A CiviL Union

In This Together - Washington

2009-05-05T20:59:00.000-07:00

Every so often, one has a big idea. And it is in precisely those moments that I'm thankful to have a defunct blog where I can put the idea "out there" for ever-so-gradual input and building/abandoning (as appropriate).

The Basic Idea

In short, promoting public service. What I envision is a state-led campaign encouraging people to give half an hour in community service for every hour of tv they watch. It sets a high aspiration point. The campaign reminds people of the value of community service to self and to others, including testimonials and examples of the achievements that are possible when we come together for the common good.

The Practical Side

Beyond the call to service, we incentivize it. We set a tangible number, say an average of 30 hours per month. Anyone meeting that goal receives some sort of card or certificate acknowledging him or her as a "Daughter of Washington" or "Son of Washington" or "Exemplar of Washington."

But this certificate isn't just a piece of paper! No, this is where it gets good. We enlist businesses to offer meaningful rewards, say 25% off, to persons presenting the certificate. We're ALL in this together, persons and corporations alike. In exchange for participation, businesses receive (in addition to the recognition of participation is the program) some sort of tax break or other benefit from the state.

A Little Nitty Gritty

So where do these community service hours come from? Obviously there are numerous opportunities with private organizations, charities, church groups (engaged in non-evangelical activities), etc. that the state should accept as counting toward the hours. Additionally, the state could organize opportunities, such as regular park cleanings, knitting events where people make clothing for indigent families, opportunities for professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) to work on behalf of the indigent, and so on. Many of these programs already exist. But what doesn't exist is a central location for disseminating that information. A website, for example, where the teenager can log on, find a community service project going on that say, and drop by and grab a shovel. It's a rather fundamental precept that when something is made convenient, more people will take advantage of it. So why on Earth wouldn't we make public service more convenient?

Nor do I imagine this requiring any sort of bloated bureaucracy. Clearly, staff would be needed to run the website, compile information from private service organizations, oversee the state-led projects, and control the distribution of certificates. But the value provided by thousands of volunteer hours more than pays for this modest sum.

So What Do You Think

If such a program existed (in your state - it's clearly transplantable), would you participate? What parts make sense? What parts make no sense? How might you improve on this proposed program? I'm confident there are many ways to make the idea stronger - I literally cooked it up on a bus ride home from the gym. So please, share your thoughts!

I Miss the Constitution (Or "Hey, I Was Using That!")

2008-03-08T07:21:00.001-08:00

The United States wishes to enter into a "bilateral agreement" with Iraq concerning security assurances and American troop presence. Traditionally, a bilateral agreement between two sovereign nations is called a "treaty." According to the U.S. Constitution, in order for the United States to enter a treaty, the president must sign it and two-thirds of the Senate must ratify it. This is part of something that used be known as "checks and balances."¹ Thus, one might be forgiven for presuming that in order for a treaty with Iraq to go into effect, it would require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate. But, according to the Bush Administration, you'd be wrong!

And what, you must be dying to know, is the justification this separation-of-powers-destroying argument? 9/11. Well, indirectly anyhow. More directly, it's the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (AUMF). You may remember its passage as the moment Congress abdicated its Constitutional responsibilities related to the declaration of war. That was bad enough. But now the Administration is arguing that the Legislative Branch ceded not only the power to declare war (Art. I, s. 8, cl. 11) but also its Advice and Consent power.

Here's how the argument goes - In the AUMF, Congress provided:

"(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Maintaining troops in Iraq is an essential component of maintain a stable Iraq and a stable Iraq is necessary to eliminate any threat from Iraq, which in turn is necessary to defend the national security of the United States. Therefore the AUMF authorizes the President used the Armed Forces in this way, which necessarily allows him to take steps (i.e. negotiate agreements) to do so.

That argument, of course, is bunk. On many levels, but one in particular. You see, no plausible reading of the text allows for this. The only power granted to the president is to "use the Armed Forces of the United States," which is well-short of any sort of express waiver of the "Advice and Consent" requirement (if, indeed, such a provision might be waived - that's an argument for another day). The logic of this argument would also support the conclusion that Congress doesn't actually need to approve funds for the military because that's a necessary component of complying with the AUMF. In other words, this logic is one of an unconstrained Executive Branch.

At the end of the day, the Administration's view is a misreading of the AUMF. But far worse is the fact that Congress passed a document that even arguably allows for such a reading. (As a reminder, here's the Senate roll call vote and the House roll call vote.)

¹ This was before it was was reinterpreted to mean that Congress writes "checks" to pay for the President's foreign expeditions, regardless of any negative "balances" in the country's pocketbook.

Disaster! (or "On the Seating of the FL and MI Delegations")

2008-02-17T20:20:00.000-08:00

Recently the Hillary Clinton campaign has been advocating the seating the delegations from Florida and Michigan. Such a move would be illogical, unjust, and could quite possibly result in an outright theft of the Democratic nomination. Calls to seat the delegations are merely examples of the anything-to-win political gamesmanship that has poisoned our system for so long.

To begin with, I am not addressing the wisdom of the DNC in stripping those states of their delegations in the first place. There is an important debate to be had about the propriety of that decision, but it is irrelevant on whether or not to seat the delegations from Florida and Michigan. That decision is a sunk cost; it has been made and its consequences have occurred.

First, I should make clear that I view the purpose of a primary election or caucus as a means of determining the will of the voters in a given state. The will of the voters is then converted into delegations to be sent to the party's convention. The transitive property does not apply here; you simply cannot remove the will of the voters from the equation. If will of the voters cannot be discerned, the delegations are worthless and should be excluded. And that is why the Florida and Michigan delegations must not be seated. Let's examine them one at a time.

Florida

We cannot know the will of the voters in Florida. For weeks in advance of the primary, voters there were told by the media that their votes wouldn't count. We cannot know how many chose not to vote as a result of that nor can we know what proportion of supporters for each candidate decided not to vote. If we can assume Clinton supporters and Obama supporters avoided the polls in equal proportions, that would be one thing. But until someone affirmatively demonstrates that to be the cause, it is a risk we musn't take.

Given these uncertainties, the least-bad option is to do with the results precisely what Florida voters were told would be done with them: disregard them. To do otherwise risks disenfranchising the voters of Florida. (For those from Washington State, imagine that in this beauty-pageant of a primary we're having, Hillary Clinton crushes Obama and the state party then decides to base half its delegates on that result. You chose not to vote because you were told over and over again that it was meaningless. That is the danger in Florida.)

Michigan

In the case of Michigan, you have all the problems of Florida. But Michigan is worse. Its results have all the legitimacy of a Saddam Hussein election. You see, just as in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there was only one candidate on the ballot. Despite this, 40% of voters cast their ballots for what effectively amounted to "Not-Hillary-Clinton." In addition to knowing how many scores chose not to vote, we have no way of knowing how many of those "Not-Hillary-Clinton" votes were for Obama, Edwards, or Biden. Simply put, we have NO WAY of knowing how to apportion the Michigan delegation. No informed neutral observer could possibly argue this delegation should be seated; to even suggest as much is a staggering display of either ignorance or, worse, win-at-any-cost politics.

(For those interested in other aspects of the nominating process, I recommend the excellent treatment of the subject over at Pro Bono Geek.)

"Vie one with another in good works." (5:48)

2008-01-27T06:45:00.000-08:00

Hello friends,

This is kinda serious, so don't bother if you don't want to. :)

I just read a short letter signed by over 100 Muslim scholars, theologians, clerics, and leaders from throughout the world. It was put together by a Muslim institute in Jordan near the end of last year.

On the surface, it's yet another "call for unity" between people of different religious/political/social/etc. persuasions for the sake of not blowing each other (and everyone else) up. These seem to be a dime-a-dozen these days. Not to say that they're not important, and not to recuse myself from having made many of them, but for the large part they've lacked a rigor to which to bind any consequent commitment.

The problem seems always to be that wherever there are similarities, there are differences, too. And certain types of difference (religious, especially) carry with them entire identities and convictions and certainties that can’t lightly be primed over like an old coat of paint – they always show through, enough to distract at best, and to undermine at worst. Who’s work is it to examine the structure and stuff of our differences and find those shared spaces where we can engage each other?

Everyone’s, of course. But scholars can often initiate these conversations that, at first, stay amongst themselves, but hopefully over time, become the talk of the rest of us.

The Common Word statement is the result of a Muslim search of shared ground between Christians and Muslims. And as a Christian, I was deeply moved and satisfied. Many of my skepticisms were directly addressed. (Notably, about Jesus’ saying, “He who is not with me is against me.”)

One question: will this satisfy Christians (and Muslims) who believe that the end goal of their religions is the total submission and dominion over the entire world of their way of thinking, seeing, and believing? If you're Billy Christian from Colorado Springs, does it make sense to pause to find a common word with Muslims when their salvation is at stake? I wonder. I also don't think it matters (more on that below), but I still wonder.

I wonder what more conservative Christians will think. I wonder what agnostic or atheist friends will think. I wonder what my Muslim friends think. And I also wonder how these conversations can start to spread among people everywhere – after all, a “common word” needs “common people”.

The basis of the letter is a section of the Qur’an quoted by the authors, where God commands Muslims to reach out to Jews and Christians:

Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are they who have surrendered (unto Him). (Aal ‘Imran 3:64)

You might ask, “Wait – isn’t this just telling Muslims to convert everyone to Islam? Isn’t this just telling Muslims that until everyone is alike, they must not rest?”

The letter addresses this. The authors refer to God’s recognition that the “People of the Scripture” (a Muslim name for all Jews, Christians, and Muslims) are not alike. In the Qur’an, God points out that there are difference not only between the People of the Book, but also within each religion as well.

They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of God in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him). They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency, and vie one with another in good works. These are of the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them. God is Aware of those who ward off (evil). (Aal-‘Imran, 3:113-115)

For me, the key is the implicit command in this section for all people of faith to “vie one with another in good works.” What a transformation that would be, and why not?

Finding a common word isn’t some fanciful utopian notion where a sea change is the prerequisite. A common word is the prerequisite for a sea change. We, each one of us, can decide that our actions and motivations be oriented towards the contest of good works that God is inviting us to join. It doesn't matter if Billy Christian from Colorado Springs is convinced or not - what about you? What about me? Can a common word be true, just for us? Because I think that it would be enough. Isn’t it invigorating to think about what our “staunch community” could accomplish, trying to outdo each other in reconciliation, compassion, mercy, and humility? And why wouldn't Billy Christian, in a moment when all else seems broken or beat, receive the same love? Why shouldn't he be converted to us?

What other staunch communities are possible? How about a staunch community of feminists and traditionalists, united to improve education and services for children? How about a staunch community of scientists and spiritualists, united to explore and conserve the world we live in? How about a staunch community of LGBT folks and their opponents, united to strengthen the place of love and family in fractured times? How about a staunch community of Democrats and Republicans, who instead of vying for power and influence, vie in good works, as the Qur'an suggests?

Why not then:

...they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more. (Micah 4:3)

Here I go again – dime-a-dozen calls for unity. But the Common Word letter lays out a model for how these kinds of calls can go beyond the polite greetings that they often are: assemble people of conviction and integrity, identify what is essential, let go of what is not, expand the shared spaces, and spread the good news.

Please tell others.
And by the way - I am doing fine.

Peace,
Alex

LOGO Debate

2007-08-09T19:55:00.000-07:00

The LOGO Network tonight hosted a debate with all the Democratic candidates. (They had invited all the Republican candidates for a second debate but all declined.) As I tuned in too late to catch Obama or Edwards, my commentary will be brief, but I have two points:

1.) The format of the debate was very well done. In turns, each candidate came out and sat down - just the one candidate, panelists, and a moderator. The panel asked questions of the candidates, but because of the more intimate setting, any attempt to dodge was utterly transparent (I'm looking at you, Bill Richardson). The questions focused on issues important to the LGBT community (marriage equality, disease prevention, civil rights, etc.) that are often unexplored in the more "mainstream" debates. I would love to see more debates like this.

2.) As for the candidates, Mike Gravel is a little blurry-eyed (in 5 years marriage equality won't be an issue? Wishful thinking, methinks, though I would love nothing more than to be wrong), Bill Richardson looks like he's running for high school ASB President (the man has tremendous qualifications but lousy, lousy, lousy public speaking skills - he couldn't even answer a direct yes or no question), and much as I despise Hillary's triangulation, I will be 100% behind her should she get the nomination (she is articulate and, contrary to the Limbaugh-created image, rather affable). Dennis Kucinich is, well, he's Dennis Kucinich - he didn't say a single thing I disagreed with, but he's not a persuasive speaker; his rationales and justifications (which I agreed with, generally) were not stated in such a way that anyone who had previously disagreed with him would change their mind.

Referendum 67

2007-07-26T20:15:00.001-07:00

What is a Referendum?

In the State of Washington, the citizens may put on the ballot measures passed by the Legislature provided they collect 112,440 registered voters. In this way, it is a direct check by the citizens on their elected officials.

*****

At the outset, I wish to provide you with three links:

The text of Referendum 67 (.pdf file)

Approve Referendum 67 website

Reject Referendum 67 website

My analysis draws primarily from the first link, but I have consulted both of the others as well.

This will shortly become a bruising fight as millions of dollars have been already poured in. You will undoubtedly hear commercials on the radio, see commercials on tv, and hear countless individuals opine on the subject. And so I thought it would be productive to look into what the law would accomplish, if passed. I should make clear, I am not yet an official law-talking guy, but I am certainly a "law-reading guy" and have a sense of what the words mean and what to expect.

Referendum 67 would, at the end of the day, do one thing: it would prohibit insurers from "unreasonably" denying claims. The devil, as they say, is in the details.¹ The first detail, and this is a very large one, is that the law does NOT apply to health insurance. That particular disaster is left for another day. Instead, think insurance for automobiles, homeowners, and so on. The next detail, and the true source of disagreement between the "Approve" and "Reject" camps,² is the method for prohibiting unreasonable denials.

Referendum 67 would allow, but not require, an award of triple the amount of actual damages where the court determines that the insurer acted unreasonably. Worth noting is that for even the possibility of triple damages to apply, the denial must not only be wrongful, but also unreasonable. Thus, even where a denial was wrongful and in violation of the policy, the insurance company would face the prospect of triple damages. Prior to filing the lawsuit, the insured must provide the insurer with 20 days written notice of the basis for the lawsuit, thereby providing the insured with an opportunity to correct an unreasonable denial. If the denial was merely wrongful, but not unreasonable, the insured would still be entitled to sue for actual damages, attorneys' fees, and litigation costs.

The astute reader may be wondering how this relates to punitive damages. In the State of Washington, punitive damages are prohibited unless specifically allowed by statute. In a very real sense, then, Referendum 67 allows for a limited amount of punitive damages in limited situations.

And so, at last, we reach the least important part of this post - my thoughts on the advisability of Referendum 67. First, having reviewed the websites, I assure you that the dire warnings from those opposed are overstated. IF insurance rates go up, it will be because insurers are unreasonably denying claims. And if that is the case, insurance rates SHOULD go up. Imagine - would you like to save $10 on your monthly auto insurance, but increase the likelihood they would unreasonably deny your legitimate $15,000 claim? The concern about increased litigiousness is also overstated. Going to court is an expensive business. These cases will often be on a contingency basis and no lawyer is going to take the expenses of frivolous cases. Indeed, even if a lawyer did so, where the case is truly frivolous, the court can impose sanctions and order the lawyer to pay the insurance company's legal fees.

No, the major impact, I suspect, will be that the same people will take their insurance companies to court over wrongful denials, but instead of asking to merely be made whole, they will ask for an additional amount. The courts will be reticent to award that additional amount (frustratingly so, I suspect), but in certain cases the denial will be so egregiously unreasonable that the court will award additional damages. Insurances companies, presuming they are rational actors, will seek to avoid that expense by altering their claims process to ensure that it is reasonable. Again, I emphasize that Referendum 67 requires not that the systems are perfect, merely that they are reasonable. For those who are concerned about individuals getting excessive amounts of money to which they are not entitled, there are other solutions available (e.g. substantial taxes levied against the amount awarded in excess of actual damages), but that is a post for another day.

In sum, I offer Referendum 67 my qualified approval - it is no panacea, but it creates an incentive for insurers to act reasonably.

¹ Or, if the Internet is to be believed, the smoke on 9/11.
² Reject camp, as it happens, does not sound like a particularly appealing summer activity.

PICS v. SSD - Outlines

2007-06-30T11:52:00.000-07:00

[NOTE: I have decided to post this piecemeal. The Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Stevens outlines are posted. I'm starting to read the Breyer ~~novel~~ opinion.]

Below are outlines (literal, not law school) of the arguments made by the various opinions. I have endeavored to be as neutral and fair as possible in my presentation of the arguments, as that is the only way to later have a meaningful discussion. These outlines are, admittedly, quite lengthy, but so were the opinions - hence the necessity.

Schools' Plans

Seattle

Incoming 9th graders rank preferences of high schools. Students are assigned based on first preference. If (and only if) a school is oversubscribed, the school uses the following assignment method (in this order):

Assign to the school attended by an older sibling
If, and only if, the school is not within 15% of the district's demographics, look to student's race (white or nonwhite) to ensure school is within 15% of district demographics. (There is a discrepancy between opinions as to 10% or 15% - it began as 10% and was changed to 15% prior to this challenge)
Assign based on geographic proximity
After the freshman year, students were free to transfer schools.

Jefferson County

All non-magnet schools must be 15-50% African-American. Incoming kindergarteners assigned a school based on address. Students may request a 1st and 2nd choice. Decision based on space and whether is would violate the racial percentages above. Students may later request a transfer, subject to the same restrictions.

Roberts Opinion
(Majority opinion for I, II, IIIA, and IIIC; plurality opinion for IIIB and IV)

II

Plaintiffs have standing. The injury is "being forced to compete in a race-based system that may prejudice the plaintiff." The parents have younger children that may be forced to do so because there is nothing stopping the districts from re-instituting the plans.

III A

When the government burdens or benefits individuals on the basis of racial characteristics, the court uses strict scrutiny. To satisfy that, the government must show (1) the plan is narrowly tailored (2) to meet a compelling government interest.

There are two possible compelling government interests in situations like this: (1) "remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination" and (2) interest in diversity in higher education. Neither is applicable.

In Seattle, no past intentional discrimination
In Jefferson County, the district court declared it remedied in 2000
Diversity is more than just race; here where race enters it is decisive
Grutter focused on conditions unique to higher education, namely the expansive freedom of speech and thought

III B

The additional asserted interest are the educational and broader socialization benefits from a racially diverse learning environment. These benefits are irrelevant, however, because the plans are not narrowly tailored to them.

The plans are directed to racial balance, which is impermissible. The plans are tied to demographics, not the level of diversity necessary to achieve the benefits, as required to be narrowly tailored. No argument that the level necessary coincides with demographics.

Example: In Seattle, 50% white and 50% Asian would meet diversity requirement while 30% Asian, 25% African American, 25% Latino, and 20% white would not.

Unlike Grutter, this is limited to a defined range.

Racial balancing cannot be a compelling government interest. Government must treat citizens as individuals. Otherwise, race would always be relevant.

Remedying past societal discrimination doesn't justify race-conscious government action.

Proportionality is not required for integration.

The goal of diversity to see students as individuals is at cross purposes with with people solely as members of a racial group.

III C

The chosen means are unnecessary. Their minimal effect shows other means would be more effective. In Seattle, only 52 students were assigned to non-preferred schools due to race that would not have otherwise been assigned there. Thus, benefit doesn't outweigh harm of disparate treatment.

Districts failed to consider other race-neutral methods.

IV

Dissent relies on compelling interest of remedying past intentional discrimination, but ignores the legal difference between de jure and de facto segregation crucial to law. Thus, its citation to various cases is inappropriate.

Dissent also relies on cases decided before strict scrutiny was applied to all racial classifications. Other cases relied upon by dissent reserved question of non-de jure segregation.

Dissent's reliance on Grutter is misplaced because there the determination was individualized.

Previous cases reject that strict scrutiny depends on motive. The contrary view was expressed and rejected. The dissent puts too much faith in the court.

The Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not groups.

Dissent argues that ends justify the means.

The costs are clear: (1) distinctions based on race are odious and (2) government division by race promotes notions of inferiority and leads to hostility.

Brown was about government classification and separation, not inequality of facilities. Brown II required system of admission on a non-racial basis.

Kennedy Concurrence

[Supports the Roberts opinion except for III B and IV.]

I

These plans allocate benefits and burdens based on race and are therefore subject to strict scrutiny.

Diversity, depending on its meaning and definition, is a compelling governmental interest.

The government bears the burden of justifying a racial classification and each of the districts fail.

Jefferson County fails to establish how decisions are made. There is a conflict within its materials as to whether or not it applies to kindergarteners. It also fails to state who makes the decision and whether there is any oversight. Because of this ambiguity, the plan fails strict scrutiny.
Seattle fails because it does not make clear how its distinction between white and nonwhite furthers its goal of diversity. Thus it is not narrowly tailored and fails strict scrutiny.

II

The hope is that race does not matter; the reality is that it too often does.

The Constitution does not require that districts ignore racial isolation in schools and districts may take race into account. Several possible ways to do so while avoiding strict scrutiny are:

Strategic site selection for new schools
drawing attendance zone with general recognition of demographics
Allocating resources for special programs
Targeted recruiting of students and faculty
Tracking enrollment, performance, and other statistics by race

Districts fail to support claim that there is no other way to avoid racial isolation.

The small number of students affected suggests districts could have accomplished same ends through different means.

III A

Contrary to plurality, compelling interests in remedying past intentional discrimination (Freeman) and in diversity in higher education (Grutter) do inform the analysis here.

The dissent's view has no principled limit and would allow many government classifications based on race. It would conceivably allow Congress to make these changes nationwide and it could not be limited to schools.

Two particular cases relied upon by the dissent don't fit:

Gratz held that the race factor was invalid, which is contrary to the dissent's point.
Grutter took into account multiple elements of diversity

III B

The court has required government discrimination in order to allow for the government to use racial classifications. The effect of de facto segregation may be the same as de jure segregation, but the state must use remedies other than racial classifications for the former, absent an extraordinary showing not present here.

III C

Government classification of individuals by race is dangerous. It commands people "to march in different directions based on racial typologies" and causes new divisiveness.

Thus, just because race may be the problem doesn't mean race may be the solution.

Thomas Concurrence

[Supports the Roberts opinion in its entirety.]

I A

Segregation is not same as racial imbalance

Segregation: deliberate operation of public schools to carry out government policy to separate pupils solely on the basis of race. Brown says this is unconstitutional.
Racial imbalance: failure of schools to match demographics of student in the district. This can result from de jure segregation or private decisions. Because it is not linked to unconstitutional segregation, racial imbalance is not unconstitutional in itself.

There is no danger of re-segregation in these districts, only additional racial imbalance.

I B 1

Race-based decision-making is fatal unless narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.

I B 2

Neither case fits narrow exception to above rule for remedial measures. Seattle schools were never segregated by law and, while the Jefferson County schools were once so segregated, in 2000 the district court declared them no longer segregated.

I B 3

Even where a district seeks to remedy discrimination for which it was responsible, it must demonstrate a strong basis for the necessity of the remedy. Assertions of general societal discrimination are insufficient. Allegations in complaints against the Seattle School District are also insufficient.

I C

Racial imbalance differs from segregation for two reasons: (1) they are distinct concepts (see I A); (2) they require different remedies because racial balancing has no "ultimate remedy" nor a culpable party.

II

Neither plan survives strict scrutiny because there is no compelling state interest

II A

Strict scrutiny applies to every racial classification.

Constitutional problems are not diminished by lack of intent to oppress
Additionally, these programs are not benign. "Racial paternalism" is "poisonous and pernicious." "Bringing the races together" results in someone being excluded, which exacerbates tensions and promotes resentment.
Nothing less than strict scrutiny is appropriate

II B

The dissent's claimed compelling interest is based on three non-compelling interests and they are no more compelling as a whole than individually.

II B 1

Dissent: interest in setting right the consequences of prior conditions of segregation.

But, as discussed above, there was no segregation in Seattle and it has been remedied in Jefferson County.

Districts have no interest in remedying consequences unrelated to schooling. It is merely speculative that school segregation affected those other conditions. Additionally, there would be no stopping point to the use of race under such a standard.

II B 2

Dissent: racially balanced schools improve educational outcomes for black students.

But social science literature debates, and is therefore inconclusive about, the benefit relied upon by the dissent.

Additionally, black student have been successful in non-racially balanced environments. Even Seattle operates a K-8 African American Academy. Thus racial balance is not necessary for positive educational outcomes.

II B 3

Dissent: democratic interest in reflecting a pluralistic society.

But if government could use this goal in schools, it could use it anywhere. It has no stopping point.

Additionally, there is no guarantee of the racial mixing necessary for asserted benefits because (1) separating students by abilities in classrooms often leads to classes of different races and (2) students may select social separation. Further, it is unclear that there is a benefit to racial mixing.

II B 4

Grutter is inapplicable because K-12 is unlike primary education in that (1) schools don't select their own students and (2) it doesn't involve the free interchange of ideas.

II C

There are only two compelling governmental interests: (1) preventing anarchy or violence and (2) remedying past intentional discrimination for which the government is responsible.

III

The Constitution is color blind.

The dissent pins its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause on current societal practice and expectations, which is what the Court did in Plessy v. Ferguson

The dissent is very similar to the arguments of the segregationists in Brown

Would rely on local experience
Claims result will threaten calm with race-related litigation
Relies heavily on judicial precedent
Argument that need for use of race will lessen over time is similar to argument that segregation was lessening

Breyer Dissent

Stevens Dissent

[Supports the Breyer Dissent in its entirety.]

The Chief Justice is wrong in concluding that racial classifications that don't exclude or stigmatize shouldn't be treated differently. That proposition rests on recent, non-unanimous decisions.

In School Comm. of Boston the Supreme Court affirmed a ruling upholding a state law mandating integration which used racial classifications. That decision was more faithful to Brown than this one.

No member in the court in 1975 (when Stevens joined it), which was faithful to Brown, would have agreed with this decision.

PICS v. SSD

2007-06-28T19:44:00.000-07:00

As most of you are undoubtedly aware, the Supreme Court today handed down an opinion of great importance; indeed, it was the opinion I had been most eagerly anticipating the entire term. The case dealt public schools and the use of race in school assignment. The result was worse than anticipated, though not as bad as feared.

Here at A CiviL Union, we promise that every time the Supreme Court reverses course on over half a century of solid jurisprudence on race, we'll mention it.

It occurs to me that I intend to do far more mentioning than is reasonable for a single post, so I've decided to divide my commentary into several post. For those who want to follow along at home, I recommend reading the opinions here (as I am about to do).

Tomorrow night, look for an outline of the arguments of each of the opinions. This weekend, look for an analysis of what this all means.

[Edit: The "tomorrow night" estimate may have been a touch unrealistic. At 10:20pm (2.5 hours later) I've only read and outlined the majority/plurality opinion. The outlines - which will be as objective and fair as possible - will be posted just as soon as I have them all prepared]

Veep

2007-06-24T20:46:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post has done a marvelous piece on Vice President Cheney's role in the White House. It's long and it's the first of two articles, but it is an absolute must-read for anyone wishing to gain an insight into the Bush White House. In some ways, it confirms what we have known all along: that Cheney wields inordinate power in the Bush Administration. Indeed, it reveals this in rather terrifying form. In other ways, though, it presents a picture we haven't seen: a White House divided, pitting Cheney against the likes of Ashcroft, Powell, and even Rice.

At the end of the day, the article seems to depict a Vice President who has no concern for accountability or the opinions of others. Not an "evil" man, but one thoroughly consumed and corrupted by power and given the degree of power he wields within the Administration he poses a grave danger to our constitutional structure.

Speaking of racism...

2007-06-21T19:04:00.001-07:00

Just heard of this story from The Stranger's blog - apparently, the Bush appointee in charge of the civil rights division of the Justice Department has been found to have fired a handful of successful civil rights attorneys in the department in order to "make room for some good Americans."

