WA-43 Democratic Primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

[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

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)

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)

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

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

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.