For the Good of the (YDG) Order

Tonight, the Young Democrats of Georgia will start its annual convention to elect officers, consider changes in our constitution, hear exciting speakers, and get some training. The run-up to the convention has been interesting behind the scenes.

As I noted in a previous post, many of us had concerns about the uncontested candidate for YDG President. What happened after that post was a groundswell of support to get Billy to run for a 3rd term as YDG President. He really didn't want to do it because he felt it was time to let someone else take the reigns and still had some faith that Tahir would be OK. That faith quickly disappeared, and the groundswell became a virtual tsumani that Billy could not ignore. Truly, the future of the organization was at stake. As of this writing, it appears Tahir has stepped aside, but we won't truly know until we find out if he shows up to convention or not.

There will be plenty of rumors and innuendo thrown around as to why Tahir's candidacy imploded and was eventually put out of its misery. The bill of particulars that I put together and sent to Billy about why Tahir needed to be stopped are as follows:

1. Tahir has no record of accomplishment. Certainly he has held elective and appointive office within YDG, but to what effect? When he was VP of Programs, the only thing he did was come up with the campaign cook-off, which would never have come off had the rest of the executive board not bailed him out at the last minute with a flurry of activity. After that, if he came up with any programs at all, I am not aware of it. As President of Emory YDs, he was able to deliver crucial votes to Billy’s re-election for which he was given the ED position (against the advice of others, who felt he'd do nothing with the position). And unlike Adam Stevens, who left a vibrant and fruitful chapter behind him, Emory seems to have faltered after Tahir left. It’s almost ridiculous that we need to even discuss his tenure as YDG Executive Director. He was perfectly positioned to be your successor, and it was your hope that he’d use his time as ED to intern for the Presidency. He had the chance to make contacts throughout the state and with all the active leadership. This year he was to be what Daniel was in your first term. Yet, he has done nothing. I know YOU have been busy, because unlike Tahir, you communicate with me and other leaders around the state in the YDs. Things he was supposed to do as ED he has not done. No communication, no planning, nothing. Then Tahir has the gall to say that his lack of activity or responsibility is your fault. For those of us who have given our blood, sweat and tears to YDG the last several years, this notion is laughable, not to mention pathetic.
   
2. YDG Allies will abandon us if Tahir is President. As high an opinion as I know Tahir holds of himself, it will undoubtedly come as a shock to him that general opinion of him is not that high. In fact, the word “useless” has been uttered more than once…at the Murphy Reception no less! I verified this with the person who made the comment at Murphy, and it falls in line with what our friends in the Legislature, the labor movement, the women’s movement and others have said about Tahir since he announced. I have personally been present when you have been told in no uncertain terms that Tahir should not be President of YDG because he won’t do anything other than ruin the reputation that we’ve built up. He is well known among our allies who I mentioned above as worthless and someone you CANNOT count on. With Tahir as President, the support of organizations, officer holders, and others that we have built partnerships with will dry up. Everything we have spent 4 years building will be torn down under one year with him at the helm. I am convinced this will happen from conversations I have had and personally witnessed with people I know to be YDG supporters.
   
3. He has bad-mouthed YDG. I’m not sure if it’s the Bobby Khan kool-aid or what, but his words debasing YDG are well known. I’m sure copies of the incriminating words he wrote can be made available to the general public if necessary. I have seen them, and they disgusted me, especially coming from someone who supposedly wants to run the organization as it’s leader. I think the most relevant things he said about YDG was talking about how it was a joke, and he was only running for President to do us a favor. How being President was a “step down” for him. It’s obvious that he has no respect for YDG, so why he would want to run it is beyond me. For me, the answer lies in Tahir's loyalty to Bobby Khan and whomever is in power at DPG at the moment. YDG is the youth arm of the party, but we are an independent voice, and it’s important we remain so. I’m certain he doesn't share this conviction and would quickly subordinate YDG into whatever Bobby Khan told him to do with it. After all, he'd be doing us a “favor” by accept the Presidency.
   
4. His political skills and instincts are wholly absent where YDG is concerned. Not only has he not accomplished anything in the various offices he has held with YDG, but he has completely made an ass of himself by what he HAS done. First, he never communicates with anyone other than a very select few people and even those are rare. He has only posted a lame blog as his campaign for President, not bothering to build the grass roots support that would make him an effective leader. He has not been in touch with chapters, with officers, or anyone else who is active in the organization at present. He had the perfect opportunity to do this as ED, and I know for a fact that you repeatedly urged him to take advantage of that post and make these connections. Yet, he did not. His attitude has been to say, “Well, I’m unopposed, so why campaign?” It is our fault that no one was ready and able to rise up and challenge him. We had hopes for others, but one died and the other just disappeared. We thought that since he was a do-nothing sort of guy, that if we surrounded Tahir with competent, capable officers, that his general lack of leadership could be averted and the harm that a weak president would bring to YDG would be ameliorated. Yet, his actions have belied this notion. First, there was the mess with Andre’s attack on Colleen Ware. I know for a fact that he had been urging Andre to “go negative” on Colleen out of a personal animosity he had toward her. Andre may have a reputation as a bit of a loose cannon, but one thing he is not is a liar. But Tahir lied to my face, looking directly in my eyes when he denied that he ever told Andre to go negative. Had I not known the truth, I would have likely believed his denials, which is scary. It means he is not to be trusted, not only to do any actual work, but trusted PERIOD. That is not a trait we need in a YDG President.
   
5. He will hurt us at the National level. The National Committee team is very important in maintaining Georgia’s influence at the national level. We have an excellent team now, and Kirk, you, Brooke, and (lately) myself have worked hard to build productive relationships. Having a YDG President known to be someone who cannot be trusted, who will not do any work, and whose main concern at national meetings will be satisfying his libido will NOT help us. It will destroy our credibility at the very time we need to muster all of our influence to secure campaign funds from YDA for the 2006 races. These meetings are serious business, and while they can be a lot of fun, you know that we have to be focused on what’s going on. I have no confidence that Tahir will do that.

I’m as disappointed as anyone that Tahir is not ready or worthy of being YDG President. Last year, I had hopes that he’d step up to the plate and really make a go of being an effective ED in preparation for being President. That’s why when it became obvious that he was lying about his instigation of the Colleen Ware attack, I started voicing my concerns beyond just you, Page, Tim, and Daniel. Turns out that we all had the same thoughts, worries, and fears about Tahir's pending Presidency. That’s when we have to convince you to agree to run for a 3rd term. I know you felt it was time to hand over the reigns, and normally, we’d all agree. But desperate times call for desperate measures, and I hope that you are willing to heed to groundswell asking you to serve yet again. We will have to better prepare our bench of leadership for the future, but with the other officers that will be elected this weekend, I am feeling better about our ability to do that. I will not hesitate to say in public what I write to you here. It’s what I must do to protect this organization that I love so dearly and for which I have worked so hard and will continue to work hard for.

So don't listen to the naysayers and people trying to make this into something it's not. It's about competence. As we've seen with the current Bush regime, having an incompetent boob in charge can be deadly.

Talk about Backfiring

This year's Young Democrats of Georgia (YDG) races had been pretty quiet until yesterday morning. The only contested race at the moment was the race for VP of Programs. Usually, if there is drama, it will be in the President's race. Then Andre Walker took some bad advice and posted this blog: http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2006/03/colleen-ware-shes-just-pretty-face.html. Some people I know have had a difficult time opening this link, although I'm not sure why.

Basically, Andre goes after his opponent Colleen Ware in a big way. The implication being that's she just a big, dumb sorority girl from UGA trying to play in the big leagues where she doesn't belong. Anyone who is a Democrat should understand the problem with this line of argument. This is not about a battle of ideas but a base personal attack that plays on misogynistic stereotypes.

What's worse is that the attacks are not true. Colleen may be a sorority girl at UGA, but the times I've interacted with her, she has come across as bright, intelligent, eager, and hard working. Asking folks I know at UGA about her, that impression is the one she gives to her YD chapter. Trust me, if you are a loser, people in your chapter will definitely spread the word. Colleen has had nothing but good reports about her from the UGA group, which is one of YDG's most powerful and active chapters.

So why was this attack made? Andre is not a mean person. Anyone who has read his writings can tell he's generally an intelligent and thoughtful person. He does have a reputation for being a bit of a loose cannon, which this episode highlights. And until now, he had a campaign for VP of Programs that was based on an activist, high impact programming agenda.

Part of the problem, if you speak to Andre, is bad advice that he has received from Tahir, the unopposed candidate for YDG President. Tahir despises Colleen and has made it known that he does NOT want her to win VP of Programs. It's unclear what the issue between them is precisely, but accusations of being "unprofessional" and "bringing personal shit into the work setting" abound. Without details, there's no way to really judge that sort of thing. However, as the unopposed President, Tahir should be ready and willing to work with whomever wins election to the other YDG offices. Preferences are fine, and he's expressed them. Urging Andre to "go negative" on Colleen as the only method to defeat her is not fine.

My understanding is that Tahir has urged Andre for weeks to go after Colleen in a negative fashion. Andre resisted and sought the counsel of others because this kind of personal attack is not in his character usually. However, the internal politics of YDG seemed to indicate that Colleen would likely win. Earlier this week, something happened to make Andre think that taking Tahir's advice was his only hope for success.

He was wrong - big time. This post has backfired in a huge way. Despite having a female president two years ago, YDG has seen a lack of female leadership rising in the ranks. One of our goals has been to nurture female leadership which has helped Colleen's candidacy. To attack an aspiring female leader in YDG with ugly personal smears based on misogynistic stereotypes of women in sororities is beyond the pale. It smacks of trying to intimidate females thinking of persuing YDG leadership positions from doing so...lest they get attacked in a similar fashion. We do have strong females throughout YDG, but many have chosen to devote their time and energies to local chapters. And for those of us who are men who feel very strongly that we need to promote female leadership, this kind of attack is infuriating.

The rage against Andre's attack is boiling just beneath the surface. I have no idea what the fallout will be, other than Andre's probable loss. That it's well known that Tahir planted the idea of making such an attack will have unknown consequences. I'm utterly disappointed that he pushed Andre to make this attack based on some apparent personal issues between him and Colleen. It shows a clear lack of judgment that I and many others finding disturbing. Is YDG to adopt a policy of the politics of personal destruction under Tahir's leadership? I certainly hope not, because that's the best way to hobble one of the strongest state YD organizations in the country for years to come. There are legitimate ways to defeat your opponents politically, but this is not one of them.

