Politics in the Anglican Communion

The Archbishop of Canterbury today released a statement of "reflection" on the state of the Anglican Communion in the wake of the recent Episcopal Church General Convention. In it, he clearly advocates a position that says gays need to be thrown under the proverbial bus for the sake of unity to keep the damn Africans and other Global South provinces happy. I have copied the letter below with my responses in italics.

The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today: A Reflection for the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion

The Anglican Communion: a Church in Crisis?

What is the current tension in the Anglican Communion actually about? Plenty of people are confident that they know the answer. Its about gay bishops, or possibly women bishops (It's both, and if you don't see that, you're willfully blind.). The American Church is in favour and others are against and the Church of England is not sure (as usual).

Its true that the election of a practising gay person as a bishop in the US in 2003 was the trigger for much of the present conflict. It is doubtless also true that a lot of extra heat is generated in the conflict by ingrained and ignorant prejudice in some quarters (That's YOU he's talking to Africa and the "Global South", you misogynistic homophobes.); and that for many others, in and out of the Church, the issue seems to be a clear one about human rights and dignity. But the debate in the Anglican Communion is not essentially a debate about the human rights of homosexual people (The hell it's not! If this weren't about the basic human rights and dignity of homosexuals, we wouldn't even be having this fight.). It is possible indeed, it is imperative to give the strongest support to the defence of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage (so glad you oppose discrimination), to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation (choirs everywhere would die without gay people), and still to believe that this doesnt settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of Gods will (Maybe you have a point, but the decisions of the Episcopal Church have not been based merely on human rights; they also have a biblical basis, and you know that. The Global South and Africa may not like it, but there are biblical arguments made from ORIGINAL text, as opposed to the altered text of King James, to support full inclusion of gay people in the church.). That is disputed among Christians, and, as a bare matter of fact, only a small minority would answer yes to the question (So, we should put these matters to a simple vote. Why haven't we thought of this before? We could have kept women in the kitchen and blacks in chains by putting these "biblical" matters to a vote.)

Unless you think that social and legal considerations should be allowed to resolve religious disputes which is a highly risky assumption if you also believe in real freedom of opinion in a diverse society there has to be a recognition that religious bodies have to deal with the question in their own terms (Yes, and the US has done this on its own terms, and used biblical arugments, not just social and legal ones. Again, why you are pretending this is not so?). Arguments have to be drawn up on the common basis of Bible and historic teaching (I thought we had a third leg called "reason"? Or is that just the Episcopal Church?). And, to make clear something that can get very much obscured in the rhetoric about inclusion, this is not and should never be a question about the contribution of gay and lesbian people as such to the Church of God and its ministry, about the dignity and value of gay and lesbian people (Again, Archbishop, it IS about these things. The conservative opponents do not believe that gay people have any basic dignity or value, especially when it comes to the Church of God and its ministry. They view us as sin-seeking creatures worshiping our own lusts, defying God's hatred of our "perversion". You know this is true, so why are you trying to give cover to these people?). Instead it is a question, agonisingly difficult for many, as to what kinds of behaviour a Church that seeks to be loyal to the Bible can bless, and what kinds of behaviour it must warn against and so it is a question about how we make decisions corporately with other Christians, looking together for the mind of Christ as we share the study of the Scriptures.

Anglican Decision-Making
And this is where the real issue for Anglicans arises. How do we as Anglicans deal with this issue in our own terms? And what most Anglicans worldwide have said is that it doesnt help to behave as if the matter had been resolved when in fact it hasnt. It is true that, in spite of resolutions and declarations of intent, the process of listening to the experience of homosexual people hasnt advanced very far in most of our churches (It hasn't even started in most African and Global South Provinces, and you are well aware of that fact. You also know that they could give a rat's ass about the gay Christian experience, and will never truly "listen" to people they consider perverts.), and that discussion remains at a very basic level for many. But the decision of the Episcopal Church to elect a practising gay man as a bishop was taken without even the American church itself (which has had quite a bit of discussion of the matter) having formally decided as a local Church what it thinks about blessing same-sex partnerships (Your point? So you can't decide whether an openly gay person can serve as a priest or bishop if you haven't already decided whether or not to bless same sex unions? I suppose Canada, which does allow same sex blessings, is now eligible to elect a gay bishop? Please.).

