That Other Political Blog

Elizabeth Warren. Yeah.

2012-01-27T10:09:00.000-08:00

Every time Elizabeth Warren opens her mouth she says something the world needs to hear.

(Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating. I guess we don't need to hear her coffee order, or her private conversations. But when I hear her talking about our nation, about our economy, and about the social compact which underpins our society, it resonates for me in a way no politician has for a long, long time.)

Professor Warren is like that fabulous teacher in high school or college. I think we all had one: The teacher you absolutely loved, whose class you would never miss no matter how sick you were, who made you look at the world in an entirely new way. I listen to her and think, "This woman is smarter than I am." I'll be honest -- I don't think that very often when I'm listening to someone running for office.

Warren was on the Daily Show the other night. (Yeah, I know, it's a comedy show -- and Jon Stewart has insightful, intelligent conversations with people.) She was talking about a variety of things, including a huge list of companies in the US who pay more for lobbyists than they pay in taxes. (Read the US PIRG and Citizens for Tax Justice study here.)

Stewart asked her about Tom Brady and Eli Manning. Without equivocation, she answered that the Pats would "spank" the Giants. Stewart asked whether she wasn't supposed to say something like, "I respect the Giants..." and she answered, "But I don't!" No political, wishy-washy, namby-pamby answer here. Just telling it like it is (or at least not hiding that she's a fan).

She talked about investing in our middle class, and that Washington works great for you if you're a corporation who wants something. "We now live in a world in which profitable companies... perfectly legally pay nothing in taxes, at precisely the same moment that we are saying to young people, 'You're going to have to take on more debt to get a college education.' We're saying to seniors, 'You're just going to have to learn to live on less.' The way I see that, that is not a question of economics; it's not a question finance; it's a question of values."

She pointed out that tax breaks are tantamount to public investment, and we can choose whether to give tax breaks to "those who have already made it" versus investing in the middle class. Stewart asked about people who are reluctant to give resources to government because it isn't working well. Warren countered that the government should be held accountable, not starved for resources. She also pointed out that lobbyists are calling the shots.

And when Stewart asked her what would happen if the country implemented Ron Paul's notion that the way to get money out of politics is to completely remove government's role in regulation (which encourages lobbying) and let the free market take its course. She answered, "The problem is, we will have no future."

After listening to the current batch of Republican candidates debate each other about which one of them can tank our entire system and drown it in the bathtub the fastest, it's nice to hear someone who actually believes government has a positive role to play in society. People shouldn't be in charge of things they hate and wish to dismantle.

"Government is what we do together. Government is the part that lets us come together and build the basic conditions, the infrastructure, the education, the research, the basic pieces together that let us build a future for ourselves and for our kids."

Oh. My. God.

This woman should be President.

The Big Picture

2011-10-11T07:15:00.000-07:00

The current House of Representatives has spent its time and resources not on creating jobs, but on doing all it can to achieve the completely unfettered corporatism big business desires. At the top of the hit list is environmental regulation.

I don't know why any thinking person would think the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are bad things. Perhaps it's the collective amnesia we have. (Do people not remember that in our recent past, polluted lakes burned?) Instead, they live in fear that a company somewhere might actually have to invest some of its considerable profit in measures to avoid destroying the planet for the rest of us.

But there are none who chant the mantra of "regulation bad" with more religious fervor than those who insist the activities of man have had zero impact on climate change. All the hoopla about this made me think of an analogy I've considered before.

When a person has an infection, the illness is not noticeable at first. Sometimes we "catch" something and never know it at all. Our immune system just takes care of it before we even have a symptom. Or sometimes, the symptoms are mild, then our immune system kicks in and nips the bug in the bud. Our natural state includes all sorts of microbes living happily and harmoniously together, in balance.

And sometimes, the germs or microbes (bacteria or viruses or retroviruses or whatever), multiply fairly unchecked, at first. They use our body's resources to make more germs, and they release toxins or poisons into our bodies. When there are just too many of them, or they start to live in places they don't belong, we get sick. And at some point, our immune system has to kick into a higher gear. We develop symptoms (coughing, sneezing, nausea, vomiting, fever) both as a means to rid our body of the infection or toxins, and as a signal to us to slow down, take it easy, and take care of that body -- get some rest, drink more fluids to get rid of the nasty stuff, etc.

Over time, the germs develop mechanisms to avoid being wiped out by our immunity. Often, we reach a natural balance, or stasis. We always harbor a certain number of germs -- and as along as they don't get out of hand, there's no problem, no symptoms, no illness. The germs don't hurt us, and our immune system just hums along at its normal rate, keeping the numbers within certain tolerances.

The other possible outcome is that our immune system is overwhelmed. The germs win -- the patient dies.

Think of the earth as a single organism. (If you don't think this is a reasonable concept, think again: There are ten times as many NON-human cells as human cells in your body right this moment. You aren't a single, monolithic organism, but a whole ecosystem -- or maybe a biome. If you're a collection of organisms, minerals, water, and chemicals, but you consider yourself one organism, it's not a stretch to think of the earth in the same way.)

Our earth is infected with a severe case of humanity. In the past, the earth has taken care of overpopulation through disease, famine, natural disasters, etc. But we've been very creative and successful germs. We've developed techniques to survive the planet's natural immunity -- and we've overrun that low-level immune response. So now the planet's immune response is kicking into high gear -- symptoms are popping up everywhere. Climate change almost seems analogous to a giant, earthly respiratory infection. The earth is running a fever (and occasionally has the chills), sneezing, coughing, wheezing...

We have a choice. We can change our behaviors and stop triggering the major immune response. We can release fewer toxins that make the planet "sick." We can stop diverting quite as many of the planet's resources. We can find that balance.

Or, we can overrun the immune system and kill the patient.

The People's Business

2010-11-05T11:47:00.000-07:00

I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breath for me to weigh in on the meaning, import, and consequences of the recent election. Well, I'm not gonna. (Except to agree with what my friend Jana says in her excellent blog, that the world is a safer place with Christine O'Donnell at home.)

I think our politicians have collectively lost their way -- at least the ones at the congressional level, both federal and state. In my state, the Democrats kept the senate but lost the house. The new house minority leader said his highest priority for this session is to regain the majority.

Really? Well, that sucks. Because it means you intend to play politics instead of doing the people's business.

That's exactly what the Republicans did for the last two years. It worked for them politically -- they gained quite a lot of ground in this midterm election. But at what cost? The ugliest, most divisive political rhetoric in decades. The vilification of a good man who brought enough people together to elect him President. Heightened racial tension. Veiled threats invading our political discourse. The rise of a "movement" with no leadership, no purpose, and no position except hating the government that guarantees the very freedoms about which they wax poetic (while threatening to use "second amendment remedies" in support of their own particular version of those freedoms).