A Proposal We Can ALL Support!

This story came to my attention thanks to Kirk and Politics1.com. http://www.politics1.com/blog-0206a.htm#0227

State Senator Robert Hagan (D-Ohio) says he will introduce legislation to ban Republican couples from adopting children. According to Hagan, "credible research" shows that adopted children raised in GOP households are more at risk for developing "emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities." Hagan agrees there is no scientific evidence backing his claims about Republican parents - just as Hagan notes there is none backing State Representative Ron Hood's (R) bill banning gay parents from adopting.

Hood claims children purportedly suffer from emotional "harm" when they are adopted by gay couples. Hagen admins he created his proposal to mock Hood's proposed ban on gay adoption in a way that people would see the "blatantly discriminatory and extremely divisive" nature of the bill. The GOP House leadership does not support Hood's proposal.

You know, if you think about it, Sen. Hagan is right on the money! Allowing Republicans to adopt really does place a child in a potentially dangerous situation. The emotional stunting of growth, the inflated sense of self, and a penchant for theocracy are all bad things. Heaven help those children who turn out gay too! They'll likely fall into the traps of kinky sexual desires, self-hatred, barebacking, and deep shame and depression. It's not a way for a child to grow up and become a productive member of society.

So as the GOP continues it war on gay people by attempting to ban and/or destroy gay families, let's get the REAL source of the problem and ban all GOP adoptions!

YDA Philly meeting

One word can sum up Philly....BRRRRRRR! It was frigging COLD! As in, it didn't get above freezing the whole weekend. Didn't help that the zipper on my jacket broke which resulted in me being chilled to the bone and catching a cold. Oh well, it was worth it. As usual, the meeting was a good time and seeing my friends from across the country was fantastic.

One innovation I've decided to implement as National Committeeman is to report to YDG members about the meetings. Some people think it's just a free vacation every 3-4 months. Au contraire...things actually do happen, and the between meeting works is also quite involved. Conference calls galore, mass emails, etc.

Attending from Georgia were: myself, Flora Brooke Hesse (National Committeewoman), Billy Joyner (President), Kirk Miller (YDA Rules Chair), and Kyle Bailey (Stonewall Caucus chair). Kirk shepherded through some technical amendments to the YDA charter. The substantive changes created a YDA High School Caucus and a YDA College Caucus, and severed the ties between the College Democrats of America and YDA. The new caucuses elected officers during the meeting.

The National Committee voted to creat a non-voting Jewish Caucus and approved the appointment of an Organizing Director of YDA. A funny thing about the Organizing Director vote: I was th sole "no" vote. I had no idea that I would be the sole "no", so I loudly and clearly said, "Nay!" when the time came. Brooke, Billy and Kirk were horrified, yet terribly amused. This was a girl who was particularly nasty about Brooke's loss in the YDA Secretary's race to Rob Dolin. I like Rob, and we've definitely moved past any bitterness from the campaign. When she was nominated to replace Robert Hooks of Mississippi, I knew she'd be confirmed. She's done a decent job as "acting". Still, for me, it was one last slap for Brooke from San Francisco. Turns out I wasn't particularly alone in my sentiment to vote no, but I'm the only one who actually did so. The funny thing was that the girl in question blamed KIRK for "making" me vote no so the record wouldn't reflect a unanimous yes vote. I guess that's part of being known as "the new Kirk Miller". And personally, there are many things MUCH worse than to be known as "the new Kirk Miller." In many ways, it's a compliment!

Another funny thing about the Jewish Caucus vote was Kirk's principled stand against forming new caucuses of any kind. It's a principle I understand, although I think caucuses have their purpose. All weekend, I was leaning against voting for the caucus even though I knew it could paint me with the same anti-Semite brush that people tried to paint Kirk with. I couldn't get anyone to tell me WHY there was a need for a Jewish Caucus, and whether or not it would open the door for religion-based caucuses of all sorts...Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, etc. I can just imagine having a Muslim caucus diametrically opposed to the Jewish Caucus. Oy vey! At the committee meeting though, I finally saw literature explaining why they needed a caucus. It goes beyond just advocating for Israel. It's also an anti-GOP thing since the GOP is really pushing to get Jewish voters. Having an official liaison to the Jewish community could be important to keeping Jewish voters.

For me, caucuses are about educating other democrats. I do count on the women, minority, labor, rural, and even disability caucuses to keep me honest. I'm a gay white dude from the South...there are plenty of things I don't know or understand. But being a Democrat means I am open and willing to learn about them and hear others out with a mind at being as inclusive as possible. I do think the explosion of caucuses recently is not the best idea, and I hope it's over. I'll be likely to join Kirk in saying "NO MORE" if people keep trying to add new caucuses, especially those that are single issue.

Anyway, the notion that anyone could say Kirk or Billy are anti-Semites is hilarious. Kirk's blog actually lists some of his Jewish connections, not the least of which is State Rep. Mike Jacobs. Billy ran his campaign for crying out loud and is his legislative aide! Of course, Mike does love pork BBQ, so he's not exactly Kosher, but he and his gorgeous wife are definitely good Jews otherwise. You can't be anti-Jew and a Democrat in Georgia. You'd be run out of the state on a rail...or told to join the GOP.

The National Committee also voted to direct the President and International Affairs Liaison of YDA to apply for candidate membership in the International Federation of Liberal Youth (www.iflry.org). There's supposed to be a meeting of the group in Canada this summer, but it looks like it might conflict with the next YDA meeting. We'll see.

Flora Brooke, in her role as YDA Congressional Liaison, hosted a well-received forum with Patrick Murphy who is a congressional candidate in the 8th district in PA. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and spoke about running for congress as a young person and about his experiences inIraq. She impressed him so much, that he offered her a job. Fortunately for us in Georgia, she declined.

A tentative timeline has been set by the Campaign Committee for states to provide information to YDA to help determine where campaign funds will go. In December, YDA committed to funding 10 State Directors and 5 Peer-to-Peer campaigns for the 2006 elections. Georgia was one of the states to complete its assessment, so we are still in the running for campaign funds. We will work with Billy to get the necessary information into the National Office so that Georgia will be as competitive as anyone in getting these investments. It helps that Billy is the Vice Chair of this committee and I am the Southeast Regional Representative. Speaking of which, I was told by the Northeast Region director that people were disapproving of the fact that Georgia has 2 of 11 voting members on the Campaign Committee. Well, boo hoo. I see myself as a Southern advocate in general. As a red region, we're likely to be ignored in sending out campaign resources without good representation. Georgia's worked its ass off, so having two slots on a committee just shows we did our homework well.

There are two bids for the 2007 National Convention. For those who went to San Francisco this past August, you know what a great time the national convention can be. Denver and Dallas are the two cities bidding. Georgia will work with our sister states in the Southeast Region to make sure that the strongest bid gets our votes. There are political as well as financial considerations to this decision. We'll see how it goes. I know that there is no definitive favorite at this point.
The next YDA meeting will be in early June (exact dates have not been set), but the location is going to be Las Vegas! You don’t have to be a voting member of the National Committee to attend YDA meetings, so when the dates come out, we’ll announce them, and anyone who wants to go is welcome. You will be responsible for your own expenses, however. I hope we can get a nice turnout.

The Dark Lord Exposes His True Colors

For most mere mortals, even those holding high office, a hunting accident would provoke a reaction where the injured party gets medical attention, and the shooter cooperates fully with authorities as they look into the accident. Most people, especially if they shot someone who is allegedly a friend, would be distraught over the accident and willing to do whatever it took to aid an investigation and help out the injured party.

Not so with our Vice President, the Dark Lord, Dick Cheney. He shoots a friend of his in the face and chest with buckshot while hunting farm-raised quail that are specially released for him to kill (which isn't really sporting if you ask me). He does direct his medical team (the one that follows him everywhere in case that bad heart of his decides to stop) to take care of the friend. The friend is taken to a hospital, and the police are called.

Here is where it takes a turn for the bizarre, as the Dark Lord exposes his inner darkness for all to see. Cheney, as Vice President of the United States, thinks this hunting accident should be kept quiet until everyone's story is straight. To accomplish this, he instructs the Secret Service to bar the police who come to question him about the accident. He has his people tell his hostess what she saw and didn't see. Only when everything is set does he "allow" her to leak the story to a local paper.

By now, the accident is getting to be almost a day old. He didn't even tell the White House what had happened. The whole thing smells of a bizarre coverup, but why? Surely Cheney didn't shoot this guy on purpose. He couldn't be THAT evil, could he? It would be too wreckless to shoot a man in cold blood with witnesses from your Secret Service and medical details. Cheney's not that stupid.

I think the whole thing was an accident, but Cheney's behavior following the incident makes me scratch my head. What could he possibly have been thinking when he approached the aftermath of this accident? He makes it look like he has something to hide. I know the man is used to lying and covering up in his day job, but there's no reason for lies and coverups in an accident like this.

The press has suddenly decided to show some fortitude and hold Cheney's feet to the fire over this episode. It's a shame they didn't have this kind of skepticism when Cheney and Bush led to us to war with Iraq. It's a shame that it's taken over 5 years for the press to realize that they should question Cheney at all about the things he says and does.

I do hope that Cheney's friend does survive. He apparently had a heart attack after a pellet went into his heart yesterday, and he has plenty of buckshot left in his body. There is a small part of me, though, that wonders what would happen to the Dark Lord if the friend dies. The last time we had a Vice President shoot someone, it was Aaron Burr and his duel with Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton died, and Burr didn't end up too well in the end himself. Will it be the same with the Dark Lord?

Muslim Outrage

I have tried as hard as I can to not paint all Muslims with a broad brush stroke since 9/11. Yet, as time goes on, I become more flabbergasted at the reactions of the "Muslim Street" to events. It seems to me that the Islamic faith, with its anyone-can-be-an-imam system, has been hijacked by fundamentalist freaks bent on violence and driving the world back to the 6th century.

