Dear Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona,

A funny thing happened on my way to the market...

The Backstory:

I recently posted, on Facebook, an article about a Southern justice of the peace (JOP) who refused to marry interracial couples due to his personal biases. Many of my friends reacted strongly against the behavior and some reposted the article on their own pages, with their own comments. I was glad to see a universal outcry of righteous indignation, but a little confused by some of the responses they got. Not so much because people agreed with the JOP, for the most part they didn't, but because of the muddled idea of race, race relations, multiculturalism and for some reason Obama that came out of them. I was also dismayed to find that advocacy groups are being labeled in negative ways that compromise their legitimacy, which leads to today's lesson. First though, I would like to share one conversation attached to a repost of the article. Note that I have not edited the comments other than to protect identities and clarify a reference. I've only removed comments from non-prinicpals for the sake of brevity. This, verbatim, was in response to the JOP not marrying interracial couples, which I, and most of the world, call racist:

EB: Actually, someone who is racist usually believes their race is superior to another. Not believing in mixing races is not necessarily racist. It would depend on what his reasons are for not believing in mixing races.

October 15 at 9:52pm

EB: Just for the record, I'm not saying I agree with him.

October 15 at 10:05pm

Al Rodriguez "Not mixing races" is stomach-emptyingly racist, EB. I know you don't espouse that drivel. I'm just informing you that "superiority and inferiority" is only a small part of racism.

October 16 at 1:53am

RB: The Council of La Raza is unashamedly racist in the most blatant fashion. Obama endorses, supports and even had one of its members nominated (and ultimately accepted) to the US Supreme Court. So Al, I guess your support of Obama makes you a racist by proxy.

October 16 at 8:22am

Al Rodriguez Dear RB, where do I start?

1. Your 6 degrees of Obama separation is pathetic.

2. What do you know about La Raza except the propaganda you swallowed since the Sotomayor nomination? And don' give me that, "For the race..." crap because that was an org. called Aztlan, which La Raza denounces.

3. Be careful which Latinos you call racist or 2012, when white-people concentration camps are implemented, might be a bad year for you. Frank's got his pass. So does my wife and three members of her family.

Seriously, race is still a sensitive discussion in this country. But it needs to be addressed, as you've so eagerly proved by belly-flopping into a conversation about a Jim Crow throwback (which is illegal, by the by) and our understandings of what racism is.

October 16 at 10:19am

RB: My wife clearly demonstrated that she did not agree with the judge's statement, she was merely pointing out a different aspect of the discussion that is often overlooked. What most people fail to recognize, and are all too eager to jump on the "racist" name-calling bandwagon, is that race and culture are often interchangeable in discussion.

For example, my "culture" does not support wealth redistribution, abortion, homosexuality, child sacrifice, cannibalism, extramarital sex... the list goes on and on. Many cultures support things I would never consider mixing with my culture, especially when it involves marriage.

There are clear differences in cultures, and often times, those cultures are closely related to race. Honestly, I don't care what race anyone is. I abhor the culture of Islam, but one of my heroes is a Christian American of Lebanese Muslim descent. I don't think we should be getting into race debates at all, but culture debates... absolutely!

For the record, I follow current events very closely and I knew about La Raza long before the racist Sotomayor was in the news.

October 16 at 10:43am

Al Rodriguez I think your strong sense of personal identity is awesome, BL [another commentator].

As you can see above, there are major misunderstandings of race, culture, civil rights (and groups protecting them like La Raza) and hate. I never accused EB of anything, but RB feels compelled to explain a muddled and ultimately unfounded position on race and culture, that I hope he is overstating on EB's part.

Unfortunately understanding the issues at stake in the race discussion can't happen in a church, because they are bigger than the Church. It's sad that there are more RBs than BLs who are educated in culture through their churches (and don't forget conservative media) who haven't critically challenged what they've learned and done major soul searching about issues of race. Their definitions are rock solid and unchangeable. Whereas the actual sciences that look at race and culture are constantly changing and getting better, more refined. RB, take two classes, sociology and anthropology and then get back to me.

October 16 at 11:45am

EB: RB chose to bow out of this discussion. Not because he is wrong, but probably because he is not going to argue with someone who is unwilling to hear another side. All my life I heard the saying, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with facts." That seems to be the theme running through this thread. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks because everyone has their own perspective. RB is very knowledgable on this subject, trust me. He just has a different opinion than you. That doesn't make him wrong. I don't think he's wrong. A LOT of people don't think he's wrong. But that doesn't matter to those who have made up their minds. Therefore, I think I can speak for him as well as myself when I say that I am done with this conversation.

Sun at 12:50am

Well, EB and RB are both wrong: I am willing to hear another side; facts enlighten, not confuse; and most importantly, "race" and "culture" are not interchangeable words in this or any discussion. Also, for the record, prior to RB's belly flop, I never mentioned the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) or President Obama. No one did.

The fact that RB would define the NCLR, an advocacy group that has absolutely no history of unashamed racism (though mind you some of its membership and even boards past and present may be racist) is appalling. By RB's definition, any group that provides legal services to minorities, housing assistance to minorities, social services to minorities, etc... is racist. Never mind that the NCLR, in its height of government funding, provided services to anyone who came to them regardless of race OR culture.

Which brings us to the present:

Here is an article that flew under the radar, while I was dealing with the B. family's racist denials. It is about a four member group of U.S. Congress persons who are charging that the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an Islamic-American advocacy group, is attempting to infiltrate Congress and influence major American legislation with the eventual goal of turning the U.S. to Sharia (Islamic) law. FYI, this is exactly the goal of "Third Wave" Christianity, stated as such, and they aren't just stopping at America, but that's a WHOLE other topic.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case with Faux News, we can't always believe what we see at first pass. One might think that the four Congress members are heroes and the CAIR rep. is a smug, crafty conspirator. Fox doesn't say as much, but... c'mon.

Here's what the Fair and Balanced News doesn't tell you:

• The full title of the book is Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America ... an underworld that comprises all of two sitting Congress members, an insignificant number of interns (who'd haven't much influence anyway, and CAIR memo that hopes to, "focus on influencing congressmen responsible for policy that directly impacts the American Muslim community." The devils!

• The book is co-authored by P. David Gaubatz, a former civilian agent, working for the USAF Special Investigations who claimed to have found Saddam's WMD cache, called President Obama a "crack head," writing "a vote for Hussein Obama is a vote for Sharia Law." This unstable individual has proudly touted his report in which he maps every mosque and Islamic school in America. You know... just in case.

• The foreword was written by... Sue Myrick! Yes, one of the Congress members who held the press conference, where they call for the Sergeant at Arms to investigate Muslim Congressional interns has a writing credit in her reference material. She investigated it. She wrote about it. So it must be true.