There are other fault lines of division, of course, including the legitimacy of ordaining women as priests and bishops (Yes, and now the US has done gone elected a WOMAN as its Presiding Bishop. Want us to repent of that too? Oh wait, a majority of provinces allow that sort of thing, so it's OK. At one time, though, it wasn't a majority opinion. But the church wasn't threatened at its very core like it is now when the subject is gay people.). But (as has often been forgotten) the Lambeth Conference did resolve that for the time being those churches that did ordain women as priests and bishops and those that did not had an equal place within the Anglican spectrum. Women bishops attended the last Lambeth Conference. There is a fairly general (though not universal) recognition that differences about this can still be understood within the spectrum of manageable diversity about what the Bible and the tradition make possible. On the issue of practising gay bishops, there has been no such agreement, and it is not unreasonable to seek for a very much wider and deeper consensus before any change is in view, let alone foreclosing the debate by ordaining someone, whatever his personal merits, who was in a practising gay partnership (Which is why you forced that gay bishop-elect in your own country to step down, right?). The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report (That's probably because the Windsor Report basically threatened the Episcopal Church to defrock Bishop Robinson, and pass a resolution to never again ordain a gay person or ELSE...and here we now find the "else".), but on this specific question there is at the very least an acknowledgement of the gravity of the situation in the extremely hard work that went into shaping the wording of the final formula.

Very many in the Anglican Communion would want the debate on the substantive ethical question to go on as part of a general process of theological discernment; but they believe that the pre-emptive action taken in 2003 in the US has made such a debate harder not easier, that it has reinforced the lines of division and led to enormous amounts of energy going into political struggle with and between churches in different parts of the world. However, institutionally speaking, the Communion is an association of local churches, not a single organisation with a controlling bureaucracy and a universal system of law (You're damn right.). So everything depends on what have generally been unspoken conventions of mutual respect (How is it disrepectful to elect a gay bishop? We didn't force any other province to accept gay bishops for themselves, but we did ask they respect our decision to do so. This the conservatives and the Africans and the Global South have refused to do.). Where these are felt to have been ignored, it is not surprising that deep division results, with the politicisation of a theological dispute taking the place of reasoned reflection.

Thus if other churches have said, in the wake of the events of 2003 that they cannot remain fully in communion with the American Church, this should not be automatically seen as some kind of blind bigotry against gay people (Really? And why not? Their anger over this issue is STEEPED and BORN of bigotry, not an honest theological dispute. None of these people would break bread with a person they knew to be gay.). Where such bigotry does show itself it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable (That would be easier, if you weren't genuflecting to their demands at this time. You cannot have it both ways, Archbishop.).; and if this is not clear, it is not at all surprising if the whole question is reduced in the eyes of many to a struggle between justice and violent prejudice (It's not clear at all, and you have said nothing to make it more clear...perhaps for you, it's clear because you aren't a homophobe...but for the Global South and Africa? It most certainly is about violent prejudice against gay people.).

It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship (You could have a point...whenever anyone makes a major decision, partners may not understand or approve.); this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions and sacramental actions in particular - just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isnt a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences (It is about BOTH of these things, Archbishop...both throwing gay people into outer darkness and recognizing that actions have consequences.) and that actions believed in good faith to be prophetic in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.

Truth and Unity
It is true that witness to what is passionately believed to be the truth sometimes appears a higher value than unity, and there are moving and inspiring examples in the twentieth century. If someone genuinely thinks that a move like the ordination of a practising gay bishop is that sort of thing, it is understandable that they are prepared to risk the breakage of a unity they can only see as false or corrupt. But the risk is a real one; and it is never easy to recognise when the moment of inevitable separation has arrived - to recognise that this is the issue on which you stand or fall and that this is the great issue of faithfulness to the gospel. The nature of prophetic action is that you do not have a cast-iron guarantee that youre right (And perhaps you should remind the Global South and Africa of this very concept too, Archbishop.).