I don't want to feel this way. I do believe that millions of Muslims are peaceful and abhor violence. I think that we are obligated to judge people as individuals and fight the urge to stereotype and discriminate based on generalizations. I believe that Muslims who support individual freedom, moderation, and equal rights are allies in the "War on Terror". I don't want this to become a clash of civilizations or a religious war that pits Muslims against Jews and Christians into a fight to the finish. In my gut, I believe that attempts to lump all Muslims into the same category is despicable and completely against the (for now) free, pluralistic society we all value.

The reaction of the Muslim population to the cartoons published by a Danish newspaper have driven me to the point where I'm sorely tempted to throw up my hands and stop fighting my inner prejudices. Are Muslims around the world nuts? Is violence the answer to everything for them? It sure as hell seems like it. I understand that the cartoons were insensitive and that any image of Mohammed is considered a sacrilidge. I understand that part. It's no different than the outrage at an NEA sponsored artist showing a crucifixion in urine caused back in the late 1980s.

Yet there's a difference in how outrages right wing Christians behave and the Muslim population seems to behave generally. (I can't believe I'm about to favorably compare our religious right to something!) The offended Christians protest, picket, write irate letters, make phone calls to representatives, and boycott companies who do things they don't like. What they do not do is march off and burn down buildings, kidnap people, fire weapons at people, commit crimes, and threaten whole groups of people with death. Yes, the antiabortionists have done these things, but they have been roundly condemned, and they represent a very small portion of the anti-choice community.

Many have asked how the West would feel if cartoons depicting pedophilia, bashing Christians (Anyone remember tough Catholic cartoons surrounding the pedophile brouhaha there?), denying the Holocaus, or bashing Jews. Excuse me, but I thought all Middle Eastern countries bashed Jews on a daily basis. If I'm wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong. I imagine that if Muslims regularly made cartoons on the above topics, the West wouldn't be happy. Christians would protest, write letters, condemn the Muslims for being rude and nasty. Ditto for the Jews. What I'd be surprised to see is groups of maurading Christians and Jews going through the streets of major cities worldwide, burning, looting, and destroying mosques, killing or beating random Muslims in the street, and burning down buildings owned by Muslims. You might have some isolated incidents of this, but it would be far from widespread, and the perpertrators would be found and quickly punished. Syria and Iran have been encouraging their rioters. It's ridiculous!

Where is the outrage at these violent protests? Where is the promotion of peaceful, yet loud, protest? Where's the valuing of human life? Of civil protest? Be angry, be outraged, but this looting, burning, and killing stains the entire faith. It makes all Muslims to be like their wild-eyed lunatics ready to behead anyone who offends.

This whole situation disgusts me. Yes, the cartoons might have been offensive. Yes, it was probably in poor taste to run them. But whatever faults the Danish newspaper had in soliciting and printing the cartoons, the Muslims have more than eradicated with their outrageous behavior. Muslims with sense need to stand up and finally be counted. They need to stand up and say that this behavior is unacceptable and makes them all look like fools in the eyes of the world, let alone Allah. Otherwise, people like me who are struggling NOT to stereotype and paint Muslims with one broad brushstroke will lose that battle...and the Great Religious War of the 21st Century will be on.

Step AWAY from the Kool-Aid, Liddy!

A friend of mine takes the phrase "Keep Your Enemies Closer" to a level that would make me ill. He does forward me the most outrageous things he receives, which means I get something about every day from the GOP. We have both watched with alarm as someone we had both once respected from the GOP has quietly, consistently, lost her mind.

I know that being the chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee requires you to be a harsh partisan, but even in the depths of the Clinton impeachment, you didn't see the DSCC chair jumping all over himself to defend Clinton's affair with Lewinsky, and its subsequent coverup. But we've never had a President quite like Dubya either. Thus, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who really has nothing to gain, becomes a frothing-at-the-mouth lap dog for Bush. Really, she's too damn old to ever be elected President at this point, so her only goal could be to sit in her Senate seat until she dies. Considering she represents North Carolina, the odds are decent she could keep her seat for 2-3 terms before old age forces her out. Yet, she's acting like someone who thinks she is going to run for the GOP nomination in 2008.

I will now take apart her latest screed to the NRSC faithful.

Dear Friend, (What? No "in Christ"????)This week, the Senate is convening hearings on the National Security Agency's terror surveillance program. These hearings will not only tell Americans more about this critical initiative, but will highlight the difference between Republicans and Democrats on issues of security. (Ah, she got the memo from Karl about "post 9-11 Republicans") We will also learn how closely Senate Democrats follow the marching orders of liberal fringe groups like Moveon.org who irrationally oppose the program at the expense of our safety. (IRRATIONALLY OPPOSE! Really, Liddy, when did it become irrational to defend our Bill of Rights? No one is saying that we should let Al Queda call whomever they want in the USA and not intercept it. What we ARE saying is that we have legal ways to do this, and you have to go before a judge and justify yourself in this country. That's protecting our freedoms AND our safety, you stupid bitch!) I look forward to these hearings, and to finding out just where my Democrat colleagues stand on this important issue. (They stand on the CORRECT side of this issue, as do some of your GOP colleagues who aren't willing to shred our Constitution to please Bush.)

Scalito Hall of SHAME

The Democrats stood up to Alito better than I feared they would. Still, we have four Democrats who should be singled out for "Hall of Shame" designation. I can forgive Nelson of Nebraska, Condrad of North Dakota and possibly even Byrd of West Virginia for all are up for re-election in very Red States this year. However, Johnson of South Dakota has no excuse. Johnson is not up for re-eleciton until 2008. Perhaps Johnson was spooked by what happened to Daschle last year. The progressive community really rallied around him to save his seat in 2002, and this is how he repays us. He slaps us in the face by voting for a candidate who has sworn to do everything in his power to undo the progress made in the last 100 years.

I realize it could hurt us, but if Johnson is in trouble in 2008, the progressive community should not lift a finger to help him. There's no reason to support someone just because he/she has a "D" behind their names if that person will not vote to protect our vital civil liberities. Two years is a long time in politics, and Johnson could have afforded to vote "NO". That he didn't is inexcusable.

The Democrats who deserve our THANKS for standing up to Scalito's Right Wing Agenda on the Supreme Court and could have rough 2008 re-election fights are:

1. Mary Landrieu - Louisiana
2. Max Baucus - Montana
3. Mark Pryor - Arkansas

Those Democrats who voted against Scalito and are up for re-election in 2010 in tough states are:

1. Evan Bayh - Indiana
2. Byron Dorgan - North Dakota
3. Blanche Lincoln - Arkansas
4. Ken Salazar - Colorado

Not all of these Senators voted to sustain the filibuster led by Kerry and Kennedy. I don't blame them for not triggering the nuclear option, but the Democrats should have come together enough to plan who would vote to end the filibuster, so that ONLY the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster would have been recorded. Having 72 Senators on record to end the filibuster was a political mistake, I think. But if it gave cover to Senators, especially those listed above, to vote NO on Scalito, then I'm OK with it.

Friends in the progressive world, remember those who voted against us on this, and in the case of Tim Johnson, make him feel the consequences. Also remember those who took a "risk" in supporting us on Alito, and help them out if they are in a tough spot when they are up for re-election.

"Right of Refusal" INDEED!

I finished reading this Washington Post article this morning about bills appearing in legislatures across the nation debating the right of health care workers to REFUSE treatment or services because of their religious or moral beliefs. Anyone now want to seriously tell me that the right in this country does NOT want to create an Old Testament-based theocracy in America? I'm so angry over this issue that I could spit nails. I'm almost speechless. Almost.

The first rule they teach you about medicine, even when you are premed and taking a bioethics course like I did in college, is "First, Do No Harm." It blows my mind that someone would actually endure years of education and training in medicine or pharmacy and seriously think they should have the right to pass judgment on their patients and refuse to render service. People are supposed to enter the medical fields to heal the sick, not heal only the sick you approve of.

Many of these states are focusing solely on the right of pharmacists to refuse to give a woman birth control pills or the morning after pill based solely on that pharmacist's moral or religious beliefs. The pharmacists' role is to fill prescriptions from a doctor and to provide advice on drug interaction, side effects, and proper use of the medication. Nothing more. If Susie has the clap because she's a slut, the pharmacist does not have the right to refuse her antibiotics to teach her a lesson on sexual morality. I think having to go to the doctor for a case of clap would be lesson enough. Even if it wasn't, it is NOT the pharmacist's job to provide moral judgement about clients. He or she should fill the damn prescription, answer any questions, and go on to the next customer. If that is too difficult, than perhaps Dr. High-and-Mighty should not have gone to pharmacy school. Perhaps open a "Christian Taliban Drugs" store and watch it fail.

Other states apparently want to give more blanket "protection" against coercing health care workers to do their jobs. If victims of gang violence come into the emergency room, workers should have the right to refuse treatment because they find gang bangers morally reprehensible. Perhaps they should refuse to treat someone with syphilis for moral reasons. Perhaps refuse pain medication to a woman who was beat by her husband for being "sassy". Perhaps refuse treatment of any sort to GLBT people out of moral repugnance for their "lifestyle". There is no line where the "right to refuse" treament will be considered inappropriate. You can have any reason or no reason, call it a moral or religious belief, and boom, you can sit down and read a book without your boss being able to do anything.

This is not about religious freedom. This is about religious bigotry...the bigotry of the religious against those they don't like. Mostly, I'm talking about evangelicals here. I'm sorry, but if your morals will not allow you treat anyone who comes in the door of your business no matter what their personal story (assuming they can pay, of course), then you should NOT be in health care. Pharmacist's should not have the right to refuse to fill a valid prescription. Doctors, nurses, etc. should not have the right to refuse treatment because they disapprove of the patient. Employers who have these types of hateful people on staff should be able to punish or fire them when they refuse to do their job.

If the Christian Taliban wants to have "Christ-centered" care, they are welcome to form their own medical practices, private hospitals, etc. Let patients decide where they get care. It's up to the provider to decide whether a valid treatment is provided or not. It's up to the patient. The American people should be livid that such proposals are even being taken seriously in this country.

Dems Need to Stop Rolling Over

Maureen Dowd wrote a column in the January 18, 2006 New York Times entitled "Looking for a Democratic Tough Guy, or Girl." As usual, it was a well written article and made the point that if "the Democrats are like the dithering 'Desperate Housewives,' the Republicans have come across like the counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer on '24': fast with a gun, loose with the law, willing to torture in the name of protecting the nation. Except Jack Bauer is competent."

