Californication

Rather than stopping at gay marriage, Perez Hilton should have asked Carrie Prejean whether or not she believes in equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, and if so, how she reconciles that with her stance on gay marriage. That would have been the real money question. But Perez Hilton was too busy being the embodiment of liberal intolerance.

If only there was an active, political demographic, called the "middle way," to bump aside the fanatics in both the liberal left and conservative right who continue to hijack and distort issues, engage the country in culture wars, and seek total ideological victory over pragmatic solutions to real problems.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525716,00.html

Miss California Carrie Prejean Loses Her Crown
Thursday, June 11, 2009



"Prejean came under fire for her answer to a question about gay marriage two months ago in the Trump-owned Miss USA pageant, in which she was the runner-up. After the pageant, Prejean was continuously attacked as she defended her belief that gays and lesbians should not be given the right to marry in California."

the American Dream, or just politics

Commentary: GOP plays identity politics, too
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/05/navarrette.estrada/index.html
updated 8:59 a.m. EDT, Fri June 5, 2009

Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here.

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- By nominating U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, President Obama made history. Meanwhile, conservatives -- by invoking the name of Miguel Estrada -- are coming close to rewriting it.

Trying to find a way to oppose Sotomayor without further enraging Latinos, those on the right are trying to change the subject by reaching back to 2002 and recalling what happened to Estrada, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

As conservatives point out, Democrats treated Estrada dreadfully. It was the first time in U.S. history that a minority in the Senate used a filibuster to kill an appeals court nomination. Eventually, Estrada asked Bush to withdraw his name. Today, he is still one of the best, most highly regarded lawyers in Washington. And why did Democrats go after this nominee so aggressively? It's because -- like Sotomayor -- Estrada was a threat. The only difference is who feels threatened. Back then, it was Democrats. Now it's Republicans.

... Born in Honduras, Estrada came to the United States at 17, taught himself English and went on to graduate Phi Beta Kappa from Columbia University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was also an editor of the law review. Estrada then served as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, and later as an assistant U.S. solicitor general, where he argued 15 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and won 10.

Unable to challenge his qualifications, Democrats did to Estrada what Republicans are trying to do to Sotomayor: They drew a caricature. Whereas Sotomayor has been criticized by conservatives for being too quick to identify herself as Hispanic, Estrada was accused by liberals of not being "Hispanic enough."

The stakes were high. Had Estrada taken his seat on the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court, it would have left him within striking distance of going on to become the first Hispanic on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Now that honor may well go to Sotomayor. So, conservatives ask, given how Estrada was treated, why should they treat Sotomayor any better?

At first, you think what in the world does one story have to do with the other. Besides, weren't these folks taught that two wrongs don't make a right? But there is a point in there somewhere -- about double standards and hypocrisy and how Democrats and the media only respect minority success stories when the person succeeding is liberal and not conservative.

All true. Yet, that is only part of the story. And it's the missing piece that conservatives aren't interested in telling. By speaking to people who were close to the process, including someone charged by the White House to help shepherd the nomination, I confirmed what I remember from those days: Republicans in the Senate, even though they were in the majority, did a lousy job of defending Estrada. And this was after they made a huge deal about Estrada's story and how it represented the American Dream. Yada, yada.

That kind of billing got the Democrats' attention, and they came at Estrada with both barrels, fearing a potential Estrada appointment to the Supreme Court would pay huge dividends for the GOP with Hispanic voters for a generation or more. But the Republicans never finished what they started. Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, whose party had only a bare majority in the Senate, was disastrously weak, allowing himself to be bullied and manipulated by Democrats Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy.

As majority leader, Frist had a number of procedural tools at his disposal to force the issue, but he was reluctant to use them. The Republican members were likewise missing in action. There were different reasons for that, according to those close to the proceedings. Some were distracted by other issues and didn't really care one way or another whether Estrada got his hearing. Others were -- as opponents of policies such as affirmative action -- a little queasy about the race-conscious way the nomination was pitched by the White House.

In the end, Senate Republicans abandoned Miguel Estrada and let the Democrats smear him, although it's hard to find anyone on the right who will admit to that now. The moral: as eager as the political parties are to climb onto a high horse, both dabble in identity politics. Democrats just do it more effectively than Republicans.

If conservatives are going to tell the story of what happened to Miguel Estrada, they ought to tell it right. And, whatever they do, they shouldn't use one debacle as an excuse for creating another.

Tragedies less tragic

On facebook status updates noting the tragedy of the Kansas abortion doctor's slaying 

the slaying of the abortion doc, dr tiller, reminded me of an email the day after 911, from my supervising attorney when i interned at the DC Public Defender:

"Yesterday was truly a black day. Along with all the terrorist tragedies, our client Jermaine Jackson died. He was shot early Saturday and they pulled the plugs yesterday. His stepdad thinks it was a robbery gone bad.I feel very bad for his family."

