It's Always Something!

Well, just when I think things are going to settle down and be peaceful, something else happens. My 91-year-old aunt fell and broke her hip a few days ago. Now she's in the hospital and will need to go into rehab. Luckily she made it through the surgery to put the pin in her leg with flying colors - they used a spinal instead of general anesthesia and she did great. She is doing well and they think she will be able to walk fine once she finishes rehabilitation.

Of course that is not my only excuse for not posting for awhile. We actually managed to go up to the cabin in the Adirondacks last weekend for four days. The weather up there has been as unseasonably mild as it has been down in New Jersey. So we figured, why not go up? There was no snow on the ground whatsoever, very unusual for that area in February.

However, our gravel "road" (if you can dignify it with that description) was covered in a sheet of ice. All moisture tends to gather on the road and flow down the hill, whether from melting snow or from rain. However, our Jeep Rubicon lived up to its reputation. We were able to get up that hill by running the Jeep along the side of the road where the leaves were, rather than on the slick ice. We just had to put it in 4-wheel-drive, "low low" (an extra low gear just for this model) AND lock the axles. Not a problem! It was a relaxing weekend and I have to admit I did not get on the computer much at all.

So, in the meantime, the politics of the GOP nomination continue to be volatile! Just when you thought Gingrich had subsided and things might be smoothing out for Romney, Santorum goes and wins in caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado, and in a "non-binding" primary in Missouri. As a result, new money has poured into his campaign. It's like that old whack-a-mole game. You get one of them and another one pops up!

It is obvious that many GOP primary-goers just don't like Mitt. They try but they just can't do it. What scares me is that Santorum represents the most right-wing, theocratic side of the GOP, and any votes that put him anywhere near being a possible nominee for the Republicans is a very scary thought.

Santorum is a man who is so homophobic he talked about gay sex in the context of "man on dog," and he is against birth control for women, although he says he doesn't want to ban birth control. He just thinks it would be good if states were allowed to ban birth control. Even Ireland doesn't ban birth control anymore! What century does this man live in?

Think it can't happen? The "personhood" amendments being pushed by Republicans would do just that, if they ever passed. Many forms of birth control would be considered ending the life of a "person." Even Mississippi voted that idea down. But it keeps popping up again in other states. According to Personhood USA, activists are trying to get personhood measures on the ballot in at least 12 states in November 2012!

"For now, it’s unclear how many of the personhood proposals will actually go before voters later this year. Authorities have given the green light to gather signatures for proposed ballot measures in Colorado, Ohio, Montana and California, while legislators in Kansas, Virginia, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Alabama and Georgia have been working on bills that could lead to personhood referendums.

In Nevada and Arkansas, personhood campaigns also are in place, but have been slowed by disputes over the wording of proposed ballot measures. In Florida, anti-abortion activists are gearing up to seek a referendum in 2014."

Whatever else you want to say about Election Year 2012, it isn't dull; and it isn't inconsequential. There are HUGE issues at stake in this election, especially if by some chance Romney doesn't get the nomination. Anyone who wonders whether there is that much of a difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, between Romney and Obama, had better look hard at the issues that matter to them.

Maybe President Obama hasn't been the most liberal Democrat ever elected; but he is certainly way more "liberal" than anything the GOP will come up with, even Romney. Keep that in mind when thinking about things like Supreme Court appointments, the environment, reproductive rights, civil rights, and more.

It's About Time...UPDATED with pictures!

Well, another month has sped by…and “the 4th of July crept up on little cat feet,” as Jean Shepherd paraphrased in his wonderful tale, The Legend of Ludlow Kissel.

I have to admit, I have become a Bad Blogger. Who would have thought that retiring would mean LESS writing of blogs instead of more? It’s just as the old adage says, “If you want something done, give it to a busy person.” Or in this case, a working person. I’ve even been lazy about checking e-mail these days.

It hasn’t been all sloth and lethargy, though. I’ve been doing some writing for a local blog, covering events in my town, and perhaps I have been expending my writing energy that way, leaving none left for my own blog.

Plus, DH, his dad, my aunt and I all went to Cape Cod during the second week in June – followed by my coming down with a dreadful, energy-sapping, soul-sucking cold that actually took two weeks to go away. It included a consumptive cough, a head cold, and a temporary loss of the ability to taste things, which was certainly not a pleasant way to spend the middle of June. (Luckily that sense has returned, along with my appetite, something that is rarely out of commission under ordinary circumstances).

I can’t say nothing happened in the past month worth talking about – far from it. Of course, the most important event of all was the recent passage of the gay marriage bill by the New York State Legislature, and immediate signing thereof by Governor Andrew Cuomo, who had pushed so hard for the law to pass. The news of the law’s passage came late Friday night last weekend, when we were up at our cabin in the Adirondacks.

I was thrilled that this finally happened – especially in New York, which is so tied in with the gay rights movement, starting back in 1969 with the Stonewall Riots. It’s about time, New York! Now if only my home state of New Jersey would follow suit. Of course, our governor, Chris Christie, in his usual pleasant way, has said he’d veto any effort by the legislature to pass a gay marriage bill in his state. Remind me again how we ended up electing this guy? It certainly wasn’t a choice I made. I think I’ll start thinking of New York as my home state. It feels better.

It was inspirational to see Governor Cuomo go about his efforts to push through the bill. According to columnist Maureen Dowd, who recently interviewed the governor,

"The governor says he sold the marriage-equality bill as a matter of conscience and didn’t try to buy off any recalcitrant lawmakers with promises about roads or bridges.

He said Senator Roy McDonald, a Republican who grew up in public housing and represents a somewhat conservative district in the Albany area, told him that he wanted to vote for the bill because 'it’s the right thing. I believe my God is a God of love and acceptance.'"

The four Republicans who voted "yes" deserve a great deal of credit for bucking their party's line and doing the right thing.

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg gets some credit as well, as he expended a lot of political clout on its behalf.

It’s too bad President Obama can’t get any further in his “evolving” viewpoint on the subject and come out strongly in favor of it. He still says it’s an issue best left to the states, and while there may be some political reasoning behind this, that wouldn’t stop him from at least saying honestly what he believes in. (Note to the President: “states’ rights” was the excuse given for ongoing segregation as well.) And now that 53% of Americans approve of gay marriage, the tide of popular opinion is starting to turn - not that people’s intrinsic rights as human beings should be decided by popular opinion in the first place.

It’s possible that leaving it to the states for awhile would still be a wise policy, until enough states passed gay marriage or civil union laws to reach a tipping point where the Supreme Court would be more likely to rule in favor of gay marriage.