Oh, Maureen, how right you are, and as someone who is a Democrat and loves his party along with his country, it pains me to acknowledge the truth of that analogy. Ms. Dowd is aobut the 5th columnist or so within the past couple of weeks that has made largely the same point about Democrats. We have a platform, and we do have ideas, but damned if anyone can articulate them.

Everyone seems to know the formula, but no one's offering something that would work. I think we need someone to stand up to Bush and his thugs and say, "NO, Mr. President, you are WRONG. We Democrats do NOT have a 'pre-9/11' view of the world. We are painfully aware of the dangers that terrorism and despotism pose to this country and its freedoms. Where YOU and YOUR PARTY are deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong is your insistence that in order to protect American lives and freedom, we must destroy those very liberties that make America unique. You want to save us by destroying us. You have demonstrated time and again that you will lie or finagle facts and laws in order to get your way. You will pound our civil liberties into an unrecognizable pulp in order to 'protect' us. We Democrats will not cower in the face of any threat to this nation. What we will do when we regain power is attempt to rebuild the shattered credibility and alliances that you have destroyed. We will work with our partners across the world, but we will not dictate to them nor will we sacrifice what's good for this country. If doing what is right for America means we tell our partners and allies, 'Sorry, but this what is best for the US and here's why we must go this route' we will do so. We will not be soft, but we will also not destroy what makes this nation great. We will not destroy our civil liberties in order to 'protect' them. We will work with Congress to pass laws that will make tracking terrorists easier while respecting the rights of Americans. This is something you do not respect Mr. President. Your actions have showed time and again that when it comes to doing what you decide is the correct path, you will let nothing...not the Constitution, not laws, not Congress, not the Courts, nor public opinion stop you. You are reckless, Mr. President, and that places us in more danger in the long run than any of your actions to stop further terrorist attacks has saved us. It's time for the recklessness and disregard for laws, treaties, and civil rights to stop. That's why Democrats need to regain power."

Alas, I don't know if there is such a leader in the Democratic Party right now. John Kerry seems to have found a spine in Europe, rushing back to DC to lead the filibuster against Alito along with Senator Ted Kennedy. Of course, it doesn't stand a chance of succeeding, but it would be nice if the filibuster was sustained once before being overtuned by 60 senators voting cloture. I don't think that will happen, but at least the Democrats will have tried SOMETHING to derail Alito. And when Alito is on the Court and voting for opinions are radical right wing readings of the Constitution, we can remind the country who is at fault....the GOP.

So far, the Democratic Hall of Shame for promising to vote "aye" on Alito's confirmation has three names: Robert Byrd (WV), Ben Nelson (NE), and Tim Johnson (SD). Now Nelson, I understand. He comes from a deeply red state and he's up for re-election this year. I can begrudgingly give him a pass on this, although I'd hope that verbally he'd blast the President for putting forward ideologues, albeit a qualified ideologue. I know, I know...but a guy can dream! Johnson and Byrd I just don't understand. I guess Byrd is in more trouble with his re-election campaign than previously thought. I was surprised to learn that Nixon once sought to appoint him to the Supreme Court. Tim Johnson doesn't face the public until 2008, but I guess what happened to Daschle made him pee in his pants. His statement in support of Alito clearly stated he would not have picked Alito, but that he was "mindful" of the 96 votes for confirmation that Ginsberg got in 1993. I guess supporting Alito is payback for the support in 1993? Who knows? I just know that Tim Johnson, whom we all fought so hard to keep in the Senate in 2002, has just spit in the face of progressives everywhere who care about fairness and justice...and unlike Byrd and Nelson, he doesn't have a tough reelection campaign this year as an excuse.

Activist Courts for the Right Wing

Samuel Alito (aka "Scalito") is about to be confirmed for a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. He'll get out of the Judiciary Committee by a 10-8 partisan vote. Unfortunately, the chair of the committee (Sen. Specter) doesn't seem to care that Alito is certain to overturn Roe and other protections based on the right to privacy. He's like a Southern mother who's 40 yr old son is still single, owns a flower shop, and a has a longtime "roommate" named Steve: in denial.

By now, we know that Alito promises to be open minded and fair, and has even trotted out some "liberal" judges to say he's not got a partisan bone in his body. Of course, his letters during the Reagan years belie this argument, not to mention his record of siding with government and conservative causes nearly 100% of the time when his discretion was not bound by precedent. He touted his membership in an organization that was notoriously racist and sexist but only because he was mad that ROTC was kicked out of Princeton, even though this group did NO work on ROTC whatsoever.

This week, we saw that Bush did well in his pick of John Roberts as Chief Justice. Roberts joined his ideological soulmates Scalia and Thomas in dissenting from a 6-3 decision telling the Attorney General he overstepped his authority by trying to punish doctors who legally prescibe lethal doses of medication under Oregon's Right-to-Die law. Of course, when it suits conservatives, they are all about states' rights. They scream that if you want abortion or gay rights, the only way to get them is through the ballot box. But when the ballot box doesn't go their way, suddenly it's the federal government's role to BAR the actions of democracy for the good the nation. Hypocrites. Roberts has declared his allegiance to the Scalia faction, and Alito will join him there. That means Scalia basically controls 4 votes on the Supreme Court, one vote shy of a majority.

These are perilous times in our great nation. We have a president ignoring whatever laws he deems to be inconvenient, who spies on Americans and claims it's a "terrorism prevention program", and a court system that is veering sharply to the right. Bush has appointed 25% of the judges on the courts today. He's not picking old people either; most of the people he's picking are in their 40s and could be on the court for another 30 years. They can be counted on being firmly with the religious right on issues of the day from abortion to gay rights.
I think Roe is finished. If there is one more retirement in the Court, then Bush will have his 5th vote to overturn Roe. Barring that, his justices will interpret O'Connor's undue burden standard to mean, "Hey, as long as you aren't making abortion illegal, it's not 'undue'. Otherwise, all restrictions and impediments are fair game."

As disgusting as I find the prospect, perhaps we should let the right wing start to have its way. The American public has NO idea what kind of wackos they have put into power. The interference with the Terri Schiavo case was just one example. Let's go back to back alley abortions and young girls dying in old warehouse while some butcher leaves her barren or dead. Let's see the Supreme Court allow states to regulate contraception so that women will no longer have control over their bodies. Let's go back to the days where women were expected to remain virgins until their wedding night and then give their men as many babies as he wanted. How much is America willing to put up with? How about reversing the right to privacy? After all, it's not spelled out in the Constitution itself, even though any idiot with half a brain understands that the rights that are guaranteed mean nothing if privacy is not a protected right.

Perhaps pundits are right. Maybe outrageous court decisions are the way to get America to wake the hell up and kick the "Christian" Taliban-dominated GOP out of power. The price though will be steep, and I don't think it's necessary for us to pay it. However, with the electorate seeming to believe whatever lies are fed to them by the Bush machine, maybe some harsh realities are in order. Maybe scores of young women need to die, scores of gay people get lynched openly, and the government have the "right" to search your home or person any time they please before people will wake up and realize that this GOP is destroying America and our freedoms.

Some say that the Democrats should fight harder to stop Alito. With what? The American people have hobbled Democrats to the point they don't have the votes to stop anything. If they try to filibuster, the GOP will simply revoke that right. The Dems could retaliate by bringing the Senate to a screeching halt, but odds are good that the GOP will just turn that against Democrats in the fall and claim they "need" a filibuster proof majority of 60 in the Senate. All they lack are 5 seats. The danger is not worth the risk at this point. Progressive purists just think the Democrats should throw caution to the wind and fight to certain death. Maybe it wouldn't be bad to filibuster, but then have the "gang of 14" vote to end the filibuster. At least a statement would have been made that the party wasn't going to just roll over while Bush installs right wing fanatics on our courts. The Democrats in the "gang of 14" would then have to face voters who could reject or reward them. My senators are two Republicans who both basically promised to do whatever Bush wanted in order to get elected. So I could write or call until I'm blue in the face, and they will ignore me. Any Democrat though who votes for Alito and doesn't live in a deep red state should be ousted at the first chance for dereliction of duty to protect the Constitution from all attackers, DOMESTIC and foreign.

We'll see which Democratic Senators enter the hall of shame by voting to confirm Scalito and bring us all within one vote of having a world view from 1789 firmly in control of our nation.

What will it take?!?!?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

"Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." - THOMAS PAINE

I keep thinking about these two quotations, especially in the wake of the apparent lawlessness of the current Bush regime. I finally found the exact quotations since I had them paraphrased (somewhat badly) in my head. I look at these quotations and wish that I could reach into the past and bring Franklin and other Founders back to the present and show them what's happening. I'm sure their reactions would not be pretty for the American public seems willing to trade in our republic for a authoritarian regime all in the name of terrorism.

We have people in Atlanta that are all in a twitter over some child painting an American flag on the middle of the street in a cul-de-sac in Duluth, GA. First, it's not a real flag...it's a painting of one. But you'd think that people enforcing the anti-graffiti ordinance and having the flag painting removed were the greatest threat since Osama Bin Laden. It's a PICTURE of a flag people! And besides, since when is it respectful or patriotric to put an image of our national flag on the ground for someone drive over? Newsflash! It's NOT. Under the US Flag Code, you must BURN an American flag that touches the ground. Of course, this is a painting, not a real flag.

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll showed that 51% of respondents felt that in the fight against terror, it's fine for the government to engage in the warrantless wiretapping of telephone calls and e-mail. In other words, it's fine for the president to break the law, just so long as he's fighting "terror". I do understand that if you're emailing known terrorists in Pakistan, Iraq, or wherever, you should be monitored. I don't think there is a reasonable person in the United States who would disagree with that. What I DO object to is the notion that the President can't be "bothered" with showing what he's doing and why to a judge either before or after the fact. If the FISA process is too complicated or cumbersome, then amend it. Bush rammed through the original Patriot Act with all kinds of interesting intrusions on American privacy, but the Congress went along with it. So far, the Courts haven't knocked those provisions down either.