I've kept this email all these years. I remember thinking - the individual mothers of sons whose lives are taken in the american ghetto every day grieve no less than the individual mothers and families of those who lost their lives to terrorist attack.

Here's my question to you, now -

Is a tragedy less tragic because there isn't a political spin to it?

These tragedies are telling, not only in each respective story in and of itself, but also of our character as a people - through those whom we choose to remember, and also those whom we choose to ignore.

Sean Taylor. Heath Ledger. Jermaine Jackson.


Its been said, that "a people is judged not by the successful whom we celebrate but by those along the fault lines for whom we care."

Prop 8; "Liberal Women"

on California's Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 - a ballot proposition through which California voters amended the State Constitution to recognize only marriages between opposite-sex couples:

There is no constitutional or "fundamental right to marry" - at least to mean a government sanctioned marriage. But neither should our government be allowed to recognize only marriages between straight people, and attach benefits to that status, while denying the same to gay people. either take it away from everybody (never gonna happen), or give it to everybody (eventually gonna happen).

the United States Constitution does not guarantee any "fundamental right to marry."  the Equal Protection Clause, however, does prohibit government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual-orientation, etc. (subject to varying levels of "judicial scrutiny")

government-recognized marriages were a public policy decision rather than a constitutional issue. you can legislate benefits that go with that "official" marriage, so you certainly can legislate it away. but that's never gonna happen, because now you're pissing off the entire heterosexual married voting population. the constitution does prohibit government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. so eventually, we are gonna have to recognize gay marriages and confer the same benefits attached to official marriages to gay couples. its only a matter of when, just like "separate but equal" eventually going by the wayside.

"fundamental right to marry" is a nice rallying call, though, the same way we bandy about "defending our freedoms" when in many cases, its not so much about freedoms than securing vital national security interests (to include commercial and resources - so "defending our way of life" would be more accurate, really). hackneyed.

* * * * *

overheard: "Women in DC tend to pretty liberal nowadays. With such a well educated demographic, many women tend to date casually." Connecting the dots: Liberal = well-educated = non-monogamous. Can people get any more presumptuous? BARF.

I have a bigger issue with liberal = well-educated (and therefore, conservatives = no as well-educated?), even if academia at colleges and universities have a reputation for leaning left.

There are many conservatives from Ivy Leagues etc. and many of those in government from 2000-2008 were acknowledged to be exceptionally bright if not arrogantly so, criticized retroactively not for lacking smarts but for lacking wisdom.

And I don't see how well-educated has anything to do with dating casually. People like to fuck, period. Its just whether you grew up with socio-cultural norms that frown upon casual relationships and whether you choose to buck those norms. It isn't a more intelligent or even wiser decision either way (I mean ... is it wiser if you have a greater risk of STD's and unwanted pregnancy? I think not.)


Sandra Day O'Connor - quoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg, really - "At the end of the day, a wise man and a wise woman will make the same decision."

Sonia Sotomayor: "I disagree ... I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Presumptuous, and

RIDICULOUS!

Diversity of viewpoints and experiences is good for the whole ... but to presume that one person's difference from others is inherently superior?

Mission Accomplished

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 8:43pm | Edit Note | Delete

From "yes, we can!" to "yes, we did!" - so goes the chant from the most zealous of the Obama camp.

Another volunteer coordinator addressed inaugural volunteers: "Thank you all so much for your contributions during the campaign ... I promise you, this is the last time you'll have to do anything, and then Barack Obama will be president!"

Scary stuff.

Toppling Saddam only signified the beginning of the real, and more difficult work, of nation building. Nor did a purely military solution prove effective. And electing (and swearing in) a new president alone, doesn't solve all our own nations ills. Nor will relying on the political process alone (especially one that happens once every four years), accomplish all that needs to be done.

It's scary that many Obama-philes don't seem to get the President-Elect's own call for greater public service, community involvement, and self-sacrifice, beyond January 20, 2009.

Voting for Change v. Being that Change

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 7:06pm | Edit Note | Delete

Eight years ago, I worked on a presidential campaign. Maybe that explains why, while excited about the possibilities of the 2008 presidential election, my enthusiasm is much more restrained.

The 2000 presidential election in Taiwan was historical in its own right. I remember standing on stage at Chung-Shan soccer stadium in Taipei City the eve of the election, experiencing the palpable wave of energy rise from the thousands and thousands of supporters when our nominee, and later president-elect, took the stage. It almost made me cry. But I also remember going home that night with a sense of both excitement and anxiety - the latter, not over what would transpire on election day (is our guy going to win?), but what would happen the hundreds of days thereafter (what are we actually going to do if he wins?)