Which, as we know, means Americans who did not vote for John McCain in the Republican primary:

"[Bradley] Schlozman raised the question of partisan politics bluntly in the fall of 2004, they said, when asking appellate supervisors about the 'loyalty' of division lawyer Angela Miller, who had once clerked for David. B. Sentelle, a conservative federal appeals judge. He told Miller's bosses that he learned that she voted for McCain in the 2004 Republican primary and asked, 'Can we still trust her?'"

And that's how they treat Republicans! The Washington Post makes clear that the entire Civil Rights division of the Justice Dept. has languished under Schlozman's "leadership."

"The Bush administration, largely under Schlozman, hired seven members as replacements or additions to the 14-lawyer appellate section where Stevens, Calderon and Kwong worked (former civil rights attorneys who say they were dismissed for political reasons). They included six whites, one Asian and no African Americans." (keep in mind this is the civil rights division)

"Appellate lawyers said that before Schlozman arrived, the small staff enjoyed a collegial work environment generally free of partisanship. Its lawyers concentrated on framing constitutional arguments for pending judicial decisions on hot-button issues such as voting rights, racial discrimination and religious freedom."

"Schlozman and several deputies also took an unusual interest in the assignment of office responsibility for appellate cases and, according to the lawyers and one of the supervisors, repeatedly [taking] cases away from career lawyers with expertise and [handing] them to recent hires whose résumés listed membership in conservative groups, including the Federalist Society."

Fortunately, Schlozman is no longer at the post where he did this terrible puppetry for the Bush Administration, and two of the four attorneys profiled in the Post story are back at their old jobs.

Unfortunately, Schlozman left his civil rights job because he was appointed the interim U.S. attorney in Missouri. His tenure there reflected his job performance with the Civil Rights division:

"...[Schlozman] was hired without any prosecution experience, and [he] brought voter-fraud charges against a liberal voting organization five days before the election in a heated congressional race."

Today, the man works with the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Splendid.

Perhaps one of many reasons racism persists in our society is that our leaders continue to feed it through incompetent, unethical governance.

Overt Racism - Alive and Well

2007-06-21T06:32:00.000-07:00

Today's New York Times contains an absolutely shocking piece detailing racial incidents at a rural high school in Colorado. In essence, several students and parents were upset with the local coach, who is African-American. What ensued was just terrible:

A parent at a game said he was going to paint his son black and used what the Times refers to as "an obscene racial epithet to describe the type of person who could play on the team."

Students harassed another white student, using a racial epithet, who was friends with an African-American student.

A group of students loudly discussed forming a club called the "Lynch Mob" or the Klan."

Several of the players formed a breakaway basketball team they called the "Running Rebels" and showed up to a basketball camp wearing shirts with the Confederate flag.

Later, someone raised a Confederate flag over the school and students began painting it on their cars.

Four seniors posed for a picture, holding guns and giving a Nazi salute, which was posted on the Internet.

Of course, the individuals responsible insist that it was not racism, it was just a misunderstanding. Evidently the Confederate flag was merely a symbol of rebellion with no racial overtones. Apparently the Nazi photo was merely a "big mistake" that was not racially motivated. I hope my profound skepticism may be forgiven.

I have no deep analysis of this to offer; I merely put this forward as yet another example that, contrary to popular belief, racism is NOT dead. Of course, racism will not always be as obvious as this; oftentimes it is far more subtle but no less poignant. In every case, it is an evil we must continue to vigilantly watch for and confront at its every instance.

A Smoldering Republic (or "The Case against Secularism")

2007-05-09T14:06:00.000-07:00

Karl started it!

We've been having an interesting back-and-forth since Pope Benedict remarked that he approved of local bishops denying communion to public officials and lawmakers around the world who supported legalized abortion.

Don't worry - we both definitely agree that this is just the latest awful thing that the Sith Pope has done. Karl thinks this is an irresponsible interference in state affairs by the church (since the Church is attempting to wield its religious influence on legislators in order to change laws), which from his constitutional perspective is a violation of the maxim of Separation of Church and State.

The idea of excommunication is also theologically suspect - ideally, Christians should like to think that the Instituted Sacraments (communion and baptism) belong not to the Church (the human institution), but instead to God. Otherwise why are we coming to church to receive them? [These are called the Instituted Sacraments because they are the only ones performed by Jesus himself, and so they're considered the only ones necessary "for salvation" - whatever that means.] If this is true, certainly it falls outside of human authority to denying any other human that which is God's to begin with. And even more so, it's probably downright sinful to use possessions of God as political leverage!

But Karl goes a bit further:

There is also a difference between actions of a church affecting the entirety of a nation and those actions affecting isolated individuals. If there is a problem with a church harboring undocumented persons, it is substantially different problem than if the church were demanding its standards be imposed on the lives of all persons in the nation (e.g. excluding immigrants).

Might a religion express a view on the rightness or wrongness of an activity? Of course it may, and should, do so. And based on that, might an individual person of faith advocate such a position? Absolutely. But the religion should not compel its members to compel others to act in accord with the religion's teachings, particularly where that violates the member's duties to the state. (I'm vaguely reminded of rendering things to Caesar and to God here...)

I find it a confusing work of legalistic parsing to say that an individual should advocate their religion-based political views without "[compelling] others to act in accord with the religion's teachings]". That's not very good advocacy, now is it? If we're going to allow self-avowed religious people into government, then we're also allowing the judgments and opinions they carry, many of which may be based on their religious beliefs alone, to inform the ways they make and interpret our law and policy.

Karl's problem seems to be with religious leaders who essentially command that adherents behave a certain way, especially when those "adherents" are public officials and that "certain way" contradicts Constitutional principles and duties. But from there he says that the Church should "withdraw from the secular affairs of the state."

I think Karl is giving far too much credit to the Pope and people like him by saying his remarks (and that's all they were) would "force Catholic legislators to choose between a duty to uphold the Constitution and their very faith." I find that most religious people I talk to understand, amongst themselves, something that many secularists refuse to understand in their propensity for overgeneralization of the religious: faith is so important to individuals precisely because it is so individual. The Bible, the Pope, the bishop, the pastor, the imam, the rabbi, the monk, the nun - sure, these are authorities in religious life, but an individual's faith is a lot more than just what a pastor tells him. A great deal of internal confirmation and struggle and questioning goes into everyone's faith formation - it is important to remember this when we feel to urge to blame "sheep-like Christians" for all the nation's problems.

Catholic legislators have been, are, and will be doing something that religious people through millennia have done: figure out how to live in between what they feel to be right and what they are being told is right. For some, this isn't a conflict at all, and I think it's safe to assume that those people, if they're legislators, were elected to represent exactly those views. For others, they'll be doing the most human part of religion, the part that makes it worth it, the part that brings change and renewal. In fact, it is this process of challenging religious authority that has brought about much of the social change that secular liberals claim as their own morals today.

When Karl supports the Church's complete retreat from public life over what the Pope says, he's giving credence to a frightfully small view of what it's actually like to allow religious values to play out in one's life. It's as if he's validating the idea that Catholics will basically do whatever the Pope says. Or that Evangelicals do whatever the Bible "says". That view, of course, makes for a much bigger target for enlightened academics like ourselves, but it's complete fiction.

Social progress begins with agonized individuals. Always. This is the reality of what it means to be human. Christianity is successful because it gives a way to understand this reality and then continue living and working for justice anyway. Because after torture and death, there is resurrection and life.

Religious leaders have done great harm and great help - but both have only been enabled by the extent to which religious people have reflected upon whether what their authorities say agree with what they themselves feel is right, and good, and a joyful thing.

We should invite this smoldering soul-searching among our religious and our civic leaders, rather than demanding a sterile system where input equals output and nothing ever surprises us. When an individual, upon further meditation, finds that her idea of justice is not what the existing religious and civic authorities are thinking of, that person can be called a citizen and a Christian.

A Cause for Alarm (or "The Case for Secularism")

2007-05-09T10:42:00.000-07:00

The Pope made explicit today that Catholic politicians who vote in support of abortion rights, even while personally believing abortion to be immoral, are subject to excommunication and should be denied communion. This presents concerns for Catholic politicians, constitutional order, constituents, secularism, and, most startlingly, the Courts.

In the United States, legislators take an oath take uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court, in carrying out its duty to "say what the law is," (Marbury v. Madison) has found that the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion. Might a legislator, then, while believing that abortion is immoral, still vote for a bill defining abortion rights as part of a duty to uphold the Constitution? The effect of the Pope's pronouncement, then, is to force Catholic legislators to choose between a duty to uphold the Constitution and their very faith. The "ideal" outcome for the Church, it would seem, is that Catholic legislators vote consistently with the precepts of the Catholic faith, at least with respect to abortion. But the era when the church could mandate to sovereigns how a country is to be run has come and gone; I, for one, have no desire to return to the Dark Ages.

Setting the constitutional issue aside for a moment, is it not the purpose of representatives in our republic to represent the views of their constituents? If Catholic politicians are to heed the demands of the Church, then three results are possible:

(1) In predominantly anti-abortion districts, there is no conflict;
(2) In pro-choice districts, Catholic representatives fail to represent the interests of their constituents; or
(3) In pro-choice districts, voters will choose to avoid election Catholic representatives.

The final two outcomes, which would be assured to occur in at least some instances, I hope we can all agree are intolerable. The only way to avoid this would be for Catholic politicians to disobey the law of the Church and risk excommunication. I find that to be equally unacceptable. Thus, in the political realm, the Pope's pronouncement creates an impasse with no entirely acceptable result possible. Thus, this makes for an excellent case study in the desirability of the separation of church and state.

But, as a more immediate concern, what of the courts? If a legislator voting in support of abortion rights on constitutional grounds may be excommunicated, then so, it seems, may a jurist doing precisely the same thing, including a Supreme Court justice. And what effect might this have on a justice's ruling? If presented with a case in which a particular ruling could result excommunication from the justice's church, it seems sheer fantasy that the justice's decision-making will be unaffected. This appears to be a classic conflict of interest. And this situation is far from unlikely - indeed, such a case has already occurred. It is interesting, though not necessarily telling, that the five justices voting to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act were the five Roman Catholic justices. So what is the solution? Certainly, it is not to inquire into a potential justice's religion - that is unconstitutional and for good reason. Is it for justices to recuse themselves on cases involving abortion or other teachings? That would result in FIVE justices recusing themselves, justices whom, while I often disagree with them, play an important role on the court and can bring a legitimate judicial philosophy to the table. No, the solution is for justices to remain consistent with oaths to uphold the Constitution, but the only way for the public to be confident they are doing so is to remove significant barriers; that is, for the Church to withdraw from the secular affairs of the state.

[Edit: A bit of elaboration on the final sentence appears prudent. When I state the Church should withdraw from the secular affairs of the state, I mean that a religious institution should not attempt to control the making or interpreting of secular laws. This is not to say that a religious institution should refrain from engaging in discourse of the issues underlying the laws, nor am I saying lawmakers should not be informed, at least to some extent, by their moral and/or religious convictions in the process of lawmaking. Put simply, a religious institution should not endeavor to control the lawmaking process, though it is certainly welcome to contribute to discourse of the issues before the lawmaking process.]

Congress and the PBAA

2007-04-26T07:34:00.000-07:00

Before going any further, it's important to understand what this act does and does not do. This act does not prohibit abortions based on the term or stage of the pregnancy during which they are performed (the Supreme Court decision seems to allow for that to happen, but we'll get there). What it does is to forbid a particular method of performing an abortion, known as an "intact dilation and evacuation" (intact D&E) procedure.

Congress elected to ban this particular procedure because it declared it "gruesome" and inhumane" and declared that it is "never medically necessary." But let us pause. Are we okay with Congress regulating the medical field based upon such circumstances? As a preliminary matter, let us dispense with the "inhumane" argument. If the abortion of a fetus is inhumane in one instance, it is inhumane in all instances. That is a larger question about abortion, not one specific to this procedure. Next, it is important to note that other D&E methods, not banned by the act, are no less gruesome. But is gruesomeness a sufficient ground for banning a medical procedure? Indeed, I think most of us would find any surgery quite "gruesome" - the slicing open of human skin, etc. The point is, in medicine there is a balancing test. Yes, the actions are gruesome, but we undertake them anyway because there are more compelling interests at stake.

And this brings us to the question of whether this procedure is ever "medically necessary." Note that Congress did not declare that the procedure was "never medically beneficial" or even that it was "never the best medical option." No, instead Congress declared that it was never medically necessary, which renders meaningless its exemption for the life of a woman. (Surely "necessary," if it is to have any meaning at all, must mean "necessary" to the life of the mother.) If a declaration of no medical necessity is all that is required, Congress would thus be empowered to regulate nearly anything in the medical field which it disfavors - end-of-life decisions, sex reassignment, and almost all types of abortion come readily to mind. This should give us all pause.

As a final point, Congress's greatest failure in passing this bill was to omit an exemption for the health of a woman. Other methods of abortion can pose risks of serious complications in some women. This may not be frequent; indeed there appear to be less than 5,000 of the banned procedures per year. If continued pregnancy poses a serious threat to the mother's health, should she not be able to have an abortion? Should the specific procedure used not be the safest possible one as determined by a certified physician?

Without going into it in great depth here, there is also a fascinating question, already widely debated in conservative circles, as to whether Congress, as opposed to state legislatures, may pass this type of legislation. Our federal government is one of enumerated powers (if broadly construed enumerated powers). But to construe its Commerce Clause powers this broadly may be to abandon any notion of "enumerated powers."

I will address the Supreme Court decision in a later post.

Ugliness

2007-04-21T13:01:00.000-07:00

There has been so much ugliness this week. It's been almost unbearable. From Virginia Tech, to the Supreme Court ruling, to me deeply wounding the feelings of a friend, and now this:

Youtube: 'Christian' audience walkout at Mike Daisey

I found it in the Stranger blog. Basically, this solo performer was giving his monologue and used the word "fuck" a few times - and then his performance was interrupted with a throng of people in the audience getting up and walking out. And then some guy came up to the performer and poured water on the handwritten manuscript he was reading from. I felt sick.

But the guy was really full of class - he really wanted to have a conversation with the angry folks. And later he posted this all to his blog - and what he wrote about it gave me shivers. It was graceful, principled, outraged, compassionate, and insightful all at once. Please read it.

It Begins

2007-04-18T07:53:00.000-07:00

I had held out hope, but I suppose we all knew this day would come. The Supreme Court, today, upheld a federal law banning a type of abortion. Yes, the Supreme Court upholds federal laws all the time. But this one was widely expected to be struck down because similar bills passed at the state level had previously been held to be unconstitutional. In general, if an act is unconstitutional as impinging upon the rights of the people, it doesn't much matter WHO passes the unconstitutional law, it remains unconstitutional. That is why commentators anticipated this federal law, which was a response to the court's ruling, to similarly be struck down. That was before, of course, the composition of the court changed; more specifically, that was before Justice O'Connor was replaced by Justice Alito. Both Alito and Roberts voted to sustain this law.

Today's decision raises two separate issues: (1) the political wisdom of the Act itself and (2) the wisdom of today's decision by the Supreme Court. These will be the subjects of a future post, once I have had time to parse the opinion itself.

Pharmacists and Contraceptives

2007-04-12T11:42:00.000-07:00

Over the past few years, the issue of whether pharmacists should be required to dispense so-called "morning after" birth control pills has been debated widely in Washington State. Today, the Pharmacy Board, after a substantial amount of discussion, consideration, and re-consideration of proposed rules, unanimously voted to require drug stores to dispense lawful prescriptions while allowing individual pharmacists only the discretion to have another pharmacist on-site fill the prescription instead. I find this to be an eminently sensible decision. Without rehashing the entire debate, here is why.

This issue presents a conflict of interests: (1) that of the patient, who has an interest in having a prescription filled and (2) that of the pharmacist, who may harbor moral objections to the particular prescription.

The interests of the patient have been through at least one level of review with a doctor, who wrote the given prescription. This, to me, serves to enhance the validity of the patient's interests. Given that refusals to fill prescriptions have often centered upon prescriptions preventing conception, the interest in avoiding an unwanted pregnancy is generally a very serious one. We must, of course, balance this against the interests of the pharmacist who objects.

The pharmacist's interest, on first blush, is also a fairly strong one - the right to behave in accordance with one's moral, religious, and ethical beliefs. This interest is, however, undermined in that being a pharmacist is a profession licensed by the state. Such licensing creates responsibilities. One such responsibility is to fulfill lawful prescriptions, regardless of personal convictions. The pharmacist is, of course free to seek other lines of work involving no such professional responsibility to the public (working in the pharmaceutical industry, for instance).

Weighing the competing interests, then, the balance seems to fall decidedly in favor of the patient's interest. Were doctors able to both create and fill prescriptions this would be a closer call, but currently, the only way to meet the patient's needs in every case is to require pharmacists to dispense all lawful prescriptions. As such, I applaud the Pharmacy Board's decision.

Easter for Diplomacy

2007-04-03T18:08:00.000-07:00

This is a beautiful photograph.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is in Syria. Earlier this week she's been in Israel and Lebanon. There's lovely footage of her touring a bazaar in Damascus, enjoying free samples from various vendors, and then visiting a mosque in her beautiful headscarf and making the sign of the cross at the reported depository of the head of John the Baptist. She's due to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to discuss Syria's role in stabilizing Iraq, it's peace process with Israel, and in general to begin the process cleaning up after the Bush administration's drunken bar-fight diplomacy.

The White House thinks this is bad.

Two remarks: first, as much as I have been critical of Congressional Democrats, this is really, really cool. The next time a conservative war-apologist says that liberals aren't doing anything to help the situation in Iraq, I might point this out. Diplomacy is the most effective tool our leaders can be employing right now to HELP the Iraqi people, and incidentally, "the troops" as well. It's sad that the Speaker of the House needs to be the one attending our foreign brothers and sisters - in theory, the President and the Vice-President get replaced by the Speaker only if they're dead. In our case, they're just incompetent.

My second remark is a quote:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." - Matthew 5:9

What a sad day when the ostensibly "Christian" president denounces a person for peacemaking. It is now Holy Week in Western Christianity - this weekend, Christians remember how God turns domination and death into liberation and life.

Out of the darkness of Bush's "doctrine" and betrayal of the global community, let there be a resurrection of respect, dialogue, and hope.

Good work, Speaker Pelosi.

Happy April Fools Karl

2007-04-01T21:10:00.000-07:00

A gift for Karl from a blog I ran into today:

Comments, Karl? I can't say I agree, but I'm trying to have a sense of humor. Being that it's "Fools Day" and all, I figure the heathens can have a break for once.

Anti-War Protests (Or Events I am Not Attending)

2007-03-17T20:29:00.001-07:00

Throughout the nation (indeed, the world) this weekend, people are taking to the streets to protest the "Iraq War." And already, we have identified the problem. I am sorry to announce that there is no war in Iraq. There is an occupation, but not a war. This is not a new development. The anti-war ship has sailed. We cannot "end the war" - we can, and must, end the occupation, but there are right ways to end the occupation and wrong ways to end the occupation. (Indeed, there are many more WRONG ways to end it.)

One of the worst ways to end the occupation of Iraq? To borrow a phrase from today's protests, "U.S. Out of Iraq Now!"

One result of our invasion was to set the stage for a civil war and factional violence (and the factions are substantially more complicated than 'Sunni' and 'Shiite'); as such, we have a responsibility to provide for a stable Iraq as and after we leave. I think it is fair to say that an immediate withdrawal, without more, would lead to a less stable Iraq and result in more deaths than we're currently seeing. (You will note, I hope, that many of the attacks are not directed at U.S. troops.) I find this a morally unconscionable approach. Equally abysmal is an extended occupation - the goal of every occupation must be to end. But how? An easy starting point is rebuilding the infrastructure of the country - power, water, schools, etc. Peace is substantially less likely where people are deprived of life's necessities (desperate people will engage in desperate acts).

But how do we ensure, or at least make more likely, peace after the occupation? Training of the Iraqi military is necessary but not sufficient - a sustainable peace does not come at gunpoint. I see two potential models: a political model, as employed in North Ireland, and/or a truth and reconciliation model, as employed in South Africa. The political situation in Iraq appears to be failing abysmally at facilitating reconciliation. This is not to say a political solution is impossible, but to be effective, all parties must have a seat at the table and that can be a bitter pill to swallow. Even more bitter a pill is the truth a reconciliation approach and its success in South Africa has not been realized everywhere it has been implied (see, e.g., much of Latin America). The U.S. cannot impose such a solution; it must be a led by Iraqi leaders and adapted to the particular needs of the country. However, we can encourage such a solution, or, at the very least not stand in the way. Might that require that we forgo prosecution of or retaliation against individuals who have engaged is horrible practices? Who have taken the lives of U.S. troops? It is entirely possible.

At the end of the day, am I optimistic at the prospects of the U.S. leaving behind a sustainable Iraq at the end of the occupation? Sadly, no. Republicans insist on some undefined "victory" (which is clearly not attainable) while Democrats call for a withdrawal but without any apparent thought about ensuring we leave Iraq better than we found it. The overall message from this weekend's protest seem to favor the latter approach, and for that reason I cannot join them.

"An honest person, not a lawyer"

2007-03-17T17:07:00.000-07:00

I'm at my parents' house cleaning out some old stuff. I came across a journal notebook from 8th grade Humanities and Social Studies. It was an assignment that we had to write a short essay in our journal every week on a topic of Mrs. Hainer's choosing. So what this means is that there's a literal treasure trove of material to share with whoever reads this thing.

So here we go.

Sept 14 1998

I think that President Clinton should be impeached if he doesn't resign first. As the leader of the free world, he should have the integrity and the moral values not to lie about sex and not to abuse his power. Even though he says that he really didn't have sex according to the definition of sex set by Paula Jones' lawyers, he needs to be an honest person, not a lawyer, as the leader of our country. He broke the law, and it's worse when a president breaks the law because the president is representing the United States by his actions. We need a leader who will have good moral judgement (sic) and the forethought to not do something that may damage the entire country. The president has demonstrated that he does not posess (sic) these qualities and that makes him unfit to continue to be the leader of this country. Although I'm sure that he learned from his mistakes and that this will not happen again if Clinton stays in office, a position as powerful as that of the President's has NO room for mistakes of this kind.

Well, there you have it.

An alert and knowledgeable citizenry

2007-03-10T21:00:00.000-08:00

I wasn't quite sure what it would take for me to post again here.

Turns out it was a movie.

Why We Fight is an indictment of American citizens for their (our) failure to arrest the militarization of our country. It's something that both my friend Karl and I have written about in the past here at A Civil Union.

It left me feeling bitter - not at George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz or Bill Kristol or Donald Rumsfeld or any of the other (puppet)eers - but at my own resignation. I suppose writing when it's raw is a first step for me in processing the message of this film.

The backbone of the movie was President Eisenhower's Farewell Address. Throughout the film, clips of the president's speech are played in juxtaposition to recent news footage that throws Eisenhower's warning back in his sad face.

I've excerpted here the parts of his address that spoke to me most profoundly. I encourage whoever still visits this remnant of a blog to click the link above and find the parts that speak most to you.

-----

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

"As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."

"Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect."

"Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose difference, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."

"We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

The 'Surge'

2007-01-30T22:29:00.000-08:00

So I have a question. At the moment, questions are out of vogue and opinions are in (in that respect, all the elections changed were that there is suddenly more than one opinion). My question concerns Iraq. It concerns the 'Surge.' It also concerns criticism of the 'Surge.' My question is, what about the Iraqi people?

Let's start at the very beginning (a very good place to start): this war should never have happened. Intelligence was deliberately distorted; informed criticisms were ignored; the American people were lied to. Fine. I get that. Most of us get that.

The invasion plans were flawed - troop levels were nowhere near where they should have been. The scenario we expected (something about being greeted as liberators, no Mr. Cheney?) was completely wrong. We foolishly ignored the advice of our allies and pushed them aside. Fine. I get that too.

Bush's plan for a 'Surge' appears to offer little potential for 'success.' The increase is far from substantial. Okay. I'm still getting this. But why do we instead simply call to 'bring the troops home'? Because we don't want more American servicemen and women to be killed? I get that, but what of the far greater number of innocent Iraqis that will continue to be killed if we withdraw without creating some sort of stability? We cannot simply say, as Chuck Schumer suggested the other night, that we didn't bargain for a civil war. The current violence, the tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) or Iraqi deaths, these are the results of our invasion. As a nation, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to prevent future death and destruction resulting for our blunders. (I note, however, that more American troops on the ground is not the only solution)

How do we do that? I admit, I don't know (though I do have some opinions). But we start by talking about it, by asking questions. By admitting that we have a responsibility. And right now, no one seems to be doing that.

Controversy

2007-01-11T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer today reported that the Federal Way School District has restricted the showing of "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, requiring that if it is shown it must be accompanied by an opposing viewpoint. They have invoked a district policy which requires teaching of 'controversial' materials to present both sides on an argument. Ironically, the movie's point is to demonstrate that there is no debate within the scientific community about the validity of global warming and human contributions; that is well-accepted. Indeed, the Union of Concerned Scientists recently issued a report on how Exxon has spent $16 million to mislead the public into believing the existence of a controversy over global warming despite the lack of such a controversy in the scientific community.

The school's policy is also clearly in bad faith. Almost every school has some form of anti-drug education, whether that be the DARE program or something similar, but presents no counterpoint. Decriminalization of drugs is certainly a much debated issue; one leading proponent is former Seattle Chief of Police Norm Stamper. The point is that the district's policy of teaching both sides of a controversy is utterly flawed. As with creationism, we needn't teach a non-scientific view in a science class; this is entirely a ploy by someone who is entirely out-of-touch with reality (to see just HOW out-of-touch, refer to the Seattle P-I article).

Want to do something? Here is the contact information for the relevant parties in the Federal Way School District. Write to them and share your thoughts on the current policy. When it's one teacher versus one parent, that is a controversy. When it's one parent versus the entire Seattle-Tacoma region, well, that adds a little perspective. Remember to be polite, articulate, and to the point!

Superintendent

Tom Murphy - tmurphy@fwps.org.

School Board Members:

Ed Barney - ed-barney@fwps.org (President)

David Larson - Dave-Larson@fwps.org (Vice-President)

Charles Hoff - Charles-Hoff@fwps.org

Evelyn Castellar - evelyn-castellar@fwps.org

Thomas Madden - tmadden@fwps.org

Requiem aeternam, Angel Diaz - a Good Friday for Advent

2006-12-16T13:39:00.000-08:00

The French social critic Albert Camus reportedly said, "The unbeliever cannot keep from thinking that men who have set at the center of their faith the staggering victim of a judicial error ought at least to hesitate before committing legal murder."

While "life" and "family values" persist as wedge-words in the increasingly deficient American political dialogue, the nation continues to tolerate inhumanity of the lowest form - a mandate to kill its own citizens.

Executions happen every year with barely a "blip" on the media radar - a sadly fitting coda to the lives of men and women whose existences were never really taken seriously by the rest of society. More often than not, we neglected them when they most needed a community and a hope - and in the end, the only representative we sent them to show our concern was the executioner who does his love on our behalf. This is our state.

But once in a while, we see a little more of our cruelty:

In Florida, medical examiner Dr. William Hamilton said Wednesday's execution of Angel Nieves Diaz took 34 minutes -- twice as long as usual -- and required a rare second dose of lethal chemicals because the needles were inserted clear through his veins and into the flesh in his arms. The chemicals are supposed to go into the veins...
...Diaz appeared to be moving 24 minutes after the first injection, grimacing, blinking, licking his lips, blowing and appearing to mouth words.
As a result of the chemicals going into Diaz's arms around the elbow, he had a 12-inch chemical burn on his right arm and an 11-inch chemical burn on his left arm, Hamilton said.

Jesus Christ, betrayed by a friend full of fear and uncertainty to a government all too eager to capitalize off of it, slowly died over the course of six hours, suspended on splintered wood only by lead driven into his wrists and ankles. His last words, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?"

