Is Netroots Community Just Another Political Monolith?

Posted on January 29, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

I love the netroots / Kos community. It is a beautiful thing that there is a strong, net-organized, progressive movement, especially coming up from among younger voters who, as a demographic, have been underrepresented in political debate and voting. It tends to be an idealistic group as one would expect. Because I want to celebrate their idealism and activism, I get distressed at times to see the netroots group fall into the same old traps.

Says Kos:
Ahh, Yesterday I wondered where the WSJ got the notion that Hillary had scored significant victories in the “netroots primary”, since all objective evidence suggests that Hillary, in fact, has little online support.

For some among that group, it’s not cool to like Hillary Clinton. It is very cool to like John Edwards. The old trap is the piling on effect, rather than independent thought and decision-making. It’s easy to take the shortcut of being influenced by a trusted opinion. Right now, there’s plenty of time to form our own opinions and defend them.

Hillary gets trashed pretty constantly, Edwards gets a pass on a record that is to my mind less inspiring. Both are talented, strong candidates. Both have very similar voting records and agendas. (his short voting record may be a bit more conservative.) When they speak she sounds establishment, like a senator; he sounds populist and an idealist. On substance there’s way less difference.

From the idealists, it’s surprising that Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be getting attention beyond his due. He is absolutely inspiring as a speaker. I certainly have my moments of wanting to sit as a disciple at his feet. I don’t really know him on substance yet, though. Stay tuned.

Strange that these same idealists are not in a hurry to see the first woman president. I know I am. Having witnessed the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and shrub (W Bush appellation in honor of Molly Ivins — get well xoxo). Jimmy Carter is a great man, but his presidency did not inspire. Bill Clinton, The Best President of a Generation, like Kennedy before him, had classic man troubles.

Who wouldn’t be ready for a woman to take charge?

I’d first tell my netroots friends to keep doing what you’re doing — writing, inspiring, organizing, and contributing. Next I’d suggest that if you’re inclined to be critical, be critical thinkers first.

Sphere: Related Content

In Honor of American Peace Activists

Posted on January 28, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!


“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”

Sphere: Related Content

I Like Being Gay

Posted on January 28, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

On Being GayThere was a book that was helpful to me in the early 1990s that I thought of yesterday, in my desire to explore something more of faith or humanism on Sundays, rather than political speech. The book was On Being Gay by Brian McNaught. I knew the place I wanted, a chapter called “I like it” penned in 1978.

The date of the chapter is significant because when I found it, I had a good laugh, realizing what a different place I’d been in 15 years ago. The book, though dated, is still affirming, especially for someone beginning the journey of coming to terms with being gay or lesbian. One paragraph starts, “I like believing the studies which indicate gay folk are generally smarter, more creative and more sensitive than nongay folk.”

I guess the operative word is “believing.” So, even then, McNaught wasn’t asserting empirical truth. It was more about building a personal myth, or engaging in a bit of Stuart Smalley self-help psychology. There are more paragraphs that still ring particularly true.

McNaught talks about the pioneering aspect of being gay that reflect well my life in Appalachia. Gay people are often called to live life and define relationships, love, morals and ethics on our own terms. While anyone may do this—when presented with a “correct” path through life, it is very easy to stay on course unquestioningly. When gay people find they don’t fit the models we see, we learn to question not only the sexual and relationship mores but to question everything. Those of us who aren’t particularly strong can come a bit unglued at this point and make some bad choices, but I rarely talk with anyone who had such an experience early on, and doesn’t value the lessons they had to learn on their own, and the strength gained from coming through it.

Another quaint-but-true thing he mentions about being gay is the knowing looks of “fellow travelers” we exchange when out and about. McNaught calls it

a twinkle and a smile which results not from [the more mundane aspects of personal identity]. It is a secret smile which only gay men and lesbians exchange.

Today, less and less people live closeted lives, and we talk about gay television, gay politics, and gay friends out in the open. Still, in unfamiliar places, such exchanges happen all the time.

