Seeking comments on same-sex marriage vs. civil unions

I'm working on another column about marriage equality. But I don't want this column to just be about my own personal views -- I want input from others.

The theme of the piece will be same-sex marriage vs. civil unions. A lot of people profess that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman, but that gays can have civil unions, as kind of a "consolation prize".

I want to hear from you why you believe that civil unions aren't good enough.

Or, if you oppose same-sex marriage, why do you think it's OK for gays and lesbians to have to settle for civil unions rather than share the right to use the word "marriage" to define their union?

Any comments that I use in the piece will be anonymous or semi-anonymous -- I will only use a first name (your real one or a fake one, as you prefer) and city (e.g., "Michael from Baltimore said...").

Please send your comments to me at mary@maryshawonline.com with "Marriage vs Civil Unions" in the Subject line. Also include your first name (real or fake, as you want it to appear), your city & state, and whether you are gay, straight, bi, or trans.

Depending on how much input I receive, I cannot guarantee that all comments will be included in my column, but they will all have an influence on the final product. Comments used may be slightly edited for grammar, punctuation, clarity, and conciseness.

So don't be shy -- tell me what you think!

Thanks in advance.

Palin-Beck 2012? Or maybe Cheney-Palin?

Just when I thought U.S. presidential politics couldn't get any more bizarre than the inexplicable 2004 reelection of Bush & Cheney, this happens:

Right-wing publication NewsMax is floating the idea of a Sarah Palin - Glenn Beck ticket in 2012!

Huh???!!!

A part of me loves it, because it looks like an elephant-sized train wreck waiting to happen. And it would provide a virtually endless stream of material for my daily blog posts and weekly columns.

But then I think it through a bit further: What if they won?

As absurd as that might seem, again I remind you of November 2, 2004.

Just imagine what it might look like! Just imagine the consequences to this nation, its Constitution, and the world. A Palin-Beck White House would make the Bush-Cheney White House look almost moderate by comparison. It would clearly not be worth it.

The only thing potentially worse? Cheney for president in 2012 -- an idea that has actually been floated as well. With maybe Palin as his running mate.

And so I keep my fingers crossed in hopes that the Republican leadership and the American electorate really do have more sense than recent news stories might suggest.

If not, heaven help us.

Racial profiling in the job market

Racial profiling is illegal in law enforcement here in the U.S., but that doesn't stop it from happening, unfortunately.

And racial discrimination is illegal in hiring, but apparently that doesn't stop it from happening there, either.

An article from theGrio.com explains:

According to a study for the National Bureau of Economics, resumes and applications with names more commonly given to white Americans were 50 percent more likely to be contacted for job interviews than those applicants with names more associated with black Americans.

It has also been found that employers download resumes from applicants with "white names" - such as Molly and Daniel - 17 percent more often than those of applicants with "black names" like Maesha and Darius. Some speculate that it is not about race but that names are indicative of social background. Either way, assumptions are being made independent of a person's capabilities.

So, instead of looking for the brightest, they are looking for the whitest. This doesn't seem like a smart way to run a business.

And it doesn't seem like a legal way to run a business. Unfortunately, however, it is also the kind of thing that would be awfully hard to prove, and therefore hard to prosecute.

What century is this?

Supreme Court allows racial epithet in Redskins case

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from a group of Native Americans who find the Washington Redskins team name offensive.

According to Reuters, "The appeal was supported by more than 30 law professors, 13 psychology professors who are experts on stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination[,] and by the Social Justice Advocacy Group, a coalition of non-profit and religious organizations and socially responsible investment entities." So this case is not the fruit of some far-out solitary whim.

The Supremes didn't even bother to address the issue of offensiveness, however. Instead, they let themselves off the hook by throwing out the case on a technicality: They ruled that the plaintiffs waited decades too long to file the suit. If you snooze, you lose. Political correctness be damned.

I hope now the team's owners will do the right thing and voluntarily change the name to something less offensive. But, given that they let the case go all the way to the Supreme Court, I don't imagine that it will happen anytime soon.

Karmic payback for whites-only swim club

It looks as though the infamous Valley Swim Club is learning the hard way that racism doesn't pay. And I can't help but gloat a little.