Just as Angel Diaz may have been trying to scream through the paralyzing toxins, injected by the needle of the Republic. "My people, my nation, why have you forsaken me?"

Mr. Diaz, I don't know. But I am sorry. Rest in peace, and may God have mercy on us.

This Advent, when Christians are supposed to be preparing for the memory of Christ's birth and life, we also keep in mind the ultimate tragedy that surrounding Christmas is a sea of crucifixion, if we dare to see the Christ on the injection table, in the chair, at the rope, against the wall - or wherever the people yell, "Crucify him!"

This Advent, God invites us instead to "Choose life." (Deuteronomy 30:19) As one of the bishops of the Episcopal Church in Western Washington said a couple weeks ago, "Hope is a moral choice." It's also a difficult choice in the face of such despair - but the joy of life is the exercise of our hope in spite of all evidence pointing the other way.

Happy holdiays, everyone. See you on the other side.

O Come O Come Emmanuel!

Foreign Policy

2006-12-12T23:03:00.000-08:00

Some foreign policies are unfortunate.

Some foreign policies are utter blunders.

And some foreign policies are just plain silly.

Let's set aside value judgments about Israel possessing nuclear weapons for a moment. Anyone with any interest in the subject knows full well that Israel has them. They call their policy "nuclear amibguity" and refuse to confirm or deny that they possess nuclear weapons. You can find a rather detailed account of the Israeli nuclear weapons program here. Just for fun, let's put together some fascinating pieces of circumstantial evidence:

Four countries are not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel¹.

An Israeli nuclear technician acknowledged the nuclear weapons program

The incoming U.S. Secretary of Defense has acknowledged that Israel has nuclear weapons

And, of course, the recent slip of the Prime Minister's tongue that inspired this post.

The point is, Israel's insistence that it has no nuclear weapons is just plain silly. Maybe they'll fool those who can't be bothered to care one way or the other (read: most Americans, at their own peril), but they're not fooling anyone else.

¹ North Korea had been a signatory but withdrew from the treaty in 2003.

Aravosis - Limbaugh of the Left

2006-11-28T18:40:00.000-08:00

I have two related confessions to make. First, as a child I read, listened, and watched Rush Limbaugh religiously. Then I realized Limbaugh was a divisive, ignorant, and arrogant bastard. Second, there was a time when I read AmericaBLOG religiously. But over time I came to realize that its creator, John Aravosis, shares the three aforementioned adjectives with Limbaugh.

Let me state right out the outset, I am keenly aware that his blog has readership in the hundreds of thousands while this blog has a readership of oh, say, 8? Fine. But to what lows of decency has Aravosis fallen in doing so? Let's take a look at one of his commentaries today, attacking comments by Newt Gingrich:

"Go to Russia or Tehran if you hate freedom this much. I have had it with Republicans who hate America, who hate our freedoms, who hate what this country stands for, and who think that the only way to save our freedoms from the terrorists is for us to destroy those freedoms first. Honestly, how do these scaredy-cat, quaking-in-their-boots, America-haters even dare call themselves patriotic Americans? They are terrified of their own shadow, these Republicans."

Look, Gingrich is dead wrong in suggesting we need a 'different set of rules' regarding freedom of speech in the modern era. I agree that such a notion is ill-founded and would cut away at the core values of our nation. But I wholeheartedly disagree that to espouse such views is tantamount to hating America, being unpatriotic, or even hating our freedoms. Indeed, through his choice of terms, Aravosis invokes the conservative frame of terrorists, not-so-subtly implying Republicans are the equivalents of terrorists. EVERY progressive should know how dastardly and unjust these charges are.

Most every American, the staunchest of the neo-conservatives included, wants what is best for this country. We often have profound differences of opinion on what that looks like and how to get there; we will often have sharply contrasting understandings of the freedoms we all share and desire. We will argue, fight, and struggle until the end of times over these questions. This is good, this is healthy; democracy requires such a struggle. So Newt espouses views with which I completely disagree. Fine, nothing new there. And we musn't remain silent in the face of proposals that would effectively curtail the freedoms we hold most dear; we are not even required to play nice. What we cannot countenance, however, are resorts to attacks on one another's patriotism, much less calling one another terrorists.

Perhaps Aravosis seeks to be ironic, slinging back the same allegations we have faced, but the time for that has long-since come and gone, if it ever existed in the first place.

(For more examples of Aravosis's intolerance, see almost any post of his)

As progressives, we do not win through intimidation, we do not win condescension. We win through conveying our values through vigorous, open, and honest debate (and great marketing).

Shameless costumes

2006-11-26T19:46:00.000-08:00

This is the best political cartoon I've seen in a long, long while:

On a related note, I just heard about this op-ed that ran in USA Today last Monday. Written by a Baptist minister, it's an awesome little primer on why Christian fundamentalists are totally wrong for pinning their disdain for non-heterosexuality on the Bible (instead of their own ignorance and bigotry). And it's even more awesome that it ran in USA Today - this means that the right words went to the right people, for once!

Cool excerpt:

On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God's. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.

So, I ask you. Would you want to be discriminated against? Would you want to lose your job, housing or benefits because of something over which you had no control? Better yet, would you like it if society told you that you couldn't visit your lifelong partner in the hospital or file a claim on his behalf if he were murdered?

It's well-written and to-the-point. What is neither of those things is the public comment section that follows this op-ed on the web version of the article. If you want to take the ideological pulse of the conservative Republican voter base, read through some of the brasher comments. Some highlights include (each from a different author):

All of us will stand before the Lord's judgement; you and me included.......Now do your JOB! Their house is on fire....Tell them to come to the Lord for salvation. Talk about discrimination are you discriminating against GOD???

I’m no homophobe or gay basher, I have had good friends that are gay, but I never compromised my standing on the word of God to accommodate their feelings. Believe it or not they actually over time appreciated the fact that I stuck firmly with my convictions and didn’t conform to what society sees as tolerance.

Just another liberal screed trying to downplay religion and lift up their homosexual agenda. There is a reason that homosexuality has been looked down upon by almost every civilization and religion. It's is against god's will and nature. Homosexuals can't reproduce so they have to coopt your children to advance their agenda and the bible is a major stumbling block in their way, so that is why the attacks on religion and the bible.

I've sent a comment of my own on the blog of one of the commenters - I will post any response I get here.

I'll end with another comment from the op-ed page - this one gave me a nice warm feeling. There's hope out there, people!

I've known I'm gay for 35 years. Yet in that entire time no one has clued me in on the gay agenda. Since you seem familiar with it, please tell me what it is. My 'gay agenda' is to be happy with my partner and family and friends. To lead a decent life, filled with love and decency. Funny. That sounds a lot like the average 'straight agenda'. Except you seem to have forgotten the part about love and decency, at least toward others.

P.S.: My favorite comment is here - a bit longer, but worth it.

Taring the Scales of Justice: thoughts on (white) denial

2006-11-22T16:29:00.000-08:00

Tare: To set a display to show zero weight

From Karl's last post:

"Do we sweep it under the rug once again, reassuring one another under the cozy blanket of triumphalism? Or do we step forward and acknowledge the reality many of us cannot help but be aware of and tackle the racism that surrounds us and dwells within us?"

Rock on, Karl Smith, rock on.

Thank you for reminding us that racism is everyone's issue - no matter how "far" away we are from "those" racists.

Perhaps people can accuse white liberals of hypocrisy - but in my experience, I have usually found such accusations merely a timid veil for an unwillingness to face one's own complicity in oppression.

But just because we are accomplice to the systems of privilege that stratify our society does not mean that we're "off the hook" for speaking and acting against them.

So often, I feel, the fear of hypocrisy or of individual ineffectiveness paralyzes our moral sensitivities. The greatest conservative lie that haunts all activism today is the idea that if you choose to protest, you'd better fix the problem, too. In other words: if you don't have the solution, don't point out the problem.

I know I've felt this before. For instance, how can I - a middle-class American - have the audacity to oppose unchecked globalization? After all, don't I owe pretty much everything I own to the global system of production and trade? Probably. But that doesn't somehow make it okay.

People are born into histories they have had no part in creating - ancestries of advantage, epics of entitlement, pedigrees of privilege, traditions of tyranny - and must therefore make a choice: do we take responsibility for the injustices of our forebears, regardless of how much we've benefited from them? Or do we "call it even" and clear the record?

I think the choice of moral people is clear - my duty is to proclaim my hypocrisy, loud and unproud, and speak and act to repair the legacy of exploitation. And of course, this means something different for me (as a queer person of color) than it does for Karl (a straight white male). It's not going to be "fair" and "equal" - but real justice never is.

Racism is not about whether YOU or I am a racist. It's not about whether YOU or I can fix the problem ourselves. It's about confronting the entire history of a nation and a world, and saying, "No." Whether we are willing to fight our history seems to determine who is progressive and who is not. What choice will you make?

Michael Richards and the Truth

2006-11-22T00:32:00.000-08:00

Michael Richards, Seinfeld's Kramer, has recently (and rightfully) been criticized for comments made during a stand-up comedy routine. In response to a black heckler, he responded "Fifty years ago we'd have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass." He then proceeded to refer to the heckler at least seven times as a n*****, and in response to objections to his treatment responded, "That's what happens when you interrupt the white man." The video is here. Richards later apologized on The Late Show, stating "I'm not a racist. That's what's so insane about this."

Certainly Richards has a received a lot of well-deserved criticism and I'm not writing here to add more. No, instead I wish to point out that this is not just a "Michael Richards" problem, but rather an "American society" problem. It would be easy enough for us to take this incident, say it is the racism of a single man, and sweep beneath the rug, away from our consciousness. It may be tempting to believe so, but the passage of the 1965 Civil Rights Act did not absolve us of our sins. We are heirs to a society which, through the exclusion of some, directly benefited, and continues to benefit, others.

Michael Richards did not pull these words out of thin air. The n-word has *power*, a very tangible power (hence my refusal to even type it). For a white person to invoke it against a black person is to invoke hundreds of years of coercive control and power - slavery, beatings, killings. It is an invocation of privilege and status in society, often (indeed generally) by persons unaware of their own privilege. To invoke the image of a lynching makes this more explicit, and to say "That's what happens when you interrupt the white man" is to leave no question in anyone's mind as to precisely the power you are drawing upon - the power of racism, force, and coercion.

The thing is, this isn't unique to Michael Richards. The privilege that allowed him to invoke these images in response to a heckler is present in every white American today. We know the magic words to assert control in a situation. We know that if we feel threatened by a person of color, help is but three buttons away. We know that if we shout for help, someone will likely respond - and when they intervene that it will be on our behalf. We know know that we will be believed. These are all forms of privilege; privilege we cannot yield, privilege we must confront But further, we are taught to believe that "they" are different; "they" are dangerous; "they" are 'gangsters' and violent and would do us harm; "they" are exist within "our" society. We are taught these things by the television news, custom and practice, and popular representations in film and literature, to say nothing of the legion of right-wing ideologues who put forth such assertions as facts on a daily basis.

So from this ugly Michael Richards affair we have again been forced to confront our reality, a racist reality. What to do with it is the question we're left with. Do we sweep it under the rug once again, reassuring one another under the cozy blanket of triumphalism? Or do we step forward and ackowledge the reality many of us cannot help but be aware of and tackle the racism that surrounds us and dwells within us?

Brutality

2006-11-17T08:02:00.000-08:00

Recently at UCLA, the campus police used their Tasers on a student of middle eastern descent who refused to leave the library after not showing ID. Here's the video. A few things become entirely clear: the kid is being an ass, but the use of the Taser is entirely unjustified. You have at least 3 police officers capable of picking him up and carrying him out, but instead they choose to shock him repeatedly, and those Tasers are no toys; watch how his body is involuntarily thrown into the air towards the beginning of the video. (Not to mention that over 70 people have died after being Tasered - funny what 50,000 volts of electricity will do, eh?) It is supposed to be a non-lethal aleternative to the cop's gun; would the police have used a gun here?

And evidently they wanted some more, as you heard the police officer say to a student at the end: "Back over there or you'll get tased too."

Deplorable.

Sure, this student should face the appropriate disciplinary hearings for refusing to comply with university policy (by not leaving the library) and the commands of the police officers, but those officers need to face the consequences for their unnecessary use of force. No one deserves to be treated so cruelly.

At any rate, it appears the student plans to sue.

Fuck me, Sherman Alexie?

2006-11-13T00:08:00.000-08:00

Breaking news flash - The Stranger ran an op-ed from a writer whose viewpoint is totally unexpected considering this person's place in society and furthermore this op-ed is written in an edgy, anti-establishment tone and style. People, this is unprecedented!

Noted Native American author Sherman Alexie delivers the dignified dying yelp of a franchise bleeding to death. Am I wrong about that? Why else would The Stranger run Alexie's column after endorsing VOTE YES on Initiative 91? It's because The Stranger wanted to give Sonics fans one last slap in the face. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculous and cruel irony they're playing on us here? I have very little respect for The Stranger as a newspaper. Karl can back me up on this considering their recent endorsement of Jamie Pedersen's Republican opponent, Hugh Foskett (who's my math partner, as it turns out... really cool guy).

I relished the part where famed novelist Alexie writes:

"I know that a few of you, like Seattle City Council Member Nick Licata, think that the Sonics in particular and professional sports in general have negligible cultural value. Well, I say this to Mr. Licata and to all of you who agree with him: Fuck you."

I actually ended up voting AGAINST the new stadium contract rules because the P-I ran a very convincing editorial endorsement against it.

But Alexie is being loud and irreverent - which is exactly why The Stranger ran his column. He practically implies that Sonics fans have a "right" to have a place in Seattle to watch basketball. He equates Ray Allen and Luke Ridnour, among the finest examples in a field that's been in serious existence less than a century, to Dickinson and Einstein and Michelangelo - that is totally ludicrous and he must know it.

The "shock value" of an establishment ivory-tower liberal coming out and saying "tisk tisk" to the yuppies was almost too good for The Stranger to pass up. It's too bad The Stranger always fulfills its tired, cliché expectations.

Alexie's column is even less respectable for the fact that he plays right into The Stranger's mold of finding the most unlikely spokespeople possible. Alexie goes out of his way to construct his narrator's identity as the non-white, non-Republican, non-rich, non-illiterate Sonics fan.

"I grew up dirt-ass poor, so drinking Starbucks feels like a privilege, like something I've earned through luck and hard work."

"I am a reservation-raised Indian boy, whose mother and father barely graduated high school and never went to college, and I have grown to become a very successful writer."

He plays a stranger identity politics in his writing to support possibly the most conservative of civic policies - subsidizing an entertainment industry. And suddenly, the white bleeding heart liberal readership of The Stranger has no "politically correct" way to disagree with its Native American hero, Sherman Alexie. Dan Savage couldn't have made it up better. I haven't read Alexie's stories or novels, and I this is something I hope to remedy soon because I hear (and believe) they're quite good. But in this op-ed, he's so self-aware of his "model minority" privilege that it's kinda disgusting.

I mean, come on - read some of what Alexie's written here. It's like a Republican values brochure:

"Yep, I am a believer in that sentimental crap known as the American dream. Why do I believe in it? Because I am the American dream."

"I think that certain people do hate greatness. And I most definitely know that certain American leftists absolutely despise capitalistic greatness."

Saying that "the American dream" is "sentimental crap" in the same breath as you say you are the "American dream" belies the fact that not only do you not believe it's sentimental crap, but you are also so aware of your irreverence-factor that you relish saying that it is sentimental crap nonetheless.

Alexie admits to being a 10-year season ticket holder. Is he the sort of "typical fan" for which we find supporters of stadium subsidies whipping up sentimental support among the electorate? How rich do you have to be to be a ten-year season ticket holder?

This has nothing to do with whether sport brings cultural value and "city-ness" to a city - of course it does! Councilman Licata is an idiot for suggesting otherwise.

But there is no "right" to sport. There is, however, a right to education and mobility and public health and safety. If the city has money to spare, it must be spent on those first and foremost. Furthermore, public patronage of cultural activities must prioritize those activities that could not otherwise exist at all - ones without entire industrial-commerical complexes supporting them. But as long as multi-million dollar monopolies control the basketball entertainment industry, I'm not too sympathetic to the greed of team owners, nor to the mere nostalgia of sincere fans as a reason to capitulate to them.

Am I an "uncaring" citizen because this is what I believe? I ask because that's what Alexie is suggesting I am. Fuck me?

Gaza

2006-11-11T11:08:00.000-08:00

Some months ago we blogged extensively on the military activities in Lebanon and Gaza, but then, with the cessation of Israel's incursion into Lebanon, we stopped. Much like the media. And yet today I stumbled upon this story, about the U.S. vetoing a resolution condemning an Israeli attack that killed 18 Palestinian civilians and calling for a cessation of the occupation by the Israeli military and a cessation of attacks by militants. Why was the U.S. the only country on the council to vote against it? There's a story there, but there's a bigger one. Not just why did we veto a measure calling for an end to the occupation and violence, but why weren't we the ones putting it forward?

I'm not at all confident that a change in the composition in Congress will do anything to alter the United States's approach to the occupation of the Palestinian territories. Why not? Because there is no pressure from the American people on their representatives to do so. Why not? Because we do not hear about what is happening and on the rare instances that we do, it is framed as though there is some sort of parity of power between the occupiers and the occupied. How can that be? Images of Palestinians in the American media tend to depict militants, but clearly that's beyond misleading. What does that do to our perception? Take it from another perspective - the only Israelis most Palestinians see are occupying soldiers. How would that affect their perception?

On the underlying story, I recommend reading this narrative by a British journalist who was there and talked to the Palestinian people. These are the stories that must come out - war and occupation, they are riddled with tales of human suffering. To ignore that is to ignore reality and perpetuate the violence.

Let us rejoice and be glad in it

2006-11-07T23:27:00.000-08:00

What a great day.

I found out today that I got accepted into Teach For America - I'll be teaching middle school math in Newark, New Jersey next fall. Thank you to friends out there for your support.

To make matters even sweeter, the returns from today's midterm election are wonderful. Rick Santorum is no longer part of our government. Congressional hearings on wire-tapping, extraordinary rendition, corruption in Iraq rebuilding contracts, and every other failed Bush legacy will now begin. And there's even a glimmer of hope that we can begin to undo the disaster that has been this illegitimate mis-administration from the very start.

Conservatives are not happy. Like the following person who commented on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's "Sound Off" message board.

Ladies and gentlemen, I proudly present to you the Republican voter base - pissed, ignorant, confused, and, apparently, aspiring poets all of them.

Lefty's united under this banner:
Gay "marriage", poking fun at normal people;
No tax cuts all of the time;
WA state, no property rights all of the time;
No tax increase? BWAHAHA, open your wallets;
LEFTIST god, GLOBAL WARMING! Kill the car, kill the economy, kill soverignty. bow down to the purple mafia, blow mcgreevey, swallow pelosi, islam is king.

May the dems defund the war, giving the terror cu lt of death the green light to vest bomb the next gay puke parade.

WA sucks, you deserve the crime wave, destroyed economy for WA suckers.

Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,
Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay,Gay.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Let us pray for the repair of our nation and our world (from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer):

22. For Sound Government

O Lord our Governor, bless the leaders of our land, that we may be a people at peace among ourselves and a blessing to other nations of the earth.
Lord, keep this nation under your care.

To the President and members of the Cabinet, to Governors of States, Mayors of Cities, and to all in administrative authority, grant wisdom and grace in the exercise of their duties.
Give grace to your servants, O Lord.

To Senators and Representatives, and those who make our laws in States, Cities, and Towns, give courage, wisdom, and foresight to provide for the needs of all our people, and to fulfill our obligations in the community of nations.
Give grace to your servants, O Lord.

To the Judges and officers of our Courts give understanding and integrity, that human rights may be safeguarded and justice served.
Give grace to your servants, O Lord.

And finally, teach our people to rely on your strength and to accept their responsibilities to their fellow citizens, that they may elect trustworthy leaders and make wise decisions for the well-being of our society; that we may serve you faithfully in our generation and honor your holy Name.
For yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all. Amen.

Get Out the Vote!

2006-11-07T22:14:00.000-08:00

What does a successful GOTV campaign look like? Well I'm not sure but what I participated in today comes pretty close. It was a bit of a last minute decision, but I decided to take the day off from law school and volunteer with te Democratic Party and it seems to have paid off. Our precinct - and only our precinct at this polling place - RAN OUT OF BALLOTS! (Not to worry, voters could still use the electronic machine, a provisional ballot, or a ballot in Chinese - using an English ballot template to understand it). The Democrats had a fabulous GOTV strategy this year. We visited Democratic voters up to three times and called them, offered rides, doing everything possible to ensure they could vote. And has it paid off? Let's see

I-920 is going down in flames (40.1% to 59.8% with the majority of King County still out)

I-933 is losing (43.5% - 56.8%)

Maria Cantwell will win (currently 55.8%- 41.0%)

Susan Owens is up (58.9% - 41.0%)

Have the Dems finally solved the GOTV mystery? That remains to be told, but we followed a formula supposedly employed in 3,500 precincts statewide. It's a good night!

Out with the old, in with the new...

2006-11-02T22:54:00.000-08:00

First of all, Karl and I sincerely apologize for the lack of updates. It turns out that law school is challenging, and that senioritis is real. Oh well.

I just wanted to juxtapose two news stories going into this frigid first weekend of November.

Today, Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals (which has essentially replaced the Christian Coalition as the "political arm" of conservative Evangelical Christians in the U.S.) resigned his position as Senior Pastor of his megachurch over allegations that he has been paying a man to have sex with him for the last three years.

When I read the story (sent to me by my boyfriend), I actually said to myself, "Oh my God, holy fucking shit." It was surprising... but then again, it seems like we've been seeing more and more of these kinds of stories recently. Mayor Jim West, Governor Jim McGreevey, Rep. Mark Foley - I don't need to go on. In all fairness, Pastor Ted says that his church (of which he was until today the unqualified boss) has an "independent" (he used that word like ten times) process to investigate the allegations and then discipline him. So I guess I can't just assume... though, it doesn't make sense that a Senior Pastor should just step down suddenly unless greater truths were afoot. Let's see what happens.

But enough about Pastor Ted. On to Pastor Katharine!

I really shiver with pride and excitement that this Saturday, the symbolic leader of mainstream Christianity in the United States will be a woman. A progressive, former university professor from Oregon named Katharine Jefferts Schori will become the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. She has selected one of her favorite parts of the Bible to define what her leadership of the Church will look like:

[Jesus] stood up to read, and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."
-Luke 4:14-21

In this passage, Jesus has just come back from being tempted by the devil and is officially starting his service to humanity. Jesus himself chooses this portion of the scripture to define his mission. Now, Bishop Katharine has done the same. (I offer more analysis of this scripture on another blog.)

I think God is having fun with good timing. Pastor Ted is the set up, Pastor Katharine is the punchline. The world's ready for some new laughter. I think this is what "good news" looks like.

God and Politics

2006-10-16T21:14:00.000-07:00

For some time now the fundamentalist Christians in this country have attempted to tell us what God thinks on all manner of political issues. Finally, though, God himself (the voice was distinctly masculine) has stepped in to share his thoughts on the minimum wage.

For the record, yes, God opposes increasing the minimum wage with inflation. And the wisdom is clear isn't it? Just because things *cost* more doesn't mean that the minimum amount of money somebday must earn to afford those things needs to increase. Put another way, where W is "(minimum) Wage" and C is "Cost of living":

W = C (currently)
W = C x 1.04ⁿ (in the future, where n is the number of years in the future)

Don't question the math, God said so!

For those who prefer repetition to blasphemy, click on the 5th thumbnail on the same page.

A strange demonstration...

2006-10-12T14:00:00.000-07:00

This is probably the strangest piece of news so close to home that I've seen in a while. According to the story, a caravan of big, slow farm tractors is going to heave its way through perpetually-congested Downtown Seattle.

Why? To stage support for Initiative 933, a measure on the upcoming ballot that would force the state to "compensate" landowners or developers for any economic loss incurred by regulations on land use. This would be a disasterous precedent that will irreparably impair the planning of sustainable communities unless the state shells out HUGE bucks to developers for their miserable plans to build more useless stores on tracts of dry grass.

But regardless of whether you support I-933 or not, the logic of this demonstration seems very... off. People who live in the city already regard farm tractors at best "quaint" and at worst "backwards" - tractors are associated with bumpkins and not with progress. And oh my Lord - the delays! Check this out:

"Vehicles will then make a left on Second Avenue and head south on that street. From there, they will go to Fourth and eventually return to Eighth and Holgate. Organizers estimate about 100 tractors, heavy trucks and horse trailers could participate in the event."

Now, I-933 supporters are going to immobilize Downtown Seattle, the state's most densely worked-in area in the middle of the state's most densely populated region, with farm tractors and fucking HORSE TRAILERS that only invoke feelings of romantic support from people far, far away from Seattle where there are more fingers on your hand than people living within a mile radius of you.

I feel like the overall effect is going to be a new cohort of pissed-off and confused people who are going to be very curious about what was so important that farm tractors held them up for two hours in the middle of the smog. Even just preliminary research is enough to find out who is behind I-933 (the building industry) and who is against it (almost everyone else, including all living former governors of Washington state). Combine that with the lingering tension headache from being stuck in traffic as the tenth John Deere rolls by, and I calculate many, many NO votes.

Am I crazy?

Smokescreening privilege

2006-10-05T15:17:00.000-07:00

Slate published this lovely indictment of why we all seem to dislike Bill O'Reilly so much. I never could quite put my finger on it. The article is actually quite old (2001), written as a review of O'Reilly's then-new book.

Best (weirdest) passage:

Yet O'Reilly, like many other people, clings to the fantasy that he is a stiff among the swells. He plays this chord repeatedly in the book, a potpourri of anecdotes and opinions about life in general and his in particular. He had a very strange experience as a graduate student at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government (which let the likes of Bill O'Reilly through its ivy-covered gates, he is careful to note, "in an effort to bring all sorts of people together"). Other Kennedy School students, he says, insisted on being called by three names, none of which could be "Vinny, Stevie, or Serge." Their "clothing was understated but top quality … and their rooms hinted of exotic vacations and sprawling family property. Winter Skiing in Grindelwald? No problem." They tried to be nice, but Bill was nevertheless humiliated, in a Thai restaurant, to be "the only one who didn't know how to order my meal in Thai."

The Slate article is hilarious. Please read it. It's not just about Bill O'Reilly, though - let's remember this critique about anyone who cannot handle their own privilege, and so prefers to create a smokescreen of poverty and powerlessness. What an insult to those whose marginalization is much thicker than mere smoke.

To face one's privilege is to accept responsibility for using it to further justice. So what is O'Reilly's smokescreen (and that of almost every politician today) really for? Just a question.

"From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required; and from one to whom much has been entrusted, even more will be demanded."

- Karl Marx Jesus Christ (Luke 12:48)

No on I-933

2006-10-04T09:32:00.000-07:00

There is a great editorial in the P-I this morning on I-933, the supposed 'property-rights' initiative. The editorial debunks a number of misconceptions put forth by backers of the measure. For most people right now, there are more questions than answers about the initiative and current polling suggests people generally favor it given the current limited knowledge. Learn more and talk to friends and family - passage of this measure would be one awful development for our state.

The ends and the means?

2006-09-26T18:22:00.002-07:00

First, congratulations to Jamie Pedersen, the virtually-elected new representative to the State House for the 43rd district. In the end, after months of wavering because the candidates seemed to have essentially the same stated opinions on the issues I am most concerned about (transportation, K-12 education, and LGBT rights), I supported Jamie because it is important that lgbt children see an out gay person at leadership positions in society.

I've been very loathe to post on here because there just hasn't been much good news. I'm tired of just complaining about everything. I know it's important to speak up, but it gets very tiring in face of how much absolutely ridiculous shit there is to put up with.

I knew that it would take something pretty awful to get me back to blogging... and today, I found it:

Vernon Robinson has to be the most hateful, unscrupulous, ruthless candidate I've ever seen. Of course, he's a Republican running to unseat the Democratic incumbent in North Carolina. For instance, watch this campaign ad he put on the air.

