January 27, 2005
Thoughts from a "Sesame Street Republican"
What's odd about this picture?
Okay, yes, there is an animated bunny sitting in the middle, but that's not what's odd. What is odd, at least to Education Secretary, Margaret Spellings, is that there is a lesbian couple in this picture. Can you guess which one?
If you can't, then maybe you're like me and wondering what Secretary Spellings is smoking these days. As you may well know by now, Ms. Spellings has denounced an episode of "Postcards from Buster" that includes a visit to child in Vermont who has two Moms. The parents are in the background, but that didn't seem to satisfy Spellings. She clamined that some parents would not like to see their kids exposed to a lesbian lifestyle.
Do you see any lesbian lifestyles going on in the above picture?
I know that there are some on the far right who think that showing two lesbians is part of some left wing agenda. Now, PBS does at times tend to have a more left wing slant, but PBS wants to teach kids about the diverse world they live in. That is not left or right, that is what it is.
Sesame Street started the year I was born (1969). When it aired, some people in the South objected to this multicultural cast. But millions of kids like me learned that there were a whole lot of different people in the world. For an African American/Puerto Rican kid like me, it was important to see people who looked like me and even spoke like me (English and Spanish). I have to think it was instructive for white kids to see kids of all different colors living together. PBS was only reflecting a society that had become more aware of differences than ever before.
Buster Bunny is a kid whose parents are divorced and has asthma. All of this has been detailed in this show and its companion show, "Arthur". Again, just reflecting what many kids are facing.
And many kids live with gay parents. That's a fact. I would hope that a kid who has two moms or two dads could see these this lesbian couple and say that they aren't so weird after all. They can know that they are part of the American fabric like anyone else.
I have to think that there are other people under the age of 40 who regardless of their political persuasion, wonder what all the fuss is all about. Diversity is not a socialist plot, it is simply being honest that we live in a diverse society and that's a beautiful thing. Too bad Ms. Spellings doesn't see it that way.
Oh, and the lesbian couple is on the upper right corner.
Female Interrogators at Gitmo
If it's true, then we've sunk to a new low.
Max, aka New Democrat reports that female interrogators have played "sexual games" with detainess, in order to break their will. According to the Associated Press, the women wore miniskirts, thongs and in one graphic case, used red ink and smeared on a detainee claiming it was her menstural blood. Strict intepretation of Islamic law forbids physical contact with a menstruating woman because she is considered unclean. Because the detainee touched what he believes was an unclean woman, he could not come to God, since he was now impure. Here's how the article describes it:
"She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee," he says. "As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred.
"She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward" — so fiercely that he broke loose from one ankle shackle.
"He began to cry like a baby," the draft says, noting the interrogator left saying, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."
There are names for women like this, but this is a family blog.
Listen, I know we are in a war against a ruthless enemy and yes, we need to try to prevent another 9/11. The threat is real. But we are also the United States, a country that was founded on certain principles and laws. Free societies should not be engaging in torture, especially when we are dealing with an enemy that could use stuff like this to justify another attack on American soil.
There has to be a way to fight against terror without stooping to their level. There just has to be.
January 24, 2005
Two More to the Blogroll
I've added link to two blogs that I've found intriguing. The first is Michael Totten, a lefty that still has a brain and makes you think, and Pike Speak which offers insightful commentary from the Right. Happy reading!
January 23, 2005
This Just In: George Bush is not a Homophobe
Whenever I talk to liberals, I always hear that W. is a bigot when it comes to gays and lesbians. In someways, that might be easy to believe given his support last year for the Federal Marriage amendment. The reality though, is not so clear. Lanny Davis, a Democrat who was President Clinton's special counsel, was a classmate of Bush's while at Yale. He is one of the few Dems who write a realistic assesment of the President, not as some kind of god or demon, but as a human being. Here is the money quote in regards to gays:
"...omeone we all believed to be gay walked by, although the word we used in those days was "queer." Someone, I'm sorry to say, snidely used that word as he walked by.
