It's Baaaaaack!

That's right, folks. Members of the Pennsylvania legislature have again proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Almost two full years ago (June 7, 2006) we discussed the last attempt to write discrimination into the Pennsylvania Constitution (which ultimately passed the Senate, but failed to gain traction in the House). This time around, opponents of the measure have a strange ally, Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia.

Not that a democratic senator coming out against this amendment is odd, but Vinny was last connected to the gay community when he was apologizing for calling some republican senators "faggots." First, let's just set Fumo's current legal problems aside. He's done bad things. I don't particularly like him. But to his credit, he has made some pretty strong arguments against such a ban, connecting it to slavery, among other discriminatory actions previously sanctioned by the government. In a press release, Fumo stated, "If a majority would vote to approve slavery -- as was done once in this country -- that wouldn't make it right. ...I wanted people at the hearing to face the fact that denying human rights to any group -- including homosexuals, at any point in our history... -- is wrong."

I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement and several others. Particularly this look toward tomorrow: "Hopefully, some day in the future, people will look back on this the way they look back on Mississippi and Alabama in the days of slavery, and be ashamed."

I just do not understand the fear of the anti-gay rights movement. In an effort to do so, I did a little research. The following are some of the most common arguments I've seen.

"Marriage has helped to provide stability in our society for thousands of years. It is worth the effort to define it within our constitution," said Sen. Mike Brubaker, R-Lancaster, the proposal's sponsor. What? Mr. Brubaker, how stable is our world exactly? Sudan, Iraq, Darfur, AIDS, climate change, gas prices, teen pregnancy, 1 in 4 women have/had STDs, and somehow Big Brother and Survivor are STILL on TV while the best show in the history of television, Friday Night Lights, is struggling to get ratings. Okay, I'm getting off track. Back to the point.

Matt Daniels, a "mover and shaker" behind the national anti-gay union movement stated that, "Americans believe that gays and lesbians have a right to live as they choose," (I'm sure the gay community is grateful, Matt), "but they don't have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society." Ahh. So when two people of the same sex get married, they are inherently redefining it? Nope. Still don't get it.

The Pennsylvania For Marriage website claims, "To prevent the destruction of marriage in Pennsylvania, several groups have joined together to lobby for an amendment to the state constitution which would limit marriage to one man and one woman." Yes, two consenting adults choosing to live together for the rest of their lives would TOTALLY destroy the sacred institution of marriage so beloved in the United States that about 40% who enter marriages get divorced, and more than half of them loved marriage so much that they got married again within five years. That screams sacred to me.

In conclusion, my brain doesn't seem to be able to wrap itself around the arguments against gay marriage, let alone the need to write it into the Pennsylvania or the U.S. Constitution. There is already a law banning same sex marriage in this state, which is horribly bad enough. Help get the word out that Pennsylvanians need to be more tolerant and less fearful of the gay community. Write letters to the editor or your representative. Talk to your friends and neighbors. People that like other people of the same sex are only different from heterosexuals in that respect alone.

A Sad, Sad Day

The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, has upheld The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, creating the first ever federal ban involving women's reproductive rights. This horrid law lacked an exception for the health of the mother. Let me restate that: There is no exception in this Act when the mother is at risk of injury or even death.

Bush's replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Justice Samuel Alito played THE major role in this decision. In 2000, a very similar state law was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, with Justice O'Connor providing the deciding vote. The state law in question was deemed so because, first and foremost, it held no exception for the health of the mother.

Every court that heard this case, sans the Supreme Court, declared that the ban was unconstitutional, forcing proponents to appeal every time until they received an audience in front of the highest court in the land that is now slanting to the right.

What does this mean for the future? A decision like this clearly sends the message to anti-choice groups that all they need to do is force a law banning all abortions to come to the steps of the Supreme Court. That is why the NARAL Pro-Choice America is supporting an initiative to pass a Federal Freedom of Choice Act, so that laws like this first ever federal abortion ban will not lead to the disintegration of Roe v. Wade. Please, take a few minutes and take action to support this Freedom of Choice Act. You can do as much as calling or donating, or as little as filling out a form that will be sent to your representatives. Here's the link to take action: Click here.

