Author: AP

Hey all. I’m going to try to give you a sense of things from my corner of the world today. I’m not even sure how I’ll do this…just a lot of editors’ updates, I suppose, or just adding notes in the comments section. I’ll do my best to give you a flavor as often as possible.
After trekking to South Carolina, Delaware, Pennsylvania (twice) and our own Potomac Primary, I am here with Mr. AP in our hometown in the swing state known as the Commonwealth of Virginia. There’s something unique about this experience. My Dad described this as feeling like it’s Christmas Eve. He and my Mom have been up since 5 am.

The anticipation. The bundled nerves. The excitement.

The possibility!

I’ve mentioned before my parents growing up in the hell that was the segregated South, so this is exciting–earth shattering, really–in a way that I cannot express. Not since Doug Wilder have I seen this type of excitement, and it almost pales in comparison. I wasn’t old enough to vote in that race, but I was old enough to assist, and that’s what I did.

Again, I am not voting in the Commonwealth (c’mon now: you know damned well that I voted absentee almost a month ago) but I am here to help. It is amazing, it really is. Of course, I know well the “old hands” but I’ve seen lots of new faces. They are young and old and of all shades. There is a white Obama supporter living in a town where African Americans were unwelcome by custom to live even 20 years ago who opened her home to an African American couple from Maryland who were running one of the smaller offices in the area. We’ve got people from the DC area, from NY and NH.

And they were all here to help for this moment. It is raining this morning, but it is neither dampening the spirit nor stopping the lines. People reportedly lined up as early as 3 and 4 am to get in line to cast their votes. Governor Kaine voted shortly after seven AM. People had been parking in the street–on main thoroughfares, even–and DID NOT MOVE. Lines wrapped around buildings. Reports of some machines not working: touchscreens in Henrico and Powhatan counties were malfunctioning (according to the local news–Henrico is surprising because it is a wealthy county). We’re about to get out and see for ourselves.

Also, Sen. Biden is headed to Richmond. We’re not far, but I don’t think we’ll have time to see him. I hope he makes a surprise visit further south. That would be fantastic.

I’ll check back in when I can! Tell people to go vote–call, text, e-mail, carrier pigeon–whatever you gotta do. And if you have a phone, you can still make calls.

One of the reasons I love Booman Tribune is because of the wonderful people here who are free to challenge and wrestle with issues, and to try their best to walk in a person’s shoes for a perspective not their own.

Of the many, many wonderful folks who post here, Supersoling’s voice is one I greatly respect. And he asked me a question that elicited such a deeply-felt (or for the more cynically inclined, totally wordy) response that I wanted more space to expand upon how I felt.

I feel like this diary is serving as a kind of political confessional. It is by far, not my best writing. I’m not advocating answers, just giving my response. I’m sort of surprised at the depth of feeling. It was only one man’s honest question, after all, not a slam or a provocation. But it was a good question, and one that allowed me to name my frustrations–I hope, for the last time about this subject of this primary–all of the attitudes that surfaced; my belief that it was made to be divisive purposefully; and how I’m trying to make my way through the muck of all that.
The question, in part was this (Super’s full post is here):

…from my perspective it’s difficult to communicate what I think about this and other racially charged aspects of this election fully so far simply because I’m not black and there is, at least it feels to me like there is and I could be wrong, an unspoken restriction on how far one can take the conversation when you’re not black. It feels like there’s an automatic disqualification of opinions coming from anyone not living and walking in those shoes. That could be just my own trepidation.

But it could also be in part, and again, this is my perception, that there’s a pretty thin hair trigger at play here from the Obama side, and especially from many of his supporters who are black. It’s easy to see how someone who doesn’t support him or even merely questions his qualifications could feel browbeaten into silence because of the real instances where charges of racism are being leveled indiscriminantly. I’ve seen white bloggers all over the place qualifying there remarks upfront as a way to preempt being called racist in the same way I’ve seen many bloggers who are nuetral between Obama and Clinton and now Obama and McCain qualifying criticism of Obama by stating their opinions aren’t evidence of any support for Clinton. That charge has been made against me several times now here on this blog. Even after stating unequivocally that I’m supporting Cynthia McKinney. Three days ago I was judged here to be an Obama hater, and thus untrustworthy because I didn’t fully love him enough. And that from a white person. It’s like it’s become the default response for many of Obama’s supporters. And when it happens enough it can lay waste a person’s reputation. Worse than that though, it creates an unbridgeable divide.

And this is my response.

You’re probably right in that it feels like a minefield for people who genuinely don’t see eye-to-eye with Barack Obama politically–nothing more, nothing less. It’s probably easier for me to respond to you because I feel like I know you. And supporting Cynthia McKinney probably helps in my estimation because I frankly believe it takes more balls to support her. Now the Honorable Cynthia McKinney–now THAT’S a woman, though she is not perfect (I know how she treated her staff, and that wasn’t pretty), I nevertheless feel has been screwed by the party.