That Philadelphia suburban swim club made national news this past summer when a group of young day care students, who had a pre-arranged and pre-paid agreement to use the pool, were subjected to hateful and racially charged comments and then were ordered to leave the club. Most of the children, if not all, were black or brown.

The club's management tried to deny that racism was the reason for their abrupt termination of the day care center's contract. However, in September, some justice was delivered when the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission completed its investigation of the case and issued a finding that racism was indeed a factor. The Commission ordered the swim club to pay some hefty fines for its modern-day Jim Crow nonsense.

And now it gets even better: The Philadelphia Daily News has reported that the Valley Swim Club will file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Hopefully this bankruptcy is an indication that the general public will not tolerate bigotry in that Philadelphia suburb and the surrounding area.

And hopefully that will someday be the case throughout this nation and throughout the world. Meantime, these small steps are worth celebrating.

Debating the death penalty in the Washington Post

Today's Washington Post contains a brief letter I wrote in response to the November 10th execution of DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad. It is preceded on the page by another letter on the same subject in which the writer appears to favor the death penalty. It's an interesting contrast.

The editors shortened my own letter to save space, but my point remains intact. Here is the text of my letter as it appears in the Post:

John Allen Muhammad has been executed. His punishment is over. Meanwhile, his victims are still dead.

So is the death penalty truly a matter of justice or merely revenge?

Mary Shaw, Philadelphia

>> View the two letters on the Washington Post website.

In trying 9/11 suspects, Holder gets it right and wrong

On Friday the 13th, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that self-described 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four alleged co-conspirators will be tried in federal court in New York. This is a vast improvement over the military kangaroo courts of the Bush administration, and will help to restore America's image in the world with regard to human rights and the rule of law.

And this is no mere bleeding-heart perspective. In practical terms, the U.S. federal court system has a proven track record of effectively prosecuting complex terrorism cases. On the other hand, says Joanne Mariner, Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program Director for Human Rights Watch, "The military commissions at Guantanamo are simply not up to the task."

Elisa Massimino President and CEO of Human Rights First, summed up the advantages of this move as follows: "The victims of 9/11 and the American public deserve to see justice done, and the best way to achieve that is by prosecuting these men in a credible criminal justice system where the focus will be on their culpability, not on the legitimacy or fairness of the proceedings. Moving these cases out of military commissions and into the federal courts is smart counter-terrorism strategy. It treats the perpetrators as the criminals they are and deprives them of the warrior status they crave. This is an important distinction and will help thwart their ability to recruit others to their cause."

But, while this may indeed deprive the defendants of the warrior status they crave, it might also grant them the martyr status that they crave even more. While Holder got it right in moving the trials to the federal court system, he got it wrong when he announced that he will instruct prosecutors to seek the death penalty in these cases.

Terrorists will not see a death sentence as punishment, they will see it as a victory. Furthermore, rather than serve as a deterrent, it could backfire and serve as another recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. After all, isn't the promise of lavish heavenly rewards what motivates so many terrorists to fight to the death for their cause in the first place?

The prospect of rotting for decades in an American supermax prison would surely have a much different effect on a would-be terrorist.

Therefore, I strongly urge Attorney General Holder and the federal prosecutors in these cases to rethink their penalty strategy. If convicted, these defendants deserve true punishment, not a glorious death.

US ranks a pathetic 42nd in life expectancy

This sort of statistic doesn't seem to get much attention from the US mainstream media. But the UK newspaper The Guardian recently reported that "[d]espite spending $230m (£115m) an hour on healthcare, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every other developed country. And while it has the second-highest income per head in the world, the United States ranks 42nd in terms of life expectancy."

These numbers were derived from a new report funded by Oxfam America, the Conrad Hilton Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Those numbers are not surprising when you consider that the US also ranks 37th in the World Health Organization's ratings of the world's health systems (below Malta, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, and numerous other countries that might surprise you).

So, the next time some Republican tells you that we don't need health care reform because the US already has the best health care in the world, ask him why then we have shorter lifespans than almost any other developed nation.

Just don't expect a straight answer.

Lou Dobbs leaves CNN!