George heard it and, most uncharacteristically, snapped: "Shut up." Then he said, in words I can remember almost verbatim: "Why don't you try walking in his shoes for a while and see how it feels before you make a comment like that?"
Remember, this was the 1960s — pre-Stonewall, before gay rights became a cause many of us (especially male college students) had thought much about. I remember thinking, "This guy is much deeper than I realized."
In light of that memory, I wondered last year why Bush chose to exploit the gay marriage issue in his campaign. I'm still not sure, but I think that's what politics sometimes does to a person. Now he appears to be backing off, and I am not surprised. I hope it suggests a return to the "compassionate conservatism" I remember and that he practiced in his two terms as governor of Texas."
I've never really thought Bush was a bigot when it came to gays. In many ways he seems to follow the lead of many conservatives in that "live and let live" attitiude. What this means all the more is that Bush's support for the FMA was political, to win re-election than it was about his own views.
I think that's sad. In church today, a pastor preached about how we should strive to have our inner lives reflect our outer lives instead of putting up a false front. We don't do this because of the danger that can come by living a life authentically. Bush wanted to win last year, so he played to the religious right's hatred of gays. One wonders what would have happened had he had the courage to live what he really thought and stand up to the theocrats. He might have lost the far right, but may have gained some votes in the process.
Just to be fair, the Dems are not any better on ditching the gay community when it is politically expedient. Witness how Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which codified a ban on gay marriages and how John Kerry supported a measure in the Massachusetts state legislature that would have nullified gay marriages in the Bay State which had just been granted months earlier.
One hopes that politicians at some point will have the courage of their convictions and stand up against the bigots who preached hatred of gays. Hopefully, that day will come soon.
January 20, 2005
Tired of Rants
There was a blog that I used to visit daily. It was informative and just plain interesting. It was critical of the present Administration, which I liked, but also informative. After a while though, the criticism became more and more shrill-to the point that the entries became less about thoughtful analysis or even just asking questions. Instead they became rants. I don't look at the blog much anymore because I have no time for five entries per day about how evil Bush and the Republican party are. For that matter I also have no time for conservative blogs that make the President the best thing since sliced bread and attack all those who don't see things their way.
Andrew Sullivan opines how blogs have become so partisan and basically draw lines instead actually probing and searching for answers. Leave aside the fact that Sully was doing much of what he deplored early on in the Bush Adminstration, I tend to agree. Blogs like the one I described throw a lot of heat, but shed little light. I really don't want this blog to become a place where I'm ranting every moment about something all the time. I hope it hasn't become that. I'm critical of the current leadership of the GOP , but I also have some beefs with the Dems as well. II want my criticism to be constructive and not just a rant to blow steam.
I really hope this blog can be a place where one can be critical without being meanspirited. It seems like charity and civility are such short supply in our nation, especially in the blogoshere.
January 19, 2005
On "Moral Values"
Since I am a minister, I thought I'd share something I found from the Society of Biblical Literature regard the recent election and the talk about "moral values."
" The United States election of 2004 witnessed the emergence of "values," often referred to as "Christian values" or "biblical values," as key political issues. The "values" most commonly identified in public debates were the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research.
The Society of Biblical Literature, which is the largest international, professional association of teachers and scholars of the Bible, calls attention to the fact that the "values" so prominently and divisively raised in this 2004 U.S. election are not major concerns in the Bible, and in fact are not even directly addressed in the Bible. Rather, they tend to reflect the underlying problems of homophobia, misogyny, control of reproductive rights, and restraint of expression (including scientific research) in U.S. society today.
With over 7,000 members representing a broad range of political and religious leanings, the Society of Biblical Literature has fostered discussions of such fundamental problems against the background of biblical ethics and respect for all human beings. As many of our members have indicated in publications and lectures, the moral issues dominating the biblical texts focus instead on concerns such as the well-being of individuals, the integrity of community, care for the powerless and the vulnerable, economic justice, the establishment of peace, and the stewardship of the environment.
The Society of Biblical Literature urges citizens and political agencies to direct their energies toward securing these goals and values of well-being and responsibility."