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could not concoct a more perfect storm than the one we just experienced. Consider this:

In a time when access to public education in our nation is almost universal, our campaign process has been "dumbed down" to the extent that misrepresentations of opponents' positions in 15-second political television ads are all the majority of voters bother to learn about the candidates.
That very public education is the target of anger from conservatives because education "indoctrinates" by exposing people to ideas with which their parents may not agree.
People no longer read newspapers. Newspaper "replacements" now include much more opinion and much less factual information.
Voters no longer read the position statements printed in their voter guides.
Voters don't bother to understand the underlying reasons for things like the economic downturn, and don't follow things closely enough to know what is being done about it and what impact it may have.

One party has done a great job of capitalizing on the voter ignorance created by sound-bite politics. They all sing from the same page in the same hymnal. They use the same (meaningless) phrases: Reduce government (because, apparently government is the real enemy -- even though they ARE the government). Promote family values (but that doesn't mean promoting actual families!). Reduce taxes (because no policy benefits the wealthy more). Eliminate government regulation because it puts an unreasonable burden on business (go here and here, then decide if you think businesses are over-regulated). Religion and politics should go hand-in-hand, because America is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles (of which separation of church and state, along with freedom of religion and speech, are apparently not a part). They stay on message and seem to believe their party is the party which represents these positions best, even when their actions are completely antithetical to them. Is it sincerity borne of ignorance? Or is it great marketing? (Perhaps a bit of both.)

The other party is the party of nuance, detail, "me too," and mixed messages. Yeah, we want to lower taxes, too... except we know we still have to pay for stuff. So yeah, we want to reduce the size of government, too... except we know that if we do that with the economy in the shape it's in, the government ceases to be the "spender of last resort" and the economy will crash. We think religion should stay out of politics -- but don't worry, we're all Christians, too, because we think it will get us votes if we say that. And because we are so mired in our nuance and detail, we permit the other party to frame OUR positions and label us "socialists."

What SHOULD a cohesive Democratic message look like? Perhaps something like this:

Government isn't the enemy. In our democratic republic, government is the people. As your representatives, our job is to use government as a tool on your behalf. Government is supposed to:

Protect our citizens from military and terrorist threats. Defense is important. Security is important. Democrats believe in a strong and effective military and strong and effective homeland security.
Protect our citizens from other interests that work against them. Corporations are vehicles designed to enhance the wealth of their shareholders. They do not have the general welfare of the public as their primary purpose. Reasonable regulation is necessary to keep corporations in check and keep them from injuring our citizens. A completely unfettered free market results in abuses like the ones we are recovering from now. Carefully applied, minimal regulation protects everyone's prosperity -- including the corporations -- and avoids corporate and bank bailouts.
Preserve the political process from corruption. Corporations are not persons and should not have the same rights and privileges as individual American citizens. It is time to remove corporations from the political process entirely. The wealthy should not have a louder voice in our political discourse.
Maintain good relationships with the rest of the world. Our goal is a foreign policy which promotes our nation's interests without hurting the citizens of other countries. We respect cultural differences while promoting human rights around the world.
Do things we can't accomplish without cooperating on a large scale. Interstate highways, space exploration, national air traffic control, and the military are examples of worthwhile endeavors which require the resources of our nation to accomplish. You can add scientific research here because the government will fund research without obvious profit potential just because it could benefit us.
Promote the general welfare. Yes, it is right there at the beginning of our Constitution as one of the basic responsibilities of government. We will use this as a guideline for every vote we take. Does it promote the general welfare? If not, why are we doing it?
We support policies which promote equality and freedom for all our citizens. Respect, tolerance, and acceptance of other ideas, religions, and sexual orientations is as American, and pro-American, as it gets. There is nothing more fundamental to our national identity. We believe in the freedom of Americans to choose their own spouses, and decide whether to procreate. Government has no place in those decisions.
We believe in fiscal responsibility. This means balancing not just our budget, but our priorities. We will fund programs for the right reasons. "Across-the board" budget cuts are a cop-out. Instead, we will make the hard decisions and reduce or eliminate programs which are less effective, and fund the ones that work. We will make tax decisions that will bring in enough revenue to balance the budget, and will ensure that all citizens -- including the wealthiest ones -- pay their fair share.
We believe access to decent health care is a right, not a privilege. It is time for every American to have that access. If that means huge changes in the health insurance industry, so be it. We do NOT believe in government control of health care delivery.
We believe educational opportunity results in economic opportunity. We do not believe standardized testing is the only, or the best, way to measure educational effectiveness. We know that the schools can't educate our children successfully without involved parents who are fully supportive of their children's educational process.

In a nutshell: We are the party of equality. We are the party of fiscal responsibility, not fiscal whitewashing. We believe in individual freedom, and want to keep the government out of your bedroom and your doctor's office. We believe in effective, accountable government that works for its citizens.

There you are: Ten fairly coherent fundamentals. I'm sure if I come back and revisit this in a week (which I will) I may have different items for the top 10. But read this list. Would you vote for that party?

In my world, everyone's a pony. And they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies.

2010-09-23T20:57:00.000-07:00

Thank you, Katie, for giving me the perfect title for today's blog post.

I have moments of wondering if I'm living in the same world some political figures are talking about. I had one of those moments this week, reading about Newt Gingrich's speech at the Values Voter Summit. Here are a few choice tidbits about Newt's own version of McCarthyism.

"...on the other front we have radical Islamists who would fundamentally change this country into a system none of us in this room would recognize."

"We as Americans don't have to tolerate people who are supportive of violence against us, building something at the sight of the violence."

"This is not about religious liberty, they want to build that mosque in the South Bronx, frankly they need the jobs," he said. "But I am totally opposed to any effort to impose Sharia on the United States, and we should have a federal law that says under no circumstance, in any jurisdiction in the United States, will Sharia be used in any court to apply to any judgment made about American law."

Well, THANK GOD Gingrich is out there, protecting us against the threat of Sharia Law. Because there are SO MANY people trying to impose Sharia Law in the US. We're seeing it in courts all over the country! Activist judges are ignoring the Constitution in favor of the religious principles of a fraction of a percent of the population. What would we do without heroes like Newt with the courage to call our attention to it?

(Cut to Jon Stewart, putting his hand over his ear, listening to his imaginary producer: Oh... there's not any instance of Sharia law being imposed in the US?)

Newt is either Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, or he's carefully inventing an enemy against whom he can lead the charge.

Newt misspoke at the American Enterprise Institute recently and accidentally told the truth:

“The fight against Sharia and the madrassas and mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth.”

Yes, Newt, it is. Your fight is exactly the kind of thing that spawns terrorism. You've cast a group of people as "other," as the "enemy," as a threat to a particular way of life. You use inflammatory rhetoric in an attempt to engender hatred of that group. In doing so, you become the enemy yourself; the enemy of reason, of compassion, of tolerance, and of acceptance. You are a greater threat to our nation than any terrorist, because your rhetoric may actually have the effect of fundamentally changing our nation into one which does not recognize individual liberty and religious freedom, where some Americans are more equal than others as the principles of civil liberty are inequitably applied.

You may be getting attention now for your thoughtless words. You may even score some political points for them. History will judge you harshly, as it has your kindred spirit Joe McCarthy. You are the lowest of the low, because you prey upon the fears of the ignorant to advance your personal agenda.

