First Draft

One Last Thing We've Both Still Got

I'd love to say I don't get the resentment.

I really would. I'd love to say I don't see where they're coming from, whiny Lindsey Graham and bitchy Jeff Sessions and condescending John Cornyn, with their pointy little questions about what makes Sonia Sotomayor so special anyhow. I'd love to say I don't understand it.

But I do. I hear this stuff all around me, in the bluest state there is, all the time: I've worked hard. I've done my best. And if only I'd been a gay Native American vegan raised by an interracial family on a Buddhist mission in Africa during a coup AND an earthquake, there would have been a scholarship for me, or a promotion, or something. Something to make me special. (As if ethnicity was a hobby you could take up in order to make your college applications seem more interesting.)

I get the resentment. I get the anger that rests entirely on the presumption that somebody somewhere got a little bit of help I didn't. And I get it because for the past 30 years we have basically, all of us, been told help isn't coming, and asking for it is welfare/socialism/pussitude, and if you do get help you should feel very, very bad about it and never mention it at parties when people are running down welfare queens. The problem isn't that somebody somewhere got help (or didn't; more often than not we have no idea who gets what assistance when we talk about this stuff), it's that by and large we as a country have been quicker to abandon our countrymen during times of need than we have been to hold out a hand.

So any example to the contrary -- a scholarship to a prestigious university, however well-deserved and hard-earned, for example -- is viewed with suspicion. You saw this during the earlier waves of right-wing outrage against Sotomayor, that she was "privileged" somehow, that she was unfairly ahead. How did THAT one slip past us? How did SHE get a leg up, I thought we weren't giving those out anymore since St. Ronnie told that story about the lady driving the Cadillac? How dare anyone live a life that proves false what we ourselves know from experience to be true, that people are nasty and small and bitter and mean and if you get screwed oh well, too bad? If we are all victims of our worst circumstances, how dare anyone rise above them?

It would be harder to ask the questions asked, to provide the nasty insinuations provided by Sessions and Graham and Cornyn, were we a different kind of people. If we rested secure in the knowlege that all of us were taken care of, that all of us COULD count on our own hard work being enough to get us there, then we wouldn't mind so much seeing someone who proved that true. It wouldn't be such a shock to the system, it wouldn't be questioned so rudely, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary.

I'm not letting the distinguished senators from 1864 off the hook, but I am saying, this kind of thing worked for a long time because we all felt beaten down and exhausted, we all wanted help, and for too many of us help didn't come, and we couldn't rise above what happened to us. Too many people feel like they have no access to advancement of any kind, and it's easier to teach those people to hate anyone who does advance than it is to help them advance themselves. I wish I didn't get the resentment. By which I mean, I wish we lived in the kind of world in which nobody had to resent, because nobody had to want something so badly, and know they had no hope of getting it.

A.

Charles Grassley is an Asshat, and other things you already knew

From last night's All Things Considered, wherein Robert Siegel tried to kill me by interviewing Chuck Grassley on Sotomayor:

Grassley:  ...[U]nder our system of checks and balances system of government it's very important that judges judge, in other words interpret law, and that legislators make law.

Siegel:  But this is what Justice Samuel Alito said at his confirmation hearing, before the very committee--he said, and I quote, 'When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender, and I do take that into account.'  By your standard, that would be disqualifying.  He should have said instead, 'My background, my family counts for nothing.'

 

Grassley:  Uh, that's absolutely right, because I expect, a person who's a judge to look at the four corners of the law, and make decisions based upon what that law says.  Now, if it isn't clear, then of course they got a right to go beyond just the words of the law, to court debate and to other courts and to the history behind the bill.  But here's, I think we're--

 

Siegel:  But you didn't vote against Justice Alito's confirmation.

 

Grassley:  No, I didn't.  And uh, let's put it this way--she was very positive, in saying today that fidelity for the law is going to be her benchmark.  The extent to which she doesn't distract from that over the next three days is going to help her standing with members of the committee, particularly Republican members of the committee.

Later, in an exchange about Stevens:

Siegel:  Let me tell you something about Stevens.  I want to ask you a question about that justice in particular and about this notion of empathy.  His father, as you may know, was wrongly convicted of embezzlement when Stevens was a young man, and then he was vindicated.  Wouldn't an experience like that make a person who sits on the bench think differently about the fallibility of the criminal justice system than another judge might?  Don't our individual experiences in some way color the way we would answer a supposedly objective question?

 

Grassley:  If I were Justice Stevens, I wouldn't even have to use the example of my own father.  All I'd have to do is use an example of when justice has not been given to an individual that deserves justice.  And that happens in our society.  And when there's an injustice, that ought to be corrected. [snip] Justice Stevens could render that sort of justice regardless of whether his dad had a bad experience or not.

Okay, so Robert Siegel gets a cookie for at least posing a difficult pair of questions to Grassley.  Too bad he let him off the hook.  (I nearly drove off the road when I heard the "No, I didn't vote against Alito, and let me quickly change the subject" bit.  Grrrr.)

But what really prompted me to write this post is that the whole empathy/objectivity thing is making me crazy.  I do a introductory thing in all my classes about historians and how we study history.  The objectivity debate has been a contentious one in history circles for years.  I tell my students that I'm from the wussy middle in the debate.  While I believe that objectivity should be a goal, we need to recognize that it is, because of human nature, a completely unattainable goal.  You can't take the historian out of the equation when dealing with the interpretation of history--that's why we have 8 million books about Napoleon and Caesar and the Civil War and everything else.  If there were such a thing as truly objective history, there's just be one book about each subject.

The same is true in the judicial system, at least to a certain extent.  While I'd like to think judges would do their best to be objective, I know they can't--they're human (except for Scalia.  And Thomas.).  They're going to each bring their own personal interpretation of the letter and spirit of any given law to their bench.  So I find the whole empathy debate really stupid.  We are all, as Siegel pointed out, and Grassley missed, shaped by our experiences.  We can't avoid it.

Frankly, I find Sotomayor's comments about her background informing her decisionmaking on the bench refreshingly honest.  I'd much rather have a person on the Supreme Court who recognizes where her biases may come in to play (sometimes appropriately) and is up front about that than somebody who is either in denial or lying.

Sotomayor Hearing Schedule

Here's what's happening today and the rest of the week:

Each Committee member will be permitted to deliver opening statements up to 10 minutes in length. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) will provide the introductions of Judge Sotomayor. Chairman Leahy will then administer the oath to Judge Sotomayor, and she will be invited to make an opening statement. Her statement is expected to begin around 1:30 p.m. The Judiciary Committee will recess for the day following Judge Sotomayor's statement.

Watch here.

A.

Pretty Much

Tim on the choice that presently exists for President Obama and his merry men and women:

The simple fact is that Obama doesn’t have a multifaceted decision to make. Doing the right thing (one could call that ‘respecting his oath of office’) will bring on a political shitstorm as every Republican down to the student government level declares that the government has gone commiefascist and starts digging bunkers in their back yard. If Obama doesn’t want that fight then he has to keep innocent people in cages and tell the courts and the international community to go f*ck themselves.

Our punditry likes to make this hard, aided by critters such as Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham. It's not hard. Republicans have zero power right now. None. They don't seem to care about it, either. They're busy fighting amongst themselves over whether Sarah Palin is the awesomest ever or just regularly awesome, whether the Earth really is 6,000 years old, whether tomorrow will bring us all economic ponies, and what to do with the Ron Paul signs in the garage. Not to mention that they haven't got a moral pot to piss in thanks to everybody taking Argentinian mistresses for great justice all over the place. So as to Republicans, I can't see they mount any threat equal to the whole "keeping innocent people in cages" karmic double-down we seem to be engaging in these days.

And not for nothing, but I think Tim's being a little reductive when he talks about Obama only telling the international community to go fuck itself by staying his present course. He's telling a majority of Americans, who voted for him and campaigned for him and donated to him and care about silly things like the rule of law, to go fuck themselves.

Not that I didn't expect him to do just that, but let's just put to bed the notion that a) like we didn't know this and b) this fucking sucks and c) we should say out loud it sucks as often as possible can't all exist in our minds at once. We contain multitudes, and this sucks.

A.

Not nothing, but not enough

I used to have this great therapist. She asked me to name the core beliefs, principles, feelings that I was totally, without a doubt, completely committed to, that meant the most to me, that I was certain of. As sessions went on, she would, fairly frequently, point out when my words, thoughts or actions seemed to be at odds with my commitment to those things. Indeed, some of these things, it turned out, I routinely equivocated about, betrayed, doubted. My point, and I do have one, should be fairly obvious: sooner or later, it doesn't really matter what you say, it's what you do, how you are in the world, that shows your true commitment. 