Additionally, I find in my adult years, that I can be in a gathering where I know a fair number of the people in attendance, and will be “out” to a greater or lesser degree to everyone I know. Still, if it is a largely straight crowd it can be uncomfortable to be “assumed straight” by anyone new you might meet. To let people know your orientation, right off the bat, can seem like “too much information” or a political statement where none was called for. Even in these familiar places, a knowing look can mean worlds.

Many of us feel a special connection and understanding of Gay and Lesbian historical figures. Some of them may have thought of themselves as having a particular sexual identity, others we can only identify by their relationships or reputations or the product of their work. Still it has always been good to have a history to connect with, especially for those of us whose own legacies will be expressed similarly, rather than through family lines.

It was affirming to be able to feel somehow connected to some of the great leaders, writers, composers, painters, philosophers, and sculptors across the ages. What was lacking in my youth was current examples of beautiful, intelligent, and creative gays and lesbians. These days that is less of a problem with prominent leaders like Barney Frank, and Jim Kolbe, and actors and celebrities, some out for years, and others popping “out” everywhere. We’ve celebrated the mainstream success of k.d. lang, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge, Nathan Lane, Elton John, Rupert Everett, and Sir Ian McKellen for years. OK, I don’t remember the men’s coming out, but I can’t remember when any of them were truly in the closet either. I’m sure they can. Now we have T.R. Knight, Lance Bass, Rosie O’Donnell, and Neil Patrick Harris to add to the list. It ’s always fun to see new folks identified, especially when it’s their own choice.

There’s been a few scandalous outings recently with great cringe value, most notably Ted Haggard and Tom Foley. The stories of those who come out in disgrace can be told rather honestly from the point-of-view of people who were hiding or denying who they were, some living quite hypocritically. What’s the moral of these stories?

This Sunday morning post, then is not without it’s own controversies, but the overall feeling I get from exploring these issues is quite affirming. It’s about how far glbt people have come and how far society has come. It makes me incredibly happy to know that young folks who are only now reaching an age when they’ll understand the social-sexual models of “one man, one woman,” don’t fit them, they’ll see good, successful, modern lives as well as the historical models that while maybe not providing answers, will provide for them some clues to help them own their own differences and that, in the end, things will be alright.

I do like being gay. My uniqueness, while perhaps not absolute, is genuine.

Sphere: Related Content

What Hillary Said About Civil Unions

Posted on January 26, 2007
4 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

“I support civil unions.” That’s what Hillary Clinton said. I listened carefully to the video because there has been so much discussion in the blogosphere. Lots of folks like me were pleased by her statement. The negatives are basically because the word “marriage” was not used. What these writers failed to notice is that “no marriage” also was not used. I’m not suggesting any deception or any “bait and switch” either pro or against marriage. I’m not even suggesting that Sen. Clinton has an agenda beyond the stated, supporting civil unions.

What I am saying was Hillary did not anger me and waste my time and validate the anti-equality crowd by first using the tired formula, “I’m against gay marriage but would support civil unions.” Listen to all the candidates and other pols who line up to repeat the same, polled “safe” phrase. John Edwards did it. He even suggests a kind of “yuck factor” in case the good ol’ boys don’t quite get it, making it personal, saying something like “I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet.”

I don’t want to be too hard on Edwards; he’s easily in my top three. I’m just saying adding the denial of marriage is gratuitous. Hillary’s statement is affirmative. It doesn’t go all the way for me, but it doesn’t bar the way either.

Sphere: Related Content

Andy and Opie Could Teach Alberto Gonzales About Due Process of Law

Posted on January 25, 2007
3 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Andrew Sullivan posted this on his blog, and anyone can see it there or at the source on You Tube. It was important enough to bear repeating here. It is so elementary and of course this great sitcom / drama will resonate with people of all stripes.

Watch the video. Summarized, Sheriff Andy Taylor and son Opie, played by Andy Griffith and Ron Howard, have a dialog about an illegal surveillance tape made by Opie. Opie has illegally captured the conversation of a detainee and his lawyer in the Mayberry jail and is excited to share it with Andy the Sheriff. Andy explains to his son the meaning of due process, describing the private relationship between attorney and client as “sacred.”