Obama the Uniter

I know politicians always claim to be "uniters and not dividers," but I believe there's one politician out there today that truly practices what he preaches. His name is Barak Obama, and he's rumored to be pondering a presidential run in 2008. With limited experience (only 2+ years in the U.S. Senate), many believe Obama's run is premature. I, on the other hand, tend to believe that Obama has the fortitude to challenge anyone that comes his way.

One speech in particluar is a great example of Obama's call for civility and change. It was his keynote address at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference. The speech is centered around how to bring religious and secular America together. He acknowledges the skepticism from both sects, and attacks the divide from the middle, not from one side or the other.

"We can talk to the press, and we can discuss the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won't have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America."

Obama goes on to explain that Democrats are being irrational when dismissing the role of faith in the American people, and the very real need to acknowledge it.

"But over the long haul, I think [Democrats] make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy....[If] we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases [against religion], we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal."

Another excerpt shows Obama's suggestion to conservatives.

"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted [religious] minorities."

Finally, I thought this example is the most poignant one involving his call to the religious community to understand the skepticism of the secular community.

"We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded. Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion. But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason."

To me, Barak Obama is the only politician in America that inspires me (who isn't Bill Clinton). He is made from the same clothe as RFK, JFK, Clinton, and Franklin Roosevelt. The eloquence of his words is matched only by the sincerity behind them.

Ten Reasons to Ban Gay Marriage

This post is brought to us by the great Neil P. Barton. I'm not sure what his source is, so he may have even written it himself:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Even years later...

As crazy as it sounds, the day after the presidential election in 2004 was one of the hardest, saddest days of my life. I remember watching the beginning of kerry's cession speech on tv in my office break room, but having to leave because I started crying in front of my co-workers (which we all know is a "no-no"). I went into my office, closed the door, and listened to the rest of the speech on the radio.

Most of our wounds have healed since that devastating day, but I still get emotional when I think about how much faith, hard work, emotions, passion, and time went into the election and the years/months leading up to it.

Below is a copy of the speech. although it is years after it was first delivered, I think it is still as prevalent and inspirational today as it was on November 5th.

enjoy.

Address to Supporters at Fanueil Hall

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. You just have no idea how warming and how generous that welcome is, your love is, your affection, and I'm gratified by it. I'm sorry that we got here a little bit late and a bit short.

Earlier today, I spoke to President Bush, and I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory. We had a good conversation and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together. Today, I hope that we can begin the healing. In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted. But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.

I would not give up this fight if there was a chance that we would prevail. But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted, which they will be, there won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio. And therefore, we can not win this election.

My friends, it was here that we began our campaign for the presidency. And all we had was hope and a vision for a better America. It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years traveling this country, coming to know so many of you. I wish that I could just wrap you in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across this nation. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience member: We still got your back!

Thank you, man. And I assure you you watch I'll still have yours.

I will always be particularly grateful to the colleague that you just heard from who became my partner, my very close friend, an extraordinary leader, John Edwards. And I thank him for everything he did. John and I would be the first to tell you that we owe so much to our families. They're here with us today. They were with us every single step of the way. They sustained us. They went out on their own and they multiplied our campaign, all across this country.

No one did this more with grace and with courage and candor. For that, I love than my wife, Teresa. And I thank her. Thank you. And our children were there every single step of the way. It was unbelievable. Vanessa, Alex, Chris, Andre and John, from my family, and Elizabeth Edwards who is so remarkable and so strong and so smart. And Johnny and Cate who went out there on her own just like my daughters did. And also Emma Claire and Jack who were up beyond their bedtime last night, like a lot of us. I want to thank my crewmates and my friends from 35 years ago. That great ‘band of brothers’ who crisscrossed this country on my behalf through 2004. Thank you. They had the courage to speak the truth back then, and they spoke it again this year, and for that, I will forever be grateful.