Shame on you and those like you.

Buying Elections

2010-09-22T13:24:00.000-07:00

I promised yesterday I'd post about campaign money today. This is one of those issues I'm always "fired up" about! With the Supreme Court handing out individual liberties to corporations like I hand out Halloween candy, the time has come for our legislators to address the issue of campaign finance once and for all. I have some common-sense recommendations for them. My friends tell me they are entirely too reasonable, so there is no chance they will ever become law. Hey, a girl can dream, right?

1) Public funding of campaigns. I don't think campaigns should be solely funded by tax dollars, but there should be some sort of matching so that campaigns get an amount consistent with their level of support from individuals. Perhaps $X match per unique contributor to a campaign. The reason I like this idea is that I am not willing to publicly fund dozens of candidates in a general election. To qualify for public funding, a campaign should have to be viable, and attracting a significant number of contributors seems like a decent measure of that. This levels the playing field and still gives candidates the ability to raise money -- but in small increments from many donors. Candidates would not be allowed to "opt out" and there would be a maximum limit on the amount spent.

2) Maintain low limits on campaign contributions from individuals. The limits currently in place are OK by me. I don't want to see them increased significantly.

3) Make the candidate subject to the same donation limits as any other contributor. That way the Meg Whitmans of the world won't be able to fund their own campaigns. It's time to lessen the advantage of personal wealth in politics. There will always be some advantage; how many people who work full-time for a living can afford to leave their jobs to campaign full-time?

4) Impose stricter limits on "issue advocacy." Non-campaign advocacy groups would be able to advocate a position on an issue, but never mention a politician's name or characterize his or her positions. These groups would not be permitted to make campaign contributions. Only non-profit groups would have the right to issue advocacy.

For example, a group could run an ad that says, for example, "Global warming is fiction. Tell your representative to vote against cap and trade legislation." The same group would not be able to run an ad that says, "John Smith wants to increase your energy prices by voting for cap and trade legislation," or one that says, "Call John Smith and ask him why he won't support XYZ."

This would not limit the freedom of speech of those groups, but only their electioneering and campaigning.

4) For-profit corporations should have no political rights whatsoever. In spite of the fact that no one has explained this to the Supreme Court, corporations are not, in fact, persons. Corporations are not entitled to civil rights, freedoms, or political speech. My campaign finance legislation would make this clear. Corporations would not be permitted to contribute to political campaigns OR advocacy groups. Corporations would not be permitted to buy political advertising of any sort.

At right is a graphic from the New York Times regarding political spending.

OK, you elected officials, are you listening? Are you ready to do the right thing for the country? Are you ready to be accountable to the citizenry instead of lobbyists and corporations? Are you ready to remember why you're there in the first place?

Fired Up

2010-09-21T10:35:00.000-07:00

I usually have to get fired up about some political issue to write a decent blog post. It's difficult to come up with potent rhetoric when I'm just lukewarm about something. I'm also one of those people who gets mad, then gets over it -- so I generally have to strike while the iron is hot or I can't muster enough energy to do my topic justice.

But there are some perennial issues I'm always passionate about, and a few of them have popped up on my radar over the last several days. In no particular order, they are:

1) Don't ask, don't tell, and don't DREAM. DADT has already been ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit, and it is on its way out. Even the highest-ranking military officers want it gone. Over 60% of the population supports its repeal. It resulted in the firing of 14,000 military personnel over the last 10 years, when we are having huge recruiting challenges. But its repeal is getting stuck in a filibuster today.

(A local aside: Our senator, Mark Udall, introduced the bill to repeal DADT. Good for him! Mark Bennett, the other senator (up for reelection now) plans to vote for the repeal. Ken Buck, the far-right Republican senate nominee, wouldn't vote to repeal DADT. He said "the military should be as homogeneous as possible" to promote morale and effectiveness, and called homosexuality a "lifestyle choice." Mr. Buck, how homogeneous do you want the military? Should it be all male? All white? All Christian?)

I'm not happy with either party on this one; the Democrats attached the repeal to a military appropriations bill, which also contains the DREAM act which is designed to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants brought into the US as children. If they serve in the military or earn a college degree, they could become citizens. Both of these bills are worthy -- and to attach them to the military appropriations bill is silly political maneuvering. Of course, there are some right-wing Republicans who will never vote in favor of any path to citizenship for any illegal alien, and there are others who will never vote to repeal DADT. So now what happens to both of these bills?

2) Far-right wingnuts in the spotlight. WHY are Sarah Palin's 15 minutes not long over? There can be no disagreement that the woman is a mental midget. Now we have Palin redux in Christine O'Donnell. Thank God voters are smarter than the media: Palin lost, and O'Donnell is behind. She's a gift to the Democratic party, though, since the polls show the man she beat in the primary would handily have won the election she is poised to lose.

And while we're on the topic of the upcoming election, why are the media so eager to call it for the GOP? We have two months to go, and voters have heard more about the Republicans during the primary season because of their intra-party strife. (Quick, who can name O'Donnell's Democratic opponent? I'll put the answer at the end of the blog entry -- but I'll be you didn't know it.)

3) The recent shooting at Johns Hopkins. When someone takes a handgun into a hospital, shoots his mother's doctor, kills his mother, then takes his own life, I firmly believe the poor guy is a nutjob. But it raises a larger, more important question: Why did this man have a handgun to begin with?

In our society, owning and even carrying a handgun is an accepted, even protected action. Why? A handgun has no purpose except to injure or kill another human being. Unlike rifles or shotguns which are used for sport or hunting, handguns are for shooting people. What in the world makes us think that is ever acceptable, under any circumstances? If you need protection, buy a can of pepper spray that shoots 20 feet. Nobody is going to pose a threat to you after a shot of that stuff. And if you did use poor judgment and defend yourself against someone who in fact posed no threat to you, you wouldn't have to live with yourself for paralyzing or killing someone accidentally.

4) Corporate (and other) money in the campaigns. I'm going to do an entire post about this topic tomorrow. I have some common-sense suggestions about campaign finance reform. Who knows? Maybe some enterprising congress-critter will decide to use them.

Answer to the pop quiz above: O'Donnell's Democratic opponent, and the person who is likely to become the next senator from Delaware, is Chris Coons.

Thanks, TGOP!

2010-09-15T10:24:00.000-07:00

In Colorado, the right fringe has all but handed the gubernatorial election to the Democrat on a platter. The mainstream republican lost in the primary to a "Tea Party" candidate, Dan Maes, and then our resident nutjob, Tom Tancredo, threw his hat in the ring, too, running under a last-minute nomination as the Constitution Party candidate. (If you don't remember him, he is a former US congressman who had an abbreviated presidential campaign, and said that undocumented immigrants "need to be found before it is too late. They're coming here to kill you, and you, and me, and my grandchildren.")