But lets suppose that there isnt that level of clarity about the significance of some divisive issue. If we do still believe that unity is generally a way of coming closer to revealed truth (only the whole Church knows the whole Truth as someone put it), we now face some choices about what kind of Church we as Anglicans are or want to be. Some speak as if it would be perfectly simple and indeed desirable to dissolve the international relationships, so that every local Church could do what it thought right. This may be tempting, but it ignores two things at least.
First, it fails to see that the same problems and the same principles apply within local Churches as between Churches. The divisions dont run just between national bodies at a distance, they are at work in each locality, and pose the same question: are we prepared to work at a common life which doesnt just reflect the interests and beliefs of one group but tries to find something that could be in everyones interest recognising that this involves different sorts of costs for everyone involved? It may be tempting to say, let each local church go its own way; but once youve lost the idea that you need to try to remain together in order to find the fullest possible truth, what do you appeal to in the local situation when serious division threatens? (Speak to the Global South and Africans here too...they want to sever much more than the Episcopal Church does.)
Second, it ignores the degree to which we are already bound in with each others life through a vast network of informal contacts and exchanges. These are not the same as the formal relations of ecclesiastical communion, but they are real and deep, and they would be a lot weaker and a lot more casual without those more formal structures. They mean that no local Church and no group within a local Church can just settle down complacently with what it or its surrounding society finds comfortable. The Church worldwide is not simply the sum total of local communities. It has a cross-cultural dimension that is vital to its health and it is naïve to think that this can survive without some structures to make it possible. An isolated local Church is less than a complete Church.

Both of these points are really grounded in the belief that our unity is something given to us prior to our choices - let alone our votes. You have not chosen me but I have chosen you, says Jesus to his disciples; and when we gather to celebrate the Eucharist, we are saying that we are all there as invited guests, not because of what we have done. The basic challenge that practically all the churches worldwide, of whatever denomination, so often have to struggle with is, Are we joining together in one act of Holy Communion, one Eucharist, throughout the world, or are we just celebrating our local identities and our personal preferences?

The Anglican Identity
The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word Communion means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

Of course it is possible to produce a self-deceiving, self-important account of our worldwide identity, to pretend that we were a completely international and universal institution like the Roman Catholic Church. We're not (and Thank GOD for that!). But we have tried to be a family of Churches willing to learn from each other across cultural divides, not assuming that European (or American or African) wisdom is what settles everything, opening up the lives of Christians here to the realities of Christian experience elsewhere. And we have seen these links not primarily in a bureaucratic way but in relation to the common patterns of ministry and worship the community gathered around Scripture and sacraments; a ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, a biblically-centred form of common prayer, a focus on the Holy Communion. These are the signs that we are not just a human organisation but a community trying to respond to the action and the invitation of God that is made real for us in ministry and Bible and sacraments (and none of this has changed by having a gay bishop in New Hampshire.). We believe we have useful and necessary questions to explore with Roman Catholicism because of its centralised understanding of jurisdiction and some of its historic attitudes to the Bible. We believe we have some equally necessary questions to propose to classical European Protestantism, to fundamentalism, and to liberal Protestant pluralism. There is an identity here, however fragile and however provisional.

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure were still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ. It is becoming urgent to work at what adequate structures for decision-making might look like (meaning the Global South and Africa get whatever the hell they want since they are the majority numerically, right?). We need ways of translating this underlying sacramental communion into a more effective institutional reality, so that we dont compromise or embarrass each other in ways that get in the way of our local and our universal mission, but learn how to share responsibility.