DIRECT EXCERPT (a group of Colbert Report writers couldn't do a better job):

"These illegal aliens pay no taxes, but take our jobs and our government handouts, then spit in our face, and burn our flag. Well, Vernon Robinson has had enough!"

"Vernon Robinson is an Air Force Academy graduate who proudly served in uniform under the American flag, the flag Brad Miller voted to let illegal aliens burn and trample."

Robinson is also nationally known for mass-mailing flyers that criticized Brad Miller's opposition to a straight-marriage amendment and then insinuated that Miller is gay because he and his wife have no children. Well, Miller responded by pointing out that his wife had to have a hysterectomy when she was only 27.

A normal human being would probably retreat to lick his wounds after having his ass handed to him like Miller did to Robinson. But Robinson pressed on with this new campaign ad which is actually how I heard about the guy at all. You know that when the phrase "bisexual, transgendered, and two-spirited Aleutian Eskimos" is used in a 30-second campaign ad, more important issues are being ignored. In this ad, Robinson's campaign basically wrote spiced-up descriptions of National Institute of Health studies recently funded by the government. This "allowed" them to conclude, "Brad Miller pays for sex, but not for body armor for our troops."

The republic is broken when people are willing to do "whatever it takes" in order to win. There have to be some things that, even if they're technically legal, leaders agree are totally off-limits and dishonorable. Campaign ads like these are an insult to the ideals of democratic dialogue.

A guy I know commented recently on this blog. His comment took a lot out of my soul - it's a big reason why I stopped posting. You'll find the post and his comment here.

The part of his comment that just destroyed me is this:

"Is this solution perfect? No. Is it honest? Not really. Is it moral? Respectful to homosexuals? Healthy for our society? Probably not. What it is is doable, and for me that's good enough. *shrug* I'm a pragmatic guy. Worse, even. I'm a politician. I think sideways, comfortably using misdirection and lies to achieve (hopefully) noble ends. I believe that the court intentionally left an opening for us to go after, and if going after it brings us the results we want, I wouldn't feel right turning away from it. History will eventually smooth out the details."

This isn't "just politics." It's evil, and it's sinful, and it's immoral, and it's NOT DEMOCRATIC.

Democracy requires that each person live and demand life fully according to their highest ideals, not their lowest expectations. If we start to assume, right from the beginning of our dreams, that compromise is the best we can do, then nothing really will ever meaningfully change. I will not accept that there is a distinction between "being realistic" and "being idealistic." If this makes me a hypocrite, then I welcome the label. Better to be an idealistic hypocrite than a "realistic" accomplice to oppression.

A primer on Christian politics:
"But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you?"
-Jesus Christ (Luke 6:27-32)

Preliminary Primary Elections Results

2006-09-20T00:32:00.000-07:00

Ah, the good ol' election night results crawl - you get news, tiny tiny bits of news at a time. Even more difficult now given that there will be thousands of last minute absentee ballots to count yet, but unless those last minute absentee voters prove to be of a significantly different stock, the trends that are being reported tonight ought to give us a good feel for how things fare. You can get the best results directly from the Secretary of State's Primary Elections Results page. From there, you can break down the data in many, many, many different ways. I'll give you my quick and dirty synopsis tonight and hopefully something a bit more detailed once I have more information.

State Supreme Court, Pos. 2 - No Winner

Unless something drastic happens, Susan Owens and Stephen Johnson will be headed for the general election. Owens has about 45% of the vote to Johnson's 32%. Assuming the numbers for Richard Smith and Norman Ericson represent the random votes in this race and that Michael Johnson is the random vote plus those who confused him with the other Johnson (and this ought to be fair since none of the three campaigned in any way), Owens would have won outright without them in the race. If Owens encouraged them to run, as has been suggested (and strikes me as credible) she cost herself a primary victory and I think it's safe to assume millions will be poured into defeating her in November. But I get ahead of myself.

State Supreme Court, Pos. 2 - Gerry Alexander?

Gerry Alexander is currently leading by about 45,000 votes. Many of the unreported votes thus far are from King County, which is currently trending 70% - 30% towrard Alexander. Suspecting this race might be coming down along party lines, I compared the number of Democratic/Republican Ballots to the number of votes for Alexander/Groen by county. The correlation was surprisingly small (though exceptions, such as King County did exist). Take Adams County Republicans had more ballots than Democrats by a margin of 3:1, but Groen leads only by 58%-42%. Or take Cowlitz County where Democratic ballots outnumbered Republican ballots by 5:2, but Alexander leads only by 55%-45%. Indeed, considering the $1.5 million spent on Groen's behalf to the the $500,000 spent on Alexander's behalf, there are suprisingly few counties where Groen leads by more than 20% (exceptions being Garfield, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, and Stevens). Combine that with several counties resoundingly voting for Alexander (King, Thurston, San Juan, Mason, Lewis, and Jefferson) and you have the makings of a strong rebuke to those seeking to buy our State Supreme Court. Of course, this race is far from over.

State Supreme Court, Pos. 2 - Tom Chambers

Up 58.5% to Burrage's 41.5% (with a gap of 85,000 votes), Chambers appears poised to win this race and appear alone on the ballot in the General Election.

State Representative, Dist. 43 - Too Close to Call

Jamie Pedersen currently leads, but his lead has eroded significantly through the night with Jim Street making strong gains. This will be a precinct by precinct battle (at one point, 2 precincts were added with Pedersen receiving only FOUR votes to the roughly 400 of Stephanie Pure and hundreds to other candidates). Surprisingly Dick Kelley is holding steady toward the bottom of the pack. Unfortunately, we'll never know who the majority of voters wanted - the winner will be lucky to end up with 25-30% of the total vote since there are 6 strong candidates. Oh IRV, where art thou?

Vote Today!

2006-09-19T06:56:00.000-07:00

At last (all of a sudden?) it's September 19th and time for the Washington State Primary. As I've mentioned before, this primary is critical, as at least two State Supreme Court justices will be decided as well as the 43rd District Representative.

State Supreme Court, Pos. 2 - Susan Owens

State Supreme Court, Pos. 8 - Gerry Alexander

State Supreme Court, Pos. 9 - Tom Chambers

United States Senate - Maria Cantwell

Washington State Representative, Dist. 43 - Jamie Pedersen

King County Prop. 1 - Yes

Polls are open from 7am until 8pm! Vote!

Judicial Elections and Hope in WA-04

2006-09-13T22:53:00.000-07:00

Every day I become increasingly convinced that judges simply should not be elected. Think about it, when we vote for politicians (or, more to the point, when we vote *against* politicians) we do so to express an opinion on their performance (or that of their opponents). But neither of these should be the case for judges, particularly those on the State Supreme Court. Mere dissatisfaction with rulings shouldn't be sufficient - the courts exist to apply the law equitably (hopefully leading to a just outcome) regardless of the popularity of the given conclusion. Those decisions should NOT be influenced by public opinion on the subject.

Clearly there is a tension here. We want judges to be appointed through an apolitical process, but we must have checks on them, to ensure their rulings are within mainstream judicial philosophy. That said, popular elections seem to be about the worst available method of accomplishing that. Most voters are unfamiliar with the workings of the legal system, leaving them susceptible to gross distortions propagated through campaign materials, campaign materials which can be bought and paid for by groups seeking to improve their chances before the Court. The Legislature, at least, offers a venue that has a better understanding of the legal system than the general populace, but is still accountable to the public. Look for this change on the 12th of Never.

*****

I also promised a bit of hope, and that comes from Washington's 4th Congressional District, where Doc Hastings (R) is facing a challenge from Richard Wright (D). Hastings has been a particularly notorious member of the Washington State delegation to the House of Representatives, receiving a 0% rating from NARAL, Pro-Choice America, a 0% rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, and (are you ready for this?) an astounding 0% rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Yes, this plays quite well to his constituency in central and southern Washington State, but a recent internal poll from the Wright campaign suggests that Hasting's support from the district is very weak. If you can, consider contributing to Wright's election bid and help them get the word out.

Good heavens, Dems have a shot at taking down Hastings? The end is nigh...

On Judicial Elections

2006-09-07T10:17:00.000-07:00

Or, more specifically, on this year's elections for the Washington Supreme Court. As I posted previously, Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and Justice Susan Owens, two well-qualified justices, are facing challenges from candidates bought and paid for by the conservative Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW), a group which often argues cases before the state Washington Supreme Court. (More about the BIAW and its aims here). Additionally, Justice Tom Chambers is facing a run by a dangerously unqualified candidate.

A useful starting point here is the website votingforjudges.org, "...a nonpartisan nonpartisan source of judicial evaluation information...." The site includes ratings by the King County Bar Association, the Municipal League of King County, and several others. It also includes campaign contributions and expenditures, with links to state documents detailing where the larger donations (over $1,000) came from. Here are the three Supreme Court races.

Gerry Alexander

Chief Justice Gerry Alexander has a clean sweep of newspaper endorsements from across the State of Washington. The King County Bar Association (KCBA) and the Municipal League of King County (MLKC) both rate Alexander highly and significiantly above his opponent. His opponent, more than any other candidate has benefited from the BIAW and its right-wing ilk and that money is being turned into a publicity blitz, including flyers, lawn signs, and even a plane carrying his name on a banner over the city of Seattle. Additionally, paid campaign workers have been knocking on doors on the east side of the state and the BIAW has taken out radio and television ads against Alexander. Call me old fashioned, but I'm not terribly comfortable with a system that elects its judge based on a 30-second tv spot or whose name you saw on the back of an airplane. Gerry Alexander is clearly the superior candidate for this position - Vote Gerry Alexander.

Tom Chambers

Re-electing Tom Chambers is another slam dunk. Both the KCBA and the MLKC rated his opponent "Not Qualified" while giving Chambers solid marks. Fortunately, this is one race where the more qualified candidate has the upper hand financially (due to the poor fundraising efforts of his opponent). Vote Tom Chambers.

Susan Owens

Finally, there is Susan Owens. Justice Owens faces a challenge from an individual with decent qualifications. The KCBA rated her opponent slightly more qualified while the MLKC rated Owens significantly more qualified. What this race comes down to, then, is that Owens's opponent, like Alexander's opponent, has been bought and paid for by industry - by the very individuals who will be arguing cases before the court. Money is a corrupting influence, which is paticularly offensive in the Judiciary - that branch we expect to be free from any corrupting bias. Owens has proven herself a competent, fair-minded jurist. Vote Susan Owens.

2006 Primary Elections Crib Sheet

2006-09-04T17:47:00.000-07:00

Below is a list of candidates deserving of your support in the primary election. Those which are marked by an asterisk (*) WILL BE DECIDED IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION! The other Supreme Court race may well be decided in the primary election if one candidate receives over 50% of the votes. It is imperative that you vote in the primary, as these are some of the most important races of the year. Some races are specific to certain locations, others are statewide. All are for the Democratic primary.

State Supreme Court, Pos. 2

Susan Owens - See below

State Supreme Court, Pos. 8 *

Gerry Alexander - See below

State Supreme Court, Pos. 9 *

Tom Chambers - See below

United States Senate

Maria Cantwell

United States Representative, Dist. 4

Richard Wright

United States Representative, Dist. 7 - More information

Jim McDermott

Washington State Senate, Dist. 35

Kyle Taylor Lucas - More information

Washington State Representative, Dist. 43 *

Jamie Pedersen

********

On Supreme Court Election

I will post more thoroughly on each of these races in the coming days, but never have I seen an easier choice in an election, nor one so vital. As I previously posted, certain right-wing organizations, led by the BIAW, are trying to buy the State Supreme Court. The last thing we need are unqualified, ideologically-driven Supreme Court justices. Additionally, at least two (but possibly all three) races WILL be decided in the primary!

Vote Gerry Alexander, Tom Chambers, and Susan Owens for Washington State Supreme Court!

WA-43 Democratic Primary

2006-08-31T22:32:00.000-07:00

When it comes to races in the primary, few are more important than the race for the 43rd District seat (which spans the University District, Capitol Hill, Fremont, and Wallingford) in the Washington State House of Representatives. With the esteemed Ed Murray moving on to the State Senate, there is a void which six Democratic candidates seek to fill, and the winner will assuredly carry the seat in the general election this November. Having reviewed the websites, positions, and experience of all the candidates, allow me to briefly summarize my feelings on each.

Keep in mind that these are six of the best possible candidates for the State House of Representatives and I only dream that we could have such progressive candidates in each district. They share views on most issues, so it becomes important to find out which issues they will tirelessly advocate and what experience they have to demonstrate that.

Lynne Dodson

Lynne Dodson's campaign signs declare "Send a Teacher to Olympia!" and this captures the unique experience she brings to the race. Dodson has taught at the community college level, starting in 1993, and proposes some bold changes to our education system, such as eliminating inequalities in pay amongst educational staff (though I'd like more information on the specifics of this point - inequalities at a given level of instruction? Across geographic regions? Might it not make sense to offer incentives to teach in low income areas? Perhaps that's the reverse of the current problem, but let's be honest about our end goals see the comments; thank you to Lynne Dodson!), a publicly funded early learning education system, and increased state funding for all levels of education - including higher education. In addition, Dodson's website lays out specific proposals on numerous issues, from LGBT rights to gun control, to the environment. Even in this pack of well-qualified candidates, Lynne stands out.

Dick Kelley

In his profile by the Seattle P-I, Kelley makes it clear that his main priority will be campaign finance reform, arguing that no issue "...matters as much as curbing special-interest influence." In doing so, however, he commits the standard error of so many well-meaning politicians, for neither in the article, nor on his website, does he ever define what he means by "special interest groups." Is any organization that lobbies legislators a special interest group? Aren't many such organizations simply formed by citizens banding together to advance their collective interests (the Sierra Club, the ACLU, the PIRGs, etc)? To remove this power of citizens to form organizations to lobby their legislators enhances the power of politicians vis-a-vis their constituents, something with which I am exceedingly uncomfortable. Campaign finance reform is important, but Kelley's plan simply isn't well thought-out enough for my comfort. To his credit, however, Kelley has put his money where his mouth is, limiting campaign contributions to no more than $100 from any person or organization. Additionally, Kelley has worked in government since the mid-1980's, giving him experience with the system.

Jamie Pedersen

Jamie Pedersen is an attorney with a good deal of experience fighting for civil rights. Recently, he served as one of the lead attorneys for Lambda Legal in the court battle for marriage equality, winning twice in the state court system, only to be overturned by a narrow 5-4 majority of the Washington State Supreme Court in a suspect ruling. Jamie has proven himself a tireless advocate of civil rights for all, including LGBTQ individuals. With the departure of Rep. Ed Murray, this is precisely what the 43rd needs. For Pedersen's committed leadership on this issue, he has earned the endorsement of Equal Rights Washington. Though the other candidates suport marriage equality, they do not have the experience of bringing together so many communities in support of it.

Stephanie Pure

As her profile in the Seattle P-I points out, Pure is the youngest candidate for the 43rd. She has served as a legislative aide to Peter Steinbrueck on the Seattle City Council and has been an activist in the Seattle community. In those capacities, Pure has led a successful effort to defeat the Teen Dance Ordinance, protected a city crossing guard program, and helped to expand funding for Seattle's public libraries. In Olympia, Pure promises to focus on improving our educational system through smaller classes and higher teacher salaries, support marrigage equality efforts, and find solutions to provide insurance to more Washingtonians. What strikes me about Pure is her lack of experience in any single field. While I laud her work as an activist, I'm not sure her experience yet qualifies her for the 43rd seat in the same way the other candidates are qualified.

Bill Sherman

Bill Sherman has positioned himself as the candidate with the greatest focus on the environment. His background certainly gives him credibility on this issue: as an attorney, he fought to hold Exxon Mobil accountable for the Prince William Sound oil spill; as an employee at the Department of the Interior, he aided in efforts to block the Repbulican Congress's attempts to undermine environmental protections. As a legislator in Olympia, Sherman promises to enact measures protecting Puget Sound and limiting CO2 emissions in Washington State. In an era where the federal government buries its head further in the sand on global warming and environmental dangers, Washington State will have to lead its own efforts to protect the environment. Sherman is a great candidate to do that.

Jim Steet

Jim Street recently received the endorsement of the Seattle P-I Editorial Board for his wealth of experience as a former City Council member and Superior Court judge. He is the Director of "Reinvesting in Youth," an effort to reform the juvenile justice system. As the representative of the 43rd District, Street plans to focus on issues of transportation, giving public transit, bicycles, pedestrians the priority in transportation matters. Closely related to this, Street wants Olympia to take a stronger stance in support of the environment. Street is yet another exceptionally strong candidate for this position and would undoubtedly represent 43rd District in a strong and sincere manner.

*******

As already stated, all six of these candidates are high caliber and even against most progressives in other districts, any of the six would have my complete support. That said, they are running against one another in the 43rd. Below is my ranking of the candidates, based on their priorities for Olympia and track record of success on those issues:

1.) Jamie Pedersen
2.) Jim Street
3.) Lynne Dodson
4.) Bill Sherman
5.) Stephanie Pure
6.) Dick Kelley

Remember, the primary is September 19th!

Appeal in Marriage Equality Case

2006-08-29T21:21:00.000-07:00

Supporters of marriage equality today asked the Washington State Supreme Court to reconsider its recent decision upholding Washington State's so-called "Defense of Marriage" Act. Attorneys for Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Northwest Women's Law Center contend that the Court's decision was flawed. Following is a brief overview of several of the arguments:

The Court's opinion establishes such a great deference to the legislature that, "...the rights of all Washingtonians [are] subject to infringement at the whim of the barest legislative authority."

Any law creating legal distinctions between groups must find a legitimate purpose underlying the law. Those purposes relied upon by the Court (procreation and the welfare of children) are illegitimate (the link between marriage and procreation is a distant one and the law protects the welfare of only some children - not children of same-sex couples).

The Court misconstrued Washington State's Equal Rights Amendment as applying to groups (women and men) as opposed to individuals. "...[T]he right to marry a person of one's choosing is an individual right.... The State cannot deprive an individual of a constitutional right by imposing that deprivation equally, as the United States Supreme Court has made repeatedly clear."

I come away from this motion with a much more detailed understanding of the ways in which the Court's ruling was flawed. This response was precisely what I was waiting for in reserving judgment on the previous decision. To be honest, I hold out relatively little hope of the Court revisiting the matter, but I believe it would do well to do so - justice, and the law, have not been well-served here.

The motion to reconsider can be viewed in full here (.pdf). It's an easy read - no legal training required (just skip over the case citations) - and creates persuasive arguments for all of the points I briefly outlined above.

RIP, Vashti McCollum

2006-08-28T09:21:00.000-07:00

She may not have been a GI Joe, but she was a true American hero.

In 1948, Mrs. McCollum won her case before the United States Supreme Court. In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that not only is it impermissible for the government to privilege one religion over another, it is also impermissible to privilege religion over non-religion.

For Mrs. McCollum and her family, such a stand was not an easy one:

In the three-year legal battle, Mrs. McCollum received physical threats and was fired from her job as a dance instructor at the university. At Halloween, a mob of trick-or-treaters pelted the McCollum family with rotten tomatoes and cabbages. The family cat was lynched.

It strikes me how little has changed: outspoken supporters of public school-sponsored religion are numerous and politically powerful, and fanatics continue to physically threaten those who would oppose them. I only hope there are enough courageous Americans, like Mrs. McCollum, around today to stand up for their principles and ensure justice for all.

Two churches

2006-08-21T18:50:00.000-07:00

USA Today is the paper that longingly waits for a beautiful princess to kiss it on the forehead so that it might one day turn into a handsome and charming cable news program. I never thought I'd see the day when I linked to an article from USA Today, but I guess I was wrong:

Archbishop tells church to stay in Lebanon: 'You'll make it'

The article quotes a sermon given just this past Sunday by Archbishop Chrucrallah Nabil Hage, the leader of the Catholic Church in Southern Lebanon:

"Wherever you are — in Hajji or Tyre or Marjayoun — if you're patient and believe, you'll make it through this," Hage told a standing-room congregation at St. George's Church in this southern Lebanese village... "The Christian message is the same everywhere: a message of peace, a message of love and a message of tolerance," he said. "Even if we have different beliefs, it doesn't mean it should lead to conflict."

The archbishop criss-crossed the battered fragments of southern Lebanon and through it all, he delivered this message of defiance against extremism and violence: one that has echoed the impassioned pleas given by Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, who has been similarly criss-crossing what remains of Lebanon's civil infrastructure and calling Israel's actions what they are: crimes against humanity.

Unfortunately, the Christian message doesn't appear to be the same everywhere as the archbishop claims - not in America, at least. Pastor John Hagee continues to spearhead the totally unfounded evangelical movement to support Israel unconditionally. Let's dissect this one later... for now, here is the top Associated Press religion headline from a few moments ago:

Church fires teacher for being woman

The headline says it all, really. The best quote from this story comes from the town's mayor, who is talking about a letter written by the church's pastor defending the decision:

"...those are disturbing remarks in this day and age... Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

While this Baptist church valiantly protected children from the demonic machinations of the female, Archbishop Hage was telling the war-torn Lebanese in his congregations that if they were patient, they would make it. Is this the same religion?

The archbishop's message that is doubtblessly being repeated throughout the globe wherever people feel an oppression of circumstances that they cannot see or name, but somehow manages to impair their lives nonetheless. What are they supposed to be patient for? Archbishop Hage's sermon should strike luxuriated American Christians as especially ironic - why can't we ask ourselves what the rest of the world seems to be waiting for? Throughout the global south and the third world, people are trying to "make it through" - through what? And where did it come from?

Let's ponder these questions as we sit in the cushioned pews at John Hagee's air-conditioned megachurch in Texas, listening to how Christians in America can "become a part of biblical prophecy."

The thing about prophecy, of course, is that it's supposed to get fulfilled no matter what we do or don't do. Prophecy implies that God is doing the work alone. But that's not what Christians believe - we (supposedly) believe that the Church exists on Earth in order to do the work of God.

Christians like me are watching the destruction of the world around them. We must aspire to do work OTHER than "preserving marriage" and keeping women silent in the churches. Archbishop Hage's sermon is telling the Lebanese to be patient and believe - his sermon is telling Americans to start giving a shit about "thy neighbor" and to believe in what Christ really said.

God have mercy on me, a sinner.

U.S. Connection

2006-08-20T14:03:00.000-07:00

I came across an article today from John Sugg discussing the U.S. role in the Israeli attack on Hezbollah and Lebanon. His claims would strike me as outrageous from a lesser journalist, but are closely supported by investigative pieces by the well-known Seymour Hersh and Robert Parry (not to mention that following the deception we saw in the leadup to the Iraq war, this falls within the realm of possibility). Here is a brief excerpt, but I urge you to read the entire article.

On May 23, according to Parry, Bush encouraged Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to find a provocation to launch an attack against Hezbollah. No doubt, Hezbollah would unwittingly comply, and did by capturing two Israeli soldiers. (Few in the American media would ever note that Israel holds thousands of Arabs prisoners, most guilty of nothing but their ancestry, including almost 1,000 children.) Now, according to Parry, Israeli generals are blaming Bush for pushing them into a quagmire in which, rather than neutering Hezbollah, we've made it into a rallying point for Arabs.

...

Israelis, with justification, wanted an end to the Hezbollah harassment. Rather than seek multi-national cooperation, Israel has done to Lebanon what we've done to Iraq -- destroy the country with no exit strategy and no victory. Israeli anger undoubtedly will turn on Olmert, a man who, like Bush, has no combat military experience.

America is the other loser, in spades. Again. Most of the world perceives us as being delusional at best. We allowed the systematic destruction of a friendly nation and cheered the onslaught. Condi Rice's pathetic statements about "birth pangs" of a new Middle East, and Bush's again-demonstrated incompetence, make us a laughingstock and a pariah.

If true, our complicity in the destruction of civilian infrastructure increases. We must change our foreign policy to one will will make the world a safer place, and by that I clearly do not mean a foreign policy led by warfare. War may at times be necessary, but it should be the *last* resort, certainly not the first.

*****

It is not lost on me that we are rapidly approaching primary elections time (September 19th here in Washington) and it's high-time we started looking closely at the candidates and issues coming up. Some matters will be decided in the primary (43rd District State Representative, possibly state Supreme Court judicial elections), others need to be addressed now because decisions are usually made long before election day.

Lebanon, Post Bellum

2006-08-17T22:09:00.000-07:00

Following Monday's UN-imposed ceasefire, Israel and Hezbollah have largely ceased hostilities within Lebanon. It is important, however, to view this not as an end, but as a beginning. A beginning of what, you ask? That is precisely the question.

Will we see a strengthening of the Lebanese democracy as the government exerts control over all of its territory or will extremists capitalize on civilian losses to consolidate power politically and socially? The U.S. and Israel have a great deal of say in this matter, depending on their commitment to rebuilding Lebanese infrastructure and their continuing support for democracy in country (and as we have learned, democracy is not always convenient to the U.S. national interest - consider Hamas's win in Palestine or the existence of democracies in Europe that would not support our misadventures in Iraq).

What lessons will be taken from this conflict? Has Hezbollah learned that it cannot continue to assault Israeli military outposts without fear of retaliation? Has Israel learned that it cannot engage in the destruction of a country's infrastructure without facing determined opposition? What opinions of Israel have been created or cemented in the minds of the Lebanese people? These are questions to which answers do not you exist, but answers to them will be critical in determining what this ceasefire is the beginning of.

One lesson I, as an American, have learned, is that the American government will actively support Israeli military actions (through munitions, etc.) regardless of civilian deaths. We should not support any nation in such manner, not Israel, not Saudi Arabia, not Great Britain, no one. Civilian lives matter, and when we supply the bombs, we share in the complicity, something we must actively resist.

And when I say this is not an ending, I mean both in Lebanon and Gaza, where incursions continue (that link is a damn good article, btw), and the West Bank, where the number of those illegally settling on Palestinian lands has grown.

Staying on Message

2006-08-12T16:20:00.000-07:00

Apologies for blatantly disregarding Alex's call for a 'lighter note' but I hope I may be forgiven for sharing some troubling thoughts based on today's rally. The event was billed as a "Protest to Defend the People of Lebanon and Palestine", the very matter I have spent a significant amount of time on here. The title, then, was promising.

The first sign that something might be amiss was the list of groups endorsing the event. The groups on that list of particular concern to me were the likes of the Freedom Socialist Party, the International Socialist Organization, and the Socialist Alternative. My experience has shown me that these organizations are notoriously bad at putting forth a unified message. Indeed, because of their non-mainstream and unfocused messages, they are sufficient to destroy the legitimacy of an event. I would go so far as to argue that having them at a rally is worse than having no rally at all - we aim to persuade those who are not yet on our side, but their messages alienate mainstream members of society. More on this shortly.

The second sign that something was awry was that I found out there was another rally for the same purpose in Kirkland at the same time today. Now this should never, EVER happen - especially not in a city the size of Seattle. Perhaps the problem is that there are just too many organizations in Seattle all working on this same issue - ANSWER Seattle, the Arab American Community Coalition, the Palestine Solidarity Committee, Voices of Palestine, Youth Against War and Racism, the Council on American Islamic Relations, etc. I'm not necessarily saying they need to consolidate, but there absolutely must be better communication amongst them.

So this is the my state of mind as I arrived. And then I saw this...

Upon closer inspection, I found a number of signs perfectly demonstrating what I mean about unfocused messages. Keep in mind that this was a rally to 'defend the people of Lebanon and Palestine'.

These signs all failed to communicate the message that we must end the suffering of Lebanese and Palestinian civilians in this conflict. Don't get me wrong, the Iraq War is a great parallel, where a nation is struck and retaliates not only against the wrongdoers, but also against hundreds of thousands of uninvolved civilians, but that dog sign, along with all the other signs, detracted from the true message of today's rally. Even the speakers were suspect. We heard from a man from New Orleans decrying practices agaisnt African-Americans there; we heard about the American occupation of the Philippines; we heard all about why we should vote for a particular candidate. But there were streches of 20 minutes at a time where we heard nothing about the people of Lebanon and Palestine.