The pressure from the people has apparently worked. CNN's leadership has apparently grown a backbone. Last evening, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs announced on his show that it would be his "last broadcast on CNN." He is going to be taking his hate and his hot air elsewhere.

Dobbs has come under fire in recent months both for his persistent anti-immigrant vitriol and his support for the ridiculous "birther" conspiracy theories claiming that Obama is ineligible for the presidency because he was allegedly born in a foreign country.

Dobbs's brand of radical editorializing, which would seem right at home at Fox News, has no place on a network that calls itself "the most trusted name in news."

Kudos to CNN for shedding the cancer that was eating away at the network's image. The New York Times reports that CNN will announce his replacement today, which suggests to me that the choice has already been made. I hope they chose his replacement very carefully.

Three short thoughts on Veterans Day

Today, November 11, is Veterans Day in the U.S. -- an annual holiday honoring our military veterans.

On this Veterans Day 2009, I have three thoughts to share:

To our nation's veterans: Thank you for your brave and generous service to our country.

To George W. Bush: Shame on you for misusing our military troops.

To Barack Obama: Please make it stop, not continue.

House health care bill vs. the First Amendment

While a part of me was happy to see a health care reform bill pass the House on Saturday night, another part of me is disappointed for a couple of reasons.

First of all, the House bill does not contain the truly robust public option that we really need.

Second, I am disappointed that the bill includes the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which restricts abortion coverage.

The amendment was obviously a gift (or bribe) to the Democratic "moderates" who are obviously pandering to the religious extremists in their districts. After all, most criticism of abortion that I come across tends to be religiously motivated.

And religiously motivated legislation has no place in the United States of America, where the First Amendment supposedly guarantees the separation of church and state.

The fact is that abortion is currently a legal medical procedure in the United States of America.

But, under the new House bill, it appears that a woman cannot even use her own money to pay for an abortion if she receives a federal subsidy for her health insurance.

Of course, as always, poorer women will suffer the most -- the ones who often cannot afford to properly support the children they will be forced to bear.

I contend that if men could get pregnant, abortion would be 100% covered. But they can't. So they cannot (or will not) relate. So women's reproductive rights become a bargaining chip. And the timid left gives in to the demands of the religious right and the "moderate" Dems. The separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment is ignored and spited.

And women and children will suffer as a result.

This is apparently what those so-called "moderates" want for their sisters, daughters, nieces, and granddaughters.

But this is not "pro-life"; it is pro-embryo. Once those embryos are born, they're on their own.

And heaven help them if they're not born to the rich.

Bush's latest disgusting photo op

Shortly after the Fort Hood shootings, George W. and Laura Bush visited the wounded soldiers and their families.

In my opinion, Bush has got a lot of nerve. (But, of course, we knew that already.)

I believe that Bush's unnecessary and misguided war of choice in Iraq is one of the main reasons for so much post-traumatic stress amongst our troops. And that war, and its effects, and its illegality, and its subtler issues, surely all had something to do with why the Fort Hood shooter cracked. After all, he was about to be deployed there.

The last thing that the victims need right now is Bush's smirking, patronizing attitude. It only adds insult to injury -- literally.

Rendition prosecuted abroad while U.S. courts do nothing

The George W. Bush administration was the target of much criticism from human rights groups for, among other things, its policy of extraordinary rendition, in which detainees have been transferred for interrogation in other countries that are known for their use of torture. And human rights groups and individuals have long been calling for an end to rendition, and accountability for all those who have enabled or participated in the use of torture in the "war on terror".

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like any kind of accountability will be achieved here in the U.S. anytime soon. The latest evidence of this came on November 2, when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case of Maher Arar against U.S. officials who had sent him to Syria, where he was interrogated under torture for a year.

Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen, was detained at JFK Airport in September of 2002 while on his way home to Canada from a vacation. After his rendition to Syria and all the torture and abuse, Arar was eventually released, with the Syrian government stating that they had found no connection to any criminal or terrorist organization or activity.

Still, that Court of Appeals apparently believes that the U.S. should not be held accountable for violating international law by putting Arar through that abuse. The court cited the Bush administration's favorite excuse -- state secrets. Case dismissed. God bless America.