Sphere: Related Content

Can a Congressional Resolution Make Up For a Failed Presidency?

Posted on January 25, 2007
4 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Some folks are saying that non-binding Congressional resolutions against the war are meaningless. Others say that they are political cover, that is, the Democrats making sure that Republicans “own” the disaster — now and in the future — in the likely event that U.S. involvement in the quagmire is ongoing through election season.

The resolutions under discussion now are an important step to build momentum for future actions that may not yet be politically viable. For those in the “meaningless” camp, would a tough, Get out of Iraq resolution that fails to pass be more meaningful? To first get a bi-partisan resolution (or more than one) with the support of several Republicans seems far more meaningful and likely to produce a future consensus bill that has teeth.

There is another potential outcome of passing a resolution that has not been explored in a real-world application. With such a lack of leadership in the executive, or when the executive branch leads in the wrong direction, there is a need for alternative leadership. Sure, we have a few strong voices in the persons of Chuck Hagel, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but none of them alone trumps a President.

But what if Congress spoke with one voice? If both houses pass a bi-partisan resolution — when all Americans have someone whom they support, ranging from John Warner, Susan Collins, and Chuck Hagel to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Carl Levin, speaking in one voice — minds will change, and the stay-the-course-surge-plus-up crowd will have absolutely zero support. Well, except for Joe Lieberman.
When we’ve had Presidents in the past with good communication skills and who demonstrated wisdom commensurate with the office they held, we used to talk of the President’s “bully pulpit.” When respected, the President is a person who can lead the country to do what is right and what is necessary.

In the present situation we have a “leader” who lays claim to power, but has squandered any opportunity he may have had to call Americans to act on “the better Angels of our natures.” A congressional resolution is not going to replace that kind of leadership, but it can help direct the needed conversation.

Sphere: Related Content

Saw Hillary. She is Hot!

Posted on January 23, 2007
3 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Senator Hillary ClintonOK, first thing, I’m gay, so I’m really not talking about the Senator’s physical attributes. I leave for Bill and his contemporaries among straight men to appreciate her on those terms.

Last night I complained about not being able to connect with a souped up mac at the office. So tonight I’m at home, on a Mac, as I suggested all folks should be, this one a more modest powerbook about 3 years old with a 1 Ghz Power PC.

Tried to connect the way I usually view Windows Media, using Flip4Mac, a very welcome third-party extension to Quicktime. Absolutely no go. I saw tonight what I failed to see last night, that the content was also being offered in Real format. In the past I’ve skipped content using Real A/V because I would frequently have to upgrade my player, and then the quality would be way below what I’ve come to expect from Apple-native Quicktime.

I had a Jones for Hillary and clicked on Real anyway. In a moment I had the real live Senator on my dining room table, and looking really good. The quality of the stream was first-rate. I discovered in a moment I could use Real’s audio slider and pump the volume loud enough I could continue to prepare my dinner in the next room and listen at the same time.

Now here’s the really good part. Hillary is good! She speaks well, she took the questions that were important to me and those that I knew were important to others. The final question was about the federal govt. using it’s economic might to make healthcare affordable. Ms. Clinton didn’t flinch (as well she might). She started with facts and theories and then in a moment of humility, acknowledged that she would be taking on healthcare, again, (the issue that nearly ruined her during Bill Clinton’s first term).

This is a woman, a politician, who has come into her own. I claim to be open to all the present field of candidates, and in truth, I am. It is a tremendously talented pool — of course I’m talking about the Dems. (Watch this space for some surprising candor and good will toward several of the Republican candidates in the near future.) For now, allow me a moment to be wholly with Hillary Clinton.

Sphere: Related Content

Liberal Mac User Grumblings About the Hillary Chat

Posted on January 22, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

sad macI didn’t see it. I sent some provocative questions beforehand that I knew she’d be too good a politician to take on in her first chat. The video would not play on a Mac, or at least not my office Mac which is a WAY cool Intel Quad Xeon thing. I stayed late at the office, signed in to the site. Set up to record the video stream….and nothing. Some disjointed text scrolled in a little window. It was clear that I was not getting all of her words. I tried to hurry and boot Windows XP in Parallels. It needed to install a bunch of sh*t and Java and this and that, and then in the end, displayed nothing.

