Al Can Blog

Ode to Jamey

2011-09-21T01:09:00.000-07:00

I read two articles today, back to back, that gave me hope that we are moving in a progressive direction, then crushed my sense that humanity, as a whole, is even capable of empathy.

The first was about an Army Officer who came out today commemorating the end of the don't ask, don't tell policy. The 26 year veteran, Lt. Colonel says the biggest relief is that he will no longer have to deflect when asked questions as simple as, "What did you do this weekend?" It will, as he says, "take some getting used to." The eighteen year policy that codified the marginalizing of gays in the military, as of 12:01 today is history. We will look back on the policy and the general rule which preceded it and ask ourselves, what were we thinking? As the president said upon signing the repeal of DADT, "We are not a nation that says, 'don't ask, don't tell,' we are a nation that says, 'out of many, one.'" We have taken a stand on our national identity, our moral identity, and we are on the right side of history. The side that arcs toward Justice. Amen, hallelujah, and pass the biscuits.

Then, perusing Facebook, I found an article from Buffalonews.com. But before I get into that, please allow me to introduce to you, Jamey:

I didn't know Jamey. Were it not for the terrible tragedy that occurred on Sunday, I never would have read his name or shed a tear, grappling to understand his plight. Jamey was a gay teen, bullied from the fifth grade for being different, even before he could grasp the full complexity of his difference from other boys. I know nothing more about Jamey's emotional state than what was described in the article, troubled. I know nothing about Jamey's mental state. I know nothing about Jamey's relationships with others. Experience tells me that those who are closest tend to lionize the departed, but reading his mother's words and his friends' it seems like Jamey was really a nice person.

Bullying is so stupid. It's juvenile and petty, but its effects can be devastating, especially to a heart that is already troubled, already struggling with internal battles for identity. Jamey was fourteen when he apparently took his own life.

What factor the bullying was in Jamey's decision, we will never know. The fact is, it didn't help hm. He had his demons and the bullying fed those demons, or it was the worst of them, or it was one small fish in an ocean of pain. What is certain is that pain could have been avoided with empathy, compassion. Jamey would have had fewer demons to fight, or allies to help him. Allies to guide him towards acceptance and understanding. I grieve for the boy in a way as though he was my closest relative. Here's hoping his family finds some comfort. RIP, Jamey.

My letter to the school

2011-04-05T23:30:00.000-07:00

Dear Principal _____________,

I was concerned to learn that my son was handed a copy of the New Testament of the Christian Bible after school today. He was given this while exiting the gate and lining up to board the school bus to come home. To this end the gentleman, who I believe was representative of Gideon's International based on the copy my child was given, may not have broken any law, but I do have concerns about his actions.

I find the tactics of the Gideon unsavory, to say the least. While the Gideon was not on school grounds he was blocking the students' access to the buses, so they had no choice to ignore him before boarding. My son reported that the man put the orange book into his hand before he could ask what it was, then refused to take it back when he didn't want it. Further, I have taught my children, as many parents have, not to receive gifts from strangers. The content or intent of that gift notwithstanding, for a Gideon to aggressively hand my child something without my permission, teaches my child to ignore parental guidance and favor the guidance of a stranger who has best intentions in mind. Finally, I am certain there are safety rules that ensure students are not distracted while boarding the bus, that their school materials are put away so they may use their hands to assist them and prevent an accident. If a Gideon is making his way through the students, be it on a city sidewalk, that directly conflicts with safety rules.

For purposes of safety and to prevent the proselytizing of a captive audience, I hope that the Gideon is not acting with your permission. As such I am asking that you contact Gideons International and ask them not to distribute bibles at Rio Vista, citing school safety regulations. Should the Gideons protest I would like for you to contact the city regarding the sidewalk in front of the school where the buses pick up and drop of students, work with the Gideons to establish an acceptable area on public property that does not interfere with school operations, like boarding a bus. Also that you establish with them firm guidelines for students who do not wish to receive their wares. Lastly, on the off chance that the Gideons are acting with your permission I ask that you rescind that permission, in writing, immediately. If you choose not to rescind that permission, I would ask that you research religious organizations that distribute free literature from at least three other non-Christian sects and invite them to pass out their religious texts to bus riders who can't refuse them, providing equal time for all sects.

I am well supportive of the religious and speech rights the Gideons exercise; however, from the sound of it their expression may be infringing on the students' rights, which we can both agree is unacceptable. I look to you as the administrator of our school to enforce safety rules and protect the rights of the children under your care. I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you as to how we will proceed.

Best Regards,

Al Rodriguez

HER-story: The Story So Far

2011-03-09T02:05:00.001-08:00

March, 2011 is Women's History Month. The theme this year, Our History is Our Strength, looks back to the accomplishments of women in the past. It celebrates achievements and reclaims accomplishments that have been ignored, disdained or denied. Learn about the tenacity, courage and creativity of women throughout the ages to find strength, to find role models for everyone.

I have a complicated relationship with national anything months. I agree with their goals, in general. I am a willing and happy participant. Many ... History Months are an admission of guilt, however. We, as a culture have overlooked major contributions by members of a suspect class either through sheer ignorance or outright malice. Though I can't claim to be a participant in the whitewashing of history (no pun intended), I share that collective guilt which I'm not certain is a proper motivation for highlighting and celebrating accomplishments. Further, these celebrations often conceal the fact that though we take steps toward equality, progress is difficult to measure and often backward momentum is overlooked.

So while we rightly study the struggles of women in history qua Women in History, it is also worthwhile to look at the current state of affairs. With that goal in mind I submit the following information about the state of gender equality in the US:

For equivalent work women average $0.80 to a man's $1.00
Both houses of Congress are represented by 17% women
There are 89 countries with a higher percentage of women legislators (US rank: 72)
Rwanda has 56% women in their lower house alone
Countries where we claim to be nation building, Iraq and Afghanistan, have more women representatives
Countries where we have identified human rights concerns, Cuba and China, have more women representatives
Less than 5% of Fortune 500 companies are run or owned by women
7% of top grossing Hollywood films are directed by women
10% of Hollywood films are written by women

Ask yourself, do the accomplishments of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Nancy Pelosi, monumental as they are, really show that much progress against such a yardstick? The fact that they stand out so much indicates that we may not be making the strides toward equality with which we credit ourselves. This concern is amplified when we turn our attention to the regress we've seen lately:

The 2010 midterm election saw the first drop in women legislators since 1979
HR 3, if passed would not only reinforce existing policy on abortion funding, but redefine "rape" so as to further restrict access to legal abortions
HR 217, if passed would prohibit Title X funds from being granted to any organization that pays directly or otherwise funds providers that perform abortion services. Planned Parenthood, which already segregates goverment funding from their abortion services (less than 2% of their operations) would receive ZERO DOLLARS to cover contraceptives, pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling, and basic infertility counseling
HR 358, if passed, would prevent funds from the Affordable Care Act from covering any health plan that provides abortion services

Worse, (only because legislation meant to restrict access to women's health services but would functionally increase unsafe, unsanitary abortions stands little to no chance of passing) we give equal attention, equal praise, to the likes of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin as the aforementioned Clinton and Pelosi. Let me be clear, Palin and Bachmann are dunderheads who lack the basic knowledge in reading, math, geography, history, poli sci, and law required for the leadership roles they have/had.

So as we celebrate generations of accomplishment and progress, let's do so with awareness. Progress is slow and it is up to us to make it go faster. If we want our daughters to be as successful as our sons we need to fix wage disparities. We need to remove from office any representative who thinks he/she knows better about personal health decisions. And for the love of all things we must not--MUST NOT be guilted into thinking the Palins and the Bachmanns are role models. Anyone who quits the job with which the people of her state trusted her, for a reality show, is no role model.

... fiscal conservative

2011-02-22T14:17:00.001-08:00

A trendy description for folks who are heartless, but don't want to seem like a complete jerk, is to say, "I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative." I'm here to say that in terms of economic policy, there is no difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' except who will suckle at the government teat.

In the first place, terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal' are classically political, referring to the divide between those who support the despot and those who wanted to engage in self-rule. That isn't to say that the terms cannot apply to fiscal ideology, but the practical application of these terms points to a false divide. It is also to say that as an economic policy, the classical definition of 'liberal' IS conservative by nature. It is concerned with free markets that are tolerant of regulation and private property in the means of production.

What has become interchangeable with 'liberal' is more akin to socialism. But no honest, so-called conservative truly believes his ideological foe to be a socialist. That is because mostly we, the ideological foes of the so-called conservative, are not socialists. The ideological contrast is far more subtle than that, as we shall soon see. Further, there is far more agreement between conservatives and liberals than one might think.

