Skip to content

Month: May 2012

Dimon in the rough

Dimon in the rough

by digby

Felix Salmon explains what happened with JP Morgan today and it’s frankly kind of scary. Nobody seems to think this has indications for the greater financial system at the moment but then we’ve heard that before. In any case, he ends with this:

[T]his loss only goes to show how weak the Volcker Rule is: Dimon is adamant, and probably correct, in saying that Iksil’s bets were Volcker-compliant, despite the fact that they clearly violate the spirit of the rule. Now that we’ve entered election season, Congress isn’t going to step in to tighten things up — but maybe the SEC will pay more attention to Occupy’s letter, now. JP Morgan more or less invented risk management. If they can’t do it, no bank can. And no sensible regulator can ever trust the banks to self-regulate.

The Wall Street Journal live-blogged the call today, which featured this little exchange right out of the gate:

Dimon is done speaking, will take a few questions.

2:09 pmby David BenoitAdd a Comment
Dimon: “Obviously we should have acted sooner.”

2:10 pm$2 billion trade came in 2Qby Paul VignaAdd a Comment
Question: When did you catch it? When did you update regulators?

Dimon says there were “small” losses in the first quarter, and the $2 billion loss came in second quarter. “Obviously, that got our attention.”

2:11 pmby David BenoitAdd a Comment
Dimon personally apologizes for meetings he had this week with analysts where he wasn’t allowed to say anything.

2:16 pmAdd a Comment
Dimon says that CIO has done a great job for a long while, but obviously this was a big mistake.

2:17 pmby David BenoitAdd a Comment
Dimon officially apologizes to Guy Moszkowski of BofA. “I feel terrible” about meeting. Apparently the two had a chat this week.

Gosh that sounded familiar. Oh right:

JPMorgan this week finalised a $US153.6 million ($145m) settlement with the SEC over claims it misled investors about collateralised debt obligations created before the global crisis.

Dimon admits banks — including his — made mistakes.

Ever the salesman, though, he is confident JPMorgan has righted the wrongs and says it is disappointing that Wall Street’s reputation is so tarnished.

“It’s so unfair to talk about Wall Street and ethics,” he says.

“The people that we deal with a lot on Wall Street are some of the most ethical people I know.

“There are some bad apples on Wall Street. I think the military is the most extraordinary organisation but there are some bad apples in the military.

“I think universities are unbelievable but there are some bad apples in universities. I think reporters for most part are smart and hard-working people, but there are some bad apples as reporters.”

Yes, that was so unfair.

I don’t know if any of that talk about misleading people this week is going to turn out to be relevant to be honest. But you would think that Dimon, of all people, would have been careful about such things. On the other hand, what’s the difference? They apparently didn’t violate the Volcker Rule even with 2 billion in losses and the SEC probably won’t do much.

JP Morgan Chase was known for being the best in the business at risk management — rare entity that didn’t get caught up in the speculative fever that characterized the business before the crash. And as a result Dimon took the lead in making lugubrious pleas to leave the poor banks aloone, insisting that regulations like Dodd-Frank were destroying the very foundation of the financial system which was well able to regulate itself. Well, how’d that work out?

Let’s all pray that nobody’s bonus is affected by all this. I couldn’t take the weeping.

.

Gay marriage: getting there by hook or by crook

Getting there by hook or by crook

by digby

Ezra’s featuring a graph that shows the huge growth in support for same sex marriage in just the past few years. (Unfortunately, I can’t seem to upload the graph, so you’ll have to go there to see it.)

Lewis’s estimates, which aggregate many different polls over many years to come up with a fuller picture of public opinion on this issue, show that support for same-sex marriage has increased by 16 points since 2004. The increase has been fastest among Democrats and slowest among Republicans. That means the issue has gotten more polarized, too.

Support varies dramatically between different states, Lewis continues. “My most recent estimates suggest majority support for same-sex marriage in 16 states.” With the exception of Alaska, those 16 states are all safe states for Obama. But Lewis’s latest numbers only go through 2011. “If we figure support has gone up another two points in the last year, that would push Wisconsin, Arizona and Maryland into majority-support territory, and Illinois and Minnesota right on the borderline.”

You can argue that these polls overstate the support gay marriage actually has among voters. After all, it’s a perennial loser at the ballot box. But Lewis notes that the same analysis “showed 35 percent support in North Carolina. And that’s pretty consistent with the vote there.”