While I might have a different view on how to achieve things like economic justice, care for the poor and the establishment of peace, I tend to agree with this statement. I'd love to know what others think.
Gingrich Democrats
David Brooks has an interesting take on the Democrats new strategy-which is to act as bombthrower and sabatuer of Republican ideas, ala Social Security reform. His advice? Don't bother copying the Republicans. Why? He believes that Gingrich was trying to reach the conservatives who tended to vote Democratic (ie: Southern Democrats), and in the end, he accomplished his goal of winning them over to the GOP. Brooks thinks the Dems are in a different position, already winning the liberals, but needing to win the suburban swing votes and being an obstacle doesn't help.
My own take is that the Dems need to see that the country has shifted rightward. Not as rightward as some Republicans would like, but it has shifted and has been doing so probably since Reagan took office. The key for the Dems is how to create a progressive agenda in a more conservative time. For example, they could propose some minor changes for Social Security and also propose stregthening the federally approved private accounts we already have such as 401(k)s and IRAs. The Dems have to learn how to take Republican ideas and fashion them in their own way. Instead of criticizing the whole "Ownership Society" that Bush espouses, the Dems should be coming up with their own idea-one that would see government as a partner in helping people become stakeholders in society and ensure a safety net.
But this means the Dems have to understand that they are no longer the ruling party anymore and learn how to win in a conservative leaning era. That doesn't mean abandoning principles like civil rights or gay rights, but they have to be fashioned for this era and not for one circa 1968. I doubt that the Dems are listening though.
January 17, 2005
Remembering Rev. King
"Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn't matter with me now. Because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
-From Martin Luther King's "I've Been to the Mountain Top" Speech, given April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennesee. The next day, King was assassinated.
Yesterday, I preached at one of the congregations I serve at. Afterwards, we had a discussion on the sermon and we started talking about Rev. King and the civil rights movement. It was interesting, because a lot of people in that room remember seeing King on TV and could remember where they were when he died. For me and one other person in the room, who were born after King's death, MLK is history to us. I'm not saying that to degrage Dr. King's legacy, but to say that there is a generation or two of people for whom Dr. King is a history lesson and not a being that was once in the news.
One person commented about how good it was that the horrors of the past regarding race are history to those of born after all the upheavals. I have no knowledge of drinking fountains labeled "whites only." My dad tells a story of driving to the South from Michigan to see his mother. His mother would pack a meal of fried chicken for him because he couldn't stop in a restuarant because of skin color. When he was tired, he pulled over and rested until a cop told him to move along because there were no hotels for a black man in the 1950s. Today, Dad can eat wherever he wants and stay in whatever hotel he wants. We have come along way.
We still have some ways to go on racial equality. But we aren't where we were during Dr. King's time, and for that we have to thank King and all the other nameless heroes who made this country live up to its promise of all people being equal. And as schmaltzy as it sounds, we who were born after King need to keep his dream of equality alive and teach it to future generations so that we can one day judge a person by their content of their character and not by their skin.
January 16, 2005
United in the Struggle
For those on the Far Right who think gays are going to cower in fear because of the gay marriage bans passed recently, think again. On January 12, twenty-two gay organizations, including Log Cabin, came together to pledge to work for the civil rights of gays and lesbians. You can read on the Advocate website, or just read below.
"Civil Rights. Community. Movement.
The histories of America’s civil rights movements—and their successes in securing equal protection of the law for those denied it—have always been shaped by the complex interweaving of legal victories, political progress, and advances in public opinion. So when we look at the state of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights today, we have every reason to be optimistic. Our movement is strong, it is determined, and it is gathering momentum every day.
It has been only 18 months since the Supreme Court struck down the last remaining state laws that branded us as criminals, little more than a year since Massachusetts’s top court ruled that same-sex couples could not be denied full equality in marriage, and mere weeks since California enacted the nation’s most expansive domestic partnership law.
All the while, public support for LGBT equality continues to grow. Gallup has reported that 89% of Americans support equal employment opportunity for gays and lesbians. Polls also show nearly two thirds support the same opportunities for transgender Americans. Nearly four in five—up from 57% just a decade ago—support openly gay military service members; and amid the enactment of antigay constitutional amendments in 11 states this past November, exit polls showed that 60% of voters favor legal recognition for same-sex couples.