And thanks also as I look around here to friends and family of a lifetime. Some from college, friends made all across the years, and then all across the miles of this campaign. You are so special. You brought the gift of your passion for our country and the possibilities of change, and that will stay with us, and with this country forever. Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and independents who stood with us, and everyone who voted no matter who their candidate was.

And thanks to my absolutely unbelievable, dedicated staff, led by a wonderful campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, who did an extraordinary job. There's so much written about campaigns, and there's so much that Americans never get to see. I wish they could all spend a day on a campaign and see how hard these folks work to make America better. It is its own unbelievable contribution to our democracy, and it's a gift to everybody. But especially to me. And I'm grateful to each and every one of you, and I thank your families, and I thank you for the sacrifices you've made.

And to all the volunteers, all across this country who gave so much of themselves. You know, thanks to William Field, a six-year-old who collected $680, a quarter and a dollar at a time selling bracelets during the summer to help change America. Thanks to Michael Benson from Florida who I spied in a rope line holding a container of money, and turned out he raided his piggy bank and wanted to contribute. And thanks to Alana Wexler who is 11 years old and started kids for Kerry all across our country. I think of the brigades of students and people, young and old, who took time to travel, time off from work, their own vacation time to work in states far and wide. They braved the hot days of summer and the cold days of the fall and the winter to knock on doors because they were determined to open the doors of opportunity to all Americans. They worked their hearts out, and I wish… you don't know how much they, could have brought this race home for you for them, and I say to them now, don't lose faith.

What you did made a difference, and building on itself -- building on itself, we go on to make a difference another day. I promise you, that time will come. The time will come, the election will come when your work and your ballots will change the world, and it's worth fighting for.

I want to especially say to the American people in this journey, you have given me honor and the gift of listening and learning from you. I have visited your homes. I have visited your churches. I've visited your union halls. I've heard your stories, I know your struggles, I know your hopes. They're part of me now, and I will never forget you, and I'll never stop fighting for you.

You may not understand completely in what ways, but it is true when I say to you that you have taught me and you've tested me and you've lifted me up, and you made me stronger, I did my best to express my vision and my hopes for America. We worked hard, and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently. But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning we all wake up as Americans. And that -- that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on earth.

With that gift also comes obligation. We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.

I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years. I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide. I know this is a difficult time for my supporters, but I ask them, all of you, to join me in doing that.

Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror. I will also do everything in my power to ensure that my party, a proud Democratic Party, stands true to our best hopes and ideals.

I believe that what we started in this campaign will not end here. And I know our fight goes on to put America back to work and make our economy a great engine of job growth. Our fight goes on to make affordable health care an accessible right for all Americans, not a privilege. Our fight goes on to protect the environment, to achieve equality, to push the frontiers of science and discovery, and to restore America's reputation in the world. I believe that all of this will happen -- and sooner than we may think -- because we're America. And America always moves forward.

I've been honored to represent the citizens of this commonwealth in the United States Senate now for 20 years. And I pledge to them that in the years ahead, I'm going to fight on for the people and for the principles that I've learned and lived with here in Massachusetts.

I'm proud of what we stood for in this campaign, and of what we accomplished. When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race. But we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation, the lives of our families. And we defined that choice to America.

I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us. I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good.

So here -- so with a grateful heart -- I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I've come to know our vast country so much better. Thanks to all of you and what a privilege it has been. And that prayer is very simple: God bless America. Thank you.

Presidential Catastrophes

What are the five worst things that have happened in Presidential politics in the last half century? Here are my picks in order of severity. Feel free to comment or add some of your top picks.