Hillary Clinton, OTOH, has not. Not buy a country mile. Or 10 of ’em. And I find it very telling that most of the die-hards say they will support McCain, rather than McKinney.

In my experience, when it comes to dealing with whispered racism, it’s very much like pornography–I know when I see it. Sounding “taller on the telephone” because, for the person you’ve just met in person, you did not “sound Black.” People expressing surprise in your talents and abilities. And on and on.

What is universal is that it is quite independent of ideology: conservative, moderate or liberal/progressive, it matters not.

[Minor aside: if you saw Syriana, you’ll remember that scene when the Jeffrey Wright character stood up in the meeting, and you could hear a pin drop, right? Mr. AP and I laughed our asses off at that scene, with a predominantly white audience that was quiet. I’m sure many thought it inappropriate. But we laughed because we’ve been there in one form or another when you’re underestimated and frankly, unwelcome.]

It also doesn’t matter if your last name is “Clinton.” Sure, the Clintons like Blacks…as far as we know–i.e. Vernon Jordan–but let’s not forget the ways they’ve pull race out of their ass when they needed it covered. See also: Sistah Souljah, Ricky Ray Rector, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, Lani Guinier, welfare reform and draconian drug laws.

Their attitude is quite like Joe Biden’s fresh and clean moment. I described it this way in January:

I’m going to try to be careful here, because I don’t want to generalize, but here’s my take. There is a wariness among SOME (not all) African-Americans when dealing with SOME (not all) white liberals and progressives. There is a very real sense that SOME (not all) are very willing to act when it’s clear the object of that action is subordinate–acting on behalf of children or teens for example. And that person is sincere about what they are doing. But that attitude changes when an African-American is not subordinate to them (by age, economically, by mgmt rung, etc.). That’s when those patronizing “slips of the tongue” come to the fore.

Kinda like Joe Biden and the “fresh and clean” thing. I know Biden’s record. I know he’s not a knuckle-dragger. But when faced with the prospect of dealing with an African-American on the same level–a senator running for president–it was if he couldn’t quite wrap his head around it. Thus his “gaffe.”

[For the record, I’m not looking for stilted Kumbayah conversations; I only wish we can all be brilliant and screw up and have that elicit a normal response, not one based on relative levels of melanin.]

So when I hear But he’s unqualified!, I really have to wonder. Is it because his experience is somewhat different from the standard Washington prerequisites that we’ve become accustomed to over the last quarter century or is it something else? Because honestly, the Constitution is quite clear on the requirements. And when it comes to experience, he really does have more than she does.

Yes, she’s smart, but she also married smart and had a US Senate seat handed to her.

So sure–they didn’t mind him so much when they didn’t perceive him to be a threat. Hell, he may have even been seen as good veep material. They probably admired his gumption to even mount a campaign that would surely lose.

And when he started winning? Oh, look–it must be sexism that’s holding me back! And while I’m making excuses…let me pander to hardworking white people. Look, I’m sorry, Black folks…nada personal. But this is my destiny. And ya know…you’re such a forgiving lot. I’ll make it up to you by patting a CBC member on the head. Oh, alright–I’ll show up to church in October and leave a big donation in the plate. There. Friends? Thanks.

And since that didn’t work and she came up short, it seems that even being a United States Senator is now somehow beneath her. She, and only she, must be made SC Justice or Majority Leader or some such as recompense. As if there’s no one else that is talented and able to make positive contributions in the party. It completely chafes my ass.  

For me, it’s this simple: I did not, under any circumstances, want a Clinton Restoration. I didn’t want it in 2004; didn’t want it this year. A Clinton Restoration meant the return of Terry McAwful and the “coordinated campaign” at the DNC that did not give a half a damn to anyone on the ticket except for the presidential. It meant the return of triangulation. It meant the return of the DLC. Opening the floodgates to tired hacks like Dick Morris and Mark Penn.

Frankly, I do not understand this stupid tripe that she somehow is this Feminist Avenging Shero and that her candidacy was about avenging the injured feelings and bruised egos of the Gloria Steinem/Geraldine Ferraro set. And Barack Obama was the perfect foil for it. It is literally ludicrous on its face.

They want to beat up on men? Start with the insipid Mark Penn. And include a few licks for her husband.

First, Penn: who in their right mind would hire that stupid hack, anyway? Why are they so enthralled by him? She had someone who wrote a good bit of the DNC rules on her campaign (The whiny Harold Ickes, who always seems to get screwed by the Clintons, only to run back and ask, “May I have another?”) but didn’t use his knowledge? She didn’t know or care about caucuses? About Texas? WTH?????

And B. Clinton. “Mis-speaking”? Bullshit. As president, your every word, comma and sigh has meaning. I’m supposed to believe that Bill suddenly forgot that fact on the campaign trail? Why don’t they beat up on him?

