U.S. National Anthem in Spanish

By now, everyone’s heard the hub-bub about the Star Spangled Banner being sung in loose translation in Spanish.

Apparently some are offended by this.

I’m not.

Apparently the President is.

I love it when the Republicans further undermine their credibility with the hispanic population.

However, rather than estimating the political fallout, let us have a discussion about principle. First, we ought to separate some fact from national myth. There is no official language of the United States. There have been attempts to amend Title 4 of the Unites States Code to have English adopted as the official language, but this has not been done yet.

What IS law, is something called the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For those unfamiliar with this amendment, it ensures free speech (and freedom of religion) to all in the United States by preventing Congress from abridging free speech. As such, the singing of the national anthem is Spanish, Swahili, or even Arabic is fully legal and protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Now, if some people feel that this is wrong, it is their free right to feel that way. However, I find it very disingenuous. There doesn't seem to have been much guilt over the white people not having learned Iriquois when they immigrated to America. Why should English have greater sacredness in America than Iriquois, Navajo, Mandan, etc.? Is it because it is simply more prevalent?

On a slightly different note: The Minutemen claim to be reasonable people upset with illegal immigration. They claim not to be racist and to have many latino members. Anyone believing that ought to read the Minutemen HW blog – especially the comments concerning the national anthem (here). These people make my stomach turn.

Zbigniew Brzezinski Against Air Strikes on Iran

More grist for my Iranian mill.

In my last post on Iran, I mentioned limited ground action or air strikes as a possible option for the administration to pursue. This is seeming like an increasingly likely choice for the admin., is it possibly takes care of the nukes, doesn’t get us bothering with all that namby-pamby European diplomacy stuff, and it doesn’t get us embroiled into another nasty occupation.

So, what’s wrong with air strikes? Everything!

HERE is Zbigniew Brzezinski’s analysis published today in the International Herald Tribune. It is really a must-read.

Now, perhaps our hordes of neo-con Republican readers are going to write comment after comment objecting to Brzezinski as being a soft dove like his former boss, Jimmy Carter. FYI: Zbigniev Brzezinski served as Carter’s National Security Advisor. Now, because I am not expecting throngs of right-wing nut-jobs to post to our little blog, let me post some things that were posted on another blog (here)

"This is typical liberal ideology," writes the California Conservative. "Negotiate from a position of weakness is straight from the Jimmy Carter failed handbook. Then again, Brzezinski is the failed bureaucrat that gave him that 'Let's all get along' advice. It's obvious that Mr. Brzezinski didn't learn anything from Reagan's intimidating the Soviets into oblivion."

"It was he and his feckless boss President Carter who saw no cause for concern in a potential Iranian mullocracy, and hence no reason to back the Shah of Iran who stood in the mullahs way," writes Power Line. "Now, more than 25 years on, the old foreign policy hand is still assuring us that we have little to fear from the mullahs. He seems to take it as a given that, through negotiations, we can talk them out of developing nukes."

"Personally, I'd choose the realism of today's scary world over the chaotic America of the Carter/Brzezinski years," writes Valkyrjan. "Years during which nothing was done to confront the rise of Islamic fundamentalism when it first burst onto the international scene with its outrageous actions in Tehran. The war we didn't fight then is the war we must fight now."

Ok, of course you know that I am citing these blog commenters because I am going to drag their opinions through the drek. Well, without further ado:

Folks, you’re criticizing carter – C-A-R-T-E-R… you know, nice humanitarian type – believes in human rights and international law.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CARTER

We are talking about is Brzezinski – B-R-Z … forget it, I’m not going to spell it out more than I have to. Brzezinski was not "the failed bureaucrat that gave him that 'Let's all get along' advice." Brzezinski was the bureaucrat that advised Carter to invade Iran during the '79 revolution.

Furthermore Brzezinski is the author of the strategy handbook on American global dominance – ‘The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperative.’

Brzezinski is a hawk’s hawk – and the mentor of Madeleine Albright to boot. It was Carter and his Secretary of State Cyrus Vance who were the doves. Brzezinski and Vance were constantly at one another’s throats over the bellicosity of American foreign policy.

Furthermore, if we learned what to do from Reagan, we'd have been selling the nukes to Iran ourselves. Is there some portion of the Iran-Contra Affair that eludes the repugs-come-lately?

So there – ya’ll better do your homework.