• The Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. Congress has not received a formal request to investigate neither Jack nor Squat. This, to me, is the saddest part of the deal. I can handle racism and xenophobia, because it’s no different than I’ve already experienced, even though I keep expecting not to see it any more. I can handle unhinged people writing unhinged books that blame all their kampfs on someone else. World history is littered with books that for better or worse change the social and political landscape. Shame on us were we to let this pap affect how we relate to Muslim Americans or choose our Congressional interns. But to make show of a book published by WorldNET Daily... to say the things each Congress member said in that press conference... to align yourself with ignorance and hate and not DO ANYTHING about it... that’s just fear-mongering. That’s just race baiting. That’s just playing to the passions of what you expect to be an equally uninformed and unhinged populace as you.

As far as we’ve come in race relations in this country, we have further yet to go. Some people might read this and think that religion and race aren’t interchangeable terms, like culture and race aren’t interchangeable. And they’re not. I agree with that. But we, culturally, tend to treat them the same and allow our aversions to dictate how we act towards them: race, religion and culture. Our attitudes toward race, religion and culture are shaped without much, if any, information and if either doesn’t fit a pre-described set of norms, we aren’t very nice. We need to stop turning a blind eye to racism and focus on it, removing our behaviors influenced by our biases. We need to vote jackasses like Congressmen Shadegg, Broun, Myrick and Trent Franks the hell out of office and replace them with more forward thinking people who are willing to represent ALL Americans and not just those that looks and think like they do.

The Guano Reports

The Guano Reports are a series of updates to the ever-growing list of people, politicians and other public figures, who are just lucid enough to have a conversation, but definitely live in a world of their own creation.

Michele Bachmann (R-MN)

Michele Bachmann exploded onto the Batshit Watchlist in 2008, despite having opposed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act the previous year. Her opposition was no more than regurgitated conservative talking points and was worth a blip on the radar, but not more than that. In 2008, however, Bachmann jumped to the forefront of the Guano Report and continues to deliver fresh poo to this day. First was her liberal stance on the contentious issue of choice. I’m referring of course to the choice of light bulbs. In 2008, Mrs. Bachmann introduced the Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act which would:

provide for the repeal of the phase out of incandescent light bulbs unless the Comptroller General makes certain specific findings.

Damn straight! Nothing is more American than incandescent bulbs. Why, to lose them would be to lose a part of our culture. After all, wasn’t it an American (Thomas Edison) who invented the light bulb when he drew a portrait of himself having an idea?

While one kooky bill is enough to get your name on the Batshit Watchlist, full fledged Guano Reports require much more evidence. I present the following:



Please see the full interview here where she channels the grim specter of Joseph McCarthy in calling then candidate Barack Obama “anti-American.” She calls on the media to do an exposé on Congress to find out which members are “pro-America and which ones are anti-America.” Here's a hint, any liberal Democrat (or moderate Republican) would be counted as anti-America. WTF?!? How many of them are card carrying members of the Communist Party, Madame Congresswoman? To her credit, it wasn’t Michele Bachmann who said she had a list of secret socialists (that distinction goes to Bachus-and again liberal = socialist = anti-America), but holy crap!

Then there’s this gem:



With a patented politician grin on her face, Bachmann declares that not all cultures or values are equal. First, statements of cultural equivalence, or values equivalence, are absurd because we don’t score or assign merit to them. On some level, however, she has a point. I consider myself, in her terms, a multiculturalist, but I would never celebrate a cultural practice that mutilates an infant's genitalia (female or male). Neither would I celebrate values that are based in fear and radical superstition, like the Taliban or fundamentalist Christianity. But that’s not what she’s talking about. She is specifically answering a question about cultural assimilation. Her answer discusses emigration and requires immediate subordination of incoming cultures to the host. Anything less and the host culture loses its identity, as she describes happens in France. Forget for a moment that such an analysis can’t be found in any sociology textbook, but the very idea of “assimilate... resistance is futile,” is grotesquely xenophobic (on that note please submit any Mark Krikorian droppings for GR review). Not only does she misrepresent the European riots, which were about real civil issues and youths that were killed in what they thought was a police chase, she uses it to take a culture war stab at Islam. Her answer intimates that the Muslim culture is inferior to our superior American culture or to the frog culture in smelly France even. Sorry, Congresswoman, but the great American melting pot is not a smelting bin where we separate all the inferior cultural traits to extract the true American inside everyone. Our goal is to live together as one nation, not to achieve cultural homogeneity.

Bachmann’s body of work is just prolific. This blog can’t even begin to scratch the surface of her insanity, going back to her ads against gay marriage in 2004:



to her recent paranoia over the census where she boasts of breaking the law. But some things just can’t be overlooked. Like her confusion over evolution.



Nope. No controversy. Perhaps over how the mechanisms of evolution worked over time, but not about it’s truth. There are fewer, in fact, scientific thoughts that are as widely accepted as fact than evolution. Sorry, lady. You’re wrong. But Bachmann’s ignorance of science doesn’t stop at evolution. Consider this:



or this:



There is no global warming and carbon dioxide is natural and so not dangerous. Oh...kay.... Well, arsenic is natural. Hemlock is natural. Snake venom is natural. So why don’t you chug some rat poison, chow down on some spotted cowbane and party with some rattlers and see where that gets you.* She chooses, with evolution and global warming, to ignore the scientific consensus and read from her Republican Party approved talking points memo in order to affect policy. But what can you expect from the lady that RNC Michael Steele, "be da man," or who publicly raped George Bush?


That she makes no attempt to gather facts and understand her topics, that she makes no attempt to understand the words she regurgitates for the drivel they are, that she actively promotes her criminal boycott of the Constitutionally mandated Census, that she frequently uses fear, paranoia and lies to bully her constituents and the fringe of her party, the so-called based into submission makes Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN, D6) today’s Guano Report Dump of the Day.


* NOTE: That was sarcasm. Brutal yes, but sarcasm nonetheless. Please don't leave angry comments or threaten to sue me if you're Bachmann legal counsel. I am merely making a point about the dangers of scientific ignorance, which Michele displays in spades.

Firefighter Decision No Surprise so Calm Down

Before any of my conservative friends pop their favorite champagne and celebrate the defeat of notorious reverse racist Sonia Sotomayor at the hands of the Supreme Court, let’s put the Ricci v DeStefano case into perspective. From the time of her nomination, bloggers, media moguls and friends of mine that live in foreign countries have been outraged that the president used “emotion and empathy” as choice criteria and not judicial temperament (cough!). For Republican pundits, rejecting discrimination claims by a margin of 8 to 1 just isn’t impartial enough (choke!). Her nomination is nothing more than identity politics at best , otherwise outright racism (here it comes...). Her name is just... just... UNNATURAL to the English language (bleeeeaaarrrrcch!)! The Ricci case may appear to add credence to the line that Sotomayor is inexperienced or out of touch, but take a closer look and you will see both her experience and her judicial restraint clearly.

