The Lincolnian Liberal

A Progressive Licks His Wounds ... and Moves on!

2010-11-03T06:23:00.000-07:00

I know I haven't blogged in awhile. My schedule this year has been quite busy, and there just hasn't been time to spout my views.

But, with yesterday's election, hopefully I'll be more inspired to write. In the meantime....

With the Speaker of the House Corporate Profit Boehner looking like he'll rule the House, America, welcome back to Dubya's Economic Policies!

That's my Michelle...

2010-09-25T15:07:00.000-07:00

The GOP's "Pledge to America", or "How We Almost F***** Up America Once and We Want to Do It Again"

2010-09-24T21:03:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, the GOP released it's "Pledge with America", a consortium of failed policies that derailed our country once into the toilet, repackaged with a gimmicky new name and a big stinkin' bow of horse hokey. This "Pledge" is designed to put back on track a GOP party besieged by the Tea Party, corporate lobbyists, and conservative billionaires needing a bail out.

Back in the 1990's, the Republicans issued a "Contract with America" that pledged all sorts of hooey to get them into power in the Senate, which ended up in a disastrous government shutdown until they retreated with their tail between their legs. Oh, and while Mr. Gingrich lambasted our president for indiscretions, he himself was parlaying his own indiscretions as well.

When I first heard about "The Pledge" I thought it interesting they chose that word and not the more permanent sounding "contract"again. My guess is that the term "contract" evokes a legal, binding agreement that they will actually do those things. A pledge is sort of more of a general agreement, a vow, so to speak, which we all know the aforementioned Gingrich doesn't put much stock into.

Anyway, while I haven't and will not read "The Pledge", apparently the GOP plan is to restore America to the glorious days of this idiot...

Here are some of the pledges in the document:

1) Repeal the current health care bill, so that...

... it will be legal again to drop children with pre-existing conditions from insurance policies

... insured citizens start paying again for preventive health care options like immunizations and mammograms

... ensure that health care providers return to the days of 100 billion dollar profits and huge bonuses

2) Make permanent the Bush tax cuts, so that...

... the millionaire and billionaires in our country continue to receive a large stimulus bailout to relieve their overdue suffering of stifling tax bills

Yawn. This is totally boring me. Let me just end this piece by mentioning the main architect of this "Pledge to America" is a man named Brian Wild. Brian Wild works for John Boehner, but before he worked for Mr. Oompa-Loompa, he worked as a LOBBYIST for ..... AIG. Yup, that AIG.

America, you really wanna put foxes in charge of the hen house?

As always, here is Jon Stewart's BRILLIANT take down of the Pledge's "New Ideas":

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Postcards From the Pledge

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

The Senate GOP's Latest Idea: The Billionaire's Stimulus Bill

2010-09-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't heard the latest in Republican hilarity, the Senate GOPers have a great idea. They want to pass a "Billionaire's Stimulus Bill".

You see, the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 are scheduled to come to an end this year. While there is momentum to preserve the lower and middle class tax cuts for Americans struggling to make it day by day, there is also momentum to end the cuts for those making more than $250,000. Except Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, who wants to pass ensure that our country's poor billionaires receive stimulus money this year.

McConnell has circled the wagons of Senate Republicans, and declared war on ending the tax cuts for the Rupert Murdoch's of the country. Apparently, their billion of dollars in salaries, yachts, houses around the world, BMW's, and stock options are in peril due to the struggling economy.

McConnell wants to ensure that they have an additional $700 billion dollars over the next ten years because they are suffering so much. This $700 Billionaire Stimulus Bill is not paid for either, unless you count taking food out of the mouths of our children, taking away health care from our seniors, and kicking our unemployed citizens out of our homes.

We shouldn't be surprised that McConnell wants to pass this Billionaire Stimulus Bill. After all, they are his closest friends lobbyists, aren't they?

John Boehner's Speakership, or How Mr. Oompa-Loompa Turns our Government Over to Big Business

2010-09-12T20:32:00.000-07:00

With polls seemingly swinging towards Republicans, who responsible for the mess we are currently in, AKA "The Republican Recession", a very frightening possibility is "Speaker of the House Boehner." I shudder at the possibility. Times are tough right now. Still tough. Republicans spent eight years running our economy into the ground, and their desire is to put the idiots back in charge of the government?

The New York Times published an article in the Sunday edition that is chilling. It accounts of Rep. Boehner's connection to big corporate lobbyists. They have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaign, and have a direct line to him. Boehner's corporate bigwig friends don't deny a thing.

“Does he have a lot of relationships in this city? Yes, absolutely,” said Mark Isakowitz, a friend whose Republican firm represents more than three dozen financial, telecommunications, energy and consumer products companies as diverse as Coca-Cola and Zurich Financial Services. “But I think all the good lawmakers do.”

The question the country needs to ask itself is: Are we willing to turn over the Speaker of the House to Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS? Can you imagine it?

INSERT SPOOKY DREAM MUSIC HERE AS THE SCREEN DISSOLVES INTO WAVY LINES

SPEAKER BOEHNER

I'd like to call the first session of the 112th Congress to session. Thanks to my corporate ... errr, constituents for putting me here today. As first order of business, I'd like to call my lobby .... err, constituent from the state of Goldman Sac.... errr, Ohio, to bang the gavel.

REPUBLICAN MICHELE BACHMANN

No!

SPEAKER BOEHNER

Ms. Bachmann, may I remind you that we are in charge of the House and therefore...

BACHMANN

(interrupting)

No!

SPEAKER BOEHNER

Ms. Bachmann, you don't need to obstruct anymore. We talked about this in my office earlier. Remembe....

BACHMANN

(interrupting yet again)

No!

SPEAKER BOEHNER

Okay. You leave me no choice.

From behind the dais, Boehner pulls a lever and Bachmann falls through a trap door in the floor. Everyone, including Republicans applause.

SPEAKER BOEHNER

Best use of stimulus money that I voted against!

Okay, may I resume my business? I'd like to introduce guest Speaker of the House, CEO of Goldman Sachs Lloyd Blankfein to open business today. In fact, Goldman Sachs will have the chair for the next two months. He'd like to toss out all Wall Street reform measures.

Next, I'll turn over the chair to Nicholas E. Calio from Citibank. Citibank wants to do away with any pesky rules that actually protect customers from random interest rate hikes. In fact, he wants to allow credit cards to charge 100% daily interest.

REPUBLICANS

Hurray! Hurray! More profits! More stock options!

SPEAKER BOEHNER

(pulling out a list from his pocket)

Then we'll turn over the gavel to Google.

REPUBLICANS

End Net Neutrality! Allow Rupert Murdoch to control the Internet!

SPEAKER BOEHNER

How about turning it over to United Health Plan? That way, we can drop those 32 million Americans who were covered under Obamacare, allow big corporate health companies to raise their rates, and start killing poor people again!

BACHMANN

Bachmann shrieks loudly in complete and unrestrained ecstasy from underneath the house floor.

SPEAKER BOEHNER

Yes, Michele. I knew that would do it for you. Let's see, who else may I sell this chair to? Walmart? BP?

CLERK

Excuse me, Speaker. Osama bin Laden is on the phone. He'd like to donate two million dollars to your campaign...

SPEAKER BOEHNER

(swings gavel)

SOLD!

Speaker Boehner: American's Democracy for sale.

Shooting Fish in a Barrel: My Response to Last Week's Palinism

2010-09-07T20:05:00.000-07:00

On August 19th, Republican Stooge failed VP candidate Sarah Palin tweeted this charming blurb:

Liberals defended Shirley Sharrod, lecturing about importance of hearing statements "in context" For everyone except Dr Laura of course.

Her moment of brilliance served as a new feature to my blog, a weekly "Palinism" that highlight's the woman's endless stupidity. This charming one was my first. Here is my response.

First, let's ignore her misspelling of Shirley SHERROD's name. One cannot expect someone with an IQ along the leeward side of the bell curve to actually worry about the spelling of a last name. Let's bravely journey to the content of her posting.

Sarah Palin is actually suggesting by this comment that there is an actual context to use the n-word in conversations in America today. Let me repeat that: Palin actually believes that Americans can go around spouting racial epithets in conversation as long as the "context" supports it.

What, may I ask the witless wonder, what context is that? In what world would she engage a group of African-Americans, or even a single Black-American, with usage of that word? Knowing that the likelihood of her talking to anyone but a White-American is nil, let's put it in that context. Is she going to stand on a stage and use that term in a political rally? How about at a dinner party? In a private conversation?

Does she really think there is ANY context in which it is okay? For she seems to suggest that there is, and she seems to suggest that the context in which Dr. Laura was using it was acceptable.

Well, I have news for my fine feathered and fickle friend to the north, the woman who couldn't complete a term as governor because she wanted to rake in the big bucks speaking at Tea Parties. That news is that there IS no context you can use that word in any way, shape or form in America. Period.

End of an Illegal War: Iraq in the Mirror

2010-09-06T08:51:00.000-07:00

This week marked the official "end" of the US military involvement in Iraq (although we know its not really the end as we continue to support them). President Obama's speech announcing the cessation brought me back to a time, about eight years ago, when this illegal war started.

I was teaching at an elementary school in Beaverton, and fearing that a righteous and out-of-control president would attack a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. All of the blabber about "WMD's", secret laboratories, and other "vainglorious piffle" didn't convince me one iota of the legitimacy of the action.

That evening, I watched the president announce his intentions for declaring war, lying up the wingwang to the citizens of the United States, and was greatly sickened by it. So much so that I sent an e-mail out to my friends suggesting they wear black the day the bombs starting falling, as sort of a protest. Several people at school that day did, including me.

Before the war, I engaged in a brief discussion of the merits of the war with a relative. She tried to convince me that the war should happen because Saddam Hussein was a "bad man". I responded if we launched wars against all of the countries led by "bad people" in the world, we'd launch 15 different wars on that day, if not more. Was that a criteria to kill our soldiers?

And eight years later, and what do we have? What have we accomplished in Iraq? That question remains both unanswered and unanswerable. Hussein is no longer in power, but Iran, no longer having to battle an enemy who kept its power in check, now has the capability of running the gamut in the region.

The true legacy lies in a couple of numbers:

Estimated US Servicemen killed: 32,000
Estimated Iraq civilian death toll: 97,000 - 106,000

Once, during a discussion with a friend about this illegal action, I was labeled a "pacifist". Apparently, my opposition to attack countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 logically meant that I opposed ALL wars. I tried to respond, somewhat to deaf ears, that I wasn't. I cannot fathom the south ending slavery on its own volition. I do not think that Hitler would have retreated from his conquest of the world.

However, I did oppose this war. A war built on a sandy foundation of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and out right lies. It was an illegal action, period. And I, for one, am glad its over. I just hope that we haven't destroyed Iraq and caused far more damage than there was the day before we bombed the crap out of them. However, I feel that hope is a dim one, indeed.

As always, Rachel says it more eloquently that I:

Reflections in the Lincoln Memorial Pool: Glenn Beck's Ego-a-Palooza

2010-08-29T08:54:00.000-07:00

The main theme of Glenn Beck's "I Have an Ego" weekend was "Restoring Honor". This is how we "restore honor" in America:

This makes me think of the days after 9/11, when patriotic fever was running rampant through our society, and all of a sudden, commercials on the television appeared to purchase "AMERICAN FLAGS FOR YOUR CAR! FOR 9.99: SHOW YOUR PATRIOTISM TODAY (shipping and handling extra). I doubt the nearly 3,000 people who died in the Twin Towers were hoping for capitalists to make a buck on their demise.

The last picture is probably the most laughable. Equating Fox News with Paul Revere? Really? There is only one person that is fooled by that sign, and its the person carrying it.

Apparently, in the rally unwatched by me (I had to clean the oven yesterday so I missed it), Beck decided to spend some time taunting Keith Olbermann (all the while he would never consent to talking with Olbermann, Maddow or Schultz about political issues....).

Here is Olbermann's take, recorded a couple days prior to the rally.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Real History at the Lincoln Memorial, and It's Aint Beck's Ego

2010-08-28T20:00:00.000-07:00

Today, radio shock jock Glenn Beck channeled his inner Jerry Falwell and besmirched not only the Lincoln Memorial, but Martin Luther King, and the civil rights movement that inspired generations towards the still unmet goal of equality.

I spent absolutely no time watching any "news" coverage of the event. Instead, I wanted to post two truly historical events that occurred on the very same steps that Beck dishonored by his "I Have an Ego Rally".

The first occurred in 1939, when famed opera singer Marian Anderson was denied an event singing in the Constitution Hall by the Daughters of the American Revolution. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, stalwart civil rights supporter, resigned from the group and organized an outdoor concert by Anderson on the steps of the Memorial. The event was immortalized in one of my favorite children's picture books The Voice That Challenged a Nation: Marian Anderson and the Struggle for Equal Rights.

The sight of an African-American woman standing in front of the president who signed the Emancipation Proclamation is stunning.

Watch below:

The second event needs little introduction. It occurred on August 28, 1963.

Now, that's history.

Glenn Beck's "I Have an Ego" Rally

2010-08-27T16:35:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, Glenn Beck and a group of his Borg "supporters" are converging on the Lincoln Memorial in an effort to "Restore Honor" to ... well, Glenn Beck's ego. You see, his ratings have been in the tank lately, and he's not getting the usual mindless promotion from the media cabal of the Republican Party Fox News. So, he picked Washington DC, and a "random date" to have his rally.

Yes, as random as the 47th anniversary of the historic "I Have a Dream Speech". Yes, that one. With Martin Luther King, Jr. The one that served as an important marker in the civil rights movement.

Glenn Beck says that the timing is "accidental". That he picked a Saturday near to his "9/12" date that describes his "9/12" movement whose purpose still escapes me (other than feeding Glenn Beck's ego).

So, one question that I have that Glenn Beck won't answer (because he's too busy calling our president who has a white mother a "racist" with "deep seeded hatred for white people of the white culture") is why, if his date was accidental, he is claiming to "reclaim the civil rights movement."

Beck said his rally will be an "iconic event", and then goes on an even more ludicrous route by stating, "we will reclaim the civil rights movement.

"We are on the right side of history. We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties and damn it, we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement because we were the people that did it in the first place."

This is a classic White male perspective of protecting his privilege in our society by assuming the role of hassled victim. For people such as him, they recognize that privilege in our society is like a giant Jello, and there is only so much to go around. So, if we include our second class citizens fully in our society and political structures, as is sort of promised in the Constitution, then there will be less for him.

Beck has also said his rally will be "nonpolitical". This "nonpolitical" rally has these groups involved with the planning:

Tea Party Patriots
National Rifle Association
Freedomworks (a right wing political group)
Americans for Prosperity (another right wing political group)
Fox News (a "non participant" but a network that is heavily promoting this ego rally every chance it gets)

And, finally, there is a special guest appearance by none other than the main idiot herself: Alaska "I-Can't-Complete-a-Term" Governor Sarah Palin.

Yeah Beck, you are right. Nonpolitical for sure!

In his excellent book Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance, Alexander Zaitchik documents a history of "rallies" by Beck, all designed to show hyper-patriotism and Beck's enormous ego. This is nothing new.

Tomorrow, I shall watch the true speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. I'll be thinking about the civil rights movement, and how it gave millions of our citizens a step up from their unequal lives. I'll be thinking about how thirty years before that, a Black singer sang on the steps because she was barred from an auditorium, and how a First Lady arranged for her voice to soar outside. And I'll be thinking about how our country still has miles to go in the what seems to be the endless quest for true equality, and how much more work we have to do.

I won't be thinking of Glenn Beck's ego.

Here is Jon Stewart's hilarious take.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

I Have a Scheme

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

"Dr." Laura's Rant: A White Guy Examines Her Racism, and Palin Chimes In As Well

2010-08-19T09:26:00.000-07:00

In a previous post, I commented on several parts of the now infamous and hopefully career ending racist rant by conservative radio propagandist commentator Dr. Laura Schlessinger. During that post, I learned that Grand Dragon Dr. Laura went on Larry King, and then in an interview with CNN reporter , defending herself and her "First Amendment" rights. I'd like to comment on some her snippets (again, edited by me), as well as share an insightful bit of racism from Sarah Palin.

Here is a snippet from Larry King:

I don't have the right to say what I need to say. My First Amendment rights have been usurped by angry, hateful groups who don't want to debate, they want to eliminate. So, that's why I decided it was time to move on to other venues where I could say my piece and not have to live in fear anymore that sponsors and their families are going to be upset, radio stations are going to be upset, my peeps, as I call them, are going to be upset."