Anyway, the moral of this story is: If even Brzezinski is against air strikes... air strikes are a REALLY BAD IDEA

Listening to Christian Radio

There I am, on a long road trip through West Texas, driving from San Antonio to Colorado, by way of such metropolises such as Eden, TX and Winters, TX. I don’t have a CD-player, and this is not exactly NPR-country.
In cranking the radio dial, I find Christian radio stations. I’m an open-minded free-thinker (no, not an atheist), and I don’t mind being challenged, so you know what – I’m going to listen to it.

So, there I am, listening to KCRN 93.3 FM out of San Angelo.

The first hour is about debt management and credit reports from a Christian perspective. This nearly killed me. Falling asleep at 65 mph can have its consequences.

Anyway, soon they went on the issue of the environment. The regular radio-pastor – Dr. Jerry Johnston - was out, and had a replacement radio host: Somebody Overstreet, I think. Anyway, this person is pontificating about how it is so horrible that he has to spend $80 to fill up his gas tank. At some point he starts taking calls of listeners who tell him that evangelicals do have a Christian duty to take care of the planet. Sensing the direction of where these people are going, Overstreet agrees with the callers and quotes from Genesis about man’s dominion and stewardship over the earth.

Apparently, this wasn’t what the regular pastor was trying to hear. The next caller is Dr. Jerry Johnston. Johnston – in a friendly evangelical way, of course – puts Overstreet in his place, (I paraphrase for clarity):

“We have a duty to take care of what God has put in our keeping. However, Jesus us coming back and then the world will be destroyed anyway – so we don’t have to take care of the trees. Liberals like Al Gore want to make you believe that you are destroying the earth, just to make you feel guilty for driving your kids to soccer practice in
your SUV.”

After the implicit rebuke, Overstreet gets back ‘on message’.

All this really made me start thinking about the differences between how I think and how the Christian right thinks. Importantly, I do not want to scoff at another person’s deeply felt beliefs – I honestly respect people’s faiths. But some of this is just nuts – We shouldn’t care about the planet, because Jesus is going to destroy it anyway?? I do think there is a more progressive evangelical movement being formed out there. The question we need to answer is: how do we get the good evangelicals out of the Christian Right echo-chamber, so that they can find out that Democrats/Liberals don’t hate the Bible or Jesus?

TYD Convention

Convention was awesome! Congratulations to Clifton for getting elected as Regional Director Chair!!
Friday we went to the fundraiser at Threadgills. There we heard from Chris Bell our party’s gubernatorial candidate and San Antonio’s very own David Van Os, our party’s candidate for Attorney General. Young Democrat clubs from all over Texas were mixing and mingling. Afterwards, we went to the Women’s Caucus Social (after party) at the Double Tree hotel. Saturday, we spent the day in workshops and caucus meetings learning new ways of making the club grow and being more effective. We also sold many T-shirts and shot glasses. The evening was spent enjoying free beverages, caucusing and politicking with the other delegates in their quarters at the Drury Hotel (more after-parties!). Even though it was difficult getting up we managed to attend the general session and officer elections on Sunday. There were only two contested races this year. Those two positions were for National Committeewoman and the Regional Director Chair. SAYD’s delegation cast 2 votes for Jennifer Roberts from Dallas and 1 vote for Erica Contreras from Houston. Congratulations to Jennifer Roberts on her victory. Our very own Clifton Walker ran for Regional Director Chair against Emily B. and won. San Antonio now has representation on the TYD executive committee. Our (region 3) Regional Director is Daniel Medlar the gentleman from Lampasas and I (Chris Garcia) am the Judicial Director. The other executive committee position races were uncontested. I would like to thank Cassandra for making all those cards. I think I gave out 100 cards. These conventions are a lot of fun. They provide a great opportunity to meet fellow young Democrats.

Latest Concerning Iran + Analysis

From the wire at ABCNews:

MOSCOW Apr 21, 2006 (AP)— Russia's Foreign Ministry said Friday the U.N. Security Council cannot consider levying sanctions against Iran until it's proven Tehran's nuclear program is not exclusively for peaceful purposes, a Russian news agency reported.

It sounds like 2002-2003 all over again, doesn’t it? That’s why I think this is going to be a fundamentally different process.

If the matter comes to full debate in the Security Council, I do not think we will see any attempt by the administration to prove the point. Global public opinion will not believe the United States again about proving the existence of a WMD-program. That proof would even be trickier in this case, because it would have to prove intent, rather than existing infrastructure.

