Okay, so Sunday was a big day for a lot of brides and grooms--particularly in New York, where for the first time ever brides were able to marry brides and grooms to marry grooms. Among them were Jonathan Mintz and John Feinblatt, one of the first gay couples to marry under New York's new law. The linked NYT article isn't just about them, though. It's about the entire family: Mintz, Feinblatt, and their daughters Maeve and Georgia, all of whom are about to become a family in a way the state of New York has never recognized before.
It's a really, really great and touching article, and I'm happy for all of them. But I'm always the type to miss the point entirely and get hung up on stuff I find touching. (Do not sit down to watch TV commercials with me.) For instance:
Feinblatt, 60, who is Bloomberg’s chief policy adviser, and Mintz, 47, the city’s commissioner of consumer affairs, have lived together for more than 13 years, the last eight in a West Village townhouse.
To go that distance, adjustments were necessary. Feinblatt, the less orderly one, learned to accept that no matter where he dropped his suitcase, it would “be moved to a ‘better’ place,” he said.
“A much better place,” Mintz added.
You know why? Because there's a right place to put your suitcase, My--er, John.
And this is a big deal:
Both girls are Feinblatts. Mintz says he "horse-traded" his surname in return for getting "Daddy." Feinblatt took "Dad."
It might not be a huge deal for y'all, but to me, nailing down "Daddy" is pretty significant. Daddies are important. (I love you, Daddy.)
As for this:
They have three dogs, one a recent surprise birthday gift for Georgia. Maeve says she predicted it. She mischievously maintains she sees portents in the sky.
“We’re trying to dissuade her,” Mintz said. “We’re concerned there’s no scholarship in psychic cloud reading.”
That's just discriminatory.
It's a family, y'all--maybe not the kind you're used to seeing, but all of the important ingredients are right there. There are kids who pray to be a part of a stable, caring family like that. Seriously, anyone who doesn't get why this is a good thing doesn't have a heart. Congratulations and best wishes to the Feinblatt-Mintzes.
Okay, so it's not huge, but it's kind of depressing in an emblematic way--the Civility Project has folded after two years and three responses out of 585 letters.
Mark DeMoss (Republican, evangelical Christian) and Lanny Davis (Democrat, Jewish, former Clinton lobbyist) sent out 585 letters, one each to every sitting governor and member of Congress. The 585 were asked to sign the following hideous, spiteful, degrading pledge:
I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior.
I will be respectful of others whether or not I agree with them.
I will stand against incivility when I see it.
Scandalous.
The three complete bastards--out of 585--who dared put their names to such a travesty were Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Rep. Frank Wolfe (R-VA), and Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC).
DeMoss and Davis didn’t get any responses from any other governors or Congresspeople, but they did get a few e-mails from the common man.
The gutless republicans do not need more gutless wonders like you in the rhino party. You remind me of someone that would bring a rock or knife to a gun fight. The thugs, communists, racists, bigots, liars, nazis, and America hating sons of b------ in the democrat party are scum of the Earth and will do anything to win. I believe you have been watching to many old movies where the good guy always win. Vince Lombardi put it best. Winning is not everything, it is the only thing.
And:
Grow up - this is real life and when the socialist want to take over a free country, people like me are not civil and if the Obama socialists aren’t stopped soon by elections, the next step is violent revolution - it’s how our free country was born. You people are morons.
At the risk of sounding uncivil, what the freaking fuck?!
Okay, so I know I'm late to the game, but I wanted to congratulate the country on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. It's encouraging to know that this is where we've come--our elected officials, frequently so much more conservative than their constituents and less willing to rock the boat (or mine are, at least) have made a surprising stand against discrimination in the name of both fairness and reason. America's gay soldiers, airmen, and Marines no longer have to worry about the potential consequences for simply serving their country. The entire nation can enjoy stronger security knowing that some of our top troops are no longer being booted out because of their sexual orientations. And I know this is kind of flowery and optimistic on my part, but I like thinking that with every decision like this, the U.S. becomes a little freer and a little more accepting, and kids growing up in it (and, for that matter, adults who are increasingly open to change) will be better off than the ones who had to grow up in an environment of ignorance and fear.