First the facts of the case:

In 2003, the New Haven, Connecticut, Fire Department sought to fill captain and lieutenant positions. Because its union contract required promotions to be based upon examinations, the City contracted with Industrial/Organizational Solutions (IOS), Inc. to develop exams given to qualifying applicants. The results of these exams would not have allowed for the promotion of any black firefighters due to their low scores. Further, black applicants’ pass rate on the lieutenant exam was half of the rate for white applicants. The city’s exam review board could not decide whether the tests were racially biased based on a representative of an IOS competitor's testimony that the results showed “adverse impact.” Another witness, an experienced firefighter, testified that the exams were comparable to those he had taken in the past. Officials were concerned that if the test results were certified, then the city could be subject to a disparate treatment suit from minority applicants who did not qualify for promotions. The results were not certified. A group of white firefighters, including one Hispanic, who scored some of the highest results on the exams, filed a Title VII suit against the city and its officials. The district court ruled that the City did not need to certify the results because doing so could subject it to litigation for violating Title VII’s disparate treatment prohibition. On appeal, the Second Circuit, showing judicial restraint, affirmed the district court’s opinion. The unanimous panel, which included Judge Sotomayor, concluded that the city could not be held liable for its failure to certify because it tried to fulfill its obligations under Title VII.

That attempt invited a suit over the selfsame law. New Haven was damned either way. Rather than go into the particulars of the case one by one, and they are complex, let’s look at the judicial history of this case as it relates to Judge Sotomayor. Sotomayor affirmed the decision of the federal district court judge. Her decision was part of a unanimous panel of three judges from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. By a 7-6 majority, the Second Circuit refused to reverse that panel's ruling. Finally, four out of the nine Supreme Court Justices, including the guy she is to replace, agreed with her.

The Supreme Court’s decision is far from surprising. Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito issued the majority opinion in favor of the petitioners; thus, overruling the lower courts’ decision. Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, and Breyer sided with the lower courts. We can put questions about her experience and her judicial temperament to rest. The only reason the right has celebrate Ricci, is that of the minority of federal judges to rule in the petitioners’ favor, five of them had the final say. The right has to be careful celebrating this decision. Do so too loudly and it sounds as if they are celebrating the government favoring a white man’s right not to be discriminated against over a black man’s right not to be discriminated against.

Of her alleged racism, I have already written. Here are, however, some quotes that might lend credibility to those charges of racism:

when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position…

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

Whoops! Wait... that was Samuel Alito three years ago.



Alito then, like Sotomayor in her 2001 speech, was alluding to the human condition of having experience factor into decision-making. He got a pass and no one challenged him for using his “emotions” or being too empathetic. In her speech, Sotomayor pointed out that while her experiences shape who she is, she has to rise above them and consider how her decisions (as the person so shaped) will affect everyday Americans in their everyday lives. This isn’t racism of any kind. It’s the human condition.

The bigger surprise in the Ricci case would have been if Kennedy had upheld the lower courts' decision instead of disregard it. Predictably, that did not happen. The Supreme Court reversing her, and her colleagues', decision has no bearing on her fit on that bench. At a 60% reversal rate, Sotomayor is the Ted Williams of appeals judges. The Supreme Court reverses about 75% of cases it hears and Alito had a reversal rate of 100%. She has the experience and the judicial temperament. Personal attacks on her intellect (second in her class at Princeton) and ethnic identity are base as well as wrong. Her empathy, like that of Sam Alito's, should be seen as an asset, not a detriment. In short, get ready America... you will have a "Hispanic chick-lady" as your next Supreme Court Justice.

Taxes, Spending and the Folk Tale of a Balanced Budget

... or How to fix California, Step Two

Overwhelmingly Californians voted to mandate a balanced budget in 2004. With Proposition 58 we forced the legislature to pass a balanced budget, gave the governor the authority to declare fiscal emergency initiating a special session of the legislature to work on the budget (and only the budget if it takes enough time) and we established a “rainy day” fund to deal with revenue shortfalls to budget spending. The fund was created by another proposition (57) via long term borrowing, previously forbidden by our constitution. Government spending, as it were, was out of hand and we had record deficits for which we had been using high interest, short term loans to cover. If we didn’t close the budget gap, with 57 and 58, we were told we would have to face some unprecedented cuts in education, social and health care services. Again, this was in 2004.

Fast forward to 2009. The governor twice used his authority to declare fiscal emergency in 2008 alone. Spending, which was not capped by Prop. 58, is still out of control as California is facing $24B deficit, having used high interest short term loans to close recent budget gaps. Ready for the ta-da? We are also staring at unprecedented cuts to education, social and health care services to close the budget gap and comply with constitutional requirements of Prop 58. Ta da! Our so-called balanced budget initiative apparently contained some glaring omissions that have left us absolutely, bona fide broke.

The argument always sounds so simple: Why can’t Sacramento live within its means? No more taxes! Why should we borrow to close the budget gap? No more taxes! We can’t let the gays get married because it would be bad for business. NO MORE TAXES!!!

The problem with our attachment to a “balanced budget” per se, is that we have attached ourselves in a short-sighted and very complicated way. In 2004 no one in California even raised the possibility of a deep recession decimating the state’s revenue. Couple that with the fact that a state isn’t a single family home but one gigantic extended family and you have yourself a real problem. Why can’t Sacramento live within its means? Because it has a job to do! It has workers to pay and a populace living in poverty for whom it must care. Legislators and the governor did nothing in the time between 2004 and now to substantially grow revenue or create new streams. So when the proverbial shit hit the proverbial fan, our spending capabilities were literally screwed. They didn’t just add Direct TV and a plasma screen to the monthly bills, they were paying for health care and teachers and emergency services. Now the governor’s proposed cuts to said services are more than a “shared sacrifice.” That’s an understatement. No. The governor’s proposed cuts are a shredding of the social contract between a government and its people. They are a “fuck-you-yer-on-yer-own” to all Californians.

To avoid the borrowing mess, California needs new and better revenue streams. We need to scrap our tax codes (in concert with the tax specific articles in the constitution) and start anew. Prop. 13, the greatest tax revolt in American history, handcuffed the state’s economy shifting the tax burden to income, sales and small business. With property values peaking over 300 times what they were in 1976, even a moderate increase in property taxes would be a tremendous boon to revenue, though I doubt values would have ever grown as much having a property tax system similar to a state like Wisconsin or Oregon.

How to fix this situation:

• Unshackle the legislature. Remove the two-thirds requirement to pass tax updates and budgets. Completely rewrite the tax code to make property taxes more sensible to modern property valuation. Ease the burden on small business, incomes and sales. Make the oil companies (qua big business) pay their share for doing business here.