What this means is that support for gay marriage is growing rapidly in the blue states, which is good news. It’s possible that California and some of the other more liberal states will be able to overturn these constitutional amendments in a fairly short period of time. The others will take longer, but hopefully there will be a more amenable Supreme Court in place at some point that will defy these backward states and codify the right across the nation as they did with Loving vs Virginia.

But it’s still going to take some fighting, a battle which the gay community has proven time and again that it is more than capable of waging.

Update: Here’s Howie on last night’s shenanigans from the House Republicans — and sadly, some Democrats:

The House passed a gratuitously anti-gay amendment by Kansas’ fanatic hate-monger Tim Huelskamp, who is so hung up on gay issues that psychologists just assume he’s either gay himself or spending a great deal of time repressing his homosexual desires. His amendment would prohibit the Justice Department from actively opposing DOMA in the courts.

Nancy Pelosi led almost all Democrats in opposition to the GOP ploy. “On an historic day and in the dark of night, House Republicans have voted to tie the hands of the Obama administration with respect to their efforts to end discrimination against America’s families. House Republicans continue to plant their feet firmly on the wrong side of history.”

But, depending on how you define “Democrat,” not every “Democrat” agreed with her. The viciously homophobic Blue Dog caucus– and a few of their fellow travelers– hid behind Cantor’s skirts and voted with the Republicans. The amendment passed 245-171, all but 7 Republicans vote with the hatemongers.

Sixteen anti-LGBT “Democrats” voted with the Republicans:

John Barrow (Blue Dog-GA)
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)
Jerry Costello (IL)
Mark Critz (PA)
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)
Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)
Dan Lipinski (IL)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC)
Colin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)

If you’d like to replace some notorious homophobes in congress, here’s a Blue America page where you can do just that.

.

The stakes, by @DavidOAtkins

The stakes

by David Atkins

James Hansen has another reminder for the world:

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”

If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate.

Canada’s tar sands, deposits of sand saturated with bitumen, contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history. If we were to fully exploit this new oil source, and continue to burn our conventional oil, gas and coal supplies, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eventually would reach levels higher than in the Pliocene era, more than 2.5 million years ago, when sea level was at least 50 feet higher than it is now. That level of heat-trapping gases would assure that the disintegration of the ice sheets would accelerate out of control. Sea levels would rise and destroy coastal cities. Global temperatures would become intolerable. Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.

That is the long-term outlook. But near-term, things will be bad enough. Over the next several decades, the Western United States and the semi-arid region from North Dakota to Texas will develop semi-permanent drought, with rain, when it does come, occurring in extreme events with heavy flooding. Economic losses would be incalculable. More and more of the Midwest would be a dust bowl. California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated. Food prices would rise to unprecedented levels.

If this sounds apocalyptic, it is. This is why we need to reduce emissions dramatically. President Obama has the power not only to deny tar sands oil additional access to Gulf Coast refining, which Canada desires in part for export markets, but also to encourage economic incentives to leave tar sands and other dirty fuels in the ground.

Under the current international system, every country is going to exploit every last drop of oil and burn it so long as it’s economically advantageous to do so. The Middle East, and much of Africa and South America will become war zones as nation-states battle it out for control of the resources–or at the very least to ensure that the production continues on world markets for the benefit of multinational corporations. Terrorism will increase with increasingly devastating tactics. The climate will spin out of control and humanity will find itself in a dark age if it survives at all. Most of the species on earth will die. Irrationality will rise and nuclear war is a possibility.

Oh, and don’t forget that during the brief period humanity has left still thinking it’s in control, labor arbitrage will continue, the plutocrats will get richer, and multinational corporations will continue their ascendancy over nation-states, anyway.

Or…the world could choose an alternate path that’s actually sane. But that would be radical.

.

QOTD: Charles Pierce

QOTD: Charles Pierce

by digby

The immutably decreed apotheosis of Willard Romney

To Willard Romney, voters vote for him because it is their job to vote for him, their part in the work of a righteous universe to give him whatever it is he wants. It was the job of the workers at Ampad to get fired so that he could make more money because that is what the immutable laws of that righteous universe demanded. It is the job of the media to let him talk about what he wants to talk about — he’s bone-ignorant about Iran, too, by the way — because that will further his goal to be president which is where the immutable laws of the righteous universe want him to be. It is the job of all of us to be partners in the immutably decreed apotheosis of Willard Romney, because that, my dear man, is the way things simply ought to be.

.

Saving puppies with the commerce clause

Saving puppies with the commerce clause

by digby

Hooray for America’s national government:

Dog breeders who skirt animal welfare laws by selling puppies over the Internet would face tighter scrutiny under a rule change proposed Thursday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The change would subject dog owners who breed more than four females and sell the puppies electronically, by mail or over the phone to the same oversight faced by wholesale dealers as part of the Animal Welfare Act.