5. Jimmy Carter losing to Ronald Reagan: The Reagan era led to a recession, a step backward in civil rights and social programs, Iran contra, and a friendship with Saddam Hussein. I suppose this is less of a knock on Reagan, though, and more of a contrast between him and Carter. Carter's political blunder was the mishandling of the hostage crisis in Iran, not that he could control that. Carter was dedicated to equality, civil rights, and social justice. What Reagan did was strain relations between the US and the rest of the world, much like GW is doing today (of course, GW is a little better at making people hate us). Reagan also gave us Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, both conservatives justices.

4. Watergate: Obviously, this has to make the list. Although I do not despise what Nixon did during his presidency, his misgivings led to a loss of respect for and concern about the Presidency.

3. GW Bush's second term: As if the first term were not bad enough, the American people were duped into re-electing the worst President in the last century, possibly ever. Bush's tax the poor, relieve the rich efforts and his attempts to make religion into law are only a few of his domestic shortcomings. I guess the voting public thought the gay marriage amendment was more important than ousting a President that led this country to war under false pretenses and laughed at our civil liberties. The re-election of Dubya allowed him to select Roberts and Alito for the Supreme Court, both conservative justices. Alito replaced Justice O'Connor, a key moderate that sided with progressive social causes in most cases.

2. The assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy: What can one say about this? There is an unspoken grief the country still feels about that day in Dallas, whether you were alive or not. Growing up, watching documentaries about JFK and his life, you can't help but feel a sense of loss, a sense of missed opportunity. JFK was THE white leader in the civil rights movement. Without him and his successor (LBJ) following his lead, our country may still be in the grips of segregation. To a certain extent, the assassination of his brother Robert was also a huge blow to this country's progress. RFK had a solid chance of becoming president in 1968. Guess who won that year. Nixon. If you want to read a really moving speech by RFK about Dr. King's death, click here. Yes, this is only # 2, and you'll see why below.

1. GW Bush stealing the 2000 election: Why is this #1? JFK and RFK were able to contribute to our society, and their legend and words are still with us today. Al Gore never had that chance, although he is making strides today in environmental awareness. The real sting of it is, Gore was not fairly defeated. I will forever believe that Florida was a huge snow job in 2000. Things happened during that election that are so shady and suspicious. Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris made a list of 58,000 "felons" to purge from the voter roles. The original list of 8,000 was contrived by a company called DBT, and expanded on by Harris to include people with the same surname and the same date of birth. Independent investigators have found that 95% of that list was incorrect. And guess who shares the last name with the Rodriguez's and Cooper's. Democrats. DBT is led by a group of GOP veterans. Katherine Harris is now a Congresswoman. It is amazing no one has been indicted. Of course, we all know what this led to: A war of aggression, a Supreme Court swing, No White Child Left Behind, the list goes on and on. Not only this, though, but I believe we missed out on Gore's presidency. Yes, he sounded boring, but he was passionate and intelligent. Bush's response to 9-11 was so disheartening. After Pearl Harbor, FDR asked Americans to be strong, to help our country, to make sacrifices. After 9-11, Bush told us to go shopping and never mind those guys in sunglasses parked across the street from your grandma. What would Gore have done? We'll never know. But I can take a wild guess that he wouldn't have asked us to buy cars after a terrorist attack, worsened education, turned a $500 million surplus into a $500 million deficit, cut Medicaid for seniors, and tipped the balance of a court that is so important in this a critical time for our country.

Land of the Free. Home of the Hetero.

Here are bits and pieces of a Harrisburg Patriot News article from Wed, June 7, 2006. The article content is between the dashes. Yes 2006, not 1906. A proposal passed in the PA state House yesterday.

--The House voted 136-61 to propose adding language to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and the legal recognition of any union "identical or substantially equivalent" to marriage. The bill goes to the Senate, where it would need to pass in identical form. The same bill would have to pass both chambers again in the next legislative session and then win voter approval in a referendum before it could become part of the constitution.