A major plank of the conservative platform is a balanced budget. But this is voiced in terms that imply that liberals are unconcerned with balancing the budget. But consider that the last 'liberal' administration actually balanced the budget, and more, created a budget surplus which would have considerably reduced the national debt, another conservative plank. Contrast these actions with the mythological Perseus of conservatism, Ronald Reagan, who not only ballooned the deficit/debt, but also grew the size of government exponentially.

We could go point by point debunking false distinctions between apparently opposing ideologies, but that would take some time. Let's then look at the one area that defines what is meant when we label ourselves (or each other) 'liberal' or 'conservative.' The question is simple: When the government writes its checks, who is the payee?

A conservative would have you believe that it's the poor. They are lazy and good for nothing and suck resources dry. We need to chuck out the illegals, drug test welfare recipients and for God's sake stop these public employees from receiving their gold-plated Mercedes that good-for-nothing unions negotiated for all those years ago. That is the path to fiscal health.

But they never say anything about closing revenue gaps, like by tax increases. They never say anything about reducing labor arbitrage, like by denying tax incentives to companies that send jobs overseas. They do, however tout tax cuts that clearly benefit the wealthy and say they don't need to be paid for. they will support deregulation of industries that will boost profits, while eviscerating vital protections of resources, human, natural and otherwise. All of this is free money, taxpayer money, that is vacuumed from the pockets of the common folk and put into a trough for the likes of Kochs and Goldman Sachs executives. When bailout money (read tax money) was being shoveled into the pockets of the men who were directly responsible for the Great Recession conservatives shook their fists and stamped their feet over efforts to recoup that money on behalf of the taxpayers. Now those same conservatives are shaking their fists and stamping their feet over taxpayer money being used... wait for it... to pay teachers and correctional officers!

To be fair, anyone protesting in Wisconsin right now will tell you that their fight isn't over money. It's about the right to bargain collectively with the state. The same right, the same fight, in the same state where the 40 hour work week and the concept of overtime were practically born. But I digress.

The point is that the only true ideological difference between the conservative so-called, and the liberal so-called, is who is the beneficiary of taxpayer funding. For my part I would rather my tax dollars go to people who actually need it, AND in whose hands the economy has a chance to actually grow. Would I prefer a better way of weeding out the freeloaders that any subsistence program would entail? Sure. But freeloaders are a far cry from my tax dollars going to benefit millionaires who will employ me only so long as they can't get a better return from someone else, some where else.

of Defending the Indefensible

2011-01-09T11:45:00.000-08:00

Jack Shafer doesn't get it.

Not surprising from someone who is as hardnosed a Libertarian as he claims to be, but still upsetting that he would turn such a tragedy into an opportunity to show off just how much he loves his freedom.

Shafer starts by declaring any call for civility an attempt at censorship. By his own broad standards, Shafer's criticism of Sheriff Dupnik is itself censorship. Can't a sheriff who actually sees the violence have an opinion, Mr. Shafer? He then goes on to say that vitriolic speech doesn't cause violence. Cause? perhaps not, but certainly gives comfort to to unbalanced and provides a reason, something that they can say made them do it.

He also seems to assume that being angry at the government entails hate speech and violent rhetoric. This is odd, as between the years 2000 and 2008, I can recall only ever being angry at the government and never drawing a target on a map, saying, "don't retreat, reload," or encouraging, "second amendment solutions." Anger and rage do not go hand in hand, but anger can certainly feed rage and the angry words we use can provide the fuel an enraged person needs to act in ways he only dreams about.

Mr. Shafer says he'd, "wager that in the last 30 years there have been more acts physical violence in the stands at Philadelphia Eagles home games than in American politics." For a moment let's ignore his glib comparison of a drunken fight to murder and highlight that his time frame is bookended by assassination attempts on politicians and at least one bombing of a federal building. He says that targets have been political graphics his whole life, but doesn't offer much in the way of example. I, for one, don't recall this level of vitriol in national politics in my generation. The previous generation, however, did have some terrible examples of inflamed political rhetoric. It also had the assassinations of a Civil Rights leader, a senator and a president.

In my experience, vitriol flows from vessels that have nothing more than that in their reserves. Anger is one thing, but violence is what fills the void between anger and solutions. To defend the violent speech and vitriolic rhetoric as Mr. Shafer does is a commitment to ignorance and violent action. To be clear, NO ONE is calling for inflamed rhetoric to be censored. That would be un-American. However to ask people with no real solutions to tone down their noise is at its worst aesthetically appropriate. Further, it gives the unbalanced people no excuse for their actions.

of Crime and Punishment

2011-01-07T16:52:00.000-08:00

"Do you think the sentence is fair?"

"Are you satisfied with the outcome?"

"Do you feel justice has been served?"

These are the genius questions local media, in their penetrating thoroughness, have asked me since the sentencing of Pop's killers. The questions are senseless. They have no meaning. A frustrating example of how little the media attempts to understand the victims and are looking for their sound bites. They wanted me to say how angry I was or how the DA chickened out. But the truth is, anger has no utility and the assistant DA worked his ass off. He thought he still had a case even to the day the deal was made. His boss, however, saw differently and I happened to agree.

Fairness is not a concept that can be applied in this matter. There is nothing our family can receive that would compensate our loss. What then is fair for the defendants? They killed someone, so should they lose their lives? I hardly think they would find that fair. Neither would it comfort us. So fairness is off the table.

Of satisfaction there can be none. The perpetrators were as young as fifteen at the time of the crime. To put a child in prison for life is not satisfaction. The charges against the accused are brought by the people, not the victims, so the law isn't designed to satisfy the victim of a violent crime.

That leaves us with justice. What justice is now comes down to a number, the years spent in prison. For losing Pop, there is no appreciable number. No number can satisfy the pain with which my family still struggles. The number, as it turns out is 11, each. Eleven years, mandatory serving a minimum of 85% of that time with good behavior. To view that number as a function of the value of my dad's life is to approach the sentence wrongly. First, it is the maximum that can be given for the charge of voluntary manslaughter. The media says the defendants, "avoided murder charges," but in actuality they admitted to acting stupidly and viciously and quite unintentionally took a man's life. That appears to have been the case. And in that sense they have gotten what they deserved.

I am not satisfied with the sentences nor do I think them fair, but only for the reasons I've so far discussed. I have called the sentence a gift. Eleven years may not seem like a long time in prison for having killed someone, but it is plenty of time to turn around their lives. The tragedy, the true injustice, would be for them to leave prison older, yet no wiser. To go home and continue their aimless lives, without goals or rules. To drink themselves out of sense and good judgment and one day act stupidly again, destroying another family. Eleven years gives them the time to get an education, find God, write a novel....

One reporter remarked at how I could be so generous. It isn't generosity so much as hope that wishes this ordeal to be a life changing experience for them. The cynical me is aware that the odds say they won't come out any different. But why should I be led by the cynical me? I do not forgive them, but I can't remain angry and vindictive. It is exhausting to wish ill on someone and a bad example to set for one's own children.

My goal throughout this whole ordeal has been to represent my family with grace and understanding. To be grateful for the hard work of the detectives and attorneys who worked to resolve this matter. I am grateful for it. I have been more than impressed with the professionalism and tact that most of them have displayed. At the sentencing, however, two attorneys attempted a maneuver that I found tactless. They asked the judge to amend the ruling in a way that minimizes their clients' participation. It was a maneuver so devoid of empathy that another attorney later contacted me to say that he too was disappointed in their behavior.

The outcry of righteous anger is appreciated. It is, however, the natural result of two deficiencies: information about the particulars of this case and an understanding of terms like 'malice' and 'malice aforethought,' which taken at face value can seem straightforward, but are malleable enough in the hands of a jury. The case was filed under penal code 187, but would never have gone to trial as such. Being present at the preliminary hearings showed me just how difficult the witnesses, what few they were and what little they saw (or said they saw) was going to be. It was enough to convince me that a jury could monumentally undo the ADA's hard work. Instead of five people sitting in prison, some of them may have gone home to their normal lives before summer. That would have been unacceptable.

The Case for Maryjane

2010-10-29T00:23:00.000-07:00

On November 2, Californians have an opportunity to challenge the 73 year old federal prohibition on marijuana. Proposition 19 is a ballot initiative that will allow California residents, over the age of 21, to cultivate and consume marijuana. It makes specific provisions for personal transport (up to one ounce) and personal growing (up to 25 sq. ft.) as well as allows municipalities to create tax policy and licensure rules for commercial cultivation and consumption. While the Department of Justice has promised to continue enforcing existing drug laws, while state and local officials echo the federal support of the ban, and while Mexican officials are unconvinced of its effect on drug cartel violence, Prop 19 must be passed if California and the nation are ever to progress towards a sensible drug policy.