But in the meantime, federal laws do not recognize those state-endorsed marriages, depriving spouses of federal pensions and social security benefits from their partners, and marital law in general will be a mess once people start moving around the country and try to get their marriages (or divorces) recognized in other states, as John Schwartz in the NY Times discussed in today’s paper.

And if the Administration is ostensibly no longer defending the Defense of Marriage Act, why doesn’t President Obama use his bully pulpit, as Cuomo did his, to try to get Congress to repeal it? I can only hope he is waiting till after the next election, when he no longer has to worry about being re-elected, before pushing for this. But if he wants to win that election, he’d do better by supporting his base, which includes many gay rights advocates, than kowtowing to a conservative populace that won’t vote for him anyway. Just once I'd like him to do something bold about this issue, which should be a matter of conscience for everyone, not a political calculation.

In other June news, Republican candidates continued to come out of the woodwork, but I am not paying much attention to them at this point. Wake me up next year when we have some idea of which way the wind is blowing. Right now the group includes rightwing ideologues like Michelle Bachman, perpetual candidates like Ron Paul and now Newt Gingrich; and a range of more mainstream candidates like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, who are stepping all over themselves trying to be more rightwing so the primary voters will vote for them.

Then there's the botched rape case against the former IMF director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. At first it all seemed so simple: Aging lecherous Frenchman rapes innocent immigrant just trying to make a life for herself in the United States. Turns out she wasn't so innocent, had some unsettling ties to drug dealers, and had a history of lying to the government when seeking asylum a few years earlier. Her stories were inconsistent and her credibility damaged. So now Strauss-Kahn is leaving his house arrest and the case is in disarray. But the question remains: Just because she's a liar, do we know for sure he's not a rapist?

So, enough of all that...I will just concentrate on what we’ve been up to the past month. Our annual spring trip to the Cape was a big success. My aunt came with us this time and stayed in the cottage my mother always stayed in. She hadn’t been up to the Cape in about 15 years, so was happy to finally get back there. Her 18-year-old cat had just had to be put to sleep, and the trip helped get her mind off that. And, in fact, if she still had the cat, she might not have felt comfortable going away for a week, so it all worked out for the best in some ways. Amazingly, we had wonderful, warm, sunny, clear weather for 5 of the 7 days we were there, and even the other two days were just partly cloudy.

We did all the usual Cape things: went out for lobster, sat on the bay beach not far from our cottages, took a ride to Provincetown. We also spent a lot of time just relaxing on the serene grounds of the cottages, looking out at the pond.

I had a few gratifying chats with the lovely woman who is the owner of the cottages we stay at, a staunch Democrat who was a supporter of Barack Obama before I had even decided who to support in the primaries. Now she asked me, somewhat wistfully, "Do you think he can survive the haters? The Tea Partiers?" (We were there not long after the most recent kerfluffle about his birthplace.) I assured her I thought that wasn't going to be his problem, but that he should do more to support his own base. She agreed, saying she wasn't always happy with everything he's done, but continues to support him nevertheless. I think a lot of Democrats would agree with that sentiment. But I'm not sure about the indpendents, and there will his problem in 2012 if things don't improve.

Diva and Angel had a great time at the Cape also. Diva, as usual, loved her swimming sessions in the pond. We tried to get Angel to go in, but she apparently is not really a swimming-style of dog. She did go in up to her shoulders and at one point took off swimming toward a school of ducks (do ducks travel in schools? Herds? Bevies?). Her prey drive is stronger than her dislike of swimming, apparently.

Here are pictures of Diva and Angel, close up. In the second one you can see Diva is getting impatient with picture-taking and revving up her "demand bark." This picture definitely shows the difference in their personalities!



And a nice portrait of Angel lying in the grass near the deck of the cottage.


My aunt reading with Diva sprawled in front of her.

The ducks in the pond were very bold; one mama duck kept trying to come up to our cottage when we were sitting outside, followed by her babies. She kept coming even as both dogs went nuts barking at her. We kept having to get up and shoo her away. Someone who was previously in that cottage must have been feeding her!

DH’s dad had a good time too – he always does. We went twice to his favorite restaurant, and he ate lobster in all forms at every meal, including baked stuffed, steamed, in the form of a lobster salad roll, and more.

We had a low-key Father’s Day; just had Dad up for a pancake breakfast out on the deck. By that time my cold had improved enough that I was functional and able to be a hostess! Here's a portrait of DH and his dad and Dad's "grandchildren."


Now comes the real “cabin season.” We are finally getting warmer weather, after a long, cool, rainy spring. Even as recently as last weekend the weather was so cool at night up at the cabin that a fire in the woodstove was needed at least once a day to take the chill off.

Now it’s finally warmer, so we’re using the outdoor firepit out on the deck for our fires in the evening. But even still, the weather is unpredictable - yesterday, clear blue skies and sunny; today, thunderstorms, clouds and rain. But even then it is peaceful and beautiful at the cabin, and better than being in the hustle and bustle of suburban New Jersey. The dogs both love it here and like to lounge around on the deck and relax, looking out at the woods and occasional wildlife. Angel, who is so over-reactive to every human-generated noise at home, is calm here. Nature doesn’t trigger her alarm.

We’ve planted a miniature raised garden here at the cabin, using bricks that were left lying around by the previous owner. Our crops include basil, rosemary, and oregano. We just extended this little garden and will now plant some beans to see if we can get a small crop of string beans. Plus we bought two patio tomato plants that we’re hoping will survive our absences long enough to yield some home grown tomatoes. Surprisingly, nothing seems to be eating our herb garden. It will be interesting to see if string beans are another matter.

Tomorrow is the 4th of July, and I don’t know whether we will participate in any local festivities or not. Before we came up to the cabin we went with friends to the annual county display of fireworks in our local park, so we had our fix already. Up here, a couple of years ago before we had our own cabin, we stayed over in Schroon Lake and sat outside and watched their annual 4th of July parade go by, and later sat on the beach at the lake being eaten by mosquitoes and watched the fireworks there. But that’s kind of far away. So tomorrow may be another quiet day here…but that’s fine with me!

Angel by the pond - she is enjoying the country life.


Hope everyone has a happy, safe and fun Fourth! I'm posting this without pictures but will update tomorrow - when the sluggish internet connection here might be better - with pictures of the dogs and more!

Meet the New Year - Worse Than the Old Year

After the holidays I had planned to write a typical New Year's post reflecting on the past year, and talking about this year's resolutions. I hadn't gotten around to it before the tragedy in Tucson took place. Now it seems like a moot point. Given the larger issues surrounding us, my paltry resolutions to have more self-control, eat less, drink less, etc., now seem totally petty.