It’s too bad too. I hope someone posts it on you tube or the Clinton campaign keeps an archive of the conversation videos in the now-standard flash video format.

I really needed to see the “conversation” or chat because in the leadup I read Marty Peretz on TNR Online saying, she said in her Saturday announcement:

“’she would be forming an exploratory committee to determine whether she will become a formal candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008.’ This is so transparent that it cries out for ridicule.”

Andrew Sullivan called the piece “brutal but perceptive.” I call it brutal and blatantly unfair. Ms. Clinton did use the words “exploratory committee,” but there was nothing disingenuous about it, the rest of the quote from Mr. Peretz was not to be found in the video. Watch it yourself. The exploratory committee is standard issue these days. Everyone knows that. There was nothing tentative about it. In the next sentence she said “I’m not just starting a campaign, though.” The heading on the page was, “I’m In.”

In one of my questions posted to Ms. Clinton, I suggested that since I was the only blogger or news source I’d seen that connected that her announcement was 2 years to the day before her anticipated inauguration, that she should give me a job. Now I think she should give me a job to whip her technology team into shape. Whaddaya think? An evening chat, folks are at home, they’re going to be on Macs, right? OK, I might be dreaming, but her old buddy Al Gore is on the board of Apple Inc. and he could supply her with some numbers as to how many home users were excluded.

Of course if my Environmental Pal Al runs, maybe he’ll just save the Mac using voters for himself?!

Sphere: Related Content

Faith, Ecstasy, and the Unknowable

Posted on January 21, 2007
6 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!

I find it amazing, frustrating, and somewhat amusing to be at a new “crisis of faith” at mid-life. There have been several periods along the path where I believed I’d reached my “terminal belief system,” even while knowing that many become more religious later in life.

I always attributed late-life conversions to fear of the unknown, as the very real certainty of death approached. When we reach a certain age, while we may still feel youthful, we begin to lose the bold delusion of our youth that we will live forever. We see enough death, lose enough people, experience the onset of physical decline — vision changes, joint aches, reduced calorie requirements and the recommendation from our physicians for biannual anal probes — nothing maybe that signals that we have less years ahead than we have behind us — but we have tangible evidence that our own bodies will fail just as everyone’s eventually does.

I may have been wrong about such conversions. I have no illusions of being rescued from my own inevitabilities. I don’t expect my faith to evolve into the ability to create a new personal delusion that includes an afterlife either more glorious than my present beliefs allow, or more ignominious. My belief is in the unknowable and I expect it to remain so. And yet, I find myself wishing to better integrate my former Christian context with my current religious outlook and need for meaning.

In my youth, I went through a very brief period of ecstatic evangelical zeal. For me, that kind of passionate belief could not be sustained without contrivance. It might have been sustained longer if I had joined a church community that tries to recreate ecstasy each week at an appointed hour, by setting a stage, playing inspiring music, and providing a charismatic speaker to get me worked up all over again. If one gives in to the heat of such moments and feeds off the building ecstasy among congregants, it can be as good as a drug or great sex.

The problem is, the leaders of charismatic faiths tend to imbue those moments of manufactured joy with meanings that don’t ring true to me. Maybe there is a “truth” in that group ecstasy, but it is not exactly the truth that is being interpreted for you.

For any who has never experienced this kind of group ecstasy, take a look at one of the old “Peanuts” animations where Snoopy is doing his “happy dance.” Imagine yourself doing the happy dance and nothing exists except the dance. There’s not right or wrong about how you do it, no judgement, just you and the dance — and a large room full of others doing their own happy dances.

It’s a really attractive notion. Transcendence for transcendence’s sake. If that’s all it was about I might go find an evangelical group and rejoin the dance, myself.

Now what happens if you can’t achieve that ecstatic state week after week in the same way? How do you remain faithful if you can’t get your regular “fix” of infusion by the Holy Spirit?