OK, leave the husband out of it–beat up Mark Penn. But oh no, it’s much easier to take it out on Obama. Why?

I mean, you have her blogosphere supporters trying to spin “shuck and jive” (the turd bouquet from Andrew Cuomo) as a “neutral” term used for all types of politicians. Do a Lexis Nexis search and see if that’s factual. Not!

B. Clinton and Jesse Jackson–like you think he and the rest of her supporters somehow didn’t know that “Jesse Jackson” is a boogeyman for A LOT whites, and that Barack’s achievement could be minimized, because you know–we’re just Black folks…who cares?

Look, both Bill and Hillary knew they could get away with it–or thought he could get away with it. And why? Because they’ve done so before. Well, where are they going to go? With the repubs? They’re not going anywhere. Same as liberals/progressives.

I have seen this triangulation with my own eyes, Super. And I don’t begin to give a damn that it just bit them on the ass. In fact, I’m rather tickled by it.

There has been a lot said about sexism by H. Clinton’s white women supporters. And when they couldn’t find any evidence of it by his campaign, they made it up: he said “periodically” (are you kidding me?); he gave her the finger, he played “99 Problems” (but a b—- ain’t one) at a campaign rally (which must be the ultimate in dog whistles since no one can actually provide evidence of this) etc. But they not only IGNORED her race baiting (to be kind) statements, they ignored her when she was just straight asshole-ish, i.e. “do you need pillows?” and lying about his pro-choice stance (showing that they care more about Hillary than choice which is unacceptable)

Don’t even get me started with Steinem (yeah, let me know when she or her mother ever had to count the number of bubbles on a bar of soap like my MIL had to when attempting to vote) and the vile Ferraro who conveniently tried to take down Obama using the same language she used against Rev. Jesse Jackson 20 years ago.

I’m sure it was a coincidence.

Or come up with the fiction that somehow, someone who is worth $109M, was handed a Senate seat and a political machine is somehow oppressed and somehow (even richer) had the nomination stolen from her. What the fuck ever. “Stolen” implies ownership. I’m sorry that it was an actual competition. And she lost.

As the Clintons have said themselves in other contests…”Nothing personal. It’s just politics.”

Which gets back to the suspicion that I have of the “bow down to get my vote crowd”: Obama learned the rules. Followed the rules. And somehow, that’s not good enough? Eyed with suspicion?

Now where have I seen that before?

Clearly, I feel very foolish because for all these years, I thought the women’s movement spoke for me. Ha! I am duly chastened and will clearly have to be more mindful and discerning. I just hate looking foolish.

And here’s another thing: I am tired of being criticized for being passionate about a presidential candidate, esp. one Not. Named. Clinton. What, is there a law? WTH is so wrong with inspiration?? Can I just  be flippin’ inspired–for once???  This is the first time that someone I was passionate about won a nomination.

Is he perfect? Unless his name is Mr. AP, then he doesn’t even come close.

But my evaluation is that he is more progressive than our other candidates and more effective (maybe with the exception of John Kerry, who is flippin’ outstanding on the stump–for Barack Obama. It’s almost painful to watch because the man on the trail now is one that may have won then). And given that he started his entire operation from scratch 16 months ago, and has led it well, I am more than confident in his leadership skills.

There will be positions that I won’t agree with him on, but pragmatically, he can’t be “perfect” and be taken “seriously,” especially after a steady 30-year diet of right-wing speech, worldview and values.

But it is a start. We have to start somewhere–and I choose to start with electing President Barack Obama.

I’ve worked with people for common purpose even if I didn’t support, agree with or vote for the candidate. Some of her die-hards plainly believe that they are too good for that.

There’s a lot of upside to an Obama Administration, including the SC, federal courts–heck, he can strike the Mexico City policy (a.k.a. the “global gag rule”) the next day by Exec. Order. That’s just the beginning! I don’t know why that’s not exciting and hopeful, for women here and also around the world. I really want people to examine their attitudes and what we all have to gain–or lose more of–in the aftermath of this election. In spite of it all, I want to work in common cause and with common purpose.

But know this: We will win this thing with or without them.  

Update [2008-6-15 9:56:23 by AP]: I forgot to define the Mexico City language/policy: Also known as the global gag rule, it denies federal funding to NGOs that provide or even discuss abortion. The link is provided above.

The global gag rule can be rescinded by Executive Order as soon as Obama walks through the door at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Update [2008-6-15 9:56:23 by AP]: I’m not sure why I don’t see the link, but click here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City_Policy] to learn more about it.

Update [2008-6-15 10:22:45 by AP]: I just fixed the link. Bad coding on my part. Sorry about that. Clearly, I am out of practice!

His announcement will be at 1:00 in New Orleans.

See more here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013001069.html?hpid=topnews

The past is not dead. In fact, it’s not even past. William Faulkner

I thought about that quote the moment I learned the news of President Ford’s death last week. I informed my husband a few minutes later, and then said to him, You know, it’s odd that his funeral will be just days before a Democratic Congress takes over.