Dr. Laura again is resorting to a typical White person defense of their unseen racist statements by first avoiding the content of her message entirely. In fact, she once again, in the first bolded statement, not only claims her "first Amendment rights" have been usurped, but then she calls out the groups that are "attacking her" by pointing out the racist remarks. In this sentence, she cleverly does a couple of things: tries to hide behind the Constitution to protect her speech, and then suggest that "angry, hateful" groups are attacking not only her, the but the Constitution as well.

Who does she think these "angry, hateful" groups are? In code, she's talking about groups of African-Americans, like the NAACP. So, now she's connected Black people attacking the Constitution, and then what does she say? "Live in fear"... conservatives always run a "fear based" campaign. Let's resort to the racist ideology of fearing our Black citizens. Well done, Dr. Laura!

This doesn't even talk about the absurdity of the claim that people are denying her "First Amendment" rights. Of course she has first amendment rights. She can stand on the street corner and unleash her racist vituperation all day long. But while the First Amendment works to protect your right to speak, it doesn't give you protection from the responsibility for that speech. Dr. Laura apologized for her diatribe; but her later defense of said diatribe shows the insincerity of her apology and her incomprehension of the racism behind her comments.

John Roberts, covering for Anderson Cooper on 360, calls out Dr. Laura on her assertion that Blacks voted for Obama simply because of their skin color. When refuted with data, read what Dr. Laura does:

"The point that this woman made, which you don't play ... interestingly ... is her racist statement that whites are afraid of the black man taking over America. I think that was a pretty racist statement."

Insert buzzer sound. Sorry Dr. Laura. Wrong again. First, Dr. Laura chooses NOT to engage Roberts in a debate about his point: calling her out for saying that Blacks only voted for Obama because of his skin color. She sidesteps the issue (AVOIDANCE). How? By launching an attack on the Black caller by calling her a racist. Dr. Laura again is taking the recipient of racism and making her into the perpetrator of it. Classic White racist move. Well done again, Dr. Laura!

The question is, can we really blame Dr. Laura for her racist tirades? Is she the one to blame for this, or is society to blame? Well, in short, the answer to the first question is a resounding YES. Why? Being a public mouthpiece, giving information and advice on the radio carries with it a price tag. And that price tag involves educating herself on issues of race in this country. Those who speak about such things should know about such things.

To me, the content of her comments indicates where she is on her (lack of) understanding of issues involving race and equity in this country. She comments from the world she walks in, and that world she walks in is White. She doesn't realize, and hasn't learned, that people who are not White walk in a very different world than we do, which answers my second question.

What's the charming post-script to this story? Yes, of course, CONservative stool pigeon and "I-can't-complete-my-time-as-governor-because-I-can-make-millions-spouting-jibberish" Sarah Palin chimes into the fray with this lovely Tweet (bolding mine):

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair") - Twitter, August 18th.

Palin's advice? Retreat ... reload. Yes, Ms. Palin. Let's use more of that hateful, hurtful language to make more of our citizenry feel second class.

You are such a "classy" woman.

The Fall of Dr. Laura: It Only Took Herself to End Her Show

2010-08-17T21:59:00.000-07:00

Can't you hear it now? "Ding, dong the witch is dead..."

I would have to say that my first true foray into the "political" realm occurred after the above witch called me a "biological error". Back in the late 90's/early 00's, Dr. Laura had a television show that tanked, partially due to an advertising campaign organized by John Aravosis, now of the oft-visited AmericaBlog and Americablog Gay. It worked, and we moved on to greener pastures while "the doctor" spewed her conservative opinions about life.

Ten years later, it turns out it wasn't a boycott, or disgruntled listeners, or even a pail of water that would silence this righteous broad, but simply, she herself "done her in".

Last week, it was aptly covered that Dr. Laura went on a racist diatribe in response to a caller dealing with issues of racism. Here is the now career ending phone call now:

Here are some choice excerpts of Dr. Laura's comments, and my take on them:

Dr. Laura: well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing.

Me: First. has Dr. Laura spoken with "many blacks" about how they voted? Did she take a survey? And how can she claim to know the operations of some one's mind?

Her assertion is that black people would vote for a candidate only be because of his skin color, and because they agree with his political positions, his economic philosophy, a desire to shape the Supreme Court more fairly, or the fact that his wife is amazing. Nope, the only reason blacks for a black candidate is skin color. Dr. Laura, that's a racist comment.

Caller: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is n*****, n*****, n*****. I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing.

Oh, where to begin? Dr. Laura obviously fell asleep in history class, or more appropriately, ignored hundreds of years of our history. Do I really need to tell her that that word is simply not okay for White people to use, in any context and in any way? Does she need to be reminded that thousands of black people heard that yelled at them moments before their death by white crowds, prior to lynching? Prior to being whipped? Prior to being denied their education, and as they walked into a white school for the first time to get their education?

SCHLESSINGER: We've got a black man as president, and we have more complaining about racism than ever. I mean, I think that's hilarious.

Apparently, in Dr. Laura's opinion, all it takes to heal 400 years of oppression, racism, prejudice and bigotry is to elect a black president. Guess she doesn't watch Fox News?

Dr. Laura goes on spewing more and more vainglorious piffle until she cuts off the caller, who is patiently trying to educate Dr. Laura on my previous "white people shouldn't use that word". She then launches into a reflection on this call, that is the true object of my disaffection for this clueless calamity:

If you're that hypersensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race. ....

We have to be able to discuss these things. We're people -- goodness gracious me. Ah -- hypersensitivity, OK, which is being bred by black activists. 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. I do get it. It's all about power and that's sad because what should be in power is not power or righteousness to do good -- that should be the greatest power.

Please note I heavily edited and used bold print for Dr. Laura's comments.

Dr. Laura's use of the word "hypersensitive" several times indicates to me that she doesn't see race as an issue any longer in this country, and falls back on "blaming the victim" instead of addressing the issue. It's common for White people to fall into "avoidance", a term defined in this remarkable book, Courageous Conversations About Race: A Field Guide for Achieving Equity in Schools. Dr. Laura indicates to me that she has no understanding of her own race, and therefore, cannot possibly begin to see race after another person's point of view.

Her accusation then switches to attacking "black activists", and goes immediately into the fear statement, "blacks demonizing whites". This is the zenith of avoidance. Now, not only is she refusing to acknowledge race, but she turns African-Americans, who are the recipients of racism in our society, into the perpetrators! She might as well start talking about "reverse racism".... oh, well, she does later, but that's another post.

The one thing I agree with her on. Her final statement. "It's all about power." She's right about that, but wrong about the source of power. It's all about her White power and privilege in this society that supports, feeds, and nourishes her ignorance on race issues in this country.

I can say this to be definitely true because as a White person in this country, it does the same for me. Every day.

I'll blog more about Dr. Laura's ending of her show, and her appearance on Larry King, in another post.

So, Dr. Laura ends her show because of a single caller. I wonder if this caller wouldn't mind dialing up Bill O'Reilly ... Glenn Beck ... Michael Savage .... the list goes on.

Gay Judges Judging The Constitution? "Say it Ain't So!" says Tony Perkins

2010-08-10T20:42:00.000-07:00

The KKK Family Research Council is up to its tricks again! Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins has gone on the rampage disputing the ruling

"I think what you have is one judge who thinks he knows and a district level judge and an openly homosexual judge at that, who says he knows better than not only 7 million voters in the state of California but voters in 30 states across the nation that have passed marriage amendments. This is far from over.”

First, there is no evidence that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay. He has not declared it, or outed himself.

But let's entertain the crazy man's idea that an openly gay judge cannot fairly judge a gay marriage case. Obviously, in Perkins' small mind, an intelligent man who attends three years of law schools, and sits on the federal bench for 20 years is not able to think beyond his Johnson when it comes to the law.

Maybe, is it because Republicans are notoriously good at thinking with their Johnsons? Case in point:

"I love women!, God and guns! Now, where's the White Party?"

"No, I didn't not have sex in that stall!"

"It doesn't matter that I was having an affair while lambasting President Clinton for having an affair!"

(Now, it's true that Democrats have had plenty of sex scandals as well. Only, the Democrats don't run on political platforms of "moral righteousness" that the Republicans hypocritically run on).

But I digress...

Let's assume that Tony Perkins is (gulp) correct. A gay man cannot judge the merits of a gay marriage Constitution case because of conflict of interest. Let's go along this journey and see where it ends.

According to Prop. 8 supporters, the case for enshrining bigotry and unfairness in the Constitution is to protect marriage as an arrangement of one man and one woman, also known as (incorrectly, as it turns out) "traditional marriage". This case is just as much about marriage between one man and one woman as it is about gay marriage.

So, if a man who is gay cannot fairly decide this case, then it follows equally that a person that is married cannot be impartial as well. Right?

Imagine them listening to hours of testimony, of gay couples with kids, talking about the harm that the lack of marriage brings to their family. Then, this same person, going home that evening to their legally wedded and legally recognized spouse. How on earth could they be impartial?

They can't. According to Tony Perkins.

So, I guess if we followed this line, then all of the voters in California who are married couldn't be impartial on the issue and their votes need to be discounted.

Oh, let's continue with this....

Any African-American judge needs to recuse themselves from cases involving race. Actually, White, Latino, and Asian, and every other person in this world cannot judge a civil rights case on race because they couldn't be fair.
Every Supreme Court judge who has declared a religion must recuse themselves from cases judging the separation of church and state because they couldn't be fair.
Let's leave any sex discrimination case to judges who are neither male nor female, because their sex will get in the way of a correct decision.
Any judge who has stock in a corporation? They'll need to recuse themselves on corporate law cases (goodbye Citizens United ruling!

Dear Mr. Perkins, I know you can't possibly mean that any judge who even has a tangential connection to a case is not qualified to judge the merits of a case.

I know what you really mean is that your position in this case is based on bigotry. Your position in this case is based on lies. Your position on this case was only able to provide two quickly discredited witnesses (where were you when they needed people to defend Prop. 8, Mr. Perkins?).

Your position is indefensible. Your position is illogical. So your only defense in this case? Attack the man.

That's an attack of last resort, and a sad one at that.

A Rainbow Target on Target: They Believe in Inequality 3x as Much

2010-08-06T07:08:00.000-07:00

Recently, I've blogged about the $150,000 headache that Target has dealt with since giving money to a group that supports a candidate who would unconstitutionally deny me my equal rights in this country.

The latest effort to calm the waters was a non-apology apology for the donation, written in a letter by Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel.

Quote:

"The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation. While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry."

So, he is sorry that ... that ... the decision affected some people in a way that he can't/won't define? What exactly is he sorry for? And if you look at the entire text of the letter, no where does he make steps to rescind the donation, nor make up for it by donating an equal amount of money to another cause that would support my equal rights.

Nope. So in my books, this is an "non-apology apology", and one that is cold at best.

So first, he tries to stifle the controversy by touting Target's 100% favorable rating by the gay equality organization Human Rights Campaign. Crickets chirp, and the boycott Target Facebook page gains another 20,000 members in the meantime.

The next step? Offer this letter with a "genuinely sorry" comment on it, while leaving the group with $150,000 to continue to fund ads of this bigot.

(Incidentally, the Tom Emmer currently running for governor had this to say about Target, ""The sad part to me is, I thought we were supposed to be able to exercise our rights of free speech." First, Mr. Emmer, do you mean "We the people" or "We the corporations". Oh that's right, in the eyes of the Supreme Court, corporations are people so they have a constitutional right to buy elections and the right to lie to me. Oh, by the way, I'm a person and are the 45,000 other people on the boycott Target Facebook page, and we have a right to express our free speech. Mr. Emmer, I know it's confusing because we are not corporations.)

At any rate, more information has been discovered by the infamous website "Open Secret" which tracks donations for certain causes and politicians. To save you some time, here is the screen cap of the Target donation. What do you notice?

Oh yeah, Target, which earned a 100% on the HRC rating scale, donated money to the "Protectmarriage.com" cause, which fought to pass the unconstitutional Proposition 8 in California. It was a cause they believed $3,250 in.

Closer inspection also notes that Target donated $750 to defeat Prop. 8. Ultimately, it means that they believe in my unequal rights 3 times as much as they believe in my equal rights. And get a load of the the measly $100 donation to the No on 102 campaign, 102 being Arizona's version of Prop 8.

Where does this leave all of us? Well, Target still has miles to go before this news oil spill is cleaned up. In the meantime, I'll post a picture of my own investigation into Target's political bent.

I recently went to a Target (well, within the last couple of weeks) and snapped this picture of their book section.

What do you notice? See all of the "Pro-Obama" books? Nope. Laura Ingraham. Mark Levin. Sean Hannity. Bill O'Reilly. Newt Gingrich. All conservative hacks. Oh, and Laura Bush's new book too (but she supports my equal rights, so she is okay).

And this is in liberal Beaverton and in Oregon.

I'm just sayin'.

Prop 8 aftermath; or how loud can a conservative roar H8?

2010-08-05T08:38:00.000-07:00

Yes, we're still basking in the glow of the amazing ruling in California yesterday from Judge Vaughn Walker. In his historical and landmark ruling, he affirmed that that proposition discriminated against gays and lesbians and therefore, was unconstitutional.

Here is a video of the reaction after the ruling was announced:

We cannot see this enough. After years of suffering discrimination from states who pass laws that make me half a citizen, and yet who gladly accept all of my taxes, it is such a joyous moment.

The basis of the decision rests on an amendment to the Constitution recently in the news for an entirely different reason: the 14th amendment. Part of this amendment ensures that all citizens in the country have "equal protection of the laws". Gasp!

How the government could grant the right of marriage to heterosexual couples, yet deny such a fundamental right to gay couples, under the 14th amendment, never made much sense to me. Judge Walker says in his ruling that moral disagreement with someone (or in this case a group of people) is not reason enough to have laws that discriminate.

So, what's a conservative to gripe about now?

How about this: An activist judge has overturned democracy by subverting the will of the people.

First, let's talk about Judge Walker's "activism". He was appointed to the bench by then president George H.W. Bush. Conservative commentator David Gergen praised Judge Walker as an honest and forthright jurist. Truth be told, the conservatives haul out the tired "activist" label whenever a ruling doesn't go their way (but somehow were totally silent on the "activist" Supreme Court that opened up our election system to corporate money: hmmmmmm).

Second, lets talk about this "will of the people". Our Constitution was founded, and is given power, by the will of the people. Of course, it could successfully be argued that at the time of the writing, the "people" only included white, Christian, straight, property owning men (or as the GOP says, "The good ol' days), but I digress. The true power resides in the people, and it is from them that our government, and in turn our fabulous Constitution, gets its power.

So, with that in mind, how could a federal judge overrule California citizens?

Simple. No one, no group, no entity, is above the Constitution. No one, not the President, not Congress, and not even the citizenry, can pass a law that violates the Constitution. Judge Walker's ruling says that Proposition 8 did just that.

It would be as if the citizens of Tennessee decided to pass a law that said that Christianity was its state religion, and that any other religion was null and void. That wouldn't pass Constitutional muster. Or if Nevada passed a law that said people would have to start housing military people without the owner's consent. Both would be struck down as Constitutional.

To hold up our citizenry to the same Constitutional requirement does many things. It strengthens our Constitution considerably. When equality is confirmed and reaffirmed, it makes the document that guides our country stronger. It also supports the growth of our population participating in our government. By holding them to accountable standards as well, it affirms their participation and decreases the ability of "mob rule" to occur in our country.

The will and the power of the people is important in our country. It just cannot be above the law. It just cannot and should not ever be able to violate our Constitution.

BREAKING NEWS: I HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, PROP. 8 STRUCK DOWN IN CALIFORNIA!

2010-08-04T14:40:00.000-07:00

For the first time in history, a federal judge has ruled that the Constitution applies to everyone in the country, and not just heterosexuals. Striking down the hateful Prop. 8 case, Judge Vaughn Walker has declared that the proposition violates the 14th amendment ensuring equal protection of the laws for all of the citizens, as well as the due process clause.

Judge Walker writes:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,

the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

He continues:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued the following press release:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today issued the following statement after U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued a ruling invalidating Proposition 8:

“Judge Walker had the great responsibility of deciding whether Proposition 8 violates the Constitution of the United States. He heard in-depth arguments from both sides on fundamental questions of due process, equal protection and freedom from discrimination. There are strong feelings on both sides of this issue, and I am glad that all viewpoints were respected throughout the proceedings. We should also recognize that there will continue to be different points of view in the wake of this decision.

