True colors

In an interview with "Meet the Press" on the 23rd of January, Bill Thomas (R-CA) who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, suggested tying Social Security benefits to a person's race or gender:
"We also need to examine, frankly, ... the question of race, in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race. And you ought not to just leave gender off the table, because that would be a factor."

The presumption that Thomas was working off of was that women live longer than, but that minorities don't live as long as, white males. So the thinking, I guess (I can't tell if he's thinking or not) should be that minorities would get more money per year (because they live shorter lives), but that women should get less money per year (because they live longer), so that everyone in the end receives an amount of money equal to what they put into the accounts.

Republicans have been the party of sexual and racial inequality for the last two decades or so - let's not forget that Head Start funding was drastically cut during a Republican administration, or that restrictions on reproductive health and equal-pay bills have been put forth under Republican leadership.

Democrats need to seize on this and remind people that this is a Republican talking. Trent Lott didn't get away with saying what he said, and neither should Bill Thomas - the fact that he's not Senate Majority Leader should mean nothing.

The Democratic party, as yet (nearly 24 hours after the statement) hasn't even issued a statement condemning Rep. Thomas's remarks. It's time to get on the ball, McAuliffe.

It's good to know where she stands

During questioning yesterday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was asked by a member of the committee to explain the administration's policy on torture and the Geneva Conventions with regard to terrorism suspects. Keep in mind that the Geneva Convention and US law both currently protect prisoners of war from certain punishments.

Rice's response?

She doesn't think terrorists are deserving of protection.

On the surface, this isn't too very bad. After all, terrorists are especially bad people, who follow the "Kill one, frighten ten thousand" philosophy of Sun Tzu. There is no doubt in my mind that they don't find God's paradise when they die - and if they do, then I have no desire to go there myself, thank you very much. More to the point, they pervert a religion for political aims, which is one of the lowest things any human being can do for any reason.

However, keep in mind that we as Americans, and really most of the western world, were absolutely appalled at images being broadcast from Falluja last year when US contractors were killed and their bodies were mangled.

Keep in mind also that we tend to be grossly appalled at the manner of death of most of the victims of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has a habit of beheading his prisoners, which from the screams of the victims must be a very painful way to die.

But we are OK with inflicting pain on other human beings? Seems awfully hypocritical and ethnocentrist of us if you ask me. To oppose torture of ourselves but support it for others is a good bit of both.

That said, Condi Rice's approval as secretary of state is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Most Democratic members of the Senate will approve her nomination when it comes up, which will be pretty swift considering her approval by the Foreign Relations Committee today by a 16-2 vote (Barbara Boxer and John Kerry dissented).

However, Democrats need to push Rice, and the administration, to extend protections of US law and the Geneva Conventions to all people held within our criminal and military justice systems. Until we can proclaim that we are better than Zarqawi and his ilk, and mean it, then we'll always be at his level.

Objecting to Certification: A Bad Idea

For the first time since 1877, and just the second time ever, Congress has agreed to discuss the certification of an Electoral College result, because some members of Congress objected to Bush's election as president on the grounds that Ohio's election was riddled with irregularities.

That is certainly possible. Actually, it's probable - there are irregularities in every state, probably in just about every precinct. John Q. Public might vote at the wrong precinct, and his conditional ballot might be tossed straight into the voting bin. It's happened. Or maybe there's a malfunction with the voting machines, and some votes are miscounted. In most cases it doesn't make a difference. In others, like the state of Washington, it very well could be the difference between one candidate and another moving into the governor's mansion.

But in Ohio, which Bush carried by 118,000 votes, all that any recount would establish is that the vote might actually have been a little bit closer. But just a little.

The effort to stop the electoral certification, if only for a moment, was led by Barbara Boxer, D-CA.

Barbara Boxer represents an extreme element of the Democratic Party, and while I generally side with her, her politics actually weaken the Party as a whole. She, and other elected officials like her, need to stop putting their own political biases ahead of the interests of Democrats everywhere on some issues. On others? Yes, she should sound off. But there are certain cases where she goes too far.

Let me say this: John Kerry conceded defeat in the presidential election in the early morning hours of November 3rd. He said he wouldn't challenge the results, and he held true to his words. In the joint session of Congress to certify, he offered no challenge to George W. Bush's electoral victory.

This time, Boxer has done nothing but reinforce those who clamor on the television and radio stations calling Democrats "sore losers," a title which should have been limited only to the election of 2000, when we had the right to complain. But now? In Ohio?

Congratulations, Representative Boxer. You've given ammunition to the opposition.

New Year's Resolutions

The Democratic Party is run, theoretically at least, by average everyday American citizens. And the average every day United Statian (the correct term) makes resolutions for him or herself as the New Year rolls around - generally, these are public promises to oneself that will in some way cause improvement in this person's lifestyle or fitness level, or simply their betterment as a human being.

So, if the Party is run by John Q. Public, shouldn't the Party make its own resolutions?

Of course it should.

These are the resolutions that, in my not-so-humble opinion, the Democratic Party ought to make this year:

This year, the Democratic Party resolves:

1. to dress better. This means figuring out a stand on issues that real United States voters care about and making that position known to the public before the Republicans find a way to marginalize the party.


2. to lose weight. It's time for us to find some new leadership - maybe some leadership that knows how to do more than just work the Party out of debt. Last I checked, the Party won its biggest elections when it spent more money than it had. Since we've gianed solvency, we've only lost seats in every major category.


3. to keep in touch with old friends. There are many parties and NGOs out there with much better connections and better grassroots efforts than the Democratic Party. Perhaps its time we gave those folks a call and chatted for a little while.

I realize how general all of this sounds, but you can't work out specifics until you have a goal in the first place.

Time to get to work, me hearties.