This issue is too important for progressives to sabotage the message through dilution. Solidarity is important, but not at the expense of spreading a unified message on a particular subject. We must learn to support one another's causes, not hijack them for our own ends. Until we can do that, success will continue to elude us.

On a lighter note

2006-08-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

From Bettybowers.com:
Pretty insightful, I'd say. What do you think, Karl?

By the way, I've finally finished the book I've been reading - Covering: The Hidden Threat to Our Civil Rights by Kenji Yoshino. The final chapter was fascinating... and something I'm itching to ask you about.

I plan on posting about this book a bit later. In the meantime, anyone interested in a poetic, compelling memoir blended with legal treatise... this book should be irresistable.

Upcoming Events for Lebanon

2006-08-09T17:39:00.000-07:00

Three upcoming events where you can make your voice heard and get involved. In chronological order:

Rally to End the Attacks on Civilians in Lebanon and Gaza
Friday, Aug. 11 5:00 - 6:00pm
Westlake Plaza (4th and Pine)

National Emergency Protest to Defend the People of Lebanon and Palestine
Saturday, Aug. 12 12:00pm
Seattle Federal Building (2nd Ave. & Marion)

Reverse the Crisis Fundraiser
August 13, 2006 6:00 - 9:00pm
Red Lion Bellevue Inn (11211 Main Street / Bellevue, WA 98004)
Donations: $30 for adults, $15 for children (4-10)

This event is being put on by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Arab American Community Coalition to "...raise relief funds for victims of violence in Lebanon and Palestine. A group of recent evacuees from the affected region will be at the event and will recount the conditions there.

The charities which will be present to receive pledges from attendees at this event will be Islamic Relief Worldwide (www.irw.org) and Mercy Corps International (www.mercycorps.org). We will be accepting phone-pledges to either of these charities from 6pm till 9pm on the day of the event. The three numbers to call to do so are: 206.306.5243, 206.661.8887, and 206.714.8269. These numbers will only be activated during the event."

*****

I'll likely post on this later, but I wish we could hold an event and not invite the socialists. They are instant death to the legitimacy of any rally and generally spread a message that distracts from the true intent of the rally.

Also, in a previous post I expressed concern that Israel's actions were "marginalizing centrist voices." According to the New York Times today, that seem to be precisely what is occurring. It's not that I'm clairvoyant, it's that this was entirely predictable, and Israel ignores the repercussions of its actions at its own peril.

Re-open wound

2006-08-09T17:01:00.000-07:00

"World Trade Center" comes out today. The film resurrects the Twin Towers so that they may be cinematically destroyed - in turn resurrecting our fearful memories of the date that President Bush (in fact, the entire American government and echoing press) has since turned into a cheap Pavlovian trigger. [Aug 29: I previously mistaked this as a "Skinnerian" response - while the two psychologists conducted similar research, my friend Tim pointed out the error.] Like the bell that makes the dog salivate - ringing "9/11" somehow works to make our nation a little more innocent, our conquests a little more justified, our ignorance a little more reasonable, and our obedience a little more necessary. The collective effect seems to be a profound chilling of public discourse about what really has happened since September 11, 2001.

When the first plane hit in New York City, it was about 5:30am here in Seattle and I was a junior in high school. As a member of the jazz band, I had daily jazz rehearsal at 6:30am, and so I was surprised to awake to confused NPR voices reporting a very unusual airplane accident. I turned my alarm clock off and listed into the shower, silently remembering to flip on the television downstairs before I left for school to see some pictures of what the radio was talking about.

My initial reaction was: what was wrong with this pilot? I also felt a little weird... and then as I stared at the billowing smoke in the corner of the living room, the reporter suddenly began to scream and the camera panned out to show a dark spot racing towards the other tower. The second plane disappeared into the first fireball I'd ever seen on live TV. I'm shivering a bit as I write this.

A few kids in the jazz band knew what was happening, but most didn't - most weren't news junkies like me. But when first period started and the rest of the band arrived for symphonic rehearsal, the towers were all that anyone talked about. My friend Tim tried to convince me that the Pentagon had been hit, but I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard. Mr. Rice left the classroom to find out what was going on. Someone stood on a chair to turn on the TV in the band room, and we all gathered around to watch. One of the towers was now missing. The camera showed footage of trapped office workers jumping. And in front of our eyes, the other tower sank into itself, leaving dust and an image I'll never forget.

The next morning, our ASB president went on the school intercom to urge careful consideration of what had happened, and especially respect for students from the similar backgrounds as those who had perpetrated the attack. Many of my friends joined bands of students on freeway overpasses to wave gigantic American flags. I almost went too. I found myself chanting "USA! USA! USA!" at least twice within that school year. I remember supporting completely our invasion of Afghanistan. Editorial cartoonists across the country drew Lady Liberty with her head in her hands, weeping. I cried when I first saw it.

About one-and-a-half years later... President Bush delivered his cowboy ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, threatening destruction if he didn't comply. By this time, America had succeeded in completely alienating the entire diplomatic community except for Tony Blair and Ariel Sharon. That night, I recall an acute sense of shame for being a citizen, a voter, in a country that was committing a gross abuse of power. I knew back then that Iraq had no weapons - as did France, Russia, and China. The former chief U.N. inspector, an American named Scott Ritter, had been making an exhaustive circuit of Sunday morning news programs to call the Bush Administration on its lie and to appeal to Americans to demand more evidence of Iraq's capability and belligerence. Unfortunately, he failed.

Joe Lieberman has only just now paid the price for kneeling to Bush's clutch of arrows. But Lieberman is hardly the only one to lose due to the American conquest - 40,000 Iraqi civilians, 2,500 American soldiers, and countless families displaced and wounded...

When the Twin Towers go up and down again on the silver screen these next few weeks, there's no reason we shouldn't remember and venerate those moments that day that brought out a nationalism in even someone as resistant to it as me. But to stop there would be to DENY the lives lost since then in the name of that same day. To take away only pride and self-righteousness from this film would be to close our eyes to the destruction America has wrought upon its neighbors worldwide, and to ignore the fear that has spread within the Republic itself. This film must also remind us of what those in power have used 9/11 for: empire, profit, polarization, and crusade.

The wound of 9/11 was bandaged with snake-oil. Now a film opens the cut again - this time, with the benefit of history, we can begin to set things right. The balm for deception is resistance.

The Right to Kill

2006-08-07T10:44:00.000-07:00

The NRA has long contended that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Well, now they're lobbying state legislatures around the country to allow people to do just that and so far 15 states have gone for it. The New York Times article has a few examples of the laws invocation to avoid legal penalty, such as:

A prostitute who took a 72-year-old client's gun and killed him rather than just walk away;

A man who shot his neighbor after an argument about the number of garbage cans he had put out;

A cab driver who killed an inebriated passenger after dropping him off.

In the words of a professor from the Brooklyn Law School, "In effect, the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property." And conservatives accuse liberals of being materialistic? Right, I'll be sure to take that one seriously next time....

Think about it friends, if this law would have been around in 18th century France, none of us would have had to endure Les Miserables, for Valjean would be dead! Oh, expansion of extrajudicial death penalties, thank you legislatures! Go NRA, huh?

I doubt they'll target Washington State, but if so we will absolutely revisit this issue.

Back in Seattle

2006-08-06T22:01:00.000-07:00

Hawaii is now simply a memory (but the pounds gained from the loco moco and to be gained from the chocolate covered macadamia nuts are my destiny). The time away gave me some time to reflect on matters and receive feedback on this blog, particularly on my discussion of the situation in Lebanon.

First, I'd like to respond to a bit of misunderstanding. What Hezbollah does when it indiscriminately targets Israeli civilians is morally reprehensible. The reason I spend less time discussing this point is that there is little disagreement that this is wrong. My point here is to persuade and if we agree, that is a subject I needn't spend my time on. Instead I write about the actions of Israel, which have taken the lives of hundreds Lebanese civilians and yet there is disagreement as to whether or not that is acceptable. (Keeping everything in perspective, where Hezbollah claims it is trying to kill civilians and the Israeli military claims it is trying not to, the Israeli military has killed somewhere to the effect of ten times as many.)

Should Hezbollah be disarmed? Absolutely. But Israel is not the power to do that. Israel cannot militarily stop foreign organizations, terrorist or otherwise - only the people of Lebanon can do so in the long term. And here's the kicker, as Israel invades Lebanon and wreaks havoc on its infrastructure, killing hundreds of civilians, to the Lebanese people Israel appears as exactly the threat that Hezbollah has always claimed it was. Such a situation only serves to marginalize centrist voices, the very centrist voices necessary to marginalize extremist voices.

Obviously many things have gone wrong to this point, but that's no excuse to make it worse. What we need to begin with is a ceasefire. Hezbollah said it would cease its rocket attacks if Israel were to cease its aerial bombardments on Lebanese cities (aerial bombardments killing hundreds of civilians which should cease anyway). In the long-run the Lebanese military will need to assert control over the south of Lebanon - everyone agrees on that. In the meantime a truly international force must take over. Wwhat cannot happen is for a U.S., NATO, or, heaven forbid, Israeli force to lead peacekeeping efforts - any of those options would not be seen as legitimate. Israel and the U.S. must immediately and publicly commit to completely rebuilding the Lebanese infrastructure. They must also provide military assistance to the Lebanese government that it will be possible for it to disarm Hezbollah. Israel must demonstrate, not simply articulate, its desire to see Lebanon prosper as a democratic state. Once Israel appears as a symbol of regional humanitarian assistance, economic development, and stability extremist voices in the region can be marginalized, but so long as it appears as a symbol of occupation and regional instability, the extremists can flourish.

For now, U.S. policy is key. If the U.S. were to call for a ceasefire, Israel would agree to a ceasefire. Key to U.S. policy is the will of the American public, and that is what we are here to address. Stay tuned for information about upcoming events.

Tragedy in Seattle

2006-07-29T00:09:00.000-07:00

I write tonight with a great deal of sadness in my heart. Though I am hundreds of miles away I still heard about a shooting today in downtown Seattle. Evidently a man entered the building housing the Jewish Federation and shot six people, killing one. According to the Seattle PI, he stated that was was a Muslim American, angry at Israel. As I have argued time and again here, violence is not a solution, it is a cycle - a cycle very adept at perpetuating itself. This instance is no different. The use of violence against others, especially unarmed and peaceful others, is deplorable, whether it be in Lebanon, Palestine, Israel or Seattle. The sadness I feel exists on many levels.

First and foremost, my heart goes out to the victims and their families. This senseless crime is shock to everyone and for it there is no justification.

Second, and this may sound strange, but I feel sorry for the perpetrator, as I do for most all perpetrators. What he did was wrong and by no means justified, but in that most deplorable act he chose to throw his life away and all the possible good that could have been done. He took the life of another, an action he can never take back.

Third, I worry for our brothers and sisters from the Middle East as well as those of the Muslim faith who are already being scapegoated and blamed for the actions of a lone individual. Just as Scott Petersen does not represent all Americans or Christians, so too does this individual not represent all Muslim Americans. (The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement condemning the shooting earlier today.)

Finally, I am saddened for the prospects of the Peace in Lebanon movement in Seattle. The Arab American Community Coalition cancelled tomorrow's planned silent march for peace, and I believe they did so wisely. Tensions are high and the event was cancelled so to eliminate any possible violence against anyone on any side of the issue.

And that's the point, I suppose. This one act of violence has destroyed so much work towards peace. It fuels the fires started by the ignorant and the hateful. But more than anything, it creates fear, fear which can then cause individuals to behave towards other in ways they would otherwise find unacceptable. This tragic event must not be used to divide our Seattle community or marginalize members within it. We must all stand together against the violence, both at home or abroad, abandoning the traditional vicious cycle of fear and violence. That one individual carried out such an act of violence should strengthen our resolve for peace, not weaken it.

A call to keep loving

2006-07-27T12:17:00.000-07:00

Yesterday the Washington State Supreme Court ruled to uphold the state's 1998 "Defense of Marriage Act" which (as you might have guessed from the propagandic title) prohibits same-sex partners from obtaining civil marriages. I had been expected this ruling since the day before, when the Court put out a press release saying the decision would come out sometime tomorrow. I saw the sad headline as soon as I reloaded the Seattle P-I webpage on my computer. It definitely put a damper on the morning.

I thought I would feel more sad or more pissed off - but I don't. Part of it is probably related to the fact that while the Court's ruling was the P-I's top headline, the BBC's top headline was, "Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea" - referring to yesterday's destruction of a United Nations outpost and killing of four UN peacekeepers by Israeli forces. The BBC reports that the peacekeepers sent ten messages over six hours to Israeli forces before the incident occurred, calling for cessation of combat in the immediate area. Instead, 17 bombardments landed within only a kilometer of the outpost and 12 artillery rounds landed within a ridiculous 150 meters - to top it off, four of those rounds actually HIT the peacekeepers' outpost! Only after all that did an Israeli precision-guided missile obliterate the peacekeepers.

So it's a little hard to get too upset about my marriage plans. Still, the issue is obviously of great significance to me - anything remaining of what might have turned into fury or anger was washed away when I actually sat down to read the well-written 62-page opinion by Justice Barbara Madsen (mother of an old ASUW friend, as it turns out).

Justice Madsen's opinion is pretty reasonable - far more than I've come to expect from the government of late. In a nutshell, she summarizes the cases (Andersen from King County Superior Court and Castle from Thurston County) and proceeds to subject them to a series of constitutional analyses. I'll proceed to breeze through her conclusions here, but if you don't care, you can skip ahead past the text I've colored red.

1. WA Privileges and Immunities Clause
First, the justices determine that the cases are not eligible to be reviewed under the "Privileges and Immunities Clause" of the Washington State Constitution (“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.”) The justices find that this clause is meant to protect against unfair favoritism towards a select minority. Thus, they conclude that the clause would not be a proper lens through which to view the cases.

Seeing as how the Privileges and Immunities Clause doesn't apply here, Madsen decides to see whether DOMA violates the federal constitution's Equal Protection Clause. She writes:

"The level of scrutiny to be applied under an equal protection analysis depends on whether a suspect or semisuspect classification has been drawn or a fundamental right is implicated; if neither is involved, rational basis review is appropriate." (p. 17)

She proceeds in that order to analyze the case.

2. U.S. Equal Protection Clause - "suspect class" analysis
According to Madsen, a great deal of jurisprudence holds that for a group to be deemed a "suspect class", attorneys must demonstrate that the group (a) has suffered a history of discrimination, (b) be characterized or defined by an "obvious, immutable trait" that is usually unrelated to one's ability to "perform or contribute to society", and (c) is "a minority or politically powerless class." While she finds"no dispute" that lesbians and gays have been historically discriminated against, she cites other legal opinion which holds that homosexuality is not an "immutable trait." I find this quite disturbing - and it confirms an ongoing discomfort I have had with grounding human rights strictly in biology or otherwise "immutable" characteristics.

Additionally, Madsen disputes the assertion that lesbians and gays are politically powerless. She writes:

"The enactment of provisions providing increased protections to gay and lesbian individuals in Washington shows that as a class gay and lesbian persons are not powerless but, instead, exercise increasing political power. Indeed, the recent passage of the amendments to chapter 49.60 RCW is particularly significant given that, as the plaintiffs point out, the legislature had previously declined on numerous occasions to add sexual orientation to the laws against discrimination." (p. 20)

I find this argument laced with huge ironies. Chapter 49.60 of the RCW is Washington's anti-discrimination law, and Madsen is referring specifically to the much-hailed sexual orientation equal rights bill that passed in January after a thirty-year legislative struggle. How ironic that this victory in a desert of defeats is now used in an argument to uphold a marriage ban! I hope Karl comments on this matter.

Madsen concludes, ultimately, that lesbians and gays do not constitute a suspect class. I find this part of her decision the most troubling and most difficult to accept because I strongly disagree with her findings on the latter two parts of the "suspect class" test.

3. U.S. Equal Protection Clause - "fundamental right" analysis
The question then turns to whether marriage is a fundamental right. Madsen admits up front that it definitely is - but she determines that the right to marry a partner of the same sex is a different matter. Her main argument here is that within the history of law, civil marriage has been linked to society's interest in fostering stable procreation. She does acknowledge that "marriage is an evolving institution" and "history and tradition are not static... Thus, recent history and tradition may also be relevant in deciding whether a fundamental right is at stake" (26-27, 31). In light of this, however, she finds that "community standards at this time do not show a societal commitment to inclusion of same-sex marriage as part of the fundamental right to marry" (32).

4. U.S. Equal Protection Clause - Rational Basis Review
Having found that DOMA affects neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right, Madsen moves on to determine whether the law is "rationally related to a legitimate state interest." She reiterates many, many times in this section that rational basis review is "highly deferential" to the Legislature. Madsen carves a careful niche for the role of the judiciary here - a role that is not supposed to decide whether a law advances a stated interest, but whether the legislature acted rationally in light of evidence that legitimate interests were being advanced.

"It is particularly inappropriate for this court to accept as true (or untrue) the arguments made and conclusions drawn by those advocating passage of DOMA, or to make its own inquiry into the validity or reliability of any studies presented to the legislature. The court’s responsibility, instead, is to assure that DOMA was enacted in accord with constitutional constraints and that the legislature properly exercised its power." (p. 43)

Madsen finds that the legislature could rationally come to the conclusion that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples would advance the legitimate interest of fostering procreation.

Having been shown not to affect a suspect class or fundamental right, and having passed the rational basis review, Madsen concludes that DOMA does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

5. Other analyses
The conclusions reached surrounding DOMA and the Equal Protection Clause are used to uphold DOMA over objections concerning due process, privacy rights, and the Equal Rights Amendment (banning sex-based discrimination).

It's clear from reading through the court opinion that the justices find themselves rather constrained. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander writes:

"Although many pages of opinion have been written in this case, the issue with which we are here confronted is really quite narrow. The question before us is this: is the provision in Washington’s marriage statute, RCW 26.04.010, which clearly states that marriage is between a 'male and a female,' unconstitutional?"

The justices say no, it's not unconstitutional to pass such a law.

Yet, the judicial opinion is littered with various hints and gestures that suggest that while the judiciary has little room to rule otherwise, the justices themselves would like to see DOMA at least revisited, and at most, repealed.

Madsen makes a series of jabs at the dissenting justices, but her harshest words are surprisingly directed to two justices who concurred with her - Justices James Johnson and Richard Sanders. I haven't yet read their concurring opinion (which is just as long as the lead opinion), but skimming it gives me the distinct impression that Johnson is operating from impure motives. He starts off:

"This is a difficult case only if a court disregards the text and history of the state and federal constitutions and laws in order to write new laws for our State’s citizens. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and every Washington citizen has a constitutional right to enter into such a marriage..."

Madsen, in her footnote, writes:

"Justice J.M. Johnson resorts to name-calling in an effort to refute this point [that recent history and tradition may also be relevant in deciding whether a fundamental right is at stake]." (p. 27)

Madsen emphasizes that the absence of a tradition of same-sex marriage is only a symptom of our current time. She writes:

"Plaintiffs have not established that at this time the fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry a person of the same sex." (p. 32, emphasis added)

Later again:

"...community standards at this time do not show a societal commitment to inclusion of same-sex marriage as part of the fundamental right to marry." (p. 32, emphasis added)

Considering that much of Madsen's determination that marriage equality lies outside of the existing right to marry comes from her observation that there is no "recent tradition" of same-sex marriage, these quotations above seem to me like a call for communities to go ahead with embracing same-sex partnerships, and perhaps even to conduct non-civil marraiges, so that such a tradition might be established.

Page 47 of the opinion is essentially a laundry list of privileges and protections that heterosexual partners enjoy through civil marriage that homosexuals are now prohibited from. In her conclusion, Madsen writes:

"...given the clear hardship faced by same sex couples evidenced in this lawsuit, the legislature may want to reexamine the impact of the marriage laws on all citizens of this state." (p. 61)

The justices seem to be giving the rest of us a not-so-subtle push: change the law to include your lesbian and gay sisters and brothers, and until that happens, embrace them in full inclusion anyway.

Churches and other religious communities can provide crucial leadership as the queer community focuses its efforts now on the long road towards a legislative victory for marriage equality. Many Episcopal churches, the United Church of Christ, Unitarian Universalists, and several Reform Jewish temples, already perform same-sex marriages, or at least, blessing of same-sex unions. Lesbians and gays, while awaiting full equality, should take advantage of the support afforded by these communities by having their partnerships recognized in a ceremony. And after the service, call one another husband or wife. This is how we must begin building a tradition of same-sex marriage - in defiance of the state.

God endorses love despite the state and despite the human church. So let us call one another "love" before the state gives its permission - and when it eventually does, we can celebrate the time we shared together.

A Brief Synopsis

2006-07-26T23:25:00.000-07:00

[NOTE: x-posted from kazzman - this won't happen often]

Which of the following is a valid military target?

A civilian airport

Lebanese highways (used for humanitarian relief and evacuation)

United Nations military post

Civilian power plant

Palestinian Foreign Ministry building

Palestinian Interior Ministry building

Palestinian Finance Ministry building

Lebanese military installations (not engaged in hostilities)

Apartment buildings containing civilians

Refugee Convy

If you failed to select any (or even just not all) of the boxes, you have scored higher than the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). All of the aforementioned targets have been struck by Israeli Defense Forces in the past two weeks. Let's take the U.N. outpost as a starting point. As you know, the U.N. is certainly not engaged in hostilities against Israel. Indeed, this particular U.N. outpost was struck TWENTY ONE TIMES by artillery fire and precision guided missiles! This despite REPEATED MESSAGES over a four hour period from the United Nations to the IDF to avoid hitting the outpost. I think we can forgive Kofi Annan's initial statement that it appeared "deliberate" (a statement he has since retracted). That strike killed 4 U.N. peackeepers. This simply serves to underscore a greater message that while the IDF may not target civilians (as does Hezbollah) they absolutely do not do enough to avoid civilian deaths (400+ and counting).

What is happening is postively abhorrent. What Hezbollah is doing, targeting civilian population centers, is beyond reprehensible. Certainly, Israel has a right to defend itself. But that right absolutely does NOT include the right to kill over 400 Lebanese civilians and 12 U.N. peacekeepers; nor does the right to defend itself justify the displacement of 750,000 civilians from their homes; and that right does not, include the right to target civilian infrastructure. Though Israel may protect the human rights of its citizens, it is showing an utterly appalling disregard for the human rights of civilians in Lebanon and Palestine.

Am I angry? Damn right I'm angry and you should be too. None of this would be taking place without the explicit support, morally and militarily, of the United States. This simply cannot continue. Most nations around the world get it; many citizens of Israel get it; yet somehow, we here in the United States and those in the government of the U.S. and Israel do not.

Two Articles

2006-07-25T22:23:00.000-07:00

Rather than write on the War on Lebanon any further today, I thought I'd put forth two other voices. The first article is from Bob Herbert - a link to the complete text will have to wait until it is available (I'll update this post when/if that happens) but a synopsis is available from Editor & Publisher.
The second article is by Gideon Levy with with the Haaretz newspaper in Israel. Below is a brief excerpt:

"In Gaza, a soldier is abducted from the army of a state that frequently abducts civilians from their homes and locks them up for years with or without a trial - but only we're allowed to do that. And only we're allowed to bomb civilian population centers....

Israel once again is not distinguishing between a justified war against Hezbollah and an unjust and unwise war against the Lebanese nation."

One of my overriding concerns has been the entirely unacceptable attacks upon non-combatants. To the list, add four UN soldier that died in an Israeli bombing of a UNITED NATIONS MILITARY BASE. How does this happen? How does a state bomb a marked UN military base? Israel promises an inquiry....

Support H.CON.RES.450 (Don't worry, I'll translate)

2006-07-24T20:55:00.000-07:00

The United States today pledged $30 million to aid in the recovery of Lebanon. So yes, for those keeping score at home, we are now paying both for the bombs that destroy the infrastructure and also to rebuild the infrastructure. Not that we shouldn't pay to rebuild - that is the least of our moral duties - but while we can pay to rebuild the roads, ports, and apartment buildings we cannot pay to bring back the civilian lives already lost. Indeed, we continue to do little to prevent further loss of innocent life.

Speaking of preventing further loss of innocent life, the House of Representatives lately passed a resolution giving no mention to doing that (you can read the text here but I've honestly read far better resolutions from the ASUW Student Senate). It passed 410 - 8. (Anyone else reminded of the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act?) Fortunately, there is now an alternative (H. Con. Res. 450) which calls for a cease fire, multiparty negotiations, and an international peacekeeping force. You can e-mail your representative directly from the JVP website by clicking here.

Also, if you have a chance contact Rep. Jim McDermott and thank him for his courage in voting against the previous resolution (H.RES.923), which failed to address the civilian lives lost functions as a sort of 'blank check' of support for any further actions on the territory of other states. You can read Rep. McDermott's comments, which I just borrowed from, here. It was an act of courage on his part and a message of peace deserving of our thanks.

Five loaves and two fish (or: why I love Karl Smith)

2006-07-23T21:59:00.000-07:00

The leaders of thirteen Christian denominations have called upon President Bush to begin throwing his weight around to stop rogue Israel's obliteration of Lebanon.

"In the face of such a humanitarian crisis, calls for the fighting parties to be restrained in their actions fall short of what is needed. Your presidential leadership and the full weight of the United States, acting in concert with the international community, must be applied now to achieve an immediate cease-fire and to launch an intensive diplomatic initiative for the cessation of hostilities. This is a necessary first step toward the diplomatic resolution of this crisis and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the way toward a comprehensive Middle East peace."

You can check out the entire letter yourself. Really, it's a pretty impressive list of people who have signed it, representing a pretty significant chunk of American Christians.

The obvious question - is this going to do or mean anything?

Today, Lutherans, Presbyerians, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, and many other Christians heard the same reading in church: the famous story of Jesus feeding the five thousand with only five loaves of bread and two fish. I sat in St. Mark's Cathedral today as the Rev. Janet Campbell beautifully retold the familiar childhood tale into a powerful ethic for societal engagement. After she stepped away from the pulpit, I sat in the pew on the verge of tears.

I can't really do justice to one of the best sermons I've ever heard. Pastor Campbell focused on how the disciples found that they had just five loaves and two fish between them, and despite their skepticism, they offered those up as the best they could do. She suggested that we must always give the best we can without regard to whether it's "worth it" or whether we think it'll make a difference. Our only responsibility and our most important responsibility is to always do what we can do for peace with justice.

Karl exemplifies this civic quality - acting on virtue, not merely efficacy. Going to protests, counter-rallies, and vigils... incessantly writing and updating blogs... it's hard work, and often discouraging work on top of that. The few rallies and actions I've been to, I've felt the scorn of "realistic" people passing by with their shopping bags in disdain for our quixotic naïveté. That can be difficult to withstand. It's enough to destroy a democracy.

"How is your protest going to change anything? Go home!"
"Who are you trying to reach with those signs?"
"Why are you wasting your time?"

Active citizens have probably heard similarly before. These questions, when asked of and borne by isolated individuals, are destructive. But when people come together to make themselves heard because they understand that this is how change begins - these same questions don't stand a chance.

Karl and people like him see how many loaves and fish they have in their own posession - and they give them up to the crowd knowing that regardless of whether it "matters", it is still their responsibility as citizens. Heartfelt and reasoned opinions about the state of our world are the few loaves and fish each one of us carries. It's easy to be convinced that we'll never feed the entire crowd with them. We can offer them up anyway, however, and suddenly, we one day find that our acts of sacrifice have inspired others... change comes.

So following Karl's lead, I've decided that I'm going to write letters to my elected representatives. Perhaps I wouldn't really have done it before today. The voice of "realism" might have set in, telling not to be a silly kid, asking me when I'll finally realize that I don't matter in this system.

But Jesus gives a different question: “How many loaves have you? Go and see.” (Mark 6:38)

And when I look, I realize that I do have something small of my own to offer. Karl already did. So will you. An opinion, a perspective, a learning, a voice - loaves and fish for a hungry crowd. Let's feed this world.