“For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves. At the same time, it provides an opportunity for all Californians to consider our history of leading the way to the future, and our growing reputation of treating all people and their relationships with equal respect and dignity.

“Today's decision is by no means California's first milestone, nor our last, on America's road to equality and freedom for all people.”

What do you know? I have Constitutional rights. Go figure.

The First Amendment is for Everyone: The Mosque in New York

2010-08-04T08:18:00.000-07:00

The First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Recently, conservative Republicans have had their knickers in a twist over the proposal to build a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. Sarah Palin, fresh from her "Let's-Make-Up-Words-As-Fast-As-I-Make-Up-Facts" Tour around "Real America", took time last month to call the mosque an "unnecessary provocation", and called for "peace loving Muslims" to reject it. She then went into her whole "I'm Shakespeare" tweet, which is so ludicrous that I can't go into it here. Newt Gingrich gave a hearty endorsement of Sarah Palin's position.

It's clear that the conservative line on this matter has, and will be for the next few years while it still can be exploited, propagate fear of the unknown: and in this case, the unknown is the Islam. For conservatives, 9/11 was first planned and sponsored by Iraq, and still, even today, that fallacy is alive and kicking. But also, because conservatives cannot and will not see diversity in people who are not white (anyone brown is to be feared; anyone brown is a radical Muslim intent on destroying America). Therefore, all Muslims are American hating freaks who will attack us and kill us.

Newly elected Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg rejected that small-brained reactionary philosophy and gave an impassioned speech in front of the Statue of Liberty yesterday, totally supporting the mosque. Flocked by religious leaders of many faiths (including rabbis, who apparently have gone against the Anti-Defamation League's position to not support the mosque).

"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life and it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11," he said.

"Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values - and play into our enemies' hands - if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists - and we should not stand for that."

No more truer words have ever been said by a politician for the cause of religious freedom in this country, so enshrined in that pesky first amendment to the Constitution.

It was no accident that Mayor Bloomberg stood in front of the Statue of Liberty to give his speech, invoking the symbol that welcomed millions of Americans, and millions of our own relatives, as they reached the shores of this country for decades. It's time that we begin the healing.

I get the feelings and fear about 9/11 runs deep in our country, which is all the more reason that we start building bridges between these religions, and these cultures, instead of dams. For if the pressure becomes too great, the dam will burst once again, and we shall suffer the same consequences we did on 9/11. Understanding is the first step away from that result. And understanding is exactly what the conservatives don't want because it flies in the face of their fear tactics, solely designed to scare up votes for them in November.

Don't tell me! No longer Tar-"Gay"??

2010-07-29T19:46:00.000-07:00

Boycotts. Quite possibly the only course of action a consumer has against companies nowadays is refusing to do business with them. One hopes that by voting with your dollar, it will wake up businesses whose only concern is their bottom line and help them make better choices.

Boycotts by individuals or even small groups of citizens probably don't make much of an impact on their bottom line; they are designed more to make those individuals feel better that their hard earned dollars aren't going to causes that they don't support.

Since the Supreme Court opened up our election system to allow corporations to purchase candidates with their millions of dollars, this problem will only become exacerbated. Case in point: one of my favorite stores, Target.

Tar"gay", based in Minnesota, gave $150,000 to a group that runs ads in Minnesota supporting Republican Tom Emmer for governor in 2010. Emmer has been a long standing foe of my equal rights by advocating writing discrimination into our Constitution.

Target defends its position by saying that they merely give money to candidates that will help their bottom line (see!) and that they do not adhere to his social issues. (I guess if this charlatan gets into office, they will simply ignore all of the anti-gay venom he'll spew and pretend it doesn't exist).

CEO Gregg Steinhafel says, "Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company." Yet they aren't ready to support candidates with cash who share that core value.

The reaction has been swift and strong. There is a 14,000 member "Boycott Target" Facebook page.

Target shopper and gay rights supporter Randi Reitan cut up her Target card and refuses to shop there until this is rectified, as seen in this video:

What's a gay to do?

I've loved Target for years. As a child, I remember going to the flagship Target store in Minnesota, and thought it was amazing because they had a giant Target painted at the entrance of the store (little things impress a kid!). As a poor college student, Target sold me a cheap black and white TV so that I could watch the tube in my dorm room. Even today, not a week goes by without a trip to Target to pick up hair gel, toothpaste, the latest DVD, or birthday present. Since I refuse to shop at Wal-mart due to its unfair treatment of workers, its misogynistic mind frame, and its decimation of small-town America, I'm not left with many options.

Right now, Shane and I refuse to vacation in California because of the Prop 8 debacle. Yes, that includes no Disneyland (we even wrote a letter to the park explaining why we weren't renewing our yearly passes). We don't support the Boy Scouts (they consider me unfit to lead a group of boys), and in turn, I don't support the United Way because they support the Boy Scouts. We don't shop Maine companies (L. L. Bean and Stenhouse Publishing) because they took away the equal rights of its gay citizens. It's getting to be that we cannot buy a gallon of milk any longer without supporting a company, politician, or group that is working against my equal rights.

I don't know if I'm going to join the Target boycott. I think my first step will be to contact Target and let them know my views as a frequent consumer. After I'm dismissed with a form letter, I may join in on the barge. My one voice may not add much into this fracas, but it should be added. After all...

"“Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead

Handing out white hoods at Fox "News"

2010-07-28T11:51:00.001-07:00

I had the fortunate (or unfortunate) pleasure of reading a new book by Nation contributor and journalist Alexander Zaitchik, called "Common Nonsense: Glenn Beck and the Triumph of Ignorance". It's an expose on the life of Beck, and his meteoric rise (and hopefully equally crazy plunge) into the right wing world of craziness.

I wrote a review of the book here: Amazon, but this post is not about Glenn Beck, per se.

Zaitchik spends a portion of his wonderful tome on Fox "News", and its excessively racist bent in the news. On my previous post, I detailed some of Fox "News" clearly racist bias when it comes to its "news reporting". He reports (and I clearly remember hearing about this) different Fox "news" stories on President Obama.

They were:

- Barack's "madrassa" education (received a Muslim education)
- Described Michelle Obama as Barack's "Baby Mama"
- The famous "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/fox-anchor-calls-obama-fi_n_106027.html" - pictured below
- The never ending cycle of videos of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Why do this? Simply, because the Republicans didn't have a factual leg to stand on in the President race, the only way to get more votes for McCain was to scare them out of people. And the best way to do that is to capitalize on people's racial stereotypes and exploit them for political gain.

One of the prevalent stereotypes in America today is the "angry black man", followed closely by "angry black woman". African-Americans constantly battle this stereotype. If they deign to express their opinions or points, even remotely forcefully, it could trigger fear "black"lash in whites, many of whom subconsciously (or many consciously) still fear blacks. These stories, these attacks, are simply designed to do one thing: reinforce the stereotype so that people think badly of President Barack Obama.

Where does this all come from? As Paitchek points out in his book, "the smudgy fingerprints of ... Fox News Chief Roger Ailes." Roger Ailes, who worked for Reagan and the Bushes, and is responsible for the infamous "Willie Horton" ad. Ailes, "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it.''

Heck, if it worked for Reagan and the Bushes, why wouldn't it work again for Fox "News"?

No fear! This post is written by a white man.

2010-07-21T19:23:00.000-07:00

Ah, what a difference a couple of months make. Yes, I know that I haven't been blogging as of late. I was floored a bit with the end of school, going to training for a new part of my job next year, ordering (and receiving a day early!) my iPhone 4 (which I love despite "antenna-gate", and a fun visit up north to Canada with my friend and devoted reader Beth and her family, and another week at the beach with my beloved.

But I am back! The Liberal reigns again.

This evening's post was inspired by a story that I just watched on the incomparable Rachel Maddow show. Most of her show this evening was devoted to the topic of the day: Shirley Sherrod's firing from the USDA because of supposed "racist statements" she made two years ago during a speech she gave at an NAACP event. She was fired on the spot, until, that is, it was revealed that the tape was edited to tell that story and in reality, the remarks were taken out of context. Secretary Tom Vilsack went on the record today offering Mrs. Sherrod (who worked for years in the civil rights movement) another job.

So, this "video" first appeared on a conservative blog and was quickly picked up by Faux News, slamming the African-American Sherrod constantly, relentlessly, claiming "Racism! Racism!" and playing the clip repeatedly.

Today, Maddow opened her show with an amazing graphic: a black head, a white head, and a bar in between them, with the term "long division". She started with a salvo of attacked on Faux News, how for the past year their main "news stories" involved four things:

1) Acorn
2) The New Black Panthers "intimidating" voters in 2008
3) Van Jones (an African-American man fired from his WH position for saying anti-Republican statements)
4) Shirley Sherrod

In almost a brutal and sad parody of the famous Sesame Street segment, Rachel asks us to look at the list to see what all of these stories have in common?

Faux News clearly has a talking point it is wanting to address. Chiefly, we (white Americans) must be afraid of African-Americans. We must fear them for they will take away everything we (white Americans) have worked so hard to create. The ultimate ending to this fear?

Tossing out Obama in 2012. Faux News will do anything, including thrashing and throwing out the lives of 43 million Americans who live, work, and survive in this country that so still does not support their progress fully.

For no matter what President Obama says, does, enacts, or disputes, he will always be an intruding black man in an office that was, is, and forever shall be, only be for a white man. Faux News will never say that, they will never admit it, but watching their blatant, unrepentant top news stories ... they state their belief completely clear.

Here's Rachel's commentary, so much more eloquent than I. It's twelve minutes and worth watching every second of it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Goodbye to a Classic: Saying Goodbye to LOST

2010-05-23T19:13:00.000-07:00

Six years ago, I was just adjusting to my new life in Virginia. So much new. New school, new apartment, new grocery stores. It almost felt like I was a stranger in a strange land. Then, I began to see promos for a new show on ABC. Lost. In fact, there was a prominent billboard along Route 1 that I drove to work everyday advertising the show. So, I flipped it on.

The pilot had me riveted from the moment Jack's eye popped open. Then, the plane crashed on the beach. Shannon screaming. Claire shrieking for help after going into premature labor. I was hooked, and filled with questions. Who were these people? What were their stories? And most importantly, liked Charlie Pace asked at the end of the pilot, "Where are we?".

I became a regular watcher, fascinated by the seeming mix of Gilligan's Island and Star Trek, with a little horror thrown in. As the episodes unfolded, however, unanswered questions kept building up week after week. I remember getting to a point in the show where I was so frustrated with not knowing things and my brain just couldn't take it anymore ... and I almost "lost" hope. Wiser heads prevailed and so did the show. When we got to the hatch opening, and Jack and Locke peering down into it, I was sold and solid.

Six years later. Deaths of favorite characters (Boone, Shannon, Libby, Daniel, Charlotte, Sun and Jin, and my Juliet) have driven the story to areas that I never saw coming. We've had spiritual crisis, time traveling, and magic; magical lands, mysterious characters, and redemption. One thing that impressed me so much was how the show reinvented itself; year after year. The first year was a jungle survival show. The second year, the hatch. The third year, the Others. Every season, the show became something new, something different. With the deaths of characters, new characters were introduced, some winners (our freighter friends) and some losers (Nikki and Paulo!).

There are some very culturally iconic moments in the show not easily forgotten: a very pregnant Claire giving birth; Desmond and Penny's time traveling reunion; drowning Charlie's hand saying "Not Penny's Boat" in the hatch window; John Locke finding the Hatch Map; kid John Locke picking the knife and not the compass; the Dharma logo. These will be things that ten years from now, people will reflect upon and think "Lost".

Tonight, we end it. I have very little predictions to make for the finale. I know that I will be surprised. I probably won't be surprised as I was at the end of season 4 when we found out that the flashbacks were really flash forwards, and it wasn't revealed until the last amazing scene outside the airport with Jack and Kate. Or I may be. I love not being ahead of this show. I love not knowing what is going to come next.

I also love being able to trust the show's producers, and writers, that however they decide to end it tonight, it will be the way they want to. I have faith in that.

Palin's Legacy: Drill, Baby Drill

2010-05-23T14:44:00.000-07:00

I wonder where Sarah Palin is this afternoon? Passing a hat around big oil execs, raising money for her increasingly irrelevant political life? Promoting how "Terrorist Obama" is ruining our country? Reading all of the newspapers of America as she said she did to Katie Couric?

Here is the insane queen herself, in the debate with the now VP Joe Biden:

Here is Palin's legacy, in action:

Did it take this to finally shut her up?

"With Liberty and Justice for Whites": Racist Arizona Now Attacks Schools

2010-05-12T20:19:00.000-07:00

It wasn't enough for Arizona to pass a law that gives police to arrest anyone with brown skin on the street with "probable cause". Nope. Now the racist whites who are elected to the low paying legislature have turned their white hoods towards the ever suffering schools.

Governor Jan Brewer has signed a new law that makes it illegal for high schools to offer classes especially designed for minority students. Tucson Unified School District offered classes for its African-American, Native American, and Mexican-American pupils that featured their culture's literature, history, and contributions to society.

Sounds subversive, doesn't it? Having Latino students read the works of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Sandra Ciseneros; or studying the American contributions of Rosa Parks and George Washington Carver; or discussing the Trail of Tears, and how the The Iroquois Confederacy served as a model for our own form of government.

Apparently, in State School Chief and Grand Dragon Tom Horne says that such radical curriculum leads kids to learn they are "oppressed by white people" ... because, of course, we know, that has never been in the case in this country. Never!

But beyond that, isn't it a bit chilling, but not surprising, that Horn, and now Gov. Brewer, would immediately leap to the conclusion that such classes are designed to make minorities hate white people? Is a group of Mexican-American students, getting together to talk about their racial experiences in this country so threatening?

Those experiences, I guarantee you, are WAY different than those of Brewer and Horne, who only come close to associating with Latinos and African-Americans as they hand them their keys to valet park their car, or carry their luggage, or scream at them through the window to not cut the hedge so close.

Another thing I guarantee you is that those students only see themselves reflected in the curriculum when they have a special "day" or "month" that celebrates their heritage. Then the teachers teach their standard "Martin Luther King Jr." lesson, or have a "Cinco de Mayo" day where they eat tacos for lunch. Yahoo!

Those days and months are only acceptable when we start having "White Heritage" month, where we only talk about white people, and read white authors, and study white historical figures for one month only. Why does that sound so ludicrous? Because EVERY day is "White Heritage" day as those students read white authors in English, and learn about white historical figures in history, every day.

Arizona, get ready for more boycotts. It may be a good thing in the long run that these laws are out in the open. It just shows the hate that undergirds the Grand Canyon State. And the more that is illuminated, the more that it can start changing.

The cartoons have it

2010-05-08T20:49:00.000-07:00

In a couple weeks, I'm headed to Arizona for a family get together. I've sent my white sheet and hood to the cleaners. In the meantime, here are a couple of poignant, on the spot cartoons for "Beware-i-zona". Clicking on them will make them bigger.

Notes from a WhackaDoodle: Limbaugh As Prophet

2010-04-25T19:41:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Right wing nut job Rush Limbaugh has a Batphone right up to heaven. Why do I say this? The Drugster is now speaking for God. The idiot has made the amazing connection between President Obama's Health Care Reformation and a volcano. Really. Listen below.

You know, a couple of days after the health care bill had been signed into law Obama ran around all over the country saying, “Hey, you know, I’m looking around. The earth hadn’t opened up. There’s no Armageddon out there. The birds are still chirping.” I think the earth has opened up. God may have replied. This volcano in Iceland has grounded more airplanes — airspace has more affected — than even after 9/11 because of this plume, because of this ash cloud over Northern and Western Europe. At the Paris airport they’re telling people to head to the train station to catch trains out of France, and when people get to the train station they’re telling people, “There aren’t any seats until at least April 22nd,” basically a week from now. It’s got everybody in a shutdown. Earth has opened up. I don’t know whether it’s a rebirth or Armageddon. Hopefully it’s a rebirth, God speaking.

Yes, we all know that Limbaugh is "entertainment", and we are not to take him "seriously". In fact, I cannot post about him without using a bunch of "quotation marks" because it's impossible to take ANYTHING he says seriously.

But hey, if we are going to get into God's mind, and then purport to know the functioning of it, let me take a whack at it. After all, if Rush Limbaugh can do it, then ANYONE can.