The speed with which our movement is advancing on all fronts is absolutely historic—and it hasn’t happened by chance or by accident.
The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community crosses all borders. We are born into families as diverse as our nation. We are of every race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, class, educational background, ability, and party affiliation. We live in cities, towns, and neighborhoods across this country, in red states and in blue. We, literally, are everywhere.
Yet because that rich diversity often goes unseen, ignored, or forgotten, we remain vulnerable to inaccurate stereotypes manufactured by a small but powerful group of antigay extremists. Wrapping themselves in cloaks of “family” and “values,” these groups are spending tens of millions of dollars to confuse, distort, and subvert the public debate that continues to change hearts and minds about our right to equality as it opens America’s eyes to the true family values that LGBT couples, parents, and families are living and demonstrating every day.
This public debate serves another purpose as well: It reveals the unjust realities our community faces. If we must take time to care for an ill partner, we can lose our jobs because we are denied the protections of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. Surviving gay and lesbian partners can find their families imperiled by laws that deny inheritance, child custody rights, and Social Security survivors’ protection. Binational LGBT couples and families can be cruelly torn apart by deportation and immigration laws that treat them as legal strangers.
The manifest unfairness of these and countless other discriminations is one reason why support for LGBT equality continues to rise. It’s also why we must commit to creating of our diverse community a truly inclusive movement—one that is represented by and pursues justice for the diverse lives that give it substance.
The groups represented here are parts of a large civil rights orchestra. We play different instruments—lobbying, electoral politics, impact litigation, grassroots organizing, public education, media advocacy, and more—and we are dedicated to playing them well. While our organizations vary in focus and strategies, we share a number of common priorities that will help shape and unite our work in the months and years to come. Among them:
- We must fight for equal employment opportunity, benefits, and protections—and the federal and state laws that safeguard them.
- We must fight against anti-LGBT violence and for the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal hate crimes law that already protects Americans based on race, religion, and national origin.
- We must fight—in both the private and public sectors—for better access to health care and insurance. We must advocate for HIV/AIDS policies—including age-appropriate, LGBT-inclusive comprehensive sexuality education—that effectively address this epidemic at home and abroad.
- We must insist on safe schools, where youth can learn free from bullying, harassment, and discrimination.
- We must fight for family laws that give our children strong legal ties to their parents.
- We must work to overturn the military’s discriminatory anti-LGBT ban, which dishonors service members who serve their country with valor and distinction.
- We must continue to expose the radical right’s efforts to advance a culture of prejudice and intolerance, and we must fight their attempts to enshrine antigay bigotry in our state and federal laws and constitutions.
- And we must continue our vigorous fight for the freedom to marry and the equal protections, rights, and responsibilities that safeguard our families, strengthen our commitments, and continue to transform understanding of our lives and our relationships.
In December, People [magazine] asked President and Mrs. Bush about civil unions. “Is a couple joined by that kind of legal arrangement as much of a family as, say, you two are a family?” “Of course,” President Bush replied. Bush’s acknowledgement (despite his support for an antigay federal constitutional amendment) has set an important new minimum standard for future dialogue surrounding same-sex couples and families, one that reflects an evolving public respect for our relationships that even those who seek to codify discrimination against us cannot easily ignore.
This revolution in understanding and respect has been made possible by millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans who are coming out, being out, and living the truth of their lives for others to see. By families unafraid to publicly declare their love for and commitment to one another. By people unwilling, by word or deed, to tell future generations that our relationships are deserving of anything less than acceptance, respect, and celebration. And by an orchestra of organizations committed to the strategic advancement of our movement.
But at the end of the day, our movement must be more than a collective noun. It must also be an action. Even the most vibrant, vital community can, over time, settle into a status quo. A movement cannot. And the success of our movement is measured not only in the hearts and minds we change, the allies we engage, and the civil rights we secure, but in the strength of our collective commitment to the pursuit of enduring social, political, and legal change that moves us ever closer to true equality. Each of us. Each of you.