But perhaps this is not so odd. You know that cliche–God has a great sense of humor. And impeccable timing, to boot. Putting the lie to the vain hope that past can be buried with the truth. It cannot. Foolish people can only attempt.

Which would explain the week’s worth of hosannas of our great president.
Understand, unlike our ruling junta, I do not glory in death. I feel badly, on a personal level, for Mrs. Ford and her family. And I was deeply touched by the graciousness of her children, thanking people who came to pay their respects. All the same, I rather read things as they are, not as some wish to be.

Which is why all the talk of this “humble” man of the Midwest healing our great nation with his heartland values was rather…interesting. Yes, I know–all that empty verbiage aided and abetted by the American aversion of not “speaking ill of the dead” –but did we listen carefully?

It’s so easy to just mock the self-satisfied blather oozing from some quarters. I actually considered issuing Fred G. Sanford “You Big Dummy” Awards for two deserving dolts–David Broder and Cokie Roberts.

First, for Broder writing this:

As vice president, he had defended Nixon against the Watergate charges, but he recognized in our meeting that he had a responsibility larger than any further claims of personal loyalty from Nixon.

When Woodward would write this:

Until now, the relationship between the two presidents has been portrayed largely as a matter of political necessity, with Nixon tapping Ford for the vice presidency in late 1973 because he was a confirmable choice on Capitol Hill.

But the tapes, documents and two lengthy recent interviews with Ford before his death this week, conducted for a future book and embargoed until after his death, show that the close political alliance between the two men seriously influenced Ford’s eventual decision to pardon Nixon, the most momentous decision of his short presidency and almost certainly the one that cost him any chance of winning the White House in his own right two years later. Ford became president on Aug. 9, 1974; he pardoned Nixon just a month later. “I think that Nixon felt I was about the only person he could really trust on the Hill,” Ford said during the 2005 interview.

Ford returned the feeling.

“I looked upon him as my personal friend. And I always treasured our relationship. And I had no hesitancy about granting the pardon, because I felt that we had this relationship and that I didn’t want to see my real friend have the stigma,” Ford said in the interview.

That acknowledgment represents a significant shift from Ford’s previous portrayals of the pardon that absolved Nixon of any Watergate-related crimes. In earlier statements, Ford had emphasized the decision as an effort to move the country beyond the partisan divisions of the Watergate era, playing down the personal dimension.

And for this:

A story told by Cokie Roberts, the National Public Radio correspondent, may sum it up best. Roberts noted a conversation she had with Ford in recent years.

Ford was minority leader while her father, Rep. Hale Boggs of Louisiana, was majority leader. Ford told her that the two old friends would share a cab to the National Press Club, deciding on the way what they would debate. Once on stage, they’d argue vehemently based on their very different views of what was best for the country. Then they would get back in the cab, Roberts said, and resume their friendship.

When the tapes revealed this:

On April 6, 1971, for example, Nixon called Ford to find out what was going on with House Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D-La.). Boggs had just taken to the House floor alleging that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was regularly wiretapping members of Congress, and Nixon wanted to know why Boggs was going public.

“He’s nuts,” Ford told Nixon in the call picked up by Nixon’s secret taping.

“He’s on the sauce,” Nixon said, suggesting the majority leader was drinking. “Isn’t that it?”

“Well, I’m afraid that’s right, Mr. President.”

“Or is he crazy?” Nixon asked.

“Well, he’s either drinking too much or he’s taking some pills that are upsetting him mentally,” Ford replied.

Anyway…the “pardon was prudent” chorus was in full sway this week:

According to Richard Ben-Veniste,

At bottom, the decision to pardon Nixon was a political judgment properly within the bounds of Ford’s constitutional authority. The specter of a former president in the criminal dock as our country moved into its bicentennial year was profoundly disturbing.

 

Disturbing to whom? And how? Fully holding accountable those who committed such violence to our Constitution would have given pause to those who do so at this very moment. (Besides, we didn’t seem to fret over the specter of killing Reconstruction during the centennial year, but I digress.)

And oh, all the talk of his compassion! He felt such compassion for Nixon. Would that he had felt such compassion for the Constitution. And his selflessness. He didn’t seek the presidency; the presidency was thrust upon him.  His act of sacrifice saved a grateful nation and endeared one and all to his wise actions on their behalf. His image was so airbrushed that you’d be forgiven if you thought he had ascended as the very right hand of Christ Himself.  

Yes, the historical revisionism is breathtaking and nauseating. I know you’ve had your fill of it. Even though we deserve better than to expect such license, you knew it was coming. But also remember the most salient point: these inane notions of a nation healed isn’t about the past. It’s about the present.

It’s about Thursday, January 4, 2007.  

It’s about bemoaning the death of civility while ignoring those who killed it.