What if while doing the happy dance you notice someone, a boy or a girl, same gender as yourself and watching their happy dance heightens your own ecstasy? Then, when the happy dance eventually winds down. A charismatic man, the same one who told you it was good to do the happy dance and feel so good, tells you that those who develop romantic feelings toward their own gender types will burn in a fiery Hell for eternity. There can be no end to their suffering. Ever.

What if your leaders tell you that you must abandon all intellect and individual discernment and receive the truth of all things from the Bible and that particular leader’s interpretation of its meaning? If you think killing innocents in Iraq in the name of freeing them is wrong, you must set such ideas aside, because your leader says Iraq is a Just and Holy war. He says that a war against “unbelievers” in the Holy Land will bring about the Kingdom of God as told in Revelation, and in the coming of the Kingdom, you and all faithful can then do the happy dance for all eternity?

If you question why Muslims, Hindus, Budhists, and even Christians who were only “sprinkled” instead of dunked should go to Hell while you are enjoying your Ecstatic Forever, you are presented with the jealous, vengeance-loving, arbitrary God of the Old Testament, and told to banish such thoughts, and all thinking, lest you burn with the others.

In the end, all the manipulation by rewards and punishments, begins to look like a way more to control people and exercise power over them than any kind of faith that matures and can sustain a person for a lifetime.

My knowledge of such simple faith systems is limited; I never knew the ability to return to such simplistic belief systems month after month and year after year. I admit to having no comprehension of how a person builds a life on what, for me, is so little faith.

Andrew Sullivan quoted H.L. Mencken yesterday, and that quote seems to fit here.

“Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on ‘I am not too sure.’”

(That Sullivan goes on to say that “he knows what he doesn’t know . . . is a defining characteristic of the conservative,” is a discussion best left for another post.)

If we accept moral certainty as inferior, what are we to make of religious certainty? At least with moral certainty, you are likely to have some tangible evidence around which to build an argument.

The evidence held up by most christian adherents is the Bible. A large portion of those who express certainty in their beliefs either don’t know or deny the known facts of how the book came into existance. Even dispassionate scholars with large bodies of evidence before them on the Bible’s origins lack certainty on aspects of the particulars. So where does the certainty of the non-scholar come from? One might say “faith,” but what is faith in the presence of known fallacy?

Faith has to come from somewhere else. It can come from the Bible, yes, but not exclusively, and not in an uncritical, literal interpretation of each chapter and verse, no matter how contradictory the juxtapositions of chapter with chapter and verse with verse. Reading necessarily becomes selective, given the contradictions. One can not act on “an eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” applied to the same case at the same moment.

Given some historical and literary context, though, one might understand that “an eye for an eye” is not a justification for retribution, but an admonishment against disproportionate retribution. Not a life for an eye, in other words. “Turn the other cheek” need not be seen as a contradiction, then, but as a higher, better, even more humanitarian response to the harms inflicted by others.

Given the misuse of the Bible and the Christian faith, I have for some time opted out. I have variously attended the Unitarian Universalist church where congregants agree on “principles” rather than creeds, sought evidence of divinity in nature and beauty and truth, and ignored or denied faith altogether.
Through such times I miss religious ritual and community. When I am more tolerant of creeds and trinitarian formulas, I attend an Episcopal Church.

And here is where I find myself. Either with insufficient intellect to span the cognative dissonances that arise when one seeks to make a “leap of faith” to experience the divine in terms supplied by others, or to embrace the “unknowable,” or with a particular brand of autism or obsessive-compulsive disorder that can not stop seeking to know the unknowable.

I suspect if I am somehow disordered, it is a common disorder. In this context, it is no wonder that fundamentalism maintains its hold. It must provide tremendous peace of mind to have everything figured out.

Sphere: Related Content

Hillary for President, The Default Choice

Posted on January 20, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Sen. Hillary Clinton
Today, January 20, two years to the day before her anticipated inauguration, NY Senator Hillary Clinton announced the formation of her exploratory committee, the current way candidates announce official candidacy for POTUS, that is, President of the United States.