"And all ate and were filled." - Mark 6:42

Thank you my friend.

JVP Counter-Demonstration

2006-07-23T20:31:00.000-07:00

Today I stood in solidarity with Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) in a counterdemonstration outside the Save Israel rally. Though I am not Jewish, I was invited and figured with my credentials as a, well, blogger(?) I had something to offer. In truth, once I was invited I could not decline, for silence in the face of suffering is complicity.

The counterdemonstration itself was well organized and coordinated with the organizers of the Save Israel rally. For the most part, those taking part in the counterdemonstration avoided comingling or confronting anyone, for that was not the point. By and large, those passing were polite and several even engaged in meaningful discussiong, but there were also the few perfunctory crazy people. In total, I would estimate there were about 20 people there with JVP, 8 with the socialist party/Radical Women (whose message was VERY different) and around 700 people attending the main rally. First, I want to share several photos with you, then share what I took away from the experience.

This first photo is of members of the JVP and the signs they held. The messages included "Cease Fire Now", "Arab Lives Are = to Jewish Lives", "All Civilians Deserve Peace", "Stop the Cycle of Hate", and so on.

This next photo gives you a sense of the size of the crowd (Rep. Dave Reichert is speaking)

And here's a photo of Rep. Reichert leaving immediately after he spoke (long before the rally ended)

Here are two children who created signs just for us. On the back of the "Go back to Syria" sign it read "Stop speaking Arabic." I find both such slogans incomprehensible in context.

So I mentioned that I'd learned something and I did. It came from listening to those who stopped, both to talk and to yell and make obscene gestures. Some comments were sarcastic and absurd (e.g. "Yes, end the Arab occupation of Jewish lands"), but others were thoughtful and reflective of deeply held convictions. What I heard today was a lot of fear. This should not have surprised me (for what did the Bush Administration use to sell the invasion and occupation of Iraq?), but it did. One gentleman said that Judaism was under a greater threat now than during the Holocaust. Another man truly believed that all Muslims are taught to hate and kill Jews. Many others expressed fear of attacks not only on Israel, but all of Judaism. In fear's name, we humans can justify and excuse many things.

One man came up attempting to point out the difference between Hezbollah and the actions of the Israeli military. I agree there is a difference (and there are other similarities), but the man's logic was interesting to me. He said "Are the Israelis bombing people's homes?" "Yes" was the reply. "All right, but do those homes contain babies?" he asked, suggesting the homes that were bombed contained only militants. The reply again was "Yes." "Well, nobody's perfect" he said. Only under the spell of fear can we justify the unustifiable. Violence depends upon fear, and right now everyone, on every side, is very, very afraid.

From America, With Love

2006-07-22T23:43:00.001-07:00

Earlier today my dear colleauge posted a photo of Israeli children writing on missiles. There are many lessons to take from that photos - individuals who become so inured to violence that they forget its costs, the perpetuation of violence by celebrating it with children, etc - but there is one that I do not want to be lost. Every American taxpayer is doing far worse - we are PAYING for those missiles. The New York Times reported today that the Bush Administration is expediting shipments of additional missiles to Israel - the same missiles at the hands of which 373 Lebanese have already been killed.

But I would like to share hope as well. Tonight I attended a vigil at Greenlake. It was a vigil for peace, for those lost, and for those trapped. It was put together in a mere two days, but you'd never have known it - I estimate attendance at around 200, there were a variety of speakers (a religious leader from the Northgate mosque, a pastor from the UCC, and Judith Kolokoff of Jewish Voice for Peace, amongst others). The vigil was attended by people of all backgrounds and faiths, of all ages. It was particularly heartening to see children holding signs for peace after photos of children signing missiles and other photos of children on the receiving end of those missiles [caution on the link - extremely graphic, but that is the true face of war]. I will post pictures from the vigil as soon as they are available to me.

The movement for peace will continue, and it will grow. I hope you will join us. I will provide updates about events as I hear about them, but be prepared for a march either this week or this weekend. We are financing this war and the casualties that come with - it is up to us to end the deaths.

Jesus wept

2006-07-22T12:56:00.000-07:00

Israeli children sign shells to be fired into Lebanon
[found at Religious Liberal]

Chapter Three of the Prophet Micah: (this is startlingly relevant for today)

And I said: Listen, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Should you not know justice?— you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron. Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have acted wickedly. Thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who lead my people astray, who cry “Peace” when they have something to eat, but declare war against those who put nothing into their mouths. Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision, and darkness to you, without revelation. The sun shall go down upon the prophets, and the day shall be black over them; the seers shall be disgraced, and the diviners put to shame; they shall all cover their lips, for there is no answer from God.
But as for me, I am filled with power, with the spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin. Hear this, you rulers of the house of Jacob and chiefs of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong! Its rulers give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for a price, its prophets give oracles for money; yet they lean upon the Lord and say, “Surely the Lord is with us! No harm shall come upon us.” Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed as a field; Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins, and the mountain of the house a wooded height.

from the Book of Common Prayer, page 816:

O God, the Parent of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies:
Lead them and us from prejudice to truth;
Deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty, and revenge;
and in your good time enable us all to stand reconciled before you;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

2006-07-21T15:53:00.000-07:00

Due to a recent attack by a SpamBot, comments will require word verification from this point forward. A minor, yet necessary, inconvenience. Anonymous comments are still welcome.

Take Action

2006-07-20T09:17:00.000-07:00

In addition to attending the protest this Friday at Westlake Center, you can take action by contacting your elected officials. My letter is below - focus on the humanitarian disaster for the people of Lebanon and the Palestinian territories which is currently being supported by the United States.

My letter to Senators Murray and Cantwell:

Senator Murray,

I am gravely concerned today about the ongoing support of the United States for the military actions of the Israeli government. While Israel has a right to defend itself from attacks, that right does not extend to the destruction of civilian infrastructure in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon, such as the power plant in Gaza, the Palentinian Prime Minister's Office, the civilian airport in Lebanon, major arterials that allow for transport of humanitarian assistance, or other non-military targets. These targets have been struck with military equipment provided by or purchased with funds from the United States and I am gravely concerned about our complicity in the attacks upon civilian infrastructure.

Any solution to this crisis must start with peace, empower an independent Lebanese government, and address the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

I ask you to stand up and ask the important questions that need to be asked about our continued support for al thel actions of the state of Israel and the resulting complicity of the United States.

Yours,

Karl D. Smith

Article by Buchanan

2006-07-19T22:30:00.000-07:00

Pat Buchanan today published an article today based on what he said the other day on CNN. At the time, I saw he was on there and was drawn to the television to hear what lunacy he would speak, but - shockingly - he made points that are chillingly accurate. I certainly don't agree with every point he makes, but the overall perspective I share. Below is a brief excerpt:

"Israel has a right to defend herself, a right to counterattack against Hezbollah and Hamas, a right to clean out bases from which Katyusha or Qassam rockets are being fired....

But what Israel is doing is imposing deliberate suffering on civilians, collective punishment on innocent people, to force them to do something they are powerless to do: disarm the gunmen among them. Such a policy violates international law and comports neither with our values nor our interests...."

*****

For those tired of feeling powerless, please join me and others for a rally later this week.

Rally to End the Attacks on Lebanon
Friday, July 21 - 5:00pm - 6:00pm
Westlake Center (4th and Pine)

Because PEACE is in everyone's long-term interests

Pulling in Perspective

2006-07-18T17:55:00.000-07:00

Peace is in everyone's long-term interest.

President Bush and many in the American media continue to characterize Israel's attacks upon Lebanon as an act of defense in response to an unprovoked attack. In my first post on the current events I showed how the strike by Hezbollah hardly occurred in isolation. I want to push that a bit notion a bit further - this time looking forward.

The continued occupation of the Palestinian territories (which is deliberate, brutal, and illegal) by the Israeli military breeds resentment, and justifiably so. That resentment is hardly limited to the territories themselves. Some take that resentment too far and commit the violence they deplore, but this is a common result of occupation (particularly after the deaths of over 3,000 people between the years 2000 and 2004 alone). For each person killed by the Israeli military, greater resentment grows for the surviving family and friends. This is true no matter how "accidental" the incident is said to be. The principle works in reverse, of course, explaining the natural calls for military actions against groups such as Hezbollah. And herein lies the problem.

Even if Israel moves into Lebanon and successfully disarms Hezbollah (and history is not on the side of this sort of action being successful), in doing so they have already caused hundreds of civilian deaths, breeding yet more resentment for Israel. In the long-term, these heavy-handed actions, particularly the targeting of civilian infrastructure make Israel far less safe. Of course, any long-term plan for the security of Israel MUST include an end to the occupation and the creation of a truly autonomous Palestinian state. (On this matter, there is an excellent free documentary available - set aside an hour and half and prepare to learn).

Peace in the short-term is vital, but not at the expense of peace in the long-term. Yesterday, Tony Blair and Kofi Annan put forth a plan for a U.N. force, empowered to end the violence against both Lebanon and Israel, to be dispatch to the area to stabilize the situation. This option is far preferable to perpetuating the violence (though our president doesn't seem to agree).

As I mentioned at the outset of this post, Peace is in everyone's long-term interest.

Update on the Attack on Lebanon

2006-07-16T21:09:00.000-07:00

The situation has worsened, but I'm certain no one is surprised by that. It is the natural result of the repeated escalation of violence by all involved. Hezbollah's attacks on the civilian population in Israel have worsened and Israel continues further into the trap of escalating violence. Certainly, Hezbollah's attacks must be stopped. In its public statements, however, even Israel seems to agree that the best method to accomplish this would be for the Lebanese military to reassert control of southern Lebanon, over the Hezbollah militants. (I must laugh, however, as Israel demands Lebanon comply with U.N. resolutions. Perhaps Israel should first take its own advice? also here or here or here... this could go on a very long time...) This all brings us to today's actions.

First, Hezbollah struck the city of Haifa, killing 8 Israelis (this in addition to numerous other strikes on Israeli cities further north). Israel, for its part, continued its bombing of cities in Lebanon. This included as attack on a Lebanese civil defense building. This "tactic" baffles me, for if Israel were serious about allowing Lebanon to regain control of its southern regions from Hezbollah, it would surely refrain from destroying the state's infrastructure. This is a common tactic of Israel's - in response to attacks by militants in the occupied territories of Palestine, Israel attack the Palestinian infrastructure that would be necessary to prevent such attacks (police departments, government buldings, etc).

It is quite disturbing that as Hezbollah launches rockets at civilian targets in Israel they have killed 23 Israelis. And yet Israel, which purports to lead the way in minimizing civilian casualties, has killed over 130 people (including 6 Canadians in Lebanon). The attacks by Hezbollah
on Israeli cities serve only to strengthen the resolve of Israel and the attacks by Israel on the insfrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza only strengthen the resolve of Hezbollah and other groups.

I would reiterate that my concern here is not necessarily Israel's pursuit of Hezbollah - the group made itself a legitimate target through its strike on an Israeli military post and its continuing attacks on Israeli civilians furth demonstrate its illegitimacy (how can they denounce Israel when they are engaged in simliar actions?). My concern is with how Israel is carrying out its actions -
the destruction of civilian infrastructure, the elimination of Lebanese government facilities, and the resultant deaths of civilians.

It is heartening to be reminded that even in Israel there are those who understand:

In Tel Aviv, about 2,000 people, both Jewish and Arab, marched to demand an end to the Israeli offensive in Lebanon.

Peace, it seems, is in everyone's best interests.

Background Reading (Primers on Palestine)

A brief post-WWI history of Palestine from the U.N.

A website containing figures on the historical population of Palestine from the U.N.

A more thorough primer from The Middle EastResearch and Information Report.

A doctrine, a dilemma, a decision

2006-07-16T19:41:00.000-07:00

As I sit in an air-conditioned hotel room here in San Diego watching rogue Israel's wildly immature "response" to Hezbollah and Palestinian militants, I'm reminded of the affluent American's privilege of being able to quite literally live outside of history. We are supposedly a nation at war (Karl debunks this effectively in an earlier post), and even if we are "only" an occupying power, the fact remains that back at home, life rolls forward ever fatter, ever more carefree, and ever more innocently. It sickens me that our nation isn't also suffering to the same extent of suffering we cause in order to bolster our decadence - and then it shames me that I can't find the moral fiber to give up my decadence for long enough to change anything. Fucking shameful.

This is what I mean by living out of history - nothing in America changes anymore. What's given seems to be given - the winners have won, the losers have lost, and that's all there is to it. The nation exists in some collective "end-of-the-movie" bubble. What has happened to our ability to imagine an existence of peace with justice for all people?

It is doubly frustrating that I can't see it because, as a self-professed "Christian", I am supposed to be proclaiming a new order of peace with justice to the entire world: a.k.a. "the Gospel."

The so-called Bush Doctrine is an example of Christian blindness to real peace with justice. I've pieced together its crucial elements from the National Security Strategy of the United States of America:

"We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or
provide aid to them. ...we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to
exercise our right of selfdefense by acting preemptively against such
terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our
country. ...[We will deny] further sponsorship, support, and
sanctuary to terrorists by convincing or compelling states to accept their
sovereign responsibilities." [source]

It is a reckless denial of human dignity and diversity to pave over long-developed differences and divisions that exist within a society and, instead, simply consider it a monolithic "enemy." And even more reckless that such a base simplification of circumstances is accompanied above by the threat of "preemptive" military force and "compulsion" of states to do America's bidding! Disgusting.

It's no surprise, then, to see Israel simply following the lead of Mother Hawk. The destruction of vast swaths of civilian infrastructure in "retaliation" for extremist attacks? According to the Bush Doctrine, it seems to amount to nothing more than "convincing or compelling states to accept their sovereign responsibilities." Not only does the Doctrine legitimate Israel's action, it almost actively encourages it. Rogue Israel's campaign against free and innocent people is a pall against humanity itself - the argument that "they" attacked first doesn't cut it for me, and nor should it satisfy any Christian person. After all, the central figure of our religion told us, "If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also." (Jesus has more to say on this topic, by the way.)

I don't think Jesus is calling us to stand by while violence is happening - he merely warns of the folly of responding to violence with even more violence. Our reactions to wrath and destruction must be tempered with respect, tolerance, dignity, patience, and peace.

Perhaps some feel that "now" is not that time to talk of dignity and tolerance when people are dying. I'd say it's actually the perfect time - a conversation long overdue - and additionally, I'm sick of hearing people pretend as if the idea of "now" was real to them. Let all middle-to-upper class Americans, rich and drunk off of the spoils of Empire, admit to each other and to the rest of humanity that there is no "now" for America. If there were, we would be feeling it. But where do we really FEEL the occupation of Iraq? Do we feel the genocide in the Sudan? Do we feel hunger of North Koreans? Do we feel the plight of a half-century of systematic explusion of Palestinians by the Israeli government? We only engage in "now" whenever it suits us - when we are assured of our unquestioned ascendancy. When facing uncertainty, we much prefer to wallow in our pioneer innocence, watching history whiz by us like fish behind the glass. Do we really resemble a nation that feels responsible to the rest of the world?

No, no, no, no, no - I think history compels us to recognize just how complicated our times are, and to respond not in ignorant, simplifying fear, but in complex love and discerning hope. Can we imagine a discussion of violence where we don't always revert to creating enemies and out-groups? Can we imagine a peace where even those who do us harm do so knowing that they are welcome back to the table?

I am commanded by my God to not only imagine it, but to make it happen. Lately, it's been really fucking frustrating. But what else is there to hold on to? I want to be an American in history. I want to rejoin my people. Come with, because I don't think I have the courage to do it alone.

"Therefore, never send to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." - John Donne

Proportionality (or how Israel is flaunting international law)

2006-07-15T10:47:00.000-07:00

What is it about the principle of proportionality which the government of Israel refuses to comprehend? Before I go any further, allow me to provide you with a list of recent actions that have led us to where we find ourselves today. Keep in mind, of course, there is FAR MORE influencing the current situation, but these are the most recent actions:

Militants strike a point of the Egyptian border, capturing an Israeli soldier

In response, Israel enters Gaza, destroying a power plant relied upon by 700,000 civilians. Those civilians will be without power for at least 6-7 months. Additionally, Israel shells open areas in civilian neghborhoods in Gaza.

Hezbollah attacks an Israeli check point on the border of Lebanon, killing one Israeli soldier and capturing two.

Israel strikes cities in Lebanon, including a civilian airport in Beirut, public transportation systems, bridges, and even a refugee convoy.

Hezbollah indiscriminately strikes various Israeli cities, killing civilians in those cities.

Is this not the same principle at play throughout history? The very one decried in Dr. Strangelove? Violence begets violence. Israel has done nothing but escalate violence. Where a total of 3 soldiers had been captured in two strikes, at least 8 Israeli soldiers are now dead. At least 4 Israeli civilians are dead. At least 80 Lebanese civilians are dead. Hundreds more have been wounded. (All this is detailed here). And all this says nothing about the hundreds of thousands in the occupied territory of Palestine who have been deprived of power and the attendant emergency services. Israel has repeatedly struck the civilian infrastructure in the territories they occupy, attacking, in recent days alone, the Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Treasury Department.

Please do not misunderstand me, I am in no way excusing the actions of the militants or claiming Israel should not pursue the militants and retrieve their captured soldiers. But the Israeli government has gone FAR beyond any form of 'measured response.' It has repeatedly and intentionally targeted civilians infrastructure - a clear violation on international law. (Though Israel has refused to sign many of the treaties, the targeting of civilians infrastructure is part of customary international law, which applies to everyone, regardless of treaty provisions). I will also say that as a nation professing to observe human rights, I hold Israel to a high standard.

Finally, I absolutely deplore the statements of the Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations on CNN last night (and Lou Dobbs, who let him get away with it). First, he said that all Muslims *MAY* not be terrorists, but that all terrorists were Muslim. The picture he painted was one in which Islam is the enemy, which it is not. Those who escalate violence are the true enemies to peace, and at the moment that includes Hezbollah, other militant groups, and the State of Israel. This problem is our problem (for peace is in the interest of all of us) and this violence is our violence (for many of the bombs and jets that are killing civilians were paid for funding from the United States).

[Regrettably I am on the go, but this post cannot wait. If there is a fact in want of a citation, please ask in the comment section. The facts are based on that which I have read and seen, but my internet connection is currently too slow to access the resources necessarily to full cite facts. Also, if you wish to take action and the demand the U.S work for peace instead of offering almost bling support for Israel's military actions, call your senators. Here are the numbers for Washington State's senators:

Sen. Murray - (202) 224-2621

Sen. Cantwell - (202) 224-3441

This is an issue we cannot afford to ignore - people are suffering and dying as you read this.]

I do hope Alex will post, elaborating on the idea of this situation as a ntural extension of the "Bush Doctrine". I'm also certain this post will not be my last on the matter.

Conservatives Try to Buy State Supreme Court

2006-07-12T21:37:00.000-07:00

Excellent article in the Seattle PI this morning regarding a race for the State Supreme Court. It details the race between current Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and a puppet of conservative interest groups - John Groen.

To briefly summarize the article, the State Legislature passed a law that took effect June 7th which limited campaign contributions for judicial candidates to $2,800. Gerry Alexander, acknowledging the reasoning behind the law and its benefit, agreed to follow those rules even prior to them being put into effect. His opponent accepted nine donations between $10,000 and $25,000 right up until the law took effect.

Legal? Sure. But think of it like environmental regulations - shouldn't companies comply with beneficial regulations even before the government gains the power to enforce them? Would it be right for a company to dump every last ounce of chemicals into a river the day before it became illegal to do so? Of course not. Massive amounts of money donated from interest groups to judicial candidates have a similar polluting effect. The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) has provided the primary backing of Groen's campaign - if he wants to be reelected he needs their support, and to get their support, he knows how he'll have to rule. The Association knows it too and they're trying to buy a vote on the State Supreme Court. In fact, they're trying to buy several votes, as the article demonstrates.

So who is this BIAW? They're hardly new to the political scene. In fact, they're essentially a front group for hard-line conservatives. Last year they considered an anti-union initiative in Washington (don't assume the issue is dead...); they poured money into electing Rossi and then into overturning the gubernatorial election results; they even sued over the inclusion of Orcas of the Endangered Species list. Here's a profile from detailing their direct donations.

I have zero doubt that this will be a scary election for the State Supreme Court. The conservatives have their ill-gotten money and are enlisting large numbers of volunteers. Get involved! Learn more about Chief Justice Alexander and Justice Susan Owens, spread the word to support their campaigns and, by extension, the integrity of the state's legal system. If you can donate, do!

What war?

2006-07-05T12:47:00.001-07:00

Republicans seem to have but one justification these days: "We are at war." This is used to justify all sorts of proposals, such as villifying the media generally for doing its job, not voting for Democrats (of course), and even executing individuals accused of treason. There's a problem here though - we're not actually at war.

I'd already been planning a blog entry on this very subject when I received the latest article from the Rockridge Institute, an organization headed by George Lakoff. The article made the vision far more concise than I had been able to formulate prior to reading it. But I get ahead of myself.

By now, I hope it is clear that the "War on Terror" is simply a buzzword for an ongoing struggle against terrorism. Terrorism is a threat we have always faced, from both domestic and international groups and individuals. We need to be ever vigilant, but it is not exactly a new phenomenon. To say that we are at "war" with terrorism, thereby justifying the traditional deprivation of liberty attendant with a time of war is to forever surrender those liberties, for terrorism will always be a threat. Terrorism CAN, however, be combatted quite effectively even without treating it as a war.

The other war so frequently referenced, and the one dealt with by the Rockridge Institute's latest article, is the "War in Iraq." That war, however, is long over. It ended with the defeat of the Iraqi military, several years ago. What we are currently engaged in is the occupation of Iraq. Occupations are often bloody and resistance organizations often engage occupying forces. This, too, is nothing new (nor was it by any means unpredictable). Particularly in the case of Iraq, which has little to nothing to do with the terrorism continually threatening the U.S., there is simply no justification for depriving the American people of any liberties they would otherwise enjoy.

Seeing through the smoke and mirrors of our current 'war' one finds only hollow excuses by an administration seeking to justify its own actions. Those justifications, if unchallenged, threaten to permanently rob of us our liberty.

A theological response to "wedge issues"

2006-06-30T14:18:00.000-07:00

This is what I really wanted to say about the whole "flag-burning" mess, and the plethora of stupid "issues" that are spewed at us in this crossfire democracy we live in. Both parties are very guilty, though President Bush bears greatest responsibility since he has the ability to set the manner of dialogue.

The Bible contains a particularly relevant and useful story to these political times. The Prince of Egypt leaves us off at around Exodus 15 - if you recall, there was a big fuss about Hebrew slaves and freedom and parting the sea.

In "the book", the Hebrews are now on their own, wandering across the desert to reach the Promised Land. Along the way, they stop to camp at the base of Mount Sinai, where Moses is led to climb the mountain in order to receive the Law from God.

Apparently, God has more than a few instructions to give (it's true: see chapters 20-31 of Exodus), or is simply enjoying Moses' stimulating conversation. Either way, the prophet Moses is detained for quite a while, and the people at the bottom of the mountain grow impatient. They complained to Aaron, the interim leader, "Come, make gods for us, who shall go before us; as for this man Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him." Aaron decides to put together all their gold jewelry in order to melt it down and recast it as a golden calf for the people to worship in the meantime. They said, "These are your gods, O Israel..." (Exodus 32).

I wonder - maybe our nation is at the bottom of a mountain, waiting for some new order to descend upon us. Maybe some of us have grown impatient and fearful in an increasingly complicated time. Are our leaders more like Moses, climbing mountains to seek justice and truth, or are they more like Aaron, appeasing the fears of the masses through false fixes?

Let's reject the golden calves that are being put before us by Democrats and Republicans alike - we can't afford to bow down to idle-issues (pun intended) like gay marriage, "the war on terror", flag burning, or gas prices (which are still far cheaper here than most of the West). We must demand that our leaders climb the mountains, and if they're unwilling, we do it ourselves. I've seen so much pandering to tepid, inadequate leadership during my tenure in the student government - some people call this "being realistic." I think it's accepting a life wandering the desert when we have the potential to reach something much better - I hope people expect more, because then we can do more. This, ultimately, seems to be a central part of the Christian message in regards to civic engagement.

"What does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" - Micah 6:8

"Desecration" as "respecting establishment"?

2006-06-30T09:11:00.000-07:00

I posted earlier about America's "military idolatry" - the notion that the soldier is a sacrosanct element of our national culture, and that the military, because it is seen as the means for our collective mission to save the world, is literally above democratic criticism.

If militarism is the national cult, then the flag is its standard.

Karl makes an astute observation about the use of the word "desecration" in the ridiculuous amendment that all but passed the Senate:

The Congress shall have the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Already in the Constitution is this familiar phrase:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

If "desecration" still means "the act of depriving something of its sacred character" (which it does), wouldn't the insertion of a clause prohibiting any type of "desecration" contradict the First Amendment?

This issue obviously runs deeper than constitutional semantics... Americans REALLY see the flag as sacred - our national relic. This implies many other sentiments as well - if our national symbol is sacred, than surely our nationhood is sacred. If our nationhood is sacred (chosen), then surely our mission and purposes are also ordained by the divine.

I suppose I wouldn't burn the flag, either - but frankly, it has much less to do with my devotion to the flag than it does with the unwillingness to flagrant insult the religion of other people. Likewise, I don't think Karl would ever spitefully rip up a Bible in front of me - and it has nothing to do with Karl's reverence for the Holy Scriptures (and trust me - there's no love lost between Karl and the Bible).

Somehow, though, we need to move on from this self-aggrandizing, arrogant view of our own nationality. Is the flag of the United States more sacred than the flag of Mexico, or of France? The amendment would seem to establish that it is. What sort of democracy exists under a sacred banner? Where the nation's motives and actions are protected under a godly cloth? It's a democracy where some but not all questions are askable, and some but not all answers are necessary. It's really not a democracy at all.

Burning of the American Flag

2006-06-28T21:46:00.000-07:00

I was struck today that a constitutional amendment to allow the outlawing of burning the American flag failed in the Senate by a mere vote. Later, I saw yet another article about the proposed Freedom Tower that is to replace the World Trade Center towers. And then a terrifying truth seized me: we have become a nation increasingly concerned with symbols of freedom, while simultaneously less concerned with the principles and practices of it.

The supposed "Flag Desecration Amendment" is the perfect example of this. I shall allow the supporters of the amendment to speak to their motivations in their own words:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) – "Throughout the history of our country, our flag has given the brave men and women serving in uniform the strength to persevere and protect the freedoms that are a foundation of our way of life. We owe them – and we owe all Americans – an amendment that would guarantee the preservation of the honor, integrity, and history represented in that flag."

Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) - “Countless men and women have died defending that flag. It is but a small humble act for us to defend it."

These arguments, typical of arguments advanced by many proponents, turn on this amendment somehow being a necessary service to veterans. Interestingly, while these two non-veterans argue that it is necessary to outlaw the “desecration” of the American flag, a fellow senator who is himself a veteran of the U.S. military argued against the proposed amendment.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) "...I believe Americans gave their lives in the many wars to make certain that all Americans have a right to express themselves, even those who harbor hateful thoughts."

For me, this speaks to a larger point. No man or woman dies for a piece of cloth. No, what we admire, indeed what our society reveres, about the flag is the symbolism inherent to it. The American flag symbolizes freedom and liberty, sources of pride for Americans since the nation’s inception. The greatest liberty, to my mind, is the freedom to openly challenge one’s government, it is the freedom which allows liberty to protect itself. This proposed amendment would have strongly curtailed that freedom in the name of protecting a symbol of freedom. We would protect the symbol of freedom while actively impinging upon the practice of it. It genuinely baffles the mind.

This issue is an exceedingly deep one and I have left the vast majority of it unexamined (What is the meaning of 'desecration'? How did election year politics play into this vote? What is the role of the military in the public psyche? Is it wise to amend the Constitution to overturn part of the Bill of Rights? Why do we allow this all to happen? So on and so on). I do hope my esteemed colleague will contribute his thoughts and that you contribute yours in the comments as well.