And the truth will always come out. It will be especially obvious to those who have a stake in what you say you care about. For example, oh, let's just say, you tell me you are a "fierce advocate" for GLBT civil rights, a subject that does in fact mean a great deal to me as well.  If you are bullshitting me, sooner or later, I'm going to know it. 

And I do, and so do we all, Mr. President:

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children.  For foreign service employees, a number of benefits were identified, including the use of medical facilities at posts abroad, medical evacuation from posts abroad, and inclusion in family size for housing allocations.

Well, it's not nothing, but it's not enough, Mr. President. 

Not enough to keep me, us, someone, from losing custody of a son we've raised and supported since our partner conceived him.  Not enough to keep us tens of thousands of non-federal employees from losing a job we've worked at for 20 years because of our gender identity is objectionable to the conservatives on the board of directors. Not enough that if something happens to us, our non-resident partner will be deported, even though we live in one of the states that let us get "legally" married. Not enough for us not to worry about whether there's going to be enough money to cover the legal bills we have to pay to get a little bit of the security straight couples get for nothing. 

I shouldn't have to tell you that civil rights are inherently an all or nothing thing, Mr. President, but here we are. When you tell me you are a fierce advocate, then alternately ignore or compromise that promise, or ask me to keep waiting a few more years, or till your next term, you have my life in your hands. Advocacy is action, not words or promises, or even beliefs. 

Every day when I turn onto the campus where I work, I drive past an unremarkable plaque. Most of the college kids rushing past that plaque have never read it. Ironic, since the event it memorializes, the signing of the Higher Education Act of 1965, is the reason at least half of them are on a college campus. The plaque isn't important, whether LBJ was a visionary or an opportunistic honky or a bit of both isn't important. The kids hurrying past on their way to class are. They are in college, they grew up with at least the possibility of going to college, something unheard of for a lot of poor families (including mine) 40 years ago. They grew up with the hope of that opportunity as a real tangible thing in their life.  

When you reassure us queers, throw us table scraps, and ask us to hang on for another four, six, eight years, you're stranding another generation of kids in a place without that kind of hope. The viable opportunity, not just a snowball's chance in hell, that they'll be able to be who they are, love who they want to, do what they want for a living, without the extra burdens and dangers that too often come part and parcel with being outside the dominant, yet completely illusory, hetero-normative binary. 

Did LBJ pay for the Great Society, FDR for the New Deal? Of course, a staggering mountain of political capital. Democrats are still paying for those things and I'm not talking about money. Change costs and while you're trying to nickle and dime it on the installment plan, DOMA still stands, DADT still stands, ENDA isn't fully inclusive.  

But what's that? You say if I get beat up and left on a fence to die, you say you've got a little something in the works that will get those motherfuckers this time.  And it's Christmas in June today! You're going to give some rights to partners of federal employees. Some, not all. Not health insurance, not Social Security benefits, sure, but what should I expect, given that your people threw this together on short notice and all...

But administration officials said the timing of the announcement was intended to help contain the growing furor among gay rights groups. Several gay donors withdrew their sponsorship of the Democratic National Committee fund-raising event next week, where Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.is scheduled to speak. 

And so, after all, we still DO have our inalienable privilege of being part of the great Gay ATM, to give you and the DNC our time and money and watch you spend it on staying in office.

Change costs, Mr. President, and so does not having the courage to change.

Our business within this common mortal life

In case anyone has ever wondered, I DO realize I'm an inconsistent, intellectually sloppy, lazy asshole a great deal of the time, online and off. I've seldom been accused of being a fierce activist, a rigorous thinker, or good soldier.

This isn't self-deprecation, just acknowledgment that I am those things many probably would describe me as. And yes, of course, I am more. It's almost 1 p.m. right now, I'm likely to be at least three people before I leave the office for home this afternoon. Like all of us, most of us anyway, I'm many selves and some of them on occasion are wonderfully brave, selfless, focused, and righteously eloquent. Mostly though, it's hit or miss.

The above musing has been brought to light by some restlessness I've felt lately, observing, as I am wont to do, the political spectacle surrounding us. Observing: most days it's that, a game watched from the distance. During the last season, the long election second half, we were players, or maybe at least waterboys. Closer to the field at least,  more invested, enfranchised, stakes were real.

Now back to observing mostly. Of course, that's a false construct (I hope) but it's helpful. Otherwise, what are we? Referees? The ball itself?

It's the "otherwise" that's making me fidgety lately. I'm a realist, I have a pragmatic, albeit fairly rudimentary, understanding of how our government organization works, how political capital is gained and spent, how consensus is built toward lawmaking, and sometimes even justice. I get that the players, and here I mean the elected, have to stay in the game to score.

So anyway, when I say that I admire our new president, it's the truth. I'm being honest when I say I was inspired by his campaign and by much of what he's done in office so far. It's also true that I've been heartbroken by more than a few of his compromises, none more so than those dealing with torture. So far I cannot discern a genuine moral or ethical motivation for his choices in this regard. I wish he was 10 times braver, I find some of his "changes," if not counterfeit, already devalued, and I wish he was more a leader and less a politician.

Likewise: when I see the progress of my own chosen tribe toward marriage equality and bringing down DADT, I'm genuinely excited. I know these are moves toward justice, and I think they are worthwhile struggles. At the very same time, I feel squeezed in by the accompanying trappings of conformity and assimilation. If I have one true self somewhere in that crowd of changing identities, I recognize that self is inherently an outsider, and I trust the strength and perspective one gains from being counter to, outside of, the mainstream.

That self wonders what marriage equality and serving in the military means when at this exact moment somewhere, there's a queer or transgendered kid who had to sleep in a bus station last night, no family, no home, no decent job, no supporting circle of loved ones.

Would the fights we are spending so much money and energy on have made a difference to the 10 year old that hung himself because the kids at school called him a faggot every day? And speaking of fighting, many of the elders whose collective shoulders we were lifted on are languishing in single rooms where the only visible culture is one of aging and death. Did they get what they fought for? Are we carrying on with them in mind?

I don't have an answer for any of this. Except that politics as a pastime seems very often incompatible with the complexities of engaging with the world.

Also that I probably watch too much television.

Oh, Newt

The jokes just write themselves:

Gingrich conceded that Sotomayor's rulings have "shown more caution and moderation" than her speeches and writings, but he said the 2001 comments "reveal a betrayal of a fundamental principle of the American system — that everyone is equal before the law."

A.

When the Wingnuts Say All She's Got is a Bio

Here's what you can say back.

A.

How low can you go?

Marriage in Limbo

   

Comedy writer Ali Davis can be found on Twitter, where she is hilarious pretty much daily. Also here and here, similarly hilarious.

You just have to wait...

I'm in a Supremes kinda mood, what with Sonia Sotomayor's nomination and all.  I've been following with particular interest the potential makeup of the court with Sotomayor on it.  And there's one thing that keeps coming up, besides the obvious first Latina story. As Josh Marshall points out, Sotomayor would be the sixth Catholic on the court.

Which, in my mind, begs the question: Where is the representation for the non-religious on the highest court in the land?  I'm one of roughly 34 million people (pdf) in the United States who identify themselves as having no religious affiliation.  That's 15% of the U.S. population.  And we're a growing minority--we made up only 8% of the population in 1990.  I'm no militant--it's kind of hard to be militant when your beliefs have the consistency of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.  But even the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man can be dangerous when miffed.  And I have to say, I'm a little tired of feeling like the Milton Waddams of minority groups in the United States.

Excuse me, I believe you have my Supreme Court seat.

In Honor of Sonia Sotomayor

My Favorite Supremes List:

Best name ever:  Bushrod Washington (runner-up:  Felix Frankfurter)  (No, there's not a theme there.  Whatever would give you that idea?)

Best Hometown Boy:  Byron "Whizzer" White--went to the University of Colorado (Woo!)--I include his nickname because he hated it, and he was the only Democratic appointee to dissent from Roe v. Wade. (the poop)

Best Case Ever:  Marbury v. Madison--gotta go with the source of judicial review here, without which the vast majority of other influential cases would never have seen the court at all.  Thank you, John Marshall, for helping the Judicial branch grow a pair.