That law, written in 1966, set standards of care for animals bred for commercial sale and research. Retail sales were exempt from inspections under the assumption that anyone who visited the store could see whether the animals appeared healthy and cared for…

“This is a very significant proposed federal action, since thousands of large-scale breeders take advantage of a loophole that allows them to escape any federal inspections,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “Dogs in puppy mills often live in small, overcrowded cages, living in filth and denied veterinary care. We need more eyes on these operations, and this rule will help.”

People in Missouri should be happy:

Missouri voters thought they scored a big win against some of the nation’s most notorious puppy mills when they approved strict new dog breeding regulations last year. Now state lawmakers are changing the rules.

A state law aimed at cracking down on disreputable breeders and improving animal care has been overhauled by lawmakers who say the voter-approved version is too costly, and punished legitimate dog-breeders who generate an estimated $1 billion annually in the state. Animal advocates complain elected officials are overruling the will of the people and some are prepared to put the issue on the ballot again next year.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said public confidence is undercut when about 100 lawmakers change a law backed by about 1 million voters.

“The effort in Jefferson City is a piece-by-piece dismantling of every core provision,” Pacelle said. “It suggests to me that this is an industry that wants deregulation. They want to do things that they want and to heck with the people who care about dogs or consumers as long as there are enough dogs purchased.

Puppies in all 50 states will be better off.

.

Moving the center with numbers

Moving the center

by digby

Following up my post yesterday about Richard Lugar, I offer this from David Karol at the Monkey Cage, with links to data:

Lugar’s career is a striking illustration of how the definition of “moderate” has changed as the GOP has marched rightward. When Lugar entered the Senate in the 95th Congress (1977-1978) his first dimension DW-NOMINATE score was .348. By this measure the Indiana Senator was to the right of center in the GOP Conference, being the 16th most conservative of the 38 Republicans in the Senate.

The freshman Lugar was to the right not only of elderly liberal Republicans who generally voted with Democrats like Jacob Javits and Clifford Case (both of whom would soon lose primaries to conservatives), but also of Republicans like Senators Bob Packwood and Mark Hatfield of Oregon. Hatfield was something of a Christian pacifist, pro-life and against wars, big Pentagon budgets and the death penalty. Packwood was strongly pro-choice. Both Oregonians had mixed records on economic issues, pleasing neither business nor labor consistently. Lugar was also to the right of both the Senate Minority Leader, Howard Baker, his whip Ted Stevens and even Bob Dole, whom President Ford had picked to replace Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller as his running-mate in the 1976 Presidential race in order to appease the conservative wing of the GOP.

Conservatives are wary of Republicans who linger in Washington,fearing they will attend one too many “Georgetown cocktail parties” and gradually sell out in order to win “strange new respect” from the pundit class. For sure, the pundits loved Lugar, but has he changed over the years? Not that much. Throughout his career Lugar has gotten very low ratings from organized labor and environmental groups and high marks from business lobbies.

Lugar has generally voted anti-abortion and, once the issue got on the agenda, anti-gay rights, opposing the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell despite polls showing the public favored that move. Lugar supported the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War. He opposed the stimulus, the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank financial reform. He voted to put Robert Bork and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court. Lugar voted for the Gulf War, the death penalty, oil drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refugee and removing President Clinton from office.

It is true that by the same measure Lugar’s D1 NOMINATE score dropped from .348 in his first Congress, to .241 in the last one, but moving his score ten points does not change his ranking within the Republican Conference very much in either Congress. Yet because of turnover in the conference during his tenure Lugar was the seventh most liberal Republican in the last Congress. Over the years new cohorts of GOP Senators have been more conservative than their elders, so Lugar’s position in political space has changed even though his stands mostly have not.

The Republican Party has become much more conservative in my lifetime. So has the Democratic Party. This seems to me to be simple observable reality, but the political establishment is still under the impression that the scariest person in American politics is some old guy with long hair and a tie dyed t-shirt.

.

“The family was so straight, they don’t do those types of things”

“The family was so straight, they don’t do those types of things”

by digby

I’m sure everyone will have read this by now, but it’s worth just highlighting these particular anecdotes, which show how the privilege begins.

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be named. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.

“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.”

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.”

“He was just easy pickins,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it.

The incident transpired in a flash, and Friedemann said Romney then led his cheering schoolmates back to his bay-windowed room in Stevens Hall.

Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.