Maes, the Republican candidate, also has some really weird positions and history. He opposed itemizing taxes on utility bills because if they are itemized, people are more likely to express an opinion about them. (?) Also, he got a lot of attention for criticizing a bicycle sharing program (promoted by the Democratic candidate, John Hickenlooper, who is the mayor) in Denver, saying it was turning Denver into a United Nations community (whatever that is supposed to be.) Later when he clarified his remarks, he sounded even nuttier and said that the bike sharing program was being promoted by people who "put the environment above citizens' rights." The bike program is partially sponsored by ICLEI, and Maes said ICLEI is affiliated with the United Nations and is "signing up mayors across the country, and these mayors are signing on to this U.N. agreement to have their cities abide by this dream philosophy."

Maes has already violated the campaign finance laws (which he called "ridiculous") including trying to claim $44,000 in undocumented mileage expenses. (Colorado's a big state, but not THAT big.) Plus, he claims to have worked as an undercover Kansas Bureau of Investigation officer -- but there is no record of his ever having done that. He might qualify as being nuttier than Tancredo.

So the Democrat is running against two men who are BOTH far-right candidates with really odd positions. The Democrat, who is more liberal than most Democrats who have won statewide office in Colorado recently, seems quite moderate compared to the other two candidates.

If the more mainstream Republican had won the primary, it would have been a tough battle. Assuming both right-wing candidates remain in the race, it should be a walk for Tom Hickenlooper (the Democrat) unless he does something really, really stupid. Right now, Hickenlooper leads in the polls with 46.1%, followed by Maes at 22.1% and Tancredo at 21.0%.

Thank you, Tea Party. May you have similar successes around the country. ;)

We All Love America

2010-08-24T23:06:00.000-07:00

I was discussing the phenomenon of political "trash talk" with some friends recently and one of them said, "I think we all love America and want what is best for our country -- we just all have strong opinions about what that is." I think she is mostly right -- except I would add some nuance to her statement.

We each love our individual perception of an idealized America, but the reasons we disagree are that our perceptions of what America represents, and our goals for what America should become, differ -- sometimes dramatically.

For example, if someone were to ask me the best things about the United States, I'm pretty sure my list would disagree completely with someone like Phyllis Schlafly or Michele Bachmann. The same would be true if the question were, "What is the ultimate promise of our nation?"

I think what makes America unique and exceptional is her Constitutional guarantee of equality; of equal protection under the law, of due process. As a result, more different kinds of people have more opportunity to live well and happily here than anywhere else in the world. (Although in some respects, other Western nations have "caught up" and even surpassed us in recent years.)

I love the fact that our Constitution itself, as well as our application of it, can evolve as mores and societal norms evolve. I love the fact that, as this evolution has occurred over time, the result has been to extend the "blessings of liberty" to more and more of our people.

I love that the affluence of our nation has enabled us to transcend some of the daily scramble for the basic necessities of life, which I believe accelerates the pace of acceptance. (Competition for the basics tends to polarize people and separate them into groups.)

(Now I'm going off on a tangent. Ever watch Star Trek: The Next Generation? The characters live in a world where Earth has solved the problems of hunger and energy and the acquisition of stuff -- and in doing so, enabled its populace to transcend its differences. Of course, if you're from some alien species, these Earthlings may not warm up to you -- but they will defend your rights and treat you with respect unless you attack them first.

There's an episode in which the crew of the Enterprise encounters an ancient ship that contains some people who were frozen after their deaths in the 22nd century. Medical science has advanced sufficiently to solve their health problems, and they are revived. One man is very concerned about his money. He made arrangements to take care of himself financially after he was revived. He keeps demanding a telephone to contact his attorneys and bankers, and simply can't grasp the concept that "money" and the acquisition of wealth are now completely alien to his home world. That sort of freedom from lack can enable us to focus on what is important, and I believe our nation's affluence has contributed to its social progress.)

I believe the promise of our nation is that someday, everyone will be treated with equality, respect, dignity, and acceptance, without regard to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or religious practice (or lack thereof). I believe that is the natural culmination of our metamorphosis from a nation in its infancy to a fully-realized society.

I also think that some people feel very threatened by the thought of real equality and acceptance. These are the people who still insist President Obama is a Muslim (and somehow think that would be a bad thing), oppose the construction of Mosques around the country, oppose same-sex marriage, and support the new immigration law in Arizona.

Of those people, I ask: Why do you fear others? Are you afraid they will take something away from you? Do you believe you cannot succeed without starting from a position of privilege? Does it make you feel more at home in the world if you have the frame of reference of black-and-white, good-and-evil memes? Is it comforting to be able to point to something and say it is bad?

Burning the Q'uran and Building Community Centers

2010-08-17T09:32:00.000-07:00

This is the the month of Ramadan, the holiest month of the Islamic calendar. It's a time when Muslims all over the world focus on their faith through daytime fasting, prayer, time with loved ones, and charitable works.

While reading about Ramadan, I stumbled across a hate-filled, ugly blog whose sole purpose is to criticize Islam, Muslims, and anyone who is accepting or tolerant of them. The author continually refers to the "war against Islam." It's hate-mongering at its worst. I can't imagine spending all that time and energy just to promote hatred. What a waste! Imagine if that blogger spent an equal amount of time and energy promoting acceptance, or at least tolerance and respect.

Is it just me, or are the voices of ugliness louder these days?

I won't pretend that all Muslims are peace-loving supporters of the United States. Certainly there is a nasty element of fundamentalism in Islam, just as there is a nasty element of fundamentalism in Christianity, and one in Judaism, etc. All cultures and religions have a dark side, a group of people whose fear drives them to intolerance, bigotry, and hatred.

But what Islam teaches about "the basics" is pretty much the same as what every major religion teaches. We are all one. We are supposed to love and take care of each other, and treat each other with kindness, the way we want to be treated. Our differences pale in comparison to our similarities. Love and peace are the way of the divine, and we are all children of the divine.

The word Islam means "peace." It also means acceptance and submission to God.

During Ramadan, Muslims spend a whole month focusing on their spiritual lives and their relationships with God. I think that's commendable. It seems like a good time to promote peace in the world.

Ramadan Mubarak.

Recently, a legal hurdle to the construction of an Islamic Center in Lower Manhattan was cleared. The Cordoba Initiative, whose purpose is to improve understanding between the Islamic world and the West in order to resolve conflict, wants to build a community center on land a few blocks from the World Trade Center site. A small portion of this facility will house a mosque.

Since Fox doesn't have enough actual news to report and Sarah Palin needs a real job, this has (nonsensically) become the "Ground Zero Mosque," which is, apparently, an attack on America almost as dangerous as the one on 9/11. (Never mind that the site, 45 Park Place, is an old warehouse building that currently is used as -- yep, you guessed it -- a mosque.)

In her inimitable way (okay, maybe not inimitable, because Tina Fey has her down cold), Sarah said: "Nobody argues that freedom of religion the Muslims have to build that mosque somewhere however there are a 100 mosques already in New York to choose and be so adamant about this exact location just a block or two away from 9/11 is just that knife it feels like."

A block or two away from 9/11? Does she think the construction of this building and 9/11 are in any way related? Here's a news flash: They aren't.