If God were a punishing god (and I don't believe for a second that is the case), then this is what we'd be on the line for:

And there could be so much more. Here's what I'd say to the Drugster:

No, Mr. Limbaugh. God is not so worried about America ensuring 30,000,000 more people in this country. He's not worried about children getting access to health care. He's not concerned that insurance companies will no longer have carte blanche to turn down everyone they want to because of profit. He's got bigger things on his mind. I'd recommend the same to you, but I doubt your mind could handle it.

Breaking: Governor Jan Brewer legalizes racial profiling in Arizona

2010-04-23T15:21:00.001-07:00

Today, Arizona Racist-can Governor Jan Brewer dismissed common sense and signed into law the ability for police to question any person they find about their citizenship status. They have to have "reasonable suspicion", which in Arizonan means brown hair, brown eyes and brown skin.

Brewer says, "This law will protect every Arizona citizen." Of course she would say that! What she really means by that comment is that "This law will protect every white Arizona citizen." Latinos just simply don't count in Arizona and in Arizona politics.

Mesa racist Representative Russell Pierce who sponsored this legislation, ""Illegal is illegal. We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

Yes, I lived in Arizona for twenty years. We didn't have any white criminals. None what so ever. Zip. Zero. Nada! See below.

To quell the obvious wave of boycotts and hatred this law will create, Brewer is instructing the police to develop a "training course" to teach officers what to do.

I know the manual for that training course. It will be one page, and have this picture on the page:

I give the law a year, and then, after suffering the loss of millions of dollars of conventions, business, sporting events, and other financial boon, the Legislature and the governor will pull their heads out of their proverbial be-hinds and rescind this racist attack on Latinos.

BOYCOTT ON!

Arizona's Racist Legislature: A Soliloquy on Why the Grand Canyon State is No Longer My Home

2010-04-22T19:04:00.001-07:00

Yesterday, the Arizona legislature, in their infinite unwisdom, passed a law that gives police authority to investigate anyone, with "reasonable suspicion", that appears to be undocumented. Or in other words, my former fellow students, classmates, church goers, teaching partners, neighbors, and friends with brown hair, brown eyes, and brown skin, now will have to prove their legal status in the country.

I don't cuss in the Lincolnian Liberal. The editorial board forbids such profanity in a family paper. Unfortunately, there are no other words that can express disgust in this development other than: are you fracking kidding me?

In all honesty, this just doesn't surprise me. I grew up in Arizona. I attended a school with half of my class Latino student; who, with few exceptions, constantly received the short shrift when it came to education. One year in my high school yearbook, practical jokers switched the "Latino Heritage" club photo with the "Black Student Union" club photo, and it survived scrutiny and went to print. There was no uproar. (Can you imagine the fuss if the football team and the cheerleading squad had their pictures reversed?).

Worst was the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday mess in Arizona. Originally established by then Governor Bruce Babbitt, the next racist governor, Evan Mecham, (who was eventually impeached basically for being an idiot) voided it because it was "created illegally". In reality, we all knew he did it because it celebrated a black man that dared discuss things like peaceful social justice and equality. That, and the fact that MLK was black.

Then the holiday was put up to the Arizona voters in 1990, where it was promptly rejected. A former friend of mine explained, "I'm not racist. I just don't think we need another holiday." Yeah ... right.

What happened? Arizona lost the Super Bowl that year. The NFL yanked it out from under us and gave it to California. Conventions, a life source of money for cash stingy Arizona, began to leave in droves. A boycott was on by the country, and wealthy businessmen who loved lining their wallets with cash suddenly began to examine their racist ways.

Next step? Up for a ballot in 1992, and suddenly, it's voted in! Arizona is no longer racist, and we get the Super Bowl, and everyone is happy.

That is, until they pass a law that allows cops with "reasonable suspicion" to stop anyone ... ANYONE ... on the street, demand papers, and if they don't have them, legal or not, are under arrest. I guarantee you that not one white citizen would ever be stopped with this law. And apparently, in order to quell the increasing uproar over legalizing racial profiling, all cops have to do is look at "hair, clothing and shoes". I kid you not. Watch Representative Brian Bilbray (R-California) defend this racial profiling:

I'm going to visit my niece in Arizona for her graduation next month. Should I write dear Representative Bilbray and find out which shoes I shouldn't wear? Should I get hair care tips from him, just in case I might get picked up? Should I get pointers on my "behavior" so that I don't act illegal? I think that would be a good letter to write, because I certainly need his guidance!

Republican Grand Dragon Jan Brewer is still deciding if she is going to sign into law racial profiling. Until then, I will continue to celebrate every single day the fact that I don't live in Arizona any more. I have some great friend still there. I have many warm memories of the state. But I thank God that I no longer have a 602 area code anymore.

Because the only qualified person to fill a Supreme Court seat is a straight, Christian, wealthy white guy.

2010-04-17T16:02:00.000-07:00

I don't spend a lot of time listening to Glenn Beck. Actually, I don't spend any time listening to Glenn Beck. Possibly the longest I did ever listen to him was Jon Stewart's brilliant mocking of the idiot on The Daily Show. I knew just enough about him, from my reading of some of my favorite blogs, to get the joke.

But even Beck stepped outside his unusual insanity comments by making this racist, sexist, homophobic diatribe on his radio show:

“Mark my words, a radical is coming. Sotomayor. I’m sorry gang, but she’s a radical. He's gonna pick another radical. And it will cause all kinds of problems in Washington. It will split the parties. It will allow the Dems to say 'They just hate women, they just hate Hispanic, they just hate a Black. They just hate whatever. They just want to take away women's rights. They just hate gays.' That's what it will be. If he's smart he will find a gay, handicapped Black woman who's an immigrant, because that way he could just say, when...She could be the Devil! She could say 'I hate America. I want to destroy America.' And that way they'll only be able to say 'Why do you hate gay immigrant Black handicapped women? Why do you...hate that?”

There is so much wrong about what this idiot says. Beck clearly despises women, Latinos, African-Americans, gays, the handicapped, and any other group that DOESN'T fit into his narrow stereotype of "pro-American". It must relate back to his inability to see the Constitution apply to anyone else but the elites with whom he affiliates. He'd like to return the Constitution to the day it was written, when rights were minimal at best.

Women had no vote. African-Americans were 3/5 of a person. In fact, African-Americans should still be slaves Since the founders were Christian, they were creating a Christian nation. These are what the Republicans called "the good old days."

I know why Beck, and all of the other conversation blabberers, are spewing such rhetoric leading up to the new Supreme Court nomination. They are positioning themselves solely for the upcoming November election. No matter who he appoints, they are going to go around yelling that Obama appointed a "radical" to the Supreme Court, and therefore by association, is a "radical" himself.

That, and the fact that they believe the only qualified person to fill a Supreme Court seat is a straight, Christian, wealthy white guy. All else need not apply.

In other words, there is no big tent in the Republican party. In fact, its an exclusive country club mentality. And it's chief boob?

Him.

The sad thing is...

2010-04-11T08:15:00.001-07:00

... that there are people in this country who thinks this is real.

Score one for Fey!

Fish in a Barrel

2010-04-09T16:32:00.001-07:00

Minnesota Loon Michele Bachmann wants us to blast people and/or countries that launch a cyber-attack on the United States.

Seriously.

"If in fact there is a nation who is compliant with all of the rules ahead of time and they've complied with the United Nations on nuclear proliferation, if they fire against the United States a biological weapon, a chemical weapon or maybe a cyber attack, well then we aren't going to be firing back with nuclear weapons," Bachmann said. "Doesn't that make us all feel safe?"

"No!" shouted the crowd of thousands in Minneapolis.

Um, thank goodness she doesn't have the nuclear codes, eh?

Can you imagine? Bachmann at the desk in the Oval Office, ordering a missile attack on a 14 year old computer nerd sitting in his basement in Seacaucus, New Jersey.

"NUKE HIM! NUKE HIM ALL".

Of course she'd nuke New Jersey. It isn't in "pro-America".

Maybe we can't complain too much about Bachmann. Back in the dinosaur age, where her political views come from, they didn't have computers, so she's a little confused?

I think it makes sense that this loon:

is campaigning for her.

Uh, ladies? The village called. They want their idiots back.

A memento...

2010-03-29T19:49:00.000-07:00

Lincolnian Liberal regular Beth will recognize this picture!

"Why I Support Repealing the Health Care Reform Bill" -- sponsored by your local Republican party

2010-03-28T07:04:00.001-07:00

The Republican Party is smarting after their stinging loss this week, when President Obama signed the Health Care Reform bill. Of course they are. They did everything in their power to stop this process from happening, but sadly, the numbers just weren't in their favor. They lied. They stammered. They put up legislative road blocks. They got their "grassroots" tea party activists to call horrible, hurtful names at Congress members, while denouncing them with a "wink, wink".

So now, their only recourse is: REPEAL the BILL!

Of course. After all, the Democratic Party "shoved" this bill down the American people's throat (although it took over a year to shove it down our throats), they will need to rescind it.

Why?

Let's listen to one of their own, conservative Senator Bill Blowhard, from the great state of Fascistonia.

Blowhard: I want to repeal the Healthcare Reform Bill (HRB) because I believe that children in our country with pre-existing conditions should be denied coverage. It's just not fair to insurance companies to have to cover sick kids.

Tea Party Mob: Cheer!

Blowhard: In fact, I want to repeal the HRB because I believe that every American has the right to be denied health care because of their pre-existing conditions, including things like being female, or having acne, or suffering spousal abuse. Yes, that's a great idea!

Tea Party Mob: Yippee!!

Blowhard: Even better yet, when someone gets sick in America, I want to make it legal once again to drop them from their coverage. Our poor multi-billion dollar healthcare corporations will no longer have to cover breast cancer patients!

Tea Party Mob: More! Talk about cutting taxes!

Blowhard: Next, lets make sure that employees who work for small businesses cannot get health care coverage either, so I'm going to take away those tax credits to make sure that happens too!

Tea Party Mob: Oh yeah!

Blowhard: You know that Medicare prescription donut hole? Open it back up again and make our seniors pay more for their life saving medications!

Tea Party Mob: This is conservative porn!

Blowhard: Finally, I am working solely to make sure that our long suffering health care CEO's maintain their lavish bonuses, lifestyles, and million dollar salaries, so that they continue to rip off the American public by working, not to make our country healthier and happier, but to line their pockets with more and more profits!

Yeah, I'd love to see that press conference.

Good luck to you Republicans. You tried to repeal Social Security, Medicare, and the Civil Rights Act. I wish you the best of luck.

The day is here...

2010-03-25T18:52:00.000-07:00

This is a historic day.

And history -- history is not merely what is printed in textbooks. It doesn’t begin or end with the stroke of a pen. History is made. History is made when men and women decide that there is a greater risk in accepting a situation that we cannot bear than in steeling our spine and embracing the promise of change. That's when history is made.

History is made when you all assembled here today, members of Congress, take charge to change the lives of tens of millions of Americans. Through the efforts of those of us lucky enough to serve here in this town, that's exactly what you’ve done. You’ve made history.

History is made when a leader steps up, stays true to his values, and charts a fundamentally different course for the country. History is made when a leader’s passion -- passion -- is matched with principle to set a new course. Well, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. President, you are that leader.

FDR's night: Health Care Reform is HERE!

2010-03-21T19:43:00.000-07:00

Tonight, history is being made as I right these words. An imperfect first step to addressing the health care crisis is making its way through the House of Representatives, a bill that will address many, but not all, grievances for millions of Americans, including many of my friends, who suffer from lack of health care, or have gone into bankruptcy because of an insurance company's refusal to cover them because of "pre-existing conditions".

I can't help but feel that proud progressives like JFK, LBJ, and FDR are looking down at the country from the proud perches and beaming in pride at the work our government is doing at the moment. Pelosi, and the Democrats who fight for the common man on a daily basis, stand on their shoulders.

I found a video that I watched this weekend. FDR, in his State of the Union address of 1944, wished to create a "second bill of rights" for all Americans. As I was watching this vote, I played a video of his words. FDR felt so impassioned about his idea that during the speech (which he gave from the White House because of the flu), he stopped his radio address for a moment, and invited movie cameras into the room to film him saying it. Here is the video (long thought lost) below:

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."

Some of what FDR is starting to come true.

The final ten yards...

2010-03-20T18:39:00.000-07:00

Since the editor of the Lincolnian Liberal has been on an exercise kick lately, and has been walking and running for 30 minutes a day (often getting up at 4:45 AM to do so!), the blog has been somewhat empty as of late.

So much has passed. Glenn Beck has the audacity to suggest that social justice is not part of the Bible, and Jon Stewart mocked him brilliantly. Crazy representative Michele Bachmann misspelled "America's Congresswoman" on her website (some brilliant webmaster spelled it "Amaricas Congress Woman". Tea Partiers have really gone off the deep end. The Republicans created a fake memo to derail bringing health care to millions of Americans. And the Supreme Court may rule shortly that I have a Constitutional right to have Stinger Missiles in my home to protect it. An Virginia discriminates against gays, then it doesn't, then it does. And one jerk actually said that my relationship is the same as man-horse intimacy.

All possible blog topics. But I go with this right now.

President Obama made an impassioned speech today to encourage passing of the Health Care bill. This is simply what he does best. By knowing what average Americans go through, he can argue for us, whereas, corporate America simply doesn't know or care we exist.

While not totally convinced this is the best bill out there, it's time that we do something. This speech will go down in history.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last minute Oscar predictions

2010-03-07T14:22:00.000-08:00

So, with the 82nd annual Oscar presentation just starting up in a few hours, it's time that I make my final, last minute Oscar predictions for this year!

I'll predict who will win, and who should win:

Best Picture:

Will win: The Hurt Locker
Should Win: Precious: Based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire

I know that my "should win" pick is a long, long shot, but Precious is the best film of the year, period. It's hard, harsh, realistic, and gritty, and above all, hopeful. I understand the African-American community's concern about stereotyping in the film, and for my money, I couldn't stop marveling at Precious coming to life in front of me.

The Hurt Locker is going to win tonight, but I wouldn't be surprised if Avatar snuck in at the last minute. For my money, Hurt Locker is the more intense of movies.

Best Director:

Will and Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker

Do you hear that? It's the cracking glass ceiling when Bigelow makes history and finally honors a woman in the directing category. She earned every ounce of that Oscar by making a movie that I had to stop watching one night because it was too tense for me (don't worry, we finished it the next day!).

Actor in a Leading Role:

Will win: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Should win: Colin Firth, A Single Man

I didn't even see "Crazy Heart", so I can't comment on Bridges' performance in the movie. However, Firth manages to pull off contained hopelessness in his portrayal in "A Single Man". A close second is Jeremy Renner's astonishing performance in "Hurt Locker"; he's part crazy, part hero, part victim.

Actress in a Leading Role:

Will win: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Should win: Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia and Gabourey Sidibe, Precious: Based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire

It seems that the entertainment gods are going to bestow the award because this may be the only chance this hard working actress will get it. Sandra is the lead, but I suspect that Meryl, after so many nominations and so many amazing roles, is chasing her quite closely (and there might be a spoiler in the works). Meryl's Julia Child was a revelation and a surprise, so openly ebullient.

But if I were a voting member, my vote would actually go to Gabourey Sidibe. People watching Precious would think she's playing herself, but watching interviews with this talented actress prove what a force of nature she is, as well as an incredible talent.

Actor in a Supporting Role:

Will and Should Win: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds

He's actually in the majority of the movie, but he was wisely put into this category, in which he will run away. I just watched this movie yesterday. He maintains an air of jovial menace not often seen in movies.

Actress in a Supporting Role:

Will and Should Win: Mo'Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel "Push by Sapphire

Does anyone else think this isn't a shoo-in? Mo'Nique is a force to be reckoned with in this picture. The menacing mama owns every scene she's in, even when she's pretending to be nice. Mo'Nique meet Oscar.

Other awards:

Animated Film: Up
Foreign Language: White Ribbon, Germany
Music: Up
Music (Original Song): The Weary Kind, Crazy Heart
Visual Effects: Avatar
Writing (Adapted Screenplay): Up in the Air
Writing (Original Screenplay): Inglorious Basterds

Letter from a Gay Soldier

2010-02-25T17:50:00.001-08:00

Yesterday, on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, Virginia congressman Jim Moran spoke eloquently about an e-mail he received from a gay soldier. The story was featured on Rachel Maddow, on MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Fortunately, you do not need to go to Ms. Maddow's website (but I guarantee you it's worth a trip) to read the letter. I've cut and paste it below, and highlighted key phrases.