So, basically, the Russians are taking advantage of this.

Moscow and Beijing are certainly not going to look at the developments around the Iranian enrichment program in the context of the global War on Terror, but in the context of the global balance of power. For them, having U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iraq is already too close to home. While they might not like the idea of an Iran with nuclear weapons, they like the idea even less of another U.S.-sponsored regime change.

But at the same time, they’d rather not have to go down the U.N.-route at all, because they do want to maintain economic relations with us. We would rather not have to go down the U.N.-route again, because Russia and China are certainly going to veto anything substantive. Perhaps we’ll see something minor, like the freezing of the Mullahs’ bank accounts (if they even have those outside of Iran or Switserland), or a condemnation (empty rhetoric). We are not going to see multilateral economic sanctions on oil, and certainly not U.N.-mandated military action.

Likewise, Europe is not going to back us with any more military action – not even limited air strikes against the enrichment facilities. We don’t have the same allies we did in 2003. Spain’s government changed in 2004, and Italy has now turned the page as well. Poland is a more difficult case to gauge. We might have the British, but even that’s not a sure-thing anymore. Netherlands... unsure, and who really cares? (The decision would likely get stuck in committee at this point).

What does this all mean? Bush is really on his own when it comes to coercing Iran into compliance with international regulations concerning nuclear energy. To me, that means that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, unless we do something militarily and unilaterally to stop it.

There are really only a couple of options:
1. Letting Iran have the bomb,
2. Limited ground action or air-strikes, which are uncertain,
3. Full-scale invasion – disaster!

4. Bribe them - which means implicitly recognizing them as a rational state-actor.

Let’s face it, that isn’t a great deck of cards to play with – that’s a big problem. Iran seems willing to hear, at least, how much we're offering to bribe them - but they're not going to do this cheap. A bigger problem is that this administration loves brinkmanship.

Now what, George?

Highland Park Windfall Proposal Ends School Funding

Sorry for the quick post, but I'm rushing out the door and this is far too important not to note. We send our thanks to that ever-watchful muckraker, Matt Glazer, who is far more that JustAnotherMatt in our humble opinion:

"A procedural rule will be introduced tomorrow in the House as the first frontal assault on teachers, schools, and school districts. The rule will dictate the procedure of the house and will regulate amendments, costs, and most importantly the required focus of the legislation.

The Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that the current property tax is an unconstitutional statewide property tax. Now, Austin is in a frenzy trying to fix the problem and "get out of dodge."

If legislators vote for the proposed rule tomorrow, they will be voting for restricting House Bill 1 (The Highland Park Windfall Proposal) to only taxation issues and will not address school funding.

This will mandate that no amendment can be offered to increase teacher pay, no new textbooks, no funding for school facilities, no teacher health insurance, and no extra funding for transportation during these time of extraordinary gas prices.
It is time to hold the legislature accountable to teachers and students. It is time for our elected officials to focus their attention on school funding and not just creating huge windfalls for Highland Park, Alamo Heights, or Bellaire while forgetting Edgewood, Houston, Dallas, or the thousands of other school districts.

By voting for a rule tomorrow, they are saying no to education for potentially the next decade!"

Irrational Iran and Nukular Weapons.

Let’s talk Iran for a moment.

This is the country that we’re very afraid of, because they’re probably building a nuclear weapon of some sort. They say it is nuclear development for peaceful purposes. I will agree with the administration that we cannot necessarily believe this. Iran has every incentive to build a nuclear weapon. That incentive rises out of the fact that we have militarily invaded two of their neighbors, Israel “secretly, but not-so-secretly” has nuclear weapons trained on Iran, and the Bush admin. has Tourette syndrome when it comes to sabre-rattling.

Plus, nuclear weapons are still all the rage – Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan are all unwelcome additions to the nuclear power club of US, Russia, China, France and Britain.

The nature of WMDs, such as nuclear weapons, is that it is a deterrent weapon – it keeps other countries from wanting to invade you, because if they do, you’re going to nuke the crap out of them.

So, I think the administration is correct that the Islamic Republic is developing a nuclear weapon.

But what does it mean?

The first caviat that they don't mention is that Iran is still about a decade away from producing nuclear weapons. They also lack the ability to deliver the weapon by way of ICBM.

