So we have another "controversy" over statements made by a big wig in one of the Democratic presidential candidates campaigns. (Please note that I have not seen the video so I don't know how it actually game off and have only seen edited quotes so I do acknowledge that sometimes things don't come out as well as they seemed when we formed the thought in our head.) This time it's Geraldine Ferraro saying that Obama's race is partially responsible for him being in this position. And him and his campaign have flipped out about it. My question is: Why is everyone so afraid of the truth? And why are they acting like it's a bad thing to acknowledge it?
Considering the fact that in South Carolina Obama spent a good chunk of time playing to the more religious part of the African-American community (not the overall Democratic religious community at large [at least that's how all the media showed it]) it's a little disingenuous and less than honest of him to now be all offended at the notion that his race has anything to do with the tightness of this primary run. The fact that when people look at both him and Hillary they see something vastly different than what we've had before is a huge part of this years nomination. It's why people who haven't participated before are getting out there and voting. It's why the youth of American are excited about this years potential candidates.
America is suppose to be a country where our differences are celebrated. Where those differences are what makes a strong and great nation. At least that's what we are taught when we're young. And that is what the idealists among us believe about this country. It is the uniting of all our differences that is a big part of Obama's platform. Denying the differences doesn't help bring us together. So why is he acting like his race has nothing to do with his success in this process? No one is saying it is the only reason he is where he is, whether it be in the Senate or as the current leader for the nomination. You must be able to acknowledge the differences to accept them.
Until now when people have looked at the front runners for either party during the nominating process all they've seen are generally old (with a few exceptions) white men. And they are normally very well off white men. (Let's face it no poor or lower middle class person would stand a chance at the moment.) But, this year we have a white woman and an African-American man duking it out for the Democratic nomination. So lets all just accept and admit the truth, things are this tight because of gender and race.
I really don't know how things would be if this was Edwards and Obama or Edwards and Hillary. I doubt it would be as tight with either of those two versions of nominees but, I honestly don't know which one would be ahead in either version.
However, if you took the three of them and made them into the same thing. Whether that be making them all women or all men of one race, you'd be looking at a primary where I believe Edwards would be ahead. The reason I say that is that his age would be younger than that of Hillary while his experience would be more than Obama.
Obama said that Hillary would be offended if someone said she's where she is because of her gender. If they said that, that was the only reason she was where she is yes she might be offended. But, I highly doubt she'd deny that her gender plays some part in her success. So lets just be honest for a minute. If Obama was white his speech at the convention in 2004 probably wouldn't have been as powerful. And people would just see another white guy saying the same things now.
I for one am extremely proud as an American, as a Democrat, and as a woman that this year we have two very viable candidates that are not white men. I am proud that we are showing the country and the world that the American dream of being anything you want is actually true. That neither your race nor your gender will keep you from having a real chance at being President. I do not think we should in anyway deny the truth. We should embrace the truth because once you do, that is when it truly becomes a non factor.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
An Open Letter To The Democratic Party
To the Democratic Party:
Shame on you. I love you and what you stand and fight for most of the time. I know we are in desperate need of change in this country but, I still must say shame on you.
The reason I say this is because of you acting like big babies stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Just because they moved their primaries up is no reason to act like brats. The states should be allowed to have their primaries whenever they want from January 1st of and election year until the convention.
It is sad the hypocracy we are showing in the party over this. In 2002 thousands of voters were left out in the cold in Florida. Their votes didn't count or counted for the wrong person because of an old voting system that didn't line up right. The cry went out from our party that all votes must count. That no voter should be disinfranchised in the process. Unfortuantely we couldn't stop that from happening then.
In 2004 one of our big things was again all votes counting and no one being disinfranchised. We got more people out to the polls to make sure people knew how the machines worked. As well as making sure there was no other funny business going on. This was a good thing. Unfortunately we again lost that election but, I felt we made a good showing to the American people that we were the party that really believed in getting every vote to count. Making sure everyone who wanted to vote and was eligible to vote did in fact get to vote.
And now much to my dismay here we are in 2008 not counting votes and disinfranchising voters during the nominating process. I fear this may damage our turnout number come November in those states. Their voices weren't heard the first time around this year why should they waste their time in voting come November? So what if they moved up their primaries...get over it.
And why are they the only states being punished? California moved up it's primary but, you didn't take away their delegates. It's not to hard to figure out that you would never do that. Even if California had moved their primary up to be at the same time as the Iowa cacus you wouldn't strip them of their delegates. And the simple reason you wouldn't do that is because they have so many delegates.