"Without the marriage-protection amendment, what ultimately will marriage and the family look like 30 years from now?" [Rep. Scott] Boyd [R-Lancaster, the bill's sponsor] asked. "Nobody knows, because we have simply not experienced the effects of this newest sexual revolution." --

Can you believe this? First off, what are they so afraid of? Rep. Boyd is apparently afraid that 30 years from now we're all going to be gays jumping around, gettin' married and ruining society.

The law that is in effect right now is discriminatory. Not only does it ban gay marriage, but it also revokes the civil rights of individuals, in this case the economic and personal privileges associated with marriages. A law passed that REVOKES civil rights. I love PA, but I'm not proud to be in a state that condones that. The new proposal intends to make it impossible for judges to declare this discriminatory law unconstitutional by making it PART of the constitution. The legislature is essentially trying to write discrimination into our constitution.

Is this America? Land of the free? Home of the hetero? Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses unless they're gay and want to get married? There haven't been laws passed in America that LIMIT civil rights since the days of segregation. The climate in Washington is one of arrogance, secrecy, religious law, and intolerance. Of course, the Senate voted on a similar federal constitutional amendment and failed to pass it, but the fact that this type of debate can even be raised (not to mention the discourse on illegal immigration) shows what little progress we've made in this country regarding tolerance and acceptance.

Click here to sign the Million for Marriage Petition.

Ayotte es mas importante

NARAL Pro-Choice has sent out the following in a release. This case is very important, and it's something we should all learn more about and pay attention to:

In six weeks - November 30 - the Supreme Court will hear the first case related to women's reproductive health in five years.

Cases like this rarely make front-page news, so here are the two most important things you need to know about Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England:

It could eliminate the constitutional requirement that any laws restricting abortion care must include an exception to protect women's health.
It could drastically reduce, if not eliminate, the ability for pro-choice advocates to challenge anti-choice laws in court.

It would be an understatement to say that a lot rides on this case. Ayotte could affect virtually every abortion-related case and law in the country.

That it's so broad and dangerous is exactly what anti-choice lawmakers in the New Hampshire legislature intended. Fran Wendelboe, the state representative who sponsored the bill, candidly told the Associated Press: "We didn't mistakenly forget to put in a health exception. We purposely crafted the bill without an exception." And as you probably already guessed - the Bush administration has weighed into this case on the anti-choice side.

What's even worse about Ayotte is the timing. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor frequently cast the deciding vote in cases that protected privacy and choice. Her replacement may cast the deciding vote this time. Even if O'Connor is still sitting on the Supreme Court when the case begins on November 30, it’s unlikely she will get to vote on the case. If her replacement is confirmed before the case is decided, then either the Supreme Court will rehear the case with the new justice or let the lower court's decision stand. That's why the Bush administration is working so hard to see nominee Harriet Miers confirmed before the case begins. Jay Sekulow of the anti-choice American Center for Law and Justice and a Miers supporter has said that, "I don't think there's ever been [a turning point] this significant in Supreme Court history. For both sides, it's winner-take-all, loser-take-nothing." [The National Journal, October 15]

Like most Supreme Court cases, Ayotte is complex. We hope you take a moment to learn more about the case – visit our website for a summary of the bill and the key issues.

And if you haven't already, please contact your senators and urge them to carefully review Miers' record and question her about her judicial philosophy.

Harriet Miers Nominated to fill O'Connor's Seat

The president of People for the American Way stated the following:

“President Bush has nominated his personal lawyer and long-time friend to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. His choice raises serious questions about whether he has found a nominee who has the requisite qualifications and independence for the nation’s highest court."

Does anyone see this as bad timing? Is Bush using two major hurricanes to drown out the coverage of his two Supreme Court nominees? (Like the analogy? Hurricanes? Drown out? Anyways, this is serious, I shouldn't joke). I guess we'll never know. Regardless, this is the PERSONAL LAWYER and long-time friend of one of the most conservative president's this country has seen since Teddy Roosevelt, and at least he helped the environment. No lawyer can say they aren't influenced by their client when their client is the President of the United States. She's been asked to fight for everything the president wants to fight for. She has no judicial experience. Is this a proper nominee for the Supreme Court? Keep an eye on this nomination, and don't go unheard.