The neo-con Kool-Aid is that Iran is going to hand the weaponry over to Islamist terrorists, and we cannot afford for that to happen. They believe that Iran will do this, because Iran is an Islamic republic, and they share the suicide bomber mentality that al-Qaeda has. Iran is an Islamic ideological irrational actor, according to the bloviators.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Iran is, in fact, the very model of a pragmatic state with an ideological veneer.

My favorite case-study on this fact was the alliance behavior the Islamic Republic exhibited during the Armenia-Azerbaijan war, during the early 90s. Background: Armenia is a Christian nation, at war with Azerbaijan, which is by-and-large Shi’ia Muslim. Azerbaijan rigs an embargo against landlocked Armenia, with it’s buddies Turkey and the Republic of Georgia – strangling Armenia for supplies, notably oil and gas. During this period, which neighbor comes to Armenia’s aid – the Islamic Republic of Iran. Why? The Iranians actually don’t like their “Shi’ia brothers” in Azerbaijan, because of irredentist notions floating around in North-west Iran, which is largely ethnic Azeri. How best to get a dig in against Azerbaijan than support Armenia with energy and weapons?

Moral of the story – Iran talks Islamic, but they can definitely shelve their ideology when the need to do so is there. The Islamic Republic is a perfectly rational regime. Why would they not hand the nuclear weapons over to Islamists? Nuclear weaponry has a certain signature to it – there’s something about the nuclear material that can be traced. In other words, if al-Qaeda used an Iranian bomb – we’d know it, and we’d remove Tehran from the face of the planet, and the Ayatollah knows it.

As far as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being a lunatic, who cares? (I doubt that this is, in fact, true.) The people in real control of Iran are the same mullahs that have been in control since the revolution in ‘79. The President doesn’t have the same types of power that ours does.

In thinking of how to deal with Iran, we need to think of it in the context of traditional international relations. There is no new type of post-9/11 threat that we are supposed to be thinking about in the context of Iran. Iran is a rational actor, and we can deal with them as such – much in the same way we dealt with the Soviet Union.

Our biggest problem with the Islamic Republic, is that it’s Islamicism is a perfect ingredient for neo-con Kool-Aid.

My Incoherent Rambling Rant

You know what – it does seem like the Bush Empire is really falling apart.

Yeah, I know this realization seems to be coming a bit late, but there it is.

He’s shaking up his staff. His Congress allies are all headed to jail. The Generals are calling for Rummy’s head. That broad-based nice democratic government just doesn’t seem to be happenin’ in Iraq. We haven’t forgotten about all the guys in Gitmo. Kyrgystan is raising the rent on that airstrip by 10,000%. Gas prices are going through the roof of the high-rise building.

And he's toying with the idea of invading Iran, which EVERYONE knows is a really REALLY BAD IDEA!.

To top it all off, he isn’t getting out of this president-job for another three years!

Luckily for him, he’s ‘still the decider’ ‘round here.

Yeah, whatever.

But the Republican Kool-Aid is still out there, and people are still drinking it. Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Scarborough, Coulter, O’Reilly, and all their minions are still bloviating the Kool-Aid all over the airwaves. I really wonder what the average republican thinks of this.

My guess is that in their hearts the average Joe six-pack republican knows something’s up.. The republican veneer has pealed off and the decay beneath is quite visible. The question is when does it become too stressful to keep believing the lies and going through the motions of hitting the (Rep) on the ballot?

The other question is, when are we going to come with a compelling alternative that seems coherent enough for your average person from Omaha, Peoria and Colorado Springs to decide to go blue on E-day?

The brilliance of Karl Rove in his Kool-Aid laboratory is that he was able to construct a compelling story to sell – a story that was simple enough for even the dumbest FoxNews blow-hard to repeat. We just don’t have that.

And it’s a good thing that we don’t. The world is just not put together in an easy paradigm. Trying to sell it as such works wonders for the political theater, but ultimately, it’s going to lead you into bad policy. Policy has to be built upon an actual understanding of the world, rather than a dramatic plot-line fit for Hollywood. I would rather have us remain the disjointed, internally fractured amalgam of mostly-decent people.

Anyway, it seems that the repugs are imploding, and we didn’t have to really do anything to make it happen. Hopefully the American people will sweep us into power in spite of ourselves.

That is the unintelligible viewpoint. I AM the Rant-o-crat.

House District 118

Hot off the wire: Greg Jefferson’s article on the House District 118 race.