Get involved. Learn more about the work of our movement’s local, state, and national organizations. Invest in that work. Encourage your straight friends and family to do likewise; give them the opportunity to invest in our future—and theirs. Champion equality and respect in your community. Engage new allies at home, in your workplace, in your place of worship, at your school. Stand up. Spread the word. Share your story.
By virtue of who we are, we’re a community. But it is by virtue of the decisions we make that we become part of a movement—a civil rights movement working together to create a better, more hopeful world limited only by our ability to envision its promise and experience all that it has to offer.
[Signed,]
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Lesbian & Gay Rights Project
Equality Federation
Freedom to Marry
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD)
Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)
Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund and Leadership Institute (Victory)
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Human Rights Campaign (HRC)
Lambda Legal
Log Cabin Republicans
Mautner Project
National Association of LGBT Community Centers
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR)
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Youth Advocacy Coalition (NYAC)
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG)
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN)
Sigamos Adelante: National Latino/Hispanic LGBT Leadership
Stonewall Democrats
January 14, 2005
Bipartisanship-R.I.P.
As the battle over Social Security heat up, one thing you are not hearing about is bipartisanship. Democrats are not trying to reach out to moderate Republicans who are wary of making major changes. The White House talks about reaching out to Democrats, but then all they really do is talk a good game.
The Moderate Voice has some worthwhile observations about the loss of bipartisanship. I think in the end, we will have a poorer America as a result. As both sides become hardened and less willing to compromise, less will be done for the good of the nation. Remember, it was bipartisan majorities that passed some of the most important legislation of the last century, such as civil rights, Medicare and environmental laws.
I know some will say this is all good, because it gives people clear choices, but what good is that if all people do is bicker and nothing gets done? All it does is serve narrow partisan interests not the nation's business.
Maybe one day we will see bipartisanship return to our nation. It might be a while, though.
January 13, 2005
The Party of Ideas
A comment from the Centerfield blog:
"I think what's more important than whether the Chairperson is from or whether he/she is ostensibly liberal or moderate is whether that person can push the party to develop ideas. I think this a moribund party because it is not a party of ideas, liberal or conservative. The Republicans continually come up with ideas (e.g., social security privatization) and whether you like them or not, they have something to sell and talk about. They seem to be a party of action. The Democrats have been pretty much reduced, IMO, to saying, vote for us so nothing will change too much. It's easy for the Dems to talk about how much the middle class is struggling. Where are the ideas for helping the middle class? And I don't mean things like raising the minimum wage. That's nice, but it doesn't really address the structural problems that the middle class face. We have to do more than just blame the Republicans. The same is true in foreign policy and other issues. So, to me, the most important thing is whether the Chairperson can get the party off its ass and generating ideas. This should be something that appeals to liberals and moderates alike (although I think if a moderate proposed to declare mothers nice people, liberals would say they are selling out.) Liberals don't seem to grasp this, but the story has to be based on something more than just we don't like Bush.
I realize this is sort of off topic, but I just had to get that rant off my chest."
This comment is so right on about what's wrong not only with the Democrats, but moderate Republicans as well. I think both groups suffer from a lack of new ideas. Witness the whole Social Security debate. Love it or hate it, the Bushies have a flashy new idea. What do the Dems have? Well, not much. The Dems, especially are riding on ideas that were generated at least 40 years ago. Conservatives have developed a network of foundations and think tanks that are coming up with ideas. Liberals and Moderates are not coming up with new ideas to fit 21st century America (with the exception of the New America Foundation).
As the comment said, you have to say more than stuff like the middle class is hurting. What are your ideas? For moderate Republicans, we have to say more than we don't like where Bush is leading the party. What is our vision for a more moderate party?
The Bible says without a vision, people perish. So do political parties.
January 12, 2005
Local Control for Me, but not for Thee
The next time some far right conservative starts talking about the importance of local control and about getting government close to the people, tell them to shut their trap.