So here we are, barely into 2011, and six people have been killed, and 13 wounded, at a "Congress on Your Corner" event in Tucson, AZ, hosted by Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who was badly wounded in the attack by a 22-year-old man, Jared Loughner.

I spent two days on Facebook, reading and commenting on a myriad of links, articles and other people's postings. Immediately after the shooting, many of us on the left, including myself, blamed those on the right who have fomented violence through their hateful rhetoric.

But as time went on, it became apparent that Loughner was not particularly political, despite the fact that he talked about currency and other subjects sometimes discussed by the far right; he seemed to be mentally unbalanced, possibly a schizophrenic. His obsession with Gabrielle Giffords did not seem to be directly in response to any right wing speech, but instead tied in to his bizarre beliefs about government, the currency, and other strange delusions that he had harbored for several years. In fact, he had attended one of Giffords' Congress on Your Corner events as long ago as 2007, and disliked her response to a question he had asked. Friends said he had changed radically from the person he was earlier in high school, consistent with the age at which schizophrenia often begins in young men.

Could the partisanship and hateful rhetoric, the gun imagery and other events have given him encouragement? Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. If anything, he seems to have been out of touch with reality and living more in a world of "lucid dreaming," which was a subject he was most interested in during the last few months, according to acquaintances. There is no evidence that Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map had anything to do with him shooting Representative Giffords.

I have to admit I was as riled up as anyone right after this happened, and was posting links to petitions saying Sarah Palin should be prosecuted for being an accessory to murder. But the more strident these accusations became against Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest, and the more I read about Loughner, I realized it just wasn't their fault that this troubled man pulled the trigger.

That said, do I believe that hateful rhetoric COULD lead to violence among radical followers of these rightwing pundits and politicians? Absolutely, yes. We know this can happen, we've seen it before. Did it happen in this case? Hard to say.

So, how have the spokespeople on the left and right reacted to this tragedy?

The first responses from the right were to strike back against the left for accusing them of fomenting this madman's rage. Bill O'Reilly called out the New York Times, Paul Krugman, and the left in general, calling them "merchants of hate" and castigating them for accusing the right of causing the shootings. Later he said that he himself has to have security at all times due to threats he receives but the New York Times never mentions that.


Rush Limbaugh attacked the Democrats directly, saying the gunman had the "full support" of the Democratic party.

And what did Sarah Palin do? After her first response (on Facebook) expressing her condolences for the victims and their families on January 8, on the 12th she posted a video, which probably was meant to make her look Presidential, in which she took the opportunity to reaffirm her right to exercise her freedom of speech. There was no inkling that maybe, just maybe, she might have gone too far in her gun-related metaphors; that maybe she, among others, had contributed to a climate of violence in this country not seen since the 1960s. Oh no, it was all about her being the victim of people who were "attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event." And on top of that she called this an attempt to establish a "blood libel." She has to have known this was a painful reference for people of Jewish heritage, since it refers to the canard that Jews murder Christian children and use their blood in their religious ceremonies. Did she know this? Did she care? If you can stomach it, here is Palin's speech:

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
OK, so what about the left? Are they innocent of fomenting a climate of hate? Maybe not completely. During Bush's tenure as President, there were many left wing radicals who did post hateful rhetoric and protesters carrying signs that urged others to "kill Bush," showing him as a Nazi, etc. (See below for a few examples:)

However, there is a big difference. The left has never had the kind of media pundits that the right has had, nor as many; these signs were carried by ordinary people - shameful, yes, wrong, yes, but people who did not have a lot of power to influence others. In addition, during Bush's administration, protests were often carefully kept at a distance and out of the headlines. We didn't see these signs on television all the time the way people have seen the Tea Partiers and their signs during the Obama administration.

The left has various publications and blogs to get their message out; and Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann and a few others on television. But liberal talk radio has never really taken off, for whatever reason. Maybe liberals are just less apt to waste their time calling in to spout off their views on the radio. Maybe liberals are more apt to write rather than talk. I don't know the reason.

What I do know is, that Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann, although clearly liberals, don't go around comparing the Republicans to Nazis and implying death threats. And how did they react to the Tucson shootings?

Rachel went through a litany of previous horrific killings that have all taken place since Jared Loughner was born, showing that he did grow up surrounded by violence, and that America is a violent country. She also pointed out that, after Yemen, the United States is THE most heavily armed country in the world.

And what of Keith Olbermann, the more outspoken partisan of the two? He called for an end to using gun metaphors, and called for violent rhetoric to end. But in addition he apologized for any times he himself has gone over the edge in this regard.


You'll never hear Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Sarah Palin ever apologize for anything. Yes, they were right to say this tragedy should not be politicized. But they are the ones politicizing it themselves and refusing to share in any regret for the possibility that their words could spur violence - maybe not for this particular incident, but for another incident yet to come. And that is one of the differences between the left and the right.

Overall, the right has a stronger effect on the national discourse than the left and the results have been skewed against the left.

As S.W. Anderson says over at "Oh!Pinion,"

"Despite words to the contrary from CNN’s Jon King and others, there is no equivalence of violence-inciting rhetoric from the left and right. Nor is there anything remotely approaching equivalence when it comes to violent acts against public officials and political candidates."

But he goes on to warn that if the current climate continues, it's only a matter of time before both sides get in on the violence. Please take the time to go read his excellent post.

The hateful rhetoric needs to stop to keep us, as a country, from going over the edge into chaos.

Jon Stewart summed up his reactions on Monday night's Daily Show. His thoughts were what made me start to rethink my initial reaction to blame the right for the shooting.

"Did the toxic political environment cause this?...I have NO f*cking idea."

He then points out that the urge to blame is understandable, because it would mean that there could be a way to prevent this kind of incident. However, he goes on to say that unfortunately, that's not the case: "You can't outsmart crazy."

But the other important thing he said was that it would be "really nice if the ramblings of crazy people didn't in any way resemble how we actually talk to each other on TV."
Watch:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Arizona Shootings Reaction
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

At the end Stewart says:

"For all the hyperbole and the vitriol that's become a part of our political process, when the reality of that rhetoric, when actions match the disturbing nature of words, we haven't lost our capacity to be horrified...Let us hope we never become numb to what the real horror, what the real blood of patriots looks like..."

He goes on to say that it would be a "shame if we didn't take this opportunity...to make sure that the world we are creating now...isn't better than the one we've previously lost."

Once again Jon Stewart, a comedian who is starting to be the voice of reason in our time, struck the right tone in the face of this tragedy.

Below is President Obama's speech at the memorial yesterday in Tucson. The President was comforting, inspiring and non-partisan in his speech, encouraging us to heal and not to blame. I hope everyone who heard this speech will really listen to him and take his message to heart, on both sides of the aisle.


