That Other Political Blog

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....

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 Chr...

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...

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 McCaskil...

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 governme...

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 ...

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 some...

"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...