Future Directions
The idea of a covenant between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an opt-in matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other (to not let fags have a place in the church) would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were constituent Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other churches in association, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures (So that Africa and the Global South could look down their noses at the United States or whomever else isn't willing to tell gays they aren't fully welcome in the Church.). The relation would not be unlike that between the Church of England and the Methodist Church, for example. The associated Churches would have no direct part in the decision making of the constituent Churches, though they might well be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible.

This leaves many unanswered questions, I know, given that lines of division run within local Churches as well as between them - and not only on one issue (we might note the continuing debates on the legitimacy of lay presidency at the Eucharist). It could mean the need for local Churches to work at ordered and mutually respectful separation between constituent and associated elements (is that your nice way of saying that since the Episcopal church didn't defrock Bishop Robinson, that they are cut off? Will you now recognize the AAC as the "official" American arm of Anglicanism?); but it could also mean a positive challenge for Churches to work out what they believed to be involved in belonging in a global sacramental fellowship, a chance to rediscover a positive common obedience to the mystery of Gods gift that was not a matter of coercion from above but of that waiting for each other that St Paul commends to the Corinthians.

There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment. Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesnt correspond with where we now are. We do have a distinctive historic tradition a reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine, a catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons, and a habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly. But for this to survive with all its aspects intact, we need closer and more visible formal commitments to each other. And it is not going to look exactly like anything we have known so far. Some may find this unfamiliar future conscientiously unacceptable, and that view deserves respect (even though you're actively discarding it). But if we are to continue to be any sort of Catholic church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda (which is convenient because the Africans and Global South have a numerical majority...and you'd have the matter of whether Bishop Robinson would be welcome..I'm guessing not. You're setting up a showdown between the developed world and the Global South. This will not be pretty.).

The different components in our heritage can, up to a point, flourish in isolation from each other. But any one of them pursued on its own would lead in a direction ultimately outside historic Anglicanism The reformed concern may lead towards a looser form of ministerial order and a stronger emphasis on the sole, unmediated authority of the Bible (so now we're going to become Southern Baptists that believe the English version of the Bible is the direct, undiluted word of God? Infalliable in all things? Never once altered? You're smarter than that.). The catholic concern may lead to a high doctrine of visible and structural unification of the ordained ministry around a focal point. The cultural and intellectual concern may lead to a style of Christian life aimed at giving spiritual depth to the general shape of the culture around and de-emphasising revelation and history. Pursued far enough in isolation, each of these would lead to a different place to strict evangelical Protestantism, to Roman Catholicism, to religious liberalism. To accept that each of these has a place in the churchs life and that they need each other means that the enthusiasts for each aspect have to be prepared to live with certain tensions or even sacrifices (As far as I can see, the liberals are willing to live in this tension. No one has ever suggested that conservatives need to follow our example in regard to women and gays...but the conservatives insist we follow theirs.) with a tradition of being positive about a responsible critical approach to Scripture, with the anomalies of a historic ministry not universally recognised in the Catholic world, with limits on the degree of adjustment to the culture and its habits that is thought possible or acceptable.

Conclusion
The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness (There is no balance when one side, the Conservative one, can dictate to everyone else what they can and cannot do.). Being an Anglican in the way I have sketched involves certain concessions and unclarities but provides at least for ways of sharing responsibility and making decisions that will hold and that will be mutually intelligible. No-one can impose the canonical and structural changes that will be necessary. All that I have said above should make it clear that the idea of an Archbishop of Canterbury resolving any of this by decree is misplaced, however tempting for many. The Archbishop of Canterbury presides and convenes in the Communion, and may do what this document attempts to do, which is to outline the theological framework in which a problem should be addressed; but he must always act collegially, with the bishops of his own local Church and with the primates and the other instruments of communion (Exactly, since you aren't the damn POPE.).