It’s about equating justice with vengeance and transforming “go along to get along” and “taking one for the team” into moral virtues.

It’s about begging the Democratic party to clean up Junior’s mess, but ignoring the demand for accountability.

I am utterly uninterested in a bastardized notion of “national healing.” I want accountability. I want it five minutes ago. I want it five YEARS ago.

So. Why are we so afraid to lance that boil?

Because the long national nightmare isn’t over; not by a long shot. And every one of our leaders knows it. Including Ford at the time. Revisit his oath of office:

To the peoples and the governments of all friendly nations, and I hope that could encompass the whole world, I pledge an uninterrupted and sincere search for peace. America will remain strong and united, but its strength will remain dedicated to the safety and sanity of the entire family of man, as well as to our own precious freedom.

I believe that truth is the glue that holds government together, not only our Government but civilization itself. That bond, though strained, is unbroken at home and abroad.

In all my public and private acts as your President, I expect to follow my instincts of openness and candor with full confidence that honesty is always the best policy in the end.

My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.

Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule. But there is a higher Power, by whatever name we honor Him, who ordains not only righteousness but love, not only justice but mercy.

Had he actually believed what he was saying, he would have not have issued his pardon.

Truth is, we have long sought the illusion of due diligence. The love affair with truthiness didn’t begin with an unfortunate Oprah’s Book Club pick, but with those who publicly and piously intone about truth without exercising it. As I wrote to Real History Lisa, we “hate” history as kids because it’s a learned response from those around us; it’s the tacit admission that we ignore history because what lies beneath is not be examined, much less revealed.

Which leads to the disturbing, but inevitable question: could it be that truth threatens our systems as currently constituted? Obviously, the truth that sets us free would put many of our leaders in prison, and they obviously feel they are in the wrong class for all that. But it’s even more insidious…they seem to assume that the truth, and nothing but the truth would doom us as a country. If the truth is deemed too messy, too much, then the assumption must be that truth will destroy us. It’s an astonishing, damning admission of some of our political leaders that the ties that bind our country are as thin as tissue. Less than ephemeral, in fact. Whatever the fears of our ruling class, I believe that truth and accountability and the Constitution still matter. I am unafraid of where it leads. Our party should be similarly unafraid in the days and weeks and months to come. I know it is folly to believe that that sentiment is enough to fortify some in party, but it must be enough to fortify us.

Consider, again, the words Real History Lisa:

The topic of the Iraq War and the lies that took the nation to war was a frequent sub-theme at the conference. To many of the 135 people gathered, history is one long through line. By not confronting the lies we were given about the assassination and demanding government accountability, we essentially agreed to look the other way, empowering government to lie to us about other events.

Because he’s the Republican laughing the hardest now that DeLay will resign.

Quietly, of course.
In 1997, then Conference Chairman Boehner was one of the fall-guys in an attempted coup including then-Majority Leader Dick Armey; then-Majority Whip, Delay, then-NRCC chair (that’s National Republican Congressional Committee), Gingrich lieutenant and rethug golden boy Bill Paxon and other assorted backbenchers to topple then-speaker Newt Gingrich that went so very wrong:

Rumors had been circulating for weeks that the so-called rebels–a fluctuating group of House Republicans, mostly from the revolutionary class of ’94–were devising a way to force Gingrich out. But to do it, they needed cooperation from the top echelon.

On July 9 Armey, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon gathered for the first of several secret meetings to discuss the brewing rebellion. The next night, DeLay met with 20 rebels in the offices of Oklahoma’s Steve Largent. At first, DeLay was coy. Then he warned that if the rebels were going to act, they had better do so quickly, because their plot was about to leak. “Is everybody prepared to go ahead with this?” he asked. At that point, Indiana’s Mark Souder turned the question around. “Are you with us?” According to several participants, DeLay was clearly speaking for the others when he answered yes. The leaders seemed on board.

The plan was to have Armey, DeLay, Boehner and Paxon present Gingrich with a fait accompli: step aside or be voted out by parliamentary maneuver. What happened next is murky. By some accounts, when DeLay reported back to his fellow leaders later that Thursday night, he brought news that the rebels wanted Gingrich to be succeeded by Paxon, not Armey, who was next in line. Early Friday, Armey told his colleagues that he spent the night “praying with my wife” and decided he could not support the coup. “When Armey realized he wasn’t going to be Speaker, he backed out,” insists a knowledgeable source.

Of course, everyone knows that if you plot against the king, you had better kill him–and since that didn’t happen, an appropriate measure of retribution had to be meted out. Paxon would resign his leadership position (he was appointed by Gingrich) and would soon leave Congress altogether. DeLay (who already had a rocky relationship with Gingrich) and Armey would hold on to their positions (in Armey’s case, after a fair amount of groveling; Armey, knowing he’d never become Speaker, especially after being challenged by then-Rep. Steve Largent, would leave Congress in 2002; DeLay moved up as Majority Leader).