And with that, I'll sign off. I'll save till another day my thoughts on what can be done, if anything, to prevent these ongoing tragedies in our country. During my days on Facebook earlier this week I got into some long conversations with a conservative friend of mine about gun control, and of course there is also the issue of how we address the problem of mentally ill people in general.

Members of Congress are proposing laws about having a gun within 1000 feet of an elected official (impractical and rather self-centered I would say), adding Plexiglass to the Congressional chamber (what, on top of the metal detectors I'm sure are already in place?), and worst of all, trying to pass a law outlawing certain types of speech and images (First Amendment rights, anyone?). But those are topics for another day.

I hope that in the coming days Representative Giffords will continue the amazing progress she has made so far, and that she eventually recovers completely. I hope that's not too much to hope for. I also send my deepest sympathies to the families of those killed and injured and I hope that the political discourse will calm down of its own accord in the wake of these events and maybe, just maybe Congress might try to work together for a change. I know, probably too much to ask for. But one has to have hope.

The Fight for Marriage Equality Moves to New Jersey

Today is the first day of deliberations of the gay marriage bill by the Senate Judicial Committee in New Jersey. If the bill clears the committee, it goes to the State Senate for a vote. If it is approved there, it would need to be approved by the Assembly so that Governor Jon Corzine can sign it before he leaves office. His successor, Republican Chris Christie, is an opponent of gay marriage, so time is short.

Demonstrators flocked to Trenton to support or protest the bill.

In an op-ed piece last week in the New Jersey Star Ledger, Assemblyman Reed Gusciora of the 15th legislative district, spelled out in definitive terms all of the reasons it makes complete sense to legalize gay marriage. Of course, something making complete sense never appeals to the GOP, not even in "blue" New Jersey.

Assemblyman Gusciora stated:

"At its core, the ability to get married is a civil act governed by state law. Everyone must first meet the qualifications set forth by state law to receive a marriage license. Because marriage is a right conferred by the government, it should be done on an equitable basis, including the recognition of same-gender unions.

Civil marriages also have a longstanding tradition in this country. The first wedding in the Plymouth Colony was a civil marriage performed by Governor Bradford, not a religious ceremony."

He points out that legalizing gay marriage certainly does no harm to heterosexual marriages. As he put it, "I have a suggestion for those wanting to preserve their wedding vows: Stay married!"

I could quote the whole column because there are so many well-reasoned arguments in favor of same-sex marriage in it but you can go read the rest yourselves.

He concludes with the following:

"As long as we are a nation of laws dedicated to the principle of separation of church and state, the Legislature is the proper place to define our marriage laws on equitable terms. Now is the time for New Jersey to update the civil marriage laws so they are truly equal and reflect our ever changing society."

The Star Ledger editorial board supports gay marriage. In this editorial, they point out the generational divide on this issue. Two prominent politicians in New Jersey, U.S. Senator Menendez and State Senator Ronald Rice, both oppose gay marriage, while their sons support it. The editorial goes on to say:

"A national CNN poll this year showed that 58 percent of those under 30 back gay marriage, while only 24 percent of those over 65 do. This generational divide is the size of the Grand Canyon.

It means that history is on the side of marriage equality. Younger people are simply not as rattled by homosexuality, perhaps because they have lived among more openly gay people. They don’t consider it a personality defect, or a moral wrong. And they don’t want [to] treat their gay friends and relatives as something less.

So gay marriage will happen. The only question is when."

Let's hope it happens in New Jersey this month.

Discouraged and Fearful for this Country

I've been wanting to write about President Obama's reluctance to live up to the promises he has made regarding civil rights for the gay community, including his pledge to do away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act. So far he has done neither of those things, and as many have already talked about, the Department of Justice recently dismissed a case pertaining to gay marriage by upholding the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act and basically saying it had to defend that law.

"Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Friday that the department, as it generally does, is defending existing law in court.

'The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,' she said. 'However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system.'"

That's all well and good, but where's the beef? If President Obama is so keen on getting DOMA repealed, why doesn't he demand that Congress bring him a law to sign that would repeal it? He hasn't been making this a priority, and I don't blame the LGBT community, and everyone who believes in civil rights for all of our citizens, for being upset about this.

As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that is another sore subject. Harry Truman integrated the armed forces with an executive order. I don't see why Obama couldn't do the same for the gays and lesbians serving already serving honorably in our armed forces. The idea that the armed forces should only allow gays to serve if they hide who they are, and if they don't, they are subject to dismissal, is absurd, and it is clear discrimination. I don't understand how anyone could see it otherwise.

It is well past time to right these wrongs; justice deferred is justice denied.

Those who defend Obama's inaction on these issues may say that he has a lot on his plate and that he will get to them in good time. But people are tired of being told to wait and there really isn't any excuse to delay these changes any further.

If the Republicans were making any effort whatsoever to work with the President and the Democratic Congress, you might think that he is trying to get some of his other priorities, such as healthcare, pushed through with bipartisan support and doesn't want to rock the boat until he has accomplished these goals. But since the GOP has done absolutely nothing to try to work with him (with the exceptions of the few moderate Republicans left in Congress), this explanation doesn't hold water. He has absolutely nothing to lose by fulfilling his campaign promises and I dearly hope he will come through soon.

I am still hopeful that this President does mean well and will do what he has promised. But his willingness to compromise with those who mean him and the rest of us no good is disturbing. Maybe he'll learn his lesson if the healthcare initiative is stymied by these obstructionists and he'll realize that if he wants something he has to just make it happen despite them. We shall see.

But in the meantime, with the shooting at the Holocaust Museum, the murder of Dr. Tiller, and the the continual hatefulness of the neocons and those who speak for them in the media, my alarm at these recent developments is even eclipsing my indignation about the lack of action regarding gay rights on Obama's part.

Frank Rich wrote today about the upsurge in hatred that has apparently helped to spur the increase in right-wing vigilanteism and points out the kind of language that is no doubt adding to the increase in violence we've been seeing lately.

Rich reports that Shepard Smith, the Fox news anchor, has been seeing a huge increase in hate-filled e-mail.

"What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had 'become more and more frightening' in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he 'could read a hundred' messages spewing 'hate that’s not based in fact,' much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman’s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans 'out there in a scary place,' Smith said."

This scares me a lot. Barack Obama is the first African-American President. That alone puts him in danger. Then when right-wing talk show hosts and others continue to spew hateful rhetoric about him and his policies (calling them both socialist and fascist - a dichotomy that is a little hard to achieve), it just builds up more hatred, which puts President Obama and the very fabric of this nation at risk.