• Give the gays the marriage. Forbes estimates that if only HALF of the nation’s same sex couples married, as estimated in a 2005 to 2007 census study, it would represent a $9.5B windfall to the national economy. That figure is even based on same-sex couples spending on the average of 34% of what a straight couple spends. Sorry, Michael Steele, no one is buying what you are selling. Gay marriage is GOOD for the economy.

• Legalize it. Take the profits out of the hands of criminals. Create jobs with a cash crop industry that grows readily throughout the state. Tax production and consumption. Create a fine structure for illegal users and allow legal users to remain free consumers adding to the state’s economy.

• Stop the “balanced budget” lip service. A balanced budget would be great. A budget surplus would be better, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The current budgetary process does not lend itself to a balanced budget, however. Legislators have neither the leeway nor experience (with term limits) to consider the long term affects of their work in Sacramento. Giving legislators real tools (like the ability to even PASS a budget or act effectively in times of economic downturns without drastic cuts) and time to gain the proper budgetary expertise would be a step away from the reactionary politics that have dominated California tax initiatives and budget discussions since the mid-1970’s.
  

• Blow up the Initiative Process. I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. The “reactionary politics” mentioned above are the ballot initiatives that got us into this mess in the first place. So far I have mentioned only four: Prop. 13, Prop. 58, Prop. 140 and Prop. 8. These were either uninformed citizens promoting a very narrow agenda or state legislators, with little support from their peers, turning to the uninformed citizens to do their dirty work. In either case a vital legislative methodology was usurped to the overall detriment of California. I’ve read the websites and the blogs about how good each of the above initiatives have been for us, but I remain unconvinced. Their stories seem incomplete to say the least. The fact remains that our budget is still out of whack and if the governor succeeds at destroying the social contract, then we are worse than we were more than thirty years ago.

A balanced budget will require cuts in spending but more than that it will require putting a lid on spending. It also requires new revenues and a backup plan for a tanking economy. We need to revise our short-sighted view of the tax structure so that when we cut, we don't redefine the role of government. If revenues unexpectedly fall, we should allow borrowing to accomplish the goals of our government but look to supplement ailing revenues with new ones and require future surpluses (due to new revenue streams) to pay down debt. Call me an idealist, but hey! this is my blog.

So concludes the two-part series of How to Fix California. There is much more to be done for sure, revising term limits for example. But most of that is addressed in the call for a constitutional convention. I hope readers have visited sites like Repair California, if for no other reason than to get their hackles up that something, SOMETHING needs to be done. I've offered a couple heavily layered steps that fall into two categories, which align somewhat with groups like Repair California: a) repair the constitution and b) repair the tax code. I had planned a third: give the legislature their balls back, but ultimately that thought fit into the previous two so we'll leave it at that.

This Old State or How to Fix California, Step One...

With the state on the verge of fiscal meltdown and our esteemed state representatives too busy pointing fingers at each other and passing the buck to voters to do anything about it, I offer maneuvers that can go a long way to repairing the nation’s Golden State and restore it to its former sheen:

Scrub the State Constitution

Article I of the state’s constitution contains the following statements:

All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

And, of course:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.

Regular readers of this blog already know my stance on marriage equality. Regardless of that stance, the above declarations are examples of contradictions that we the voters are directly responsible for inserting into the state constitution. The solution in this particular case is to remove the marriage clause. Of the two, I would rather my right to liberty and privacy be codified than my requirement to marry a chick instead of a dude.

Our ability to contravene each others’ rights is described in Article II by the initiative process and Article XVIII by the amendment process. I won’t advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water here. The initiative process itself is useful. It gives the people direct access to their government by allowing them to supersede their representation. In the case of corrupted representation, the people’s ability to directly enact laws can be a good thing.

That ability can also be a bad thing. In good faith, a representative can support or oppose legislation on the Assembly floor. By the rules in the state constitution, a minority of voters can put initiatives on the ballot and effectively silence her out of doing her job, or even out of office. Assembly persons represent about 400,000 people. In any given district, conceivably, the rep. can become enmeshed in a power grab that has her more focused on keeping her post and not the business of the state. Her job, to represent the will of the people (not a well organized group of them), is thus compromised.

Another flaw in the initiative process is its relative ease. To amend the constitution by any means requires a ballot measure. How that measure is generated is disparate between the regular legislative process and the voter initiative process. For the legislature to propose an amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both the Assembly and Senate, meaning extensive debate and revision. The voter initiative process, by rule, requires signatures of 8% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election. With enough support, any jack-a-nape (or pastor) can write California law. In 2008, when Prop. 8 was submitted and passed, 694,354 signatures were required, compared to an estimated population of 36,553,215 the previous year. The 8% requirement is one of the lowest of any states and the disparity between signatories and the general population, those who propose the law and those who will live under it, is apparent.

The initiative process needs to be revised. It should be stricter and in the case of constitution amendments more difficult to achieve. Its most substantial modifications to the state constitution, defining marriage and taxation (which we will next visit) need to be thrown out or completely revamped.

In research for this series I have discovered a group that is proposing a constitutional convention to occur as early as next year. One of their top priorities is to reform the initiative and referendum process. I will not go into a great deal about Repair California, as I have yet to fully study who they are and what they want. I neither endorse nor denounce their agenda as yet. I am, however, encouraged that there is someone out there worried about more than just balancing a budget. A balanced budget has become the will o' the wisp of California politics and caused our distracted leaders to propose ridiculous cuts to vital services without seeking new revenue sources to pay for them. On behalf of Repair California, I will say that among their other concerns are: the structure of governance, the legislative and executive branches; campaign finance; term limits; changes to the two-thirds requirement for passing a budget and revenue distribution, particularly between localities and the state. See the website and decide for yourself if you’re on board.

My original goal was to post a bulleted “To Do” list of how to fix California (five easy steps!), but each one is much bigger than I’d anticipated. Therefore, for the second time this month, I will post a series. Next up will be: Taxes, Spending and the Folk Tale of a Balanced Budget.

The Error of Progressive Pushback

Progressives are becoming increasingly polemic in their criticisms of the the Obama administration on the issue of gay rights. While I support their overall goals, those of full inclusion of the LGBT community in marriage, federal benefits, military service, definition in hate crimes legislation et al, I am also critical of their methods and focus. The diatribes against the president are misguided. The fault is being placed at the wrong feet for any actual, permanent solution to these issues of civil rights.

I should refrain from the third person when referring to progressives, as I count myself as one. The progressive agenda is to move the laws of this country forward towards inclusion, rather than preserve some ideological, and ultimately arbitrary, norm. This is why I embraced the change promised by the Obama campaign. Change that included social reforms, like health care and gay rights, and a return to the moral authority of the United States by adhering to the rule of law. The rule of law is by no means arbitrary. It is what gives us standing among the governments of the world. It is not so much an ideal to achieve, but a foundation on which to build. It is on the rule of law that we progressives, in our critique of the president, have been a bit wishy-washy and to which we must realign ourselves.