I do have other commentary on the subject, but that's for later--I wanted to save this post for sincere congratulations on a happy, promising occasion. Mazel, mazel. Good things.
Okay, so at the tail end of a year that's been liberally punctuated with stories of greed, infidelity, dishonesty, and flat-out hatred, it felt like a blessing this morning to hear a story about one anonymous stranger's kindness and generosity to some of the neediest people.
There was something special on the menu at a New York soup kitchen Thursday.
Those eating lunch at the Broadway Community Inc. facility in Manhattan got a taste of the luxury life, thanks to a gift of caviar from an anonymous donor.
...
Chef Michael Ennes of Broadway Community Inc., told CBS News correspondent Kelly Wallce when he heard of the caviar donation, he thought, "'Yeah, right.'"
But, in fact, it was an honest-to-God 500-gram, $1,100 tin of sturgeon caviar. Reactions at the facility ranged from "Holy crap, it's an $1,100 tin of caviar" to "What the hell are we supposed to do with an $1,100 tin of caviar?" But Ennes was resolute.
We're serving this bad boy, he said.
Of course, the challenge at that point was one of the fishes-and-loaves variety, making one tin of caviar go 150 ways. Ennes and crew served up sour cream and egg whites and yolks and chives on cornmeal blinis with a dab of $1,100 freaking caviar on top.
Diana Conyers, who received a meal at the soup kitchen, said, "I thought it would taste yuck because I never had caviar. It was surprising, it tasted pretty good."
Michelle Seliem and her 8-year-old daughter--who have been living in a domestic violence shelter for five years--loved it.
Seliem said,"It was delicious."
But what did it taste like?
"Fish," she said, laughing.
Though the $1,100 value of the caviar could have covered more meals for the needy, it was the experience that was priceless.
Hosna Seliem told Wallace, "I felt like a princess."
And I think that's kind of the point. These are people who, to put it baldly, eat at soup kitchens. Even at the most well-equipped shelters, they're likely to enjoy an appetizer of four servings of soup stretched six ways. The value of this anonymous gift was not the cash value of the caviar but the experience, for the diners at the kitchen, of setting aside five years in a domestic violence shelter, just for one day, and feeling like a princess. There seems to be a perception these days that if the poor aren't living in dark, squalid tenements and dressing in rags, they aren't truly poor or they don't deserve help. At least one person out there recognized that people who have nothing still deserve to have dignity.
George Evans, a diner at the facility, said, "Whoever donated this, maybe they woke up one morning and said 'I have a little more, let me give.'"
If you realize you have a little more, you can donate (and it doesn't have to be caviar) to Broadway Community Inc. or visit Feeding America to find a food bank in your area.
Okay, so conservative reactions at town hall meetings over the past couple of weeks have ranged from misled through disturbed to WTFOGMCNNBBQ?!!!1!!11! (occasionally sprinkled, like bursts of blue sky peeking through storm clouds or the last size-medium cashmere cardigan erroneously crammed among the maternity tops on the clearance rack, with reasonable and sincerely felt concerns). No surprise there. What is surprising, although not nearly surprising enough, is the number of speakers who actually respond to it, who take seriously inflammatory and/or misinformed and/or just plain crazy questions as if they aren't purely someone's opportunity to get on the teevee and spew some crazy.
Well, finally someone delivered the response that such questions should get, and that someone is Barney Frank.
For those of you who are audio-challenged and reading along at work:
Wackaloon: Why do you continue to support a Nazi policy, as Obama has expressly supported this policy? Why are you supporting it? Frank: When you ask me that question, I am going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question. On what planet do you spend most of your time? ... Do you want me to answer the question? Yes. As you stand there with a picture of the president defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis, my answer to you is, as I said before, it is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table. I have no interest in doing it.
(Also note the shout of "Hitler didn't start with the Jews" somewhere in the background.)
Let future town hall speakers take that as a lesson: This is the way to deal with those people. Don't waste your time trying to reason with someone who's beyond reason. These people aren't trying to engage you in debate; they don't want their questions answered. They want to stand up and shout, be disruptive, propagate a myth, show off for their fellow wackaloons, maybe get on TV. And when you try to seriously address their questions, you only lend validity to an inflammatory statement that has none--and allow them to monopolize time that could go to someone with a realistic concern.