Sir,

This is indeed revolutionary stuff. Not the deliberate reconsideration of the DADT issue, but that you're actively encouraging such an adult, open dialog.

I'm one of your officers, currently deployed supporting a WIAS tasker and I look forward to my Division meeting up with me here in Afghanistan. My partner of 10 years and I have happily accepted the various assignments the Army has given me this past decade and have weathered my two 12-month-long and one 15-month-long deployments like, I would imagine, nearly every other couple - save for one detail: the partner I leave behind has no support from any official channels. He would be notified after my brother who is listed as my Emergency POC/NOK. After 10 years, my partner has earned the right to be told first about my death. He has earned the right to make my health emergency decisions. And, he has earned the right to be recognized for his sacrifices just as any other spouse. The exception being that he is not a spouse. We are not a recognized couple. And the very fact that he and I live in a marriage-like relationship could cause us to lose my pension and our financial security later in life.

As a former combat arms commander, I've had to face the DADT issue not just because I am gay - an imutable characteristic that is no more a choice for me than someone could choose their race - but because I've had 4 gay men in my command who I have known to be gay. I knew about two of them because they believed that living a lie was counter to their ethical charge as Soldiers. One was chaptered and the other was transferred. I knew about another because he was outed by an Evangelical roommate who had "baited" him into admitting it to him. He was not chaptered because we were a week from deploying and no one believed he really was gay. When he left the Army after we redeployed, he came back to tell me that indeed, he was gay. And, I knew about the fourth one because after he died of wounds from an IED, his partner of four years wrote me - not knowing my orientation - to tell me how much SSG ___ loved the Army, how we were the only family he'd ever known, and how much he appreciated the support of his fellow NCOs who knew about his personal life and whose spouses back home had taken care of him (the partner).

The "there's a gay dude looking at me in the shower/coming on to me in the fox hole" argument is a pathetic, lame canard. Having been through more than my share of the Army's best lodging - Ranger School comes to mind, as do the Hindu Kush, the desert in Iraq, and multiple Army gyms across world - I can tell you that the only thing I've ever thought about while showering was getting in and getting out. I'd be lying if I was to say that I've not worked with attractive people. We all have. But the difference between being an animal and a professional is, among other things, our ability to control ourselves. And, the only thing I've ever thought about in actual combat was living long enough to take care of my guys and to make it home alive.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this ongoing discussion. And, I hope that if GEN Ham and his panel ask you what your opinion is, that you answer based on the facts, on the beliefs of this current generation of Soldier, and that you eschew the bigoted hypotheses of those who do not believe that the only way for Soldiers to truly be the Soldiers they are ethically charged to be, is to be honest with their buddies, honest with their chain of command, and honest to themselves.

V/r,

Mountain Soldier (fwd)

Senator McCain, who so profoundly declares there is no reason to change DADT, what is your response to this? The hate group Focus on the Family, what is your response to this letter?

Silence, I imagine.

...With Liberty and Justice for Sale"

2010-02-21T13:13:00.001-08:00

With the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC ensuring unlimited corporate spending in elections due to their "corporate personhood", it seems to me that the conservative members of court, who proudly claim that they are "strict constructionists", envisioned that the founding fathers wrote the Constitution thinking that corporations = people. Right?

Going along with that thought, if that were truly corect, then what does that mean for some of our most beloved patriotic sayings? Was the Declaration of Independence written for WellPoint? Did Lincoln give the Gettysburg Address to honor big pharma? Well, if that were the case, then some of America's most endearing quotes take on a new and enlightened tone to them.

Just read:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of endless, unregulated, unrestricted profits -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among corporations, deriving their just Powers from the corporations."   - Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 1776

"These are the times that try corporations's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his corporation.”  - Thomas Paine, The Crisis - December, 1776

"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of corporations."   - Thomas Jefferson

"I regret that I have but one life to give for my corporation."   - Nathan Hale, hung as a spy 

"We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect profit, establish acquisitions, insure unlimited domestic merges, limit consumer lawsuits, promote corporate bailout Welfare, and secure the blessings of financial advancement to ourselves and to our future shareholders, do ordain and establishing the Constitution for the United Corporations of America." - The Preamble to the Constitution

“A corporation divided against itself cannot stand.” – Abraham Lincoln’s impassioned defense against the tyranny of anti-trust legislation.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all corporations are created equal.” – Abraham Lincoln

"...That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that Government of the corporation, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth." – Abraham Lincoln

... ask not what your corporation can do for you, ask what you can do for your corporation.
John F. Kennedy

"From the prodigious hilltops of Aetna let freedom ring. From the mighty mountains of GlaxoKlineSmith let freedom ring. From the heightening hallways of Exxon, let freedom ring. But not only that: Let freedom ring from every health insurance corporation and investment bank!" – from Martin Luther King’s famous “I Want a Profit” speech from the Corporate Rights March on Washington in 1963.

Yup, that's exactly what they meant ... I think.

(This message brought to you by The Corporation for the American Way).

What do you think you need to get married in the US?

2010-02-14T08:01:00.000-08:00

On this Valentine's Day, I have one simple question for you. What do you think you need in order to get married in the United States?

Love? Nah.

Commitment? Nope.

I'll give you a hint. You need two things.

Money and a full time job? Try again.

A pulse and a body temperature of 98.6? Well, you're getting closer now.

Turns out, none of those things are required in order to get married in this glorious United States of America. The only things you need to get married are a "pee-pee" and a "wee-wee".

Yup, that's it. Everything else simply doesn't matter. As long as one person has a pee-pee, and the other, a wee-wee, then you're fit to be married, with all of its benefits.

This week, 53 year old Kitty Lambert went to the Buffalo City Hall to apply for a marriage license with her longtime partner Cheryle Rudd. Because these two people each have a wee-wee, they were denied permission to marry.

So, instead of turning around and leaving, Kitty came up with a brilliant, brilliant idea.

She turned to the crowd, and asked if there was a man willing to marry her.

22 year old Ed Manz came forward. This gay man had the requisite pee-pee, and so the clerk promptly agreed to issue a marriage certificate.

Watch for yourself:

I've seen and heard many arguments for and against same-sex marriage. Foes claim that allowing same-sex marriage would "denigrate" the sanctity of marriage, and would lead to the destruction of the family. But how is marriage to be protected when two virtual strangers can be granted permission to marry simply because they have the requisite plumbing?

If you want to protect marriage, allow people who love each other and are devoted to each other the equal right to devote their lives to each other. Churches need not get involved. It's a civil right. It's rights of property, of visitation, of inheritance, of protection.

As Kitty says:

For $40, I could give Ed my home, my health insurance, and we wouldn’t even have to live together. And yet my partner has had cancer twice, I have heart issues, and we’re dealing with that. I can’t protect the woman that I love, although I could die of a heart attack tomorrow and I could lose her to cancer over the next two years. And that’s scary.

Very scary, indeed.

The Root of Don't Ask, Don't Tell Opposition...

2010-02-07T07:26:00.000-08:00

... is conservative prejudice. Plain and simple. Not revolutionary for Shane or I, or the 10% of Americans who are gay and lesbian, nor the 60-75% or so Americans who support repealing this nonsensical military policy.

But it strikes at the core of the conservatives who are now struggling, struggling to find ways to support their hatred and prejudice after Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff surprised the heck out of the Senate Armed Forces Committee and said he supported withdrawing the policy, and that it never a good thing to have service members "lie about who they are."

Republican Defense Secretary Robert Gates agreed. As did General Colin Powell, who helped create DADT, and now wants it disbanded.

Republicans, who once sat on the position that unless the military brass agreed, they wouldn't change their prejudicial law, now found themselves scrambling for cover. Cover for their ill-thought out, prejudice which was able to hide in the fatigued colored closet as long as someone else takes the blame.

Conservatives were in a frenzy, and honestly, not making much sense:

Here is Orrin Hatch:

When Andrea Mitchell ended the interview with, "I can at least put you down for someone who is open for changing DADT," Hatch's response was, "I am".

Then Hatch's comments created a conservative bigoted firestorm, causing him to have to quickly backtrack to save base face:

"It's deeply regrettable that liberal groups are misconstruing my position on 'don't ask, don't tell' for activist purposes. I certainly do not support repealing this policy," Hatch's statement on Thursday said.

So, in others words, he was for it before he was against it.

Because their prejudice is so old and tired, Hatch was bringing out the now blase claim that repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would lead to "special rights":

"On the other hand, I think a lot of people are concerned that if you do away with the 'don't ask, don't tell,' that literally then they'll come back and ask for special rights and preferences and privileges that others don't have. I don't see that either. So, like I say, I just plain do not believe in prejudice of any kind."

Oh, that statement alone is worth another blog post for another time.

Fortunately, the military's evolving position leaves the Republicans with their prejudice exposed.

For another example, Senator John McCain finds himself struggling as well. Here he is in 2006:

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it because those leaders in the military are the ones we give the responsibility to."

Now?

In response, McCain declared himself "disappointed" in the testimony [of Mullen and Gates]. "At this moment of immense hardship for our armed services, we should not be seeking to overturn the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy," he said bluntly, before describing it as "imperfect but effective."

A policy that costs the federal government 1.3 billion dollars is effective? The only thing effective about it, Senator McCain, is how it supports your bigotry. Period.

And as Frank Rich wrote in an eloquent and inspiring New York Times opinion piece, its that prejudice that votes, especially independent voters, cannot adhere to at all, and it sends them running in the opposite direction.

The end result is that I don't understand the conservative opposition to gays serving in the military. Because Hatch and McCain hate them so much, you'd think they'd want to send them to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the meantime, just watch and wait for the conservative position on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and see what magical, hocus pocus, boogieman they create to justify their prejudice. The voters will identify what it truly is: unjustified hatred.

Frank Rich ended his piece with:

The more bigotry pushed out of the closet for all voters to see, the more likely it is that Americans will be moved to grant overdue full citizenship to gay Americans. It won’t happen overnight, any more than full civil rights for African-Americans immediately followed Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces. But there can be no doubt that Mike Mullen’s powerful act of conscience last week, just as we marked the 50th anniversary of the Greensboro, N.C., lunch counter sit-in, pushed history forward. The revealing silence that followed from so many of the usual suspects was pretty golden too.

Ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (and save a billion dollars!)

2010-02-04T19:38:00.000-08:00

In our country today,14,000 people have been discharged from the military, simply for being who they are. 14,000 people who wanted to protect American freedoms, and our way of life back home, gone, discharged from service because they liked people of their same sex. That's it.

The reaction? Silence, expect for a few groups (like the admirable Servicemembers Legal Defense Network).

How would Americans react if it were released that 14,000 people were discharged from the military because they were redheaded? Because they were Presbyterian?

I'll tell you the reaction. Complete and utter outrage.

But, because it's gay Americans, well, that justifies such an insane statistic. It's okay to discriminate against gays and lesbians, well, because they are second class citizens not deserving to serve.

Huh?

Let's talk about a statistic that conservatives really understand. Money, Cold hard cash.

According to the GAO (Government Accounting Office) it costs the US military approximately 10,000 to replace these discharged Americans. All told, this nonsensical policy has cost the government over 140,000,000.

Although researchers at the University of California at Santa Barbara actually think the discharge number amount is closer to 37,000 per member, coming to a grand total of 518,000,000.

In other words, discharging people from the military has cost the government over half a BILLION dollars alone. Just this act.

And if we factor in the amount of people discharged from the military since 1980, we get 1.3 billion dollars.

There, I thought that would get the attention of the conservative readers of the Liberal. What would you do with a billion dollars? I know I would save the jobs of thousands of gays and lesbians who were willing to give their lives to our country, and then give a little to schools to help out teachers.

Equal Rights ... where?

2010-01-30T08:34:00.000-08:00

Be patient on this rambling post...

I think the picture above says much about the position of the Lincolnian Liberal on the path of gay and lesbian citizens securing their equal rights in this very fragmented country. The picture is from a protest of the lack of action from the Hawaiian legislature.

Hawaii recently tabled it's civil unions bill, the Senate effectively killing it because some politicians didn't want to have that vote in an election year.

The state of Indiana voted to deny its gay citizens any possible rights by banning their relationships in their Constitution (some Democons joined in on this ban).

Meanwhile, President Obama mentioned gay Americans in his SOTU speech and calling for the repeal on the silliest policy around, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", and then seemingly dodges a question on equality in relationships in a town hall the following day. The Family Research Council supports DADT by saying that war will someone become "sexualized" because of the change (because apparently, the right can always keep it in their pants, like this fellow below, right?)

In California, the court case headed by conservative lawyer Ted Olson and liberal lawyer David Boies continues in San Francisco, with some amazing revelations coming out of the trail, especially this exchange, as reported in an excellent article by Margaret Talbot (and should be required reading by everyone and anyone interested in this case):

For example, one of the arguments that the anti-gay-marriage side has increasingly turned to outside the courtroom is that allowing same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage. At the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker kept asking Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, how exactly it did so. “I’m asking you to tell me,” he said at last, “how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.”

“All right,” Cooper said.

“All right,” Walker said. “Let’s play on the same playing field for once.”

There was a pause—it seemed like a long one to people in the courtroom, though it was probably only a few seconds. And Cooper said, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”

That's the issue, isn't it? The right, fed by fear of their own prejudices, simply cannot defend their illogical thinking, and that thinking is being exposed in many different ways. For example, a recent conservative posting on a blog equating my desire to affirm my relationship legally is the same as her wanting to marry a goat.

Really. A goat.

What's the sum of this? The road to civil rights is never a straight one; two steps forward, one step back.

But forward we will press on.

My favorite quote from Obama's SOTU speech

2010-01-28T05:59:00.000-08:00

Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal, that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; that if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.

We must continually renew this promise. My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. We are going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws – so that women get equal pay for an equal day’s work. And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system – to secure our borders, enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nations.

State of the Union Reaction: A Liberal's View

2010-01-27T19:20:00.000-08:00

The past week has been a bruising week for those of us at the Lincolnian Liberal. From a not-so-unexpected loss in Massachusetts (the Democrats ran a crap-astic race there),to health care reform stalling, to a spending freeze in tough economic times, to a Supreme Court overstepping its bounds and answering questions it was never even asked, it seemed that we has loss after loss. A lot of it came from a seemingly out-of-touch President unwilling to make any strides towards the "Change" for which we voted.

In fact, I was ready to blog, the title being, "Republicrat or Democan, is there a difference?".

Good news is, there was tonight. President Obama not only hit a homer, but won the World Series with his State of the Union speech. Opening up talking to middle class Americans, understanding the struggle of many of my friends, was a spot on start. His words were sincere, honest, and empathetic.

However, the strongest parts of this speech were the times he called out Republicans and Democrats for the things they were obviously accountable for in their actions and policies. I especially appreciated his focus on the situation he inherited as president, and the steps that happened to get us there. Eight years of Republican rule, Executive, Legislative, Judicial = near Depression. One of my favorite parts was when the Republicans didn't even stand when the President spoke of tax cuts.

I thought the Republicans answer to EVERYTHING is tax cuts. Everything!

His calling out of Democrats for "running to the hills" was spot on as well. His call to action on health care was passioned and strong, much stronger than I thought it was going to be.

He even called out the "neutral" Supreme Court for reaching beyond its scope and changing 100 years of established law by five unelected people overreaching its bounds, and then calling for Congress to correct the situation (which, Constitutionally they can do). I saw Justice Alito shake his head no to the call out. The President is right. In opening the doors for corporate free speech, the Supreme Court has opened the doors to foreign corporations to start buying politicians.

Do you want your representative owing their election to a Chinese corporation?

Not to mention his ever-so-brief, but real, call to end Don't Ask Don't Tell. Is Obama the first President to utter the word "gay" in a State of the Union speech? Have I finally found my way into the hallowed halls of Congress?

My hope has returned. Obama needs to now take his message to the people, find his line, re-ignite his base, and find the wind behind his sails, once again.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The United Corporations of America

2010-01-24T13:36:00.001-08:00

Breaking News Article from the AT&T-Verizon Times:

January 22, 2025.

Citigroup Washington DC - Today, the GM-Ford Senate voted 100 - 0 on a Constitutional amendment changing the preamble to the Constitution to reflect, what WellPoint Senator Mitch McMollins (R) claims is a "better fit for IBM baseball, GE apple pie, and the Walmart American way!"