But Boehner, who would be voted out of his Conference Chairman position in 1998 and to be replaced by then-Rep. J.C. Watts, was the only one who, when returned to rank-and-file status, decided to stay there and stage a comeback, working his way up to chair the Education and Workforce Committee. (My little tangent: After the “Republican Revolution,” rethugs just couldn’t stomach the word “labor” in the Education and Labor Committee and changed it to “workforce.”) Knowing how to raise a little cash while claiming you’re a “reformer” didn’t hurt either.  

So now look at him–almost 10 years later, and he’s the only one still standing in the leadership circle. In fact, he’s the only one among them that will still be in Congress after DeLay departs, packing his bags and bug spray: Gingrich? Gone. Dick Armey? Gone. Bill Paxon? Long gone. J.C. Watts (not involved in the coup attempt, but succeeded him as Conference chair)? Ditto.

Yep. Nobody in town is smirking harder than John Boehner.

And if I was Denny Hastert, I’d watch my back.

[Note: This was originally a comment for the news bucket, but I decided to expand it a bit. Enjoy!]

Cross-posted at Liberal Street Fighter

Yesterday, I read the front page story on USA Today on the phenomenon known as “Stop Snitching” which of course, rather stridently urges witnesses to crime to keep their mouths shut. Let me be the first to say that I’m repulsed by this. I understand the disgust at police informants who give to police information (or what the police want to hear) while they can get away with whatever it is that they want, I have no sympathy for the fools that prey on folks in the community. Save your sob story.

Having said that, however, what’s new here, other than the T-shirt and matching cap? It’s not new to neither the mafia nor the police …

…and it’s most certainly NOT a new concept to the Duke University Lacrosse Team.

And isn’t it funny that their likenesses aren’t splashed on the covers of major newspapers?!
The details of this savagery are almost too much for me to type, so I include a link here for a timeline–particularly for those who may not yet be able to handle the details. I honestly feel physically repulsed just by reading them myself.

While I don’t believe the entire team was involved (and in an ironic twist, the lone Black team member is not a suspect), it is clear that a) more than a few of them know what happened and b) they are punks of the lowest order for hiding it.

Now usually, our culture usually loves a story like this. It’s like a good horror movie: we are repulsed by the evil perpetrator who preys on (usually) women who will slip on a tree branch and fall and who face certain gruesome death; then we cheer on the good guys who will slay the evildoer and live happily ever after. This story here, however, is a good bit different. The suspects are white and presumably upper class (the race/class of folks whose morality we are not fixated on…you know, our “betters”). This “damsel in distress” (hey, I hate that term too, but stay with me) is not blonde but rather, African-American and was working as an exotic dancer (you know, the race/gender of folks whose morality we ARE fixated on…you know, who we are superior to). Finally, there were the racial epithets. Don’t ya just HATE those times when you can’t pretend that racism doesn’t exist! Damn!

Outside of ABC, which of course, owns ESPN and therefore finds this too big a story to ignore (who said corporate consolidation wasn’t a good thing?!) this story hasn’t received the saturation coverage of other stories of this type. I wonder why…

So of course, here are all my dumb points and questions–and hell yeah, they are dumb because folks pretend to not know the answer to them, and we all do.

First–and this has always vexed me–what is this pernicious double standard of enjoying an exotic dancer’s work and then cursing her? Curse your own goddamned self. No means no–all the goddamned time. If you hate you, take your violence out on yourself, no one else.

Second–since the thugs in question are white, all of a sudden, everyone starts remembering the Constitution. Isn’t it just funny how when we sympathize with the criminals, everyone starts talking about their rights? Oh, they have rights. They are presumed innocent. Let’s not rush to judgement. And my personal favorite? Oh my gawd, it’s a mob mentality going on down there!, which of course is just too rich, given our lynch-crazy history. While it’s true that they do have legal protections, I don’t hear a mumbling word about not “rushing to judgement” when criminal suspects happen to be African-American. Of course, the rights of the Duke Lacrosse team are sacred because we don’t give a hot damn about the victim who was so viciously brutalized. And why is that?

But hey, these are just “boys”, just “college kids” and we should cut them a break? No. They are criminals and should be treated as such.

So. I want to see justice, and the first step down to this path is to stop acting like this story doesn’t exist. It does. Violence against women and racism is abhorrent and needs to be dealt with. Severely. Stop the BS.

Oh yeah–and the next time I hear someone sniffing about reparations by saying, That was a long time ago–it has nothing to do with the present. I’ll remind them of the comment made that night, “Thank your grandpa for my cotton shirt.”

From that telling throwaway line to that awful, savage act, this country’s slavery legacy is not so far in the past, now is it?

There a very good site called Justice 4 Two Sisters which is following the story. I would encourage everyone to link to them.

(Cross-posted at Liberal Street Fighter)

[CNN is chatting this up … From the diaries by susanhu … and don’t miss JPol’s huge story below!]