This is something that has pissed me off about the media for years now. In the interest of "fair and balanced" reporting, they think they're obliged to always give equal time to both sides of the story. Is this a good practice most of the time? Sure. But when one side is presenting a reasoned, reasonable argument and the other is coming from a place of fantasy and nonsense, giving time to that other side is a waste of time and makes something seem valid that clearly is not. If one side is saying, "We're 37th in the world for health care, nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured, and we see universal health care as the best way to address that problem for reasons A and B and C" and the other is saying, for instance, that Obama wants to send government agents into your home to brainwash your children,no. That other side does not deserve equal time. Nor does "Obama wants to kill your grandmother." Or "Obama is another Hitler."
By all means, if someone comes to you with a rational argument, talk with them. Engage in conversation. Give them a platform to make their point. Maybe you'll convince them. Hey, maybe they'll convince you. But when someone comes to you with "Obama is Hitler" or "Obama keeps an enemies list of anyone who logs on to a government Web site, and by the way, he's from Kenya," do not give them a sense of respectability by engaging. The only way to respond to them is the way Barney Frank did--that their baseless, inflammatory comment isn't worth your time or energy.
Okay, so today, Maine governor John Baldacci signed a bill making Maine the fifth state in the U.S. to approve gay marriage. The bill may still have to pass a "people's veto," a referendum whereby opponents would have to round up 55,000 signatures to get the law on the ballot, so it could be as late as next June before Maine gays have the opportunity to settle down. But the bill holds significance nonetheless, and not just because Baldacci signed it after many New England governors rejected similar bills in their own states.
Its significance lies in Gov. Baldacci's statement after he signed:
Later, in a telephone interview, he said, “It’s not the way I was raised and it’s not the way that I am.” He added: “But at the same time I have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution. That’s my job, and you can’t allow discrimination to stand when it’s raised to your level.”
Congratulations, John Baldacci, for getting it right. You're welcome to your personal beliefs, but when it comes down to it, your obligations as an elected official are to the Constitutional rights of your constituents. You can't allow discrimination to stand when it's raised to your level. Even if it's personally abhorrent to you (and I'm not accusing Baldacci of that; his views seem to extend only as far as "not the way I was raised"), your job is to uphold the Constitution, not enforce your own squidginess.
And the people of Maine will have the opportunity to have their say. It could be argued that they've already had their say, in that their chosen representatives in the legislature have voted on their behalf to pass the bill. But in a national culture that recently has put increasing emphasis on the rights of the people to influence legislature directly, they may (with enough votes) be able to speak their minds directly.
“Just as the Maine Constitution demands that all people are treated equally under the law, it also guarantees that the ultimate political power in the State belongs to the people,” [Baldacci] said in the news release. “While the good and just people of Maine may determine this issue, my responsibility is to uphold the Constitution and do, as best as possible, what is right. I believe that signing this legislation is the right thing to do.”
My feeling, of course, is that the Constitution does trump majority rule when it comes to issues like civil rights and arbitrary discrimination, and the voters always have the option to try and change the Constitution if they have a problem with that. But the point is that everyone will have a chance to have their say before the law takes effect.
Regardless. The Weather Channel predicts showers over Bangor through the end of the weekend, with sun and a few clouds throughout next week. When God sends a hurricane and a tsunami and swine flu to the great state of Maine to punish them all for bowing to teh homos, you'll hear it here first.
Well done, Maine state leg; well done, Gov. Baldacci; and congratulations, people of Maine.
Okay, so this may not be the most timely of posts, since Martin Luther King, Jr., Day was yesterday, and all I posted about was Scientologists, and that's 'cause I shamefully spent most of the day on the couch with popcorn and soap operas and a splitting headache when I was perfectly capable of going out and doing at least one of the many good deeds being done throughout Birmingham in honor of the holiday.
But what's up with the "I Have a Dream" speech?