The senator from GlaxoSmithKline, Ben Billings (R), who proposed the original rewording of the preamble, couldn't have been more happier, and not at all surprised, by the outcome. "We've worked hard in this country to ensure that all corporations are treated fairly. It's time that the preamble shows that."

The new Preamble, which will be sent to the "states" for ratification, will now read:

"We the corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect profit, establish acquisitions, insure unlimited domestic merges, limit consumer lawsuits, promote corporate bailout Welfare, and secure the blessings of financial advancement to ourselves and to our future shareholders, do ordain and establishing the Constitution for the United Corporations of America."

It is assume that the "state legislators", all of which are owned entirely by corporations, will rapidly approve the amendment and change the Constitution to fall in line with the rest of the document, which guarantees rights of corporation the freedom to merge, lies about their products under the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and the ability for its store employees to carry firearms at all times.

A raucous cheer was heard in the Senate chambers after the totally unanimous vote was announced, the 175th unanimous vote of the year.

ExxonMobil Senator Gil Gabberbouch (R) also applauded the development. "This gives guidance to the Bank of America Supreme Court in deciding all cases in our favor. We support big government, as long as it supports bringing more and more money into our coffers." Several nodding senators smiled behind him, one saying "ka-ching!".

According to the latest Fox-CBSNBCABC poll, 100% of citizens support this change.

"I think it's time that we turn over the last remaining outdated part of our government," said home maker Susie Sally of UnitedHealth Group, "I look forward to reading about more corporate profits! It makes my family so warm to think of it."

Votes for Sale! The Supreme Court goes way wrong...

2010-01-21T20:05:00.000-08:00

The "non-judicial activist" CONservative members of the Supreme Court went all judicial activist on the US today and affirmed that corporations are people, and therefore, have first amendment rights under the Constitution. Corporations now can unleash their billions (health care anyone?) of dollars on the American media market in support or against any candidate that doesn't support improving their profit margins.

Which candidates are more supportive of big business? It doesn't take much to connect those dots, although, with the health care debate, it was clear which candidates the lobbyists bribed ... errrr, influenced...

in order to stall out any meaningful attempt to actually provide health care to people ... like the children in the school I last taught in.

On the radio this evening, Newt Gingrich had the audacity to claim that this ruling is a "boon for the middle class", because now ... oh, I can't even justify his reasoning because it is absolutely so absurd. Does he honestly believe that the middle class has access to the highest echelons of corporate America so that they can access these billions of dollars for their candidacy?

And what's the end result of this torrent?

Let's say that Wal-Mart, the pantheon of consumerism gone wrong, really likes Candidate A in the Oregon Senate election. Let's say that Candidate A receives a $5.00 contribution from me. Then let's say that Candidate A receives a 10 million dollar ad bonanza on television and radio advertising, invests in a 100 million dollar movie documentary highlighting the fictionalized pedophilia of Candidate B. Candidate A wins, of course, and goes to Washington.

A certain bill comes up making it illegal for gays and lesbians to teach school (hey, it happened in California in the 1970s). Wal-mart supports said bill because they are a soulless corporate identity. I, being a gay teacher, do not. I write a letter to Candidate A, encouraging him to not vote for the bill. Wal-mart directly calls Candidate A on his private home phone line and says, "Vote, or next election cycle, we advertise for Candidate B". Who is Candidate A going to listen to?

It's a simply financial equation that any kid in elementary school can figure out. Why couldn't robed "non-judicial activist" justices figure it out as well? Simple because the candidates that will most benefit from there "non-political agenda" ruling are Republicans.

They handed the presidency to one of theirs, why not hand over Congress?

Finding "Hate" in Haiti's Earthquake

2010-01-14T20:45:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure where or when it is that people actually lose their sense of humanity and compassion. Is it through a certain event that causes their hearts to harden? Is it greed, or guile, or blindness? It's an interesting thought, for several historical figures in the path of the world have lost it and become tyrants, at the least.

Two such American candidates recently spoke up about the horrific earthquake that has struck the nation of Haiti: Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

First, on his "unfair and unbalanced" radio show. Limbaugh spouted off a blundering attack on President Obama's humanitarian response to the earthquake by immediately politicizing the event. He claimed that the President's response was to only make him seem "compassionate" and to improve his standing in the black community (although Limbaugh used more insensitive words to describe the community).

He also claimed that we've helped the Haitians enough by the "U.S. Income Tax".

Sigh.

Pat Robertson, on his 700 Club television ministry show, blabbed on about how Haiti's earthquake was a result of a curse because they made a "pact with the devil".

I know both Limbaugh and Robertson are publicity whores. They need to see their name in the news from time to time. When people stop talking about them, they need to say increasingly provocative things so that the media and blogs light up with their insane, inane comments. In Limbuagh's case especially, he is on a mission that whatever Obama and the Democrats are for, he is automatically against (which leads to the natural question: if the Democrats loved Limbaugh, would he hate himself?).

Is it right that they use the suffering of an entire country to further promote themselves?

Frankly, my dear, I don't think they give a damn.

Here is Olbermann's take on Limbaugh:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And movies I just love, love, love

2010-01-02T20:27:00.000-08:00

So, to celebrate January 2nd, Shane and I spent the day putting away the tons of Christmas decorations that take up half our garage. To rest up, we came home from dinner and popped in a "comfort film" -- a film that we really enjoy, and don't necessarily need to watch, but find ourselves watching anyway.

With that in mind, and my previous post, here are five movies that aren't necessarily on the top of my "favorite movies ever" list, but ones that I just really love and may not necessarily be great cinema.

1) Muriel's Wedding

This is the movie we watched tonight, and one that's totally pure joy. Nearly unknown Toni Colette bursts out of the movie as down-trodden Muriel, a hapless social reject who steals to get what she wants and listens to ABBA music endlessly. As Toni struggles to find herself, we find her enchanting and charming. The best part of the movie is at the end, when Muriel rides in a taxi away from Porpoise Spit, and director P.J. Hogan knows better than to move the camera from Toni's beaming face.

2. Pride and Prejudice - 2005

In a 1000 years, the beautiful Keira Knightly can never be "ugly" as headstrong Elizabeth, but she pulls off the role with a tour de force that runs away with this movie. I've tried endlessly to read the book the movie is based on, but after a failed attempt, Keira's in my DVD player ready to enchant me once again. And darn those people who poo-poo the ending; to me, it's pure poetry.

3. Sordid Lives

This is pure trash, and totally fun. Closeted gay Ty wrestles with himself as he is beckoned to go back to Texas to grandma's funeral, and it turns out his family is ten times crazier than he is. Watch this movie a couple of times, and you'll be quoting it.

4. Little Miss Sunshine

Five people. One yellow VW bus. One great film. Personally, I love "road trip" films because they allow me to "get away" without actually leaving my living room. Abagail Breslin runs away with this movie as beauty-queen wanna be Olive, and her "act" is right out of a bad 70's musical. The best part of the movie is the actual contest with those scary, scary, scary real contestants which Shane and I have given unkind names.

5. All the President's Men

The first time I watched this movie, I was in high school journalism class, and it fascinated me even then. Why? I remember Watergate as a child, thinking it involved Nixon leaving the hose running at the White House and got in trouble. But a couple of reporters nosing around a Republican administration gives me great joy.

Pretty diverse list. What are we watching now? Season 1: Glee on DVD.

Top Ten Movies of 2009

2009-12-31T18:55:00.000-08:00

Well, I was holding out this list until the very last day in 2009, hoping to cram one more movie on to my list (A Single Man), but it was not meant to be. I did see "A Young Victoria" today. I was tempted to see "A Single Man", but waited for a couple of my friends to go with me.

So here is this top film critics Best Movies of 2009 list, in order!

1. Precious

Nothing topped this juggernaut, an emotional roller coaster ride that literally had the audience gasping aloud in the theater. The story of an African-American girl is an indictment of the racial attitudes prevalient in America today, as it is a story of ultimate hope. Give Gabby Sidibe the Oscar now; she's that amazing.

2. Where the Wild Things Are

A visual poem to the pain, adventure, sadness, and hope of childhood. I haven't seen a film that has captured the complexity and beauty of our youth before, nor do I expect to find one again.

3. Up

Who wouldn't fall in love with a grumpy old man, an eager young boy, and a talking dog? Pixar does it again, and sells it with an high emotional resonance. I dare you watch it without getting choked up at the aging montage of the couple.

4. Princess and the Frog

Disney returns to 2-D animation with a powerful film of family, devotion and food. Finally acknowledging a large segment of our population by animating African-American characters, Tiana is strong, forward thinking, and acheiving her dreams: exactly the message we need to be sending our girls.

5. (500) Days of Summer

A heartbreaking witty look at a relationship that doesn't quite pass muster, with an inventive twist at the end that made me love the movie even more. Joseph Gordon-Levitt upped his acting game in this film, and runs away with it, entirely, but give the Oscar to Scott Neustatder & Michael H. Weber for their charming screenplay.

6. Every Little Step

I really, really wanted to place this documentary about the creation of the musical "A Chorus Line" higher on my list, but that just goes to show you the strength of the movies on top of mine. Every Little Step manages to do something the people who watched the original musical felt: who was going to be cast in the revival? It turns out that there is a broken heart for every light on Broadway.

7. Avatar

It's almost a given to put this special effects spectacular on the Ten best list. James Cameron's tale is fantastical and surprisingly real. It's truly an indictment of America's treatment of Native Americans, with an environmental twist. And that is what earns it a place on my list.

8. Fantastic Mr. Fox

My list is riddled with animated movies, which goes to show you how good the animation was this year. Fantastic Mr. Fox remains true to the original story, and yet placing it in a world that we understand today. Their were so many wonderful, funny surprises in this movie that the fact the animation is beyond anything I've ever seen only adds to the joy this movie brings.

9. Star Trek

J. J. Abrams beams on board the Enterprise to rescue this dying francise by going back to square one. This was an action film, with sex, drama, and a great story, all thrown together: something that all summer films what have been.

10. Disney's A Christmas Carol

I have to forgive Disney for sticking in an inexplicable LONG chase scene 5/8 of the way through this movie; it gave me a much needed bathroom break. But there is so much interesting about this movie, starting with Jim Carrey's startling performance as grumpy old Scrooge. What still stays with me? The ghost of Christmas past.

Honorable Mentions: A Young Victoria, Julie and Julia, Angels and Demons, Away We Go

The Bubble

2009-12-12T09:21:00.000-08:00

I find myself in Starbucks quite a bit. My job, entailing driving all over Beaverton, meeting with my fabulous teachers, allows for the opportunity to partake in a warm beverage in between appointments. Sometimes, the meetings actually happen in Starbucks. So I spend a few minutes standing in line to place my usual order (grande in a venti cup = extra room for cream). I've been noticing an odd trend in social graces: the etiquette of the Starbucks line, and the misapplied rule of personal space.

You see, on several occasions, I've been waiting in the line, let's say that I'm third in line. The person first in line steps to the counter to order. The person directly in front of me doesn't move a muscle. He or she just stands there, giving the person ordering a lot of room and a lot of privacy to place their order. Only when that person has placed the order does the person in front of me step up. I call this the "Starbucks ATM rule".

You know. If someone is using the ATM, you must stand a respectful five or ten feet away from the machine, allowing the person conducting their business complete and total privacy; a safety bubble of no other human contact. Most often, you don't want to embarrass them by viewing their $45.00 bank balance as they take out a twenty to go to McD's. When the machine is clear, you may proceed up into the secret bubble and "do your business".

Why are people applying this same bubble rule to people ordering at Starbucks? Why doesn't the person directly in front of me immediately move behind the person ordering? Is the person ordering something so secret that no one in the coffee house should know about it? I didn't know that our local Starbucks was such a hotbed of espionage!

Customer: "I'll have a mocha cappucino, no foam, and the suitcase behind the cash register holding all of Russia's nuclear codes."

Starbucks employee: Would you like some coffee cake with that? Perhaps a promotional CD of North Korea's state secrets?

I often try to remedy the situation when that second person finally walks the ten feet to place their order, I immediately follow lock, step and barrel behind them, and giving them only a few inches of space between us. Sure it's cozy, but I'm sure the ten people in line behind me appreciate the sudden movement of the line.

And then when I'm ordering and I have someone directly behind me ... I get claustrophobic and wish the person would respect my bubble of privacy!

Mr. Lincoln Returns!

2009-12-04T07:09:00.001-08:00

Oh, so quiet over the last few weeks. We, at the Lincolnian Liberal, had a very fun but busy Thanksgiving season. Then work has been somewhat of a bear, with the planning and implementing of professional development classes that have stressed us out!

From Palin's announcement that she has become a "birther" (surprised, anyone?), to several conservative bloggers defecting their cause due to the wing-nuttery of their fringe, to New York denying equal rights to all of its citizens (prejudice and bigotry win yet again), to a child to refuses to say the pledge until the phrase "and liberty and justice for all" has true meaning in this country, there has been a lot to say.

But this caught my eye, and I'm psyched beyond words (hoping beyond hope it's true!). Mr. Lincoln is returning to Disneyland!

Gone for a few years (he wasn't popular enough, apparently), the good folks at Disneyland are bringing back the man in full glory. Here is a graphic from the Orange Country register, detailing the event and how he actually works.

I, for one, always loved the Lincoln exhibit. I always went to him in the mid afternoon, when my dogs were barking and I needed time away from the heat and the crowds, to sit, relax. The opening room which displayed so much Disney memorabilia was always fantastic, and then spending time with Lincoln, looking so lifelike, was chilling and wonderful, all at the same time. There were times in the short show that I truly believed that it was an actor portraying number 16, and I can only believe, with the increased technology, that the illusion is even greater.

Although, not that I can see. Due to California voters denying equal rights for her citizens, and on top of that, creating a sub group of gay citizens who are married, and some that aren't, I won't be traversing across the California border any time soon. Sigh.

Did Fox News Just Freeze Over?

2009-11-12T05:03:00.000-08:00

Below: Sean Hannity prior to last night's broadcast

As previously blogged about, Faux News was caught by one of Jon Stewart's prolific writers of using different footage to hype up the numbers of a protest at the U.S. Capitol building last week.

"And although it pains me to say this, Jon Stewart, Comedy Central, he was right. Now on his program last night, he mentioned that we had played some incorrect video on this program last week while talking about the Republican health care rally on Capitol Hill. He was correct, we screwed up. we aired some video of a rally in September along with a video from the actual event. It was an inadvertent mistake, but a mistake none the less. So, Mr. Stewart, you were right. We apologize. But by the way, we wanna thank you and all your writers for watching."

Cough. Cough. Splutter. Splutter. Faux news admitting they were wrong? That's like the Bush Administration admitting they screwed up the economy, or tortured people illegally, or wiretapped grandma just for the fun of it, or leaked names of covert agents to seek personal vendettas, or....

Nah, that's too easy.

In related news, several pigs were seen flying over the Republican National Headquarters ... although none of them were reported wearing lipstick.

This Ain't No News

2009-11-11T19:01:00.000-08:00

So, Faux News is at it again.

It appears that in order for the protests in Washington, featuring right wing nut job Michele Bachmann (a frequent target on the Lincolnian Liberal), to appear larger, Fox News decided to pepper its coverage with protests from earlier this year at the supposed "Tea Party" coverage.

Sean Hannity and Bachmann rant and rave about the huge size of the crowds, and the video moves from this month to a couple of months ago, without a mention of the change. Fox claims that Hannity will address the discrepancy this evening (although I'm not a watcher of such things).

Watch below:

So what's the beef? When it can't back up its conservative talking points, Faux News simply makes things up for appearance sake. Is it because Fox doesn't trust its viewers? Does it think it needs to pander to their fears? Perhaps.

I can hear the rightwingers now .. "MSNBC does the same thing! MSNBC is a left wing ranting place. MSNBC, blah, blah, blah." But MSNBC doesn't advertise itself ...

Rhode Island: No Burial Rights for Gay Couples

2009-11-11T06:51:00.001-08:00

Some of the regular readers of the Lincolnian Liberal have noticed a slight name change in the blog. We still go by the LL, but the main graphic has been changed to one of my favorite sayings. This story is case in point:

Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri has crossed the crazy line in the smallest state in the union. He's vetoed a bill passed by the legislature, granting burial rights to domestic partners.

No, I'm not kidding.