The concept of checks and balances gives the Executive branch the task of preserving the Constitution and faithfully executing the laws of the United States, among others. In some cases, especially civil rights cases, those two duties come into conflict. The Constitution affords the protections sought by the LGBT community, which the president must abide. It is also a sad fact that the laws of the United States (i.e. DoMA, DADT) have been written to deny these protections to the LGBT community, which the president must abide. The sorting of this conflict is highly politicized: by the right to appeal to its base of religious/social conservatives and by the left to appeal to its base of liberals and civil libertarians. We progressives have focused too much on this divide and we've begun to make similar, outrageous accusations which we accuse the right of making.

We were very critical of the previous administration's use of executive orders. George Bush was out of control when it came to executive orders. He expanded government by executive order, creating the Office of Homeland Security and others. He declared war by executive order, declaring air space above Afghanistan a combat zone and confiscating/vesting certain Iraqi property. He attempted legislation by executive order, convening the President’s Council on Bioethics. Executive order is a prerogative of the president, but George Bush used these orders to circumvent checks and balances, enacting policy with minimal (if any) input of the legislature.

I would like to dispel a few rumors. Firstly, memos issued by the the Department of Justice (DOJ) are not representative of the president's actions or intentions. The DOJ is not the White House, is not the voice of the White House, nor does it execute the will of the president or his advisors. We have had that problem in the past when the DOJ was instructed, allegedly, to come up with justifications for the use of torture. This is beyond the scope of the DOJ authority, being bent to the will of the president or vice president. Their opinions were written to circumvent the rule of law. The DOJ represents the United States in criminal and civil litigation before the Supreme Court. Last week’s memo was the DOJ performing its role within the executive branch of government: to uphold the laws of the United States. The DOJ is not, anymore, in the business of constructing legal cases per terms of the White House. It is independent of the White House and doing its job. The memo lays out procedural opposition but not a compelling argument. There are premises that the Supreme Court can reject outright or that the petitioners can challenge.

Second, the DOJ memo does not liken gay marriage to incest. Here is where we begin to come off the rails, sounding like Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly. We cannot make our case by misrepresenting the arguments of our opponents. The memo cites specific case law wherein the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution cannot be used to force states to contravene their own policies. It uses marriage cases, appropriately, as well as workers compensation. The media, and I detest having to say this, has blown out of proportion correct citations in the memo that show how marriage law in Italy doesn’t apply in Connecticut. Arizona does not have to accept the marriage of first cousins, legal in New Mexico. California businesses do not have to conform to Massachusetts’ compensation laws. While the marriage cases cited are repugnant, they are not cited as equivalent or in the same category as same-sex marriage. The point is argued that “full faith and credit” does not force one state’s policy on another. For my money, this is one of the memo's weaker arguments because it can be wrongly interpreted as equating unchosen lifestyles with learned behavior.

The courts and the DOJ, not the White House, have rejected all petitions of the LGBT community thus far. The Obama White House has made small concessions. For instance, the military must now demonstrate how a member’s sexual orientation is a detriment to his regiment before dismissal and most recently giving some conciliatory benefits to gay and lesbian federal employees. We have criticized him for those concessions as "pandering to a Democratic voting bloc." We are loudly frightened that in the not-quite five months he has been president he has not delivered on a campaign promise. He has promised to repeal DoMA. Unfortunately, that is not his job. As president, he can only enforce the laws of the country. The DOJ can only argue in defense of the laws of the country. If the DOJ were to selectively argue cases or ignore cases based on their social relevance, we would have Bush all over again, if not worse. The justice system would be at the mercy of the social-issue-of-the-day, which could potentially include conservative assistant attorneys general writing memos on abortion. The president has stated, multiple times, that the onus of this issue is on Congress. He is correct.

We do ourselves no good in being angry at Obama and shouting that he’s abandoned the LGBT community. Is it worthwhile to petition the president or withdraw money from Democratic fundraisers? Sure. It will definitely get his attention. He absolutely needs to press Congress more in stepping up to this issue. But so do we. DoMA is a federal law. DADT is a federal law. Only Congress has the authority to change duly enacted federal laws. When the chickens ran the henhouse in the nineties, Clinton compromised on the sweeping social reforms he had proposed. His compromise came in the form of his signature on these socially unjust laws. Obama does not want to make the same mistakes as Clinton or Bush. He does not want to over extend his executive authority, temporarily fixing this or that situation, but impotent to address the overarching problem. Nor does he want to compromise due legislative process. In the scenario where Congress puts forth a bill ending marriage discrimination, service discrimination, and Obama promises to veto said bill(s), then is the time to descend on him with great vengeance and furious anger.

Right now we sound silly. We reduce legal rhetoric into inflammatory sound bites. We plow forward with legal challenges and expect the DOJ to stand aside. We demand the president over step his authority in handing us what we want. We are, in short, disorganized. The court filings are happening too soon, and the grounds on which they are being argued are shaky. We are fighting for piecemeal concessions when the issue extends far beyond marriage and military service.

There is a movement to demonstrate in front of the White House in October. In another time (as in "with an actual income") I probably would have bought a bullhorn and a plane ticket by now. We are right to bring this issue to the front door of the president. But to expect this change to come from his office alone is misguided and wrong.

Support Our Troops... All of Them

It is a sad commentary on the state of our military that when in times of great conflict, and need, the focus of some of its most senseless abuses is its own membership. Such was the case over fifty years ago in the form of Lt. Milo Radulovich, an Air Force reservist. Such is the case today in the form of Lt. Dan Choi, an Army reservist and Arab linguist.

Milo Radulovich was the son of a Serbian immigrant born October 28, 1926. He joined the Army Air Corps in 1944 to become a meteorologist. By 1952 Radulovich had become a weather officer in the Air Force, in Dexter Michigan. Since moving to America, John Radulovich, Milo’s father, subscribed to newspapers from his homeland reportedly to keep up with events there. One of those newspapers was associated with a periodical called the American Slav Congress which had been labeled Communist by the American government. In 1952 Lt. Radulovich was discharged from the Air Force for consorting with known communist sympathizers. In other words, the lieutenant’s continued relationship with his father made him a security risk, as a weather man, to the U.S. homeland. Lt. Radulovich was granted a hearing where Air Force attorneys produced a manila envelope purportedly containing damaging evidence against him. Neither Radulovich, nor his lawyers, nor anyone present or deciding the outcome of the hearing ever saw the contents of that envelope.