Don't get me wrong, now. It's an awesome and very moving speech. It's well-written, of course, with great parallelism and imagery and a rhythmic kind of poetry that I think you have to actually be a minister to perfect. And of course it sends a great message of cooperation and tolerance and acceptance and unity and peace, one that was practically unheard of in the general population at the time. As oratorical rallying points go, it's not a bad one.
But every time MLK Day rolls around, the speech gets played on the news, and schoolchildren stand up and recite it, and they have activities where they write their own dreams on construction-paper American flags and post them on bulletin boards, and organizations have Dream Luncheons and I Have a Dream Tolerance Symposia and everyone dreams of little black boys and girls holding hands with little white boys and girls.
And every time, I wonder if that sixth-grader really knows what words like "interposition" and "nullfication" mean when she says them, or if we all know whether or not we're "engag[ing] in the luxury of cooling off" or "tak[ing] the tranquilizing drug of gradualism," or if, really, anybody actually listens to the speech anymore or if we just let the words roll over us like the prayers we've been saying in church since toddlerhood ("Our Father, who aren't in heaven...").
It's nothing wrong with the speech. It was then and remains revolutionary and powerful. But it, like the Lord's Prayer, like the Pledge of Allegiance, suffers for repetition if we never take the time to break it down by line and phrase and appreciate what's really being said. I think we might all benefit if we occasionally swapped out that most famous and worthy of speeches for some of his equally profound ones that get less attention but could, through their sheer novelty, make a little more impact -- and in so doing, honored the man not for a moment of oratory inspiration but for a lifetime of work that still has an impact today.
And so, I conclude by saying today that we have a task, and let us go out with a divine dissatisfaction.
Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds.
Let us be dissatisfied until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort from the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice.
Let us be dissatisfied until those who live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security.
Let us be dissatisfied until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history, and every family will live in a decent, sanitary home.
Let us be dissatisfied until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality integrated education.
Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.
Let us be dissatisfied until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not on the basis of the color of their skin. Let us be dissatisfied.
...
Let this affirmation be our ringing cry. It will give us the courage to face the uncertainties of the future. It will give our tired feet new strength as we continue our forward stride toward the city of freedom. When our days become dreary with low-hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows.
Civilization and violence are antithetical concepts. Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation. Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood.
If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love. The tortuous road which has led from Montgomery, Alabama, to Oslo bears witness to this truth. This is a road over which millions of Negroes are travelling to find a new sense of dignity.
This same road has opened for all Americans a new ear of progress and hope. It has led to a new Civil Rights bill, and it will, I am convinced, be widened and lengthened into a superhighway of justice as Negro and white men in increasing numbers create alliances to overcome their common problems.
I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the "isness" of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts him.
I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.
I believe that even amid today's motor bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men.
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down, men other-centered can build up. I still believe that one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant over war and bloodshed, and nonviolent redemptive goodwill will proclaim the rule of the land.
"And the lion and the lamb shall lie down together and every man shall sit under his own vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid."
Okay, so some things are just really, really simple:
If a couple of lesbians or gay men want to get married, and they love each other, they should have the right to do that and enjoy all the legalities in our society that go along with that. I have no problem with that at all. I think that people who create these problems of homophobia and the likes of that do us a disservice. We are all human beings and one of the things that should motivate us, most of all, is love.
…Love between a man and a woman is beautiful, love between a woman and a woman is beautiful, love between a man and a man is love…is beautiful too. What this world need is a lot more than what we presently have. [emphasis mine]
Sometimes it takes a not-a-chance, out-of-left-field candidate to have the balls to say true things.
Okay, so as the previous gay marriage post and subsequent debate are about to slip under the break to be lost for all eternity, another straight, married Republican from Wyoming (what is it about Wyoming?) takes a stand in the name of not being a homophobic putz. Practically Harmless officially hearts Rep. Pat Childers.
I didn’t have a speech prepared. I simply told a simple story about my family and told the Rules committee how the legislation was simply wrong. I tried to separate how the legal aspect of marriage from the religious aspect.
My youngest son wanted to have the same anniversary as my wife and I. He and his wife signed the legal papers on Sept. 1 in a Starbucks Coffee Bar during the week. Their religious ceremony was held with the family attending the next weekend.