Prelude to a frog march? This just in via a phone call from a friend and the NYT:

Embattled Rep. Tom DeLay decided Saturday to give up his post as House majority leader, clearing the way for new leadership elections among House Republicans eager to shed the taint of scandal, two officials said. (Emphasis mine.)

Surely going back to being a lowly backbencher can’t hold the same allure for Hot Tub Tom, but for now, DeLay will remain a member:

DeLay intends to remain in Congress, these officials said, and plans to seek a new term in November.

Once upon a time, someone like DeLay would already be planning his lobbying career, but after Abramoff … well, maybe not.

Everyday it gets worse (NYT):

Counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show.

Oh, there’s more:

One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a “Vegan Community Project.” Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group’s “semi-communistic ideology.” A third indicates the bureau’s interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

The documents, provided to The New York Times over the past week, came as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, the A.C.L.U. has been seeking access to information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

You’ve likely stopped asking yourself, “… the hell?” since your outrage meter broke long ago:

The latest batch of documents, parts of which the A.C.L.U. plans to release publicly on Tuesday, totals more than 2,300 pages and centers on references in internal files to a handful of groups, including PETA, the environmental group Greenpeace and the Catholic Workers group, which promotes antipoverty efforts and social causes.

No WONDER no one talks about anti-poverty action anymore! The FBI may come knocking. For their part, FBI says not to worry:

“Just being referenced in an F.B.I. file is not tantamount to being the subject of an investigation,” said John Miller, a spokesman for the bureau.

Right. You’re doing this for giggles and shits. My bad.

“The F.B.I. does not target individuals or organizations for investigation based on their political beliefs,” Mr. Miller said. “Everything we do is carefully promulgated by federal law, Justice Department guidelines and the F.B.I.’s own rules.”

So you can investigate and provide oversight over yourself now.

In other words, your rights are being protected because we say they are. And the very idea that you would want proof means that you’re a terrorist. You’re not a terrorist, right? You’re not an eco-terrorist, are you (the wingnut pejorative for environmental activists having the nerve to actually exercise the First Amendment)?  You want to defeat the enemy, right?

See, it’s only for your protection.

Bullshit. “Because I said so” is not a constitutional justification. Any American adult with the sense God gave grits should be disgusted and insulted by this.

And speaking of God, it should be more than clear that the government has decided which religion is correct and therefore non-suspect. Not only are you suspect if you don’t practice Christianity, but there are only a few brands of it you can “choose.”

Blab it and grab it megachurch theology, good.

Quakers and Catholic Worker, bad, a likely communist plot (I thought “communists” were SO 80s) and under investigation.

It cannot get any clearer: there is ONE true set of political beliefs (the rich get richer, the poor will always be with us, and you’re a communist if you’re complaining) and ONE true set of religious beliefs (God said it is His will that the rich get richer, not a construct put into place by people, so enjoy). And if you question or criticize or (gasp!) act against any of this, you are a terrorist.

Cross posted at Liberal Street Fighter

Note: This is just a by-product of the Creeping Authoritarianism detailed so well in Limelite’s must-read diary.

Well, well, well–what have we here in today’s Washington Post?

RICHMOND, Dec. 16 — Gov. Mark R. Warner (D) on Friday quietly amended an executive order that for the first time explicitly bans Virginia state agencies from discriminating against gays in hiring and promotions.

The policy went into effect immediately, and a spokeswoman for Gov.-elect Timothy M. Kaine (D) said the incoming governor plans to continue the policy by signing the same executive order when he is inaugurated Jan. 14.

Moreover,

Warner also added “sexual orientation” to nondiscrimination language in the $72 billion budget that he delivered to lawmakers Friday. Passage of the budget with that language would codify the change in state law, making it more permanent, [Warner spokeswoman Ellen] Qualls said.

Let’s hear it for the activists, whose purity is much-maligned by some:

“It’s bringing Virginia in line with the majority of other states that have these laws on the books,” said Dyana Mason, executive director of Equality Virginia, the state’s largest gay rights group.

Mason added that her group has been pressing for this change in policy for much of Warner’s term. “It’s really in line with his long-term commitment to running Virginia like a well-run business.” [Emphasis mine]

Not everyone welcomes this civilized and overdue action:

At least one lawmaker said his colleagues on the House committee that will review the budget probably will remove the sexual orientation language from the budget.

“My guess is that we’ll strike it out and that there will be a fairly lively discussion about all of this,” said Del. L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-Prince William). “If the advocates of that language want to advocate that view, then my guess is that they are going have to find a bill to do it.”

And while this surely will be a fight, the debate will be carried forward;

But Mason was cautious. She said it is not clear whether a major change in temperament has taken place in Virginia.

…

For example, she noted that lawmakers are expected, among other initiatives, to pass a resolution in the coming session calling for an amendment against same-sex marriages.