Our system is working as far as the Patriot Act is concerned. What's more, people know about the law, and have been able to debate it just as Congress did. You cannot tell me that having a law to set up a new system for this War on Terror would not get serious consideration in Congress. Such a law wouldn't even have to get into details, but set up a system of checks and balances so that a President (this one or any future one) won't easily be able to abuse his authority to spy on Americans.

It seems the public, though, largely buys the argument of "Well, if you don't have anything to hide, then you shouldn't object. He's only going after terrorists." Yeah, RIGHT. The current President has created a regime based on deceit. This is a president that misled us into war, and lied openly to us about warrantless spying. Sure, we should just take Bush's word because he's a BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. Sorry, not good enough. I don't trust this president to not abuse his authority or discretion, as he has done time and again. And I dare any supporter of Bush to say that they feel completely comfortable with the thought of President Hillary Clinton exercising these same exact powers that Bush claims for himself. I know the GOP has aims to fix the election system to perpetuate their power indefinitely, but eventually, a Democrat will retake the White House. If the GOP could come back from Hoover, the Dems will return to power as well.

There must be a reason that Bush doesn't want anyone looking over his shoulder as he orders the NSA to spy on Americans. If his purposes were legitimate, he would have welcomed such oversight that gave him the flexibility he says he needs. But no! He claims that his role as Commander in Chief allows him to ignore the Constitutions protections against tyrrany as long as the endless "War on Terror" continues. Just today, the Washington Post reports that the Bushies are trying to revive a law that has already been declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court through a subpoena of Google's searches. They want to show that people look up porn, and somehow that an unconstitutional law can be saved as a result. So not only is Bush promising to ignore laws he doesn't like (like the ban on torture) but also court rulings he doesn't like.

Between Bush's abuse of power and the growing GOP Congressional scandal starring Jack Abramoff, the stench of corruption and authoritarianism is growing more putrid by the day. Our Constitution is seriously under assualt by the current crop of GOPers in power. We have a chance to stop them in November, but I am starting to question whether we will have the guts to do so. If 51% think breaking the law is fine as long as you promise it's to get terrorist, then our system of government and the American way of life is seriously in jeopardy.

What will it take for the public to WAKE UP and understand what is being done to the Constitution we all revere? How far can Bush go before people realize that he desires the power of a dictator or American Emperor? Will it be too late by the time people do finally realize what he's doing? I hope not, but that hope grows dimmer by the day.

Bashing the Book of Daniel

The American Family Association (AFA), a far right wing action group, issued an email alert today that said in part:

"I watched the Book of Daniel show on NBC tonight just so I could
see if it was as bad as you said. Mr. Wildmon you have it wrong -
it was worse than you described. The so called pastor takes drugs,
smokes, drinks, takes the Lord's name in vain. He supports
homosexuality and drug use. He broke the law by giving out
prescription drugs to a Bishop. Two Bishops were committing
adultery. They mis-quoted the Bible. The program portrayed our
Savior in a joking way. There was a corrupt Catholic priest. The
maid smokes pot. The Bishop drinks, the pastor's wife is a drunk
and her sister is a lesbian and the son is a homosexual. One son
sleeps around. I found this program very offensive to my Christian
beliefs. They were poking fun at our Savior."

A good friend of mine says they need to lighten the hell up. Yes, they do. I taped the show and watched it Saturday night. Keep in mind, I'm an Episcopalian, so if anyone should be offended, it would be me. The show portrays a flawed man who is an Episcopal priest and a descendant of THE Daniel Webster. Since his dad is also a bishop, the priesthood runs in the family.

Daniel Webster is a very flawed man. He is addicted to pain medication, and his talks with Jesus often turn to this topic. Christ chides him for needing the pills and shames him into not taking them. Yes, the Christ in this show is lighthearted, kind, and has a sense of humor. Is it what you'd expect if Jesus regularly showed up to chat with you? Not really, but after watching the show, I'd hope Jesus would be able to laugh and joke with me as He does on this show. I know that offends the delicate sensibilities of the Religious Right who believe only in an authoritarian God and Savior who would speak very firmly with you at all times. These are the same people who think Ariel Sharon had a stroke because he pulled out of Gaza.

The wife is a drunk, and I'm sure that will become an issue later. However, it's also apparent that she is the one with the responsibility to take care of everything in her family. Her sister is a bisexual mess who prefers to live as a lesbian now that her husband (who stole millions from the church school fund) is dead. She also has a daughter who was selling pot in order to raise money to buy anime programs. All her children like to tease each other mercilessly at the dinner table, even though they are old enough not to. Her husband even schedules sex for them on Friday nights. That she has a drinking problem isn't that shocking.

As for drinking in general. Episcopalians drink. We aren't called "Whiskey-palians" for nothing. We serve wine with just about every meal we share together in church. That priests and bishops drink is not shocking. It would only be bad if they developed a drinking problem, but the mere fact of drinking is not mocking of men and women of the cloth.

I'm a bit surprised that the AFA hasn't attacked the female bishop. It's one of the things that the developing world's Anglican churches hate us for. We dare give women spiritual authority over men! *GASP* Shocking, I know. We even have an OPENLY GAY bishop! Most people involved in hierarchal churches such as the Methodists, Episcopalians, and Catholics, can tell you that politics plays a big role in who gets ahead. It's like that in every church, but showing it honestly doesn't not mock Christian faith.

The two bishops committing adultery are Daniel's bishop and his father. The thing the AFA viewer doesn’t mention is that Daniel's mother has Alzheimer's and is quickly deteriorating. It's obvious from the show that her husband loves her and misses her, but he also acknowledges that she is a stranger to him now. That's the nature of Alzheimer's. It destroys your mind and your personality. Sure, he shouldn't be boinking the female bishop. Again, it goes back to the flawed human being notion. These people are doing the best they can to do God's work, but they struggle with it, and they are not perfect. I'd personally rather have two bishops having an affair than a bishop molesting children. But that's just me, I'm sure.

The son's homosexuality is not celebrated. It's clear that Rev. Daniel is quite uncomfortable with it, but he loves his son, so he accepts it. The grandfather bishop doesn't know, and the grandson feels the need to go out of his way to hide it from him. The Episcopal church is in the middle of a grand conversation about homosexuality, and many clergy agree with the actions of Rev. Daniel where he loves and supports his son as best as he can.

The corrupt Catholic priest is not corrupt...he's just related to the Mafia. Every good Catholic family likes to have at least one child each generation enter the priesthood. This priest is a friend of Daniel's and is also related by blood to the Mafia. Those connections help Daniel find the money his brother-in-law stole so that his church's school could be rebuilt.

I'm sure the AFA disapproves of the interracial relationship between the adopted son of Daniel and a blond girl. The boy was adopted from China, but he's a part of the Webster family and he's in love with a pretty blond white girl. Her parents are determined to break them up, because, as the mother says to Daniel's wife, "I don't intend to have little Oriental grandchildren running around the Christmas tree." I'm sure that the AFA feels this portrayal was mocking of the Christian tradition of racial purity, or whatever BS they can come up with.

The point is that the Book of Daniel is not mocking Christianity, and it is not diminishing the Savior. The Right tends to forget that the Savior was also a human being. Human beings joke, laugh, and talk. It's apparent that Christ knows how to best talk to Daniel to get through to him. It's not something to run from. In fact, it could actually bring people into a faith that often comes across as a holier-than-thou, judgmental, puritanical, no-independent-thought religion. As a Christian, it is THAT particular portrayal that offends me, not the Book of Daniel.

Illegal Immigration

I am not quite sure where the latest round of immigrant bashing has come from. Perhaps it's the fruit of our President's actions to stoke xenophobia within our great nation despite his words of support for immigrant populations. At least when the GOP went after gays in 2004, it was a direct response to Lawrence v. Texas decriminalizing consensual sodomy and the Massachusetts decision legalizing gay marriage. The last I checked, Hispanic immigrants haven't done anything to warrant the attention being thrust upon them.

Personally, I don't understand the long term strategy of bashing immigrants. Yes, illegal immigration is a problem. You cannot live in Atlanta and not realize that illegal immigrants are everywhere. They are taking jobs that no other American will do, and they are being paid basically slave wages. Except when you are from Mexico and have nothing, slave wages in the US looks pretty good. Employers like them because they don't have to pay them taxes and they can treat them any way they like, because the illegals won't complain for fear of deportation. For years, the emphasis has been on making life miserable for the illegal immigrant. Denying them access to drivers' licenses, bank accounts, etc have been commonplace. The latest moves by the GOP focus on denying the children of illegal immigrants access to schools and health care.

I know that the children of illegal immigrants are flouting our nation's immigration laws. However, they do not have a choice in the matter. When their parents drag them across the border, they have to go. Punishing the children, making sure they don't receive basic health care or education, serves little purpose. Yes, they aren't truly entitled to these things, but what happened to basic compassion? The last thing we need in America is a group of children who are uneducated out on the streets. I would rather see illegal immigrant children in school, learning English, and becoming valuable members of society.

Yet, their parents are here illegally, and we cannot just reward them for that. I would propose leaving the laws on immigration just as they are. Let's turn our focus to the economic system that allows the illegal immigrant system to flourish. We need to turn our attention to the employers of the illegals. Even day workers should have proof of citizenship to work. There should be more inspectors to bust the operations and employers who skirt the laws and hire on the black market of illegal immigrants. The fines, and jail time, should be severe enough to discourage current practices, and the enforcement should be beefed up so that it's difficult to get away with what goes on now.

But seriously, let's leave the kids of illegal immigrants alone. They aren't here by choice, but by virtue of a decision their parents made. I don't know the answer to making the parents responsible for their illegal immigration. If we use the medical and school systems to catch illegal immigrants, it will have the same effect as an outright ban. Here in Atlanta, the fear that immigration will find out about you if you open a bank accounts leads many illegals to keep money at their home. Robbers know this, and there are countless stories of victimization in the complexes where illegals live. Yet, these stories are largely word of mouth, because the illegals won't report a robbery to the police for fear of deportation.

Building walls or enacting codes like the one in Manassas, VA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122901220.html) which blatantly target Hispanics, both illegal and legal, is not the way to go. Yet, that is what the GOP seems to think will help them win in 2006. My only consolation is that while they beat up immigrants, they won't be going after gays. Still, that's a cold comfort, because I know that if the attack on illegals doesn't work, then they will come after gays again.