It is a momentous announcement and entirely expected.

If elected, she will become the first woman president, a cliché whose time is past due. She will be attacked from the right for all the standard right-wing things, but also for all the standard snarky things, always couched some way to deny that her being a woman has anything to do with it. But be warned the clichés will all be pulled out, starting with “the weaker sex.” Charges of bitchiness will be leveled, though not often using the word. A man would be called tough, strong, firm. If in one sentence she’s credited with neutral-sounding attributes of good leadership, in the next sentence she’ll be called mannish and likened to a dyke (no offense intended toward my lesbian friends).

There are other candidates I like. Dennis Kucinich for his wonderful, unabashed liberalism (there should be more like him), Bill Richardson may throw in, forget Tom V-something from Iowa, John Edwards has a compelling message. Edwards and Barack Obama seem the likeliest challengers to Clinton at this point.

The thing is, I’m not ready to vote for any of Hillary’s challengers today. I don’t know them well enough, to start with. I feel like I know John Edwards second best after Hillary, but not in the same way. I do know Hillary well enough to vote for her today.

She suits certain aspects of my idealism, including what must be clear: she is a woman who could do the job. The first woman to inhabit the office of President will have to excel in it. Not Geena Davis batting-her-eyes-while-squashing-opponents-like-bugs-excellence. The First Woman President will have to achieve garden-variety excellence, albeit rose-garden-variety.

There is a huge difference among centrists. There’s the Chuck Hagel centrist and there’s the John Edwards centrist. Both might occupy near points on a political continuum, but one is informed from the right, and the other from the left. The people who move in their orbits and whom they listen to make all the difference. As in Nancy Reagan’s astrology, you might have one of twelve signs, but there are the motions of other planets and nearby bodies that must be understood to do a complete reading.

Hillary’s husband Bill, The Best President Of A Generation, disappointed me — not for his naughty proclivities and inability to hide or control them, and not for anything he tried to do. Bill Clinton disappointed me for the things that he believed in that he could not get done. It will be the same with Hillary. There will be things that I hope she will accomplish, that she would choose to accomplish, but will have to make judgements about priorities and where she can make the most substantial change. I expect to disagree about those priorities from time to time as well.

The distance progressives (myself included) want to cover in a single presidential term is massive, as things have moved in the wrong direction for far too long. A leader who would be able to cover that distance in all things would have to command god-like followership. Frankly, I find such notions dangerous. I want a leader who will do the right thing and do the things that can be done, reelection be damned, and hopefully the goodness and integrity expressed in those actions will allow them to continue to lead and accomplish more.

I was surprised by the positive assessment of Ms. Clinton on the Daily Kos last night.

Kos says:
By all measures she’s been a great Senator. She’s got a great “story”, and has taken more shit from the Right than any other Democrat in existence (besting husband Bill by a longshot). She’s a tough one. And really, while Republicans may talk about swiftboating her, is there anything left for them to hurl at her? Unlike what some naysayers say, she can absolutely win the general election.

I tend expect to find the “netroots crowd,” the youngish internet activists, a bit coolish on Hillary. Kos’s biggest criticism of her is that he expects she will have little “coattails” draw, which is likely true of any but the most charismatic of candidates.

And speaking of charisma, I watched Hillary’s announcement video this morning. She surprises in the charisma category. Give her a look.

It’s very early. There’s lots of time for this field of candidates to make their individual cases. I’ll be watching them all with great anticipation for each. Is Hillary the default choice? Clearly yes. Does that mean she’s the choice until somone better emerges? Yes on that, too. Does that rule out her turning out to be the emergent candidate herself? Absolutely not.

Sphere: Related Content

Jake Gyllenhaal: The World’s Buffest Drag Queen

Posted on January 18, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Sometimes I can be WAY too serious. Here’s something to lighten things up.

Sphere: Related Content

Smoke and Mirrors? Gonzales, Adminsitration to Allow FISA Oversight

Posted on January 18, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

In a surprise move the Justice Department announced Wednesday that they would allow oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Security Court, known as the FISA Court, to oversee the NSA program to wiretap Americans with suspected ties to terrorists.