Why am I being so mean? Well, it looks like some Republican lawmakers in Georgia are planning to gut the gay rights laws on the books in Atlanta because the city is fining a country club that will not grant spousal benefits to two gay members. The club recieves city permits and the city says it can't give permits to groups that discriminate.
Conservatives believe in local control. I think that's a good idea. But I guess when it comes to dealing with gays, the far right can put aside their principles and let the big central government tell cities what they can and can't do.
More LCR Bashing
One the complaints of gay conservatives (myself included) is that gay liberals tend to support Democrats even when they don't fully support us (ie: Clinton signing the Defense of Marriage Act) and that they tend to have a laundry list of issues that have nothing to do with gay rights.
Stephen Miller is one such person. However, after he's done attacking the Left, he then decides to do the exact same thing that he condemns the Left of doing.
Since the election, Miller has had some not-so-kind words for Log Cabin Republicans concerning their choice of opposing the President. He thinks now that the election is over, Log Cabin should basically say "no hard feelings" and support the President's agenda. In his recent entry he comments that Log Cabin should be talking to the President since 23 percent of gays and lesbians voted for Bush.
Hogwash.
First, Miller seems to forget that gay conservatives did try and reach out to Bush in 2000. Remember the Austin 12? Bush seemed to listen and did make some appointment of gays to high posts. But as the election got closer, he ditched us and courted the far right. He supported a constitutional amendment that would not only ban gay marriage but civil unions as well. Bush, in essence, betrayed us. Log Cabin had no choice but to not endorse the President. Log Cabin has principles, most importantly, to work for inclusion within the GOP and the wider society. We can't be true to those principles if we are supporting someone who did not support gays.
Miller also has it wrong when it comes to equating gay Bush voters as a message to Log Cabin to play nice. I know gays who voted for Bush. They did so, for a number of reasons, such as national security. However, they also disagreed with the President on the Federal Marriage Amendment and also praised Log Cabin for doing what they did. There are a lot of gays and lesbians who vote on issues like taxes or national security, or even abortion. They may detest the President's stand on gay marriage, but they aren't planning to vote for the Democrat either. Again, Log Cabin has to stand on principle. Individuals are free to vote for whomever they want. But Log Cabin doesn't have to be a slave to how fellow Republicans vote. As I said, a vote for Bush doesn't necessisairly mean support the President. Sometimes a cigar ain't a cigar.
What is irksome is that Miller wants Log Cabin to do what he would criticize gay Democrats of doing; continue supporting a politician even when they treat us like crap. I don't see how we can make progress in gay rights if we are basically whoring ourselves to political leaders.
Log Cabin continues to support fair-minded Republicans in House and Senate races. As for the President, well as the saying goes, fool me once....
I think it's high time for the President to make the first step. Log Cabin and gay conservatives in general should not be made the fool again. I have no intention of being an "Auntie Tom."
January 06, 2005
Party Before Country-Democrat Style
There has been a lot of griping (all correct) about how some Republicans tend to place party before the good of the nation. Well, now we see a perfect example of Democrats doing the same thing.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is floating a plan to change the way districts are drawn in his state. He wants to take it out of the hands of lawmakers and into the hands of non partisan judges. Arnold thinks the result would be less extremists from both parties and instead elect more moderates like the "Governator." Well,Kevin Drum writes today that while he thinks Arnold has a good idea he can't support it. Why? Because it would give the Republicans the upper hand. He writes:
"...the insanely partisan atmosphere of contemporary American politics means I can't support this proposal even though I think it would be good for the state. After watching Texas Republicans ram through a brutally gerrymandered mid-decade redistricting that gained the Republican party four congressional seats in the 2004 election, how stupid would a California Democrat have to be to agree to meekly support a goo-goo proposal that would have the effect of giving Republicans more seats in yet another state? Guys like Tom DeLay and Hugh Hewitt would be guffawing in their beers for days about our terminal naivete if we went along with this. Raw power would be their ally in red states and appeals to progressive idealism would be their ally in the blue states. That's quite a combination."
So because our nation is so partisan and because this plan could give the Golden State more Republicans than Dems, even if those Republicans were moderate, and because of what Tom Delay did in Texas, Drum can't support this.