Islam is comprised of many different sects. The Muslims who wish to build the Manhattan community center are Sufis. What percentage of Islamic terrorists, to date, are Sufis? ZERO. (1/5 of Muslims worldwide identify with Sufism.) Radical Islamic groups aren't successful in areas where Sufism is the predominant form of Islam.

That's because Sufis could not be more different from Saudi Wahabbis (this is the tradition of al-Qaeda) or the Taliban. They are not fundamentalist, puritanical sorts. They embrace science, the arts, and intellectual exploration. Sufis have always maintained open dialog with other religions. While Sufis have, in the past, sometimes been the warriors of Islam, they were defenders against colonialism -- not terrorists.

These are examples of the moderate Muslims that right-wing pundits have been insisting do not exist, or if they do exist, do not speak up. Guess what? They exist, and are trying to develop a public presence solely intended to improve relations between Islam and the "West."

Likening all Muslims to Wahabbist terrorists (BTW, most Wahabbis also denounce terrorism) or the Taliban is like assuming all Christians are like Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist, or Laurent Nkunda in the Congo (or worse).

Perhaps "worse" would be Terry Jones, pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. He and his flock plan to burn copies of the Q'uran on September 11 (one day after Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan).

Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Most of the world's 1.5 billion Muslims live peaceful lives, quietly practicing their religion in a manner which infringes upon no one else.

If they need a place to pray in Manhattan, they have every right to build one.

Democrats = Stoopid

2010-08-12T19:12:00.000-07:00

Before I start my rant, a quick shout-out to Judge Walker! Freedom to marry begins Wednesday. Any of my California friends planning to camp out for a license?

Okay, I know -- anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I'm generally a fan of Democrats. You might even say I am fond of them. So why I am saying they are stoopid? (I'll even spell it correctly: Stupid.)

Because Democrats do the right things and then let the spin machine turn on them, turning good stuff into bad stuff.

Here's a prime example: Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are being investigated by the new Office of Congressional Ethics. This is an independent panel, created by a Democratic congress to bring independence and transparency to the ethics process, as opposed to the House Ethics Committee which operates in secrecy.

So the charges against Rangel and Waters are a victory, not a defeat, for Democrats on the ethics issue. (But boy, you sure won't hear it that way in the media.)

If I were writing the Democratic caucus's talking points for this fall, here's what I'd say: Democrats have proven their commitment to conducting the nation's business without corruption, as is evidenced by the creation of the OCE. Democrats are not unwilling to go after their own when there is evidence of misconduct. Instead of closing ranks to hide corruption, a transparent, independent office has publicized its findings, leading to formal charges in the House of ethics violations against two senior, powerful members.

The ethics problems of two members of a 435 member House do not constitute Democrats being the corrupt party in power. During their many years in power, the Republican party did nothing to strengthen ethics enforcement.

This is proof the Democrats are walking their talk on the ethics issue, and "draining the swamp" without prejudice, even when it hits their own party. Which party are you going to trust now? The party of smoke-filled rooms or the party of transparent proceedings?

But instead of hitting the airwaves with my brilliant talking points, we have Democrats wringing their hands and letting the ethics issue be stolen by the party that did nothing about it for all those years in the majority.

Like I said. Stupid.

The Simple Majority

2010-08-09T10:00:00.000-07:00

Apparently, it is no longer enough to have a majority in both houses of Congress and the Presidency in order to accomplish anything.

Last week, a bill to provide health care funding for rescue workers who have health issues related to the 9/11 attacks was defeated. It had a majority in the House -- but the Democrats used a rule requiring a 2/3 majority for passage, and the bill did not (incredibly!) reach that threshold of votes.

It's bad enough that the Democratic majority in the senate has buckled under even the most innocuous threats of filibuster so that any legislation passed now requires 60 votes. (Does anyone remember a significant piece of legislation passed by this Senate with fewer than 60?) But does the House have to play, too?

The Senate has ground to a screeching halt, with filibusters and secret and Senatorial "holds" stopping legislation and nominations at every turn.
There's a step in the right direction coming soon. Senator Claire McCaskill (Democrat from Missouri) wrote a letter demanding an end to the practice of "secret holds" on legislation and nominations. She now has 67 signatures on it. Harry Reid has put it on the legislative docket for this September for a standalone vote. The legislation ending secret holds will pass, so I don't have to write a whole post ranting about them -- with any luck, it will be moot in a matter of weeks!

Now, for the record, I am a fan of the filibuster. (I saw Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.) I think the filibuster was, in the hands of a less partisan Senate, a useful and important tool to prevent the tyranny of the majority. But it is being abused, not used.

When Republicans won the Senate majority in 2001, Democrats set a record, with 34 filibuster attempts (many to filibuster presidential judiciary appointments). In the last session of Congress, Republicans filibustered 61 times. And in this session? 53 and counting -- and there are five months left to go!

If Democrats had the cojones to make the Republicans perform a full-blown filibuster of every bill they threaten to filibuster, this problem might end. There's a big difference between wielding the filibuster as a threat and holding it over the heads of the majority party without ever having to do it, and actually having to filibuster, resulting in missing your trips home (or your evenings in bed), being seen on C-SPAN for the obstructionist you are, and making it clear to the public which senators really don't want to accomplish anything. We've made it far too easy to filibuster, because the Democrats aren't willing to insist on the full-blown, Mr. Smith-style filibuster during which no other business can take place.

The Constitution mandates that the will of the majority be effective. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional requirement. Now that it is being so completely abused, perhaps it's time to do away with it, or at least to modify it.

To put this in perspective: The House has passed over 350 bills this year that have received no consideration in the Senate. Many of these bills passed with huge majorities -- even overwhelming majorities.

The Senate is broken. It's time to change the rules.

The AFA weighs in

2010-08-07T17:45:00.000-07:00

Here's what the AFA has to say about the Prop 8 ruling:

Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.

In doing so, he frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.

Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.

Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."

In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.

What can be done?

Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.

Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.

Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.

Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.

Take Action and contact your representative and urge him to launch impeachment proceedings against Judge Vaughn Walker for his outrageous ruling against natural marriage.

You've got to be kidding me.

Equal protection and due process are, indeed, clearly defined in the Constitution, and as Judge Walker's thoughtful ruling made exceedingly clear, both are violated by Proposition 8.

If Judge Walker should have recused himself based on his homosexuality (which I'm not sure he has openly stated, but that isn't relevant), then any heterosexual judge would have to do the same. The notion that someone should recuse himself or herself based on sexual orientation would require that we have an asexual federal judge. Perhaps we can find an amoeba somewhere to serve, since they reproduce asexually. (And someone with the intellect of an amoeba might have upheld Prop 8!)

It is fortunate, indeed, that the founders created checks and balances in the Constitution. That's precisely why the federal judiciary can declare bad laws unconstitutional, and enjoin their enforcement. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that citizens can discriminate against other citizens because they are "icky," no matter how large a majority of voters may wish to do so. "Democracy" in our Republic is not permitted to result in the tyranny of the majority.