Taiwanese people voted for change in 2000. They did again, earlier this year. The eight years in between, I think, most would agree, did not go so well. When I came back for graduate school in Washington, DC, in 2000, I didn't break entirely from political work. I volunteered at the DNC headquarters leading up to Bush v. Gore (and later also interned for a Congressman in the House of Representatives). I voted for Al Gore and was disappointed that George W. Bush won.

I also learned that campaign promises are not always (if not rarely) realistic. This is especially true of promises, or at least their insinuations, designed to "rally" the ideological bases, rather than appeal to moderates. A JFK biography noted his favorite book was Herbert Agar's "The Price of Union." Agar recounts the particularly acrimonious presidential election of 1896:

In 1896 ... a man who stood for 'No Compromise' stampeded a Convention.... 'We beg no more,' said Bryan in his 'cross-of-gold' speech, 'we entreat no more; we petition no more. We defy them!' So did Goldwater defy them. But this was no way to hold together a continent-wide federation of varied interest, occupations, climates and habits of life. Bryan, who was at least a politician, tried to broaden his agrarian base and to capture the factoriy worker for his cause. He failed, and thus lost every northern state east of the Mississippi.

Goldwater never explained what his base was, aside from nostalgia and a bitterness against the compromises of life. So he could not broaden what he could not define, and was beaten far more cruelly than Bryan. But they were both beaten for the same reason: they both, in their rash enthusiasm, forgot that a successful American political party must be a non-ideological affair, accommodating many points of view .... Such parties should never allow themselves to feel, and preach, that the opposition is not only mistaken but wicked. Bryan did this. So did Goldwater, with his suggestion that the Democrats were sowing a form of moral decay throughout America.

The Democratic party was long handicapped by the bitterness consequent to 1896 .... Once, unhappily, both parties failed at the same time in their assuaging mission, both offering us 'a choice instead of an echo.' The result was the Civil War.

I suppose that captures my second disappointment - seeing more of the same: a choice only, and not an echo. For example, while presidential elections have repeatedly brought up issues such as abortion rights, which has been defined (if nevertheless subject to interpretation), much less attention is given to practical problem solving, such as reducing teen pregnancy, perhaps because it does not excite and rally the ideological base.

My final disappointment probably took a little longer to develop. I remember thinking of people's excitement during campaigns and elections, but what happened thereafter? Supporters of the losing candidate perhaps withdrew in a certain amount of bitterness (the assassination attempt was a conspiracy! We were robbed by hanging chads!). Supporters of the victor, on the other hand, behaved as if all was well or would be well - after all, didn't the President-elect promise all these fantastic sounding things HE would do? - well, sit back and let him do it for four years. No leader since JFK called on the people to ask what they could do for their country, and it seemed that the people did not ask, and did not do.

I suppose all this led me to think about what "change," means, and what is required to bring about change, spurred on by fantasy baseball (true), and gaffing off law school, I blogged:

I used to think that the athletic company Nike’s slogan “Just Do It” was a hackneyed phrase. “Just Do It” - like, c’mon . . . duh. Only recently has it begun to take on an almost mythic quality - a profound declaration of an aspiration rather than a cheap slogan merely stating the obvious. Perhaps, as a matter of fact, most people don’t just do it.

Many of us also like to say that we want to “make a difference.” But what is “difference,” but another way of saying “change”? I believe that there are a great many self-proclaimed “liberals” who, when it comes to action, are quite conservation if not outright prudish. I scratch my head. And here I ask, how are we to make a difference in this world, if privately, we as individuals are so frightened by the unfamiliar, so uncomfortable when out of our “zone”, so adverse to risk, so resistant to change? Furthermore, how do you go about changing resistance to change? Will everything amount to nothing more than a tautological exercise?"

And I blogged that the Bush Administration would prove itself to be among the worst in American history, with far reaching consequences, setting the United States into decline. I certainly did not think that any one person, or the political process alone, would be able to address our existing and future challenges. I figured that, insofar as our everyday lives, it ought to start with the little things - with a consistent dedication on the individual level to our immediate communities.

I would say that, it was eerie to hear Obama echo bits of those sentiments, and even JFK's call to service and for shared sacrifice, during his campaign. That change ought begin from bottom up, that with respect to education - it ought start with parents at home working with their kids, etc. etc.

So I do, in fact, share in the excitement over possibilities of what may be, at the end of this day. The enthusiasm, perhaps, will return, should election euphoria translate into greater and sustained civic participation and service by Americans, and whether we are offered an echo, and not just a choice.


http://dearjason.livejournal.com/65817.html