Whatever our disagreements with some of President Obama's actions - or inactions - since he became president, they pale in comparison to the disagreements we all have with the Republican policies and beliefs. Let's remember which side we are on and make sure that we stick up for this man. He does not have an easy job of it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize him if he's not doing what he said, and certainly we must write and let him know when we disagree with him. But he has enough enemies out there - we need to support him.

I am getting very discouraged about this country. There are too many people out there who are completely out of touch with reality and who truly believe their own lies, that Obama is a Muslim, that he's not really an American citizen, and all the rest. These absurd beliefs, coupled with the increase in gun sales that has been happening, are a frightening combination.

I don't know what this country stands for anymore. There are whole groups of people out there who really don't believe in democracy; they feel that if their side loses, they don't owe the duly-elected president any loyalty at all. And they don't have any interest in compromise or working within the system.

Today we were driving with the "60's on 6" satellite radio on, and they played Barry McGuire's "Eve of Destruction." The words seemed eerily appropriate even more than 40 years after the song first came out.

The eastern world, it is exploding
Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’
You’re old enough to kill, but not for votin’
You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’

But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Don’t you understand what I’m tryin’ to say
Can’t you feel the fears I’m feelin’ today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no runnin’ away
There’ll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
[Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Yeah, my blood’s so mad feels like coagulatin’
I’m sitting here just contemplatin’
I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don’t pass legislation
And marches alone can’t bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin’
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’

And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

Think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
You may leave here for 4 days in space
But when you return, it’s the same old place
The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don’t leave a trace
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don’t forget to say grace
And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don’t believe
We’re on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don’t believe
We’re on the eve
of destruction.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

It's been another week with a lot going on and I haven't been able to keep up. I think underneath, although I still have a lot of concerns about various issues, my motivation to comment on every event is somewhat less because I still have the feeling that finally, we have someone in the White House who actually knows what's going on and has ideas on how to fix stuff.

Sure, there are things I am not happy about, along with plenty that I am pleased with; but at least I know the president actually uses his brain, unlike the previous inhabitant of the White House.

Today, however, there are events that are too big to ignore. I've titled this post "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" because as always, there are positives and negatives happening at the same time.

First, the "Good" - President Obama has nominated New York's Sonia Sottomayor to the Supreme Court. I heard her speech on the way to work and thought she sounded extremely impressive and yet down to earth. Her background is just what the President was looking for: someone who would have a feel for how decisions affect people in the real world - someone with empathy, but with an unimpeachable background in the law.

Raised alone by her mother after her father died when she was only 9, she was educated at Princeton University (graduating summa cum laude) and got her law degree from Yale (was editor of the Yale Law Review). Her professional experience has been diverse and should give her an excellent perspective on the various cases that would come before her as a Supreme Court Justice. And on top of that, she is Hispanic and a woman, so the President has made good on his wish to make the Supreme Court more diverse and more like the people whose lives it will affect.

So what is "the Bad"? The Republicans, of course. According to the NY Times,

"Many conservatives came out fiercely against Ms. Sotomayor as soon her name was announced, denouncing her as liberal and promising Mr. Obama a tough nomination fight.

'The G.O.P. has to make a stand,' said Scott Reed, manager of the 1996 presidential campaign of Bob Dole. 'This is what the base and social conservatives really care about, and we need to brand her a liberal with some out-of-the-mainstream positions. Forget about cosmetics and ethnic heritage, and focus on her record.'"

But, thanks to the President's political skills, he has put them into an uncomfortable position. Opposing the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court would hurt them dearly with the Hispanic voters whose votes they will need to make any kind of a political comeback in the next elections.

"Matthew Dowd, another one-time adviser to Mr. Bush, said that in 2000, he calculated that Republicans needed to win 35 percent of Hispanics to beat Democrats. He said that given the steady increase in the number of Hispanic voters, he now believed Republicans needed to win a minimum of 40 percent to be competitive with Democrats.

As a result, he said, barring any revelation about Ms. Sotomayor’s background, Republicans could doom themselves to long-term minority status if they are perceived as preventing Ms. Sotomayor from becoming a judge."

Time will tell in which direction the Republicans will go. But be prepared to hear the words "liberal activist judge" a lot in the near future.

And last, "the Ugly."

As everyone already knows, today the California Supreme Court upheld the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage that had passed last November. However, the Court did say the 18,000 same-sex couples who were married before the ruling are still officially married.

The thing to keep in mind is that this ruling was not on the constitutionality of gay marriage, but on whether the process was appropriate to amend the constitution to ban it. As the linked article states,

"While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state's governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution."

And therein lies the problem. Unlike other states, California is so dysfunctional that long ago the government gave up trying to decide anything and instead gave the power to the people to make major decisions - such as whether to raise taxes (people usually vote against additional taxes, surprisingly!) and, in this case, whether to allow gay marriages.

Paul Krugman recently wrote about the "state of paralysis" that California represents, in relationship to the economy.

"The seeds of California’s current crisis were planted more than 30 years ago, when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13, a ballot measure that placed the state’s budget in a straitjacket. Property tax rates were capped, and homeowners were shielded from increases in their tax assessments even as the value of their homes rose.

The result was a tax system that is both inequitable and unstable. It’s inequitable because older homeowners often pay far less property tax than their younger neighbors. It’s unstable because limits on property taxation have forced California to rely more heavily than other states on income taxes, which fall steeply during recessions.

Even more important, however, Proposition 13 made it extremely hard to raise taxes, even in emergencies: no state tax rate may be increased without a two-thirds majority in both houses of the State Legislature. And this provision has interacted disastrously with state political trends."

Basically, California is leaving way too much up to the voters, who really are not qualified to decide intricate financial issues, and should also not be given the right to decide whether a group that is in the minority in the population deserves civil rights or not. If that were the case everywhere, we would probably still have slavery.

This was a constitutional matter, and the California Supreme Court had previously correctly used the state constitution to decide that gay marriage was a civil right. Unfortunately, the people of California, influenced unfairly by lots of advertising by the Mormon Church and others, decided otherwise.

William Bradley at the Huffington Post talks about the various factors that led up to the Proposition 8 debacle. In his article, he cites a previous proposition that upheld bigotry in California:

"Bringing it back to the example at hand, Californians in 1964 passed an initiative to block landmark "fair housing" legislation to end discrimination by landlords and property owners who refused to rent or sell to African Americans. The initiative, which amended the state constitution to empower discrimination, passed with a whopping 65% of the vote. But it was overturned three years later by the U.S. Supreme Court."

So there you have it - when it comes down to it, the only way we can finally ensure that the civil rights of our gay citizens are upheld is with a U.S. Supreme Court decision. A Supreme Court decision would render moot the whole question of Proposition 8, and would nullify the laws and amendments against same-sex marriage in other states.