Best Supreme Allusion to It's A Wonderful Life:  Potter Stewart, justice from 1958 to 1981

Best About-Face:  Hugo Black (formerly a member of the KKK who became a proponent of desegregation) (also gets honorable mention in the name category for irony)

Best Babyface:  Joseph Story, who at age 32 became (and still is) the youngest appointee to the Supremes (that was in 1811).  (Little known fact:  also the first Supreme to get the swirlie.  It was in the Potomac, as flush toilets had not yet been invented.)

Best Web Source on the Supremes:  SCOTUSBLOG!  It's one of the most unintentionally silly blog names ever, but dang it's cool.

Best Use of Latin by Supremes:  Stare decisis, meaning to stick with what has been decided.  It just always makes me think of my mother giving me the "Don't even try it, missy!" look.

Here's hoping Sotomayor is confirmed post-haste so David Souter can spend more time with his family.  (What?  He has no wife and kids?  Then why's he retiring?  David, you can come see me.  You can tell me all about how annoying Scalia is...)

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Throwdown:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Two officials described Obama's decision on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

Administration officials say Sotomayor would bring more judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice confirmed in the past 70 years.

A formal announcement was expected at midmorning.

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy — the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Democrats hold a large majority in the Senate, and barring the unexpected, Sotomayor's confirmation should be assured.

A.

Which one make the most sense?

A. Yesterday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell: "I do not believe there are any plans under way in this building for some expected, but not articulated, anticipation that don’t ask-don’t tell will be repealed.”

B. Today, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: 

 

C. Last Thursday, The Daily Show: 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Dan Choi Is Gay
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

"I used to tell God I hated him."

When they sent me to the sisters

For the way men looked at me

Branded as a jezebel

I knew I was not bound for heaven

I'd be cast in shame

into the Magdalene laundries. 

                        -Joni Mitchell, The Magdalene Laundries

The Irish Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse released a long-awaited report today. The report, in five volumes of 2,500 pages, took a decade of investigation to produce, and catalogues 70 years of systemic child abuse by Catholic religious orders, of at least 35,000 victims. 

Sadly, that estimate is likely too low. Many of the victims, as well as their abusers, are long dead. Even sadder, no one will face prosecution for these crimes, or for the conspiracy to cover them up.  Some surviving victims are already calling the report a politically-motivated whitewash.

The Irish State colluded with the religious authorities to cover up child abuse that was "endemic" in Catholic-run schools and care homes for 70 years, a devastating report concluded today. The Child Abuse Commission catalogued sexual, physical and emotional abuse inflicted on 35,000 disadvantaged, neglected and abandoned children by both religious and lay staff over the last 70 years. 

The Commission has described the attitude of the Church towards its work as 'adversarial and legalistic.' 

Among the religious orders whose work was investigated were the Sisters of Mercy, responsible for the largest number of children's institutions, the Christian Brothers, which ran schools for boys aged 10 to 16, the Presentation Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity of Refuge. Several are expected to be explicitly criticized by the inquiry, headed by Justice Sean Ryan. The first head of the Commission, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy resigned in protest at a lack of co-operation by the Irish department of education. It was set up in 1999 when the allegations first surfaced.

1999 may have been when Ireland finally started to address the situation but allegations had "surfaced" long before that. People had heard these stories for years. The last Magdalene laundry wasn't shut down till 1996. Yes, 1996. My ex lived in Ireland for a couple of years in the late 1980s. I first heard about the laundries and industrial schools from her. I remember being incredulous, naively asking why, if it was so well-known, no one "did anything" about it. She just shrugged, "It's Ireland. It's the Church." 

Many of the institutions housed abandoned or neglected children, but courts also sent those guilty of truancy and petty crime. Some also housed disabled children. Unmarried mothers were also sent to institutions known as Magdalene Laundries, many by their own families, where they were forced into hard physical work, usually washing and ironing clothes, and lived in spartan, prison-like conditions.

"Those places were the Irish gulags for women. When you went inside their doors you left behind your dignity, identity and humanity. We were locked up, had no outside contacts and got no wages, although we worked 10 hours a day, six days a week, 52 weeks a year. What else is that but slavery? And to think that they were doing all this in the name of a loving God! I used to tell God I hated him." 

"Those places" were the Magdalene laundries: convents throughout Ireland that contained huge washing workhouses run by nuns, which were originally set up in the early 19th century as a refuge for prostitutes. A hundred years later they had become prisons to which Irish Catholic girls and young women "in moral danger" could be sent by their parish priest - the term covered anyone from single mothers (who had often become pregnant as a result of rape or incest) to girls who were simply high-spirited or "bold." 

Many never saw their families or the outside world again but lived their entire lives behind walls until they were buried in unmarked communal graves. They, in their tens of thousands, are "the disappeared" of Ireland.

Oh, Jesus, This Too?

Obama had to go and talk last night about how he already had a lot of shit on his plate:

WASHINGTON – Justice David Souter is planning to retire after more than 19 years on the Supreme Court, giving President Barack Obama his first chance to fill a vacancy on the high court.

The White House has been told that Souter will retire in June, when the court finishes its work for the summer, a source familiar with his plans said Thursday night. He almost certainly would remain on the bench until a successor is confirmed.

The source spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Souter.

Souter had no comment Thursday night, a Supreme Court spokeswoman said.

Souter's retirement is unlikely to alter the ideological balance on the closely divided court because Obama is certain to replace the liberal-leaning justice with someone with similar views.

A.

Why we fight, reason #96,147

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Homophobistan), on the House floor earlier today:  

 

via Media Matters

UPDATED:  The Matthew Shepherd Bill, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H. R. 1913), was passed in the House of Representative this afternoon (despite the actions of people like Rep. Foxx)  249 to 175.  If approved by the Senate, the bill will add sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability to the categories included in existing federal hate crimes law and would allow local governments who are unable or unwilling to address hate crimes to receive assistance from the federal government.  

The Senate version of the bill is S.909, sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy.   Rep. John Conyers sponsored the House bill. 

44 years ago today

On March 25, 1965, the third march from Selma to Montgomery ended triumphantly as 25,000 marchers arrived at the State Capitol building in Montgomery. That moment marked the largest gathering to date of civil rights demonstrators in the south, and the culmination of the voting rights movement. March leaders delivered a petition for Alabama Governor George Wallace:

We have come not only five days and 50 miles, but we have come from three centuries of suffering and hardship. We have come to you, the Governor of Alabama, to declare that we must have our freedom NOW. We must have the right to vote; we must have equal protection of the law, and an end to police brutality.

But the real message of the day was delivered by Dr. King: 

Marching into History: the Eve of Justice

Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court of California takes up the task of re-considering the validity of Proposition 8.

Tonight, the marching begins.

In Los Angeles, Ventura, and Fresno. In San Jose, Santa Barbara and Napa. In Stockton, Kernville, and Modesto. In a couple of dozen other cities all over California, in Arizona, and even Oklahoma. Thousands will hold up their candles, "lighting the way for the Supreme Court."

If you're in California, please take this opportunity to be on the right side of history. If you're elsewhere, watch the proceedings via webcast.

The Yoo Memos

Speaking of "it's always worse than we thought," here's some proof.

A.

What Matt Said

Here.

It is always gonna be worse than you think it is. Because the stuff allowed to see the light of day, that's bad enough that it tells you what they're keeping back is even worse. Sometimes you're paranoid but they're still plotting against you.

A.

How A Nation of Laws Operates

Go read.

A.

A nation of flaws?

Russ (A's BF) Feingold is on Maddow's guest list tonight. Especially given Holder's confirmation earlier today, I'm guessing the topic is going to be the rule of law, specifically what Obama's already done so quickly, and how much more is still left for him to do.  Feingold's been very vocal on this since pretty much the minute Obama got elected, which I'm glad to see. As outspoken as he's been on separation of powers, excessive government secrecy, detention and interrogation, and privacy, I would be a lot happier if he'd speak up on the accountability side of this issue. As I've said before, with respect to the contingent that wants to let Bush/Cheney Inc. enjoy a peaceful retirement unencumbered by accountability for their myriad unlawful actions,  I just don't get it.  The administration cannot hope to continue to simultaneously champion restoring the rule of law while ignoring the aspect of investigations and prosecutions under those laws. They can continue to try but it's awfully, transparently, cynical.  And that's not the kind of hope we live with.