In October 1953 Radulovich’s lawyers successfully put his story on the front page of the Detroit News. This caught the attention of Edward R. Murrow, who that week ran it as a feature on his weekly CBS show See It Now. In November 1953 the U.S. Secretary of the Air Force, reversed the decision declaring Radulovich a security risk. He was cleared of all charges and reinstated. For Radulovich, justice prevailed only after a bitter, uneven battle by the military. It used questionable tactics, if not outright lies during that battle against a man who only swore allegiance to his flag and was willing to put his life on the line for the country he loved. Lt. Radulovich’s own allegiance was never questioned.

On March 19, 2009 a National Guard lieutenant went on national television to say the following:

I am an infantry platoon leader in the New York Army National Guard, and by saying three words to you today—I am gay—those three words are a violation of Title 10 of the U.S. Code.

Like over twelve thousand of his fellow soldiers since 1993, Dan Choi was discharged from his service because he:

... admitted publicly that [he is] a homosexual, which constitutes homosexual conduct. [His] actions negatively affected the good order and discipline of the Army National Guard.

The greatest comfort we can give to our enemies is to fight ourselves in times of turmoil. In each of these situations the military deferred to the law to make its case against its own members. While the methods of application are deplorable, the manila envelope for Lt. Radulovich and coming out as “homosexual behavior” for Lt. Choi, the application of the law cannot be disputed. Air Force regulation 35-62 stated:

A man may be regarded as a security risk if he has close and continuing associations with communists or people believed to have communist sympathies.

U.S. Code 10 Section 654b (2) states:

A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made... That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect

Only the hysteria of the era could have found that a man whose father subscribed to foreign newspapers, and had no question to his own loyalty, could be a security risk. Only puritanical hysteria could find that a man is unfit for duty not by the fact of his homosexuality, but by the knowledge of it. Twelve thousand plus have lost the privilege* to fight for their country based solely on that knowledge. From bumpers stickers to keychains, lawn signs to the pages of Facebook we see the slogan everywhere, “Support Our Troops.” Only in the back of our minds do we qualify, "... but only the straight ones."

Within a month of Ed Murrow’s piece the military took action to reverse the wrongs it did to Lt. Radulovich. In the darkest moments of the Cold War a cabal of brazen journalists, of which Mr. Murrow admitted he was a late entrant, stepped up to a junior senator and said, “Enough!” Thus far the military, the Supreme Court and the president who promised to end DADT have failed to support Lt. Choi. H.R. 1283 amends Title 10 of U.S. Code, repealing DADT and replacing with a policy of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation. It is now in committee for review. Two-thirds of the government have turned a blind eye to Lt. Choi and others. I’m not here to debate whether their reasons were just, but to get the other third to do the right thing.

*U.S.C. 10 also declares that military service is not a Constitutional right

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (pt. 3)

I could never be a decent journalist. I cannot keep deadlines, even my own. Please click here, if you would like to read part one of this series. Click HERE for part two.

Tomorrow: Bigotry and Fear is Always the Same

There is a line from Mrs. Lovejoy (The Simpsons) that comes to mind whenever I hear the rhetoric about what we may teach in schools or what sinister books we may expose our children to should marriage equality come to pass. In her frightened, shaky voice and with clenched fists at her mouth, she shrieks, “Won’t somebody please think of the children?!” I’ve previously argued that any concerns over the children, with regards to marriage equality, are unfounded and based mostly on parents’ unwillingness or inability to have frank, honest, even painful discussions with them. I stand by that, but I also concede that parents may be trying their best to do what’s right for their kids. Unfortunately, Daddy doesn’t always know best. Sometimes, Daddy puts his trust in people who don’t really have his best interests at heart, or if they do they are woefully mistaken as to what those interests may be. On Sunday I saw a t-shirt with the handwritten slogan, “I support my pasters [sic],” which begs the question: in the face of what? Some had a ready answer, as the 49 year old RevFest attendee who weighed his vote between his daughter who is lesbian and asked him to vote no and his pastor. He voted yes and said he would again. In the end he, “had to go with [his] pastor.”

It is astounding, truly astounding to witness the obduracy with which folks cling to their religion. It’s as if changing their minds on this one thing will bring the Church crashing to the ground. I asked the priest-man if it was at all possible that the six or seven Bible verses that talk about homosexual behaviors are talking about explicit acts that are meant to degrade another person and not an immutable lifestyle. Paul, as it were, invented a word that literally translates, “abusers of men,” and only has “gay” implications because we’ve decided as much. I got a look that instantly told me I had uttered the single stupidest remark in the history of language. “No, you’re talking about ‘translation’ and translation is never precise.” So what gives your translation authority over mine, as there are errors in any translation? “God gives us righteous men to help us understand what He means.” Call me kooky, but I think you just disproved your own point.

“Obdurate clinging” is specific to religion and not spirituality. There are many people of faith, and I am incredibly lucky to know some, who understand better (I think) the message of love that Jesus brought. Hardly one of these Christians would consider themselves “religious,” in that they subscribe to and adhere to a narrowly defined dogma. Many of these people support marriage equality and represent our only link to a constructive conversation with the more religious folk.

The great misconception about bigotry is that is fueled by hate. I imagine that a great deal of it may be, but for the most part it is ignorance. For the obdurate clingers it is an inability or unwillingness to critically challenge their beliefs. They fail to understand that challenging their beliefs is not so much a matter of discarding them, but refining them into a structure that fits reality. No one is an authority on “reality,” so even pastors who may have their best intentions in mind are susceptible to getting it wrong. On the subjects of sexuality and marriage, some pastors, like Franklin, do have it wrong. They’ve failed to account for newer, better understandings of sexual development. They’ve failed to understand world cultures and history on what defines marriage. Most of all, they’ve failed to understand the principles that founded this country and the case law that supports those principles.

Fear drives bigotry. Fear of what is different. Fear of what they don’t understand. Fear that they themselves or their progeny might be susceptible to the very urges they revile. Fear causes them to wrap themselves in the comfort of their dogma and reject new information. Yoda said it best. “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

I sincerely hope that at least one reader who opposes marriage equality reads this and engages the conversation. I may be wrong, but if so, tell me how. Let’s explore the roots of your obdurate clinging. I cannot change your mind. I don’t want to change your mind. I only want you to think and beyond that feel. Somewhere between 5% and 10% of Californians are second-class citizens and we, the electorate are to blame. The least we can do is try to look back without prejudice and see if we did the right thing. I submit that when we do, enough of us will have a change of heart to embrace progress and fix what we broke.