The approval of President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, and any subsequent choices he may make for the Court, will be extremely important in ensuring that ultimately, the civil rights of all of our citizens are protected.

Right now there is not enough of a groundswell of public pressure to bring a case to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the subject of gay marriage. But the trend is growing daily in support of gay marriage, especially as younger voters become active.

As Frank Rich wrote in the Times on Sunday, despite his campaign rhetoric, President Obama has not yet fulfilled his promises to gay Americans, including the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. According to Rich,

"Obama has long been, as he says, a fierce advocate for gay equality. The Windy City Times has reported that he initially endorsed legalizing same-sex marriage when running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996. The most common rationale for his current passivity is that his plate is too full. But the president has so far shown an impressive inclination both to multitask and to argue passionately for bedrock American principles when he wants to. Relegating fundamental constitutional rights to the bottom of the pile until some to-be-determined future seems like a shell game.

As Wolfson reminds us in his book 'Why Marriage Matters,' Dr. King addressed such dawdling in 1963. 'For years now I have heard the word "Wait," ' King wrote. 'It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." '

The gay civil rights movement has fewer obstacles in its path than did Dr. King’s Herculean mission to overthrow the singular legacy of slavery. That makes it all the more shameful that it has fewer courageous allies in Washington than King did."

Perhaps what is needed is a march on Washington in support of gay civil rights, as Dr. King led back in 1963 for African-American rights. Maybe then the parallels would be clearer to the President and to everyone else.

We are at a crossroads in America, just as we were in the 1960s. There is political division, wars, and unrest -- and civil rights are once again an important issue.

President Obama has the opportunity to remake America and ensure that it lives up to the lofty ideals on which it was founded. Let's hope he has the courage to support what he must know should be done.

Another Victory!

Great news from Vermont - the legislature there overrode the governor's veto and Vermont has now become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage. And, it's the first state to do so through the votes of the legislature rather than a court decision.

The dominoes are falling, one by one!

Great News from Iowa!

The Iowa Supreme Court upheld a 2007 ruling that marriage should not be limited to one man and one woman this morning!

This means that in Iowa, gay marriage will now be legal starting April 24th. And, no residency requirements. This is great news for the GLBT community and for everyone in this country who believes in equal rights for all.

New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire may be next if all goes well. However, Vermont will have to contend with a possible veto by the governor.

"Vermont's Senate this week joined the House in overwhelmingly voting in favor of gay marriage, though it's unclear whether a threatened veto by Gov. Jim Douglas can be overridden. New Hampshire's House passed a marriage bill in March, which now awaits a Senate vote. In New Jersey, Gov. Jon Corzine has pledged to sign a gay marriage bill that has been introduced in the legislature."

It's happening, people - one state at a time!

Day # 3 of the New America

Building on yesterday's post, I'd like to share a quotation a friend sent me that I thought was very appropriate:

"Rosa sat, so Martin could walk.
Martin walked, so Obama could run.
Obama ran, so our children could fly."

and now, some haiku - I'm too tired to write much today! But since it's NaBloPoMo, I MUST BLOG.

Palin is fading
And McCain is lying low
Obama takes charge.

"Still-President Bush"
As Jon Stewart likes to say
Keeps a low profile.

Rahm Emanuel
Is appointed chief of staff;
Is this good or bad?

My take on Emanuel? I think he's a savvy politician, he's someone Obama knows well and feels comfortable with, and he knows his way around Washington. Some have been critical of the choice, since it may not seem much like a change from politics as usual.

But make no mistake, Obama won this election not just because of his message of change. He is also a very good politician. And you know what? Sometimes you need to be a good politician to get things accomplished. That's how Lyndon Johnson got the Civil Rights Act passed. And that's why Carter wasn't so good as a President - he wasn't political enough.

I believe in Obama. I think he can balance politics with idealism and get things done in a practical way. He won't please all of the people all of the time but I think he will be a great leader.

Aftermath

The cheers are already dying down and the business of transition has begun. President-Elect Barack Obama (I love the sound of that), being his usual measured and organized self, is already well along in planning his transition team. He will be ready to be president on Day One, as Hillary Clinton liked to say. And even sooner, the way things are going.

But for now, I am not yet ready to give up the jubilation that accompanied his amazing victory and I am still thinking about what it means for us as a country.

In Gail Collins' Op-Ed piece this week in the New York Times she reflected on the euphoria that accompanied Tuesday's election results. She ended her column with the following thoughts about her (and my) generation, the Baby Boomers:

"Finally, on behalf of the baby-boom generation, I would like to hear a little round of applause before we cede the stage to the people who were too young to go to Woodstock and would appreciate not having to listen to the stories about it anymore. It looks as though we will be represented in history by only two presidents, one of whom is George W. Bush. Bummer.

The boomers didn’t win any wars and that business about being self-involved was not entirely unfounded. On the other hand, they made the nation get serious about the idea of everybody being created equal. And now American children are going to grow up unaware that there’s anything novel in an African-American president or a woman running for the White House.

We’ll settle for that."

My first thought was that actually, Obama IS a Baby Boomer. Born in 1961, he's at the tail-end of my generation, since the definition of the Boomer designation is to be born between 1946 and 1964. However, since Obama does not identify with the Baby Boomer generation, and so many members of younger generations claim him as their own, I'll let that go.

But Collins' column made me start thinking about the long road we have traveled to reach this place and time. We sometimes forget that so many things were accomplished by previous generations, and it is because of them that this country was able to put aside the past and elect Barack Obama.

Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." This applies to the progress this country has made in the last 50 years.

Just a few of our giants - there were so many more - included President Truman, who integrated the armed forces; President Eisenhower, who enforced the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling; Martin Luther King, who inspired a whole generation of young activists to march and work for racial equality; John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy who promoted civil rights; Lyndon Johnson, who followed through and passed the Civil Rights Act; Nelson Mandela and his fight against apartheid; the folk singers of the 1950's and 1960's (The Weavers; Peter, Paul and Mary; Bob Dylan; Phil Ochs - and many more) who used music to change minds; writers such as James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, John Howard Griffin, and others, who explored the experience of being black in America; and of course, movies and television programs that exposed attitudes and changed perceptions.

In the 1960s we finally had television programs with African-American actors in them in lead roles, such as "I Spy" with Bill Cosby, "Julia," with Diahann Carroll, and Star Trek, which creator Gene Roddenberry ensured would depict an idealistic future where everyone was equal. African-American actress Nichelle Nichols had a lead role as the Communications Officer on the bridge of the Enterprise.