First off, Greg – check your math. Democrats have a 8-2 advantage in our house delegation at present. I don’t see Jose Menendez or Joaquin Castro being unseated by a republican any time this millennium, so cracking that 7-3 ratio doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

Also, what has Antuna been talking about, during the Primary? He’s against abortions, immigrants, and appraisal boards. While the third shows that he can at least bang the neurons together, the first two are nuts. I love this line on the immigration issue:

“Finally, I want to work with federal officials to expand detention facilities for those who threaten our national security.”

George, do you mean you want Texas to fund more of those prisoner kennels in Guantanamo Bay? I’m not sure what sort of national security threat we face from the poor folks who want to pick our grapefruits and sweep out floors for us. Perhaps you feel that the immigrants crossing the border are coming here to kill us, like your fellow republican, Tom Tancredo, believes.

Please talk about this some more, George! I love it when Republicans alienate the people you’re trying to court.

And, ... uh... abortion? Please leave that issue up to the adults at the U.S. Supreme Court. They haven’t overturned Roe vs. Wade just quite yet. It’s funny how you say you’re a consensus-builder, especially when you’re talking more about divisive issues, than about how to do right by your broader society.

So, let’s talk about real issues. I love what you have to say about education... it’s really enlightening. I read that your impulses sound a lot more like those that Democrats have actually stood for, unlike your Republican pals up in Austin... you know, those guys who will be funding your campaign and counting on you to vote their way. Have you gone to the Leininger trough yet? I don’t see him on your campaign finance reports... the people I do find there generally make my stomach turn. I’ll have to save that for another post. I suppose that you do have more experience in Austin, at least where it comes to fleecing the public-at-large, while being on the payroll of the big companies... again, I’ll leave my comments about who’s funding you in this campaign for a later blog post.

Anyway, about the real issue – education – Joe Farias really has a great deal more experience in that, and he knows his stuff. So yes, it’s going to be a ‘hard-core battle’ in HD 118 – the school board leader vs. the money-greased flunky.

Rumsfeld, I Still Love You!

By now we’ve all heard the criticism of Don Rumsfeld from Maj. Gen. John Batiste, ret., Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, ret., Former U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Anthony Zinni, ret., Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, ret., Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold, ret., and Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, ret.

That’s just got to be rough.

Don, I just want you to know that I still love you.

There’s just nobody who knows how to handle the intelligence community, your generals and the Pentagon press pool like you do – browbeating them with exquisite wit, if not charm. And you do it with more flair than anyone in the Administration. The president’s verbal fumblings are getting old. The shooting and cussing by the Veep is alright, if you’re into that sort of humor. Scott, Condi and Gonzalez are pretty boring if you think about it.

But you – you keep things alive! Who else can talk about war, death, destruction, and collateral damage with such enthusiasm and style? That’s not only daring, that’s panache! It’s probably why your approval ratings are an average of 5% higher than the President’s.

In addition to this, I’d like to mention your art of tautophrasal evasion. Your skill is beyond measure:
“Suicide bombers will be suicide bombers.”, “Insurgents, well, ‘insurge’ — that’s what they do.” (thank you Wonkette).

But your artistry goes beyond such little improptu lines. You are truly a deep soul. Your epistemology still moves me – the known knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. Not only did that make perfect ontological sense – it was pure poetry. Speaking of your poetry, I could not resist posting one of your masterpieces:

Clarity
by D.H. Rumsfeld

I think what you'll find,
I think what you'll find is,
Whatever it is we do substantively,
There will be near-perfect clarity
As to what it is.

And it will be known,
And it will be known to the Congress,
And it will be known to you,
Probably before we decide it,
But it will be known.

—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing

(please find more, compiled by Hart Seely at Slate.com.)

So what if the war is not going all that well – it’s war - “Stuff happens”!! Don’t let that and all those people - generals, congressmen, Senators, union officials representing more than 200,000 civilian defense workers, newspapers, neo-conservatives, former Pentagon officials - calling for your resignation get you down. They're either concerned for your health, in their right mind, or out for your job.

If you ask me, you’re still on top of your game.

Donald Henry Rumsfeld
– the youngest, the oldest, the ultimate -
Secretary of Defense!

I still love you.

Operation Reach Out->April 29, 2006

The San Antonio Young Democrats host this outreach to our American People. Let's show the opposition that enough is enough. No more culture of corruption. Let's be happy, be free of this corruption and unite as proud Americans. Democracy is to be governed by the people for the people and not those that have funds to buy their way above the law. We the people must do what we can to let our fellow citizens know that they need to rise up and overtake the opposition. Please join us. If you have any questions please visit us at www.sayd.org .
This is a Joint effort accross the country with The Democratic Party. You can see our event on www.democrats.org and clicking the April 29th National Neighbor to Neighbor organizing Day, or just email any of us for more details.