Remember, you can help fight this nomination at Save the Court.org.

Another Attorney General's Office Nominee Connected to Abu Ghraib

This is an Action Alert from the ACLU:

Tell Your Senators to Stop the Vote Promoting a Top Torture Official

Dear Friends,

Once again, while privates and sergeants get marched off to jail, another top architect of the federal government’s torture policies is about to get a big promotion. Former White House lawyer and current senior Tyco attorney Timothy Flanigan has been nominated by the president to be Deputy Attorney General. His nomination is now before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As deputy to then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, Flanigan participated in the development of policies that removed protections for torture and abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. custody, paving the way for the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere.

Take Action! Urge your Senators to oppose moving forward on the Flanigan nomination unless Attorney General Gonzalez first appoints an outside special counsel for torture prosecutions.

If the Senate confirms Flanigan, he will be the direct supervisor of ALL federal U.S. Attorneys. With his former boss Alberto Gonzales in the number one spot, the nation's top two law enforcement officials will have both played important roles in the torture and abuse scandal.

To guarantee a fair and comprehensive review of the full extent of the government’s violation of the rule of law, Congress must demand an independent investigation of those decisions and the officials involved before elevating another top torture official to the second highest law enforcement job in the nation.

Click below to take action now by urging your Senators to oppose moving forward on the Flanigan nomination until Attorney General Gonzales appoints an outside independent counsel to investigate and prosecute criminal acts of torture and abuse by the government.

• Click here to Take Action

Thank you for your help!

Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Right here in Harrisburg, PA, a monumental case is being heard. Starting Monday (September 26, 2005) and slated to last 5 weeks, Kitzmiller v. Dover will decide the legitimacy of our nation's schools. The Dover Area School District wants to add "Intelligent Design" (ID) as an alternative to evolution. ID is merely a cover for religion, contending that life is so complex that someone must have designed the world. To read more about what the experts are saying regarding this "theory," click here:

• Intelligent Design Info.

The ACLU is championing this fight for religious freedom. That's right. Opposing ID curricula is defending religious freedom. It's not really about keeping Christianity out of our schools which, of course, would be a worthy fight considering our country's standard for separating church and state. What this trial is really about is protecting those that may not hold this belief, whether they be Agnostic, atheist, Hindu, or Muslim. ID is taught every Sunday morning in churches and synagogues throughout the nation. If they want equal time in our public schools, they should be willing to teach evolution as an alternative to creationism during Sunday school. Think this will happen? Not a chance.

CCDC

Hi all,

As most of you know, I volunteer for an organization called the Cumberland County Democratic Committee (CCDC). Below is the link to our website. Please go check it out and pass it on to your friends in the area. The website explains a little about our organization and has some great local links. The site is great if you'd like to know more about politics in our area (i.e. elections, candidates, etc.)

As we all know, to achieve a strong national Democratic party, we must start at a local level.

http://www.cumberlandcountydems.com/

Also, our website is a work-in-progress. If anyone has any suggestions to make it more user-friendly, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Thanks friends,
Sara

Commonwealth Dumb-cus

For those of you that may not know, a group of Republicans calling themselves the Commonwealth Caucus have proposed a plan to get rid of your property taxes. Only problem is, to pay for this, they intend to raise a boat-load of other taxes, namely sales tax. What does this do? It takes money away from the janitor to pay for the building owners' tax break. What is the logic here? No clue. How is this fair? Well, it's not. The Secretary of Revenue along with most state Democrats and a good chunk of state Republicans have said as much. Is this plan just to get a couple of state legislators re-elected? I'm not so sure. It's been hanging around for more than a year. These guys really think that this is possible. They think it's fair and that it's not just to screw a lot of poor people and reward a bunch of rich people. This is yet another example of Republicans believing the poorest among us should fend for themselves. Is this tough love to them? Is it survival of the biggest wallets? Do they really think they're doing a good thing? I guess we'll have to make them answer these questions in November.