Colorado moved up their cacus and you didn't strip them of their delegates. Again not hard to figure out why. One the national convention is in Denver. We couldn't slight the host state by taking away their delegates. Two we wouldn't want to do anything that would assure us of losing Colorado come November. Sure they may only have a handful of electoral votes but, this election could come down to the small states. And with a major battle for both a Congressional and Senate seat looming they are a major player for the Democrats hopes of winning back the White House.
So I beg of you to reconsider this stupid decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Give them back and divide them up between Hillary and Barack. Since she did stay on the ticket in Michigan give Hillary one or two more delegates there and then in Florida give them the delegates however they would normally be split. And either let John Edwards give his delegates to one of them or divide his delegates up evenly.
Please change this decision and go back to being the party that wants every vote to count.
Shame on you. I love you and what you stand and fight for most of the time. I know we are in desperate need of change in this country but, I still must say shame on you.
The reason I say this is because of you acting like big babies stripping Michigan and Florida of their delegates. Just because they moved their primaries up is no reason to act like brats. The states should be allowed to have their primaries whenever they want from January 1st of and election year until the convention.
It is sad the hypocracy we are showing in the party over this. In 2002 thousands of voters were left out in the cold in Florida. Their votes didn't count or counted for the wrong person because of an old voting system that didn't line up right. The cry went out from our party that all votes must count. That no voter should be disinfranchised in the process. Unfortuantely we couldn't stop that from happening then.
In 2004 one of our big things was again all votes counting and no one being disinfranchised. We got more people out to the polls to make sure people knew how the machines worked. As well as making sure there was no other funny business going on. This was a good thing. Unfortunately we again lost that election but, I felt we made a good showing to the American people that we were the party that really believed in getting every vote to count. Making sure everyone who wanted to vote and was eligible to vote did in fact get to vote.
And now much to my dismay here we are in 2008 not counting votes and disinfranchising voters during the nominating process. I fear this may damage our turnout number come November in those states. Their voices weren't heard the first time around this year why should they waste their time in voting come November? So what if they moved up their primaries...get over it.
And why are they the only states being punished? California moved up it's primary but, you didn't take away their delegates. It's not to hard to figure out that you would never do that. Even if California had moved their primary up to be at the same time as the Iowa cacus you wouldn't strip them of their delegates. And the simple reason you wouldn't do that is because they have so many delegates.
Colorado moved up their cacus and you didn't strip them of their delegates. Again not hard to figure out why. One the national convention is in Denver. We couldn't slight the host state by taking away their delegates. Two we wouldn't want to do anything that would assure us of losing Colorado come November. Sure they may only have a handful of electoral votes but, this election could come down to the small states. And with a major battle for both a Congressional and Senate seat looming they are a major player for the Democrats hopes of winning back the White House.
So I beg of you to reconsider this stupid decision to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. Give them back and divide them up between Hillary and Barack. Since she did stay on the ticket in Michigan give Hillary one or two more delegates there and then in Florida give them the delegates however they would normally be split. And either let John Edwards give his delegates to one of them or divide his delegates up evenly.
Please change this decision and go back to being the party that wants every vote to count.
I Wasn't Complaining So I Don't Have To
So yesterday I left a comment on a friends blog that wasn't really intended to come off as defending Hillary. At least that wasn't the conscious intent behind it. That did end up being how it was and the person left a comment back. I enjoyed reading his response too my comment. Until I got to the point where he said that I should have backed up my words and passion by going to the cacus for her. All I have to say to that is Bite Me.
I don't really care that he voted for Barack in his states primary. And I don't really care that Barack won my state. I wasn't complaining in anyway about the turn out last night in any state. So I don't need to be told to get out and go to the cacus. Had I been complaining then yes that comment would have been warranted. Because you don't get to complain about how elections turn out if you aren't doing your part in them. But, again I wasn't complaining so I don't need to be told to participate in something.
Again I don't care which won of them wins the nomination. Yes I am pulling for Hillary. However, I have said since 2004 that the Democratic nominee in 2008 would be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I have not wavered from that and I have now been proven right. All that remains to be seen now is who will be the Vice Presidential nominee. I think there's a good chance it will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket but, you never know. Whoever, gets the nomination might ask Edwards to join them or go with someone completely unexpected.