Another example that I gave was that I was left-handed, born that way. My mother was left-handed but forced to write right-handed by tying her left hand behind her back. People do not do things that way now.
Growing up in the south, I also told about the discrimination against blacks.
I then told them that my daughter was a highly intelligent woman and functioning quite well in an independent business in Montana and that she was gay. She and her partner live a quiet life in her community.
I had researched our statutes and provided seven pages, single spaced, of statute cites (statute number with a few words of description) noting where marriage was tied to civil rights of couples.
Those statutes, if gay couples married out of the state were to move to Wyoming, would deny them their civil rights under the proposed law. Our definition of marriage has been in place since the late 1800’s and does define it as a civil contract between a man and a woman.
It does not make it right with the understanding of human makeup as known today.
Okay, so I'm a passionate progressive liberal, proud to be one, and supportive of others like me. But never let it be said that I can't appreciate a Republican when he stands up on his hind legs and does the right thing. I'd like to both tip my hat and raise a glass of nonalcoholic sparkling cider to Wyoming state representative Dan Zwonitzer, who argued passionately against a bill that would ban recognition of legal same-sex unions in Wyoming:
Thank you Mr. Speaker and Members of the Committee.
I am not going to speak of specifics regarding this bill, but rather talk about history and philosophy in regards to this issue.
It is an exciting time to be in the legislature while this issue is being debated. I believe this is the Civil Rights struggle of my generation.
Being a student of history, as many of you are, and going back through history, most of history has been driven by the struggle of man against government to endow him with more rights, privileges and liberties to be bestowed upon him.
In all of my high school courses, we only made it through history to World War 2. It wasn’t until college that I really learned of the civil rights movement in the 60’s. My American History professor was black, and we spent a week discussing civil rights. I watched video after video where people stood on the sidelines and yelled and threw things at black students walking into schools, I’ve read editorials and reports by both sides of the issue, and I would think, how could society feel this way, only 40 years ago.
Under a democracy the civil rights struggle continues today, where we have one segment of our society trying to restrict rights and privelges from another segment of our society. My parents raised me to know that this is wrong.
It is wrong for one segment of society to restrict rights and freedoms from another segment of society. I believe many of you have had this conversation with your children.
And children have listened, my generation, the twenty-somethings, and those younger than I understand this message of tolerance. And in 20 years, when they take the reigns of this government and all governments, society will see this issue overturned, and people will wonder why it took so long.
My kids and grandkids will ask me, why did it take so long? And I can say, hey, I was there, I discussed these issues, and I stood up for basic rights for all people.
I echo Representative Childers concerns, that testifying against this bill may cost me my seat. I have two of my precinct committee persons behind me today who are in favor of this bill, as I stand here opposed, and I understand that I may very well lose my election. It cost 4 moderate Republican Senators in Kansas their election last year for standing up on this same issue. But I tell myself that there are some issues that are greater than me, and I believe this is one of them. And if standing up for equal rights costs me my seat so be it. I will let history be my judge, and I can go back to my constituents and say I stood up for basic rights. I will tell my children that when this debate went on, I stood up for basic rights for people.
I can debate the specifics of this bill back and forth as everyone in this room can, but I won’t because the overall theme is fairness, and you know it. I hope you will all let history be your judge with this vote. You all know in your hearts where this issue is going, that it will come to pass in the next 30 years. For that, I ask you to vote no today on the bill. Thank you.
The bill never made it out of committee.
Rep. Zwonitzer reports that he has gotten some negative feedback, but that almost all of it has come from the "deep red" portions of Wyoming outside of his district. I hope that his fears of losing the next election will prove unfounded; not only do we need more people - conservative, liberal, whoever - like him in our legislatures, I hate to think of anyone being punished for doing what even many Democratic legislators are failing to do of late: standing up and defending the rights of a persecuted group when it's a particularly unpopular tack.
Feel free to shoot the man an e-mail and let him know what an incredible and (sadly) unusual thing he's done. As soon as I know how to contribute to his re-election campaign, that's where I'm sending my pennies.
Okay, so Molly Ivins died yesterday after a long battle with breast cancer. She was 62.