The Republican head of the executive branch believes that gay couples should not have the right to make burial decisions for each other.The bigot said in his veto message:

"This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue."

So, going back to my original snarky point, Britney Spears, who married Jason Allen Alexander for 55 hours, had more rights and privileges than my eight year relationship (as of next month).

It gets better. The vetoed bill defined a partnership existing over a year's time, along with other age and financial requirements. Nope, that wasn't acceptable to Carcieri.

He also said...

"As written, he said the bill would allow the decisions of a "partner'' of a year to take precedence over "traditional family members,'' and he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains.''

I wonder if he also applies that same restriction to heterosexual couples? Does he deny equality to straight couples if they have gotten married after only dating three months? Of course he wouldn't.

A couple weeks ago, just prior to the No on 1 campaign in Maine, a good friend of mine who lives there posted on her Facebook page her belief in equality for all. Someone whom I don't know posted that he didn't support that stance because "I'm tired of everyone else getting new/more rights. Everyone already has equality. They are allowed to be the way they are and I'm fine with that. But don't fight for more rights when you don't really need them."

That last sentence is right. I don't need to have my partner, who knows me the best, see to it that my final wishes are carried out.

I don't need to make sure that my partner has rights of inheritance over the things that I'm going to leave behind.

I don't need to have the right to access to my partner should he be hospitalized with a serious condition.

Nah, I don't need anything of those things. No gays and lesbians in committed same-sex partnerships do.

And what we don't need the most of all is a Republican governor in Rhode Island vetoing our right to have whomever we wish carry out our final decisions at the end of our lives.

Whistle a Happy Tune

2009-11-10T06:21:00.001-08:00

Huff Post recently posted a collection of songs, graphed out and recorded as data. The results are pretty funny! See if you can name the songs. I've posted my favorites.

Can you name the songs?

Fort Hood Shooting and Racism

2009-11-06T08:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, a horrible event happened in Texas. An Army psychiatrist, Nidal Malik Hasan, went on a rampage for reasons currently unknown and shot up some of our brave soldiers, including some that may have been just about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, two of Bush's unfinished "wars". Unlike most shootings, the killer remains alive and maybe will provide an insight for people who learn about such things to prevent them from ever happening again.

One of the things that chilled me when I was learning of the incident is the immediate reaction of the Muslim community in America after learning about the killing spree. Once Hasan's name was released, several Muslim groups denounced the act, fearing that they would be subject to the wanton violence they suffered just after 9/11.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement condemning the acts as cowardly and unjustified. Part of that statement reads as follows:

""Unfortunately, based on past experience, we also urge American Muslims, and
those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to
protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from
possible backlash."

It is sad and unfortunately not surprising, that in America today we have groups that have to fear the retaliatory actions of small-minded lunatics who feel they need to seek revenge for crimes such as these. Because of this man's last name and religious clothing, our Islamic citizens now must be warned to protect themselves.

My question is, is it just the name and the clothes, or is there something more deep going on?

Case in point. Irish Catholic Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, including several small children. Did the Catholic church issue a statement telling its members to "take approrpriate precautions" for fear of retribution? No.

Why not? I'll give you one guess, and it has nothing to do with the Pope. Yup, skin color.

Church of Christ member Jeffrey Dahmer killed 19 boys over a span of years. Did this religion, which is Bible based, feel compelled to tell its member to hide out for awhile in case roving bands of bigots were seeking justice?

Nope.

The fact is, the skin color of Hasan makes anyone that looks like him a potential target. In America. That simply isn't right.

Back after 9/11, I remember hearing a story that still stays with me today. An uncle of a pair of Indian students from a school I used to teach at was viciously killed in an act of retaliation. The uncle was Hindu, not even Muslim, but had similar appearance. The killers just simply picked someone out who had the same hair color and same eye color as some of the hijackers, and got their revenge.

We may never protect ourselves from small-minded bigots, but we certainly, as a country, still have a lot of work to do on racism and the judgments we make based on an immutable trait.

No on 1 Defeated in Maine

2009-11-04T06:40:00.000-08:00

I really wanted this wool pea coat. For a couple of years now, I've had my eye on it. I guess I like the navy feel to it, the color, the length. And it's time for me to purchase a new winter coat (although my old standby, with the shredded lining is still hanging in there!).

But I won't. Why? Because the aforementioned pictured coat, above, is being sold by L. L. Bean. A wonderful company that is based in Maine. And last night, Maine rejected equal civil rights for its gay and lesbian citizens by voting to repeal their gay marriage act. An act voted on by their legislators and signed into effect by their Governor John Baldacci.

I'm not a Mainer. I lived in New Hampshire for two years, and loved going into Maine, to shop, to eat the delicious lobster, to attend events in Portland. One of my old friends lives there and practices medicine there. And I absolutely believe in the citizenry of Maine to enact law they feel are in their best interest (although I must wonder if putting any groups civil rights up for a public vote is conscionable).

However, as a consumer, I have a right to select which companies I opt to do business with. L. L. Bean, based out of Freeport, Maine, is one company that I loved. I would get their catalogue and pour over their selection of homsey, comfortable clothes. I've been purchasing their backpacks now for years, and find they are the most durable things on the planet. But I simply will not allow my hard earned dollars to support a company now that is based in a state that doesn't value my relationship.

I have no delusions of grandeur. I am one person (two if you count my partner, but he doesn't shop at L. L. Bean). I am sending a letter to the company, expressing my disapproval of last night's actions. But I doubt my one letter will make a bit of difference in the company, or in the state. I'm doing it for me.

In addition, I believe that one way we can promote change is through economic pressure. If enough people sent enough letters, the company would begin to notice. Maine may not care about its gay and lesbian citizens (well, at this point, 52% of people in the state don't), but they will care if their economic situation worsens because of it.

I so remember when I was living in Arizona, and the state voted down honoring Martin Luther King in the mid 90's, painting the state as a racist bastion of intolerance. Suddenly, large conventions began to cancel. We lost the Super Bowl. And guess what? Arizona votes for it in the following election. Surprise? Hardly.

My one, small part is to write to L. L. Bean, and Stenhouse Publishers, to express my decision to be removed from their mailing list. Then I need to find a suitable replacement. One, hopefully in a state, that values all of its citizens and not just ones that fit a societal defintion of acceptable.

Maybe there is a company in Iowa that sells nice wool pea coats?

Support Homofaith Marriage!

2009-10-31T06:34:00.001-07:00

This coming Tuesday, two states, Maine and Washington, have the equal rights of their citizens up for a public vote. Both states have referendums on the equal rights of gay couples subject to the opinions of the masses, despite having gone through the legislative process in the states.

While I absolutely support voting, and believe truly in the power of the people, I have to ask if it's a good idea to put fundamental rights in the hands of citizens? Currently, it's the last bastion of the conservative right to fight any progress on my equality. Enough bigotry still exists in the country to deny a group of people the right to establish, maintain, and have recognized, a relationship with their same sex partner.

Well, instead of fighting this trend logically, I have an idea. Let's put up other people's equal rights up for a vote to give them the experience and see how they like it.

Here's one idea: Adultery is a crime!

Just think: cheating on your spouse a criminal act. And since the Religious Right is so concerned with the "sanctity of life", well, until you pass through the birth canal, then lets subject adultery to the Death Penalty. And, just like it happened in San Francisco with the marriage, let's make it retroactive. Anyone with the last twenty five years with admissions of cheating, DEATH!

That would take out most of the Republican members of Congress. (We wouldn't have the same penalty for Democrat cheaters. Why? Because they don't walk around espousing moral platitudes like "family values", so let's just lock them up for twenty years.)

Oh, I have one more idea, and this one is bloody brilliant.

The idea: Ban Heterofaith marriage! Support Homofaith Marriage!

This is a stellar idea. After all, if you ban Heterofaith marriages, it is not an attack on a citizen's civil rights. Why? Because they simply can choose someone of their same faith. You aren't denying their rights if they just pick someone that society votes as acceptable. Just go to a singles night at your local synagogue: they are teeming with single Jews looking for a mate! (Just don't pick one if you aren't Jewish yourself!).

And let's think of the children! The children in the family won't be "confused" with dual ethical and religious teachings. No menorahs next to Christmas trees! No hijabs in the family Easter photo! Homofaith marriage creates the most supportive, loving environment for the kids. Every Mormon child deserves the right to have two Mormon parents, right? Only two Quakers can create a "correct" family for a Quaker child.

Also, If you "choose" to engage in a Heterofaith marriage, then you're choosing not to have rights that Homofaith marriages will have: hospital visitation, inheritance, tax benefits, heck, let's even deny them the right to vote and get driver's licenses! We can force those Heterofaith marriages to go to their attorney, spend thousands of their own dollars, to draw up papers to have a smidgen of rights that Homofaith marriages get upon the second "I do." That's totally fair!

Protect Marriage Now! Support Homofaith Marriage in 2010!

Where is the noose?

2009-10-30T06:55:00.000-07:00

Pat Robertson is heading into obscurity quickly, so I often don't spend any time contemplating his outdated, outmoded conservative fear-based politicizing. However, this story caught my eye. Pat Robertson "fears" that the new hate crime law "The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Bill" signed Wednesday by President Obama will have a chilling effect on "muzzling pastors in church".

Now, the Religious Right has nothing but fear to promote its agenda of hate and intolerance. Voted out of the legislative and executive branch, it must rely on its old standby "let's make everyone afraid" because then, they don't think clearly and act reactively out of self-defense.

By making this ridiculous claim, Pat Robertson seems to suggest that Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson were acting out of religious conviction when pummeling Matthew to one inch of his life that cold October evening. Does he honestly think that the two of them went to church, heard a "fire and brimstone" sermon of hate, and then went out gay hunting? Did the two of them repeat the rosary while slugging Matthew? Did they pontification about baptism, the Holy Spirit, or even the crucifixion when they tied his hands to together?

I think not. Here's my advice for the minister.

Mr. Robertson, you just need to come out and say the truth. This isn't about putting a noose on a pastor, or an attack on religious freedom (hello, first amendment, hello?).

This is simply about you not liking gay people.

This is about you not wanting to protect people based on an immutable trait.

This is about you not wanting the federal government to protect its citizens.

This is about your fear, your bigotry, your homophobia, your intolerance.

If you "came out" on the television, and simply just admitted it, then I would have a sliver of respect for you.

The Tree of Liberty just grew another ring...

2009-10-29T05:56:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, President Obama signed historic legislation, the "Hate Crimes Prevention Act", finally, finally, finally, offering federal protection against gays and lesbians who are victims of hate crimes. Local communities, who are left to investigate and prosecute these crimes, now can access federal money to help with the expense of these heinous acts.

After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray, or who they are.

This act doesn't stop the violence, or change people's bigoted attitudes, or will address the travesty of putting people's equal rights up for votes (Maine and Washington). But this act sends a strong message, that in order to build tolerance and acceptance in this country, we must be intolerant of certain acts that the send messages of fear and hate into specific communities. For once, the community I live in is a bit safer this morning.

The tree of liberty just grew another ring. Thank you, President Obama.

Yeah, Portland!

2009-10-27T20:09:00.001-07:00

I knew there was a reason that I moved here. Portland, Oregon has been deemed the third most safest city to live in, according to Forbes Magazine. The magazine took into account crime rates, traffic fatalities, and natural disaster risk.

The top of the list? My old hometown of Minneapples. Portland had the lowest crime rate of the cities as well.

Good ol' Northwest!

Colbert on Gay Marriage

2009-10-27T06:33:00.000-07:00

Just watch. Enjoy. Giggle. This is one of his best.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The Word - Don't Ask Don't Tell

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Michael Moore

Favorite quote: "I don't believe it is a choice, I believe you're born thinking gays don't have the right to get married or even be joined in union. And folks, the gays have no right to out those people."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/colbert-eviscerates-gay-m_n_335076.html

Thanks Colbert, for being you.

(And Shane, if you watch this, don't get mad at the JC Penny joke!!)

"What do you think I fought for on Omaha Beach?"

2009-10-21T05:58:00.000-07:00

The fight for equal rights is happening in the corners of our country. Both Washington and Maine. In both states, citizens civil rights are being put up for a public vote, which is unconscionable in our country that deigns to promise "liberty and justice for all." It should be "liberty and justice for all*" -- *some restrictions apply.

Here is an AMAZING video of a veteran speaking in Maine last April.

Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh, argue with that, why dontcha?

"And liberty and justice ... for some."

2009-10-11T17:38:00.000-07:00

Today, thousands of LGBT people and their supporters descended on the hallowed land of our nation's capital, demanding that the promise we learned at the end of Pledge of Allegiance is finally, eventually fulfilled. After having lived near Washington DC for two years, my heart and my spirits was with those people. even though I physically couldn't be.

The weekend started off with President Obama, making a historical speech at the Human Rights Campaign dinner Saturday night. Video of the speech is below, which is about 20 minutes long. Knowing that regular visitors of the Liberal are very busy people. and don't always have time to watch the speech (although it's a barn burner!), I've posted some of my favorite parts below the video clip:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

For despite the real gains that we've made, there's still laws to change and there's still hearts to open. There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones -- good and decent people -- who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that's painful and it's heartbreaking. And yet you continue, leading by the force of the arguments you make, and by the power of the example that you set in your own lives -- as parents and friends, as PTA members and church members, as advocates and leaders in your communities. And you're making a difference.

Now, I've said this before, I'll repeat it again -- it's not for me to tell you to be patient, any more than it was for others to counsel patience to African Americans petitioning for equal rights half a century ago.

My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield.

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

You will see a nation that's valuing and cherishing these families as we build a more perfect union -- a union in which gay Americans are an important part. I am committed to these goals. And my administration will continue fighting to achieve them.

And there's no more poignant or painful reminder of how important it is that we do so than the loss experienced by Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was stolen in a terrible act of violence 11 years ago. In May, I met with Judy -- who's here tonight with her husband -- I met her in the Oval Office, and I promised her that we were going to pass an inclusive hate crimes bill -- a bill named for her son.

Nobody in America should be fired because they're gay, despite doing a great job and meeting their responsibilities. It's not fair. It's not right. We're going to put a stop to it. (Applause.) And it's for this reason that if any of my nominees are attacked not for what they believe but for who they are, I will not waver in my support, because I will not waver in my commitment to ending discrimination in all its forms.

Are we a nation that can transcend old attitudes and worn divides? Can we embrace our differences and look to the hopes and dreams that we share? Will we uphold the ideals on which this nation was founded: that all of us are equal, that all of us deserve the same opportunity to live our lives freely and pursue our chance at happiness? I believe we can; I believe we will.

And that is why -- that's why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country.

I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I've required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I've called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

That's the story of America: of ordinary citizens organizing, agitating and advocating for change; of hope stronger than hate; of love more powerful than any insult or injury; of Americans fighting to build for themselves and their families a nation in which no one is a second-class citizen, in which no one is denied their basic rights, in which all of us are free to live and love as we see fit.

Mr. Obama certainly can say all of the right things, and has been commended for his forward thinking and promises made in speeches. What's lacking in his speech is any timetable for ensuring such promises are kept. Certainly, with the big, and much needed push, to reform health care coming down the pike, his political capital must be spent ensuring passage of a bill that gives Americans decent, affordable care. I only hope that the promises he made in his speech, are truly fulfilled.

Anne Frank on Video

2009-10-04T18:19:00.000-07:00

I've been a long time admirer of Anne Frank. I've taught her diary to some of my more advanced fourth grade students (as part of a kickin' "tolerance" reading unit). I've read both her "Diary of a Young Girl" as well as the definitive version (with most of the cut out bits put back in). I own a couple of Anne Frank movies, as well as have quite the collection of Anne Frank information, children's books, and teaching materials in a box in my garage. I'm currently reading a new book about Anne, which fills in much of the information around what we already know about her diary.

One of my goals is to visit the Anne Frank Musem in Amsterdam, where she and her family hid for twenty five months. While I've seen the Secret Annex in video and picture, there will be no experience like walking through the rooms that protected them for so long.

Recently, the Museum set up a "You Tube" channel page that posts videos relating to her. They've posted a video that I saw last year, but it bears repeating, especially here on the Liberal. It's the only discovered video of Anne Frank herself. It's ten seconds long.

Apparently, a neighbor of Anne's had recently gotten married, and she popped her head out from her apartment window to catch a glimpse of the happy couple. A friend filming them leaving the building did a quick scan up the building to catch people watching them, and unknowingly, caught Anne.