It is a straw man to argue that legalizing marijuana will not reduce cartel violence in Mexico and along its border with California. Of course it wouldn’t, at least not in any significant way. According to the law’s authors, violence and illegal activities surrounding growth and distribution are due to its legal status. Establishing regulated sales outlets would, it is reasoned, put the street dealers out of business. While there is credence to this logic, the fact is putting the bad guy out of business is neither necessary nor sufficient to passing Prop. 19. Certainly patrons would much prefer to engage in the legal purchase of legal substances. On the other hand there are still illicit transactions regarding prescription drugs, cigarettes and alcohol. Laws are broken regardless of the level of control of the substance because not everyone who uses a drug has permission to do so .

In essence, reducing crime is not the principal argument in favor of legalizing marijuana. By which I mean that illegal activities and violence along the Mexican border (or in Mexico) may or may not go away. What will go down is the number of people made criminals by engaging in otherwise innocuous behavior. To attack consumers of the product with the same fervor as those who cultivate and distribute it is, and always has been, misguided. A college senior who is experimenting for the first time is very different from a hardened cartel criminal. As Prop. 19 stipulates that international marijuana trade remains illegal, millions of dollars spent on consumption enforcement can be at least transferred to trafficking enforcement, at best saved altogether.

Some crime will be reduced, by definition, while violent crime and illegal trafficking may or may not budge. That is the honesty pill we supporters must swallow. The honesty pill that opponents must swallow is that legalizing marijuana may not effect consumption rates as dramatically as they’ve let on, or at all. Marijuana is the most used drug in the U.S. By percentage of population, it is used more in America than in Holland where it is legal and where studies have shown that even modest changes from strict prohibition have no effect on consumption rates. Strict laws do not entail strict obedience. The net effect of the Prohibition Era was that purveyors of illegal alcohol became millionaires; millionaires who paid no taxes on their illegal earnings. Why would anyone pay $3 for a glass of whiskey (at a time when a glass cost twenty cents)? Because no one else around had any whiskey to sell him. And dammit if he was going to give it up! A further result of Prohibition was a terrible decline in quality and safety of the illegal whiskey. Once imported, from Canada say, whiskey was thinned and cut with chemicals to stretch profits, $10,000 worth of Canadian whiskey would be stretched and marked up to $60,000 or much, much more. The same is true, the markup anyway, with marijuana. One kilogram is worth about $80 wholesale, the street value is upwards of $7,000. What legal, regulated good or service can boast an 8,650% retail markup? None, and neither would marijuana once the illicit factor is removed. While pricing itself may or may not go down, we can be assured that at least some of the marijuana revenue will benefit California and not just criminals.

The compelling reasons to legalize marijuana come down to these considerations. First, decriminalization of behavior that is consistent with, yet statistically less harmful and far and away less addictive than alcohol consumption. Second, it takes dollars out of the hands of criminals, if not forcing them into legitimate enterprise or at the very least providing them with legitimate competition. Finally, two words: tax; revenue. In a state as cash strapped as California, we cannot afford to sneer at any potential revenue source when it is nearly impossible to create new tax revenue. All opposition to Prop 19 has been rooted in moralistic, dystopian conjecture; the kind carted out every time the conservative status quo is challenged. It has been funded by special interest. What possible gain can the U.S. Chamber of Commerce expect from continued prohibition? Politicians are trying to protect their jobs. Prohibition of marijuana has not worked. There is no clear path to make prohibition work.

California needs to end the prohibition of recreational marijuana use and lead the country toward a sensible drug policy. Step one is Prop. 19. Next is a review of municipal licensing and tax revenues, leading to further policies to enhance revenues or protect entrepreneurs. No doubt the federal government would focus its attention on medical dispensaries and recreational clubs or weed bars, as the feds are likely not going to waste their resources on a guy growing a couple plants in his back yard. Then the real challenge begins. California must refine it drug policies to provide protections from the government. Other states will begin to pass similar laws. Court cases will be brought against Prop. 19, but cases will also be brought against existing federal laws at the same time. That is the process in this country. That is how we go from moralistic, unreasonable prohibition to a drug policy that makes sense.

What "Dr." Laura Did

2010-08-15T10:04:00.000-07:00

As my Facebook friends know, I was... less than pleased to hear the following comments made by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her radio show:

Even more disconcerting, however, was her "apology" in which she made no attempt to walk back her blatant racism. I hope that I don't have to use scare quotes any more in this post, but I digress. Schlessinger apologized for saying an offensive word eleven times during an on air phone call. To be totally fair, it was the word itself that drew much of the criticism. But the focus on the N-word from the caller, the media and Schlessinger herself drew away from what to me seemed much, much more offensive.

Without going into the etymology and societal mores surrounding the history and use of the word 'nigger,' we can agree that it was at least insensitive, if not wrong for Schlessinger to use it eleven times during her conversation with an African American caller. The apology was justified, at the very least for her crassness but also because she did not offer any solutions to a person asking for her help. That said, she was right in the sense that she wasn't calling anyone a nigger, rather she was making a dubious point about who can and who can't use this particular word.

Hers was a tired, hackneyed complaint about moral equivalence. If a white person can't say, 'nigger,' why is it that a black person can? The answer has more to do with the nature of language and conversational convention than rights and equality. There is context and intention, understanding and uptake and so many factors that have absolutely nothing at all to do with racial worth. But as I've said before her focus, and the media's focus, on this word is at most ignorance.

At 3:48 Schlessinger says, "Don't take things out of context. Don't NAACP me." And that was the real beginning of her racist rant. About the only piece of advice she has for the caller is to not marry outside her race if she can't have a sense of humor. She goes on to say:

I really thought that once we had a black president, the attempt to demonize whites hating blacks would stop. But it seems to have grown, and I don't get it. Yes, I do. It's all about power.

Here Schlessinger is correct. It is all about power. It is about her disdain for African Americans declaring power over a derogatory word. The world makes better sense for her when only White people say 'nigger' pejoratively. There is something out of whack when a comedian uses it with humor or friends use it amicably. It's about the Grand Concession of electing a black president. With Obama in the White House racism, or at least sensitivity to racism, is over, right?

Schlessinger's entire attitude is one that embraces the marginalization of African Americans. Because she doesn't specifically hate or express superiority doesn't absolve her from her bigotry. She wholeheartedly accepts that Whites are "us" and Blacks are "them" and We Whites are put upon because Them Blacks are so dang sensitive. Them Blacks are always taking things out of context. Them Blacks are the real racists nowadays. No, no and no. Race relations is very much a hot button issue still in America. We should still be talking about our racist history and legacy. That conversation, however, has to be rooted in wisdom with the goals of healing and harmony. Schlessinger, with her marginalizing commentary, does not deserve to be the one to lead this conversation. She has a lot more to learn from it than contribute to it.

Faux Tolerance

2010-08-14T02:59:00.000-07:00

Following a discussion on Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against Prop. 8, I found a pastor who describes herself as "tolerant," saying she does not believe ALL gays are going to hell, however:

Marriage by a pastor is completely different [from marriage by a judge] and should be taken much more seriously then [sic] it is by people of God. Marriage is a covenant and you can't understand marriage if you don't truly know the meaning of covenant. Marriage by a pastor is a lifelong, unbreakable contract between 3 entities. A man, a woman, and God. [sic] So if the government is telling me I have to perform a marriage for people who don't understand this, then YES I am against that.

Only one paragraph after averring a position of tolerance (at least one or two gays might make it into Heaven) we have one of the most intolerant declarations possible, and ultimately my biggest criticism of modern American Christianity. Reading between the lines we see that 1) only marriage before God is lifelong and can be taken seriously and 2) the only marriage God will bless is one between a man and a woman, as done by a pastor.

As to matter one, we know that even marriage declared before God is no more lifelong than baby teeth. If books like Eat, Pray Love can be any kind of indicator, any marriage can only last as long as interest. Boredom, it would seem, is cause enough to leave behind the person to whom you've pledged your life and go on epic journeys of narcissism. But that's another story.

As to the second matter, having been amongst the ranks of militant evangelists, I fully understand the idea that my concept of what God will and won't do is the only correct one. I imagine telling the author that the Unitarian church in my town is led by a lesbian who would gladly perform ceremonies for same sex couples. Unfortunately, I already know the conclusion of that line of reasoning and I am aware that I cannot change her ideas on the matter. That is up to her conscience.