There is enough of the typical doublespeak and obfuscation in the announcement, that it is reasonable to suspect that the move has more to do with trying to deflect Congressional oversight than to create any real reform.

One aspect to be questioned is does this change reflect all warrants formerly overseen by FISA, and two is it the same case by case oversight that was the rule in past administrations, rather than some blanket ruling by a friendly judge in secrecy.

A NY Times article hints at these questions.

In the end, we can hope this means better compliance with established law going forward. But when someone stops breaking the law does not absolve them of their earlier crimes. Whether or not there is any sanction for the administration, the Justice Department, and the NSA for past crimes against American citizens, these issues need resolution so that the limits of executive power in this area is well-defined.

From the Times:
“The announcement today is welcome news,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Intelligence Committee. “But it is also confirmation that the administration’s go-it-alone approach, effectively excluding Congress and the courts and operating outside the law, was unnecessary.”

Mr. Rockefeller added, “I intend to move forward with the committee’s review of all aspects of this program’s legality and effectiveness.

The correct action for Congress, given the circumstances, is to do what was always to be done: provide comprehensive oversight, and investigate any violations of law.

Sphere: Related Content

Stonewall Dems Unhappy With Choice of Harold Ford For DLC

Posted on January 16, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

Gay Democrats are in a tough position. We shouldn’t be surprised. Like African Americans it is easy for us to feel taken for granted by the Democratic Party. I’ve read coverage over the past year in the Washington Blade about how Howard Dean, the party chair, has subtly lowered the profile of Gay and Lesbian issues and how he has treated staff working to advance those issues. We’re often treated as if George Bush’s “reelection” in 2004 was our fault — because the opposing party chose to persecute us to create an effective wedge issue.

Now Harold Ford has been chosen as head of the conservative (some say centrist) Democratic Leadership Council. Their website says they’re “modernizing progressive politics.” I don’t want to knock too hard on on this group. The Clintons and Al Gore have been associated with the group and its policies. The DLC has been given credit for the 8 years we had of Bill Clinton (which could have been four more years of George H.W. Bush, followed by who, Dan Quayle? Oh no!).

I don’t even want to knock too hard on Harold Ford. He would have been a good choice for Sen. in conservative Tennessee. He is not a good choice for a national role, and certainly not in the Democratic party. The reason? He changed position (they say for political expediency) in favor of an a national anti-gay marriage amendment. That is just wrong. He should have more integrity than that. All Democrats should.

Do we want to amend the U.S. constitution to remove the potential for a particular group of citizens to gain basic civil rights? That is such an anti-American concept, it hurts me before I begin to consider how it affects my own life.

What are gay and lesbian Dems to do with regard to our party? Vote Republican? Well, that’s just crazy-talk. Republicans thought last year they could take the fact that some Blacks feel taken for granted by Dems, and trick them into voting Republican. They must have been smoking some really good shit. Still it was ugly and I was hurt by the exploitation that they attempted. It hurt me in the same way that hearing the N-word hurts me, even though to look at me you know no one’s trying to harm me with such words. That effort was subtle, and racist, and hateful. That’s no place to ever go.

In concept I like the Greens. I also like not giving up all hope to make any political progress in my own lifetime. No, in all likelihood, I’m going to stay a Dem — and I’m going to hold my party’s feet to the fire regarding equality. In politics everyone gets dirty. Everyone makes compromises. We make compromises on issues, not on our values. A Green party or a Gay party government would not produce a utopia. Whatever party we support, we have to demand our seat at the table, and demand that core values are not compromised.

Sphere: Related Content

Bob Cesca’s Take on Bush On “60 Minutes”

Posted on January 16, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

This is Bob Cesca on Huffington Post. My one comment is for me the voice is as bad as the smirk. That, and the impression that I am being lied to any time I hear his voice. I have to work to stay tuned in–and admittedly fail in that effort a bit too often.

Sphere: Related Content

Is Nothing Sacred Anymore?