Since Judge Walker cited ample precedent for every decision in his ruling, the notion of impeachment proceedings is patently absurd. There was no judicial misconduct in his conduct of the trial, or his ruling.

May the AFA enjoy wallowing in its vineyard of sour grapes. It is just such rhetoric and hatred that resulted in this move to the federal courts. I hope the AFA, the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, and similar organizations enjoy knowing they have accelerated the pace of this change with their actions.

Republican Gag Order

2010-08-06T05:53:00.000-07:00

Now, THIS is interesting.

Apparently, the Republican Party is reeling from the defections of its moderates as Tea Party candidates stir things up in the primaries. They are so afraid of the implications of these defections that they are making their candidates take the pledge!

Get this -- if you want to run as a Republican, you have to promise that if you lose, you won't run against the Republican nominee, and you won't endorse anyone else, and if you don't actively demonstrate having imbibed copious amounts of Republican Kool-aid, you must return any campaign donations from the RNC -- or anyone else who asks for a refund.

(Hmmm... there's something interesting in that. I sort of like the idea of a political warranty. If I donate to someone in the primary who loses, can I have a refund? Does this work if the candidate gets elected but I don't like the way he or she votes in Congress? Or what if the campaign promises just aren't kept?)

I've often said Democrats could learn something from Republicans in terms of party unity. Republicans are so good at spouting the same messages it's as if they all have the same ventriloquist. Of course, the chorus is so simple we all have it memorized, but they do a good job of staying "on message" and the Republicans in Congress vote as a bloc more often than not.

Democrats, on the other hand, are so enamored of our beloved shades of gray that we become lost in nuance, arguing with each other so strenuously the Republicans hardly need to oppose us. I was in line at the airport the other day with the incumbent Senator from my state who is running against a strong primary challenger. Another gentleman in line and I remarked about how Democrats do such a lousy job of party unity. He characterized it like this: "Okay, all the democrats get in a circle and face each other. Now, take out your guns and FIRE!"

It's so true. By the time we get to the general elections, our candidates are battered, bruised, and broke. We've forced them to spend their campaign money in the primary, weakening them for the general election. We've dug up and publicized every piece of dirt we can find, and vilified them for being just slightly to the left or right of the other candidate on whatever issue seemed to drive the biggest wedge between the party faithful.

Robert Heinlein said fratricidal wars are the bloodiest. Maybe we should take a page or two out of the Republican playbook.

Kool-aid, anyone?

More on Prop 8

2010-08-05T07:55:00.000-07:00

Regarding those of you upset by this ruling, I wonder: How does it feel to be on the trailing edge of progress, or, if you will, on the wrong side of history? For those of you old enough to remember, how did you feel about the legalization of interracial marriage? Or school integration? Or public accommodations being required to serve people of all races? Conservatives opposed all of these changes, blaming them on an "activist judiciary" and predicted dire consequences.

Do you believe now, decades later, that those enormous changes in "what was and always would be" have disintegrated the fabric of society? Do you believe the apocalyptic changes predicted by their opponents have taken place?

Conservatives, by their very nature (and by definition), desire to preserve the status quo. I can think of three underlying reasons for such a desire:

1) Fear of the unknown. (Things may not be great now, but at least we KNOW how they are -- but if we change something, what if things get worse instead of better?)

2) A desire to return to an idyllic (albeit imaginary) past. This is the past where life was straight out of "Leave it to Beaver" or Mayberry, and all our families were like Ozzie and Harriet, and Donna Reed baked cookies for us to have after school every day.

I prefer both of those explanations to the third I can imagine:

3) Not just fear, but a dislike of things alien. This is a belief that difference equals inferiority, that tolerance of those differences represents a threat to a certain way of life, and that granting equality will somehow diminish those currently in a position of power and privilege.

The third explanation is ugly, by all means.

Let's read the Perry, et al v. Schwarzennegger, et al, ruling. There are five rationales advanced in support of Propsition 8. To which of these reasons for maintaining the status quo can we attribute them?

The first rationale is about the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and preserving that definition for its own sake. I think I can attribute this one to the second reason above: Clinging to an imaginary, idyllic past. The traditional definition of marriage stems from, as Judge Walker put it, "antiquated and discredited" gender roles that used to be legally mandated, but have since been eradicated from the law. (We won't even go into the absurdity of trying to apply traditional gender roles to same-sex marriage -- but that may be the point of this argument from Prop 8 supporters. How can a same-sex couple fulfill the traditional gender roles that marriages were originally designed to impose?)

Of course, the answer to this is that the definition of marriage has already changed. In today's society, marriage is a union of equals, and the lines between traditional gender roles have already been blurred to the point of eradication. Clinging to a traditional definition of marriage would also mean clinging to gender discrimination. So to suggest that the only part of a traditional definition of marriage that needs to be preserved is the restriction to a man and a woman is nothing more than intentionally, specifically targeting one group to deprive them of a fundamental right. And, as Judge Walker stated in his ruling, "...the state cannot have an interest in disadvantaging an unpopular minority group simply because the group is unpopular."

The second rationale, "proceeding with caution when implementing societal changes" was, in the trial, based on the assertion that this change is a "radical transformation to the fundamental nature of a bedrock social institution" and that such a change could weaken the institution itself. The proponents of Prop 8 didn't present any evidence that same-sex marriage weakens the institution of marriage in general. So where did this rationale come from? Sadly, it's part of the third reason above -- that permitting individuals who are different to be equal represents a threat to the advantage the current situation affords the opponents of change.

The third rationale, "promoting opposite-sex parenting over same-sex parenting" is based on the notions that same-sex parents are better than opposite-sex parents, and that denying the right of marriage to same-sex couples somehow promotes the likelihood that opposite-sex couples will marry, procreate, and raise children that are the biological offspring of both parents, and that this is a good thing. Of course, the evidence shows that children raised in same-sex households are just as successful as those raised in opposite-sex households, and there's no evidence that Prop 8 is going to encourage opposite-sex couples to marry, procreate, and raise kids. So which motivation prompted this rationale? Again, the third one -- that difference means inferiority.

The fourth rationale advanced by Prop 8 supporters is, "Protecting the freedom of those who oppose marriage for same-sex couples." This is so absurd on its face that I'm having a hard time even making the effort to address it. I'll let Judge Walker do it for me: "Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex."

May I just add a resounding, "DUH."

And where does this come from? Reason 3 -- only a belief in one's own superiority would permit anyone to suggest that the rights of those who don't like something that doesn't affect them at all should trump the fundamental rights of a group they don't like.

The fifth rationale is odd on its face: "Treating same-sex couples differently from opposite-sex couples." The arguments are based on "using different names for different things," "maintaining the flexibility to address the needs of different types of relationships," "ensuring California marriages are recognized in other jurisdictions," and "conforming California's definition of marriage to federal law." But all of these arguments are based on the premise that same-sex marriages are legally different from opposite-sex marriages.

All the evidence is to the contrary, so Judge Walker dismissed these arguments. Where does this rationale come from? Sadly, I think it stems from number three again -- that which is different is inferior, and admitting that it is not inferior somehow diminishes a persistent notion of superiority.