I just hope America wakes up to the danger that total GOP control poses to our Nation and way of life before it's too late.

Brokeback Mountain

I took off work a little early on Friday to see Brokeback Mountain, which opened in exactly ONE theatre in Atlanta that day. I bought my ticket in advance online, which is good since the movie sold out all showings on Friday. The line in the theatre snaked across the lobby, down a hallway, past the bathrooms, and back into the lobby before they let us in to sit down.

The crowd was mostly gay, but there were quite a few straight people there too. I wasn't sure what to expect. The nominations of the Golden Globes (7 in all) surprised me, as did the reactions I've read online about the movie. Some people love it, and others thought it missed the mark. But this was a movie with two up-and-coming Hollywood stars (directed by the phenominal Ang Lee) in the lead roles as gay cowboy lovers in the late 20th century. Such a movie has never been made before with this caliber of cast and crew.

The movie is raw and powerful, and in the end it will break your heart. Everyone who's ever come out of the closet will recognize themselves in Jack Twist, played by Jake Gyllenhall, who is the more out of the two cowboys. Out in that you can see the longing in his eyes, his ferverant desire to share a life with another man, another rancher cowboy like him. He doesn't feel there's anything wrong with his desire, although he knows that living it would be dangerous. He accepts the closet that 1963 Wyoming would nail him in. Ennis Del Mar is the more closeted of the two, and is played brilliantly by Heath Ledger. It wasn't until the last half of the movie that I really bought his love for Jack, mostly b/c his eyes wouldn't betray it before, although his actions did. When he sees Jack for the first time in 4 years, he's about to jump out of his skin, he's so excited, and he takes a risk in pulling Jack into one of the most desperately longing kisses I've ever seen on screen.

Unfortunately, Ennis's wife sees this kiss, although she keeps that news to herself. She has to say goodbye to her husband as he goes off with his "fishing buddy" knowing very well they are more than friends after seeing that kiss. The raw pain in her face, and the panic of "What do I do?" is evident in her performance. The pain of being married to a man she knows doesn't love her like he does his "fishing buddy" eats away at her soul, until she pulls away from Ennis and demands divorce. Ennis and his daughters aren't that close either, and it's all a result of his closet. He had kids because that was what he was supposed to do, and his heart really isn't in the family he has with his wife. There's a cool scene at the end when Ennis' daughter announces she is to marry, and you can see Ennis wondering if this boy is like him and won't be able to love his daughter as she deserves to be loved.

Jack's closet is of a different sort. He's been aware of his attraction to men longer than Ennis, as evidenced by his actions. He marries and has exactly one child and no more. He desperately lives to see Ennis on thier fishing trips every 3-6 months. Let's say the way their lives proceed does not lead to a happy ending. Yet, the trajectory of the story is heartfelt, honest, and real.
Watching it made me want to reevaluate my life and ponder the meaning of life, love and relationships. Watching the struggle of the Jack and Ennis should make today's gay people stop and think, "I really have it easy. Given this freedom, have I lived true to myself and opened myself to the possibility of love?" Jack and Ennis do not live true to themselves, and they are not the only ones hurt by it, but so are their wives and children. So many lives are destroyed by the closet they are forced to live in that you have to wonder what the point is. After all, Ennis and Jack did the "right thing" by marrying a woman, and having a child or two. Yet, their love could not be denied, and the closet ended up destroying them all.

The last scenes of the movie were the most wrenching when you watch the lies being spread, and the quiet truth that dare not speak its name. I left the movie stunned and quite speechless. But as I got into my car, I started to cry and I became angry. Angry because the expression of what it's like to be gay in a society where you are forbidden from "being gay" on pain of death was real, and it hit home. I was born in Kentucky, and could easily have been a country boy on some tobacco farm, as I have many cousins who did live that life. It was an accident of birth that I was born into my family in the city of Lexington, KY. How different would my life be were I a ranching boy from Wyoming like Jack?

That closet is something that is crumbling in this nation, especially in the large cities. Sodomy is no longer a crime, and states cannot restrict gay civil rights just because the population doesn't like us. Yet, as Matthew Shepherd showed us, it's still not safe to be gay in most of the country. The world of 1963 Wyoming is not too far removed from the reality of rural gays in 2005. This is a closet that the Religious Right, and the GOP, wants to re-establish nationwide from the most remote holler to the most densely populated city. Sadie Fields and her "Christian" Taliban brethern hate us, and want us to go away. They want us to live the lives that the characters of Brokeback Mountain live. It was so senseless to see so many lives ruined. Jack and Ennis would have hurt no one by owning a ranch and living it on it in peace and quiet. Their wives would have found men to love them as they deserved to be loved, and no one's life would have been ruined. It was the closet that ruined lives and nothing else. It's the closet that the GOP and it's base want us to return. That's why I became angry and why I cried not only for the characters in the movie, but for every gay person who is living his/her version of Brokeback Mountain today.

Ready! Aim! DIE BABY JESUS! DIE!

I don't know who peed in Bill O'Reilly's Wheaties to get him to declare the War on Christmas, but I wish they hadn't. I imagine that Bill got a memo from Murdoch saying that Faux News anchors needed find something to help distract the public from Bush's failures and halt the slide in his poll numbers. While searching for porn, he probably found a link to Faux News online store where he saw "Holiday Ornaments" on sale, and a War was born.

If reality meets my fantasy, then the plot has worked somewhat. Bush's numbers have bottomed out, and he even rebounded to 40% approval in recent days. However, the nutjobs on the right are taking this War on Christmas thing a bit too seriously. Just last night, I saw on the local news one of the "Georgia Gang" (kind of a talking heads program for Georgia politics on Sundays) hawking her own "Merry Christmas!" signs. She's a talk show host up in Hall County, GA who's making a buck off the "Merry CHRISTMAS (and f-ck you, atheist a-hole!)" movement.

I doubt that businesses have gone from a "Christmas Sale" to a "Holiday Sale" for any other reason than one of pure profit. It's about making money, and if you can extend that period by being more "inclusive", business is going to do just that. Anyone else remember the days when you never saw any Christmas advertisements until Thanksgiving? Now, you start seeing ornaments and other Christmas items by HALLOWEEN. At this rate, by the time I die, we'll be starting the Christmas shopping season right after July 4th.

Seriously, Christmas was attacked and conquered from a Christian perspective long ago. In many Christian traditions, this is the Advent season, which is like a "mini-Lent" of preparation for the celebration of the birth of Jesus. It's about God's grace for mankind, and SANTA is not included. I shudder to think how many children probably think that Santa was there to help Mary give birth to Jesus. Maybe Santa was one of the wisemen. The point is that the holiday has lost its meaning before now. Peace on Earth? Goodwill toward men? No sign of that today, especially with the current administration.

Of course, according to the right wingers, the "PC" crowd of liberals (Oh no! The L-word! And I don't mean Lesbian!) has made a determined plot to destroy Christmas and drive it from the public consciousness! If that's true, someone forgot to send me the memo for the meeting. Oh, that's right...that is because THERE WAS NO MEETING.

"Happy Holidays" grew as the Christmas shopping season extended past Thanksgiving to Halloween. Thanksgiving, I daresay, has merged with Christmas and New Years as the "Holiday Season". Makes sense; there are three national holidays in this time frame. Not to mention Ramadan and Hanukkah usually fall during this period too. It's a cornucopia of holidays that mean different things to different people. Saying Happy Holidays is a way for business to attract non-Christian customers and invite them into the national orgy of spending. After all, for Hanukkah, Jewish children are supposed to get one gift for each NIGHT of Hanukkah. It's not just one day of gifts; it's a week! I don't know if Ramadan has a gift component, but stores would love nothing better than for American Muslims to add one! Even atheists (like my father when I was growing up) celebrate Christmas as a family holiday if nothing else. For most people, it's like Thanksgiving. It's a time for families to get together, exchange presents, and either enjoy each other's company or remind one another why they only do this once a year.

Truly, the degradation of Christmas was started by the Roman Catholic Church as it attempted to attract pagans like the Druids and the Romans. Our Christmas tree is of German origin, and the exchanging of presents and bright decorations came from the Saturnalia celebration of Rome. The winter solstice occurs on Dec. 21, and it has traditionally been a high holy day for pagans, probably b/c it was the shortest day of the year. Jesus was not born on December 25th. It's more likely he was born in late spring if the scholarship I've read is correct. But if it made the leap to accepting Christ easier for the pagans, the Church saw no harm in setting Dec. 25 as Jesus' birthday since Jesus a) wasn't born in a hospital and b) didn't have a birth certificate. The Santa story was born later, and thanks to Coke and The Night before Christmas poem, has exploded into the shopping orgy we have today.

I personally don't care if you say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" to me. I will wish you the same, whatever you say. I generally use "Happy Holidays" simply because I do want to be inclusive. It's not about excluding fellow Christians; it's about including my fellow citizens who are not. Here in Georgia, the War on Christmas has produced people who practically shout CHRISTMAS! at you when saying "Merry Christmas". It's ridiculous, not to mention aggressive and blatantly offensive. Just say "Merry Christmas" if you want. But don't lean forward, give your head a sister roll, and shout "CHRISTMAS" with eyes bugging out, daring someone to say something. That is the antithesis of the season, and I daresay that Jesus himself would not be pleased that this is how you choose to celebrate the season of His birth.

Christmas is not in danger! So chill out, have some egg nog, and have a happy holidays, merry Christmas, and happy new year!

Tookie and the Death Penalty

Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed this morning in California, and that's a good thing. While I will add my own commentary, I must refer the handful of people who actually read my blog to my friend Kirk's thoughts on this episode: http://kirkdawg.blogs.friendster.com/my_blog/2005/12/it_took_long_en.html. I find myself agreeing with Kirk's points.

It may surprise some people to know that I'm a supporter of the death penalty. I know it doesn't deter many people, if any, from committing heinous crimes. I look at the death penalty as society's just vengeance for heinous crimes, particularly murder. As a Christian, I know we are supposed to the turn the other cheek, and not take an eye for an eye. Perhaps it is my fallibility as a human being that leads me to still demand vengeance for those who have been murdered. I do, however, want to be sure that the right people are executed. I don't mind the lengthy appeals that death penalty cases undergo, because it increases the likelihood that mistakes will be caught before it is too late. In any case where DNA could come into play, testing should be required. Evidence should be safeguarded until the execution is completed.