In that regard I'll allow that the author at least thinks she is tolerant, though clearly she is not. But it wasn't tolerant evangelicals who lobbied so vocally against same sex marriage. It wasn't tolerant evangelicals who screamed about how awful marriage equality was for children. And it certainly wasn't tolerant evangelicals who convinced her that she would be forced to perform same sex marriage ceremonies. That simply cannot be the case in this country. So by the author's utter complacence and willingness to be proselytized against a fundamental right of two loving adults, she is completely and utterly intolerant. I have said before that apathy is the worst enemy of equality because when people are on the wrong side of progress, they're just plain wrong. Apathy is much harder to combat because there is no passion to stir. It seems now that I have to update that statement. Lip service, or "faux tolerance," embraces ignorance and entails discrimination. Faux tolerance is far worse than apathy.

Yes We Can!

2010-08-05T18:53:00.000-07:00

It has been an outstanding couple of days for progressives. Yesterday the Senate passed a jobs bill that will help over 250,000 public sector employees. That is teachers, firefighters, police officers etc. etc. will not be laid off due to budget cuts. The fact that this bill is deficit neutral, being paid for with budget cuts and corporate tax increases (closed loopholes?) did not sway Republican deficit hawks. Only Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine had the balls to stand for the American middle class. Now Nancy Pelosi has called an emergency session of the House in order to get this legislation on the President's desk by the end of next week.

Yesterday U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker decided that California's Proposition 8, the CA constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He also found that the law violated the LGBT community's right to due process. In his incredibly well written decision, Judge Walker considers any potential benefit such a law would provide the state to justify a civil transgression against gays and lesbians. He found none. The 138 page decision reflected everything fellow advocates of marriage equality have said over the last several years.

Today the full Senate voted 63 to 37 on the confirmation of Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the 112th member of the Supreme Court of the Unites States. Kagan becomes the fourth woman to be nominated and confirmed as an Associate Justice (that's just a tad under 4% for those keeping track) and there are now the most women ever seated at the same time on the SCOTUS bench... THREE! (also three Jews)

Finally, challenges to the proposed site of the Cordoba House, a Muslim cultural center and mosque were unanimously rejected. Vehement arguments from detractors were met with the calm resolve of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and an interfaith coalition of religious leaders. The Imam argued that the greatest way to fight extremism is to prove that they do not represent the majority. The freedom to build a church of any faith wherever the faithful want it was what was attacked on 9/11. Every American knows the pain that was caused that day, but to succumb to the noise the mosque opponents made would be a victory for the extremists.

Let me be 100%, unequivocally crystal clear...

2010-08-03T19:39:00.000-07:00

... George Bush will raise your taxes in January 2011.

"... It's idiotic."

This despite claims from nearly all Republican leadership and the half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Palin went so far as to call Obama's plan to raise taxes 'idiotic.' Frankly, it's a lie. Republicans have forgotten their own recent history and thus, have no clue (really just choose to ignore) WHY the Bush tax cuts are set to expire in the first place. So now, a history lesson:

In 2001 and again in 2003 George Bush directed Congress to create legislation that would reduce taxes to all tax brackets, including a $300 tax refund for individuals, $600 for families. His reasoning? The budget surplus he inherited from his predecessor was due to government charging you, Joe Taxpayer, too much money. The problem was that even the Republican controlled Congress could see this was a bad idea. The immediate impact was to go from a $200 million surplus (swelling to $800B by 2009) into a $1.2 TRILLION deficit. Facing a Democratic filibuster on both occasions Dubya urged Congress to use Budget Reconciliation to pass the tax cuts. Budget Reconciliation is a set of rules by which legislation can defeat filibuster by a simple majority. Congress was able to pass the tax cuts, handshakes all around. HOWEVER, one of the rules for using Budget Reconciliation is that if the legislation increases the deficit it cannot do so interminably, but for a maximum of ten years. The thought was that so many jobs would be created and so much growth would occur that any future administration would have no choice but to make the cuts permanent.OR the thought was that by the end of ten years, should the Democrats be in charge (as they are) the tax cuts would be a great political chip for the Republican party. Either way history proved Bush and the Republicans wrong.

The fact remains that from the outset there was a horizon on the Bush tax cuts. The horizon was there because the tax cuts were BAD NEWS for the budget. Extending them will not magically make them good news. In fact, we stand to go another $2.3 trillion in the hole in the next ten years alone. If we are truly concerned about the deficit, then in no way should we support extending the Bush tax cuts. Therefore, upon expiration, George Bush will have raised taxes two years after leaving office.

Glenn Beck: One Bad Investment

2010-07-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

Click on this picture for a great graphic narrative of the Goldline investment scheme. Essentially, investors who are trying to hedge against inflation are "advised to" (read "coerced into") purchase incredibly marked up gold coins. In buying the coins Glenn reportedly buys, you have already lost 64% of your investment and gold will need to triple in value before you can break even. But this is supposed to be good for you as, according to Beck, the government will soon confiscate all your gold thanks to a 1933 executive order, EXCEPT antique coins.

Of course, it is not illegal to sell assets and stupidly marked up prices. Further, "investors" who are caught by this sham really are responsible for their own foolishness. Stupid is as stupid does.

Happy prospecting!

Infographic by The Big Picture

Racism and Conservative Hypocrisy Pt. II

2010-07-20T21:59:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying that Andrew Breitbart is an awful, awful person. For those who don't know, Breitbart posted "video proof" of the racism within the NAACP. His edited, out of context video was played ad nauseum by Fox News, with scathing commentary by blond, blue eyed newsbots and the usual gang of idiots. By the time the day was over, Shirley Sherrod was out of a job. This was done in response to the NAACP passing of a resolution which challenged the Tea Party movement to repudiate (the proper usage of an actual English word) the ramapant racism within its ranks. This was mistakenly viewed as a resolution that the Tea Party was itself a racist organization, a laughable notion as very little about the Tea Party can be considered organized. Then the floodgates opened and the sad saga of Ms. Sherrod, whose full speech I am listening to as I write this post, was thus inevitable.

Of course the proper answer to a charge of racism is to accuse the accuser of being a worse racist. This, anyway, is the response of the conservative echo chamber and it regrettably works very, very well. The two minutes on Breitbart's website is part of a personal anecdote wherein the speaker, Ms. Sherrod, learns that her own biases, created by early experiences with White people that were resoundingly negative, caused her to act wrongly and that her objective was not to protect those of her own race, but those who are drowning in poverty.

The story, which occupies the better part of the first 21:30 of the speech, is a beautiful one of personal discovery that happened twenty-four years ago when Ms. Sherrod worked for a nonprofit organization and not the federal government. It is a shining example of how conversations about race relations and racism ought to be framed. Ms. Sherrod immediately goes on to say, "There is no difference between us. The only difference is that folks with money want to stay in power." When conservative media converge to create these kinds of monstrosities they call news, it only proves that there is a palpable need to come together and hear these stories and have these conversations. If we are called to repudiate racism and our response is a failed attempt at satire that only highlights how racist we are, something is still very wrong. I applaud the Spooners for being so quick to come to Ms. Sherrod's defense, calling her a lifelong friend who personally saved them from bankruptcy.

The boldest move that could now be made, the only way to show that we will not be bullied by racist hypocrites, is for the USDA to offer Shirley Sherrod her job back. It should be hers to keep or leave at her own discretion and not forced to resign in order to save face. The USDA, the Obama administration owes her that much.

Waving the Bloody Deficit

2010-07-15T13:53:00.000-07:00

It is refreshing, to say the least, to hear how upfront and honest Republican leadership has been about their economic policy. That isn't to say that they weren't always very obviously the party of 'no taxes, small government, free enterprise,' but that refrain hides a much larger statement. There is another side to that coin that only now are Republicans truly owning. They do this with the expectation of massive victories in the House and Senate in the November midterms, which makes it all the more surprising. There is no real need to expose their hole cards, as the far-right base already understands the caveat to lowering taxes for the rich. But before trying to figure out exactly at whom this end-run is aimed, let's hear it first from one horse's mouth:

And there it is! As I have previously put it, the position advocated by Kyl (and Gregg and Boehner and many, many others) is 'reduce the deficit at all costs, unless those costs impact the rich, then fuck the deficit.' The pretense of protecting the Bush tax cuts for the middle class (read 'poor'), which were minimal at best, is negated by the fact that Kyl and his crew fought tooth and nail AGAINST the Obama tax cuts for the middle class. To say that tax cuts shouldn't require funding is also bunk. according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

This chart shows how various economic policies will impact the deficit over the next ten years. That big orange swath growing as time passes is... you guessed it. The Bush tax cuts! (okay, and wars) By contrast, there is a deficit bubble in 2010 that flattens out to a thin strip of pale blue. That is recovery measures and stimulus enacted by the current administration.