Glenn Greenwald continues to stump for real accountability and today, in addition to revisiting the issue of a two-tiered system of justice,  he also tried to run down claims that Holder had pledged behind the scenes, to upstanding paragon of virtue Kit Bond, not to pursue prosecutions. After a string of typical Greenwaldian updates, the upshot, via an aide of Holder's:

"Eric Holder has not made any commitments about who would or would not be prosecuted. He explained his position to Senator Bond as he did in the public hearing and in his responses to written questions."

Read the rest

People Who Kicked Bush's Ass: Russ Edition

Another of my favorite moments from a very long, vicious, and now mercifully OVER, eight years:

Even as America addresses the demanding security challenges before us, we must strive mightily also to guard our values and basic rights. We must guard against racism and ethnic discrimination against people of Arab and South Asian origin and those who are Muslim.

We who don’t have Arabic names or don’t wear turbans or headscarves may not feel the weight of these times as much as Americans from the Middle East and South Asia do. But as the great jurist Learned Hand said in a speech in New York’s Central Park during World War II: “[T]he spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias . . . .”

Was it not at least partially bias, however, when passengers on a Northwest Airlines flight in Minneapolis three weeks ago insisted that Northwest remove from the plane three Arab men who had cleared security?

Of course, given the enormous anxiety and fears generated by the events of September 11^th, it would not have been difficult to anticipate some of these reactions, both by our government and some of our people. And, of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country that allowed the police to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your email communications; if we lived in a country that allowed the government to hold people in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, then the government would no doubt discover and arrest more terrorists.

But that probably would not be a country in which we would want to live. That would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.

Preserving our freedom is the reason that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people.

A.

Negative Imagination

As she often is, liprap is right. 

She's right to ask for our silence, that we don't do the easy thing, don't let our mouths start to churn out the familiar sound bites after we read the awful story about how  Ja'Shawn Powell's short life ended. 

Because God knows that's a natural reaction, the urge to make sense, explain, or even to soften the heartbreak of such a thing, but liprap's right to point out that this is not what's needed at the moment.  We may need it but Ja' Shawn's mother Daniella Powell most certainly does not.

In her shock, she is still thinking her son needs new clothes. I am grateful for the presence of her extended family at this time, and I hope that more New Orleanians all over this city will reach out and show her that her feelings matter, that her son did not deserve this fate, and that she should not be thinking "What if..?" for the rest of her days.

A memorial fund has been set up. In NOLA donations can be made at the locations are listed at http://www.libertybank.net/about/locations.cfm or mailed to Liberty Bank P.O. Box 60131, New Orleans, La 70160.

So, if we don't take the easy way out at such a time, what do we do?  Other than to help with logistics and expenses for the survivors of such tragedy, what do we do with a story like this? I ask because I believe more is needed.  Not because it makes a difference to Ja'Shawn's story, or helps his mother, or helps the DA get justice.  It's needed because it helps us, all of us, be better humans, be better parents, to be better neighbors, to be better stewards for our injured cites, to be fully awake in this country of ours, in the world.  Times are hard now. They are getting harder every day, and this is just one story. There will always be more, the stories of strangers, of friends and family, maybe even us. Stories about one life, or stories like Katrina, like 9/11, like Baghdad, like Gaza.

Despite the murderer's explanation, it wasn't hard times or financial need that brought about the death of this American child. It might have hastened it, or shaped the narrative, but that wasn't the reason.   There isn't one easy reason for a tragedy like this, there hardly ever is. It's a thousand things coming together and it's also a thousand missed chances. It's incomprehensible, a black hole of hurt and want. So, again, what do we do? We walk up to the edge and witness. We listen and watch. We bear it. Because it is and we are.  To reduce reality to something, some place, where such black holes don't happen just makes us less viable, and actually makes the world less survivable.

When I read liprap's post about Ja'Shawn, it reminded me of a part of a theater piece by Anna Deaveare Smith. The video is below, and the piece I was reminded of starts at 6:10, though I'd recommend watching all four parts. Some of it is awfully difficult but it's an amazing performance.

While Myisha Jenkins' story does bear a very slight resemblance to Ja'Shawn's, it was Smith's introduction to  A Mirror to Her Mouth that I flashed on after reading liprap, the part where she quotes Maxine Greene about the idea of negative imagination.  Because that is what the black hole is, negative imagination. A vaccuum without possibility.  

Despite what she told Smith, Greene has done a lot of valuable work around the questions of how we as a people deal with tragedy, particularly how we teach our children to live with the incomprehensible.  Not necessarily to solve it, or comprehend it, but to live with it, to bear it.

Below, Greene is talking about children but I think it applies to all of us.

And yet, it seems to me, the crucial demand of our time is to attend, to pay heed. Only as we do attend to those pressed into invisibility by disaster can we save ourselves from the corruptions of indifference. Only as we notice intentionally notice the person, in the windblown robes in Darfur (the young woman raped by her enemy, now holding a baby, the fruit of that rape, in her lap) can we avoid becoming objects ourselves because of the ease of transforming that young mother into a thing, a mere object. And the problem today (or one of the manifold problems) is to enable the young to develop a sense of agency through learning to learn, to imagine, to empathize. Only through that feeling of agency, even in the face of the uncontrollable, can young people collaborate to develop some mode of making a difference, even without a promise of completion or success.

Besides, It's Not About Bush

It's about everybody Bush brought with:

In fact, if you examine the evidence, they've been nothing less than brilliant. Vide: 1) The justice system is poisoned by conscious, intentional politicicization. Partisanly targeted prosecutions are common. The Court has been revealed as a tool of special interest. 2) The military is nearing exhaustion, and has been drawn into the overt commission of atrocities to merely sustain its existence. 3) Posse Comitatus and Habeas Corpus are functionally dead, in the name of 'national security,' which also ratified internal communications intelligence gathering AGAINST citizens WITHOUT warrants. Other civil liberties are curtailed more than at any previous time since the Civil War. Unwarranted search-and-seizure is common at Transportation Security chokepoints on inter-state transportation. 4) The economy has been compromised, possibly (probably!) fatally, by 30 years of studious non-intervention. The middle-class is in tatters and terrified of the future. 5) Wars proliferate internationally, and violent chaos reigns on the southern border.

Plus, the Busheviks have spent the last 8 years installing partisan, loyalist, often theocratic zealots in cells embedded in the bowels of EVERY Agency, Bureau, Commission, and Department of the State. It will be 30 years before the last of them retires or dies.

A.

Explain it to me

I keep stumbling into arguments about something lately and I'm starting to feel so far down the rabbit hole of surreality that I'm wondering if I can get out.  I'm hoping you guys can help me.

Can someone tell me, please, when we voted on, or otherwise agreed as a nation, to ignore the central, singular importance of the rule of law?

Can any of you tell me when the threats of divisiveness, extreme partisanship, rancor, recrimination, or hell, even political failure, became paramount over upholding the Constitution?

And while you're at it, explain to me also how the United States of America became some huge shark,  one that will drown, die, and sink downward into darkness the second it stops moving forward? Explain to me why we can't afford to stop?  Stop and focus and take the time and effort to do what the law says must be done when those in power have betrayed the public trust? 

Explain it to me, and then look back into the events, external and internal, of your own life and tell me when you decided that you, as a citizen in a larger group of citizens, began to believe that it was a good thing, an advisable, comfortable course of action, to ignore these things, to forget the Constitution, to assume things would work out fine for you and me and those who will live in America after you and I are gone.  Was it one singular event that convinced you?  Or did you just let it fade from your consciousness over time? Was it an act of determination or one of resignation?  Are you proud of it?  Do you think about it all?

Because I have to tell you, a fair number of people I know, that I trust even, have looked me in the eye and told me it was okay with them, that it was advisable even, for Bush and Cheney to get away with their crimes. That the country couldn't stand it, that there aren't any politicians that we can trust enough to do the job right, that the Democrats might fail, might lose their hard-won advantage, that bigger problems are happening now, that we should let it go because it was all in the past. Enough people have had that argument with me that I'm assuming some portion of you guys feel that way too. 

Feel that way despite this.

Or this.

Because a lot of seemingly good, decent folks believe these things, I assume there are some good reasons for doing so. I guess, given enough time and argument, I might come to understand, if not agree with, some of them.  Someday maybe, but today, right now, I do not get it.  I do not understand.

I understand Thomas Tamm:

And we learned that the only way that we can be kept safe is for the government to break our laws?  I just disagree with that. I think that we are stronger and better as a nation when we follow the Constitution, when we follow the statutes, and when we follow the rule of law.