That is why the process currently going forward of assessing our situation in the wake of the General Convention is a shared one. But it is nonetheless possible for the Churches of the Communion to decide that this is indeed the identity, the living tradition and by Gods grace, the gift - we want to share with the rest of the Christian world in the coming generation; more importantly still, that this is a valid and vital way of presenting the Good News of Jesus Christ to the world. My hope is that the period ahead - of detailed response to the work of General Convention, exploration of new structures, and further refinement of the covenant model - will renew our positive appreciation of the possibilities of our heritage so that we can pursue our mission with deeper confidence and harmony. (Good luck with that... unless of course, you embrace a message that God hates the homosexual...in which case, we can all be happy again, right?)

This is me again. In case it's not obvious, I am FURIOUS at this letter and its implications. Why is it that I cannot be welcomed at the Table of the Lord in full communion with my other fellow sinners? I strive to be a good person, and I try to live a life that I can be proud of in the eyes of God. That includes embracing my sexuality as God created it, seeking to express it in ways that are healthy and with the same standards applied to straight people. Yet, this is a concept that so many cannot accept. They will not be happy until I am driven from the Church and the light and love of God and His People. It's hard not to hate them for that.

Dear Cathy...

Very interesting day today. I have some clarity as to what I'm supposed to do with these Measles Partnership numbers. Basically, I can pick the number I like best, which means to me sticking as close to published numbers as possible. However, this report is not supposed to see the light of day outside of WHO. Good thing too, because the information they are seeking does nothing than expose shoddy record keeping and somewhat shady financial practices, at least when you consider the controls that are placed on how we spend money at CDC. Maybe the Defense Department comes close to what I see at WHO. We are getting results, which is what ultimately matters, but you need an army of people to keep track of this money properly. To have only one person doing the work of 10 is ridiculous. It also allows WHO to play its shell game with the money its given. Things get covered, but you never know whose money is covering it half the time.

I found out that the overturning of the gay marriage amendment has created a firestorm in Georgia. Just as I predicted, Sonny decided hed call a special session if the decision wasnt quickly overturned by the GA Supremes. Just so happens that 4 of the 7 justices are up for election this yearthink that will weigh on their decision? Well see if theyre politicians or jurists. The fact remains that amendment was illegally drawn, and everyone knew it. But they wanted that precious part B in there to really send the message that gays need to leave Georgia and never return because they will always be second class citizens. What galls me is that the Democrats are all rah-rah about this move to call a special session! Dubose Porter, the leader in the House, thinks its grand. So does Cathy Cox and Mark Taylor. Cathys campaign went out of its way to say that she fully supported the amendment, and only thought in 2004 that it was drawn poorly legislatively. That's not quite how I remember it, but Cathy's leading the Down with Fags! cheers from the Democratic side. Mark Taylor stopped short of saying we need a special session, but said to wait for the GA Supreme Court to decide, adding he hoped they upheld the amendment.

This is exactly the kind of shit that people bring up to show that Democrats really dont care about gays at all. The thing is, I know the party is very supportive. Were at all levels of the party power structure, and no one cares were gay. Most of the time, they think its pretty cool. But when 76f Georgia voted yes on the marriage amendment in 2004, that told politicians that gays were nuclear material in Georgia politics. We are lepers to be shunned in public, no matter what our conscience or our hearts tell us is right. Certainly, you shouldnt lead on an issue such as gay rights in any formthe best thing to do is what Democrats did until blacks were forcibly given the vote in the 1960spander to the basest instincts of the public. And this means to sound the alarm bells, call a special session, and make sure no time passes where those damn queers dont know their placeat the bottom of Sadie Fields stiletto heel to be scrapped off on the curb like dog shit.

Well, I'm not letting this one go quietly. I was angry enough that I fired off a letter to the Editor in the AJC, and I also wrote Cathy Coxs campaign a note which I copied to every YD leader I know and some others too. My friend Mike called her campaign from England and demanded his contribution (which I had urged him to make months ago) back. I frankly dont blame him. I dont know if shell even see this letter, but you can be assured that I will deliver the message in person should I get the opportunity:

Dear Cathy -

I find myself filled with profound disappoint and disgust at your decision yesterday to release a statement of support for Gov. Perdue's cynical call for a SPECIAL legislative session to make sure that both parts of the gay marriage amendment struck down for violating the single subject rule will be on November's ballot. I have met you several times, and I have even supported your bid for Governor. I have also heard you speak on LGBT issues, and I know you are more fair minded than your actions have shown. Yet, when it comes down to it, actions speak louder than words.