Supply side economics is a massive fail. Read Paul Krugman's brief post on the sheer lack of evidence that "supply side roolz!" History proves that intervention on the demand side is what spurs true growth, as opposed to a significant drop followed by nominal growth. That is, put money into the hands of consumers. The consumers will spend the money and business will grow based on consumer demand. That is why every dollar spent on unemployment benefits returns $1.63, while every dollar in tax cuts returns $1.02. Obviously reducing taxes can and does make a difference, but the recipient of those tax breaks makes a big difference.

The deficit hawks want the last say in government intervention in this slumping economy. But these deficit hawks have forgotten exactly how a deficit is achieved in the first place: Step 1, a government collects revenue in the form of taxes. Step 2, that governments spends more than the tax revenue collected. Want to cut spending? Sure, great, have at it. But how can you say that decreasing the government's tax revenue does not affect the deficit, when you are unwilling to offset those tax breaks? Republicans have planted their stakes in opposition to spending, even while a majority of the country supports spending measures, such as extending unemployment benefits, that actually stimulate the economy.

The net effect, which is as likely the cause, is the far right positioning of the Republican party, out of the mainstream let alone Main Street. They are aiming their propaganda at what they consider to be the middle, the undecided, and they've decided that said voters are core conservatives. It is a mistake, I hope the voters of this country prove wrong in November.' Conservative/Liberal,' isn't an ideological name tag most of us wear on a day to day basis. It's bad policy to be against government intervention, when it is clearly required. Intervention on behalf of the people (not the corporations) is the primary role of government. To vow repeal of healthcare reform, financial reform(both of which act as deficit reducers) and to extend tax cuts to the rich that will have the opposite effect of reducing the deficit turns that responsibility upside down. I really hope voters remember this and spare themselves a lot of heartache in the fall.

Health Care: A (Very Simplified) Fairy Tale

2010-03-26T09:48:00.000-07:00

One day...

The Democrats told the American people, "We want to make your health care affordable." And they all cheered with their rally cry, "Yes we can!" But the Republicans said, "Hell no, you can't! You will pass the cost off to our children and that's un-American." So the Democrats sent their ideas to the wizards of the Congressional Budget Office. The wizards used their time honored magic and saw that reforming health care would reduce the deficit and our children would be in better financial shape, not worse. The Democrats shouted, "Yes we can!"

So the Democrats wrote a bill and said to the American people, "We want to make your health care affordable." And they all cheered with their rally cry, "Yes we can!" But the Republicans said, "Hell no, you can't! This is a government take over of health care. That's socialism and socialism is un-American." So the Democrats removed the public option and put in a mystical Republican idea called 'individual mandate' that preserves the health insurance industry as a profit-driven enterprise, regulated though it may be. And the Democrats said, "You see? You can be for individual liberty, capitalism, AND for affordable health insurance. They are not incompatible, unless you have an agenda," the Democrats shouted, "Yes we can!"

The Democrats wanted to vote on their new bill. So they told the American people, "We want to make your health care more affordable." And they all cheered with their rally cry, "Yes we can!" But the Republicans said, "Hell no, you can't! We will use procedural blocks and exploit the handful of Democrats who are on our side and wave bloody fetuses to tell the American people that this bill will cause federally funded abortions and federally funded abortions are un-American." The Democrats worked deep into the night, but found deeply hidden paths around the procedural blocks and made unprecedented parliamentary maneuvers to escape them. Then Bart Stupak's heart grew three sizes and even he realized that existing federal law, called the Hyde Amendment, already prevents federally funded abortions except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. So Bart Stupak spoke to the American people, saying, "We want to make your health care affordable." And some asshole called him a babykiller.

The Democrats had the votes and narrowly had the votes on the reconciliation. They made health care more affordable, but the Republicans still said, "Hell no, you can't! We will continue to tell the American people that what you did was wrong and they will vote us into power in the midterm elections. Once we have the power, we will REPEAL your new law making health care affordable for every American." But the Democrats said, "Oh really? You want to make health care UN-affordable again. Wouldn't that be UN-American?" So the Republicans said, "Well, what we meant was... repeal and replace!" The Democrats replied, "Replace with what?" and the Republicans said, "er... ...um ..." And the Democrats said, "Thought so."

The moral of the story is, don't let the Republicans fool you. They have no plan to make health care affordable. They could care less about your insurance costs. They didn't participate in the crafting of a sound bill in the first place and have no business trying to remove the protections of the American consumer now in place. Health care is a right of every American and as a right government has a responsibility to protect the American people from exploitation at the hands of profiteers. Cost should never be an issue when we are talking about lives. We still may not have health care for all Americans, but we've taken a huge step in that direction. Will we ever have a single payer system or at least a robust public option that restores the insurance industry to a not for profit, consumer-driven state? I'd like to hope some people will keep working on it and keep the rally cry in the backs their minds. Yes we can!

Dear Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona,

2009-10-20T10:43:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-08T01:40:00.000-07:00

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

2009-07-01T01:14:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-29T20:36:00.000-07:00

... 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...

2009-06-22T16:28:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-18T00:46:00.000-07:00

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

2009-06-11T01:30:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-06-03T23:39:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-06-01T03:43:00.000-07:00

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)

2009-06-01T03:19:00.001-07:00

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

2009-05-28T20:47:00.000-07:00

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!

Civil Rights v. Self Governance

2009-05-27T09:55:00.000-07:00

This is America, where the people have the right to govern themselves, right?

Skip to ahead to 1:06 for the crux of Pastor Franklin's argument, which is:

If they were to overturn this it would be a very scary day for California. What the court’s going to decide here is not the validity of same-sex marriage. They’re deciding on the validity of the people’s rights to govern themselves...

I was attending a Fresno rally in protest of the decision to uphold Prop. 8 when I was asked if I could tell the difference between civil rights and upholding a person's constitutional rights to vote and speak [freely]. To which I reply, yes. But we’ll get to that in a moment.

At this point, I think it is worthwhile to congratulate those in opposition to marriage equality (and by extension full inclusion of the gay community) for successfully changing the subject, yet again. As much as I’d love to rake him over the coals in a public debate, I agree with Pastor Franklin that self governance is an American ideal that must always be upheld. But he has committed a very subtle sleight of hand that I want to make sure passes no one’s attention.

Through the history of this country there are examples of legislation and judicial interpretation that at one time or another has codified the oppression of a minority group. For the most part we, the people, have been successful at removing those laws and using the courts to uphold high standards of equality. Prop. 8 was an unprecedented constitutional amendment that restricted rights for some people. In creating its narrow definition of the term “marriage” it specifically targets an outsider (minority) group and prevents them access to that definition. We, the majority, of heterosexuals now have the exclusive right to marry a person of our choosing. We are a constitutionally privileged class.

My direct answer to the question of civil rights and self governance should expose Pastor Franklin’s sleight of hand. Civil rights describes the need to make laws so that a minority group can enjoy freedoms from which they are currently excluded. Self governance (including a person’s right to vote and speak freely) describes The People’s right to create laws. Hopefully those laws will make this country a better place to live. With Prop. 8, The People have made a law that excludes a minority group from a freedom the majority enjoys, thus making said minorities' American lives harder for them. I am at my wit's end to see how Prop. 8 makes life better for the majority group.

Pastor Franklin’s lie (let’s call the duck a duck) is that self governance gives us the authority to choose “who” gets access to “what” civil rights. It gives us the right to oppress minority groups, so long as the majority agrees. This is a perversion of self governance that is a clear and present threat to civil liberty. The very notion that we have to sacrifice self governance to civil rights is absurd.

At the rally I spoke to a man named Bill, who admitted he was against gay marriage. He was there because he wanted to understand why people are so vociferous about it. When I explained that a simple majority should not be able to restrict civil rights he asked how many votes are enough. I didn’t really answer him then so I will now: No amount of votes is enough to oppress a minority group. Civil rights and self governance should never come into conflict. Rather, self governance is the tool which we use to secure and insure civil rights. California has used that tool for its opposite purpose, namely to restrict the civil rights of a minority class. This directly violates our American ideal that all men are created equal and are endowed with the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

The Constitution declares that the majoritarian chorus may not alone dictate the conditions of social life.