Maria LaHood, senior staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), who represented Arar, aptly summed up the implications of the decision as follows:

"With this decision, we have lost much more than Maher Arar's case against torture -- we have lost the rule of law, the moral high ground, our independent judiciary, and our commitment to the Constitution of the United States."

Indeed.

The only voice of reason out of the Second Circuit Court was in a dissent by Judge Guido Calabresi:

"I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written, today's majority decision will be viewed with dismay."

If it's not ultimately viewed with dismay, then this nation really has sold its soul to the Torture Industrial Complex.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is not going to wait around for us to get our act together.

On November 4, an Italian judge convicted 23 Americans, most of them CIA operatives, for the abduction and rendition of Muslim cleric Abu Omar, who was captured in Milan in 2003. One of the defendants, a CIA base chief, received an eight-year sentence, while the others were sentenced to five years each.

The defendants were all tried in absentia and are considered fugitives.

And while it's unlikely that any of those 23 Americans will ever see the inside of an Italian prison cell, the Italian court's decision makes a statement to the U.S. and to the world: that laws were broken and accountability is crucial in a world that respects the rule of law.

Tom Parker, Amnesty International's policy director for counterterrorism and human rights, had this to say:

"The United States shouldn't need a foreign court to distinguish right from wrong. The Obama administration must repudiate the unlawful practice of extraordinary rendition -- and hold accountable those responsible for having put this system in place -- or his administration will end up as tarnished as his predecessor's."

I agree. The world agrees. But the rendition program continues under Obama.

Obama talks about human rights. But talk -- even Obama's fancy variety -- is cheap. Continuing the practice of rendition is not change I can believe in. In fact, it is no change at all.

Why violence?

On Thursday, an Army major shot and killed several people at the Fort Hood military base in Texas. He was about to be deployed to Iraq.

Then, as if that wasn't enough, yesterday there was a shooting at a Florida office building.

Whether the former inspired the latter is anyone's guess at this point, as far as I know. But it doesn't matter. There is just way too much violence in this world. And, be it a world war or an office shooting, violence is never productive. It only results in needless death and suffering, and no real resolution to the root problems at hand.

Nevertheless, violence begets violence, and I fear that violence will probably always be a part of life as long as human beings live together as a society.

Is there any realistic alternative? Or is human nature simply programmed for violence?

Texas man executed yesterday - because the Bible said so

Yesterday, the state of Texas executed convicted murderer Khristian Oliver. The case had gained some notoriety because the jurors had allegedly consulted the Bible to justify the death sentence.

A passage that was allegedly read aloud by a juror:

"And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death."

Case closed.

So much for the separation of church and state.

Amnesty International had called on the Texas authorities to commute Oliver's death sentence. Amnesty noted that the jurors' use of the Bible during their sentencing deliberations raises serious questions about their impartiality. In fact, a U.S. federal appeals court acknowledged last year that this use of the Bible amounted to an "external influence" prohibited under the U.S. Constitution, but it upheld the death sentence nonetheless.

If that's not disturbing enough for you, Amnesty uncovered more incriminating evidence against the jury:

In 2002, a Danish journalist interviewed [one of the jurors]. The latter said that "about 80 percent" of the jurors had "brought scripture into the deliberation," and that the jurors had consulted the Bible "long before we ever reached a verdict."

He told the journalist he believed "the Bible is truth from page 1 to the last page," and that if civil law and biblical law were in conflict, the latter should prevail. He said that if he had been told he could not consult the Bible, "I would have left the courtroom."

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

So apparently Texas is a functional theocracy. And the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't care to do anything about it.

Senate committee to hold ENDA hearing today

The Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee of the U.S. Senate will hold a hearing today on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which would prohibit employment-related discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The religious right opposes the ENDA, of course, because they apparently believe that LGBT individuals should be persecuted and marginalized. They apparently think that it's an employer's right to discriminate against people who are LGBT or suspected to be LGBT. How Christian of them! (Not.)

We cannot let the haters win this battle. Employment discrimination is as wrong when used against LGBT persons as it is when used against blacks, women, Muslims, or members of any other minority.

It seems that gay is the new black. And we need to work as hard today for civil rights for the LGBT community as our parents worked in the 1960s for civil rights for African Americans.