Television continued to play a key role in changing attitudes. When "24" came on the air in November, 2001 with an African-American, Dennis Haysbert, as President David Palmer, I think a lot of people looked at his calm demeanor, his wisdom and integrity and said "I wish THAT guy was President NOW!"

The feminist movement was happening at the same time, breaking down barriers for women as well. Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem and others inspired women to continue the work toward equality that had begun back in the late 1800s with the women's suffrage movement. In politics we had Bela Abzug, Shirley Chisolm, Margaret Chase Smith, Geraldine Ferraro. In television, The Mary Tyler Moore Show showcased a single, successful career woman, followed by many other role models.

In 1972, Title IX was passed, making it the law of the land that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." This changed the face of many educational institutions, especially in the area of sports participation, which helped women gain confidence and leadership abilities.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy for president took women one step closer to true equality. It also revealed that deep-seated sexism is still rampant. However, the next generation will rise above that and Hillary has broken the ice for the next woman presidential candidate - or perhaps she will still be back herself.

There has been progress in gay rights as well. The Stonewall riots really kicked off the modern movement for gay rights, in 1969. Since then, there have been many steps forward for gay rights, and there has been more openness about sexual orientation both in the community and in the media. The culture is finally changing, and many states have domestic partnerships, civil unions, and finally, marriage.

But there seems to be a tendency for there to be a step back taken for every step forward.

When he was campaigning for President in 1992, Bill Clinton promised to allow anyone, no matter their sexual orientation, to serve openly in the military - and then after he was elected he compromised with the infamous "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

And when the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage earlier this year and affirmed a right to marry for same-sex couples, the issue was immediately brought to the voters in Tuesday's election, with Proposition 8, which proposed to take that right away through a constitutional amendment.

Sadly, Proposition 8 and several other similar ballot measures in other states passed on Tuesday. In California, two lawsuits have already been filed to challenge the decision. Let's hope they prevail.

We still have a long way to go in terms of equality - for African-Americans, for women, and for the gay/lesbian/transgender community. Bigotry and hate are still out there, and we must be ever-vigilant against them.

But the election of Barack Obama has shown that we as a country can overcome hate, prejudice and bigotry and, as Martin Luther King said, judge others not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." And let's add to that, "not by their gender, not by their sexual orientation." Then and only then will this country be a country where everyone truly has a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." But electing Barack Obama has been an important step in the right direction.

The Political Meme

As my first post for the month of November, I thought I would finally complete the Political Meme that Spartacus tagged me with way back in September. This meme was originated by Katie Schwartz and it is a good way to sum up my feelings on the upcoming election on Tuesday. Plus it gave me an easy way to complete my first post for the 30-day marathon of posting that is required for the November NaBloPoMo event! With no further ado, here is the meme and my answers:

1) What is your name (nickname, whatever you're comfortable sharing), your age (range), gender, occupation, income bracket (range), how you identify (gay/straight/whatever)? Married/Single/Divorced? Kids (how many)?

My name is Mauigirl, I'm 55, I'm female, work in market research at a Big Corporation, and our household income puts us in the upper middle class bracket. I'm straight (strongly pro gay-rights), married to my husband DH, and we have no kids, just our dog Diva and our cat, Baxter, whose posts you will often read here.

2) What are the most important issues to you in this presidential election and why?

There are so many, it's hard to know where to begin. One huge issue for me is the Supreme Court. The next president will probably be appointing 2 or 3 new justices to the Court and it is crucial that these justices are not people like Antonin Scalia or the other right-wing appointees. It's not just Roe v. Wade that is at stake, although that too is an important issue for me. It is our entire system of government, the checks and balances, the issues of privacy and civil rights, that are at stake here.

Beyond those key issues, there are also more day-to-day concerns, including the economy. I am tired of the gap growing larger between rich and poor, the CEOs getting their golden parachutes, the stock market being turned into a Las Vegas casino. I want to see the middle class maintained so that we don't turn into a third world country with the well-to-do blocked off from the angry poor by electric fences and vicious dogs roaming their grounds. I want to see children grow up with the right to a good education, proper healthcare and a real ability to pursue happiness. Right now, some have it all, and some have none of it.

I'm tired of this country wasting money on a war that didn't have to be fought, and in fact represents the first time this country has actually invaded another sovereign nation without provocation, as far as I know. I am tired of this country being looked down on by the rest of the world for our actions, which do not live up in any way to the founding fathers' ideals.

3) Why do you think voters should vote for Obama/Biden, what differentiates this ticket from McCain/Palin?

Where do I begin? In every way, the two tickets couldn't be more different. John McCain, whom I once respected, has disappointed me deeply by completely going over to the side of the right-wing base in his stances. Suddenly he is right along with them on the racial and class divisiveness that the GOP has been using in the past several elections. I had expected better from him. To have picked Palin is a sign of very poor judgment and I feel she is not only unqualified, but a slap in the face to all women. In addition I am very concerned about her far-right, "Biblical" views about gay rights, abortion, and science.

What I love about Obama is his judgment, his sense of fairness, his philosophy of looking at more than one side of an issue before making his decisions. I think his priorities are right, and he goes about things in a non-divisive way that is a refreshing change. I am not concerned about his "lack of experience." This is a man who reads, who has traveled much in his life, unlike the current president who hadn't been out of North America before being elected president. If there are any pockets of inexperience in Obama's background, he will make it up by choosing good advisers, knowledgeable people who are competent in their fields. Joe Biden is a good example of this type of choice. He is experienced, well-traveled, understands international affairs and never forgot where his roots were. They would be an excellent combination for the next four (and hopefully eight) years.

4) If McCain/Palin wins this election, where do you see our country going in the next four years?

Simply: Down the tubes! I think we would have more economic distress, more wars, more gaps between rich and poor. I don't think I could stand to even live through it. I'd have to go live in the Adirondacks in hiding, holed up in our cabin with enough canned goods and alcohol to get me through the next four years!

5) Economically, where do you think this country is today and how do you think Obama/Biden can make a positive impact?

We are at a crossroads economically. The stock market doesn't work anymore, it has become a roulette wheel. People are losing their life-savings and are afraid to retire. I read that the sale of in-home safes is through the roof - people don't even trust the banks. The government is deeply in debt due to the bailouts and the Iraq war and it won't go away anytime soon. I fear for the future if we don't elect Obama/Biden. They will be able to have the intelligence and knowledge to make the needed reforms that we need. The GOP would just give us more of the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

6) In the past 8-years, how do you think this country has changed under the Bush regime? Have you been affected by these changes? If so, in what ways?

We have lost many freedoms in the past eight years - we have been illegally monitored by government agencies, the president and vice president have gained unprecedented powers, we have gone from having a budget surplus to a huge budget deficit. My retirement fund has lost over 40% of its value and that is probably the biggest effect I've experienced personally.