I don't even know what to say, except that she was one of the no-shit-takingest women ever to put pen to paper and that the world is a less awesome place for her loss.
I have this vision of her sitting up in heaven with Ann Richards, talking politics, bemoaning the state of affairs down on earth and starting stuff that St. Peter and the gang will have to clean up later. The 2008 presidential campaign certainly won't be the same without her.
A commenter at Pandagon brought up this Ivins classic:
So keep fightin’ for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don’t you forget to have fun doin’ it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin’ ass and celebratin’ the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was.
Nothin’ But Good Times Ahead, pp. 254-5.
Possibly too long for a grave marker; just long enough to clip and carry around in your wallet. We have a big responsibility now; one person can't possibly fill her shoes, and it'll take the entire world working together to uphold her legacy of telling it like it is, afflicting the comfortable, barbecuing sacred cows, and being completely unashamed of it all. The world is less one awesomely uppity woman, and it'll take ten - at least - to make up the difference.
Okay, so it seems appropriate to celebrate the earth-shattering and much beloved civil right leader's birthday with a little ideological diversity. That this might result in some cognitive dissonance is the price of playing the game.
"We must keep reaching across the table and, in the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King, feed each other," Yolanda King said during a presentation Sunday at Ebenezer Baptist Church that was part motivational speech, part drama.
King, 51, told The Associated Press the King holiday provides an opportunity for everyone to live her father's dream, and that she has her mother's example to follow.
"I connected with her spirit so strongly," Yolanda King said when asked how she is coping with her mother's loss. "I am in direct contact with her spirit, and that has given me so much peace and so much strength."
Yesterday, CNN Headline News anchor Glenn Beck began his program with a commentary about the Duke lacrosse rape case. On Martin Luther King Day, Beck described the media’s treatment of the Duke players as “a lynching without the rope.” He then gestured to himself and said, “for the first time in my life, Mr. Oreo Cookie — without the chocolate on the outside — can understand why people celebrated when O.J. Simpson was acquitted.”
RICHMOND, Va. - There were furious denunciations in the General Assembly after a Virginia legislator stated that black people "should get over" slavery.
Hanover Delegate Frank Hargrove made the comment about slavery in an interview published Tuesday in The Daily Progress of Charlottesville.
In the same interview about whether the state should apologize to the descendants of slaves, Hargrove wondered aloud whether Jews should "apologize for killing Christ." ...
And so, I conclude by saying today that we have a task, and let us go out with a divine dissatisfaction. (Yes)
Let us be dissatisfied until America will no longer have a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds. (All right)
Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until the tragic walls that separate the outer city of wealth and comfort from the inner city of poverty and despair shall be crushed by the battering rams of the forces of justice. (Yes sir)
Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until those who live on the outskirts of hope are brought into the metropolis of daily security.
Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until slums are cast into the junk heaps of history (Yes), and every family will live in a decent, sanitary home.
Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until the dark yesterdays of segregated schools will be transformed into bright tomorrows of quality integrated education.
Let us be dissatisfied until integration is not seen as a problem but as an opportunity to participate in the beauty of diversity.
Let us be dissatisfied (All right) until men and women, however black they may be, will be judged on the basis of the content of their character, not on the basis of the color of their skin. (Yeah) Let us be dissatisfied. [applause]
Let us be dissatisfied (Well) until every state capitol (Yes) will be housed by a governor who will do justly, who will love mercy, and who will walk humbly with his God.
Let us be dissatisfied [applause] until from every city hall, justice will roll down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream. (Yes)
Let us be dissatisfied (Yes) until that day when the lion and the lamb shall lie down together (Yes), and every man will sit under his own vine and fig tree, and none shall be afraid.