Posted on January 15, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!

golden calfThe meaning of words is very important to me. As I write, words will flow from my fingertips that seem to express what I want to say, and as a particular word appears on my screen, I’ll question it. I know the word when I see it in context, and the language flows naturally, but do I really know it’s intrinsic meaning? Does the word accurately express my intention? My dictionary is never more than a few mouse clicks away.

Complicating matters is that we are bombarded daily with gross and subtle misuses of language, both from the ignorance of users as well as from nefarious craftiness. Ignorance would not be quite as dangerous as intentional misuse, except the ignorant tend to propagate the misuse of the nefarious communicators. Fox News and the Republican elite, especially, cynically groom the ill-informed to redefine catchwords for their own use.

Take the word “elite.” How did that word, meaning, “a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society or category, esp. because of their power, talent, or wealth,” become associated with liberalism? There would be some overlap among liberals and elites, but the word, whose definition suggests power and wealth, applies far more readily to those who make an epithet of it to fling at others.

In my blogging, I am careful to always tag issuses dealing with violent war and the death penalty with the keyword “sanctity of life.” I also tag procreation and medical research as well as animal rights issues with “sanctity of life.” It doesn’t matter if I’m arguing pro-choice, as I frequently do, or questioning at what stage a human embryo deserves the protection of law — all of these issues dealing with human life, animal life, and suffering, will resolve to some basic questions of finding what is sacred in life. It is both an assertion and an inquiry. The assertion is not of certain knowledge, but of the belief that the inquiry is of great importance.

I tag “sanctity of life” in part because it is a catchphrase used by the Right, having to do with positions against abortion and an individual’s right to die with dignity. By doing so, I hope that a few people who toss around the phrase in that way will find my site and perhaps a few of those will read and get my meaning. I don’t think of it as co-opting their catchphrase, for me it is reclaiming its meaning.

from an earlier post:
We have all these good people in our churches, in public office, and on Sunday morning talk shows who like to talk about zygotes in petri dishes and embryos in freezers, of biomedical research, and of Terri Schiavo. They love to talk about the sanctity of life. That is, that life itself, is sacred or holy. At what point in a man’s life is his life no longer holy? Can his actions negate sanctity, or does the sacred come from God? Why is is so hard to say we abhor a man’s behavior, but the spark of life in him, which comes from God, we can not take away? If we can say it to protect a cluster of cells in a petri dish, why not for a man — whatever the condition of his soul or of his karma?

Likewise, I cringe when opportunistic politicians seek to protect the U.S. flag from “desecration.” The flag is not sacred. It is not God and did not come from God. Americans may feel and even claim to be blessed by God, but how arrogant is it to claim to be more blessed than others? Even most of those with a belief in some kind exclusive relationship with God, would have to recognize that there are other nations where their own idea of faith is followed. Are their national flags equally “sacred?” Is nationalism itself sacred? How scary is that?

It is truly amazing to me that the same folks who accept the word “desecration” for the destruction of the flag tend to be evangelical Christians who are absolutely steeped in the absolutism of the Old Testament. If these “Bible believing” Christians have read Genesis to condemn Darwin, and Leviticus to condemn everything else, one would imagine they’d have a passing knowledge of Exodus ch. 32, and Exodus 20:4:

“You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.” (NIV)

Exodus 32 deals with the children of Israel making a golden calf. What is sanctifying the U.S. Flag if not idolatry? I’m not saying that the flag should not be a powerful symbol, but the symbol, by definition is not the thing itself. We hold the symbol of the flag important and worth our respect because of the set of ideas it represents. Most of us, right and left, agree that one of the most important ideas represented by our flag is freedom.

Two of the fundamental freedoms represented by the U.S. flag are religion and speech. No matter how distasteful the idea, the freedom to mistreat the flag as a form of speech must be protected or the symbol is diminished. One could even argue that specific protection for the flag is itself destructive to the flag—and for those yet unswayed, a desecration.

And as for making a god of the flag — or a golden calf, all are free in this land to do that as well.

Sphere: Related Content

« go back — keep looking »