7) I have read that Palin is considered the new voice of feminism, which is offensive in my opinion. Of equal concern are her views on abortion and the removal of books from libraries. I'd like to know what you think about all of that and how you feel about McCain choosing Palin as a running mate. And what kind of message you think that sends to women?

Palin is the antithesis of everything I believe in. She is "pro-life" at the expense of the lives of the existing women who would be affected if Roe v. Wade were repealed. She is anti-science and anti-knowledge (believes in banning books, believes the earth is only 6000 years old, thinks dinosaurs co-existed with mankind, and is in favor of teaching creationism in schools). And her views on gay rights make McCain look liberal.

She is dangerous in her propensity to attack Obama and liberals in general, riling up her audiences to near-violence. McCain showed extremely poor judgment in choosing her and the message it sends to women is that he believed that just picking a woman VP candidate would get women to vote for him, which is the worst kind of sexism there is. I don't know any women who fell for it, either.

So that's it - I'm not going to tag anyone because I know a very large number of you have already responded to this meme. But if anyone out there hasn't yet been tagged with it, please consider this your tag and go for it!

Three more days till election day. The suspense is killing me.

Be Afraid: "Thought Crime Bill" Passes

I was wandering around in Blogdom and came across an interesting blog called Time Goes By, and found a post about HR 1955, which recently passed the House of Representatives while no one was watching.

This bill, called the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," would establish a commission to:

"(1) Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States, including United States connections to non-United States persons and networks, violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in prison, individual or `lone wolf' violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence, and other faces of the phenomena of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence that the Commission considers important.

`(2) Build upon and bring together the work of other entities and avoid unnecessary duplication, by reviewing the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of--

`(A) the Center of Excellence established or designated under section 899D, and other academic work, as appropriate;

`(B) Federal, State, local, or tribal studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence; and

`(C) foreign government studies of, reviews of, and experiences with violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence."

(quote is from GovTrack website, linked above).

Go check out "Time Goes By" for more information. There are two (at least) really scary things about this bill:

1) First of all, it passed while no one was watching, during the middle of the California wildfires, and I have not been able to find a single link to a mainstream media news source about this bill. Why is no one writing about this? Where is the New York Times? The Washington Post?

2) The second thing is that the vagueness of the wording would mean the commission could define "homegrown terror" any way they want. If this bill passes, it's going to give the administration (or any administration to follow) the right to decide what is terrorism, what is free speech and what isn't.

Ronni of "Time Goes By" explains it well:

"This is the first terrorism-related legislation that specifically targets U.S. citizens and the vagueness of the wording is a dangerous threat to the First Amendment and to each of us in ways that have not been attempted before in the United States. The definitions in the bill hold the frightening keys to the undermining of our most basic liberty - to speak freely: (blue color indicates quote from "Time Goes By.")

'VIOLENT RADICALIZATION - The term ‘violent radicalization' means process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.' (red color indicates quote from the HR 1955 bill).

The difficulties here are that “extremist belief system” means anything the government wants it to mean as does the word “facilitating.”

'HOMEGROWN TERRORISM - The term 'homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.'

Again, this refers not just to violence, but to thought and speech for any undefined “political or social objectives”. In other words, it could mean universal healthcare, equal rights, abortion or anything at all about which you or I might want to make our views known that the government objects to. And, it establishes U.S. citizens as the targets of this legislation.

'IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term ‘ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.'

This repeats legislative intolerance of speech and thought.

If you find this as alarming as I do, write to your representatives and senators to protest this legislation. I was very disappointed to find out that here in New Jersey our representatives all voted for this bill. In fact, only 6 House representatives voted against it.

You can find more information at Ronni's site. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Going to Heck in a Handbasket

We don't know yet whether it's heck or hell; guess we'll find out soon enough - but Mukasey was confirmed by the Senate. Although six Democrats voted to confirm, the majority of them did not, because of his equivocal position on the torture issue.

"Democrats said Mr. Mukasey’s refusal to characterize waterboarding, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, as illegal torture disqualified him from taking over as the nation’s top law enforcement official.

'I am not going to aid and abet the confirmation contortions of this administration,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. “I do not vote to allow torture.'"

The article in the New York Times goes on to say that NONE of the Democratic candidates for President who are currently serving in the Senate cast a vote on this issue. According to the Times, "The four Democrats had said they would not support Mr. Mukasey because of his equivocation during the confirmation hearings over whether waterboarding is torture." So why did they somehow manage to avoid casting the votes? I'd like to hear an explanation.

John McCain, who had denounced waterboarding as torture, did not vote either, although he had said last week that he would support the Mukasey nomination. I guess he didn't have the heart to support it enough to vote for it, however.

Moving on...

The New York Times has an excellent editorial about the Employment Nondiscrimination Act that just passed in the House of Representatives, protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace.

First of all, I'd like to say that the ideal solution would be that NO type of discrimination against any person for any reason should be allowed by our Constitution. That is, or should be, the promise of our country.

Personally I think that promise is in there already; but obviously no one is paying attention to it, and perhaps it isn't specific enough, so an amendment would be needed to enshrine it properly in the Constitution. But given that an Equal Rights Amendment for women has still never been able to pass, it is unlikely that a more all-encompassing amendment would pass either. So the only solution is to ensure these important civil rights by legislation.

Some may ask why we need this law? But according to the Times, "there remain 30 states that have not acted to prevent gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from being denied jobs or promotions simply because of who they are."

Sadly, even the House legislation that passed this week had a group of people removed before passage was ensured: Transgender people. I find this disgraceful, and it is a sad commentary on our elected officials that they can't manage to pass a bill that protects this group as well as gays and lesbians.

However, I always say "The best is the enemy of the good," so, although some gay advocacy groups opposed the final bill because of this omission, I still feel it is important to get this version passed despite this defect. Hopefully, one step at a time, these rights will continue to expand.

It is amazing to me that this country is, at heart, so ignorant and so bigoted, that so many can feel threatened by giving people rights they themselves have without having to even think about them.

Tellingly, only 35 Republicans voted for the House bill. Senator Edward Kennedy is going to introduce the bill in the Senate as the next step.

Naturally, Dubya is threatening to veto the bill. According to the Times editorial, the reasons given are "that it would be too burdensome on businesses and that it would lead to too much litigation" - pitiful excuses for outright bigotry.

Let's hope if he does veto the bill, that the Congress will override the veto. And Bush can go down in history as the Anti-Civil-Rights President.
***

Today's haiku, entitled "Democratic Candidate Lament"

I do hate torture
And can't stand waterboarding
Voting is risky.