Let us be dissatisfied (Yes), and men will recognize that out of one blood (Yes) God made all men to dwell upon the face of the earth. (Speak sir)
Let us be dissatisfied until that day when nobody will shout, "White Power!" when nobody will shout, "Black Power!" but everybody will talk about God's power and human power. [applause]
And I must confess, my friends (Yes sir), that the road ahead will not always be smooth. (Yes) There will still be rocky places of frustration (Yes) and meandering points of bewilderment. There will be inevitable setbacks here and there. (Yes) And there will be those moments when the buoyancy of hope will be transformed into the fatigue of despair. (Well) Our dreams will sometimes be shattered and our ethereal hopes blasted. (Yes) We may again, with tear-drenched eyes, have to stand before the bier of some courageous civil rights worker whose life will be snuffed out by the dastardly acts of bloodthirsty mobs. (Well) But difficult and painful as it is (Well), we must walk on in the days ahead with an audacious faith in the future. (Well) ...
... Let us realize that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Let us realize that William Cullen Bryant is right: "Truth, crushed to earth, will rise again." Let us go out realizing that the Bible is right: "Be not deceived. God is not mocked. (Oh yeah) Whatsoever a man soweth (Yes), that (Yes) shall he also reap." This is our hope for the future, and with this faith we will be able to sing in some not too distant tomorrow, with a cosmic past tense, "We have overcome! (Yes) We have overcome! Deep in my heart, I did believe (Yes) we would overcome." [applause]
Okay, so on CBS Sunday Morning yesterday, Ben Stein, whom I love as an actor and detest as a political commentator, said something that I really, really liked. Who knew?
Times are very tough in Iraq and if I was still a speechwriter for the President, like I was for Mr. Nixon and Mr. Ford, this is what I would suggest he say:
My fellow Americans, I have some sobering news. It is my duty, above all, to protect the nation. I sincerely believed I was doing that when I ordered the invasion of Iraq. I still believe Saddam Hussein was the most dangerous man in the world. But it is clear to me now that things are not working out well in Iraq. Despite the incredible confidence, bravery and sacrifice of our men and women on the ground there, Iraq is still a violent, largely out of control nation. We may be making more terrorists than we destroy. "Quagmire" comes sadly to mind. It is clear that change must be made. Therefore, I have this morning accepted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's resignation with sincere thanks for his service to the nation. He will be replaced by a truly heroic American, Senator John McCain of Arizona.
Despite my best intentions, I made mistakes in Iraq and mine is the responsibility. Good men and women died and hard-earned tax money was lost. Fine young men and women are crippled and disabled, which is a tragedy. It is time for a change. Therefore, I am convening an official, national, bi-partisan, blue ribbon commission composed of Democrats, Independents and Republicans, civilian and military, to start meeting at once and give me a recommendation in one month as to what our Iraq policy should be. All options are on the table. All.
I want to close with this thought. I am just a man. I have no miraculous powers. I have no special pipeline to God. Like all presidents from Jefferson and Lincoln onwards — and believe me, I know I'm not in their league — I make mistakes and sometimes good people die because of them. I am deeply sorry. As we re-examine our policy, I would ask that you all pray for us to make the right decision. May God continue to bless us all. Thank you.
I think that sums it up nicely. I do think that Bush thought he was doing the right thing when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. I still don't know what it is he thought he was doing, and we now know that he wasn't doing the right thing, but I'll accept that he thought he was doing the right thing.
Here's why I don't think it'll fly, though.
The first reason is that Bush is incapable of admitting he's made a mistake. This is a man who's claimed his biggest misstep was saying "Bring it on" at the beginning of the war (that is, of course, when he can think of any mistake he's ever made). Despite his onetime claim that the buck stops with him, he's never been reluctant to push the blame off on a lower-level functionary, staffer, or occasional member of the armed forces. When life hands him lemons, he just rewrites the rules, or rewrites history, until he comes out on top. So the chances of him uttering the words "I made mistakes in Iraq and mine is the responsibility" without choking on them are right up there with the chances of him pronouncing "nuclear" correctly.
The other reason is that he doesn't think he's "just a man." He doesn't think he "has no miraculous powers." This is a man who talks to God and claims that God talks back. He's a man who thinks the Constitution gives him power to suspend civil liberties, ostensibly in the interest of national security. He calls himself a president and has claimed for himself the powers of a dictator, and he insists that such cowboy bravado and unitary executive power are necessary to keep the terr'ists in their place. He thinks that humility is a sign of weakness. He thinks that restraint is a sign of impotence. And that's why we're in this situation in the first place.