Stay tuned for ENDA updates as the legislation (hopefully) progresses through the maze of congressional protocol. And keep your fingers crossed.

An historic American anniversary

One year ago today, on November 4, 2008, we the people of the United States of America elected our first non-white president.

Even though Obama has not turned out to be the great champion of progress that many of us thought we were voting for, and even though his election did not usher in the post-racial America that some naively expected, the fact that an African-American family now resides in the White House is nonetheless something to be celebrated.

Obama's election came some 146 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, 138 years after the Fifteenth Amendment allowed all citizens to vote regardless of race or color, and 45 years after Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech.

A truly post-racial America is still a pipe dream, but every significant milestone is worth celebrating along the way.

Runoff election canceled in Afghanistan; more reason to leave

Yesterday we learned that the upcoming presidential runoff election in Afghanistan was canceled. Hamid Karzai's opponent dropped out of the race because he didn't think it would be transparent or valid, given the alleged fraud involved in the original election in August.

So Karzai was declared the winner by default.

His corrupt government wins as well.

So why would Obama possibly want us to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan, let alone send even more? Even General McChrystal has admitted that "widespread corruption and abuse of power" are as big a threat to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan as the Taliban insurgency -- and the corruption goes far deeper than just the elections.

In fact, as MSNBC has reported, "There's some evidence that such rampant and blatant government corruption is driving many Afghans into the hands of the Taliban."

This is a no-win situation for our presence there.

Besides, it's not as though we could realistically create a full-fledged, uncorrupt, cheery-happy democracy in Afghanistan even without those complications. Even if we could, it is not our place to do so.

You cannot spread democracy at the point of a gun. And trying to do so can only be construed as imperialism. And haven't we had enough of that sort of thing under the Bush-Cheney administration?

Vote tomorrow. Meantime, do your homework.

Tomorrow, November 3, is an off-year election day in the U.S., when Americans will elect some judges, school board members, mayors, and a handful of governors.

Many Americans skip the off-year elections, especially in states where no gubernatorial election is taking place. But I encourage all registered voters to go to the polls tomorrow. Staying engaged in the political process, even in these off years, is good for the community and good for its citizens. This is democracy at the most local level, and it's no less important than the big national elections.

But true democracy requires an informed citizenry. So, before you vote tomorrow, please spend some time learning about your choices in this year's elections. A good place to start is the Project Vote Smart website. At this nonpartisan online resource center, you can select your state and learn about state-level candidates and ballot measures. Here you can also find a directory of local election offices, which can then fill you in on your local-level candidates and ballot measures. It won't take long, and doing your pre-election homework is very empowering.

See you at the polls!

Legislating inequality: Last year in California, this year in Maine?

A lot of Americans pay very little attention to the off-year elections, like the ones that will take place on Tuesday, November 3. After all, we're not electing a president, or members of Congress. This year's election is mostly about judges, school board members, and a handful of state governors.

However, there are often some ballot measures that merit a greater turnout than they usually see. This time around, the one I'm watching most closely is the Maine referendum on same-sex marriage.

Last year, Californians passed Proposition 8, which amended that state's constitution to declare that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Prop 8 overturned the California Supreme Court's prior ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

This year, the same kind of battle is taking place in Maine. Depending on the voting results, Maine's Question 1 could repeal the recently passed law legalizing same-sex marriage in that state.

If Question 1 passes, Maine -- like California -- will have legislated inequality. In a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal, the law will now say that gays and lesbians are not so equal. It will officially define gays and lesbians as second-class citizens who are not entitled to equal rights in that state.

State constitutions, like the federal one, are designed as living documents, amendable as society progresses, to address new issues that the original founders might never have anticipated. But, traditionally, constitutional amendments have been used to grant new rights, not take rights away. Now they're looking to take rights away from people who already have those rights in Maine. That's like suddenly telling women or African Americans that they can no longer vote, or like outlawing interracial marriage at this point. Who would stand for that (outside, perhaps, the Deep South)?

A big driving influence for the anti-gay bigotry in the U.S. is religion, particularly Christianity. The religious extremists like to scream that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Case closed. So they are out to save the soul of America by fighting against the so-called homosexual agenda, i.e., equality, which they see as an affront to their god.