The AJC today (http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/stories/0518metgaymarriage.html) stated, "On Wednesday, Cox issued a statement supporting the governor's plan for a special session. So did her Democratic rival, Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor. Cox's opponents from both parties pointed out that in 2004, Cox said the amendment was "unnecessary." Peter Jackson, her campaign spokesman, said in response, "Yesterday showed the circumstances have changed" since 2004."

I would like to know exactly what circumstances have changed? In 2004, you had it right when you said the amendment was unnecessary and a cynical political ploy. It can be argued that passing that amendment directly led to the loss of Democratic control of the House. The people who care most about putting LGBT Georgians in "our place" are never going to vote for you or any Democrat. The only way that would change is if some Democrat pulled a Zell Miller and became essentially a right wing Republican in his/her views. You gain nothing by supporting Perdue in this scheme to call a special session. Even if you are the nominee, this amendment will guarantee that the troops of Sadie Field and her ilk will turn out in droves to reward Sonny for acting swiftly to put the "queers" in our place.

I am a gay Georgian, one of many you already know. You know personally how hateful and painful that amendment fight was in 2004. That you are now supporting actions that would not only hurt Democrats, your own bid for Governor, along with delivering a double fisted bitch slap to every LGBT Georgian is disgusting. As a Christian, you know better than to think this is the right thing to do. I know this is a tricky issue to deal with, but wouldn't it have been better to allow the judicial process to play out in the GA Supreme Court and then decide to move forward later? What's the rush? The amendment would easily pass in January 2007 when the new legislature is in session, and everyone knows it. There is no emergency to warrant spending taxpayer dollars on a special session just to be sure that LGBT Georgians like myself can be reassured that yes, indeed, our state HATES us, considers us less than equal citizens, and wants to be sure I never enjoy anything approaching equality with straight Georgia.

I get that this state is light years from being gay friendly when you go outside of 285. By your actions yesterday, you have given sanction to creating an atmosphere of hate and hysteria around gay rights. LGBT teens are already 30more likely to commit to suicide than their straight peers. My community is already rife with self-destructive behaviors whose origins lie in just the kind of hate campaign Sadie Fields led against us in 2004 and are promising to do again in 2006. I expected much more out of you than that. This is not leadership; it is pandering. To see you sink so low as to kick some of your most ardent supporters in the teeth for political gain breaks my heart. Yet I know that Mark Taylor and Sonny Perdue are no better.

I will no longer actively support your campaign. I may or may not vote for you in the Primary and General election. I feel betrayed by you, and I know I am not the only LGBT supporter of yours that feels this way this morning. I think we deserve and explanation and apology for being so hasty to play into the political tricks of the GOP. In the meantime, my time and treasure will no longer support someone who obviously no longer supports me.

Yours truly,
Jason A. Cecil

Am I being too harsh? No, I dont think so. Im not going to work against Cathy, and its likely I'll vote for. When you think of Mark vs Cathy in the Democratic primary, I think Cathy has the best chance of unseating Sonny Perdue. I also love the idea of a smart woman governor. But that doesnt mean I smile meekly, bend over, grab my ankles and say, Do what you want. Ill be the good little soldier. Youll see no consequences from me. For LGBT people to make real gains, we must demand respect, especially from our friends. We dont have to abandon them (because they truly are light years better than Republicans) but we do need to let them know when theyve done wrong. And Cathy fucked up big time on this. She may not think so now, but I hope Im just the tip of the iceberg of LGBT supporters who will let their displeasure be known. Thats the only way we can be sure that she wont pull this kind of shit again, and will be more sensitive to the people who have supported her most.