I understand Glenn Greenwald:

What you have is a two-tiered system of justice where ordinary Americans are subjected to the most merciless criminal justice system in the world. They break the law. The full weight of the criminal justice system comes crashing down upon them. But our political class, the same elites who have imposed that incredibly harsh framework on ordinary Americans, have essentially exempted themselves and the leaders of that political class from the law.

They have license to break the law. That's what we're deciding now as we say George Bush and his top advisors shouldn't be investigated let alone prosecuted for the laws that we know that they've broken. And I can't think of anything more damaging to our country because the rule of law is the lynch pin of everything we have.

I understand Barbara Jordan:

I join in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry.  Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States, "We, the people."  It is a very eloquent beginning.  But when the document was completed on the seventeenth of September 1787 I was not included in that "We, the people."  I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake.  But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision I have finally been included in "We, the people."

Today, I am an inquisitor; I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now.  My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total.  I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution.

If you believe differently, tell me why. Try and help me understand it, please.

Please, won't somebody think of the children?

Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce - watch more funny videos

Band Queers Represent!

"Band Queers."

That's what they called us. And to be totally fair, some of us were, even if we didn't realize at the time. However, in my high school,if you played an instrument other than a guitar and were in the band, you were a Band Queer, regardless of your orientation.

I've said before that I learned the meaning of irony in high school marching band. You see, there's something about marching, the act of declarative, deliberate, ritualized walking, that is revelatory. Those who haven't ever marched in any capacity, be it military, musical, or in protest, just don't get it. The other kids in high school certainly didn't, that's for sure.

But we did. All the weeks of sweaty August nights, practicing on that muddy, bumpy field behind the band hall, slathered with Off to protect against the clouds of mosquitoes that feasted on us, trying and failing, and trying again till suddenly it all clicked: the intricacies of the music embedded in our brains, the mathematical complexity of the formations understood and mastered, turns and counter marches exquisitely snapped off, and a hundred and eight awkward geek adolescents moved as one proud accomplished entity.

We knew how good we were and we knew that the others would never get it and we knew that didn't matter. We had a job to do, a show to put on, and a school to represent, whether they liked us or not. We were Band Queers. We kicked ass.

All of that, and of course so much more, was why I was in tears when I saw this news day before yesterday:

We are extremely pleased to announce that the Lesbian and Gay Band Association will be included as a marching contingent in the Inaugural Parade. This is the first time that an LGBT group will be represented in a Presidential Inaugural Parade, truly our chance to make history.

Jesus Christ! and a cast of dozens — Prop 8: The Musical

A mini-musical with Allison Janney, John C. Reilly, Jack Black, Neil Patrick Harris, Margaret Cho, Maya Rudolph, Kathy Najimy... and possibly other celebrities I don't recognize. If you see someone I left out, leave a comment.

The thing I really love about this is the "Hey kids! We ain't beat yet, let's put on a show!" spirit of the thing.

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Thirty years gone, never forgotten

What Harvey Milk Tells Us About Prop 8:

In light of the passage of Proposition 8, Harvey's message of thirty years ago remains as vital today as it was then. It is our responsibility to let our loved ones, co-workers, friends, and neighbors know who we are, so that those who vote in favor of discrimination have our names and faces in their minds eye when doing so.

Although Proposition 8 wasn't exactly a re-make of Proposition 6, it's the same disaster movie storyline pitch: any recognition of constitutional rights for gay and lesbian citizens will somehow destroy the natural order and as a result America's institutions -- be they schools or marriage--will crumble.

Harvey pitched a different storyline: an accommodating democratic society based on constitutional principles, including the separation of church and state, and equality for all its citizens will make our country stronger and freer. But Harvey was more than just a good pitchman. He had an innate sense of history, and as a result he made his mark on history. Three weeks after his Proposition 6 victory speech Harvey was killed, and we're still waiting for another leader of his ilk to emerge. While we may not be able to predict from where or when real leaders come, eventually they do. In the meantime, as we celebrate the election of a man whose own parents' interracial marriage would not have been legal in sixteen states prior to 1967, Harvey we're still waiting.

h/t Gentilly Girl

California Supreme Court agrees to hear Prop 8 challenges

Breaking news:

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules.

The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage.

All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

As is its custom when it takes up cases, the court elaborated little. However, the justices did say they want to address what effect, if any, a ruling upholding the amendment would have on the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages that were sanctioned in California before election day.

Gay rights groups and local governments petitioning to overturn the ban were joined by the measure's sponsors and Attorney General Jerry Brown in urging the Supreme Court to consider whether Proposition 8 passes legal muster.

The initiative's opponents had also asked the court to grant a stay of the measure, which would have allowed gay marriages to begin again while the justices considered the cases. The court denied that request.

The justices directed Brown and lawyers for the Yes on 8 campaign to submit arguments by Dec. 19 on why the ballot initiative should not be nullified. It said lawyers for the plaintiffs, who include same-sex couples who did not wed before the election, must respond before Jan. 5.

full story here

Day of Remembrance

I wonder if Mike Huckabee knows that just this past year,  27 people were murdered because they were transgendered. Sixteen of those were in the United States,  11 from other countries. I wonder what he might say looking at the list.

Cause of death:

"beaten to death and tossed in a dumpster."

"Repeatedly beat in the head with a brick."

"stabbed to death"

"Severely beaten causing fractures to the head and face before being run over by a car."

"Was found in her apartment, she had been stabbed in the throat."

"Beaten, gang raped and stabbed then left to die in the back seat of a car."

"found next to a dumpster outside her home, had been shot and left to die."

"Drowned"

"shot in the back of the head with a 12gauge, shotgun."

"shot while sitting in a car with her brother. Her brother was also shot but survived."

"executed by Iraqi death squads"

Perhaps we can safely assume that former Governor Huckabee didn't hear about the murders of Stacy Brown, Ashley Sweeney, Adolphous Simmons, Ebony Whitaker, or Lloyd Nixon. Or the three transgender women shot by Iraqi death squads. He's been pretty busy with television appearances, so maybe he didn't read about Teish Cannon, shot to death four days ago.

And February was a while ago, and he was still campaigning, so maybe he wasn't watching a lot of national news and missed the national publicity given to the murder of Lawrence King.  After all, that was barely a month after all the fuss about Huckabee's statement equating gay marriage with bestiality, so maybe he was so busy spinning that away that he didn't notice the story about the teenager who was shot by a classmate at his junior high because he liked to wear makeup and women's jewelry.  I guess he just plain didn't notice when his opponents Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both issued formal statements on the murder.

Tomorrow is the Tenth Annual Transgender Day of Remembrance memorializing those killed due to anti-transgender hatred and prejudice. There will be services and events all across the United States and around the world. I think we can safely assume Governor Huckabee won't be attending one.

What: National Day of Protest - When: Saturday - Where: Everywhere

Yes, the election is over and yes, we are all so tired and yes, still a little in shock. And yes, we've got more to do.

This coming Saturday, November 15, has been declared a National Day of Protest for the LGBTQ community and its allies, against Prop 8 and the other homophobic and anti-gay marriage initiatives that passed last week. A nationwide, coordinated protest willtake place at city halls in key locations in every state. Click the image below to find protest times and locations in your state.

What good will it do, you ask?  The election's over, the initiatives have already passed.  True, and the anti-gay marriage movement, emboldened by its wins, is already setting its sights on New Jersey and New York and in the two states where same sex marriage remains legal, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Are you okay with that?

Yes, more than a protest is needed in the long run. However, a unified show of force of this size will remind the American public that this issue is not going away, will signal to the Coalition of H8 that the national LGBTQ community stands together in support of its family in California, Arizona, Florida and Arkansas, that our allies and families stand with us, and that we are never going to stop fighting for our equality, no matter what.

On the steps of your City Hall on November 15th at 10:30am PST /
1:30pm EST, our community WILL take to the streets and speak out
against Proposition 8 and all of the other pro-equality losses that we
have faced in our lifetimes, in our parents’ lifetimes, and for many
generations before us.

Join the Impact also has badges and other resources available so you can publicize the National Protest Against Prop 8 on your site, via email, or distributing your own flyers.

Say "I Don't" to Prop 8

Now is the time to donate. Let your support be known.

Show your support for the fight against Prop 8 by grabbing the code for this or one of the other awesomely funky shots of legally wedded bliss over at Looky, Daddy.  Remember, this isn't just about California. If Proposition 8 passes, it will be a setback in the fight for marriage equality nationwide.