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (pt. 2)

Click here to read Part One of this series before continuing with today's post:

Today (Still Standing in the Middle for Marriage)

Taking my seat on the lawn my hackles were already up as the Christian music, dripping with patriotism, blared from the PA system. The stage was plain with just a podium backdropped by ten American flags. Lee Greenwood belted about how much he loved this land while a twenty-something man warbled along with him. The event started with the familiar rituals: the national anthem, the pledge of allegiance. The audience, Pastor Franklin, everyone stood smug in self satisfaction. I couldn’t take it any more. I had to cross the street.
About thirty protesters stood in what was supposed to be a quiet display of love for ALL marriages. As the speakers from the podium pontificated about the American way and self governance, I noticed a priest-collared gentleman assailing a young gay man with Bible verses. Poor kid. So I walked over, engaged the conversation and slowly dragged it away from main group. It seems this gentleman, whose essay against marriage equality I have in my back pocket, had been harassing these folks for some time. I was glad to take my lumps from this guy and his crony who kept rapping my shoulder to punctuate his arguments. Three Fresno PD on bicycles inched closer to us as we removed ourselves from the crowd, but nothing was going to happen.
The protesters mobilized. A small group of them secured an open space across the street and began chanting. When ex-Mayor Autry got to the podium they shouted, “Shame on you! Shame on you!” My conversation was spinning into wild tangents and I really wanted to be with them, but the priest-man had already said that he would to get his bullhorn so he could shout back at them. I couldn’t let him do that. So I asked him and his sidekick a question. “Do you believe in the Second Amendment?” A resounding yes. “If the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow and the government sent agents to the homes of gun owners, to collect their guns... what would be the reaction?” Blank. I would expect that there would be more than one scary stand off across the the country. Gun owners would not easily let go of what they perceive as their fundamental rights. That's what happens when you oppress. People get angry and they get loud.
The speeches ended and the opposing crowds herded themselves to opposing curbs. I have to admit a little nervousness as the two factions faced off like the start of a Middle Earth battle. A kid with a bullhorn shouted, “Bigot! Bigot! How does it feel to be a bigot, Bigot?!” In response, a forty-something man with his daughter on his shoulders shouted back that the kid was in fact the bigot and said to the man next to him (which happened to be me), “I’m ready to go to jail right now to shut this fucking kid up.” With his daughter on his shoulders. Meanwhile a motorcycle gang brought their hawgs to the pitch between the factions and revved their engines, drowning out the bullhorn and looking menacingly at our side of the street. This was met with uproarious applause and the man with the kid on his shoulders said, “Yeah! Yeah! What now, faggot?” With his daughter on his shoulders.

I noted that the police had yet to mobilize so, a little sickened, I decided to walk to another part of the crowd. I joined a prayer circle asking, “Do you have room for an atheist here?” They said yes and I grabbed hands with a young gay man on my right and a lesbian, about my age, on my left. We sang the protest songs that were sung in Alabama in the sixties. I, for one, believe them. We will overcome some day. We’ll win Fresno town, someday. The motorcycle gang found it in their hearts to accompany us with their loud engines, but I don’t think many people heard us after that. We were ushered onto the sidewalk as the police now wanted to re-open the street. More engine revving and more cheers from the orc army across the street.

It was then that I noticed Bill. Bill is a gentleman from Bakersfield who was a staunch supporter of Prop. 8. He had come to Fresno on Tuesday (judgment day) because he wanted to understand what the "fuss was about," his words. As we talked, then, I told him that my goal could never be to change his mind. That’s a job he has to do himself. Rather, all I can do is help him mitigate his fears and recognize the propaganda against marriage equality for what it is. To his credit, Bill was very receptive and said he would return Saturday and also Sunday. Bill was as good as his word and though I didn’t see him Saturday, it was nice to catch him standing between three people getting schooled on Sunday. Actually they were quite kind, but something happened I didn’t expect that again gave me a very personal sense of this issue.

A lady who I barely know was part of the discussion. Her husband, with whom she has children, is serving in the military overseas. During the conversation she began to shake and was getting agitated, but not really angry. I don’t know if she planned this, but all of the sudden she came out to Bill and me. She said that she was not a heterosexual, but she’d been railroaded into this marriage twenty years ago because of everything that she had learned in her church. That her feelings for women would pass. That it was the Devil tempting her. That if she kept it up she would go to Hell. Today she is so enmeshed, has so much invested, with her marriage that she couldn’t conceive of a way out of it. My knees buckled hearing her speak. It was too much for Bill to take. At the end of it she made the greatest outreach ever. She asked, nearly begged, for Bill to engage in a thought experiment. She asked him to imagine having to raise his grandchildren, for whatever reason, and doing everything he can to ensure they have strong morals and are good people. Then imagine that they one day come to him and say, “Papa, I am gay and I am in love with this person and I want to spend my life with him.” What would you do, Bill? What would any of us do? I wrote down the name of a movie, For the Bible Tells Me So, for Bill and asked him to email me when he's seen it. I reminded him that he admitted to me that he didn't know any gay people and that his perceptions of this issue come from his morals, via the church. It's an abstract. And admittedly in the abstract, it is easy to be uncomfortable and closed. But when the reality comes home and it sits in front of you, your own flesh and blood, it takes a hard hearted person to stay closed minded.

The opposition is aware, that this fight is not over. They are preparing for their next move and the next one after that. We have not yet decided when to put our own ballot initiative into effect, or whether to support a Supreme Court filing. We have some organiztion to do. But our resolve is strong.

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow (pt. 1)

This has been an eventful weekend for me. Even now (at 3:30 am) as I am putting the finishing touches on two of this week's posts, I am defending myself against the charge of intolerance. I am intolerant, it seems, because I suggested that Randall Terry, of Operation Rescue, may be implicitly pro-murder because he explicitly did not condemn it. I am at a loss to understand my intolerance (prejudice? maybe, but intolerance? - see me on Facebook for details). I would like it explained to me some time.

But that is a WHOLLY different topic. This weekend was about reaction to the CA Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8. I attended three rallies since the decision, culminating in Sunday's tense affair at City Hall. This post is the first in a three part series entitled YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW: BIGOTRY AND FEAR IS ALWAYS THE SAME. Yesterday, Saturday, was an uplifting experience, motivating me to act more and speak more. Today, Sunday, was about intimidation and fear, but still motivated me to act and speak more. Tomorrow (all tomorrows, I suppose) will be reflections of the two days:

Yesterday (Meet in the Middle for Equality)

Dmitri had no idea what was happening. I bribed him to come with me to the Meet in the Middle rally on the promise of a fast food run. He was down with that. On the way I explained what it was all about in the simplest terms possible. I gave him examples of famous people with whom he is familiar (thanks, Portia and Ellen) and family members to illustrate the personal nature of this fight. I wanted him to think about how he would feel if someone he knew and loved were trod upon by popular vote, which I think is the single biggest obstacle to Prop. 8 supporters. Dmitri is eight. It didn’t escape my attention that this fight could be on his behalf as easily as not. I don’t have a lot of information about Dmitri’s sexual preference, and frankly it only matters in the context that if he would be gay he would have to struggle for inclusion under the current set of societal rules. I cannot condone that. I would not want my son to fight for acceptance. I would want him to enjoy every right, or privilege, that I enjoy. What I do know about Dmitri is that he gets along well with girls, he’s insistent that his clothes match and he loves to dance. Take that for whatever it’s worth.