Contraception Causes Sex-Crazed Teen Cults?

The answer to that question is "YES!" if you're part of the Bush FDA. The FDA is supposed to only consider a drug's safety and efficacy when deciding whether to approve it. But this was not the case with the Plan B contraception. If taken with in 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can prevent pregnancy from occuring.

But right wingers like Sadie Fields think this drug is tantamount to abortion because it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. The thinking is that a woman who has unprotected sex is nothing more than a slut in heat and deserves to get pregnant. Of course, they will provide absolutely no services for the purported "slut" and her unborn child...and they certainly won't provide any services once the unwanted child is born. They'll tell that baby to pull itself up by its booties or something equally ridiculous.

The good news is that the FDA is being sued, and the right wing appointees Bush appointed are going to be grilled in open court about their decision making. Memos have already been released showing "concern" that Plan B would allow urban legand status to develop where sex-crazed teen cults would develop around the regular use of Plan B. I mean, COME ON! That's like saying if we have antibiotics on the market, then we're promoting sex-based cults based on the fact that antibiotics can cure the clap. That the people who made up this nonsense have MEDICAL degrees and/or PhDs should make their schools ashamed. In fact, I'd look into rescinding their degrees just based on such "scientific" nonsense. It's not even science. The FDA is not charged to look into the morality of medication, but they did here.

Hopefully the judge and/or jury will call them on it and force them to reverse this silly decision.

Stupid, Ignorant Gwinnett Twit

Laura Mallory of Lilburg, GA is stupid twat who needs to mind her own business and go prosyletize somewhere else! The story of her attempt to have Harry Potter books banned is in today's AJC here. This woman is a missionary and felt compelled to petition for Harry Potter books to be banned from Gwinnett County schools because "Harry Potter teaches children and adults that witchcraft is OK for children."

I know that with the likes of Sadie Fields in charge of the Christian Taliban here in Georgia, this state is full of just plain ignorant fools. This Mallory woman admits that she hasn't read any of the Potter books all the way through. Apparently, she must have tried and became overwhelmed with the temptation to become a witch and teach her children spells and enroll them in Hogwarts.

Mallory's forces of censorship managed to dig up one girl named Jordan Fuchs who claimed that Harry Potter made her obsessed with witchcraft to the point she and her friends formed some kind of coven and tried to have seances in the middle of gym class. Of course, this led to depression when the spells didn't work, and she was suicidal. Luckily, she turned back to Jesus and is OK, but Potter should be banned to help protect the weak minded and stupid like her.
A 10 year old girl said it best, "Kids understand the stories aren't true. The books never at any time turned me into a witch or wizard." If a 10 yr old girl can figure that out, why can't this grown woman and her fellow zealots?

While we're on the topic, I'm personally offended that these women think that Christianity is so weak that a children's book can lead people astray. What, so her Jesus can't stand up to the pressure of a children's book that talks about witches and wizards and the fight of good versus evil? Guess it's a good thing the anti-gay relationship amendment was passed in 2004 or her marriage would already be over with her husband out taking up the rear at the sex club du jour.
Harry Potter books are great fun, and even I have been sucked into them. They are enthralling for adults and children. What other time have you seen children and teenagers put aside the Nintendo to read a 700+ page book? Well, they do that for Harry Potter. I say any book that gets children to love reading is a good thing.

Hopefully Gwinnett County will agree.

What Happened to the Screeners?

Here's the story to which I refer: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/06/bush.ap/index.html

Someone needs to give Harry Taylor a standing ovation. Somehow, he snuck into a Bush townhall meeting, got the microphone, and read President Bush for the lying tyrant he is. Hopefully, Mr. Taylor will not "disappear" or be "rendered" to some CIA gulag overseas.