With the sensitivity of forensic testing today, there's no excuse for not having every rock looked under to be sure we have the right perp. Once we are as certain as possible that we have the guilty party, if a jury finds for death, death should be the punishment barring any legal errors.
Mr. Williams, aka "Tookie", was one of the founders of the Crips. Together with the Bloods gang, the Crips have been responsible for an untold amount of crime, violence, and murder. These gangs have chapters all across the nation, luring young men of color into a life of crime, drugs, and violence. Of course, if society presented young men of color with adequate opportunities for legitimate self-improvement and a way out of abject poverty, gangs wouldn't have any members. However, just because we have allowed the circumstances that lead to gangs does not mean we should excuse gang violence.

Tookie (what kind of nickname is that anyway?!?) protested his innocence of the murders throughout. There are the usual charges of ineffective counsel, flimsy evidence, etc. Since Tookie exhausted all possible appeals, I can only conclude that there was no legal error in the trial and that the verdict was just. I haven't read the trial transcript, and I certainly didn't sit on the jury. The fact remains he was found guilty of 4 murders, and as a Crips "founder", he's likely responsible for God-only-knows how many more.

I'm uncertain why his case became a cause celebre around the world, and especially in Hollywood. Is it because he "found God" and decided to renounce gang violence and write children's books on the matter? If so, that's a lovely gesture on his part to try to undo some of the damage he did when free. I'm glad Tookie discovered that gang violence leads to no where anyone intelligent would want to go. Yet he takes no responsibility for the murders he committed, and seemed to be playing the race card in his attempt at clemency.

Death Row is not a rehab camp. It's a place you go while waiting to die. If a murderer finds Jesus, Mohammed, or whomever while there, good for them. It doesn't change what they did or the punishment for it. God will forgive them of the murders; society doesn't have to. Besides, if you truly believe in the Christian message, you know you'll go straight to heaven upon execution anyway. I don't see how living in prison the rest of your natural life is better than seeing the Savior post haste.

I don't mean to be glib, but I'm highly suspicious of death row conversions. If they are sincere, I'm happy for the condemned. But just because you've become a changed person on death row doesn't mean you should be granted mercy. Tookie's case did not warrant Gov. Arnold's intervention. From the reports this morning on the Today Show, Tookie was quite defiant even to the end. They apparently had trouble finding a vein for the lethal injection, which is something that should have been done before he was brought to the death chamber.

I'm disturbed but not exactly surprised that the YDA Minority caucus sponsored a resolution that was adopted in Phoenix to ask for mercy for Tookie. It seems all the partners of Democrats (NAACP, etc) were all asking that Gov. Arnold commute his sentence. I understand people who take a principled stand against the death penalty. It is unevenly applied, and if you're black, you're more likely to get sentenced to death than if you are white, even if you commit the same crime. People who are poor in this country, black or white, rarely have the effective assistance of counsel. There are many fine public defenders in this country, but they are overloaded and overwhelmed by the system. Money, as OJ Simpson and Micheal Jackson have proved, can buy you freedom. I doubt that Tookie was prosecuted simply because he was black. If you believe the system is hopelessly corrupt or broken, then fight to change it; fight for a moratorium so that the system can be fixed as best as possible. Individuals come with their own baggage, and Tookie had a full set. Like Kirk, I wonder if the press and Hollywood would have been so quick to jump on the "forgiveness" bandwagon had Tookie been a white supremacist, Neo-Nazi who had murdered 4 people of color but later recanted his beliefs on death row. If the answer is no, as I suspect it is, then Tookie's supporters are guilty of gross hypocrisy.

It's only "Activism" when you Disagree

Poor, unqualified Harriet Miers. Her best buddy, the President, threw her under the bus, thinking he'd get another crony a plum job just cause everyone loved him in his party. Well, he apparently forgot the disaster that was Katrina, the failure of his "signature item", Social Security reform, and other missteps. Harriet apparently didn't know the Constitution from a grocery list, so she was rejected. That and she once indicated that the government should stay out of personal decisions, like whether to get an abortion. So Harriet is gone, and now we have Scalito.

Say this for Bush...he didn't lie when he said he loved him some Antonin Scalia and wanted to appoint his clones to the Court. He forgot that the clones needed to be qualified with Miers, but he learned his lesson. If Scalito gets on the on the Court, Scalia will basically control 4 votes: his own, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito (aka Scalito). That's a pretty scary block, and if something happens to Stevens or Ginsberg, Bush would have a chance to nominate a 5th clone, and then we'd all be screwed.

I am intellectually honest enough to recognize there are two competiting schools of thought on the Constitution. The originalists (headed by Scalia) think that the Constitution and its meaning was set in stone in 1787, and that the amendments with their meanings were set in stone whenever they were ratified. That means whatever was kosher under the 8th amendment in 1791 is kosher today. Whatever the usage of "Equal Protection of the Law" meant in 1868 is what it means today. Under this world view, the Constitution can never be adapted to current standards or reinterpreted in today's society without formal amendment. Coincidentally, this view usually produces outcomes that dovetail perfectly with the political philosophy of the judge professing it....i.e. a "conservative" or one who misses the halcyon days of the 1950s when homos were in the closet, women in the home, minorities "knew their place" and white men controlled everything. How very convenient to find a judicial philosophy that produces outcomes you desire.

Not that the "Living Constitution" crowd is much better, and I say this as someone who subscribes to the notion that the Constitution was never meant to be set in stone, and that the Founders anticipated and expected us to reintrepret its meaning over time. They built in vagueness and flexibility so that it could be reinterpreted and would therefore stand the test of time. I've read the Federalist papers, and while the Founders had definite ideas of what different clauses meant, they also recognized that they didn't have all the answers to all the questions for all time. They meant for the Constitution to be amended and reinterpreted if it was going to last. The mistake they had made with the Articles of Confederation was making them too specific and too rigid. They also knew that people would argue over the meanings of phrases in the Constitution. Shoot, even the Constitutional Delegates themselves did not agree on the exact meaning of every phrase. And that was OK, b/c there was separation of powers. That meant Legislative, Executive, AND Judicial.

The last time I checked, John Marshall was a member of the Founding Generation that drafted the Constitution, and he's the one who gave the Supreme Court a veto power in Marbury v. Madison by allowing the Supreme Court to strike down laws that were unconstitutional. There was nothing in the document itself that allowed such a decision, but Marshall correctly surmised that a Court which could not strike down laws contrary to the highest law in the land was a useless Court. Jefferson disagreed strongly with this reasoning, but Marbury has stood the test of time and proved to be a good "reinterpretation" of the Constitution's role for the Supreme Court.

Scalia and his brood (Thomas, Roberts, and Scalito) would never have voted in the majority of Marbury in 1801. If the Constitution didn't say the Supreme Court could strike down a law, then they wouldn't read such a right into it. They undoubtedly would have upheld Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954 rather than use Brown to overturn "separate but equal". The idea of "one man, one vote" would never have been established in 1962. The concept of a right to privacy arising from the Bill of Rights certainly would never have been established. And when you take away Privacy, you allow the state to control access to birth control, deny women the right to choose abortion (and instead use a nice, rusty coat hanger), and legislating against gay people just because you think anal sex is "gross" (unless you get your wife or girlfriend to do it, of course) would be A-OK. Amendment 2 in Colorado that barred any locality from enacting gay rights legislation would have been upheld. Every school child would be mandated to start his/her day with a prayer to "Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ" even if they were Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. Affirmative action would have been struck down as soon as it reached the Court, leaving those who live in communities of no hope without any way of getting out, even with hard work. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have been struck down as an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause. Segregation would be the law of the land in the South, and the Civil Rights movement would have been much more bloody than it was with the courts standing up for African Americans and saying, "These people are citizens too, and you will treat them with equality and dignity."

Perhaps such a world warms your heart. For me, it sends chills down my spine. These "activist" decisions by the Supreme Court allowed America to come closer to living out its promise of an egalitarian democracy where ALL MEN (and women) ARE CREATED EQUAL. Bush wants to undo this promise of America with his court appointments. No should be suprised, because it's only what he promised he would do. 51% of the people last November said that was OK by them.

We are now about to sow what we have reaped by allowed George W. Bush to remain our President for a 2nd term. God help us all.

Hillary Comes to Atlanta

When I first heard that Hillary Clinton was coming to Atlanta to speak, I was stunned. Although Atlanta is an island of relatively progressive philosophy in a sea of Blood Red Georgia, the fact that Hillary Clinton would come to Atlanta still surprised me. It wasn't but a year ago that we in the Georgia Young Democrats begged Nancy Pelosi to come and speak to our state convention. She initially agreed, but then backed out around Christmas, scuttling the plans we had built around her. Unfortunately, we had already signed contracts for the hotel, so we took a financial bath. It seemed we couldn't beg, borrow, or plead for a nationally known Democrat to come to Georgia. I suppose that with as crazy as the Bushies are, the threat of assassination is real.
I then discovered that Hillary was coming at the invitation of Stuart Eizenstat who worked in the Carter and Clinton administrations. The lecture she presented was endowed by his family in honor of his father and uncle. Bill Clinton spoke in 2003, which I somehow missed. This year, though, we got at least two emails from Bobby Khan, chair of the Georgia Democratic Party, telling us about this free event. If Hillary Clinton was coming to GEORGIA, I would be there.
I arrived 50 minutes early for the lecture, and there was already a line around the synagogue. Apparently, the Ahavath Achim ("AA" for short) Synagogue is where all the power Jews go. I had heard of this synagogue's existance, but I wasn't sure where it was, since it wasn't in Druid Hills where I live. Lots of politically involved Jews attend this synagogue, including Bobby Khan, Sen. David Adelman, former Sen. Liane Levetan, and Rep. Mike Jacobs. I've never been in a synagogue, but this one is much like a church. In fact, it reminded me very much of any large megachurch, except you didn't see a cross or an alter.

No cameras were allowed by the public, so people with camera phones had to put them back in their car. All we had to do was go through a metal detector. Compare this to a Bush event (or really, almost any GOP event) where you must sign some sort of loyalty oath before being let in. I did not wear any buttons or clothing to indicate that I'm a Hillary supporter, and I was never questioned. Even though a lot of people had arrived before me, there was still good seating to be had, and I got to sit relatively close to the front.