But these people fail to recognize -- or refuse to recognize -- the fact that the U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation. They conveniently ignore the language of the First Amendment, which explicitly prohibits government from establishing a religion, and which protects each person's right to practice -- or not practice -- any faith without government interference. In other words, you cannot impose your own religious beliefs on others. So religion is not a valid justification on which to judge the validity of civil marriage.

But this is exactly what the anti-equality crowd insists on doing. And they do it using scare tactics, claiming that allowing gay marriage will destroy the institution as a whole -- apparently more so than divorce, and more so than their own hypocritical, often-closeted ringmasters. (Hi, Ted Haggard! Hi, Larry Craig!)

And the sheep -- whipped into an emotional frenzy by these scare tactics -- actually believe that their own marriages will be threatened if the gay couple down the street is allowed to marry. And so they will vote accordingly on Tuesday, even as I question whether these people -- led by emotion rather than reality -- are really qualified to make constitutional decisions that will affect all the state's citizens. After all, it has been said that true democracy requires an informed electorate -- not a frenzied mob of bigots.

They would do well to ponder one of my favorite quotations on the subject, by political commentator James Carville: "I was against gay marriage until I found out I didn't have to have one."

And they would do well to ponder the words of their very own Jesus Christ: "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Lieberman's latest stunt: Says he will campaign for Republicans in 2010

How much more of Joe Lieberman's traitorous misbehavior will the Senate Democrats put up with and still let him caucus with them and maintain his committee chairmanships?

It was bad enough that Lieberman campaigned for John McCain (and against Barack Obama) for president last year. But this week he's really been on a roll.

As I wrote on Thursday, he indicated that he would support the probable Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill.

But that apparently wasn't enough active rebellion for the spoiled brat. So yesterday he said that he'll probably campaign for some Republicans in next year's midterm Congressional elections.

Some TV talking heads have speculated that the Democrats put up with his nonsense because they need Lieberman more than he needs the Democrats.

But what the hell do they need him for?

He may be the potential 60th vote, but what good is that when he votes with the Republicans most of the time anyway?

It's as if the Senate Dems all have battered wife syndrome.

Blue Dogs and Republicans have no good argument against the public option

Those in Congress who oppose a public health care option can't really say out loud that it's because they're beholden to the moneyed special interests who are threatened by a public plan. And so they try to tell us that they oppose it because it would cost too much. They want to appear not as corporate shills but as fiscally responsible elected officials with the people's best interests in mind.

Don't fall for it.

First of all, their fiscal argument holds no water. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the combined House bill introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week "would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period. In the subsequent decade, the collective effect of its provisions would probably be slight reductions in federal budget deficits."

See that? It would actually lead to reductions in the budget deficits!

Second, a public option is what the people want. Don't believe House Minority Leader John Boehner, who yesterday said this about the House bill: "The American people have spoken. Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have ignored them. Through the month of August, the American people let Members of Congress from both parties know that they didn't want a government takeover of health care. That hasn't changed."

Boehner is, of course, referring to the tea party crowd and the frightened town hall crazies who were programmed like robots by Fox News to make a lot of noise against health care reform.

The truth is that a majority of Americans want a public health care option. The polls have reinforced this time and time again.

But, of course, Washington is famous for not letting facts get in the way of the politicians' selfish agendas.

Joe Lieberman: Just like a Republican

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has done it again. The former Democratic Vice Presidential candidate (with Al Gore in 2000) has once again shown his appreciation for the party that gave him such an honor nine years ago by spitting on us. This week he indicated that he would support the probable Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill. He obviously cares more about the insurance companies than the sick people those companies are ripping off. Just like a Republican.

And this kind of thing is nothing new.

Lieberman switched his party affiliation from Dem to Independent in 2006, when Ned Lamont beat him in the 2006 Democratic primary in Connecticut. Instead of accepting the message that the Dems of his state were tired of his support for George W. Bush's misguided policies, he spitefully ran instead as an Independent. And, unfortunately, he won.

And he continued voting with Bush most of the time. Just like a Republican.

And last year he campaigned for John McCain for President, not Obama. Just like a Republican.

