the media-conscious judge presiding over the case voiced his desire to give him another 48 days.

Over the weekend, Polanski was arrested at the Zurich airport and awaits the Swiss court's decision on whether or not he will be extradited to the United States.

Polanski, director of such classics as Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, and the Oscar-winning film The Pianist, has been living in France ever since he fled the US. (He was a no-show at the Oscars when The Pianist won in 2003.) His victim, now 45 and the recipient of an undisclosed sum from Polanski after she sued him, wishes his charges would be dropped and that the whole case would go away. She believes that because his case was so mishandled years ago, continual attempts over the years to revive it bring unwanted publicity - and pain - to her, her husband, and her children.