General Convention III - Lessons on Activism and Change

2006-06-19T19:05:00.000-07:00

Exactly thirty years ago, at the 1976 Episcopal General Convention, women were, for the first time, allowed to be delegates from their local regions. Not completely surprisingly, the 1976 Convention also authorized allowing women to become ordained as deacons, priests, and bishops. Women now make up just over 20% of the clergy of the Episcopal Church (source: Louie Crew).

Yesterday afternoon, my friends and I waited through hours of mind-numbing procedural debate in the House of Deupties to hear the results of the closed election at the House of Bishops. The bishops had been bused about eight blocks to an Episcopal church in the middle of Downtown Columbus and were sequestered there until a candidate for Presiding Bishop (the highest-ranking clergy position in the American church) achieved a majority of votes (yes, Karl, we use a version of run-off voting).

Finally, we were informed that representatives of the House of Bishops had arrived to deliver a special envelope to the Deputies' Committee on Consecration of Bishops - the envelope contained the election results. The air electrified, and the enormous convention hall started to bulge at the sides as the people continued to pack in for the news. Grain by grain, the moments dripped by as the crowd inched closer to the edge of their seats. My mind was on nothing else - I hung on every word, waiting for two of them to be, "And now..."

"And now..." began the President of the House. We all suddenly realized that the time had come. A profound gravity took hold of the room as 3,000 anxious Episcopalians interrupted their breathing. The President introduced the Chair of the Committee on Bishops, who was responsible for verifying the results. The Chair walked slowly to the podium and greeted us, his transfixed captives. My jaw was already open.

"The committee has received the results of the election by the House of Bishops..."

History raised its eyebrow.

"...and moves consent for the 26th Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church..."

History turned its head.

"...the Right Reverend..."

History waited.

"...Katharine..."

Quite literally, a windy gasp rippled throughout the assembly. I looked at my friends sitting around me, both women, eyes bigger than their faces.

"...Jefferts Schori."

The deed was done. The entire chamber erupted into wild shouts of joy and roaring applause. History smiled.

The House of Deputies still had to vote its consent to the choice of the bishops. But before it did, one by one, women crowded the eight microphones and gave their testimonies. Sixty, seventy, eighty year-old women recalled how hard they had fought to even be allowed a vote at the Convention. Twenty, thirty, forty year-old women spoke of how excited they were to tell their daughters that their bishop was a sister. A few men (no women, I should note) stood up against Jefferts Schori, saying her election would cut us off even further from the rest of the world church. But more men spoke of how they were excited to now celebrate with their wives.

Next to me and in front of me, as I listened to the testimony, elderly women were smiling so broadly - I realized that I had no conception of how vindicated they must feel. Thirty years ago, these women were radical pioneers of progress - now one of their own would be representing all women everywhere in conversations that previously have never fallen on female ears. Many had water in their eyes, trickling down their cheeks and into the happy corners of their beaming lips.

My friend Karl gives advice on successful activism - it's important to re-iterate that he is NOT calling for compromise.

Where they met opposition, they didn’t belittle those challenging them, they
engaged those individuals in dialogue, eventually persuading the vast majority.

This was exactly how Episcopal women achieved their right to vote (in fucking 1973!) and then consequently their access to ordination. They put forth very clearly that they were equally valued and spiritually sensitive as men were - no qualifiers or exceptions. They did not convince people by villifying those who disagreed with them - they did so by showing their love for their church and for the people in it. As a related aside, it was the opponents of the women who did the vilifying, declaring those who supported the ordination of women as "betrayers of Scripture" and "revisionist."

But they were not shaken: the women engaged their opponents with their honest interests fully visible - they wanted full inclusion, and that is exactly what they demanded. They didn't curl up into balls of self-comforting isolation whenever they encountered dissent: rather, they steered themselves deliberately into those shaky waters in order to listen, learn, discuss, and reconcile.

I think the ridiculous events put on by the UW College Republicans are seen by members of that group as attempts to "engage opponents" and "steer into dissent" - but the intention of these events is clearly NOT reconciliation.

Wherever activism's real goal is to reconcile differences for the sake of mutual progress - rather than to convince (another way to say "conquer") or to silence - activism becomes change. I witnessed the fruits of this yesterday night. People are very excited. I just got handed an awesome pink button pin that reads "It's a girl!" with the new bishop's name on it.

So, as a footnote to Karl's excellent article, I would urge progressives to ask themselves, in whatever they're doing or strategizing about, "Why are we here?"

Ingredients of Successful Activism

2006-06-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

Below is an article I wrote for Ruckus, a progressive newspaper at the University of Washington (one that, sadly, wasn't published at all during the 2005-2006 school year). Hopefully the summer edition will be published, as they solicited a number of progressive leaders on campus for tips about successful activism.

Don't lose sight!
By Karl Smith

It’s easy to make fun of the College Republicans. Their annual events include an "Animal Rights BBQ," where they grill the flesh of the animals - a striking statement on the Republican understanding of the term "rights;" a "Conservative Coming Out Day" which attempts to equate admitting oneself as a member of a group that controls the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary branches to being a member of a group that is constantly threatened with state and federal constitutional amendments diminishing one's personhood; and, of course, the "Affirmative Action Bake Sale," an annual attempt to again appear on the O'Reilly Factor by marginalizing the value of underrepresented students and completely ignoring social and institutional forces of inequality. These are laughable events in that they are examples of what I’ll term 'bad activism.'

Step back for a moment and consider what exactly it is we're trying to accomplish through our activism on campus. This sounds trivial, but it’s not; the College Republicans aren't the only ones who don't get it. It can be a whole lot of fun to hold an event for progressives to get together and satirically deride our opponents – it's certainly not difficult these days – and I’m not trying to diminish the occasional holding of such events, but they shouldn’t be the primary focus of our activism and advocacy work. We need to reach out BEYOND the progressive community to those who otherwise be apathetic or even opposed to us; we need to communicate our moral vision in a way that’s accessible to everyone.

This might strike you as a daunting task, but it's far from impossible. Consider the remarkable achievements of the Fair Trade Coffee Coalition (FTCC) this year. They convinced Housing and Food Services and Tully's Coffee Company to offer a Fair Trade Certified espresso blend. Though they're not finished transforming the UW into a 100% Fair Trade Certified coffee campus, they accomplished the enormous task of convincing students across campus, especially those beyond the progressive community, of the value of Fair Trade Certified coffee. They successfully communicated the moral vision that we have a duty to those who produce the products we consume. Indeed, by the end the few remaining opponents of the FTCC accepted the value of Fair Trade Certification but fell back on the argument that they demanded the right to choose between exploitative and non-exploitative products (may I nominate this for Conservative Argument of the Year?). So how did the FTCC get there? Unlike the CRs, the FTCC went to other groups across campus, such as the ASUW Student Senate and the Residence Hall Student Association, giving presentations about Fair Trade Certification and why it was a beneficial idea. Where they met opposition, they didn’t belittle those challenging them, they engaged those individuals in dialogue, eventually persuading the vast majority.

So how can you, as a progressive activist, ensure your advocacy and outreach are actually accomplishing something? First, make sure your outreach extends beyond those who already support your cause. Design your publicity to attract those who would otherwise be apathetic or even disagree with you. Second, step back and consider the event from the point of view of your opponents – will you further alienate them or engage them in further dialogue, thus creating the opportunity to change their position? Finally, remember that language matters! Frame your ideas in ways that communicate, and are consistent with, your moral vision. For more on this, George Lakoff's Don’t Think of an Elephant! is the perfect starting point.

Positive progressive change IS possible and can start right here on the University of Washington campus. There’s no time like the present for bringing it about.

General Convention II - Immigration Speech

2006-06-14T20:42:00.000-07:00

I feel like a newsreel - everything I'm reporting from the Convention is about a day late because I'm just not finding very much time to really say what I want to say here.

The Millenium Development Goals have emerged as the biggest topic of discussion besides all the "gay stuff"... the MDGs are also a part of the "ONE Campaign" that we've all heard a lot about from people like Bono. The idea with ONE is that if every person and institution in the developed world gave only 0.7% of their annual revenue towards alleviating impoverished conditions, extreme poverty would be eradicated by 2015. Already, many regional divisions of the Episcopal Church (called "dioceses") give 0.7% of their budgets, and all churchmembers are encouraged to do the same themselves. The resolutions at hand call for the national church to follow suit - this would be a huge boost for the ONE campaign.

But, of course, straight men just can't get enough of talking about gay men - and so the only issue the mainstream press cares about from the General Convention is the issue of the gay bishop we elected in 2003. Some are calling for the Church to officially "express regret" about what it did. Considering that I found the Episcopal Church and eventually became Episcopalian exactly because I saw a Church going through an honest and open discussion of sexuality. In fact, it was right around the same time that I was really coming out to myself that I started to look for a church again - and the Episcopal Church welcomed me. Should it "express regret" for me, and for the countless others it has drawn in from the cold by being so inclusive? I think not.

On the 13th (yesterday), I testified to the Church's National and International Concerns Committee about a resolution proposed to adopt a new document as part of the Church's policy on immigration. The document ("The Alien Among You" - located just above the resolution in the link above) is a good step, but misses some fundamental concerns such as more protection against criminalization of humanitarian aid for migrants at the border, deeper reform of the path towards legal residency and citizenship to make these paths more accessible, and opposition to militarization of the border and vigilante activity by groups like the "Minutemen."

In the Christian spirit, here is my resurrected speech:

Resolution A017 is a good step forward for the Church's policy on immigration. It makes some crucial recognitions such as recognizing that a system which forces immigrants to live in fear and hiding creates an underground world where they are subject to exploitation, that the system of attaining residency is broken, and that xenophobia since 9-11 has sharply increased. A good summary of the document is made near its end: "Let us not fear being agents of generosity and abundance."

However, several key shortcomings to the document make it incomplete as the Church's holistic policy. My colleagues will review several of these - I would like to highlight the issue of border militarization and vigiliantism.

We see that President Bush recently deployed about 5,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. The federal government recently approved funds for the construction of a fence - I ask you here, does a fence keep "them" in or does it keep us in?

Especially here in Columbus, the idea of a border fence is especially ironic, considering we meet today in a city named after a gentleman, who, with good intentions, nevertheless inaugurated the age of European border drawing around the world.

If we are truly committed to the radical hospitality of Christ as key to our ongoing conversion and salvation, we can't stand by and watch as guests to the Wedding Banquet are blocked from entering or even actively being thrown out, as is the case with the Minutemen.

The document and A017 are good steps towards addressing what we recognize to be an issue that violent and fearful reaction cannot solve. I believe that this resolution should be amended to not only adopt the document as our policy-in-progress, but to call for further development of the document that could address these and other concerns.

The ability of people to pursue a different life in America is the unique American ministry to the world. We as the American church have a chance to speak for the extension of this ministry to all of God's honored guests, non of whom we are entitled to turn away, none of whom could ever be called "illegal."

General Convention I - Introduction

2006-06-13T20:16:00.000-07:00

I've found the first real "me" time at this whole thing... I'm sitting in an alcove by the lobby of my hotel here in Columbus because I've been hoping for a while for the chance to "blog" this convention.

In a nutshell - I've never seen so many collars in one place before. The General Convention of the Episcopal Church draws about 10,000 people every three years to some unfortunate place in the country - this year, Columbus, Ohio. It's a great city, much to my surprise. We discovered later that something is terribly wrong with this place: the city is completely spotless. I have yet to see a SINGLE piece of stray litter flapping around in the breeze along the sidewalk. Barely even a crumb - for proof of this, also consider the fact that I have not even seen a single PIGEON yet. People are friendly, service is good, and food is tasty. I came up with the theory that beneath the streets in an ancient sewer system, an underground underclass lives off of the city's trash - thus, none is seen.

After pulling into the hotel at around 8:30pm on Sunday night the 11th, I was exhausted and also slightly nervous with anticipation about meeting my new colleagues and also my new roommate for the next eleven days. Great people, every single one of them. It's going to be a great time... these are going to be good friends.

A lot of people are pretty nervous about General Convention... at the last convention, the Church approved the election of an openly gay man (Gene Robinson) as a Bishop - this let the dogs out, for sure. Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh is waging a venomous verbal/psychological campaign of division against the rest of the church family because he and a gaggle of other "leaders" think the best way to address their disagreements of the issue of Bp. Robinson is to threaten to leave the church entirely!

Since I've been here, I've heard a lot of metaphors about the church as a family: people disagree, but they come together in the end at the Table to do those few pieces of truly inviolable business. As long as a family is able to share a Table, it also maintains a critical foundation for reconciliation and understanding. This was the hope of consecrating Gene Robinson - the initiation of a new dialogue.

Instead, the homophobes in the church (who annoyingly call themselves "traditional Christians" or "orthodox") have simply left the table altogether - I learned today that a group of them are meeting separately from the rest of the family for worship. How sad.

In the meanwhile, the Church is grappling many other issues (believe it or not, some Americans care about more than "pelvic politics")... the big buzz this year is around mobilizing the entire Church to rally for the Millenium Development Goals and the ONE Campaign to "Make Poverty History." I just came back from a Eucharist service that used all U2 songs - very cool.

I hope the Church can set an example for the world of what an intentional, tense, productive, familial democracy can look like. I wrote a letter to my friends along those lines - I might post that later. The point was, however, that the Church can show the world how to LIVE democracy.

Let's see.

"We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hatetheir brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brotheror sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must lovetheir brothers and sisters also." - 1 John 4:19

Opposing the 14th Amendment

2006-05-28T13:50:00.000-07:00

I've never had a great deal of love for the Washington State Republican Party (WSRP). Whether it was the vitriol I witnessed former chair Chris Vance spew forth on several occassions or their treatment of moderates in their midst such as Sam Reed, I've just not been impressed. Somehow Republicans in the State of Washington have generally adopted far-right positions, which generally strikes me as counter-productive in a generally liberal state. Now, though, they've really gone over the edge.

It seems the Washington State Republican Party is officially opposing the United States Constitution. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Constitution pretty clearly states that if you're born within the United States you're a citizen - that is a value we have long cherished and celebrated. So why has the WSRP staked out a position in defiance of this long-standing value?

I also want to clarify that opposing a provision in the Constitution isn't negative in and of itself; everything is up for debate and revision. That's a strength of our system. But amendments to the Constitution come at a very high threshold and indicate widely held values of the citizens of the time. So what has changed? It would be easy to point to xenophobia and nativism (two "values" of the United States that have continuously reemerged and been suppressed over time), but that fails to explain much. To be certain, immigration patterns have shifted from Western European nations to Eastern European, Southeast Asian, and Latin American nations. But what significance does that have? To understand the shift in cultural understanding we must turn to those most vocal in advocating the shift, and here I refer to tthe powerfully-influential conservative commentators. Rather than provide my own speculation , I'd like see some meaningful discussion on the subject in the comment section. [Of course, as virtually no one reads this, I'm not terribly optimistic this will go anywhere]

Turn the other cheek

2006-05-19T23:18:00.000-07:00

Yeah... Jesus said that. But who would guess that today?

I think that academic work is often a good opportunity to turn the lemons of life into lemonade by studying the hell out of something and making a better point. This is recently what I've done with the whole "Pappy" fiasco of earlier this year in February (check out Karl's original post, his follow-up post, and my post on this matter).

Below is an abridged and edited version of an essay I wrote for a class I am taking this quarter. If you want to skip ahead to my conclusion, just scroll to the text underneath the dotted lines.

---------------

On February 7, 2006, the Student Senate of the University of Washington, of which I am the Chair, voted to fail a resolution calling for a memorial to Col. Gregory Boyington. The vehement comments I received in response (many calling me ignorant, ungrateful, deserving of death or punishment) provided an unexpected firsthand education in America’s military idolatry – an idol worship rooted in American self-righteousness – a worship wherein we shirk greater duties to ourselves and our neighbors.

Andrew Bacevich defines American militarism as “a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and outsize expectations regarding the efficacy of force” (2). Over the course of his book, it becomes clear that our militarism requires a myth of “chosenness” in order to work. Myths, writes Bacevich, “enable us to sustain the belief that [soldiers]… are, in fact, bringing peace and light to troubled corners of the earth rather than pushing ever outward the perimeter of an American empire” (98).

America's special myth is a sense that our nation is specially favored to do God's will. Throughout U.S. history, leaders have constantly invoked America's special place in the world. William Stoughton, a 17th century settler, said, "God sifted a whole nation that he might send choice grain over into the wilderness." Senator Albert Beverige said in 1900, "[God] has given us the spirit of progress to overwhelm the forces of reaction throughout the earth… He has marked the American people as His chosen nation to finally lead in the redemption of the world!" Woodrow Wilson said, "These are American principles, American policies... they are the principles of mankind and must prevail." Explicitly Christian or not, the myth of "chosenness" is a constant thread in our history, and is obviously present in today's George W. Bush.

The problem is that a divine destiny requires a national commitment to this destiny. Bacevich writes, “For conservative Christians after Vietnam, the prerequisite for fulfilling America’s mandate as divine agent was the immediate reconstitution of U.S. military power” (135). Politicians turned military force into the means to fulfill our covenant obligations to God – and consequently, soldiers became the priests of this temple in Jerusalem, preparing sacrifices on behalf of the chosen nation (this is a reference to Second Temple Judaism - ask me if you want to learn more). Jerry Falwell called the American G-I “a champion for Christ”, and Billy Graham charged West Point graduates to “become the beacon lights to guide our nation…” (127, 141).

Robert Bellah wrote convincingly that America’s myth of chosenness, unaccompanied by a covenantal obligations to better the society, was leading the nation to disaster. But we see here that militarism is exactly how we see ourselves fulfilling the covenant after all. No surprise, then, that criticism of the military idol is taken as a polemic attack against these religious covenant duties – failure to immortalize a soldier is tantamount to desecration of a priest. Addressing educational inequality, environmental degradation, and criminal injustice become but leisurely tasks – the real work of republic is to fulfill this ordained, violent destiny. Heads turned to this false altar, what is it we ignore? Al Gore recently asked, “Is it possible that we should prepare against other threats besides terrorists?” Discourse must allow for reasoned dialogue about the use of force and the users of force without cries of heresy or treason. We owe much more to ourselves, our families, and our future - we owe much more to God.

---------------

I hereby call upon all people of faith to renounce the false religion of American militarism - the mindless veneration of soldiery, the justification of the sin of murder, the warping of the resources of God's Creation towards mutual destruction - it is all false, false, false. We have real work to do - to proclaim the love of God in ways that do not also contradict it. Is this "too idealistic"? Of course - how else can Christians be?

How do you like them apples?

Damn liberals

2006-05-14T11:13:00.000-07:00

Well it seems that once again the liberal media is turning to bleeding heart, immoral types to get soundbites about the Marriage Amendment. For example, look at this shoddy piece of work today:

"But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."

Wait, that was Laura Bush? On Fox News?? Oh well, at least Frist still got to look like a~~n ignorant asshole~~ true patriot.

On a less satirical note, I have long predicted that marriage equality is a winning issue. It's not easy, and the win may not be a short-term one, but when you talk to people, really engage them in conversation, the majority can come to understand. Appeal to their humanity, to their empathy for others. Appeal to someone they know, if possible. It's easy for them to criticize Rosie O'Donnell (or any impersonal celebrity) as a "dyke" but a co-worker, a neighbor, a friend, that's a human being they respect. Again, it's not easy - all these years later and I'm still working on my own family, but it's a battle worth fighting. If Laura Bush and Dick Cheney can come around, there's hope.

"The Best Justice Money Can Buy"

2006-03-31T13:25:00.000-08:00

All too often in our American legal system, we're left reflecting on the influence of money, believing that the wealthy have more ready access to "justice," that justice can somehow be purchased. While this claim has some element of truth, its automatic acceptance obscures the complete picture. Money, in and of itself, is irrelevant to the legal system. Try offering sums of money to a judge; you'll probably find yourself in even more dire straits (I hope!). No, what benefits one before the law is knowledge. Knowledge of statutes, knowledge of procedures, knowledge of the people within the law, knowledge of what strings to pull. More knowledgeable attorneys are generally those we consider "better" attorneys. This, then, is where we begin to discover one of the systemic problems of the legal system in our country. You see, those lawyers with knowledge tend to sell themselves (their services) to the highest bidder, so those with the most resources have better representation in the legal system and are thus more privileged.

This system seems utterly flawed. Justice shouldn't be apportioned based on the relative wealth of those before the system. At the risk of sounding revolutionary, I believe capitalist structures are entirely inappropriate within the legal system. Everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, is equally deserving of fair, competent, and knowledgeable counsel.

The news isn't all bad, though. There's a growing trend of law schools seeking to support students who desire to pursue a career in public interest law, as through Loan Repayment Assistance Programs (LRAPs) and scholarships. Law school is priced for those going into lucrative fields of law who will be able to pay off substantial loans and this proved a barrier to those who might otherwise have liked to enter the public interest field. Hopefullly this trend will continue and more attorneys will eventually end up devoting their careers to causes greater than the accrual of wealth; until then we can only hope that the best attorneys will increasingly dedicate their time to defending those without the financial means to otherwise acquire the best representation.

Crash with Mars Hill Church

2006-03-18T12:36:00.000-08:00

Mars Hill Church is the largest congregation in the county, with over 6,000 members attending seven services on Sundays (five in Ballard, two in Shoreline where the pastor's sermon is telecasted in). Mars Hill says "yes" to literal reading and strict interpretation of scripture, to intentionally intersecting the church with the culture (something it does beautifully well), extremely long sermons (average 75 minutes), and defining itself as standing in opposition to the secular tides of Seattle, which Pastor Mark Driscoll constantly refers to as "the least churched city in the nation."

Mars Hill says "no" to female pastoral leaders in the church and gays and lesbians anywhere in the church: as one can safely assume with most "megachurches", Mars Hill is theologically quite conservative. Which is why I was very interested in seeing how members and pastors at Mars Hill would handle the screening and discussion on Crash - the movie about race relations in L.A. that just won Best Picture at the Oscars - held yesterday evening in Ballard.

For me, at least, Crash was a compelling portrait of racism internalized and externalized at various levels - its clear message is that racism is still a major reality in our social fabric despite the rhetoric of progress we often hear. I was curious to see how the generally socially conservative people at Mars Hill would respond to this film with a pointedly progressive political message.

When you go out to a place expecting there to be a difference, you usually find it - this is the prime rule of ethnography, and also a major pitfall. You can't really force yourself not to filter your observations through your expectations - the only thing you can do is to admit your slants upfront before you write about the people you're with. In my case, I find much of Mars Hill's theology quite limiting and sometimes appallingly simplistic and exclusive - this is only exacerabated by its contradictory commitment to "engaging the culture" but at the same time often extolling itself as an island church in the ocean of depravity that is Seattle. This tends to make Mars Hill practical theology focus more on personal purity than on social justice - for this reason, I went in expecting a discussion filled with denial of the movie's real messages (at least as I saw them).

There were about 300 people sparsely filling the front half of Mars Hill's gigantic auditorium. A pastor named James began the evening with some disclaimers, saying, "People called with concerns that we were showing this movie. Some asked, 'Will you really show this unedited?'" I racked my brain for any scenes of especially gratuitous violence or sex in the film, but when I came up short, Pastor James revealed what was distressing some people: "A lot of f-words in this movie... this movie has more f-bombs than a Tarantino!" He invited people to bear through the profane language and try to understand the message, but stressed, "If it bothers you, go ahead and just leave."

(spoilers follow - do not read if you haven't seen the film!)

The scenes got similar reactions as I'd seen when I first saw the film in a theatre with my old roommate when it first came out. Everyone gasped when that little girl got "shot" in her front yard, same when Don Cheadle's brother got shot by Ryan Phillipe. Several people were sobbing heavily when Cheadle's mom saw the body and broke down, and especially when she said "Your brother came home. He bought me groceries. That's the last thing he did." For some reason, a sizable number of people around me laughed when we saw that the white van Ludacris stole was holding a group of Asian indentured migrants - this shocked me a little, and I said pretty loudly "That's really not funny." I had my hat off so that everyone could see I was Asian (a little hackery, I know) and that shut some people up. I don't attribute this laughter to Mars Hill, of course - anytime you watch a movie with a group of people, there are always people who find things funny that you find shocking. Of course, that doesn't mean I have to just take it.

The highlight of the evening was the post-film discussion - two pastors led the session. A pastor named Gary went through a brief sermon based off themes from the movie. He said right off the bat, "Hopefully, some of you tonight are pushing and prodding yourselves." He hit the nail on the head (as I see it) from the first minute by saying, "This movie highlights two sorts of racial tensions, one that exists on a personal level, and another that is systemic."

Crash served as a point of departure for a discussion of humanity's sin nature (a theology I don't think leads to very robust inspiration for life, but we'll get to that another time) - Pastor Gary said that there were four "reasons" for racism: personal sin, total depravity of mankind, ignorance, and the desire to attain worth and power through being racist. He said that the Biblical statement that humans were "created in the image of God" was a radically new vision of the equal worth of every person, regardless of their color. He called it "PC before PC ever existed" (this is interesting on many levels... the use of the term "PC" deserves some serious investigation).

He also asserted that Jesus himself was the victim of racism: "He was criticized, beat on, persecuted, and rejected by his own people." Apparently, Gary equated these things to being "racism". Later he said there were types of racism based not just on skin color, but also "religion, nationality, sex... any form of discrimination" (this tempts to further investigate what people mean by 'racism'). I wondered if he would include "sexual orientation" in that list.

Ultimately, it was a very compelling and powerful discussion - he said that Christians were called to a "ministry of reconciliation and redemption" and I think that is right on target. He encouraged people to go home and share the film with friends and spark good conversations about the issue of race. He said, "Just because it's systemic doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. ...There's hope in Jesus."

After the pastors spoke, there was a time for Q&A and more public discussion. One young man said, "Racism has sociological factors, that's part of the problem, and we can come up with this policy or that policy, but it misses the point that racism is sin."

That statement encapsulates the general message I feel people received here: ending racism is about reconciling your personal interactions with people of different races - it comes down to an exercise of the personal will not to sin. I find this conclusion valuable, but incomplete: it doesn't speak to political responsibilities for addressing structural racism and histories of racism.

I don't think it had anything to do with Mars Hill that the take-home message was that we only needed to look at our personal interactions and choose not to commit the sin of racism: I think it's a shortcoming of the movie that a broader, historical view of racism is not seen. So while Crash does a great job of bringing back to light significant racism in interpersonal relations, I don't think we can rely on it to deliver a message that socially construced racist structures must be challenged.

More pressing is the question of how we need to renew the language of progress: evident from this evening were conflicting usages of the words "politically correct", "racism", "systemic", and "white guilt" (which, troublingly, was used). If we're not talking about the same things when we all use these words, then we're not really talking to each other. It seems worth looking into.

Two Sides of the Mouth

2006-03-11T13:04:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, military officials told the press: "The prison will be turned over to the Iraqi government after the 4,500-odd prisoners being held there are moved, probably within about three months, to another prison now being built in Baghdad."

On the same day, the Department of Defense posted on its website: "News reports that the U.S. military intends to close Abu Ghraib within the next few months and to transfer its prisoners to other jails are inaccurate."

Under other circumstances, I might be inclined to believe there was simply a significant miscommunication and that perhaps Gen. Pace the military spokesman in Baghdad merely had inaccurate information, but this administration has regularly adopted this tactic in dealing with the press. You say one thing, which is popular, loudly and publicy and then quietly retract it later. All anyone, of course, is the first announcement. I've already commented on the Administration's first linking Iraq and 9/11 and then later quietly disavowing those statements; we saw how that turned out. Also, remember Bush's denial that he ever knew Abramoff, followed later by the admission that he did (though even his forced admission obscured the truth - .pdf).