Prop 8 matters to everyone, not just Californians

Most of you already know about Proposition 8, the ballot initiative Californians will vote on during the General Election this November 4.   

But maybe you don't realize how important it is to all of us that this initiative is defeated.

Thanks to the state Supreme Court,  the California constitution now guarantees marriage equality for same-sex couples. If passed, Proposition 8 will amend the constitution to include a section stating that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  That result could possibly be challenged under the federal constitution, but it's not guaranteed that such a case would be successful. Further, while state Attorney General Jerry Brown has gone on record saying Prop 8 would not be retroactive, meaning existing gay marriages in the state would not be nullified, other legal opinions vary on that issue. Supporters of the initiative insist that it will invalidate all gay marriages, past and future, no matter when or where performed.

Needless to say, it's imperative that Prop 8 is defeated.  Not just for Californians but for all of us who support marriage equality. A defeat in this election would be exponentially damaging, setting back decades of progress toward marriage equality — if Prop 8 passes, it will be the  first  time in the history of the United States that voters have  stripped  away  an existing  right  to marry. Alternately, if Prop 8 is defeated, it's likely to speed up the marriage equality movement nationwide.

And our opponents  know it. Anti-gay organizations have poured tens of millions of dollars into this fight, casting it as the decisive battle in the culture wars. As of right now, they have raised more money than the opposition, despite high profile donors like Steven Spiellberg and Brad Pitt, both of whom have recently donated $100,000 to defeat the initiative.

Recent polling indicates there is a good chance that the initiative will be defeated, in part due to the hoped-for record numbers of youth voters turning out to support Obama. Of course these polls have also energized the supporters of the initiative to redouble their already well-organized efforts. 

How can you help? Here's a couple of ways:

• Our good friend Lesbian Dad has been running a fund raiser via Act Blue, with a goal of $5,000. She's so very, very close, it won't take but a few donations to put her over the top.

• Learn more about how non-Californians can help defeat Proposition 8.

Del Martin, pioneer GLBT activist and newlywed, dead at 87

SFGate:

Del Martin, a pioneering lesbian rights activist who married her lifelong partner on the first day same-sex couples could legally wed in California, has died. She was 87.

Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, says Martin died at a San Francisco hospital Wednesday morning two weeks after a broken arm exacerbated her existing health problems.

Kendell says her wife, Phyllis Lyon, was by her side.

Slideshow I made back in June, featuring Del and Phyllis

"From hero to zero in 24 hours"

Something of great significance to the GLBTQ community happened yesterday, something that's never happened before, that's long overdue, that will impact on future generations.

No, I'm not talking about Rachel Maddow, thrilled though I am about the first-ever out lesbian to land her own U.S. prime-time news show.

I'm talking about a landmark employment discrimination case: 

A transgender job bias suit against the Library of Congress moves to trial Tuesday in federal court in Washington, D.C., with potentially major implications for federal anti-discrimination policy.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson will preside over the bench trial in Schroer v. Billington, No. 05-1090, in which retired, decorated Army Colonel Diane Schroer contends that the library violated the federal law's ban on sex discrimination in employment practices.

The library, she charges in a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, rescinded a job offer that Schroer had accepted after her disclosure to her future supervisor that she was in the process of transitioning from a male to a female.

In the fall of 2004, Colonel Schroer applied for a position as a terrorism research analyst with the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress. At that point in time, Colonel Schroer, retired after 25 years of distinguished service in the Army, was a biological male, using a male name, who went to the interview in men's clothing.  An offer of employment was made to Schroer not long after the interview. Following salary negotiations, Schroer accepted the position. Prior to starting the job but after being hired, Schroer disclosed to her supervisor her plans for transition. Literally overnight, she was fired.

Schroer talks about her background, credentials and the then-pending case in the video below.  NOTE this video is not from yesterday's proceedings.  It was taken June 26, when the House of Representatives held the first-ever Congressional Hearing on transgender issues: “An Examination of Discrimination Against Transgender Americans in the Workplace,”  chaired by Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ)  of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor. (Schroer's comments begin at the 3:33 mark)

I encourage you to watch all the videos on the NCTEquality page.  It was indeed an historic occasion.  Rep. Andrews is especially impressive.

More on the legal significance of Schroer's case from Law.com:

"This is potentially very significant, partly because the case is against the federal government, which could impact federal employment policy and people all over the country," said employment discrimination scholar Arthur Leonard of New York Law School. "It also is addressing an emerging issue as to whether people whose gender identity differs from the norm would be protected by the law's provisions against sex discrimination."

Twelve states and the District of Columbia have laws specifically banning workplace discrimination based on gender identity. But courts have moved slowly to recognize protection under the major federal job bias law -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until recently, federal courts have held there is no protection. But a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court ruling has led some federal courts to begin to hold that, under some circumstances, Title VII may protect transgender people who are discriminated against because they do not conform to gender stereotypes.

In an earlier ruling denying the government's motion to dismiss the Schroer suit, Robertson held that Schroer could proceed with her Title VII sex stereotyping claim, but he left unresolved whether gender identity discrimination alone violates Title VII's plain language.

More later on Schroer's case, as it develops.

UPDATED. The ACLU blog just put up another great post with details from the first day of testimony.

"The heavy-footed hoped to silence us"

Once, years ago, on a sunny afternoon, I almost died.

It was a boating accident, three teenagers miles offshore in a 16-foot Kestrel, a speedy British-built centerboard racing boat. It was an exhilaratingly windy day. The tall redheaded boy at the tiller was an experienced sailor, he knew how to make his boat fly. The other girl was my best friend, a star athlete.  Our feet tucked under the hiking strap, we were giddy with the speed, straining to lean back and out as far as we could over the wet chop, getting sprayed with each bounce, laughing our salty asses off. Then the hiking strap snapped.

We flew like watch springs in three separate directions, backwards. Tumbling over and down, then underwater forever.  Then up, gasping for air, separated from each other and unable to see over the whitecaps for more than a second at a time. It turned out that the Amazon athlete had lied to everyone for years about knowing how to swim. We were 16, of course we hadn't worn the life jackets.

We all made it. The redhead kid managed somehow to keep the jock from drowning them both in her hysteria, I still don't understand how I was able to swim back to the half-sunken boat, dive underneath the limp sail and through the mess of floating ropes, find the life vests, then swim back against the current to the others. We had to float the six or seven miles back in, it was close to midnight by the time we made it, falling and stumbling ashore, our legs like jelly from being in the water so long. Ironically, all our parents were completely oblivious, each thinking their kid was at one of the other's houses. By the time they found out, we were safe home, loopy and tired, full of teenage bravado.

But in that first slow-motion half hour, out there fighting those waves, nothing had been certain.

And here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you're doing, where you are, flailing and drowning on the open sea, or asleep on your couch. It doesn't matter how old, young, smart, dumb, poor or rich you are, on skid row or behind a huge desk in the corner office.  Nothing ever is certain, ever. Merrily fucking merrily, life, and safety, is but a fake out, a total illusion. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.  He doesn't know how to get back to Kansas either, no matter what he says.

'Regard all dharmas as dreams'.

That also applies to politics and presidential elections. What, you disagree? Don't argue with me, argue with an esteemed poet. In 2007, Adrienne Rich was honored by the organization Jews For Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ), a New York non-profit that singles out deserving activists working for social justice to receive their annual Risk-Taker Awards:

This campaign? This election? It's today. It's tomorrow. Wherever the edge of your envelope is, it's time to push it. It's time to be a risk taker. No matter what they tell us otherwise, no matter how they try to scare the crap out of us, or lull us into trusting their version of reality, it's time, our time. We have a choice every day to stay scared when they get the best of us, or to keep breathing through it, trusting ourselves in the midst of the uncertainty.  Because it's all uncertainty.

That's the other other thing. You already know this, all of you, but the conventions, then the election, and then... we have to keep it up.  Even when/if our guy wins, we have to keep it up.  We're going to have to fight him, and we are going to have to fight the other guys, and they will never give up. Every cabinet appointment, every agency head, every judge, every anybody, every bill, every vote, every anything. None of it is certain.

"Thank you demons, for coming today. Come again tomorrow then. And from time to time, we will converse."

Rich lays it out for us, the true risks of silence, what it costs to speak, and why we have to pay that cost, have to make that choice to remain fully conscious of the nature of realities both internal and external.

The second poem is one of Rich's own, and by all means, go watch her read it, in the original video here.