-Justice William Brennan

Activist Judges Legislate from the Bench... again

2009-05-26T14:10:00.000-07:00

California is, again, on the wrong side of history and humanity. Today marks the CA Supreme Court’s ruling on the divisive Proposition 8 (P8), which amended the state Constitution, defining marriage between one man and one woman. With a 6-1 decision, conservatives can claim victory in the ongoing battle for marriage equality and civil rights. The irony of this victory is that has come on the backs of the very same people so derided as “activists” because those people did not give conservatives what they wanted in 2008.

As I read the opinion, it quickly begins to bleed absurdity. On page 7 it suggests that P8 does not impinge on the substantive rights of same-sex couples, those of equal protection, due process and privacy. The effect of P8 is limited to carving out a narrow designation of the term “marriage.” The court recognizes the significance of that designation to the petitioners but the amendment was passed by voters befitting the initiative process (defined in Article 2 Section 8 of the CA Constitution); therefore, it is compelled to uphold the amendment.

In short, the court has said the following: 1) the passing of P8 conformed to the standards of the CA Constitution, 2) the court is bound to decide based on the document which now includes the language of P8, and 3) the amendment only serves to qualify a narrow definition of “marriage” and cannot impinge on the “governmental plan or framework” established by the Constitution, those of equal protection, privacy, et al. Same-sex couples are equal to “married” couples by the state Constitution, but they are not the same. In it’s decision the CA Supreme Court has thus defined same-sex unions as separate but equal.

The opinion goes on to hide behind the initiative process, pointing out that other states limit the initiative power. It does not nullify those same-sex marriages that have already occurred nor does it give any real handling of same-sex marriages from other states, i.e. full faith and credit. The decision, in my humble opinion, is pandering and cowardly. It follows the logic of segregation laws in the 1920s and any miscegenation law that was struck down by Loving v. Virginia. It passes on the dual opportunities to join the social progress of states that have recently recognized same-sex marriage and provide the federal government with further incentive to repeal DoMA, end military segregation and promote Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

When the Marriage Cases opinion was published in 2008, the decision that briefly legalized same-sex marriage, conservative critics called the CA Supreme Court “activist judges (specifically the four)” who “legislate from the bench.” I defended them then, not because I was in favor of their ruling, but because they were simply doing their jobs. I hope the irony of my title isn’t lost. I still think the judges were doing their jobs. They referred to the highest document they could in the case of Strauss v. Horton, but I do think they got it wrong. They are not “activists.” They simply erred to the detriment of equality, which I believe will soon enough be rectified. They pandered to the obfuscation that P8 is about the right of people to govern themselves and not an denial of civil rights. I have never been a fan of the initiative process but I will participate in it to repeal P8, especially now that opinions seem to be shifting towards progress. I still find it very sad that civil rights can be subject to a majority vote, but I can only hope that this time “We, the people” is a more inclusive club.

Top Ten Benefits of Texas Secession

2009-05-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry is a Backpedaling Prat

On the issue of secession, Texas governor Rick Perry is backpedaling prat. Here’s the evidence. You're right, Governor Perry, it was your critics who, “recast [your] defense of federalism and fiscal discipline into advocacy for secession from the Union.” Except for this:

Translation: We’ll keep taking federal money, but if they keep telling us how to spend it, we’re outta here!

Rick Perry has since asked for federal oppression in the form Tamiflu, for H1N1 preparedness, but that is neither here nor there. I, for one, wouldn’t mind if these idle threats, these misreadings of the joint merger document admitting Texas into the union (or it’s RE-admission following the Civil War) were acted upon. Please, Governor Perry, direct the state government to draw up articles of secession. The rest of us will enjoy the...

TOP TEN BENEFITS OF TEXAS SECESSION

10. Just a suggestion... Ron Paul v. Rick Perry in a “Beat It” style knife fight for executive control of the new Republic.
9. Mexican drug cartels forming alliances with Texas prison gangs? Eees no my job!
8. Cries of “Remember the Alamo!” will be replaced by, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!”
7. The United States would finally have a compelling reason to build a wall along the borders of NM, OK, AR and LA.
6. Finally we can laugh at those Jack in the Box “Texicans” ads without all the bitching.
5. “Don’t Mess with Texas” bumper stickers will be considered declarations of war, giving Americans legal authority to bash king cab trucks and SUVs into oblivion.
4. They can teach Intelligent Design aaaaaallllll they want.
3. $38.39 billion in stimulus funding??? California, here we come!
2. All of professional sports’ most obnoxious teams will now be foreign; therefore, contemptible. I wonder if we can get the Yankees, Eagles and Red Wings to move to Plano?
1. If’n anyone comes at me with drawl, I’m asking for his green card.

In all seriousness, Governor Perry will someday run for president of the Unites States. You read it here first. Let’s make sure to keep him honest and not allow him to pander to his base in order to pocket votes. The tenth amendment is serious business and every state should have some sort of affirmation of it if any of them do. It should not be taken as political opportunism in concert with ridiculous protests against tax policies that favor nearly 100% of the protesters. You can’t, Mr. Perry, stoke the flames of secession one day and flip-flop once you learn that only HALF of your base supports it the next. Texas, I kid because I love. Do the right thing and boot this guy out next year. End his political aspirations of being president of anything but the Paint Creek Churches Association.

2009-05-18T13:04:00.001-07:00

Prior to the contentious commencement speech by President Obama at Notre Dame University, there was a quiet, yet equally contentious, conversation happening in the media. GOP recruiters kicked it off by suggesting that the party needs to be less ideologically rigid, and seek candidates who are, "ethnically diverse, female, less partisan and even supportive of abortion rights." (Bloomberg). In the face of that was the release of a new Gallup poll which shows that for the first time in eight years, more people identify themselves as "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice". This poll excites the rigid nature of the hardline social conservatives who reject GOP recruiters as compromising on issues where they will never bend.

The Gallup poll says that 51% of Americans identify themselves as "pro-life", while 42% identify themselves as "pro-choice". The poll also demonstrates that 53% of Americans believe that abortions should be legal in "certain circumstances", 22% believe it should be legal in all circumstances and 23% believe it should be legal in none. But what exactly does that say about the abortion conversation? Is this really a victory for social conservatives and a rallying cry for the Republican base?

The only thing I can say for sure is that pro-life advocates are really, really against abortions. Also, they are the ones who have thus far dominated the conversation, as evidenced by the terminology involved. To be against abortion is "pro-life," according to the common parlance. The contrast is called "pro-choice" which intimates that given the choice, women would choose.... I've also heard the term "pro-abortion" used to describe the choice position. "Pro-abortion" is a successful rebranding, a trigger word meant to inspire images of fetal carcass piles and sadistic evil doctors. Pro-abortion is actually a very absurd idea. What person in their right mind would say, "You know what this country needs? More abortions!" It's an obfuscation, as ridiculous as pitching life vs. choice. Why do I have to be anti-life to be pro-choice? The conversation is already dishonest. By labeling ourselves, we put up barriers that will prevent us from ever reaching commonality.

I am not pro-life or pro-choice. I recognize that life is precious and the decision to terminate a pregnancy is rarely, if ever, taken lightly. I recognize that a woman continues to have rights once she has conceived and that our government, as we've designed it, cannot force her to forgo those rights to be an incubator. I recognize that to be for choice means that at least some people will choose to keep the baby. I realize that to be for life means that we should probably enhance pregnancy prevention, not put arbitrary obstacles on adoption (unmarried couples or homosexual couples), and be committed to ongoing care for children born into poverty, i.e. welfare. That would prove that we are pro-ALL-life. I recognize that to be for abortion is nonexistent. The choice to have one is not taken anywhere near as lightly as one might suggest.

The White House transcript of the president's speech reads:

THE PRESIDENT: I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame --

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Abortion is murder! Stop killing children!

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: That's all right. And since --

AUDIENCE: We are ND! We are ND!

AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!

THE PRESIDENT: We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennan's adage that we don't do things easily. (Laughter.) We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes. (Applause.)

Later the president calls for, "Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words." On this issue, on every social agenda that divides us with labels, pushing us right or left and forcing us to align ourselves, dig in our heels and attack with rhetoric... the president has it right.

2009-01-04T03:04:00.000-08:00

Menudo is far and away the best part of Latin culture. It is a sum much greater than its parts, and I'm not talking about Ricky Martin. To the uninitiated, it is a hodge-podge of castoff ingredients: tripe, patas (NOT optional - no matter what the recipe says), hominy, oregano chile, etc. etc.... But to us Mexicans, menudo is a testament to our fortitude, our strength, our family and our homes.