Judge Walker sums up his refutation of all these rationales with this: "Many of the purported interests identified by proponents are nothing more than a fear or unarticulated dislike of same-sex couples. Those interests that are legitimate are unrelated to the classification drawn by Proposition 8. The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal."

Let's see: We can attribute four out of five of the rationales advanced by Prop 8 supporters to Explanation 3 above. Judge Walker certainly did.

Here's a news flash for conservatives: This change does not threaten you. It does not fundamentally alter your way of life. It does not unravel the fabric of society. Instead, it promotes stable relationships, financial prosperity (evidence shows that married couples are more prosperous), stable households, and stable families -- all things you purport to embrace.

Another Step Forward

2010-08-04T15:46:00.000-07:00

"Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement..."

With those words, (and a whole bunch of others -- holy cow!), Judge Vaughn Walker declared it to be unconstitutional to prohibit same sex marriage.

Here's a website with links to the entire ruling.

Here are a few highlights:

" Proponents did not, however, advance any reason why the government may... need to take into account fertility when legislating."

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians."

"The tradition of restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not further any state interest. Rather, the evidence shows that Proposition 8 harms the state's interest in equality, because it mandates that men and women be treated differently based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender."

And maybe the best part of all: “Proposition 8 is not rationally related to an interest in protecting the rights of those opposed to same-sex couples because, as a matter of law, Proposition 8 does not affect the rights of those opposed to homosexuality or to marriage for couples of the same sex."

Judge Walker's ruling is thorough, relies on precedent, and therefore will be very difficult to overturn on appeal. You can see from reading it why Judge Walker's rulings tend to withstand appeals very well. He applied both the stringent "strict scrutiny" standard and the more relaxed "rational basis" standard to Proposition 8 and found that it fails on both counts -- eliminating the ability to appeal based on the selection of the standard.

Okay, California bigots -- you asked for this. You went too far, and in taking it upon yourselves to enshrine discrimination in your Constitution, instead of keeping the battle in your own state you opened it up to the federal courts. Clearly you never read Loving v. Virginia . Before the appellate process is over, all laws prohibiting same-sex marriage will be declared unconstitutional. Instead of the slow, state-by-state process that might have taken many years or even decades, you've advanced the rights of gays and lesbians far more quickly than anyone might have hoped.

Judge Walker did issue a stay pending appeal... but it's entirely possible the 9th Circuit and the SCOTUS may choose to let the ruling stand without an appellate process. Stay tuned...

Wrong.

2010-07-21T15:13:00.000-07:00

It's amazing how the folks using the "Tea Party" moniker are shaping political discourse in the US today -- and successfully distracting us from the important issues.

Today, what stories should be all over the media?

President Obama signed sweeping financial reform into law.
Secretary of State Clinton announced new sanctions against North Korea.

What IS all over the media?

Shirley Sherrod might not want her job back even if the White House offers it to her.

So the NAACP criticized the Tea Party folks for some of the "elements of racism" within their ranks. A couple of Tea Party folks got their noses out of joint and decided to "prove" that the NAACP was being hypocritical, because it was welcoming racists of its own.

Enter Andrew Breitbart, a conservative blogger who gets FAR more attention than his ideas merit. He posted a heavily edited video of a USDA regional coordinator giving a speech to the NAACP that made it seem as if she were admitting to discrimination against white farmers during her tenure at the USDA.

(Of course, what she REALLY said was that 24 years ago, when she worked for a non-profit, she had a brief period of thinking white poor people didn't need as much help as their black counterparts, and then she learned better and realized that poverty is color blind -- and she became committed to helping out poor people however she could. But that part was all cut out of the video, so people started making snap judgments about Sherrod based on a 2 1/2 minute out-of-context video clip.)

Without doing any homework (like viewing the whole 43 minute speech, or maybe asking some of their members who actually heard the speech, or *GASP* talking to Sherrod herself!), the NAACP condemned Sherrod -- and before long, she was on the phone with a deputy undersecretary of agriculture (who hadn't done any homework, either) telling her to pull over to the side of the road she was driving on and resign via her Blackberry.

So just because she was the highest-ranking NAACP-related person Breitbart could find a quick way to smear, Sherrod lost her job for being a racist -- and the tool used to oust her was her speech championing racial tolerance and equality.

How effed up is that?

I wouldn't blame Sherrod one bit if she told her former bosses to shove her job where the sun don't shine.

And in spite of the truth of this situation, there are STILL people all over the Internet saying Sherrod "deserved" to lose her job. Is it because they are stupid or willfully ignorant?

Amazing.

2010-04-08T18:31:00.000-07:00

This president -- this presidency -- is amazing.

Obama has been in office for 14 1/2 months, and the world has changed for the better!

Nuclear Weapons
Today, President Obama and Dimitri Medvedev signed a "New START" treaty that will reduce all the nuclear weapons in the world by nearly one third. Obama said he would work toward a world without nuclear weapons. I think this is a marvelous accomplishment in Month 15.

The Economy
In this case, a picture is worth far more than anything I can say:

Maybe I should add this one, too:

Less than a month after he took office, Obama signed the stimulus bill into law. Four months after he took office, he signed credit card reform into law.

In March our economy added more jobs than it has in three years. I realize the economy isn't perfect. But what I hope Americans will realize is that the Recovery Act and other stimulus measures the Obama administration and Democratic congress put in place began to work almost immediately. Instead of remaining in free fall, the economy began to turn the corner almost immediately. We've had a shorter and shallower recession than we would have without those programs. And now jobs, a lagging economic indicator, are on the rise. We haven't climbed out of the hole but we are not sinking any more.

Health Care
President Obama and this congress accomplished what our politicians have failed to do for a century: Health insurance reform. The bill isn't perfect -- but it was what could realistically be accomplished in this political climate. Bravo. A year of debate culminated in a truly bipartisan bill, even if not one Republican had the courage to vote for it.

A few weeks after taking office, Obama signed an expansion of SCHIP into law, insuring about 4 million more low-income children.

By executive order, President Obama eased the Bush administration's odd, draconian restrictions on federally funded stem cell research. We can only imagine the positive impact this may have on medical research.

This list is by no means comprehensive. Now, I ask you this: Has any President in history accomplished more in his first 15 months in office?

It passed.

2010-03-21T21:13:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not talking about a kidney stone. Today the House passed the Senate version of health care reform, plus a bill to amend it.

I'm pretty sure a kidney stone would have been easier to pass.

Now it's time to start providing some political support to Democrats in tough districts (like the one I live in) who voted in favor of the bill, and to find primary challengers for the 34 who voted against it.

It's not perfect. It might not even be good. But it's a far cry better than nothing at all.

Godwin's Law

2010-03-20T15:17:00.000-07:00

I saw someone prove Godwin's law the other day. We were talking about how undocumented residents are people, too. The poster then said it is irrelevant that illegals are "people" (yes, she used the scare quotes and the word "illegals") and that so is (sic) Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, etc.