Staring down at Bush from his balcony seat, he said that Bush has asserted his right to "tap my phone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water, eat safe food, and if I were a woman to restrict my opportunity to make a choice" to which Bush interrupted him with "I'm not your favorite guy" coupled with that smarmy grin of his. Of course, the right wing audience started to boo the guy. It's what the right does best: when they don't like what you say, they shout you down. Bush, probably knowing the cameras were on him, told the audience to let him finish.

Mr. Taylor continued, "I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration. And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself."

How many of us have been PRAYING for leaders within the Democratic party to stand up to Bush and say these very words?!?! While I'm stunned that apparently the Gestapo techniques used thus far in his presidency to keep dissenters at bay have been called back (either that, or someone lost his job yesterday), it's so refreshing to see someone finally stand up to Bush and say the things that need to be said. If only someone who wasn't crazy within the Democratic Party would do the same thing...consistently.

Of course, the criticism went in one ear and out the other with Bush. He used the opportunity to say he wasn't ashamed and he wouldn't apologize for protecting our nation, blah, blah, blah. Que the cheering jingoist crowd. Bush takes criticism in front of cameras, dismisses it, and "stands firm" which is one of the traits people liked about him in 2004. Of course, now we know that standing firm is one thing, but blind stubbornness is another. Still, plenty of folks in this country are still drinking the Bush kool-aid and think that plowing ahead come hell or high water is an admirable trait.

Personally, I'm hoping for more people like Mr. Taylor will stand up and confront this president until he's finally out of office in January 2009.

Cynthia McKinney Makes DeKalb Look STUPID

Just when you thought Cynthia McKinney had learned her lesson about embarrassing her constituents by being kicked out of Congress in 2002, she comes roaring back in 2006. The first hint that something was up came earlier in the year when she undid the braids she's worn forever (or least since she was a child, I imagine) and unfurled an unkempt, orange tinted afro. Now, I like a good afro. But like any hairdo, it should be kept neat. Think "Foxy Cleopatra" (played by Beyonce) in the Austin Powers films.

The story is that Cynthia was bypassing the X-ray machine in one of the House office buildings, as is the right of every Congressperson. However, Cynthia never wears her Member of Congress pin, which police are trained to use as a quick way to ID members of Congress. She figures that except for two years, she's been in DC since 1993, so every cop should know her face. The fact she's radically altered her hairdo notwithstanding. When I first saw her hairdo, I had a to do a double take, b/c the face looked familiar, but with the new hairdo, she looked much different. That's true of even white folks. Take a blonde who dyes her hair red, and even some of her friends won't recognize her at first.

As Cynthia breezed past the security, a Capitol policeman tried to stop her, and she ignored him. He eventually grabbed her arm (which she labelled "inapprporiate touching" as if he'd grabbed her breasts...something which I only know Cynthia to have done in the past to others) and she hauled off and smacked him. It's serious enough that the incident was referred to the US Attorney who is presenting it to a grand jury to see if charges will be brought.

In the meantime, Cynthia reverted to her true self...the one who hates white people and thinks people don't like her because she's a black woman. *sigh* She accused the Capitol police of racism, coined the phrase "It's much ado about a hairdo" and just embarrased herself, the Democratic Party, and DeKalb county for sending this loon to Congress.

In a week where the top story should have been Tom Delay's departure from Congress in SHAME, Cynthia pushed Delay off the front page with her anctics. What amuses me is that besides her "followers" in Dekalb, no one stood by her. Even the Congressional Black Caucus took her into the proverbial back room and had a "Come to Jesus" meeting led by Rep. John Lewis (a man we can all be proud of and look up to) where she was told enough was enough.
So Cynthia backed down and apologized on the House floor. But she still needs to be turned out of Congress. She's an embarrassment to Georgia, to Democrats everywhere, and to the citizens of DeKalb County. You can be a powerful, outspoken person of any color. You can speak "truth to power" all day long, but you can do it in a much more respectful, non-ignorant way than Cynthia McKinney specializes in.

It's time for DeKalb County to send her home...permanently.

Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07mckinney.html?ex=1145073600&en=2f3e242d1f96acd1&ei=5070

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.