Are the people of Connecticut feeling any buyer's remorse yet?

And what about the Senate Democratic leadership? How much longer will the Senate Dems put up with Lieberman's nonsense and let him retain his positions as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and Chairman of a subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee? Those chairmanships are usually reserved for senior members of the current majority party, not Independent turncoats.

It's obvious that Lieberman has more in common these days with the Republicans than with the Democrats. And it's about time people realized this and stopped coddling him. Like a spoiled child, coddling him can only serve to embolden him.

Good news from Washington, bad news from Texas, and a long fight ahead

First the good news:

Today, October 28th, President Obama will sign the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law. The U.S. Senate passed this legislation last week, after the House passed it earlier this month. This measure expands the 1969 federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

Some members of Matthew's family with be there at the signing. I'm sure it will be a bittersweet moment for the family, and I applaud their bravery and resolve in working so hard to get this legislation passed in Matthew's name.

Now the bad news:

Last evening, the state of Texas executed yet another man who may have been innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Reginald Blanton was killed by lethal injection just after 6:00 pm Texas time on Tuesday.

For details about this case and the evidence as to Blanton's innocence, see my October 25th blog post here.

Lessons learned:

While we should celebrate our small but significant victories for progress, like the Matthew Shepard Act, we must not rest on our laurels. There is much more work to do, in Texas and beyond.

Frankly, I would like nothing more than to have no more injustices to write about. But, as long as human beings live together in society, I fear that conflicts and injustices are unavoidable. But we don't have to put up with them in silence. We can make a difference. So stay tuned, dear reader. We've got our work cut out for us.

In defense of dithering

Former Vice President Dick Cheney (emphasis on "Vice") recently criticized President Obama for allegedly "dithering" on Afghanistan, since Obama did not immediately jump to send additional troops there when General McChrystal asked for them.

I, however, contend that there is something to be said for dithering. Sending more troops into harm's way should not be an easy decision made quickly without a lot of thought -- particularly when it's not a defensive move but rather more of an offensive one. After all, with al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and now in western Pakistan and in cells around the world, Afghanistan itself presents no real threat to U.S. homeland security right now. Any purpose we could possibly serve by staying there -- or, worse, escalating our presence there -- would likely accomplish little more than to assuage our guilt per the Pottery Barn rule of war -- we broke it, we bought it.

So please dither, Mr. President. Dither all you need to.

After all, Bush and Cheney should have done a lot more dithering back in 2003, before deflecting our attention and our troops away from Afghanistan and into Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction, and posed no threat to the U.S.

And what did their oh-so-quick-and-decisive action get us? 4,351 dead U.S. troops as of this writing, plus 31,536 wounded, plus countless dead and wounded civilian Iraqi men, women, and children, plus almost a trillion wasted dollars from our treasury.

And all because they refused to dither long enough to consider all the consequences of their bloodlust, their oil thirst, and the easy war profiteering of their corporate bedpartners (hi, Halliburton).

Or maybe they just never really cared.

Thank you, President Obama, for dithering on Afghanistan. Take your time. Too many lives hang in the balance.

It's an option, stupid

Republicans and others who oppose a public health care option say they do not want the government "interfering" with their health care. And that is fine -- for them. With a public option in place, those people can ignore it, and they can continue to spend their money on traditional health "insurance" from for-profit corporations, allowing those companies instead to be the ones to interfere with their health care. That is why it is called an option. You do not have to subscribe to the public option if you do not want to. Option = choice. (No, relax, it is not that kind of choice.)

But those people do not speak for me, and they do not speak for the 57 percent of congressional constituents who told a recent Washington Post/ABC poll that they want a public option.

Another right-wing argument is that the competition from a government-run system could put the for-profit "insurance" corporations out of business. This argument is equally faulty for a couple of reasons:

First of all, aren't Republicans traditionally the biggest cheerleaders for free competition in the marketplace? Now, suddenly, they are afraid of some honest competition (emphasis on "honest")?

Second, just as the public school system has not put private schools out of business, and just as FedEx and UPS aren't threatened by the U.S. Postal Service, a public health insurance option does not mean that CIGNA, Aetna, and Blue Cross will necessarily disappear. If those who oppose the public option will instead stick with the private insurers that they care so much about (option, remember?), those private insurers will continue to have clients and will survive to whatever extent the marketplace determines is merited. Again, it's free enterprise, folks -- and may the best option win (emphasis on "option" and on "best").