Posted on Wednesday, the video already has over 1.5 million hits. It's a testament to Anne's popularity, to her insight as an author, and to how many of us have adopted this teenage girl in our hearts as a symbol of hope, resistance, and acceptance.

While I didn't want to get political with this posting, I can't help but think how casually some conservative demonstrators have tossed around images of President Obama as Hitler (most of whom wouldn't have a thing to worry about had they been living in Nazi Germany). It's a disgrace to the 6 million victims, one of them being this promising author, who suffered under his realm of hate.

A Democrat with Cojones

2009-10-02T21:56:00.001-07:00

Republican Health Care Plans presented by Office Depot.

Heard about Florida Representative Alan Grayson? You should. He's the congressperson who, on the floor of the House of Representatives, called out the Republican-Obstruction Party for their delaying tactics on health care reform. In case you haven't seen it, I don't want to spoil the delicious surprise, but one of my favorite parts is his discovery of the "Republican Health Care Plan" shown being waved during President Obama's speech turning out to be a blank sheet of paper. Kinda poetic, don'tcha think?

Anyway, watch:

What did the Republicans do? Demand an immediate apology. Yes, the same people who declare that I cannot have equal rights to most other citizens; the same people who claimed the health care plan had "death panels"; the same people who line their pockets with health insurance lobby money have their feelings hurt by a Democrat actually giving it back to them with the truth!.

Does Representative Grayson give them what they want? Watch below.

We lose 44,000 people every year because they cannot afford health insurance. Rep. Grayson is right.

We need to continue to care about people even AFTER they leave the womb.

The Loon is Back

2009-10-01T19:15:00.001-07:00

Resident psycho Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann is back again. Just last night, she found "sex clinics" hidden in the health care reform bill currently trying to claw its way through Congress. Here is her laughable claim:

The bill goes on to say what's going to go on -- comprehensive primary health services, physicals, treatment of minor acute medical conditions, referrals to follow-up for specialty care -- is that abortion? Does that mean that someone's 13 year-old daughter could walk into a sex clinic, have a pregnancy test done, be taken away to the local Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, have their abortion, be back and go home on the school bus that night? Mom and dad are never the wiser.

AS IF any school would open an abortion clinic for students to casually wander in, receive an operation during the ten minute passing break, and then go to American History class.

Can't you see it now, at Michele Bachmann High School?

Student raising hand: "Excuse me, Miss Crabtree, may I get an abortion?"
Miss Crabtree: "Make sure you take a pass. Remember last time?
Student (blushing): I know, I won't make that mistake again! Getting caught in the hallway without a pass!

Student goes to get the abortion pass, a toilet seat, which she must wear around her neck, and it spells out ABORTION on it. As she begins to leave, she passes her friend.

Friend: Have a good abortion! Don't forget to meet me after school, we have cheer practice!
Student gives her friend a thumbs up, and then leaves.

Sigh.

If this loon actually READ the section, it actually says:

(i) "SBHC services will be provides in accordance with Federal, State, and local laws governing-- (I) obtaining parental or guardian consent; and (II) patient privacy and student records, including section 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and section 444 of the General Education Provision Act...

I know there are some big words in there, and since Bachmann is so worried of going to a "re-education camp" after giving the United States it's Constitutionally-required Census information, she can't possibly understand them all.

But the thought that she actually said, in the House of Representatives, one of our nation's two hallowed halls of legislation, that schools would open ABORTION clinics as a result of this legislation churns my hide tonight.

Protect Insurance companies NOW!

2009-09-22T05:58:00.000-07:00

I've been blogging light lately ... school has started and my time is short. I've had a lot of things on my mind but no time to express them!

Anyway, I'll post this, as well as my Facebook page. It's pretty funny!

Protect Insurance Companies PSA from Will Ferrell

Lincoln on screen

2009-09-15T06:50:00.000-07:00

In case you didn't know, there has been much anticipation going on years now for Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" movie. Always seeming to be put on hold (Indy movies), Spielberg recently publicly claimed it wasn't dead, after hearing of the news of Robert Redford's intention of doing a Lincoln movie himself.

Here is the blurb from Entertainment Weekly:

Variety reports that Steven Spielberg isn’t giving up on his long-planned Abraham Lincoln project, despite yesterday’s news that Robert Redford will direct his own Lincoln story, The Conspirator. “We are very happy that Redford will be doing this Lincoln movie,” Spielberg told Variety. “It is completely different from what our DreamWorks Lincoln movie will be and we believe that it will add to the commercial potential of our film. Lincoln as a subject is inexhaustible.” Tony Kushner’s script for Spielberg is said to focus on his anguish about the Civil War; Redford’s project is about a woman charged with conspiracy to kill the president.

Tony Kushner is the gay author of the fabulous complicated and beautiful play and miniseries "Angels in America", who undoubtedly will produce an amazing Lincoln script. I hope it moves into production soon. Rumor has it that Liam Neeson was slated to play Lincoln. I can't think of anyone better for the role!

I wanted to discuss the health care proposal...

2009-09-10T20:02:00.000-07:00

... but I can't help but post this.

Congressman Joe Wilson decided, last night during the president's prime time speech to Congress, to interrupt his address by accusing the leader of our country by saying aloud and loudly, "You lie!".

Looking at the history over the past few months, in Republican events, a growing sense of incivility and impropriety is becoming the norm. "Spontaneous protesters" chant endlessly during Bush v. Gore to make sure that all votes are not counted. Someone yells out that Obama is a terrorist and that he should be killed during a Palin rally. Screamers yell down representatives (most of them not even their own elected person) attempting to get public input on the reform happening in the country. And now, an elected member of our Congress, a white man known to belong to a white supremacist group, yells over a biracial president, calling him "a liar".

I didn't want to discuss this event, because I feared it would take focus away from the actual debate that needs to happen, debate about health reform that needs to occur in our country.

However, such heinous actions require confrontation. I know Rep. Wilson has apologized for his words. I know that President Obama has accepted them, and has moved on. But we, as a society, cannot simply allow this to occur without consequence.

Respect for the office, if not for the holder, is a conceit and a gift of our country. Our president should be allowed to speak in Congress without being shouted over, or accused of lying, lest we make that par for the course, the norm; unless we make it status quo in our doctor's offices, in our classrooms, in movie theaters, and in courtrooms. Unless we are willing to make it a societal expectation to scream at everyone we disagree with, then those that act uncivilly should be held accountable. Where is Joe Wilson's personal responsibility in this issue?

Keith Olbermann says it much better:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Normally, I believe that local elections should be a certain region's business. I have no business suggesting another country or area of the country they change their representation. However, when such representatives act in such a way that proves their incompetence for the job, I believe that a little money sprinkled towards that person's opponent is in order.

Meet Rob Miller. A former Iraq war veteran, he's running against Wilson in 2010. He's already raised over a half million dollars in a day due to Wilson's two words. Give $5.00 to help him out. Let's get this idiot Wilson out of Congress for good.

How dare he speak about personal responsibility!

2009-09-08T06:57:00.000-07:00

Oh, I so wanted to blog about the furor over the President's speech this weekend! The conservatives are up in arms because our "socialist, fascist, communist, Hitler-loving president" is actually speaking to the students about such controversial things like "personal responsibility", "staying in school", and "listening to teachers."

Well, break out the picket signs, and lets start screaming down the President for actually suggesting our students have "personal responsibility".

Granted, as I was thinking about this, I considered the other option, being, what if former President Bush decided to speak to my class about the same subject. How would I have felt? Certainly, on a personal level, it would have been churning my stomach, knowing that a man who's level of accountability is "blame someone else" first, would be address my students on that matter. The hypocrisy would be tangible. However, as an educator, I would have shown the speech, and daresay, even discussed it with my kids, knowing that if the president takes time out of his schedule to speak to kids, we listen.

I remember Dubya's inauguration. We watched that. We actually just tuned in for the swearing in, I believe, and not the speech afterwards.

The question, and Laura Bush raises this point in a recent interview which she actually proves that she has her own mind and viewpoints, much to the chagrin of the "Borg" mentality of the Republican party, is that our country has been so "punditized" that we are a polarized society. So much so that the elected leader of our nation cannot send a message of responsibility and working hard and staying in school without it becoming a big deal. This does not bode well for our democracy when some people are so blinded by their hate and rage that any clear thinking on the subject matter is void.

What ever happened in our country to listening to diverse view points? Debating an issue civility and respectfully? Understanding someone else's point of view as well as your own? Has civility left our country?

Here is a brillant PARODY of the situation. Even though it looks legit, it is a satiric piece on the inanity of the uproar:

Well, happy first day back teachers! (Yes, I know for some of you, you've been back for two weeks now!). You have a big job ahead of you, and there is no more important job around.

Maddow takes down Ridge

2009-09-02T20:27:00.000-07:00

First, kudos to former Homeland Security secretary and governor Tom Ridge for going on The Rachel Maddow Show. It's not easy to go on a show with such an amazing, intelligent host who can debate with the best of them. Secretary Ridge has written a new book basically defending the indefensible Iraq "war of choice" made by the Bush administration to invade a country that did not attack us or had anything to do with 9/11. Ms. Maddow takes him down in the final moments of the interview.

Back in 2003, when Bush sent troops into the country illegally, I felt much of what Maddow says. It's so refreshing to hear this commentary aired, now. I've copied the script below for posterity sake (bolding is mine:)

MADDOW: I think you making that argument right now is why Republicans after the Bush and Cheney administration are not going to get back the country's trust on national security. To look back at that decision and say 'we got it wrong but it was in good faith' and not acknowledge the foregone conclusion that we are going to invade Iraq that pervaded every decision that was made about intelligence. Looking back at that decision-making process, it sounds like you're making the argument that you would have made the same decision again.

Americans need to believe that our government would not make that wrong a decision, that would not take such a foregone conclusion to such an important issue, that the intelligence that proved the opposite point was all discounted, that the intelligence was combed through for any bit that would fit the foregone conclusion of the policymakers. The system was broken and if you don't see that the system was broken and you think that it was just that the intel was wrong - I think that you're one of the most trusted voices on national security for the Republican party, and I think that is the elephant in the room. I don't think you guys get back your credibility on national security until you realize that was a wrong decision made by policy makers; that wasn't the spies fault.

RIDGE: Well, I think you are suggesting that it was only driven by, quite obviously the people who made the decision knew more about the threat than you and I do. And again I think it is a pretty radical conclusion to suggest that men and women entrusted with the safety of this country would predicate a decision upon any other basis other than to keep America safe. Later on it may have proven that some of the information was inaccurate, but there were plenty of reasons to go into Iraq at the time - the foremost were the weapons of mass destruction, that obviously proven to be faulty. But the fact of the matter is, at that time, given what they knew, and they knew more than what you and I did, it seemed to be the right thing to do and the decision was made in what they considered to be in the best interest of our country.

- snip -

MADDOW: If you can go back in time and sell the American people on the idea that 4,000 Americans ought to lose their lives and we ought to lose those trillions of dollars for democracy in Iraq, you have a wilder imagination than I do. We were sold that war because of 9/11. We were sold that war because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction from this guy who didn't have them, and our government should have known it. And frankly a lot of people believe our government did know it and it was a cynical decision. And maybe everybody wasn't in on it and maybe that is a radical thing to conclude...

In memoriam

2009-08-29T10:00:00.000-07:00

Excerpts from the amazing eulogy given by President Obama at Senator Edward Kennedy's funeral mass today in rainy Boston. Bold text is mine, favorite important sentences.

We can still hear his voice bellowing through the Senate chamber, face reddened, fist pounding the podium, a veritable force of nature, in support of health care or workers' rights or civil rights. And yet, while his causes became deeply personal, his disagreements never did. While he was seen by his fiercest critics as a partisan lightning rod, that is not the prism through which Ted Kennedy saw the world, nor was it the prism through which his colleagues saw him. He was a product of an age when the joy and nobility of politics prevented differences of party and philosophy from becoming barriers to cooperation and mutual respect - a time when adversaries still saw each other as patriots.

***

Of course, luck had little to do with Ted Kennedy's legislative success, and he knew that. A few years ago, his father-in-law told him that he and Daniel Webster just might be the two greatest senators of all time. Without missing a beat, Teddy replied, "What did Webster do?"

***

But though it is Ted Kennedy's historic body of achievements we will remember, it is his giving heart that we will miss. It was the friend and colleague who was always the first to pick up the phone and say, "I'm sorry for your loss," or "I hope you feel better," or "What can I do to help?" It was the boss who was so adored by his staff that over five hundred spanning five decades showed up for his 75th birthday party. It was the man who sent birthday wishes and thank you notes and even his own paintings to so many who never imagined that a U.S. Senator would take the time to think about someone like them. I have one of those paintings in my private study - a Cape Cod seascape that was a gift to a freshman legislator who happened to admire it when Ted Kennedy welcomed him into his office the first week he arrived in Washington; by the way, that's my second favorite gift from Teddy and Vicki after our dog Bo. And it seems like everyone has one of those stories - the ones that often start with "You wouldn't believe who called me today."

***

We cannot know for certain how long we have here. We cannot foresee the trials or misfortunes that will test us along the way. We cannot know God's plan for us.

What we can do is to live out our lives as best we can with purpose, and love, and joy. We can use each day to show those who are closest to us how much we care about them, and treat others with the kindness and respect that we wish for ourselves. We can learn from our mistakes and grow from our failures. And we can strive at all costs to make a better world, so that someday, if we are blessed with the chance to look back on our time here, we can know that we spent it well; that we made a difference; that our fleeting presence had a lasting impact on the lives of other human beings.

***
In the days after September 11th, Teddy made it a point to personally call each one of the 177 families of this state who lost a loved one in the attack. But he didn't stop there. He kept calling and checking up on them. He fought through red tape to get them assistance and grief counseling. He invited them sailing, played with their children, and would write each family a letter whenever the anniversary of that terrible day came along. To one widow, he wrote the following:

"As you know so well, the passage of time never really heals the tragic memory of such a great loss, but we carry on, because we have to, because our loved one would want us to, and because there is still light to guide us in the world from the love they gave us."

We carry on.

Ted Kennedy has gone home now, guided by his faith and by the light of those he has loved and lost. At last he is with them once more, leaving those of us who grieve his passing with the memories he gave, the good he did, the dream he kept alive, and a single, enduring image - the image of a man on a boat; white mane tousled; smiling broadly as he sails into the wind, ready for what storms may come, carrying on toward some new and wondrous place just beyond the horizon.

May God Bless Ted Kennedy, and may he rest in eternal peace.

Very moving, President Obama.

There are those in this country who only see Ted Kennedy through one pair of eyes, through one event in his life that was tragic and nearly career ending. I ask those who dwell on the past, how would you like your life to be seen only through the eyes of one thing? No, as President Obama said, our lives and our people are infinitely more complex and deep than that.

The Liberal will not dwell with these naysayers. Today is a day of reflection, remembrance, and legacy. Teddy wins out on all of those. As playwright Tony Kushner says at the end of "Angels in America" ... "the work continues." Teddy's work continues.

Amazing picture...

2009-08-28T07:19:00.001-07:00

Published on today's New York Times front page, August 28th. Picture by Stewart Milne.

Teddy Toons

2009-08-27T06:38:00.003-07:00

Here are some political cartoons that I found about the late, great Senator Teddy Kennedy.

The Lion is Gone

2009-08-26T20:04:00.001-07:00

The Lincolnian Liberal wouldn't be the Lincolnian Liberal without mentioning the passing today of liberal stalwart and champion of the everyday person, Senator Edward "Teddy" Kennedy. Forty years in the Senate, only two Senators serving longer than him, he accomplish major legislation and work in civil rights, equality issues, education reform, and truly, a bipartisan. Senators from the opposing party even spoke wonders about him. Although they may not agree with his positions, they admired the man.

Personally, though, Kennedy truly influence the scope of liberal politics for his entire life. He wasn't afraid to call himself a liberal when it was no longer "in vogue". He worked endlessly for those who weren't represented in politics, the poor, those without health care, minorities. Although coming from a life of privilege, he worked for all of us, worked to make our lives better, healthier, and fuller.

Kennedy said many quotes in his life. One of them, which I posted on my Facebook page upon hearing the news, is one of my favorites.

"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die." -Sen. Ted Kennedy 1980 Democratic National Convention

In Senator Kennedy's memory, the Liberal will proudly post this quote.

In closing, here are President Obama's kind and reflective words.