I noticed some interesting features of the AA synagogue. First, there are several plaques with nameplates of people who have died. I guessed this from the "In memorium" inscription above the plaques. The interesting thing is that next to each name is a light. Some where lit and others were not. I'm not sure why this is the case or what it signifies. I also noticed that the prayer books and the Torah were printed upside and backward. I knew Hebrew was read right to left, just the opposite of how English is read. But I wasn't expecting the English version to be printed with the front of the book where you would normally expect the end to be. It was interesting.

The event was supposed to start at 7pm, but didn't get rolling until 7:30pm. I had no idea that Jews ran on Queer Standard Time (QST) ;-) Anyway, the second Hillary appeared on the stage, the audience erupted in cheers and rose to its feet. We had a brief welcome by the President of the synagogue followed by a small lesson about the fall harvest festival that is going on in the Jewish calendar. Then Stuart Eizenstat introduced Hillary, who really needs no introduction, but we all know these things are carefully choreographed.

On a side note, the number of Secret Service was truly amazing. They were taking NO chances on her safety. A lot of people were dressed up, but you could make out the Secret Service folks thanks most of the fact that they were the ones you could see scanning the crowd. They were positioned all over the synagogue. Again, that goes to my crazy right winger theory of why national Democrats are rarely found in Georgia. Not only does it have to do with the extremist voting pattern of the state in national elections especially, but there's a good chance that some Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity loving crazy will try to take out Hillary for "the conservative cause". When the speech was over, and everyone was pouring into the parking lot, we were all stopped by the entrance of the synagogue until Hillary could get into her (bulletproof, I'm sure) vehicle and start back to wherever she was going next. Since there were a lot of trees and the area was pretty dark, I am not surprised that the Secret Service required this.

Hillary looked fabulous in a black power suit with medium heeled pumps. Her hair was flawless, as was her make-up. I've seen Hillary looking pretty rough in the past, but she was definitely "on" for this event. She launched into a speech that covered broad themes...themes I'm convinced we'll see in late 2007 and 2008 when she runs for President. It is only October 2005, and she is well on her way to developing thoughtful arguments for where our country should go in the future.

Many might expect that Hillary would throw out some red-meat before a largely friendly crowd. But her criticism of Bush was not too pointed. She never mentioned him by name, and she criticised things like planning, budgeting, etc. She didn't go after the cronyism charges or the lack of intelligence thing that so many of us in the progressive world despise about the man.
She spent a good deal of her speech on national security issues. Turns out that her being on the Armed Services Committee has been a good thing, although I shouldn't be shocked that Hillary had a plan when she asked for the assignment. She has obviously put a lot of thought, effort, and time into developing her positions in this arena, and they come off as such. I've often wondered why she's made pro-Bush votes in the Senate, such as voting for the Iraq War, and not being sorry about it. She has even stated that having a deadline for getting out of Iraq is a mistake.

This does not mean she agrees with Bush. She deplores the lack of planning for the post-invasion phase of the war. She made a statement that just because Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction doesn't mean those weapons don't exist. I'm not sure what she meant by that, unless she meant that other nations who hate the US have weapons of mass destruction. That seems a bit obvious, but surely she doesn't make the argument that the WMD were there, but removed before we invaded? I'm not sure it's that important. Most people understand we were lied to in order to go to war with Iraq. We can argue motives for those lies (was it deliberate...or just "intelligence" errors? I believe Bush and company lied to us on purpose and cherry picked bad intelligence to make their case) until the cows come home, but the point is, we're in Iraq, we've broken it, and we have to make a good faith attempt to fix it.

This brings me to Hillary's answer to the question of when the troops should come home. I agree that setting a date only lets the insurgents know they can wait us out. But Hillary also thinks the open ended "We'll be there as long as necessary" mantra of Bush is also a mistake.
The Iraqis must understand that they will have benchmarks of progress in taking over their own security and setting up a working government. As those benchmarks are met, troops can be withdrawn accordingly. But there will also be the threat that if we do not see a good faith effort in making progress, that we will withdraw our troops and leave them to fend for themselves. In a way, it's a tough love advocacy, and it makes sense. The Iraqis are not going to become part of the USA. They do need to take responsibility for their own country and their own futures. We have the duty and obligation to help them. If they don't show they are willing to help themselves, then we will have done our duty in trying to help, and we can leave with a somewhat clean conscience (as clean as the Bush regime can leave us). This is a sensible compromise that keeps our promises but also doesn't keep us in a quagmire.

Hillary is also a member of a Pentagon panel (the only sitting Senator on it too!) that is rethinking the structure of our military. She said that we should expect to see more special forces in all branches in the future which will concentrate on a specific region of the world. Those serving will learn the language and become immersed in the culture of their area and will specialize in much more tactical strikes when used. At the same time, though, we mustn't neglect our conventional warfare. Even though she hopes that China will become our friendly competitors, we would be foolish to ignore the growing Chinese power and the fact that they are dramatically increasing their military spending. So we will have to have two kinds of armies, it seems. A smaller conventional one to answer the growing power of the Chinese, and this newer special forces heavy one to fight terrorists and the states that sponsor them.

Hillary also mentioned health care, but she did it from a business viewpoint. With costs rising dramatically, the private and public sector must work together to find a solution. Neither sector can do it alone. In a global economy where many of our competitors provide universal healthcare, the American system of employer-based healthcare is quickly becoming unsustainable. Companies are chosing to locate in places like Canada (ex. Toyota) where health care costs are not a cost of doing business. The auto industry in the US is in grave danger in large part due to pension and health benefits. Private industry appears to be reaching a point where it will work with government for a solution to this problem that doesn't overburden taxpayers, but also helps business remain competitive in worldwide markets. Hillary didn't offer any answers, but she did offer this method of solution. It could work if business and the public become willing to sit at the table together and come to a mutually beneficial solution. But, Hillary warned, there is a LOT of money to be had in healthcare, and plenty of people becoming quite wealthy under the current system, and they will fight change to the bitter end.
Hillary also catalogued a litany of things that from WWII forward were bipartisan approaches to national problems. You had a consensus that after WWII, we had to help rebuild not only our former friends, but our former enemies as well, even thought that meant keeping high tax rates. You had Eisenhower building the interstate highway system (she told a funny anecdote about being told by her teacher that President Eisenhower wanted her to study math just after Sputnik, and even though Hillary hated math, she wasn't going to disappoint the President). Even with Nixon, you had the creation of the EPA, and the Endangered Species Act. Ford reached out to all Americans after the horrors of Watergate. Even Ronald Reagan knew in 1983 that to help put Social Security back on track would take Democrats AND Republicans. Even Bush the Father worked with Democrats to solve the fiscal crisis in 1990, even though it meant raising taxes and alienating his base. He did what was right for the country, and we've lost that. That's why Hillary has reached out to GOP members like Newt Gingrich to shore up her credentials in working with the GOP. Even when you disagree on a vast majority of topics, there are areas where you can work with your political enemies. We've lost the ability and willingness to behave in a bipartisan way, and it's important for the country to get back to it. Hillary also mentioned that had we stuck with Carter's program of investing in alternative energy, we wouldn't be where we are today with energy prices and oil dependence. She said there's no excuse that we don't have a "Manhattan Project" for alternative enegy sources, especially since the energy crunch is only going to get worse as China and India grow their economies and look for resources to fuel it. If we invest in alternative energies now, we can find solutions that we could sell to India and China that would not only put Americans to work, but help us compete in the future. She makes a lot of sense.

This being a largely Jewish audience, she spent the last portion of her speech on Israel. She said that she supported Sharon's move toward non-engagement in Gaza, not in small part because we have no business dictating to a democratically elected leader. Sharon knows his country and its circumstances better than we do here in Atlanta, NY, or anywhere else. She imagines it was hard for him to withdraw like that, but she feels he did what he thought was best, and the US should support him. It also provides the Palestinians a "put up or shut up" (my words, not Hillary's) moment since they have a terroritory that is just theirs now. She mentioned support for the wall that is being built in the West Bank, and the need for education reform in Palestine so that children aren't taught to hate. One thing she pointed out was her belief that teaching your children to hate is a form of child abuse. I'm very pro-Israel on an emotional level. I understand there has been some horrible oppression of Palestinians by Israelis, but at the core, the Palestinians abandoned their land in 1948 because they thought that the Arab armies would crush the new Israeli nation. They gambled and lost. Quit yer bitchin', I say! I firmly believe that Israel just wants to live in peace and enjoy the life of a thriving democracy. This is the homeland of the Jewish people owed to them in no small part to the Holocaust. Israel is here to stay, whether the Palestinians like it or not. It's odd that this puts me on the side of Bush and the Christian Taliban, but they like Israel for one reason only: they believe that supporting Israel, they will provoke the 2nd coming of Christ. They could give a rat's ass about the Jews or their homeland.

The questions that came weren't all that difficult. Hillary talked about Darfur, and how China has blocked any resolution in the UN Security Council due to some deal they have with the Sudanese government. She urged continued pressure to be applied to our public officials to speak out and act on the Darfur genocide. She talked about why she voted no on John Roberts (he was evasive in his answers and didn't let us see there was a human being under that big brain of his), and she said that if she were on the Judiciary Committee, her first question to Miers would be ""Please tell us one thing you disagree with President Bush." I'm sure the silence would be deafening if she were asked that question.

Hillary's development as a potential presidential candidate is impressive. Her presentation last night was flawless. She had notes, but she rarely looked down at them, instead focusing on different people in the audience. Her voice was well regulated, and she came across as reasonable. The far right has painted her as such a harpie that seeing her in person is an amazing experience. She's calm, reasonable, and friendly. She has learned her craft in politics well. Of course, she is married to the master :) It's only 2005, and Hillary has a better rationale for being President and a better theme than John Kerry or Al Gore ever did. I can also see why the GOP is terrified of her...the country, once they got to see her and experience her, would actually like Hillary, and the lies about her would be exposed for what they are.

I fully expect Hillary to annouce her candidacy about two years for now for President. A Clinton restoration is just what this nation will need after 8 disastrous years under Bush. I just hope there's a country to save by the time 2009 gets here.