Also there's an actual reason for not going to the cacus. While the process is interesting I don't find it to be a fair process for the people. I think it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold. They are always at night so they leave a lot of people out. If you work nights you are out of luck. If you have to be out of town for work or some other reason, sorry no participating in the nominating process for you. And I've never liked the fact that Colorado doesn't allow independents to participate in the process. When Colorado goes to a more fair process then maybe I'll consider participating in the nominating process even if I don't care who wins.
I don't really care that he voted for Barack in his states primary. And I don't really care that Barack won my state. I wasn't complaining in anyway about the turn out last night in any state. So I don't need to be told to get out and go to the cacus. Had I been complaining then yes that comment would have been warranted. Because you don't get to complain about how elections turn out if you aren't doing your part in them. But, again I wasn't complaining so I don't need to be told to participate in something.
Again I don't care which won of them wins the nomination. Yes I am pulling for Hillary. However, I have said since 2004 that the Democratic nominee in 2008 would be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I have not wavered from that and I have now been proven right. All that remains to be seen now is who will be the Vice Presidential nominee. I think there's a good chance it will be a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket but, you never know. Whoever, gets the nomination might ask Edwards to join them or go with someone completely unexpected.
Also there's an actual reason for not going to the cacus. While the process is interesting I don't find it to be a fair process for the people. I think it leaves a lot of voters out in the cold. They are always at night so they leave a lot of people out. If you work nights you are out of luck. If you have to be out of town for work or some other reason, sorry no participating in the nominating process for you. And I've never liked the fact that Colorado doesn't allow independents to participate in the process. When Colorado goes to a more fair process then maybe I'll consider participating in the nominating process even if I don't care who wins.
Friday, February 1, 2008
They'll Need Help
Everyone always likes to focus on what the Presidential nominees say they will do in office. It's great to know what the candidates hope to achieve. Of course then they get in office and they don't achieve those things fast enough or at all and everyone starts calling them liars. They get accused of saying whatever they needed to say to get elected. What people like to ignore is that they can't do it alone.
Yes the President can influence policy. He or She can let it be known the things they would like to see changed or fixed. Things like health care, immigartion reform, social security, education reform, and so on. Again the thing is they can't do it alone.
The Predisent can't just say I want this change or this much money for something and that's that. They need Congress and the Senate to help them. The bills and budgets that achieve the goals they set forth. In short they need Congressmen/Congresswomen and Senators that have similar goals so they can achieve the things they set forth during their campaigns.
Unfortunately sometimes those Congress-people and Senators are more concerned with re-election than the well being of the country and its citizens. They may think (or even know) that something will really help but, they know that their constituents don't know all the facts and won't like them voting for a certain bill. So instead of voting for something that will ultimately be good they vote against it to help keep their job. This is a shame.
So when you go to the polls this November to vote for a new President remember to pay just as much attention (if not more) to the other people you try to send to Washington. Whoever the next President is will need people with similar goals to bring about any real change. We need people who are serious about working together to help the country.
Change is never achieved by just one person.
Yes the President can influence policy. He or She can let it be known the things they would like to see changed or fixed. Things like health care, immigartion reform, social security, education reform, and so on. Again the thing is they can't do it alone.
The Predisent can't just say I want this change or this much money for something and that's that. They need Congress and the Senate to help them. The bills and budgets that achieve the goals they set forth. In short they need Congressmen/Congresswomen and Senators that have similar goals so they can achieve the things they set forth during their campaigns.
Unfortunately sometimes those Congress-people and Senators are more concerned with re-election than the well being of the country and its citizens. They may think (or even know) that something will really help but, they know that their constituents don't know all the facts and won't like them voting for a certain bill. So instead of voting for something that will ultimately be good they vote against it to help keep their job. This is a shame.
So when you go to the polls this November to vote for a new President remember to pay just as much attention (if not more) to the other people you try to send to Washington. Whoever the next President is will need people with similar goals to bring about any real change. We need people who are serious about working together to help the country.
Change is never achieved by just one person.
Down To 2
So the Democratic candidates are down to just two. I have to say I was a bit surprised John Edwards didn't hang in there through Super Tuesday. The upside of him dropping out is that Hillary and Barack are more focused on establishing stronger stances on the issues rather than attacking each other.