The atmosphere was jovial. There was music blaring, tents for t-shirts, buttons and whatnot. There was a children’s tent where they had toys for the little ones, some coloring activities and face painting. We didn’t get our faces painted because just then the marchers arrived. The march route went from Selma to Fresno’s City Hall, fifteen miles overall. They were hot. They were hoarse. But they were still loud, “Gay/Straight, Black/White, marriage is a civil right!” We were asked what we wanted, “Equal rights!” Asked when we wanted them. “Now!” The speakers were activists and celebrities, or both. Eric McCormack made some funnies as the expense of intolerance. He said, “You’re behaving like the mean older brother who says, ‘you can play with my toys, but NOT MY TRUCK! you’ll break it.’”

Though there were other celebrities, I was most impressed to see Lt. Dan Choi. Dan Choi is a gifted Arab-speaking linguist who came out on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC. He was subsequently fired by the military. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has silenced a generation of America’s best and brightest servicemen and servicewomen. It has made them prisoners of their sexuality and compromised the safety of this country by reinforcing arbitrary strictures against otherwise good soldiers. I was encouraged by another speaker to be “more vocal and more active,” as a straight ally to this cause. Also, the granddaughter of Cesar Chavez reminded us of his words, “You can’t champion equality for your own people when you tolerate discrimination against any other group of people because of who they are.” For me, it was activist Robin Tyler’s words that resonated the most. “No civil rights movement has ever lost in the history of the United States. Ever.”

I had never heard Cleve Jones speak before, and unfortunately I was in the comfort of my own home watching a live feed when he did. He had me in tears when held up Harvey Milk’s bullhorn reminding us all of what is possible. The message was clear: We have been stripped of our civil rights. We have been relegated to second and third class citizens. We want our rights back, NOW.

To that end, I am a straight ally. And I will fight too.

Racism and Conservative Hypocrisy

DISCLAIMER: Racism is the domain of every culture, creed, society or group. In no way does the author claim that racism is proprietary to conservatives or conservative ideology. They’re just better at it.

You would think I’d be mad as hell, by now. But whatever part of a person that makes him culturally over-sensitive is pretty much dead in me. I grew up with jokes that started, “A white guy, a black guy and a Mexican guy...” where inevitably the Mexican guy was somehow made the fool. Meh. My own grandmother sagely advised me as I would run outside to play, “Don’t play with the negros!” Of course being within earshot of the negros, I had more than one fracas as a kid. As themes of Equality and Civil Rights have been on my mind this week, I find it hard to ignore the ongoing saga of Supreme Court candidate, Sonia Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor is the first person of Latin heritage to be nominated for SCOTUS, which in itself breeds controversy. As far as I know, any opposition to her nomination from the people that matter (the Senate) has been very low key. Republican Senator Cornyn, for example, says his constitutional responsibility is to advise and consent. That is good politics. Bad politics, on the other hand, is playing itself out in the hypocrisy and racism of conservative media-led fearmongering.

Conservatives haven’t found solid footing to attack the notion that a Supreme Court justice should have empathy. They tried, but ended up sounding quite heartless. Instead, pundits, including former Congressmen Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo, have focused their attentions on one sentence she uttered eight years ago at a conference promoting the Latino/Latina presence in the judiciary. On page 5 of the speech she said:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Couple that with her affiliation to that radical brown power group (that's sarcasm, BTW) La Raza and you have an obvious racist.



She and Obama are the worst examples of “reverse racism” in the history of man.



Out of context, that might seem a terrible thing to say. Forget that she doesn’t say a Latina does reach a better conclusion... which would, of course, actually be a racist thing to say. But this is one sentence of a five page speech wherein she challenges the future Latino lawyers to work on their “experiences and attitudes... to make [them] capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”

Take the time to read the speech. Not now obviously. You have have to finish this blog and comment before the killer bees arrive. But it is good and I would be interested in an honest critique. I won’t be so naive as to say the comment wasn’t racist in any sense. As a jobless Latino I might be inclined to say, “Hey, tell them pinche gringos!” But I won't. However, reactions to it seem Super-Racist in nature. These conservative pundits are displaying their own racism in their accusations. It’s like going to a Lakers game and hearing Kobe Bryant say, “Gimme the rock!” Well! He’s obviously a CRACKHEAD who can’t get enough of “the rock,” right, Mr. Limbaugh? Mr. Gingrich? Mr. Tancredo? Tancredo is right, however. We can only look at her words to know her as a person. Kinda like this:



And by this we know that Tom Tancredo is a xenophobe who has no sociological understanding of cultural assimilation, but rather demands idiomatic and behavioral conformity of all first generation immigrants. Cult of Multi-culturalism? Racist! Racist! I see a racist!

To choose one sentence (or four minutes...) of a speech by which you make a judgment of a person's character tells the world that you already have an idea about her that you want to promote. You’ve prejudged her, as it were. If you’re going to stand on a soapbox, Tom, and defame a person as racist, please make sure your Confederate Flag belt buckle isn’t showing.

And then there’s this guy: Republican Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia. Deal is also the Republican candidate for Governor in that state. On the same day that Judge Sotomayor was nominated for the SCOTUS, Mr. Deal said that it is time to end “birthright citizenship,” as established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. You see the game is, if you’re an illegal, you have a baby in the U.S. who can grow up and sponsor you to come to the U.S. later on in life! Isn’t that something? So the answer, obviously, to the problem of illegal immigration is to make immigration more difficult. It makes total freaking sense! That way we don’t have to provide services to these “anchor babies,” when we can just boot ‘em out. Life’s easy when you’re a xenophobe, isn’t it? My favorite part of the argument is when they say that the 14th Amendment was written to ensure freed slaves’ citizenship. Granted. It was never, however, intended to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants. Thanks, fellas, for interpreting the Constitution for me. Can we now talk about how the 2nd Amendment wasn’t intended to allow citizens to buy automatic weapons?

Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? No. Not from that statement anyway. My grandma is something of a racist, but she doesn't look cross-eyed at my white wife, so we can deal with it. Plus she's not a federal judge. Racism is a serious accusation, one that Limbaugh, Tancredo and Gingrich have exemplified now and in the past. At the very least they have proven themselves to be xenophobic nincompoops. Let's leave the advice and consent to those level-headed folks that matter in this debate. And if any of them decide to take up the "Sotomayor's a racist" mantle, I'll be on those pinche gueros cabrones como una mosca en mierda!