For more information on the work of JFREJ, visit their website

Gay Adoption: Obama FTW

This hasn't been a great week for Barack Obama, and it's only Wednesday. Tire gauge-wielding Republicans and the continuing lack of substantive press coverage have allowed McCain to score a few points and I haven't been that impressed by the comeback from the Obama team in general. 

So, I was excited yesterday to see Obama come out loud and proud on the issue of GLBTQ adoption. A press release from the Family Equality Council, a non-profit dedicated to equality issues for GLBTQ parents, featured Obama's response to a letter the agency had earlier sent to both candidates asking them their position on the needs of diverse families.

While we live in a nation that is enriched by a vast array of diverse traditions, cultures and histories, it is our commonality that most defines us. The desire to build a life with a loved one, to provide for a family and to have children who will grow and thrive — these are desires that all people share, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. My own experience has taught me this lesson well. I was born to a single mother, my devoted grandparents helped raise me, and then I married the woman of my dreams and had two beautiful daughters. The love that has blessed each of those households has been strong and sure, and I know that millions of families across this nation share the same blessings.

Obama continues, "We know that the cost of the American dream must never come at the expense of the American family."  He points a finger at politicians that talk about family values but don't make policies that value families, especially working families.  There's some boilerplate about  after-school programs, beefing up  the Family Medical Leave Act and strengthening laws prohibiting caregiver discrimination. I say "boilerplate" but that's a good thing, illustrative of the main point here: a family is a family.  There are more  issues that GLBTQ parents and straight parents have in common than there are that separate these two types of American families.

But we also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it’s about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom. That’s why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That’s why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that’s why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws.

I’ll be a president that stands up for American families – all of them.

I don't know how this is going to play in the mainstream media, or even the progressive blogosphere, but I hope it gains some legs, because I think it's a win for Obama.  And as for McCain.... mmmmmm, I smell waffles.  Mealy-mouthed, parsimonious waffles like the ones served up by the McCain camp in the last couple of weeks.  Let's revisit this recent history:

First questioned on gay adoption, July 13 in the NY Times (emphasis and wtf?s are mine), McCain:

Q: President Bush believes that gay couples should not be permitted to adopt children. Do you agree with that?

Mr. McCain:I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no I don’t believe in gay adoption.

Okay, wtf?  One, who was this "we?"  and two, what about the "both parents" crap?  Most gay families adopting kids have two parents. Are kids supposed to languish in foster care until some upright married heterosexuals step up to the plate?  And what about single parent families?  Divorced parents? Did Grandpa Simpson not believe in them either?  Questions like this started to fly around the left side of the blogosphere and in the MSM.

But  remember, McCain doesn't necessarily speak for the McCain campaign. Aides quickly stepped up to "clarify."  In a letter to Andrew Sullivan, McCain aide Jill Hazelbaker said brings in the ol' states rights chestnut to top off that stack of waffle. “McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue."

McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.

Uh oh. With that, McCain started to get shit from the right. Mind you, this was all of his own doing — Obama hadn't lifted a finger and McCain was on the ropes.  Christian Broadcasting Network's Dave Brody's response to the "clarification" sent to the Sullivan blog:

Huh? That sound you just heard was a can of worms opening up…. I mean if you’re going to say that you’re against gay adoption then why not just stick with that view rather than trying to massage it? The qualifier after the interview does some damage. Why? Because McCain had an opportunity to add the gay adoption issue to his Evangelical checklist and now it’s muddy. […]

Massaging? Worms? Mud? Ewww, I like my waffles plain...

Two weeks later, July 27 in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, McCain de-clarified his position, using the exact same language as he had with the NYT:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the New York Times you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States.  (WTF?)

And I think that two parent families are best for America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there are several hundred thousand children in the country who don't have a home. And if a gay couple wants to adopt them, what's wrong with that?

MCCAIN: I am for the values that two parent families, the traditional family represents.

Even with his latest reversal, or more correctly, because of it, I think McCain has more to lose on this issue than Obama.  By coming out strong, with a pro-family, pro-child, pro-diversity statement like yesterday's, Obama doesn't come into conflict with either his own background or his core constituencies. McCain on the other hand has been exposed as a waffler trying to please everyone on what should be a core values question.

Also note: the pundits can call McCain's language inartful or unclear but that last bit is obviously intended not just about GLBTQ adoption but to reinforce the distinction between traditional American families and those "other" types of families, like Barack Obama's. Not only does he come off sounding like a narrow-minded flip-flopper who's against gays and single-parent households, he's still taking the low road. 

Oh, and by the way, that letter that the Family Equality Council sent to both candidates?  McCain hasn't responded yet.

What We Say It Is

Something else that fails to shock:

Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) wanted some clarity during his questioning. Was the attorney general really saying that anyone who acted pursuant to a Justice Department legal opinion was "insulated from criminal liability?"

Mukasey wanted to say it more carefully. "I think what I said was that we could not investigate or prosecute somebody for acting in reliance on a Justice Department opinion."

But even if that opinion was "inaccurate," Delahunt wondered, and that behavior really did violate the U.S. criminal code, you're saying that someone who relied on it would effectively have "immunity from any culpability?"

"Justified reliance," Mukasey answered, "could not be the subject of a prosecution." Simple as that. "Immunity connotes culpability,” he added, so it wasn't immunity, exactly, but the effect was the same.

Delahunt (much like Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) in the last hearing) proclaimed himself baffled. This was a "new legal doctrine" for him. He'd thought "the law is the law."

The quick take, of course, is that they're making me miss John Ashcroft with a fierceness previously reserved only for Cadbury Eggs in December or figgy pudding in July. Who'd have thought that nasty old fucker would prove to be one of the more principled members of the Bush administration? It's a pretty low bar, I'll admit, but even so.

The law is the law. How pathetic. How quaint. How predictable; I keep saying it but it doesn't get less true: They have been at this for YEARS, and only now are we starting to freak out about it. And our primary reaction is bafflement; it's confusing, it's not like they're just doing something that's, well, rude. It's that they've gone so far over the edge as to say the world we live in, structured as we know it, does not exist. The reality-based community; it's been a joke for a while, but do we realize, yet, how funny it isn't? You show them a banana and it's not like they say it's an apple, it's like they pat you on the head and say "Good doggie." I mean, it makes no sense. They have been at this for YEARS and we're still so fucking bumfuzzled by it we're grasping for a response. The official we, anyway, the Democratic Party we, the US Senate/House we.

Me, I would like to see Congress issue its own arrest warrants and drag these people to jail on national television, because the law isn't what you say it is, the law is the law, and if you break it, you get your ass handcuffed, and that's how it works in the NBA.

Schmucks.

A.

"Peance and Freeance?"

Oy!

Edgar A. Domenech says he thought Justice Department officials would welcome information about mismanagement at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Instead, the 23-year ATF veteran says, Justice officials ignored his complaints and later retaliated against him by demoting him, denying him a bonus and attempting to give him a poor job review.

"I realized I was committing career suicide at the time, but I felt I had a moral obligation as the deputy director to protect the agency and the men and women of the agency," Domenech said in an interview yesterday. "In retrospect, I was naive to believe that the department would welcome my honesty."

Domenech filed a 13-page complaint yesterday with the Office of Special Counsel, saying that ATF and the Justice Department punished him for raising questions about the performance of former ATF director Carl J. Truscott, who resigned in August 2006 while under investigation for alleged financial mismanagement.

[snip]

Domenech first raised complaints about Truscott's performance in December 2005 with William Mercer, then principal associate deputy attorney general, who later would be a pivotal figure in the controversy over the dismissal of the federal prosecutors.

Mercer and another official said Truscott "appeared to be in over his head, but since his name came directly from the White House, there was little that could be done about the situation," according to the complaint. Several months later, Domenech said, Mercer dismissed complaints about Truscott as coming from "disgruntled career staff."

After Truscott left, Domenech reversed a decision by Truscott to include an engraved quotation from Bush at the entrance to the new ATF headquarters in Washington.

"I don't need lawyers. I have friends"

Developer Kenny Gamble above. His friend Alphonso below....

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a good article on the fight over land that was behind the Philadelphia Housing Authority's lawsuit against HUD and claims that Alphonso Jackson helped out developer and friend Kenny Gamble. Here is the beginning of that article....

On June 19, 2006, Mayor John F. Street called a summit for two powerful players in Philadelphia real estate.