I have to say previously I wasn't real confident in Obama because it seemed like all the sound bites I was hearing were his standards or attacks on Hillary. After watching some of the debate last night I feel much more positive about him since I got a clearer picture of his issues and ideas for change. However, I'm still a Hillary supporter. Some of that is because I know the influence she had on her husbands Presidency so I know that with a lot of the same views there's a lot of good she can bring about. Some of it is also that I am a woman and I feel there's a lot of things (espeically in health care) that are overlooked for woman. I feel in those area's Hillary can greatly impact for the better the future for the woman of this country both yound and old.
That doesn't mean that I think Barack wouldn't advance certain things for woman I just think Hillary would fight harder for it. And at the sametime there are things that Barack would probably fight harder for. That's just how it is with politics. Who you are and where you come from will always influence the level you will fight at for different things.
Whether it's a Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton ticket I still think the Democrats offer the best chance for real change. This is because you're getting a vastly different view than what the Republicans offer. All the Republicans ever have to offer are older rich white men. We are most likely going to over a ticket of a woman and a racial minority. Yes she is an older woman but, a woman none the less.
I think if America is serious about change they have to look at the difference in the views automatically brought to the table by the Democratic ticket. A Republican ticket that will be made up of people who clearly have no desire to break from the Bush Administration policies will only bring about more hardship for this country and it's citizens. Perhaps what they have to offer will become more clear when it gets down to just two candidates for them and it certainly will become more clear once the candidate is chosen. However, I don't really see them offering any real change or anything that will actually help fix things in America.
I have to say previously I wasn't real confident in Obama because it seemed like all the sound bites I was hearing were his standards or attacks on Hillary. After watching some of the debate last night I feel much more positive about him since I got a clearer picture of his issues and ideas for change. However, I'm still a Hillary supporter. Some of that is because I know the influence she had on her husbands Presidency so I know that with a lot of the same views there's a lot of good she can bring about. Some of it is also that I am a woman and I feel there's a lot of things (espeically in health care) that are overlooked for woman. I feel in those area's Hillary can greatly impact for the better the future for the woman of this country both yound and old.
That doesn't mean that I think Barack wouldn't advance certain things for woman I just think Hillary would fight harder for it. And at the sametime there are things that Barack would probably fight harder for. That's just how it is with politics. Who you are and where you come from will always influence the level you will fight at for different things.
Whether it's a Clinton/Obama ticket or Obama/Clinton ticket I still think the Democrats offer the best chance for real change. This is because you're getting a vastly different view than what the Republicans offer. All the Republicans ever have to offer are older rich white men. We are most likely going to over a ticket of a woman and a racial minority. Yes she is an older woman but, a woman none the less.
I think if America is serious about change they have to look at the difference in the views automatically brought to the table by the Democratic ticket. A Republican ticket that will be made up of people who clearly have no desire to break from the Bush Administration policies will only bring about more hardship for this country and it's citizens. Perhaps what they have to offer will become more clear when it gets down to just two candidates for them and it certainly will become more clear once the candidate is chosen. However, I don't really see them offering any real change or anything that will actually help fix things in America.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Free Nation or Christian Nation
There's been a lot of debate lately over the question, Is the United States of America a free nation or a Christian nation? Take a minute to ponder and possibly be frightened by the fact that no one ever asks if it's a free Christian nation. Which should to a degree answer the question.
And the answer is, it's a free nation founded by people of different Christian faiths. I really don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads Freedom of Religion. It does not say Freedom of Religion as long as that religion is Christianity.
This is one area where the founders were far more forward thinking than those who seek to shape our laws and future today. They knew that using religion to make and enforce laws was a bad idea. The reason they knew this was because, that's how things were done in England at the time. If a new king or queen came to power whose religion was different than their predecessor people's very way of life changed drastically. Those who didn't practice the religion of the king or queen were persecuted. If they were brave enough to practice a religion other than that of the king or queen they had to do so secretly, risking death to do so.
This issue with religion caused great turmoil in a time and country where rulers came to power through their bloodlines. Which usually meant they'd go long periods of time under the rule of one religion before some distant branch of the family took over and changed religions. Imagine the havoc that would be wreaked upon our country when our leaders change every few years. The fact that our laws are determined by a group that is a mix of various religions is why religion is to be kept out of the process.
Consider how much trouble we have getting the Republican and Democratic parties to agree and imagine what it would be like if everyone was fighting for religious control. Sure our government is predominantly Christian but, which branch of Christianity should have control. Each branch practices the religion a different way. All of them follow different parts of the Bible more strictly than other parts. Which one should be the dominant one? Do you see the problems that would arise if that was how the government was run?