Drum says this is a national issue and wish the President would deal with it. Oh please. Elections are run by the states and Drum knows that Bush will never take this up. Nor will any other President. In Drum's eyes, as long as the Republicans are in charge, dealing with gerrymandering should never be touched. That is short-sighted. Making redistricting a less partisan affair would go a long way towards making America less partisan. But for Drum, that can only be done as long as the Dems are on top.
Drum likes to consider himself a centrist Democrat, but in the end, he is part of the problem. because he is more willing to put his party before the good of the nation, he is no better than Republicans who only accept that which falls into their ideological framework.
They deserve each other.
UPDATE: There were a few typos in the earlier version of this post and I added in a few more thoughts, just in case you notice anything different.
January 05, 2005
Hope Ain't Enough
Now being a good Republican and all, I tend to think that the market can have a role in promoting the general welfare as the Constitution states. So, in theory, I find the idea of private accounts for Social Security appealing. However, the more I learn about the President's plan, the more I think privatization, at least Bush's idea, may not be such a good idea.
It was bad enough the he is not going to raise taxes to plug the $2 trillion hole that will be a result of the transition costs, which means future generations will have to pay for his idea, now he proposes cutting promised benefits by up to a third in coming decades.
The Bush plan would use a different formula to determine benefits. Instead of using wages, the Bushies would use inflation, which grows at a slower rate.
And how would people make up the deficit? Here is the Bush Administration's answer:
"The White House hopes that some, if not all, of those benefit cuts would be made up by gains in newly created personal investment accounts that would harness returns on stocks and bonds."
They hope? I'm sorry, but I can't put my support on a program based on hope. It might have worked for Bill Clinton, but not me.
We have no idea what the stock market will be like in the coming years. There might be another bull market, but we could also face another bear market. Odds are both will happen. The stock market is unpredicatable, we have no certainty that it will do amazing well or amazingly bad. That doesn't mean one shouldn't invest in the market, but I don't think it's wise to think that people could make up the cut in federal benefits on the hope that there will be a decades long bull market. That's, well, bull.
Social Security was never meant to be a full on pension plan. It's social insurance, a base to keep people out of poverty. We do need to make some adjustments, but we must still keep it as social insurance from the whims of the market.
The President is not scoring many points with this Republican.
January 02, 2005
Two Victories for Gay Rights...in "Red States"
The gay leadership in this country, excluding Log Cabin, tends to think that gay rights in this nation have vanished and that we should start heading towards Canada or Europe. They have bought into the far right's belief that this is a nation that will never accept gay marriage, civil unions or civil rights.
Well, before people start boning up on their French, you might want to hear about two decisions in two so-called "red states," or states that voted for Bush.
In Montana the state Supreme Court ruled that the Big Sky Country's public universities must provide the partners of gay employees health insurance.
Here is what Justice James C. Nelson wrote in a concurring opinion. He was criticizing the bans on same sex marriage.
"Sadly,many politicians and 'we the people' rarely pass up an opportunity to bash and condemn gays and lesbians despite the fact that these citizens are our neighbors and that they work, pay taxes, vote, hold public office, own businesses, provide professional services, worship, raise their families and serve their communities in the same manner as heterosexuals."
I have no idea what Justice Nelson's political leanings are, but he gave a basic conservative argument for gay rights. We are not a protected group that wants special rights; instead we want to be treated like everyone else. Gay couples live in every neighborhood and they work in all sorts of places. They also go to church and pay taxes like all Americans. We aren't asking for special rights, but the same rights straight couples have.
In other news from the Red States, a judge in Arkansas ruled that the state's ban on gays adopting children was an overreach by the Child Welfare Agency. The judge thought the ban was regulating "public morality," something the agency has no business doing.
What both of these stories show is that life in the Red States is not as backward as some gay leaders think. Instead of ignoring the South and Midwest, groups like HRC should be working in these states to change hearts and minds. As a friend has said, Manhattan (and San Francisco) is not the only parts of America where the gay rights movement should be busy.