The post was ugly, made me sad and wasn't worth debating. So I said so. Apparently that indicated that I, too, can "relate to Hitler" and that I "support terrorism participators."

Is there any place one can go today for civil political discourse? I want someone on the right to argue with who's sharp, quick-witted, keeps me on my toes, and can still be civil and realize that it is possible for people of good conscience to disagree.

Instead, I'm surrounded by tea partiers ("Why do you think Obama is a fascist?" "Because he IS!"), rabid partisans, and those who think Sarah Palin might actually have something, there. They swallow misinformation hook, line, and sinker. These are people who believe we're about to have a "government takeover of health care." They will call the same person a fascist and a communist within a matter of seconds. Not the brightest bulbs on the holiday tree. ("Attack on Christmas! Why do you hate America?")

Where is today's William F. Buckley? Where is someone who will stand on reasoned conservative principle instead of toeing a party line? Where is someone who won't pretend to be against "government intrusion into our lives" and in the next breath espouse an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage stance while defending the Patriot Act? Where is someone who won't claim that Obama "routinely violates the Constitution" and, when questioned, be unable to come up with a single example?

I used to have a friend I could argue politics with. I loved him. We used to stay up late and argue until two or three o'clock in the morning, and still want more. We respected each others' opinions and intelligence, and I know each of us made the other think.

He emailed me a couple of weeks ago and told me he now realizes I was right all along.

Damn.

I guess I should be happy for him, but now who will argue with me?

More about C Street

2010-03-19T11:50:00.000-07:00

Rachel Maddow had a segment about C Street on her show.

When politics and religion overlap, there is trouble.

Enough, already.

2010-03-17T18:08:00.001-07:00

Today I called my representative about the health care reform bill. It's not perfect. In some ways, it's not even good. But once it is passed, health insurance companies won't be able to take your money for years and then dump you as soon as you actually get sick, or pretend that the acne you had when you were 14 is a "pre-existing condition" that makes you uninsurable when you get cervical cancer 40 years later. I don't see how passing this can be, on balance, a bad thing.

Then I went to said representative's Facebook page, and was appalled. For the last few days, the majority of posts were certainly in support of a yes vote (which would be a change, since this Congress-critter voted "no" in the last round). But those who didn't support it were impassioned, angry, terrified, and horribly misinformed.

I've argued politics regularly with some of the same people for about a decade. The recent rhetoric is the least grounded in fact and the most fear-based I can remember since I joined the group during the Gore-Bush election cycle in 2000. People who are anti-abortion, supported the Patriot Act, and oppose gay marriage go on and on about "limited government." They are terrified of a Democrat in the White House. They are terrified of a Democratic majority in Congress. They are certain that their way of life is under constant attack by some nefarious, shadowy agenda they can't articulate, prove, or identify, but are absolutely certain exists.

They are terrified because of idjits like Glenn Beck. They are terrified because they don't have time to read for themselves, inform themselves about plans or proposals, or learn about congressional processes -- so they listen to an hour of Glenn Beck wasting their time and come away not informed, but misinformed and afraid.

Why is fear the only weapon working for the right wing? And why are they so afraid of the elegant, thoughtful man who is now our President that they will obstruct ANYTHING to hand him a defeat?

Annoyed.

2010-03-04T17:46:00.000-08:00

I am annoyed, and that's all there is to it.

Every day I hear about another piece of absolute nonsense from the loony right, and I'm tired of it. Does anyone really believe the stuff they're spouting? Are we that gullible? Or are we just that disaffected as a society?

Every day I hear about another failure of the party in power to accomplish anything worthwhile. Mandate? Squandered. Constituents? Ignored. Achievements? Minor. Opportunities? Missed.

I don't remember Democrats completely managing to obstruct the Republican agenda for the 8 Bush years, even when they had a much smaller majority than Democrats do today. When did the simple majority in the Senate disappear completely?

Let's all pray the Democrats discover the beauty of the reconciliation process.

What Do We Expect?

2010-02-24T18:45:00.000-08:00

This morning, I heard a story on NPR about the C Street Center, a place where some of the most notoriously "bad boy" fundamentalist Christians in congress live when they're in Washington. The Center's tax status is in question, because it doesn't actually perform any of the functions of a church, but claims to be a church for tax purposes.

C Street is or was home to folks like South Carolina governor Mark Sanford of "Hiking the Appalachian Trail" infamy, Chip Pickering from Mississippi whose wife has filed an alienation of affection lawsuit against his mistress, and John Ensign who had an affair with a staffer.

These three men are part of a growing number of fundamentalist Christian men who are better known for their philandering than their accomplishments. They range from these politicians to religious figures like Ted Haggard and even Jerry Falwell.

What's up with this? Even if you're not bothered by the affairs, you have to be astounded at the hypocrisy. How can someone be so publicly Christian and so privately icky? (Icky... a technical term.)

I have a theory. The problem isn't Christianity, but fundamentalism. Fundamentalists in various religions share an important conviction: The belief that women are inferior to men.

We all see the most extreme examples of this kind of fundamentalism whenever we see the Taliban on television, or see women in burquhas, or are reminded that Saudi women are not permitted to drive. Or we see it in cultures that practice female genital mutilation. We see it when the press is full of the latest young woman's escape from being one of a dozen wives to a man old enough to be her father.

How can men who've been taught that women are to "submit" themselves unto their husbands, or that the woman was created for man, or that God is male, and that women are not to be in positions of leadership over men, or the thousand other messages of a patriarchal fundamentalism, be expected to treat women with any kind of respect? Why are we surprised? As long as our churches teach men that women are second-class citizens, unworthy, responsible for the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden, weaker, and in general less than men in every way, men will treat their wives like the chattel that, deep down, they believe them to be. They will do as they please, all the while spouting platitudes about "family values" and "personal responsibility."

There are religions and cultures which are more egalitarian; where deities are gender-neutral or both male and female; where the creation story does not blame one gender for all the evil in the world; where the emphasis is on oneness and unity instead of exclusivity and hierarchy. Is there less infidelity there? I don't know. Is there less hypocrisy? Absolutely.

That Other Political Blog

2010-02-24T10:31:00.001-08:00

Well, it's time.

I've had this blog's name saved for many moons, while I decided whether I should take the leap and create a political blog.

You see, I'm not a politician. I don't have a degree in economics, or political science, or foreign affairs. There is nothing in my background that qualifies me to pontificate on political topics with the gravitas of a William F. Buckley or the humor of a Molly Ivins. I'm not a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar.

So why bother?

Because I have something to say. I have opinions based on years of being an involved citizen, keeping up with current affairs, and being a political junkie. I am a policy wonk wannabe. I've always said I don't want to be a politician, but I wouldn't mind owning a couple. (Insert tongue-in-cheek HTML tag here.) I think I am representative of thoughtful, reasonably well-educated citizens who take an interest in government and participate in the political process.

You probably won't agree with me about everything. I describe myself as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. When the two conflict, I tend toward the left of center -- but not too far left. (However, I notice I become more liberal as I get older.)

So here I go. Wish me luck.