This is precisely why the founders made a nation founded on freedom and on religious freedom. They wanted people to be able to practice their religion as loosely or as strictly as possible without fear of punishment.
So the next time you go to church and/or dis someone else for their religious beliefs remember they are exercising the same right you are. Remember that if you aren't careful your particular branch of Christianity could suddenly become the "bad" religion. Remember the same freedoms that allow you to go to church a couple times a year are the same ones that allow others to go weekly or not at all. And just as you wouldn't like being forced to go every week they wouldn't like being told when they can, can't or have to go to church. Or which things they are suppose to adhere to more strictly than others. Nor would any of them (or you I'm sure) like being told that you can't practice a certain religion.
Most importantly always remember it's a free nation.
And the answer is, it's a free nation founded by people of different Christian faiths. I really don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads Freedom of Religion. It does not say Freedom of Religion as long as that religion is Christianity.
This is one area where the founders were far more forward thinking than those who seek to shape our laws and future today. They knew that using religion to make and enforce laws was a bad idea. The reason they knew this was because, that's how things were done in England at the time. If a new king or queen came to power whose religion was different than their predecessor people's very way of life changed drastically. Those who didn't practice the religion of the king or queen were persecuted. If they were brave enough to practice a religion other than that of the king or queen they had to do so secretly, risking death to do so.
This issue with religion caused great turmoil in a time and country where rulers came to power through their bloodlines. Which usually meant they'd go long periods of time under the rule of one religion before some distant branch of the family took over and changed religions. Imagine the havoc that would be wreaked upon our country when our leaders change every few years. The fact that our laws are determined by a group that is a mix of various religions is why religion is to be kept out of the process.
Consider how much trouble we have getting the Republican and Democratic parties to agree and imagine what it would be like if everyone was fighting for religious control. Sure our government is predominantly Christian but, which branch of Christianity should have control. Each branch practices the religion a different way. All of them follow different parts of the Bible more strictly than other parts. Which one should be the dominant one? Do you see the problems that would arise if that was how the government was run?
This is precisely why the founders made a nation founded on freedom and on religious freedom. They wanted people to be able to practice their religion as loosely or as strictly as possible without fear of punishment.
So the next time you go to church and/or dis someone else for their religious beliefs remember they are exercising the same right you are. Remember that if you aren't careful your particular branch of Christianity could suddenly become the "bad" religion. Remember the same freedoms that allow you to go to church a couple times a year are the same ones that allow others to go weekly or not at all. And just as you wouldn't like being forced to go every week they wouldn't like being told when they can, can't or have to go to church. Or which things they are suppose to adhere to more strictly than others. Nor would any of them (or you I'm sure) like being told that you can't practice a certain religion.
Most importantly always remember it's a free nation.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Third Party Candidates Good or Bad?
The answer is that third party candidates are both good and bad.
They are good because they bring different topics to the table. Just like in big party primaries when you have people who don't have a chance of winning but, they have a topic they are more versed in and push for that the rest of the candidates are forced to talk about. That is why third party candidates are good for the political process. And there are some places where they have managed to win seats in their state governments and even at the federal level. I am all for third parties in certain instances. And hopefully someday there will be a truely strong Independent party that is a threat to the Democrats and Republicans and then there might really be such a thing as bi-partisanship in government.
However, they are bad because of the people who think voting for them makes a statement and will somehow cause change. This is not true nor is it a good idea if you really want things to change in our governement. See the only real way to get change is to get rid of your incumbent and get someone new in there. If you have 3000 people voting for someone who won't win there will never be change. I get voting for the people that you think most represent the things you believe in. However, sometimes you really need to vote for someone who will win.
If you can get that incumbent out of office who has been there for 4 or 5 terms then the next time around you have a better chance of maybe seeing that 3rd party candidate get elected. It may be a small chance but, it's a better chance than while there is still a multi-term incumbent in office. Now you might think that doesn't make since. But, think about it. If someone has only been in office one term their hold isn't as strong. The next election is rather open. This gives the 3rd party candidate a bigger appeal. It gives them more room to have their voices heard. Even if they don't win that time around they may pull more votes which gets more attention and eventually they will win a seat. And if you really really believe in 3rd party candidates the best thing to do is work to get them into your state government and then move up to the federal level.