To Begin, there isn't one Latino alive who will not defend his mother's recipe as the best to his very death. And too bad for those poor saps, because MY mother's is the best. Despite the cost of making this seasonal dish, which today can be considerable, menudo was founded among the poorest of campesinos, who had nothing better to eat than stomach and feet. The best cuts of meat went to the estate owners, while the peasants were lucky to get the offal. Stomach, intestines, brain, tail and hooves made up the only meats available to the poor in pre-revolutionary Mexico. The soup they made of these cast-off ingredients has since become a favorite through much of Mexico and the southwestern part of the United States.

Menudo means a lot of different things to me. It reminds me of my grandpa Victor. Not only did he love the dish, but so did one of his favorite TV characters, Fred Sanford. It reminds me of the Raiders' hey day. My mother having made what seemed to me the most gigantic pot for the Super Bowl in 1980 and 1983. Victory never tasted so sweet. It cures what ails you, whether it be a minor throat irritation or a raging hang over. It is a legacy I hope to pass onto my own children, through their palates and through careful discernment of good menudo (their grandmother's) and bad menudo (nearly any other slop).

Don't forget to click on the picture and see this week's daily pics. Like menudo, they are a hodge podge of the most precious meats I've been given. I have yet to add the hominy, but there will be plenty in coming weeks.

Al's Project 365 (progress)

2008-12-28T16:22:00.000-08:00

I'm not a photographer. So these will be quite simple. I am hardly a storyteller. So please be patient. I've seen these before and got a kick out of them. Read this update, then click the photo to see mine. Hope you get a kick:

12/28/2008

Getting a head start on 2009. Pun much? For those who know me, you'll notice I look differently than I did just last week. For those who don't know me, last week I had a full pate of luxurious, jet black hair. Now gone. Clippers met my scalp on Christmas eve. Ten cousins, uncles and I did so in support of Noe. Noe, my uncle, was diagnosed with bone cancer a month ago. He has a better-than-nothing chance of remission, but he has one hell of a fight this coming year. We, his family, are with him. I wasn't sure how shaving my head was going to help him. I hoped, at the very least, he would find it funny. He did. Mission accomplished.

I didn't think I would do it. I had every reason not to do it. Apparently the plan had been made the week before, but I wasn't there, so my abstention was counted as an aye. The 'ayes,' it seemed, had it in spades. But once the first head went down, I understood. Noe wouldn't have the option of using my excuses and a cold head was the very least of his concerns. So I took to the chair, second in line, and learned something about myself I'd suspected, but never really knew for sure. In the end, it was staring right at me. Everyone else knew about it, but I had ignored it, denied it... turned a blind eye to it. I watched the revelry around me. My family, proud of themselves and each other, loud and exuberant. Even my drunken sister's ghetto howls were annoyingly festive. We had united this holiday. Something we hadn't really done in years. Over the last few I'd felt a splintering, a division growing larger every year. Understandably. We all had our priorities and we all are very focused on our homes and the needs of our immediate family. But here we all were, one purpose, one focus and yet I was still distracted. Don't get me wrong. I had a great time and I love my family very, very much. But my self-discovery dampened the joyful evening. What did I find? I'm almost embarrassed to say, but I made a promise to be completely honest on Al Can Blog, so I really have no choice. I only hope some readers can empathize, perhaps help me through this thing....

I have an uneven hairline.

At the Rally

2008-11-16T20:41:00.000-08:00

A very busy day. Memorial service for a dear, dear friend, Fresno State football game, the grand reopening of Fresno's haven of art, history and science. They have an awesome exhibit on the natural history of birds. I encourage everyone to see it. Plus, in the middle of it all there was a nationwide Marriage Equality Rally, part of which took place right here in Fresno. My good friends, the Petersens, were very understanding when I left a little early the memorial service and arrived a little late at the reception for their father Chris. I had some protesting to do.

Hundreds from around the Valley gathered at the steps of City Hall, the fountain acting as stage, puppies and children chasing each other in the basin orchestra. We arrived a little late while a hoarse voiced lesbian made her case into a megaphone. Fresno's answer to Joe the Plumber, Matt the American, was still running around to set up the PA system. In all there were six speakers, including a seventh grader (awesome speech, Micah!) and two Unitarian ministers. We chanted, we cheered, we sang. Signs people carried ranged from clever to angry. Passions were high. During the "HO HO HO! Inequality has got to go!" chant I saw a woman that, to me, brought the full reality of this cause, what is really at stake.

She was in her late forties, maybe. A rail thin lesbian with stringy, black hair streaked with gray. Though she didn't look like much of a tussle, she was formidable. Her fists shook as she chanted. Her face was beet red, the tendons in her neck strained to hold together. She punched every "GO!" as though cold-cocking every individual voter, supporter of Proposition 8. Between her passion, her anger, her concern... in conjunction with the heartbreaking story of the PTC president who was kicked out of the club because her public stance on Prop. 8 was a "conflict of interest..." and the lady who kindly blocked me from the sun with her "Don't discrimin-8 against me" sign... the very reality, the personal assault and pain of these people finally hit home with me.

Until now, this controversy has been largely academic for me. It was logic vs. emotion. It was legislative process, rights preservation and tradition vs. due process, rights infringement and progress. In the abstract, this is a very cut and dry issue. In the abstract, those who don't support marriage equality are very silly, clinging desperately to their religion as if Adam and Steve were an assault on the very fabric of their souls. Don't get me wrong. I am fairly passionate about marriage equality and about the rights of everyone, really. Though the religious right and my new friend Ben may think that marriage is not a fundamental right, the facts, the stacks of legal precedent say it is; at least in this country. And in this country we do NOT take away fundamental rights from our citizens by a simple majority. And while Religion and Mayor Autry may claim proprietorship of marriage as foundational to civilization and answerable only to their definitions, I am compelled to declare bullshit. Every culture, in every part of the world can claim some form of marriage. Some of them, believe it or not, can even describe same-sex marriages. And all cultures with whatever concept of marriage have a commonality that has nothing to do with God and Jesus and sin. It is property. Marriage in every culture is about ownership, landrights, and in many cases the subjugation of women. It is only recent in our history that we have progressed beyond ownership to 'love, honor and cherish'. We have yet to have a clear separation, especially in the Christian church where marriage is defined by a male dominated hierarchy of a man as the head of his household, king of his castle and hero of his family. Just ask Kirk Cameron and the makers of Fireproof. Marriage will never be the ideal of a lifetime partnership until that hierarchy is forgotten and a great way to rid ourselves of the hierarchy is to be inclusive of marriage partners who are not a man and a woman.

Abstract. Rhetoric. Idealism. Powerless to move me into any real action. Reasons and justifications, no more. But watching this woman punch the air, watching the speakers overcome intense emotion to tell their stories had a profound effect. It is not enough to sit behind a computer and construct arguments, building Constitutional interpretations. It is not enough sit comfortably in a living room and discuss litigation and procedure and postulate when and if the Supreme Court will do the right thing and get involved.

It was hot yesterday and it didn't help much wearing a black shirt with the sun beating down on me. I was riveted and it took a moment to notice that the woman next to me was constantly adjusting her sign to give me shade. I smiled. She smiled. And there we were, two people trying to overcome the same heat from the same Sun. "Here is a person who wants nothing more than for the world to look at her the same way it looks at me," I thought. My marriage, sanctioned by the state and consecrated before God and Man is wholly uncontroversial, though sixty years ago it would not have been allowed. For the first time ever I was ashamed of my marriage. I was now a part of an exclusive club that, contrary to my wishes, won't let certain people in because their tennis partners don't have the right parts.

I too was angry. Under the auspices of not allowing marriage to be "redefined" the good people of California have done exactly that. We have redefined marriage, giving exclusive access to those who follow a particular set of rules and anyone outside our standard of moral rectitude is categorically and officially shit out of luck. I won't stand for it. Can't. I am very angry at the Fresno leaders who promoted this Jim Crow legislation. I want them to be held accountable for their lies and their fearmongering. I challenge them, Pastor Jim Franklin, Mayor Alan Autry, Rep. George Radanovich, et al to a public debate or series of one-on-one debates on this matter. Show me your list of arguments and I'll prove it's a list of untruths. Give me your reasons for protecting the status quo and I'll squash them all with Reason. I guarantee that when our impasse is reached, it is your superstition that blocks the way. Or ignorance. In any public place on any night I would really like to hear their answers to the tough questions this community has on this topic. I guarantee that each of these upstanding gentlemen have slapped the faces of those closest to them with their forked tongues spewing false righteousness. And no, Pastor Franklin, you do not have "recovered homosexuals" attending your church. At best you have people you've brainwashed into living a life that is untrue to who they really are. Congratulations.