And it didn’t happen for this either:

One venerable English teacher, Carl G. Wonnberger, nicknamed “the Bat” for his diminished eyesight, was known to walk into the trophy case and apologize, step into wastepaper baskets and stare blindly as students slipped out the back of the room to smoke by the open windows. Once, several students remembered the time pranksters propped up the back axle of Wonnberger’s Volkswagen Beetle with two-by-fours and watched, laughing from the windows, as the unwitting teacher slammed the gas pedal with his wheels spinning in the air.

As an underclassman, Romney accompanied Wonnberger and Pierce Getsinger, another student, from the second floor of the main academic building to the library to retrieve a book the two boys needed. According to Getsinger, Romney opened a first set of doors for Wonnberger, but then at the next set, with other students around, he swept his hand forward, bidding the teacher into a closed door. Wonnberger walked right into it and Getsinger said Romney giggled hysterically as the teacher shrugged it off as another of life’s indignities.

Just good fun, that. No need for any kind of discipline, even for humiliating a blind teacher. But there were some lines that couldn’t be crossed:

On an overcast Saturday, David Craig, a senior prefect and day student, drove his car down Martell Drive along the school grounds and saw a figure duck into the hedges. He thought the person might be trespassing and stopped, only to find Lauber puffing on a cigarette. In a move that he said he later regretted as an excess of the “dorm trooper” mentality instilled by Cranbrook, Craig reported Lauber to the headmaster. Soon after, Lauber was expelled.

“He just disappeared,” Lady said.

Sudden disappearances at Cranbrook were not unheard of. Students might pass a dorm neighbor on the way to class and come back hours later, with all their belongings gone and their beds stripped by maintenance staff. Bad behavior and bad grades were not tolerated.

Ben Snyder, who as an assistant headmaster later spearheaded the school’s effort to recruit inner-city students, said Cranbrook in Romney’s time “had its standards and applied them briskly when needed.” As chairman of a group of faculty members and students who were in charge of discipline, he described a strict school in which offenders could be “dismissed, period.” Snyder could not recall dealing with any transgressions involving Romney. “I wouldn’t expect to see him,” Snyder said of the disciplinary tribunals. “The family was so straight, they don’t do those types of things.”

Of course they don’t.

I’m sure we all knew people like Mitt in high school. BMOCs who proved their leadership by getting other people to participate in cruel acts. There are strict rules for behavior, but not for the alpha boys like Mitt. This is where they learn their trade — dominance. They don’t get punished — they get rewarded. Even when it all goes sideways and people get hurt. It was excellent training for vulture capitalism.

Mitt says he doesn’t remember this incident. But I don’t believe him. Why would he forget such a glorious moment of his young life? None of the other participants did. Of course it’s always possible that there were so many such incidents that he can’t keep them straight. Certainly, there are plenty of instances in his career at Bain in which he essentially held down workers and forced them into submission — and walked away laughing. That’s the grown-up, rich guy version of what he did. Those without his resources would just beat up a gay kid — or a hippie — in an alley somewhere.

Update: Aaaand, here you go:

This could help him with the base. What they mistrust about him most is the vague idea that he might not be crude and cruel enough to do what they want him to do, whether it’s cut off the sick and elderly (other) people from their only source of income or kicking foreign ass on the world stage. This shows he’s got it in him.

Update II: As a reminder: the “hippie” thing has always been infused with the “gay” thing. Recall St Ronnie’s famous “joke”:

“A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane, and smells like Cheetah”

.

Economic mobility greater in blue states, by @DavidOAtkins

Economic mobility greater in blue states

by David Atkins

Why am I not surprised by this?

People who live in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Utah are more likely to improve their economic standing after their prime working years than the typical American, a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts finds.

In Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina and Texas, people are less likely to improve their economic standing, and in some cases, are falling behind.

Economic mobility “is a measure of opportunity and a measure of the health of the American dream,” says Erin Currier of Pew’s Economic Mobility Project…

“This study shows place matter,” Smeeding says. “It shows the American dream is harder to reach in some places.”

Scott Winship, a fellow of economic studies with Brookings Institution, says economic mobility is particularly important for the poor. He says 40% of the people who are born in the bottom rung of the economic ladder stay there.

In North Carolina, where the poverty rate is 16% and unemployment hovers at 9.7%, it’s not surprising that fewer residents move up economically, says Gene Nichol, director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

“The South is the native home of American poverty,” he says.

Timothy Bartik, senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research in Michigan, says higher moblity in that state is likely due to higher wages in manufacturing and public sector jobs compared to other states. However, he says the state has been hurt by cuts in the number of manufacturing and public sector jobs.