The other problem with 3rd party candidates is that a lot of times they are big party losers. What I mean by that is they are a former Democrat or Republican who couldn't win the primary or even get the support of their party. So instead of staying in the party and trying again later they throw a fit like a little kid and go play by themselves. They take their views that are mostly like one of the big parties and then make a platform of the things that differ from their old party. They aren't truly independent because if elected they would side with which ever party they came from. They of course end up not getting elected and often hurt the person who has the best chance at offering change by winning. And so just like the little kid on the playground they are left by themselves with no one to play with and everyone is worse off.
Eventually Independents will have a big impact on our government it's just a matter of if the country can survive until then not getting enough new voices in from certain areas. And I know what I'm talking about because it has happened the last two elections in my district. Especially the last time. If people hadn't voted for the 3rd party candidate we would have gotten rid of our evil incumbent representative. I'd seriously consider voting for a 3rd party candidate but, right now I know they wouldn't beat her and my focus is on getting her out of office.
They are good because they bring different topics to the table. Just like in big party primaries when you have people who don't have a chance of winning but, they have a topic they are more versed in and push for that the rest of the candidates are forced to talk about. That is why third party candidates are good for the political process. And there are some places where they have managed to win seats in their state governments and even at the federal level. I am all for third parties in certain instances. And hopefully someday there will be a truely strong Independent party that is a threat to the Democrats and Republicans and then there might really be such a thing as bi-partisanship in government.
However, they are bad because of the people who think voting for them makes a statement and will somehow cause change. This is not true nor is it a good idea if you really want things to change in our governement. See the only real way to get change is to get rid of your incumbent and get someone new in there. If you have 3000 people voting for someone who won't win there will never be change. I get voting for the people that you think most represent the things you believe in. However, sometimes you really need to vote for someone who will win.
If you can get that incumbent out of office who has been there for 4 or 5 terms then the next time around you have a better chance of maybe seeing that 3rd party candidate get elected. It may be a small chance but, it's a better chance than while there is still a multi-term incumbent in office. Now you might think that doesn't make since. But, think about it. If someone has only been in office one term their hold isn't as strong. The next election is rather open. This gives the 3rd party candidate a bigger appeal. It gives them more room to have their voices heard. Even if they don't win that time around they may pull more votes which gets more attention and eventually they will win a seat. And if you really really believe in 3rd party candidates the best thing to do is work to get them into your state government and then move up to the federal level.
The other problem with 3rd party candidates is that a lot of times they are big party losers. What I mean by that is they are a former Democrat or Republican who couldn't win the primary or even get the support of their party. So instead of staying in the party and trying again later they throw a fit like a little kid and go play by themselves. They take their views that are mostly like one of the big parties and then make a platform of the things that differ from their old party. They aren't truly independent because if elected they would side with which ever party they came from. They of course end up not getting elected and often hurt the person who has the best chance at offering change by winning. And so just like the little kid on the playground they are left by themselves with no one to play with and everyone is worse off.
Eventually Independents will have a big impact on our government it's just a matter of if the country can survive until then not getting enough new voices in from certain areas. And I know what I'm talking about because it has happened the last two elections in my district. Especially the last time. If people hadn't voted for the 3rd party candidate we would have gotten rid of our evil incumbent representative. I'd seriously consider voting for a 3rd party candidate but, right now I know they wouldn't beat her and my focus is on getting her out of office.
More On ENDA
Not that he's ahead but, Barney Frank needs to shut-up and stop digging his whole deeper. Last week he gave a statement to Congress again proving that he really doesn't care about the transgendered community. There are several things that could be commented on but, I will just focus on two of them.
In his statement he said that we've been dealing sexual orientation predjudice and fighting it since the Stonewall riots of 1969. And that the predjudices towards the transgendered are newer. A little history lesson for Mr. Frank, it was the transgendered and crossdressers the police were after that night at Stonewall. The transgendered community has been dealing with the predjudice just as long and they've had to take it from those who should support them as well. The difference is that they aren't going to take it anymore and the rest of the LGBTQ community is finally starting to fight for and with them, rather than against them.
In regards to lobbying efforts by the LGBTQ organizations and individuals in the last couple weeks Mr. Frank said "Where were they when we needed them? I'm glad to see the activity now - I just wish it was not so late." The answer is, we were there. Everyone was involved. However, they were focused on the hearings and getting the bill through committee and onto the floor. They were told it would be a tough fight but, that it would pass. So they worked on making sure people didn't pull their support rather than aggressively pursuing people for votes and scaring them. The organizations and community were then blindsided by Mr. Frank's decision to pull the gender identity portion of the bill. Had he made it clear months ago that, that was a possibility people would have done hard lobbying and educating.