The worst part, however, is that the press seems to allow itself to play into this strategy of deliberate manipulation. Sure, in the White House Press Briefings reporters will ask pointed questions, but the Adminstration has mastered the art of deflection. Where are the hard-hitting questions? Where are the journalistic ambushes? Where is the damned Fourth Estate?

Hardship withdrawal

2006-03-03T01:48:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure who even bothers to read my crazy theology and Karl's crazy secular humanism (hehe), but I am sorry that I haven't posted in such a long time, for anyone who cares. As you might have guessed, as the chair of the recently embroiled ASUW Student Senate, I've been rather engulfed by this entire Boyington blow-up.

What's been most frustrating are comments like these (this is my friend Gary from the UW College Republican Online Forum):

"I must say that I take a bit of joy in seeing this happen. How many of us remember being cursed at just for standing by the CR table? How many of us tire of comments about Rich White people? I love how they can't take the heat (so maybe they should get out of the kitchen)"

Gary's a great guy, by the way. I'm just unhappy that people think me and others involved here can't "take the heat" - I've been "taking the heat" for quite a while, as have other progressive-minded people for the past decade of "compassionate conservatism" where meaningful dissent is immediately splattered around on the internet and abstracted into treason. A better word would be blasphemy, but more on that another time.

Despite this, everyone in ASUW has been diligently responding to questions, disagreements, and inquiries - I wonder if the people on the UWCR forum have this fantastic image of us liberal student government geeks, huddled together in our office shivering with fright and clinging to each other for sheer body heat in the cold wind of conservative reason. My mind has definitely been engaged as I've defended my vote and the views of the majority of the Senate to curious people.

But the reason I haven't posted here in so long has been due to the greater part of the messages I've received - these don't merely disagree, they indignify. For instance:

I thought I should ask, are you of Korean heritage; going by the surname of 'Kim' I rather thought you may be. Should that be the case my dear Mr Kim, it is rather surprising that you are not aware the USMC; Colonel Boynton's old outfit. Spent much time, bloodshed and lives, saving your sorry arsed country from your communist cohorts during 50 to 53. I know because I had the privilege of fighting along side them, and if you are an example of why we fought; I almost regret it now.

I got this e-mail from a man in Australia - he takes it upon himself to remind me how a "real Korean" should feel and act about the actions of the Marines. When we use tactics like this to make ourselves "righter" than our opponents, sure, we might win, but is it democratic?

I haven't posted here in a while because there hasn't been anything very constructive to say - messages like this and countless others that are equally debasing have made me a much angrier and more calloused person than the guy who lasted posted on the 8th. I've been trying to meditate and discern lessons from all that's happened.

Clearly, I've contributed to the poisonous rhetoric used by all sides in today's American politic - last year, I said that if people didn't support a certain amendment in the Student Senate, they were racists. So I'm definitely not claiming to be without sin here. The pain of being on the receiving end of rhetoric like that is now clear to me, and I've seen it take a heavy toll in the past few weeks on friends who are even less accustomed to this world of politics than I am.

Several times in the same period, though, I've had the pleasure of sitting down with some of my conservative friends and just being two human beings, talking about the issue - neither of us compromising our values, but both of us increasing understanding. These were conversations where the people involved could somehow walk away with their dignities not only intact, but enhanced through encounter.

The Qur'an teaches, "Do you not know, O people, that I have made you into tribes and nations that you might know each other?" Democracy seems to be resting on this principle - that through dialogue across difference, progress can be acheived for a society. Instead, we find ourselves in this sickened country, where people can barely talk to each other without someone winning and someone losing. How much longer can this sort of "crossfire democracy" work?

It's been a sobering realization that as fun as it might be, I no longer am allowed to indulge in rhetoric like the stuff I've been receiving. And in fact, no one else is either. If we take our democracy seriously, we all must start by changing the way we talk to each other. One person doesn't make a difference here - but two people make all the difference: you and the other.

In the space between Self and Other, find healing. Find justice. Find peace. Amen.

Troop Poll

2006-03-01T21:58:00.000-08:00

I recently came across an important poll courtesy of an anonymous (and liberal) contributor on the University of Washington College Republican Forum. The poll itself is from Stars and Stripes, a daily paper for U.S. servicemen and women authorized by the Department of Defense. Here are some of the most significant findings:

"85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was 'to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.'"
Only 43% said their equipment was adequate
An entire 72% thought the U.S. should pull out within one year; 29% believed the U.S. should leave immediately

I don't particularly want to discuss how long we should stay, except to say that I believe we have a responsibility to ensure peace in Iraq. The destabilization is an indirect (arguably direct) result of the U.S. invasion and we shouldn't ignore that. We are, however, in desperate need of an exit strategy - we must know what the ideal withdrawal situation looks like and decide how best to bring that about. We should have had such a plan when we went in there, but our hubris and lack of planning are not excuses.

There are, however, bigger issues raised by this poll. One is the complete disconnect between the Bush Administration/Republicans and reality. Remember Rep. Jean Schmidt's (R-Oh) shameful attack on Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa), a retired Marine when she charged "Cowards cut and run, marines never do"? Well, apparently a significant number of our troops on the ground think that what conservatives consider "cutting-and-running" isn't such a bad idea and who can blame them? They were assured they would be "greeted as liberators" and now 2,300 of them are dead. Just awful.

A second imporant issue raised by this poll is the disinformation perpetuated by the Bush Administration making connections between Iraq and 9/11, connections that, as most anyone who bothered to actually investigate the claims knew (our 9/11 Commission, for instance), never existed. Even the Administration, when confronted, said they had never directly made such a connection. 85% of our troops disagree, Mr. President. (More analysis by Dan Froomkin here).

It's a bit terrifying, really, how pervasive the Bush Administration's misinformation has become. I suppose it just highlights that if you get enough people to reiterate the same false information time and again, even Truth can be conquered.

Delicious Defamation

2006-02-17T23:22:00.000-08:00

Well, it seems someone discovered a response I posted on a conservative blog; the good folks at aero-news.net. Indeed, they took the opportunity to further attack an issue they proved they knew nothing about. Anyone even remotely familiar with the situation would know that the inaccurate paraphrase of Jill Edwards did not "[speak] for the student body." Nor did Ashley Miller ever "sneer." For that matter, I also don't recall anyone holding a bong. This hardly qualifies as "Top News." More like "Made-up Nonsense." And now my most honorable mention:

"Defending his decision to diss Boyington, Director of Student Senate Operations Karl D. Smith thought he was going for middle ground, commenting in a regional blog, 'We also are home to civil rights leaders such as Gordon Hirabayshi and a major contributor in the eradication of smallpox William Foege, and the Nigerian statesman who worked for peace Alex Ekwueme.' Yep, household names all, just like Boyington. I was just wondering today, what's Al Ekwueme up to these days? You hardly hear his name any more. By the way, I am not the Great Punctuator, but I'm willing to send Karl some commas. You know, to bring his writing up to the junior-high-school standard expected at UW.

Smith issued the plaintive call of today's university dweller, confused, intimidated, and relativistic: 'How do we decide who is and is not deserving?'

Well, Karl, it looks like you just did, despite your girly-man waffling. Did you say that he was evil for shooting down enemy airplanes?

'I stand by my comments in support of removing the language regarding the Japanese planes shot down.' (Geez, the kid talks like a bureaucrat already. He'll be making everyone's life miserable in the DMV some day). 'In war, killing is a necessary evil. Because of this I am all the more grateful for those who endure the effects of war. But I do not believe our honor of him should focus upon the evil, regardless of how necessary.'"

Their ad hominem attacks aside, I would suggest that they drop the "household names" argument. Gordon Hirabayashi is far more of a household name to me than is Pappy Boyington. Besides, isn't one of the points of creating a memorial to ensure someone will be remembered? As to their questions regarding where Alex Ekwueme is now, evidently he's still doing good works in Nigeria: "Now 66 years old, Ekwueme is a philanthropist as well as a public servant and architect. He established an educational trust fund that sponsors the education of several hundred Nigerian youths in universities at home and abroad."

It gives me some reassurance that I am not the only object of Mr. O'Brien's bullying. Also, I am no Great Researcher, but nor am I the "Director of Student Senate Operations." A trifling matter, but about as significant as a missing comma.

As of this writing, I have not received said commas offered by Mr. O'Brien. I'll be waiting at the DMV!

The Problem as I See It

2006-02-16T08:30:00.000-08:00

Last week the Senate voted against a resolution to create a memorial to a distinguished alumnus. Almost immediately conservative talk show hosts sprang into action. Ironically, perhaps, I wasn't even going to post on this; it simply wasn't worthy of attention, but it has gotten so out of hand (WorldNetDaily, Michelle Malkin, Boortz Report, Seattle PI) that I wish to establish a few facts here. You see, the problem wasn't the debate which occurred in the Student Senate; it's what occurred after the meeting, which I intend to establish here.

1.) College Republican president Brent Ludeman sent out an e-mail to his listserv (including conservative talk show hosts and state legislators) which characterized the opposition thusly: "Opponents of the resolution contended that Colonel Boyington 'is not the type of person we should be honoring' and that 'we don't need to honor any more richwhite males' while others ecquivicated the hero's actions to murder." He paraphrased two individuals of the 130 senators and insinuated that all those voting against the resolution did so for these reasons and I can personally vouch that that is simply not the case.

2.) Local conservative talk show hosts Kirby Wilbur and John Carlson carry the show on the air, repeating the characterization of Brent's e-mail and singling out students for derision. They attacked the intelligence and motivation of certain students. Unsurprisingly, this is when the hate mail and intimidating phone calls began.

3.) The conservative blogosphere picked up the story, continuing the misrepresentation, but now adding personal e-mail addresses and phone numbers online. The hatefulness peaked here; one individual received FOUR HUNDRED such e-mails in a single day to say nothing of the phone calls.

4.) The WorldNetDaily "News" carried a "story" repeating the UWCR press release insinuations, but now quoting conservative bloggers (who were, in fact, basing their work off the original press release).

5.) Fox News is picking the story up today; I only hope this can be promptly defused.

The greatest irony of all here? The sponors of the legislation, Andrew Everett, is a friend of mine and respects those who disagree with him; he doesn't necessarily like it, but he resents the circus this has turned into. Why, then, if this is not an issue on campus, has the conservative media become so mesmerized and incensed? Why do they seek to divide through insinuation and misrepresentation?

When it rains...

2006-02-10T14:07:00.000-08:00

...it pours. Evidently the state of Israel intends to create a museum of tolerance. Fantastic. By removing skeletons from a Muslim cemetery. Not fantastic. Regardless of your stance on other actions by the state of Israel, this one deserves consternation. Muslim groups in Israel have protested the action and sought legal relief with some limited success thus far. And yet the government continues to push for the completion of the project.

Particularly intriguing was a quote from a spokeswoman for the Israel Antiquities Authority: "Israel is more crowded with ancient artefacts than any other country in the world. If we didn't build on former cemeteries, we would never build." So we can expect to see new developments on top of the Western Wall? Jewish cemeteries? Or is there perhaps a double standard at work here?

(Thanks to Jesus' General for the link)

[Edit: For those not caring for The Indepent as a news source, read about the same story in the Seattle PI, the Chicago Tribune, or, just for fun (I certainly don't share all the frames of the article), the Iranian Islamic Republic News Agency.]

Just about impossible

2006-02-08T23:53:00.000-08:00

Karl has written up, I think, a very good distinction between the right to speak freely and whether one should. Western liberal governments allow for unethical behaviors (lying, for instance) - but should we perform them? Unfortunately, Karl's distinction doesn't give much help right now to the governments who are grappling with the issue right now: does the Danish government apologize?

I want to offer a theological note - it is just about impossible for any non-Muslim American to understand the level of offense involved in creating an image of God or God's messenger, Muhammed (peace be upon him). I'm pretty sure I don't understand - and for that matter, whoever is reading this probably doesn't either.

As people who have grown up and been educated in a Western context, and even more so because it has been an American context, the scent of Christian norms and assumption lingers on all of us. It doesn't matter what religion you call yourself - growing up in the West, and especially growing up in America, means that you basically receive a basic Christian foundaiton - this carries with it many ethical norms and expectations.

One of these is the innocence of imagery - I think Christianity is a thought-system where images are not only tolerated, but vital. Theologically, I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that the person of Jesus Christ himself represents the decision of God to reveal Godself to humanity through a direct human image. This means, really, that the center of the entire system revolves around an IMAGE of God - additionally, for Christians, this is the unique and, at least for me, the graceful part of the religion. It means that God recognizes and understands the way that we see and conceptualize the material world, and that rather than see that as evil or fallen, God thinks so highly of human perspective that God would come into the world, in human form, to share in that perspective. So, Jesus as the perfect human image of God is pretty darn important.

I definitely don't think that it's a reach at all, then, to say that Christianity carries with it a high regard for the power of imagery. This isn't to say other systems do not, but in Christianity, the power of imagery is seen as a positive, good force. Images facilitate connection, promote understanding, and foster sympathy. It means that someone who grows up on "Christian milk" (pretty much every domestic-born American), regardless of whether he or she is "Christian", internalizes a deep-seated reverence for imagery.

Muslims also recognize the power of imagery - but here, the recognition takes on an overall negative form: imagery is seen skeptically, prone to hasty interpretation, curtailing deeper thought and criticism of ideas, and worst of all, encouraging far-reaching but inherenty incompelte generalizations about what is contained in the image. I must admit my knowledge of Islam isn't stellar, but I don't think what I'm saying here is a stretch - Muslims revere imagery also, but in the negative sense. This is evident from the strict injunction, contained in the Qur'an, against ANY images of God or God's prophets. In the case of depicting images of God, this is part of Islam's one unforgiveable sin: shirk. You can read more about shirk from other sources, I'm sure, but it basically means the confusion of God with part of God's creation. Islam's central tenet is the total and utter one-ness, only-ness, and infinite-ness of God. To say, for instance, that God is a man (as Christianity claims) is quite unacceptable in Islam, because a man (part of Creation) could never contain the infinite-ness of God, and since man is in the material world, it would also violate the only-ness of God because then God would exist in two places differently.

Creating an image of God is shirk because it rudely violates the one-ness, only-ness, and infinite-ness of God by replacing the mysterious, infinite nature of our conception of God with the fences of a picture - the idea, then, is that in our minds, we think of God and helplessly see the picture, and never again can the true, infinite God be accessed. This is shirk. And considering that every chapter of the Qur'an begins with the phrase, "In the name of Allah, the Most Beneficient, the Most Merciful...", the one unforgiveable sin of shirk is pretty serious business - don't you see that creating an image of God or a prophet chosen by God creates forever a barrier to fully contemplating God and God's teaching?

I wonder if the cartoonist, or the Danish Government, or any of us can really know what it's like to have a reckless sketch forever alter our relationship with the cosmos? Not if we grow up surrounded by Christianity, where images are sacred! So I think I'm justified in saying that mutual understanding here is truly just about impossible.

But, it does come down to action time for the governments in question here. The Danish Government must recognize the immensity of what's happened here - and offer its overdue apology. It, by no means, should place restriction on its press - but it should feel the need and duty to call injustice when it happens. In the case of the cartoon, the injustice was done to Allah, to the Prophet of Allah (pbuh), and to those who submit to Allah.

If you've read this far, thank you. Hope to hear what you have to think. Peace out.

Freedom of Speech

2006-02-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

Recent discussion of the cartoon published in European newspapers has become something of a magnet for freedom of speech rhetoric. And yet it is woefully misapplied. The freedom of speech protects individuals from government censorship or punishment; it does NOT dictate what *should* be said – that is, simply because you can legally say something doesn’t mean you should. Think about it, just because it would be legal to create a political cartoon glorifying the lynchings of American history, wouldn’t it be utterly distasteful to not do so? A newspaper can decide what content it will or will not publish, and such inflammatory rhetoric will only be harmful (there is no *benefit* to its publication); it would be irresponsible to publish such a cartoon. The instance in Europe is far worse.

Another website recently created a cartoon of Hitler and Anne Frank in bed together with Hitler saying “Write this one in your diary, Anne” in response, to illustrate this very point. As offensive as that is (and it’s damn offensive), it doesn’t compare to an attack on one’s religion, on one’s reason for being. Though I cannot understand, the Islamic proscription on depictions of Allah and the Prophet are especially deep, lacking direct comparisons in contemporary Christianity (but here, I overstep my bounds of knowledge, so I leave further discussion to my esteemed colleague).

As French President Jacques Chirac stated, the reprinting of the cartoon is an exercise in provocation, not free speech. Free speech may protect the newspapers from government sanction, but they do not justify the decision of the newspapers to publish the cartoon. Chirac put it aptly when he said, "[f]reedom of expression must be exercised in a spirit of responsibility.” The decisions of the European media have thus far been quite the opposite.

Another perspective: The freedom of speech is certainly not absolute. Particularly illustrative here is that the third Geneva Convention, which forbids the publishing of pictures of POWs and, arguably, the dead (subjecting them to “public curiosity” is the precise wording). The principle behind that is one of respect. Applying such a principle to the contemporary case is a worthwhile exercise.

Live State Senate Blogging

2006-01-27T10:20:00.000-08:00

RIGHT NOW the Washington State Senate is discussing HB 2661, which would forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation in public and private organizations.

I'm paraphrasing the main points... I missed the first Senator who spoke on behalf of of the Bill. I'll offer some analysis later.

Sen. Dan Swecker (R)

Bill would intrude upon rights private businesses (might be fine in public institutions).
Would be used by the State Supreme Court to allow gay marriage.
Creates enormous opportunity for lawyers.
State could create "pro-homosexual" program in Washington State schools; this is an endorsement and promotion of homosexuality.

Sen. Marilyn Rasmussen (D)

Amendment on the bill states it will not endorse gay marriage or any "practice, behavior, or orientation" so this will not affect the court in that manner. Will not lead to the dissolution of the DOMA.
God would not support discrimination; will vote for the legislation

Sen. Bob Oke (R)

Because he is religious, he cannot support the bill. Homosexuality is an abomination to God -the Bible is clear.
Bill is an attempt "legitimize and normalize" homosexuality
"Having a child who chooses to be homosexual can be very very painful" - he has a daughter who has "chosen" to be homosexual. She has been trying to change him and he has been trying to change her. Didn't let her bring he partner - "tough love.

Sen. Rosa Franklin (D)

Christians are not just in one party - lives her faith every day
As an African-American woman who has experienced discrimination, she cannot allow discrimination against anyone.
Minority must be protected or the majority will "almost always" trample on their rights.
This bill simply extends human rights protection to a group of people who contribute to society and should have the same rights as everyone else.
Not "special privileges" just offering the same civil rights in housing and employment. Rights to a group that has been treated "very badly"

Sen. Joyce Mulliken (R)

All people are equal in eyes God; deserving of human dignity.
This bill is about extending the definition of a special class of people, not human dignity. Age, gender, race, physical disabilities, economic and social status are important to include, but "sexual orientation" has many subgroups.
Would tell HRC to educate, advocate, and promote sexual orientation.
Kindergarten education for Spring, 2006 included sexual orientation in cultural awareness/promotion of a lifestyle that isn't preferred by those who live it [Edit: WHAT??]. Sister lives as a lesbian - doesn't think her sister has not been discriminated against because of her lifestyle, so bill must only be to promote a lifestyle.

Sen. Pat Thibaudeau (D)

Four legislators have been very successful. Are deserving of respect.
Support bill.

Sen. Val Stevens (R)

Sad day for the State of Washington because the bill will pass.
The wording regarding DOMA will be deemed meaningless. We need something in the state constitution to protect marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman. Only 1/3 in state support gay marriage and ony 14% feel strongly about it.

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D)

Remarks from Eleanor Roosevelt (Universal human rights begin close to home)

Sen. Bill Finkbeiner (R)

Law exempts small businesses; constitution forbids religious discrimination anyway; marriage is in the courts - this bill doesn't affect that.
The debate on the floor of the Senate isn't about what's in the bill, but about whether or not it's okay to be gay or homosexual in this state. Contrary to a previous speaker, the heart, not parents, choose who someone will love.
It is unacceptable to discriminate against people because of whom their heart chooses to love.
Neighbors, coworkers, family members are out there who may be gay and the message sent from the legislature is that their feelings are somehow wrong and that simply isn't true.
Once this bill passes, the world will continue to turn, our lives will go on as they have for most of us, but for some people their lives will improve.

Sen. Jospeh Zarelli (R)

Apparently it's okay to use religion for this bill but not okay to use religion against it.
Issue boils down to whether you choose the lifestyle or you're born with it. Science can't tell us, but the Legislature is deciding you must be born with it. Doesn't believe this is the case.
Shouldn't include as a protected class a group that makes a choice to behave in a particular way. If it were proven that you're born with it, he would support.

Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe (D)

This isn't about promoting homosexuality in schools, it's about protecting those in schools who are homosexual. They have a right to an education free from discrimination. All students will be taught tolerance for all people.

Sen. Brian Weinstein (D)

Proud to join states that prohibit discrimination (listed states - there are a lot, both blue and red); hasn't torn any of the other states apart.
In the past legislators have voted to discriminate based on race and have apologized for it. Those who vote against this bill will be judged harshly [Interruption: Senator objects to impugning of motives of opponents].
Leading business and many religious leaders around the state support this bill. Suprme Court has said that what goes on behind closed doors is no one's business.
God would not make it a sin to be who you are; this is no "abomination"

Sen. Jim Hargrove (D)

Tolerance is a two-way street. Those who believe something is wrong will now be told that they are wrong. We shouldn't tell those who believe the lifestyle is wrong that we will now take it out on them.

Sen. Adam Kline (D)

Difficult for those whose religious belifs and family require a yes or no vote.
There is a necessity to pursue justice.
His religion requires him to vote yes, but he understands there are differences.

Sen. Paull Shin (D)

Religious views notwithstanding, legislators are there to pursue justice for all.
His prayers and scripture-reading have led him to where he is today.
As a child, was abandoned, discriminated against as a street child. In the U.S. he was still unwanted; subject to "whites only" signs while in military. Terrible feeling to be accepted or rejected because of who he is. Discrimination hurts.
God loves all, Jesus forgives all.
This bill talks about human rights and dignity, not marriage.

Sen. Brad Benson (R)

Bigotry, racism, prejudice (that leads to hate that leads to violence) is wrong. Republican Party was founded in fight against slavery. The Republican Party was key to passing the original civil rights act.
Legislation asks if certain individuals should receive special protection on broad definition.
Homosexuals don't meet 3 criteria set forth by the courts: economic deprivation, ..., immutable characteristics. Homosexuals often have better cars and houses than others.
Unwise to dilute previous civil rights legislation; can't be compared with laws based on race.
This bill goes beyond tolerance and "reasonable accomodation" (Transvestite tries to use women's dressing room - shouldn't be allowd to. He can try on the clothes, but must use men's dressing room).
60% of state's voters, I-677, said no on including sexual orientation.
Unfair to label a person's morality as bigotry.
Opening a "Pandora's box" of uncertainty by passing this bill because this bill is based solely upon perception.

Sen. Lisa Brown (D)

In 1999, Spokane adopted an ordinance to include sexual orientation, but citizens of Spokane upheld it. No "Pandora's Box" has been opened. Life will go on pretty much the same for pretty much everyone in Washington State.
Sexual orientation isn't related to your job or buying a home, etc. If you want to condemn sexual orientation, you're free to do do.
Many people are afraid to come forward with their sexual orientation so we can't know how many people this will affect.
Called for civility and working together by the State Senate beyond today's vote.

HB 2661 PASSES THE STATE SENATE 25-23

Update

2006-01-25T00:13:00.000-08:00

Regarding the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's proposed boycott of Microsoft for supporting the Anti-Discrimination Bill in the Washington State Legislature, well, apparently it's not so much a boycott as an ill-fated harebrained plan.

The NYTimes carried a story explaining Hutcherson's plan to have religious right activists buy Microsoft's stock and sell it all at once. The same article also explains why that's probably not going to happen - at least not to any noticable degree.

This isn't to say I don't have my share of ill-fated harebrained schemes. When I have more time I'll tell you about my plan to bring down Fox "News".

Christian Boycott

2006-01-20T12:43:00.000-08:00

As many may have heard by now, Pastor Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church is calling for a nationwide "Christian boycott" of Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and "other business" that have stood in support of equal rights for gays and lesbians in Washington State. Some of these business include small companies like Nike, RealNetworks, Corbis, and Vulcan.

Even ignoring the fact that a successful boycott would leave Christians without computer access, printers, and shoes, I have to say I'm disappointed and unfortunately not surprised.

There are two approaches: either you believe homosexality is a sin, or you don't. If you don't, then I don't really need to say anything. If you do, let's consider the following example from Jesus himself. I tell this story a lot because it illustrates many core principles of Christianity. You can read it verbatim here in John 7:53-8:11.

So in the passage, several things are established. First, one of the prime directives of Jesus:
let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Is this a command that Christians should not stand up to injustice, cruelty, and power? No - after all, "what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8). People mess up - God knows this - but we're not called to be paralyzed by our guilt. Instead, I believe Jesus' message here is that as we go about speaking truth to power, we need to do so in reconciling ways that bring people together, healing across divides. The Pharisees application of the old Law of Moses (to stone to death any woman accused of adultery) was clearly not unifying, and Jesus so spoke against it.

Second, Jesus says (humorously, I think), "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She says, "No one, sir." And now the kicker: Jesus Christ tells the woman, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again." Here, Jesus recognizes that the woman has done something wrong, but stops at that. Condemnation is not the goal - reconciliation is. I think this tells us that God is not interested in punishing us for this or that - rather, as soon as there is a mutual recognition of hurt, the next step becomes healing.

Finally, the entire story comes in the context that the jealous Pharisees (the Roman-appointed Jewish elite) only brought this woman in front of Jesus in order to set him up in a trap: as they saw it, if Jesus told the crowd to let the woman go, he would be breaking the Law of Moses and would lose credibility as a Jewish leader. But if he said she should die, he would be usurping Roman authority to issue the death penalty and would be liable to be arrested. But Jesus cleverly wrangled his way out of the box. (See better explanation here.)

My priest (Fr. Steve Garratt) interprets this in a very interesting way. He says that again and again throughout scripture, Jesus is put in traps by various people and every time, he wiggles his way out except for when he chooses to accept the trap (the Crucifixion). He says that especially in political arguments, liberals and conversatives try to box Jesus into their side, both saying "What would Jesus do?" in support of completely opposite positions. Father Steve's point: every time we try to do this, Jesus wiggles free. The message of Jesus is not to justify what you're doing, it's to challenge what you're doing. The Gospel says to me, "Whatever you think, think again."

So let's interpret the latest efforts of Ken Hutcherson: is a boycott of companies that support gay rights promoting reconciling dialogue? No. Does opposition to legislation that would protect a heavily discriminated group of human beings heal rather than condemn? No. And does doing this all in the name of Jesus Christ avoid the entrapment of Jesus? No! Conclusion: Pastor Ken, it's time to re-think the way you act out the Gospel. If any "Christian boycott" is going to happen, it should be a boycott of consumerism, a boycott of injustice and systems of oppression. This boycott here is anything but Christian.

Congratulations are in order

2006-01-20T12:00:00.000-08:00

A few moments ago, this happened:

Karl Smith stood awkwardly in front of my desk, looking down at me. Grinning, he said, "So, I was leaving my house this morning and I saw the mail-woman putting mail in the mailbox."

I raised my eyebrow. "Okay..."

"And there were some letters."

"Okay... and...?"

"Oh you want to know more?" I smiled in reply. "Well, there was one letter, it was from UW Law School."

My eyes doubled themselves and my mouth dropped open, waiting. "Karl, oh my God, and..."

Karl interrupted my expectant stuttering - "Yeah, I'm in."

If anyone I know has ever so fully deserved something, it would be Karl Smith and Law School. I jumped up and cried, "Oh my God, Oh my God! That's amazing!" I ran around to the front of the desk and gave my friend a hug. It feels great to be so happy for someone else.

Later now, I'm writing this and realizing that the end of the year is coming up, and it's going to be tough. So many friends are moving on. I felt a stinging stir in my jaw.

Congratulations man.