“Unless Michigan can either reverse these trends or boost educational attainment in the future, any current high ranking it might have in economic mobility will tend to decline over time,” he says.

Why, it’s almost as if a strong government sector, investment in education and strong organized labor were central to the American Dream. And it’s almost as if the former Confederacy might not be amenable to seekers of the American Dream.

Shocking.

.

“The time of justice has now come”

“The time of justice has now come”

by digby

This seems like the right night to show this video:

You can see the whole speech here. It’s truly inspiring, if only as a reminder that even when wars and apartheid and blood in the streets are required, progress does eventually happen. But even then it requires vigilance to maintain it:

Even if we pass this bill, the battle will not be over. What happened in Selma is part of a far larger movement which reaches into every section and State of America. It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life.

Their cause must be our cause too. Because it is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.

As a man whose roots go deeply into Southern soil, I know how agonizing racial feelings are. I know how difficult it is to reshape the attitudes and the structure of our society.

But a century has passed, more than a hundred years, since the Negro was freed. And he is not fully free tonight.

It was more than a hundred years ago that Abraham Lincoln, a great President of another party, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, but emancipation is a proclamation and not a fact.

A century has passed, more than a hundred years, since equality was promised. And yet the Negro is not equal.

A century has passed since the day of promise. And the promise is unkept.

The time of justice has now come. I tell you that I believe sincerely that no force can hold it back. It is right in the eyes of man and God that it should come. And when it does, I think that day will brighten the lives of every American.

For Negroes are not the only victims. How many white children have gone uneducated, how many white families have lived in stark poverty, how many white lives have been scarred by fear, because we have wasted our energy and our substance to maintain the barriers of hatred and terror?

So I say to all of you here, and to all in the Nation tonight, that those who appeal to you to hold on to the past do so at the cost of denying you your future.

This great, rich, restless country can offer opportunity and education and hope to all: black and white, North and South, sharecropper and city dweller. These are the enemies: poverty, ignorance, disease. They are the enemies and not our fellow man, not our neighbor. And these enemies too, poverty, disease and ignorance, we shall overcome.

Now let none of us in any sections look with prideful righteousness on the troubles in another section, or on the problems of our neighbors. There is really no part of America where the promise of equality has been fully kept. In Buffalo as well as in Birmingham, in Philadelphia as well as in Selma, Americans are struggling for the fruits of freedom.

This is one Nation. What happens in Selma or in Cincinnati is a matter of legitimate concern to every American. But let each of us look within our own hearts and our own communities, and let each of us put our shoulder to the wheel to root out injustice wherever it exists.

It’s a hell of a speech. I doubt that Barack Obama will be the one to give such a speech on marriage equality, unfortunately. I’m afraid there’s more work to be done before that can happen. In that respect, Obama is more like Truman who bravely took the first big step of integrating the armed forces and ran on civil rights.(Eisenhower also stood for civil rights but added “I believe also that in sustaining that right we must sustain the power of the Federal judges in whose hands such cases would fall.”)

Truthfully, I have no idea if any president will ever give such a speech on gay marriage — this could become more like Roe vs Wade, in which a right is more or less codified by the Supreme Court but the US congress immediately signals that it will remain contentious by passing restrictions (as they did with the Hyde Amendment.) On the other hand, it’s also possible that all the states which have banned same-sex marriage will eventually voluntarily overturn their constitutional Amendments and equal rights will be extended by plebiscite in all of them.

Or maybe one day a president will be in a position to stand in the Capitol and say about same-sex marriage what Lyndon Johnson said as he told the congress and the American people that they had to pass the Voting rights act:

My first job after college was as a teacher in Cotulla, Texas, in a small Mexican-American school. Few of them could speak English, and I couldn’t speak much Spanish. My students were poor and they often came to class without breakfast, hungry. They knew even in their youth the pain of prejudice. They never seemed to know why people disliked them. But they knew it was so, because I saw it in their eyes. I often walked home late in the afternoon, after the classes were finished, wishing there was more that I could do. But all I knew was to teach them the little that I knew, hoping that it might help them against the hardships that lay ahead.

Somehow you never forget what hatred can do when you see its scars on the hopeful face of a young child.

I never thought then, in 1928, that I would be standing here in 1965. It never even occurred to me in my fondest dreams that I might have the chance to help the sons and daughters of those students and to help people like them all over this country.
But now I do have that chance—and I’ll let you in on a secret—I mean to use it. And I hope that you will use it with me.

They did.

.