I think that was his plan all along. Put gender identity in to get stronger support from the organizations. Then pull it at the last minute. And he expected everyone to just lay down and take it. Only to his dismay that isn't what happened. He talks about people in Congress telling him and the others behind the bill what they wanted to hear. Which is exactly what he did to the community. He told us what he needed to, to get the big chunk of support and then changed it at the last minute to get what he wanted.
There's a couple of questions being over looked in all of this. Those questions are:
1) If people having jobs, not being on public assistance, taking care of their families, and everything else that ripples from being employed is such a fundemental part of the platforms for both parties how can either side justify allowing anyone to be fired or not hired for anything other than their ability to do the job?
2) Why is there such a rush to pass it by the end of this year? Now that people know the truth is their any harm in waiting a couple months while we do some more lobbying and educating. After all Mr. Frank has said that the whole reason for this is that there hasn't been enough education on the subject. Maybe we get more votes, maybe we don't. But what difference does it make if a fully inclusive ENDA or a sexual orientation only one is passed and vetoed this year or early next year? You never know what can happen in a few months.
In his statement he said that we've been dealing sexual orientation predjudice and fighting it since the Stonewall riots of 1969. And that the predjudices towards the transgendered are newer. A little history lesson for Mr. Frank, it was the transgendered and crossdressers the police were after that night at Stonewall. The transgendered community has been dealing with the predjudice just as long and they've had to take it from those who should support them as well. The difference is that they aren't going to take it anymore and the rest of the LGBTQ community is finally starting to fight for and with them, rather than against them.
In regards to lobbying efforts by the LGBTQ organizations and individuals in the last couple weeks Mr. Frank said "Where were they when we needed them? I'm glad to see the activity now - I just wish it was not so late." The answer is, we were there. Everyone was involved. However, they were focused on the hearings and getting the bill through committee and onto the floor. They were told it would be a tough fight but, that it would pass. So they worked on making sure people didn't pull their support rather than aggressively pursuing people for votes and scaring them. The organizations and community were then blindsided by Mr. Frank's decision to pull the gender identity portion of the bill. Had he made it clear months ago that, that was a possibility people would have done hard lobbying and educating.
I think that was his plan all along. Put gender identity in to get stronger support from the organizations. Then pull it at the last minute. And he expected everyone to just lay down and take it. Only to his dismay that isn't what happened. He talks about people in Congress telling him and the others behind the bill what they wanted to hear. Which is exactly what he did to the community. He told us what he needed to, to get the big chunk of support and then changed it at the last minute to get what he wanted.
There's a couple of questions being over looked in all of this. Those questions are:
1) If people having jobs, not being on public assistance, taking care of their families, and everything else that ripples from being employed is such a fundemental part of the platforms for both parties how can either side justify allowing anyone to be fired or not hired for anything other than their ability to do the job?
2) Why is there such a rush to pass it by the end of this year? Now that people know the truth is their any harm in waiting a couple months while we do some more lobbying and educating. After all Mr. Frank has said that the whole reason for this is that there hasn't been enough education on the subject. Maybe we get more votes, maybe we don't. But what difference does it make if a fully inclusive ENDA or a sexual orientation only one is passed and vetoed this year or early next year? You never know what can happen in a few months.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The 14th Amendment
Lately a lot of people give lips service to what is known as the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. Most notably in the last few years it is the basis for most lawsuits in regards to forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation and is what we in favor of same-sex marriage point to in our fight for equality. It is used by other people and groups who often win there cases while we lose ours.
People are always saying that the "Equal Protection Clause" doesn't apply to LGBTQ people. They have various reasons for why it doesn't apply. The two most common are 1) that the founders didn't intend for it to protect people based on their sexual orientation. Anytime people start talking about what the founders intended I have to laugh. I always wonder exactly when they sat down and had a conversation with the founders. And 2) that sexual orientation isn't a protected class so it doesn't apply to them.
People could not be more wrong with either of these arguments and it proves that either they haven't read the 14th Amendment or they are counting on the majority of the population never having read it. (There really should be a required course in middle school and/or high school on nothing but the Constitution.)
Anyway, just so people know the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. Which is actually almost 100 years after the Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 Amendments) was ratified. Which means a whole other group of progressive forward thinking people were behind it. Also it was ratified long before there was such a thing as a "protected class" in this country.