Patriot Act Victory

A Message from the ACLU:

We Are Winning In Court: Now Urge Lawmakers to Push for Patriot Reform

Supporters of democracy had a crucial victory last week, when a federal court told the FBI to lift a gag order that limits the Patriot Act debate. If affirmed on appeal, the judge’s ruling would allow our client to speak about the dangerous provisions that allow FBI demands for library and Internet records.

This win in court could not be better timed for our work in Congress. And the momentum is on our side. As a joint “conference committee” prepares to meet on Patriot Act renewal, nearly 100 lawmakers have already joined “Dear Conferee” letters asking their colleagues to support the Senate reforms to the Patriot Act.

While not perfect, the Senate bill is a significant improvement over the proposals in the House version, which would do nothing to fix serious civil liberties threats in the Patriot Act and would actually make the law worse in many respects. You can help right now. Please click below to urge your own senator or representative to sign on to a “Dear Conferee” letter.

We still have a chance to make a difference. Last week, thousands of you organized or attended events to watch the premiere of “Beyond the Patriot Act,” the first episode of the ACLU Freedom Files, the new television series from the ACLU and Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films (the company behind Unconstitutional and Outfoxed).

From Florida to Alaska and California to Massachusetts, hundreds of concerned Americans turned out to watch this ground-breaking program. Even Mississippi, recovering from Katrina, carried on the fight to defend the Constitution.

From a screening in South Carolina, host Heather Parks writes, “Everyone at the meeting either felt violated, or the possibility of being violated. The Patriot Act effectively dilutes and destroys the ‘checks and balances’ written into the Constitution that protect some of the most basic of our freedoms--we are finding that people are really scared and enraged about that.”

At Arizona State University, nearly 40 people gathered for a campus screening. Host Zarinah Nadir says many attendees had never realized the full implications of the Patriot Act. "Many of them were law students--very well informed and very well read--but they were amazed and shocked."

We need you to take action now because whether Congress includes some needed reforms to the Patriot Act this year will be decided in the next few weeks.

• Click here to urge your member of Congress to sign the “Dear Conferee” letters.

Bob Casey '06

A few of us went to a Bob Casey fundraiser at our friend Justin's house last night. For those out-of-staters that may be reading this, Bob Casey (Jr.) is the son of former governor and state legend Robert P. Casey. He's been the Auditor General and he's currently our State Treasurer. In fact, we learned last night that Mr. Casey received the most votes of any state official in history. In any case, the best news is this: HE'S RUNNING AGAINST THE ANTI-CHRIST, MR. RICHARD SANTORUM. That's right, the homosexuality is on par with beastiality guy; the "we need caps on malpractice," but his wife received $500,000 in a malpractice suit guy; the strongest proponent of privatizing social security guy; the "let's fine the people that won't leave New Orleans," guy. Heard of him? But I digress.

Mr. Casey seemed to be very humbled by the early fundraiser. He has a genuine caring for people, not just for those that have the money to give to him, but mostly for those that don't. If you live in PA, get the word out about Bob Casey running against Santorum. Get a buzz going. Get people excited about an alternative to the "extreme and intolerant," Rick Santorum.

I had the pleasure of speaking with him for 30 seconds. Not long, but all he wanted to do was thank me then talk about what I was doing right now. Selfless. Don't get me wrong, I'm not gushing, but I am very excited about the man that will be running against a politician that's about as far to the right as you can be in today's society and still get elected. Wait, there is one man that's worse, but I shouldn't get started on Senator Tom Coburn - (R - OK), who thinks that gays are the gravest threat to our democracy and that abortionists should get the death penalty.

Sorry, I was digressing again. Well, have a happy Thursday...

Quote of the Day...