I am sincere in my wish to engage these distinguished gentlemen in public discourse. Until they agree, I will continue writing and talking to anyone who is unwise enough to sit still for any length of time. Further protests? You bet. I'll be contacting the local leaders of the Marriage Equality movement to see what I can do. I hope to catch some of you out there as well. Dr. King wrote that, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This injustice needs undoing and it will take all of us working together. You don't have to agree with same-sex marriage to support it. Questions?

The Top 3 Reasons Why John McCain Has Lost His Friggin' Mind

2008-10-16T00:22:00.001-07:00

"You WILL turn in your homework, fatbody!"

Watch the debate? Of course you did. Everybody did. And if you're anything like me, you watched for the express purpose of discovering what new disconnected-from-reality proposal Sen. John McCain, Arizona (R) would make. I can almost hear the collective sigh from his campaign staffers. "Aw, dammit! Now we have to fudge up some stats and examples of how this stupidity will work," they say. A sigh, a theme, which has permeated each of the presidential debates and is deserving of an official Al Can Blog examination. Voici! Three reasons why John McCain has lost his friggin' head:

First it was a spending freeze, basically treating the government of the United State like a Korean dry cleaners trying to stretch every last drop of chemicals until the short term loan comes through and they can fill the coffers. Spending freeze? That's what an IT department does to mask the fact that it has operated with a deficit for the last quarter. (To all potential future employers: I have never participated in nor do I endorse budgetary shenanigans. I have a proven record of budgetary prudence and always hit my line items right on the mark.) Agreed, government spending is out of control, but the hatchet/scalpel analogy is very apt here. There are some programs that the federal government has wholly ignored funding or are really underfunded. To freeze spending would be detrimental to the economy as a whole.

Next McCain said he would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to use $300 billion to buy up bad loans and renegotiate mortgages at a reduced value. Admittedly this sounded interesting to me at first, but then that cold, blue reason stepped in and brought me to my senses. Suppose I bought my house for $250,000. I can't pay for it. The bank is sitting on a loan it can't sell right now because of the market pressures and sheer stink of my loan. So in comes the government to buy that loan of $250,000 using tax payer money. Now the market shows that my house is only worth $150,000 so the government will sell it to me at that price and I can pay off a reduced mortgage using my own money. Who got bailed out here AND at what cost? I just paid for my own house both as a taxpayer contributing to the $300 billion and the reduced mortgage and further, my investment is worthless (granted values are supposed to go up over time, but I want equity NOW). Advantage bank. Disadvantage? Taxpayers.

So then there's tonight's debate. John McCain, in talking about education, said the following:

We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations which -- or have the certification that some are required in some states.

To which I respond...

What the F@&$?!?

Seriously, John? Seriously? I mean, not only are you showing me a gross lack of understanding that the "Troops to Teachers" program is designed to HELP TROOPS GET CERTIFICATIONS, but also a gross lack of understanding of what qualifies a person to be a teacher.

Mr. Lawrence, Third Grade teacher

Now just in case some readers see this as an attack on the honor and capabilities of our service men and women, let me squash that crap right now. I am very grateful to those in uniform who make sacrifices I couldn't imagine, let alone be capable of making for our country. It is not their fault that they are currently fighting in unjust and pointless wars. Wars based on lies and false pretense. I don't blame them or hold anything against them and hope that when Barack Obama brings them all home they all return fully limbed and employed. There is no better way to "support the troops" than to ensure they are cared for once their service is completed and to remove them from harm's way.

Having said that, John McCain is an idiot if he thinks this chick should go into a classroom without obtaining the proper certifications.

P.E. teacher Lyndie Englund "pals around" with students

So there you have it. As I see them the top three reasons why John McCain is an unhinged, unfit old codger. There are many reasons, but these three are enough to get any other old person declared mentally unfit to live alone. Honorable mention goes to:

Believing Obama supporters are calling him a terrorist at rallies.
"Bomb, bomb bomb. Bomb bomb Iran"
Taking credit for suspending his campaign to bring party leaders together and pass a bailout package which contained oodles and oodles of pork.
Sarah Palin, V.P. candidate

To me John McCain seems to be making it up as he goes along. The description of him as being "erratic" is appropriate and sadly, his actions, speeches and stances in the last several weeks have really sullied the career of someone I had considered to be a great statesman. I hope the rest of the country realizes that while his service to this nation has been great, his leadership at the highest level is not what is being demanded at this point in history.

An Important Issue This Election Year

2008-10-14T06:09:00.000-07:00

I was recently asked by a Fox 26 reporter whether I felt this election was the most important of my lifetime. Her question was obviously about the presidential prospects: the economy, the world standing of the U.S. and all the lovely things that bring people to the polls every four years. My answer was, of course, yes, but not for the reasons she thought. Beyond the classless campaign of Senator McCain and the skin color of Barack Obama, hiding under the radar like a stealth bomber ready to wreak havoc on California and the nation is a Civil Rights issue that makes this November truly the most important voting opportunity of my life.

You have seen them. Driving around town they sit, decorating roadsides, house fronts and the like. They look very innocent, to me at least. Yellow signs with calm blue imagery and text. They show a family, Mom, Dad, Jr. and Little Sis. They hold up a banner that says “Yes on 8, Protect Marriage.” Ahhh… What can be more positive? A family. Ahhh… With the economy in the dumps, and two wars having taken the lives of more than four-thousand of my fellow Americans (let’s not even start on foreign losses), if there is one easy little thing we can protect, dammit if it isn’t marriage.

But then there is the small print. You see, in “protecting marriage,” we are only protecting a certain kind of marriage. We are only protecting some marriages. The language of the amendment reads as follows: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fourteen sinister words to define our state’s collective conscience.

And so we have it. This positive affirmation of “marriage” is specifically a restriction. It is an explicit denial of marriage to anyone who wishes to marry someone of the same sex. A red rubber DENIED stamp to anyone who wants to enjoy the rights and privileges of marriage with someone who has the same body parts. Proposition 8, is a state Constitutional amendment (or revision) that tells an entire group of Californians that they are less important, less worthy, less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their sexual orientation.

I was not here in 2000, when California made its first attempt a Jim Crow legislation. I was shocked to find out that 61% of voters said that they will only tolerate marriage between a man and a woman, but the gays can have their “civil unions.” They can have all the rights of married couples, well most of them anyway. They are different (separate) but equal. And then I was proud to see the machinery of our government in action, the checks and balances in place, when earlier this year the State Supreme Court ruled this law in violation of the State Constitution. These are not “activist judges” as the rhetoric would have you believe, but men and women who are doing their jobs to ensure that no law is enacted that violates the very charter that makes us a state in the Union.

Want to read more rhetoric? Okay:

That gay marriage is okay will be forced on our children in schools. WRONG. In California we have the woefully irresponsible choice to “opt out” of any given lesson. So if your school were foolish enough to teach an opinion of marriage (vs. say that marriage is a contract/institution/whatever between PEOPLE) then you can be equally as foolish and say, “Send my kid to the ligh-berry during all that gay talk.”
Churches will lose tax exempt status.WRONG. “Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)” That’s the court ruling, Son. Deal.

I could argue rhetoric all day. That’s not boasting, mind you, I’m just saying it would get exhausting. In fact, I would love to hear a single argument that doesn’t root itself in religious dogma. Then we could have a reasoned discussion.

To me it comes down to a simple question of equal rights. The drafters of this revision/amendment want us to call it “Marriage Protection Act.” Protection from what? Terrorists? Communist ideology? Zee Germans? Shenanigans. It’s about civil rights. Civil rights and their unwillingness to have uncomfortable conversations with their own kids. If you are undecided about Prop. 8, ask yourself one question. Am I willing to amend the state Constitution for the express purpose of RESTRICTING CIVIL RIGHTS to a section of my community? If you don’t think this affects you, you’re wrong. If you don’t think you have a say in this matter, you’re wrong. Prop. 8 is a direct attack on Reason and Enlightenment. It is a way for a dogmatic section of society to impose their will on another section of society.

Please, recognize that Marriage is a sacred rite as much as a legal right. While the two concepts have much in common they are fundamentally different. One is an act ordained by God to be performed under certain conditions which are arguable, definable and certainly interpretable based on the faith/church to which one subscribes. The other is a legal status defined and protected by the State such that, “the right to marry is not properly viewed as simply a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people.” Proposition 8 seeks to impose the intention of the former onto the latter, a direct violation of the separation of Church and State. Please, PLEASE vote NO, on Proposition 8.