On one side was Kenny Gamble, the millionaire R&B maestro whose local nonprofit - Universal Community Homes - was a developer in the Martin Luther King Plaza public housing project in South Philadelphia.

On the other was Carl R. Greene, the head of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, who was in charge of the redevelopment.

The men were at war over four parcels of land.

Greene refused to give the land to Universal. He said Universal hadn't done any work to earn it. And if Gamble didn't like it, he could get a lawyer to negotiate buying the land.

After Street had left and the meeting had ended, Greene said, Gamble leaned toward him and said, "I don't need lawyers."

"I have friends." (my emphasis)

Yes he did as Gamble was able to get Alphonso to come visit the land in question.....

When Greene learned of the housing secretary's visit several days later, he was livid.

"I'm used to people pushing back and calling in favors, or calling politicians," Greene said. "That happens every day. But it's very unusual for the secretary to come personally to Philadelphia, to personally visit the site, and to draw a conclusion without ever having a dialogue with us."

Jackson followed up with a call to Street. According to PHA's lawsuit, Jackson directed Street to convey to Universal the two parcels of land for the houses.

Greene said no.

I recommend reading the whole article for the details on what went on with the contract between Universal and the PHA.

And of note--Kenny Gamble is the Gamble in the songwriting team of Gamble and Huff.  And Philebrity.com sums  up  perfectly with this ..... 

Fast forward: Gamble’s friend Jackson visits the sites, HUD money gets pulled from PHA, and more than anything, poor people get screwed out of affordable housing. It’s all chronicled quite well in this story, but bear in mind before reading: You may never hear “Back Stabbers” in quite the same way again.

And Bonus Gamble/Huff: For the Love of Money.....

Chimpy Loses Again

He always seems to lose when these cases finally make it to court.

A federal appeals court struck down a Bush administration policy exempting power plants from certain environmental regulations. The court said the policy was unlawful.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit negated a rule known as cap-and-trade. That policy allows power plants that fail to meet emission targets to buy credits from plants that did, rather than having to install their own mercury emissions controls. The rule was to go into effect in 2010.

The court struck down the cap-and-trade policy and the Environmental Protection Administration's plan to exempt coal- and oil-fired power plants from regulations requiring strict emissions control technology to block emissions.

[snip]

The three-judge panel agreed with the states that the EPA did not have the authority to exempt the power plants. The court unanimously ruled that EPA's arguments were ''not persuasive.''

Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in fish and poses the greatest risk of nerve and brain damage to pregnant women, women of childbearing age and young children. Emissions of mercury total about 48 tons a year, most of it in the form of air pollution that winds up in waterways.

Chimpy Loses Again

Wow, imagine allowing the accused to actually present evidence of his innocence in court.

A federal appeals court refused Friday to reconsider a ruling broadening its own authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court is also closely watching that issue.

The decision is a setback for the Bush administration, which was displeased by the court's three-judge ruling in July and had urged all 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review it.

The ruling held that, when Guantanamo Bay detainees bring a court challenge to their status as ''enemy combatants,'' judges must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military chooses.

When detainees are brought before military combatant status review tribunals, they are not allowed to have lawyers and the Pentagon decides what evidence to present. Unlike in criminal trials, the government is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent.

''For this court to ignore that reality would be to proceed as though the Congress envisioned judicial review as a mere charade,'' Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote Friday.

OVP Missing Emails From Dates Surrounding McClellan Lie

AP:

A glance at days for which e-mail may have gone missing from the White House. The dates were noted in a letter from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to White House Counsel Fred Fielding.

--Office of the Vice President: In 2003, Sept. 12, Oct. 1-3, Oct. 5; 2004, Jan. 29-31, Feb. 7-8, Feb. 15-17; 2005, May 21-23.

Scott McClellan, 9/29/2003:

Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

Q But how does --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --

Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my attention -- like I said, there has been nothing that's been brought to our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there is nothing that's been brought to our attention beyond the media reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice, they're the appropriate agency charged with looking into matters like this --

Q Well, you do know that they are looking at it, don't you?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and so they're the ones that should do that.

McClellan today:

“I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the seniormost aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,” McClellan wrote.

“There was one problem. It was not true.”

McClellan then absolves himself and makes an inflammatory — and potentially lucrative for his publisher — charge.

“I had unknowingly passed along false information,” McClellan wrote.

“And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."

Burning Down The House

Yow.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Indicted In Arson Case

Following in the steps of his predecessor, Texas' Republican Governor Rick Perry appointed his general counsel, David Medina, to the Texas Supreme Court in 2004, just as George W. Bush had appointed his general counsel (Alberto Gonzales) to the Texas Supreme Court during his term as governor.

In June of last year Justice Medina's house was destroyed in a fire that started in the garage.  A neighbors house was also destroyed and a third house was damaged.  Medina's wife Francisca and children were the only ones at the time.  Arson investigators determined that the cause of th efire was suspicious because the detected an accelerant at the fire's source, and they discoverd the Medina's mortgage company filed for foreclosure on the house in 2006.

Yesterday a grand jury indicted the Medina's in relation to the fire, Francisca Medina was indicted for arson and Justice David Medina was charged with evidence tampering.

Here's where it gets interesting.  The Republican DA who presented the case to the grand jury, Chuck Rosenthal, is now seeking to dismiss the grand jury indictments for lack of evidence.  And the grand jury's assistant foreman, Jeffrey Dorrell, is accusing the DA of a political cover-up to protect Medina.

Has Chimpy Commuted Marion Jones' Sentance Yet?

Or is commutation only former staffers willing to hide Cheney's criminality?

Love Love Love Love Crazy Love

I love how it starts with just a little clapping, a voice here and there, and then it builds, and builds, and builds.

A.

Pooooooooooooor Gonzo

If you can't afford the lawyers maybe you shouldn't do the crime.

Supporters of former attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales have created a trust fund to help pay for his legal expenses, which are mounting in the face of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into whether Gonzales committed perjury or improperly tampered with a congressional witness.

The establishment of a legal defense fund for the nation's former chief law enforcement officer underscores the potential peril confronting Gonzales, who is one of a handful of attorneys general to face potential criminal charges for actions taken in office.

David G. Leitch, a Gonzales friend and general counsel at the Ford Motor Co., wrote in an e-mail solicitation to potential contributors last month that Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing" but does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.

[snip]

The Justice Department's investigation of Gonzales is likely to be completed in the next several months, according to sources with knowledge of the investigation's progress. The inspector general is looking at whether Gonzales misled Congress in sworn testimony and improperly sought to influence testimony of an aide, Monica M. Goodling, about last year's firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The inspector general's office cannot bring criminal charges, but it can hand over evidence to prosecutors with a recommendation for further investigation and possible charges, officials have said.

Neilsie!

The Bush Crime Family strikes again.

The inspector general of the Department of Education has said he will examine whether federal money was inappropriately used by three states to buy educational products from a company owned by Neil Bush, the president’s brother.

John P. Higgins Jr., the inspector general, said he would review the matter after a group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, detailed at least $1 million in spending from the No Child Left Behind program by school districts in Texas, Florida and Nevada to buy products made by Mr. Bush’s company, Ignite Learning of Austin, Tex. Mr. Higgins stated his plans in a letter to the group sent last week.

Members of the group and other critics in Texas contend that school districts are buying Ignite’s signature product, the Curriculum on Wheels, because of political considerations. The product, they said, does not meet standards for financing under the No Child Left Behind Act, which allocates federal money to help students raise their achievement levels, particularly in elementary school reading.

Ignite, founded by Neil Bush in 1999, includes as investors his parents, former President George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara.

[snip]

Jay Spuck, a former curriculum director for the [Houston Independent SchoolDistrict], has criticized spending on the Ignite product, saying: “It’s not helping kids at all. It’s not helping teachers. The only way Neil has gotten in is by his name.”

Much of the product’s success in Texas dates from a March 2006 donation by Barbara Bush, who gave eight units to schools attended by large numbers of hurricane evacuees.

Neil Bush followed up with an e-mail message telling the district that “in order for the schools to keep the Cows in subsequent years they will have to pay an annual fee of $1,000,” according to documents obtained by the citizens group.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of the group, referring to No Child Left Behind, said: “A constant principle of N.C.L.B. is that children must be taught using scientifically proven methods. Ignite’s Cows simply don’t meet N.C.L.B. standards. This suggests that the real reason N.C.L.B. funds are expended on Ignite is because the founder and C.E.O. is the president’s brother.”