Still another argument -- a biggie for the greedy right -- concerns the price of implementing and maintaining a public health care program. Apparently, we can afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars -- nearing a trillion -- on unnecessary and poorly managed wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we can't spend money here at home to keep Americans healthy and alive. Go figure.

The truth is that it will cost us much more in the long run -- in dollars (a trillion), new businesses, jobs, and human lives -- if we continue to have no public option, as calculated by contributor Devilstower at the Daily Kos website a while back.

So, all things considered, it appears that there is no good argument -- logically or rationally speaking -- to oppose the public option.

But, of course, logic and reason (let alone compassion) are not what makes Washington tick.

Will Texas execute another innocent man?

Recently we learned that Texas executed an innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham, in 2004.

Now it appears that they might repeat this kind of injustice on Tuesday, October 27 -- Reginald Blanton's scheduled execution date. Blanton was convicted of fatally shooting his friend, Carlos Garza, and then stealing $79 worth of jewelry from Garza's home, where the murder took place.

According to Randi Jones of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty (CEDP), "Reginald's case exemplifies serious prosecutorial misconduct. They systematically excluded African Americans from the jury pool."

Jones also noted that there is no physical evidence linking Blanton to the crime, and that Blanton was forced to rely on an incompetant public defender who failed to present evidence of innocence at the original trial.

As if that's not enough to establish reasonable doubt, Blanton's MySpace page provides some additional reasons why we should be very, very concerned:

• The initial suspect could not be found.

• The only two witnesses were forced to sign statements against Blanton, under threats of being charged with the crime.

• And the shoe print on the victim's kicked-in apartment door did not match the shoes Blanton wore the day of the crime.

This looks to me like a truckful of reasonable doubt. And there is no excuse to execute someone when there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Joining the army for the health care

It used to be that young people would join the U.S. military for the paycheck, or to see the world, or for the educational benefits. And that's all fine and good (except, of course, during the times when they might be sent off to fight an unnecessary and senseless war).

But now some young people are joining the military for another reason: for the health care benefits.

Ironically, they are volunteering for a potentially dangerous (and potentially deadly) job so that they and their families won't have to die from an untreated illness or injury.

That's a heck of a price to pay.

And what does it say about our society when people have to go to such extremes in order to "survive"?

Good news: Matthew Shepard hate crimes bill is on its way to the President's desk

Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a margin of 68 to 29. This measure expands the 1969 federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

It passed in the House earlier this month, so all it needs now is President Obama's signature, which he has already promised.

Upon the Senate's passage of the bill yesterday, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese issued the following statement:

"We're in the home stretch. This critical piece of legislation is on its way to the President's desk for his signature. We look forward to President Obama signing it into law - our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence. We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country.”

If only erasing hate were really this easy.

But this is a good step forward.

New bill seeks to end discrimination against gay adoption

Hooray for U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA)! Last week he introduced the Every Child Deserves a Family Act (H.R. 3827). This bill is intended to "prohibit discrimination in adoption or foster care placements based on the sexual orientation, gender identification, or marital status of any prospective adoptive or foster parent."

From a practical perspective, as the Washington Blade reports, this bill "would restrict federal funds for states that discriminate in adoption or foster programs on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation or gender identity."

In other words, hit them in the pocketbook, since compassion, logic, and reason don't seem to hold much sway with governments these days.

As an adoptee, I urge all members of Congress to support this measure.

I was adopted all those decades ago by a heterosexual couple, and it wasn't a pretty picture. It was such an abusive environment, in fact, that I have been out of contact with them since 1989, in order to preserve whatever is left of my sanity. I would have had a much healthier upbringing if I had been raised by people who were more like any of several wonderful, smart, loving gay people I know.

Sexual orientation has no bearing on one's parenting abilities.

Think about it: Which would be better for a child -- being raised by Melissa Etheridge and her partner, or being raised by Britney Spears and Kevin Federline?

That, I believe, is a no-brainer.