“It’s still going to be a tough year,” she said.

Well.  On its own, this is an interesting, if not heartening story: Virginians working for state agencies now have more complete protection against discrimination.

But of course there’s a larger story, and it is this: Gov. Warner is running for president.

And he certainly has been a busy bee as he walks out of the door of the Commonwealth and onto the road to the White House:

-He exonerated two men convicted of sexual assault based on DNA results not available to them at the time of their trials. (See Warner’s press release and a more in-depth story explaining what this means.)

-He commuted the death sentence of the convicted murderer Robin Lovitt to life without parote because a court clerk discarded DNA evidence–possibly exonerating DNA evidence.

-He’s launched an early childhood foundation to focus on the needs of children from infants up to age five.

-He advocates more dollars for higher education, transportation, Chesapeake Bay restoration, mental health and energy needs in his last budget proposal to the Viginia General Assembly.

-Oh, and a hugely successful fundraiser doesn’t hurt, either.

Given the wingnuts in the Assembly (and the fact that Gov.-elect Tim Kaine will have no help since the Lt. Governor is a rethug wingnut, too), I don’t know how long the ban on job discrimination based on sexual orientation will last.  For whatever reason, though, I am glad that more Virginians can have a chance at having basic legal protection against discrimination.

But as for Warner’s presidential ambitions–let’s not be coy here, he does have them–I say this move surely beats out flag-buring posturing any day of the week.

Cross-posted from Liberal Street Fighter

Hello all.

This diary is for For Justice: Day 2 regarding Alito’s positions on age discrimination & FMLA.

My own “copper coinage” (I have someone here to thank for that phrase): States have rights; people don’t. This warped concept is as antebellum as it is evil. Don’t be fooled because Alito’s bright enough not to snarl; he’s as wingnut as they come … only quieter.

Anyway, please take this letter and adapt as you will. Feel free to use all or in part.

Dear Senator,

I strongly urge you to vote against the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. Appointing Judge Alito will threaten the fundamental rights and basic legal protections for working Americans of all ages. Two areas of particular concern include the rights found under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)–rights that Judge Alito apparently does not believe are granted to Americans or should be exercised by Americans.

FMLA helps millions of adults balance workplace and family responsibilities by giving eligible workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for life events such as the birth of a child or to care for a parent, child or spouse with a serious illness. The ADEA protects employees and job applicants 40 years of age and older from discrimination based on age. These laws are essential in an age of heightened rhetoric regarding “family values” that are ostensibly held so dear by social conservatives In an age of pension instability and decline of retiree health benefits for older workers, such protections are imperative.

Hostile to the very concept of discrimination.

A recent Knight Ridder article examining Judge Alito’s record describes him as being “particularly rigid in employment discrimination cases” and that he has “… seldom found merit in a bias claim.”  Is he really so myopic as to believe that discrimination either does not exist or deserves no remedy?  His rulings strongly imply that he doesn’t even support the right of individuals to present evidence that discrimination exists.

Apparently so: he was the sole dissent in Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO). Glass, a 23-year PECO employee, sued for racial and age discrimination after being denied several promotions, even though during that period he earned two engineering degrees and had only one negative job evaluation. During the trial, PECO claimed that the sole negative job evaluation was the reason that Glass failed to be promoted. When Glass attempted to present evidence to refute that claim, the trial judge refused his motion.  The decision was reversed on appeal with Alito offering the sole dissent, claiming that the trial judge’s decision was “harmless.”  Incredibly, he further stated his belief that Glass presenting his side of the story could cause “substantial unfair prejudice.” Evidently, providing evidence in a case one has filed is itself prejudicial.

Ignoring evidence of blatant age discrimination.

In Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc., Judge Alito denied a former employee the right to present to a jury his claim under the ADEA despite providing evidence in the form of a statement by the person who fired him: “If you are getting too old for the job, maybe you should hire one or two young bankers.”

Views so radical that he does not believe that Congress even had the authority to enact FMLA.

In Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, Judge Alito held that Congress did not have the authority to give state employees the right to sue their employers for damages from violations of the FMLA’s unpaid leave provisions. Judge Alito even held that FMLA “creates a substantive entitlement to sick leave.”  The Supreme Court later ruled on a similar case that state employees did, in fact, have those rights under FMLA. That 6-3 opinion was written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Supreme Court decisions have real consequences for real people.

Judge Alito’s record of opposing basic legal protections for Americans is clear and unambiguous: It is replete with examples of weakening the rights and protections that millions of Americans depend upon. Americans deserve a Supreme Court justice that will rule in a fair manner, not an ideologue who will use his life-long appointment to push a narrow agenda that would winnow away basic rights. His type of extremist judicial philosophy has no place on the Supreme Court. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to vote against this nomination.

Signed,

Update [2005-12-13 9:16:56 by AP]: Click here for Senate Judiciary Members and click here for for a list of all Senators.