"I'm double-fisted at the Casey party" -- TW

Unfeeling President

Our friend Amanda found this. It's very eye-opening. Be aware, it's a downer, but it should motivate you to make a change:

Doctorow was born in New York City on January 6, 1931. After graduating with honors from Kenyon College in 1952, he did graduate work at Columbia University and served in the U.S. Army. Doctorow was senior editor for New American Library from 1959 to 1964 and then served as editor in chief at Dial Press until 1969. Since then, he has devoted his time to writing and teaching. He holds the Glucksman Chair in American Letters at New York University and over the years has taught at several institutions, including Yale University Drama School, Princeton University, Sarah Lawrence College, and the University of California, Irvine.)

==============================


I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be. On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd,smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and sake of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life. They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate.

And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a- half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

E.L. Doctorow

From Amanda Rotondo

This is a post Amanda wanted to make, but her 'puter won't let her post it. That computer must have been made by republicans or something. Don't worry, A-Rot, I edited it for you:

So the other day I was driving through Andover (a rich yet liberal town in MA, where, incidentally, George 1& 2 both went to High School) and saw this bumper sticker that caught my eye because it had a peace sign on it. I was driving and reading and had to read it about 4 times becasue I couldn't understand it. I came to understand that it had something to do with the driver of the car being a chicken farmer and feeling that chickens, with their high protein and relatively inexpensive meat, led to a well fed and comfortable American population which in turn helped facilitate peace. This irked me, because I felt I had to go along way mentally from the actual text of the sticker to draw this conclusion, so that either it was a crappy bumper sticker or I misunderstood. So I Googled the text when I got to work. I was VERY wrong. Here is the bumper sticker in t-shirt form. Read the caption next to the picture. The try not to put your headthrough a wall:

• Footprint of American Chicken

Question...

First off, let me say that I agree with a lot of TW's picks. I don't think I'd put Hillary at number 1, but I think he's a bit more of an idealist than I am. I agree that O'Bama is a great man, I think we'll see some amazing things from him in the next 10 years...plus he's got charisma coming out of every pore. I've always been a Dean-Head. I actually supported Dean in the primaries and was quite upset when he didn't receive the party nomination. I, too, don't necessarily think he's "presidential material" but having him somehow involved in 2008 can only help the party (I mean, look what he did with grassroots campaigning in '04. The Kerry campaign took a few lessons from him).

But I do have an important question (kind of fun) for some of you hardcore dems:

Would you ever vote a republican into office?

Usually people have a pretty strong opinion on this subject, so I'd like your feedback. Now, I know that you're probably thinking of John McCain when I ask this question, but I don't necessarily mean him. It's more of a conceptual question. i.e. Would you ever be able to support a republican presidential candidate? And don't forget to consider all of the aspects of this -- ex: Bush doesn't endorse him/her even though they're republican...They're moderate enough to actually get elected...etc.

Alright, go to it.

Sara

Supreme Court Situation

What can we say about the situation on the Supreme Court: It's desperate.

With Roberts replacing Rhenquist, it's not that much of a change, honestly. It's better than Roberts, a right-wing lawyer, replacing O'Connor, a moderate in favor of Roe v. Wade. What's unsettling is what comes next:

O'Connor could be replaced by our current Attorney General, what-his-face, the Latin fellow. A minority sounds good, whether it's a woman or a racial minority, but there are a handful of minorities that aren't aware that most republicans hate them. Any conservative leanings within whomever replaces O'Connor will tilt the balance of the highest court in the land toward the right. Not a good sign for women, minorities, privacy, voters' rights, science, social programs, etc.

What's even scarier is that there could be one or even TWO more vacancies before Bush leaves office. This could send our country's judiciary backward in time to, say, the prohibition era, slavery, you name it.

Basically, I'm saying "stay alert." Be aware of what's going on with the supreme court. Get political action updates and information from SaveTheCourt.org (http://www.savethecourt.org/). Don't think that Supreme Court Judges are cushy retirement jobs that don't mean much. Without the Supreme Court we'd still have segregated schools and back-alley, illegal abortions.