There's five sections to the 14th Amendment. Section 1 being the so-called "Equal Protection Clause" and it reads as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now that you've actually read it (possibly for the first time) I ask you exactly how do you figure it doesn't apply to certain citizens of the country. Because I've read it serveral times an can not find anything about it only applying to "protected classes". It applys to all citizens. Pure and simple if any one person is granted a protection or liberty then all persons have to be afforded those same things.
It's not that hard to figure out that state governments and the federal government are in violation of this on a daily basis. And that the courts themselves are constantly violating. Which makes me wonder how many of those judges have actually read the Constitution.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
The sudden notion that this bill will not pass if it includes gender identity is very odd. Anytime a bi-partisan bill goes for months with all indications that it will pass and then suddenly when it gets crunch time it supposedly needs a major change to pass it is a bit suspect.
I'm not even going to go into my big tirade about the HRC and them supporting it without the gender identity provision and then trying to reverse course after all the other LGBT (or if your more progressive LGBTQ) groups made it clear they wouldn't support it. Mainly I'm not going to do that because that post would end up being way too long. The short version though is that the HRC is a two faced organization that hurts the entire LGBTQ community and other organizations with their wishy-washiness.
Disclaimer: Before reading any further please note that I am not trying to insult any portion of the community. I have friends all over the spectrum and have to date have found them to be very accepting of transgendered people. But, there is a portion of the community that wants nothing to do with trans people and that bothers me. Even those who don't support the trans people would still find support from me and all my friends in their fights for equality. Also incase you might be wondering I am not trans.
Back to the subject at hand. What really hurts about this is that it is Barney Frank an openly gay man doing this and trying to make excuses for why it is okay. First off for him to say that the Transgendered leadership in this country is hurting the movement by not realizing the truth of the matter and how hard the fight is, is completely unacceptable. Yet it shows a greater problem in the community and that is the in fighting.
Sure the G and L portions will take all the help they can get in the fight. Including from the transgender people but, when it comes to fighting for those transgendered people too many people in high positions seem to still be too willing to throw the T part under the bus. Luckily there is a younger more understanding portion of the LGBTQ community that is willing to fight for the ideal of equality for all. People who actually believe that an injustice for one is an injustice for all.
And now for the extremely radical and possibly inflamatory portion of the post. In his statement reqarding removing the gender identity provision Mr. Frank said: "The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today."
The Mr. Frank since women are traditionally more accepting of peoples sexual orientation and men generally just love the idea of two women together I have a question for you. Would it be okay to pass a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell that makes it okay for lesbians to be openly in the military but, not gay men? Because you know it's more important to pass something with a major gap as we work towards the ultimate goal than not getting it passed at all.
I'm not even going to go into my big tirade about the HRC and them supporting it without the gender identity provision and then trying to reverse course after all the other LGBT (or if your more progressive LGBTQ) groups made it clear they wouldn't support it. Mainly I'm not going to do that because that post would end up being way too long. The short version though is that the HRC is a two faced organization that hurts the entire LGBTQ community and other organizations with their wishy-washiness.
Disclaimer: Before reading any further please note that I am not trying to insult any portion of the community. I have friends all over the spectrum and have to date have found them to be very accepting of transgendered people. But, there is a portion of the community that wants nothing to do with trans people and that bothers me. Even those who don't support the trans people would still find support from me and all my friends in their fights for equality. Also incase you might be wondering I am not trans.
Back to the subject at hand. What really hurts about this is that it is Barney Frank an openly gay man doing this and trying to make excuses for why it is okay. First off for him to say that the Transgendered leadership in this country is hurting the movement by not realizing the truth of the matter and how hard the fight is, is completely unacceptable. Yet it shows a greater problem in the community and that is the in fighting.
Sure the G and L portions will take all the help they can get in the fight. Including from the transgender people but, when it comes to fighting for those transgendered people too many people in high positions seem to still be too willing to throw the T part under the bus. Luckily there is a younger more understanding portion of the LGBTQ community that is willing to fight for the ideal of equality for all. People who actually believe that an injustice for one is an injustice for all.
And now for the extremely radical and possibly inflamatory portion of the post. In his statement reqarding removing the gender identity provision Mr. Frank said: "The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today."
The Mr. Frank since women are traditionally more accepting of peoples sexual orientation and men generally just love the idea of two women together I have a question for you. Would it be okay to pass a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell that makes it okay for lesbians to be openly in the military but, not gay men? Because you know it's more important to pass something with a major gap as we work towards the ultimate goal than not getting it passed at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)