No Place Like Home for the Holidays...

Planning a trip this weekend? Hopefully, it's within walking distance:

Gas prices in San Antonio are up nearly 38 cents from last month

Try not to all riot at once.

Disclaimer

"Blog posts
represent the views of the individual poster, and not the San Antonio Young
Democrats as a whole."

The Sleeper Hit of the Summer

How the Hades did this one slip under the radar?

As reported by the Associated Press yesterday:

"WASHINGTON - Key figures in a phone-jamming scheme designed to keep New Hampshire Democrats from voting in 2002 had regular contact with the White House and Republican Party as the plan was unfolding, phone records introduced in criminal court show."

It appears that a dirty Republican trickster by the name of James Tobin was recently convicted of jamming the phones of the New Hampshire Democratic GOTV operation. Interestingly, he placed a number of calls to the White House's political affairs unit - nearly two dozen of them made the day before and the day after the November election.

And, now for my favorite part (drumroll, please):

"While national Republican officials have said they deplore such operations, the
Republican National Committee said it paid for Tobin's defense because he is a longtime supporter and told officials he had committed no crime."

Kinda sucks when you get suckered into paying for a defense for someone who has "committed no crime".

Fortunately for them:

"Prosecutors did not need the White House calls to convict Tobin and negotiate the two guilty pleas.
Whatever the reason for not using the White House records, prosecutors "tried a very narrow case," said Paul Twomey, who represented the Democratic Party in the criminal and civil cases. The Justice Department did not say why the White House records were not used."

Sigh of relief! If the ostensibly impartial Justice Department of the United States of America won't bow to political pressure in order to save you and your flunkies from well-deserved political embarassment and possible conspiracy charges, then who, I beg you, who can you turn to?

GOP stalwart, Senator John Sununu, looks like he could have used all the help he could get in 2002, winning a mere 51% of the vote to Jeanne Shaheen's 46%. With an approval rating that has not exceeded 52% in nearly a year according to polls conducted by Survey USA, the last thing he's going to want to see is a disgraced, state Republican Party come 2008.

Keep in mind, New Hampshirites sure do love their incredibly popular governor, John Lynch, giving him a 64% approval rating. And don't forget, the Granite State, smack dab in the heart of Kerry Country, is pretty spittin' mad about the piss poor job they're doing up there in the White House, giving Bush a 63% disapproval rating. That puts him somewhere near the overall popularity of brussel sprouts, or maybe the Spice Girls.

With a decent candidate for president heading up the ballot in 2008, this is one we should be able to pick off with ease.

The Protest was Awesome!

Unless you read it on www.mysanantonio.com

That's right, Jerry Needham, for the San Antonio Express-News, who wrote the story linked above, decided to draw on two 'experts' - John Keeley, a communications director from an anti-immigration think-tank called the 'Center for Immigration Studies'. When I read 'communications director', I interpret: 'Spin Doctor'.
The other 'expert' is "Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform". Gee - what do you suppose my political thesaurus says under the heading 'spokesman'?

Thank you, Mr. Needham for your fair and balanced reporting. Working on your resume for FoxNews?

In contradiction to the Spin Doctors' 'analyses', the protest march was on target. There was a great deal of displays of American patriotism and love of this country. Please check www.sayd.org for forthcoming pictures of the event. We had an American flag, as did a great many of the march participants. This wasn't the Hizbollah burning, and dancing on, the American flag, the way these guys are probably going to have you believe.

Anyway, I'll be letting Needham (jneedham@express-news.net) know about this blog post, and I'll invite him to comment.

4/11/2006 UPDATE:
Jerry Needham responds:

Dear Mr. Wright,

I can see from the time that you wrote this that you may have read a
single story on the Web and did not read the package of 8 stories in
today's newspaper that covered the rallies and the immigration issue. My
specific writing assignment for this event was to see if there were
counter-protests and to provide a small story presenting the opposing
viewpoints as a balance in the two full pages we were giving to the
rallies and marches. My story was played at the bottom of Page 8.

As I can tell from your letter that you apparently believed mine to be
the only story we had on the march, I would direct you to today's
newspaper or to another perusal of our Website to see that we had
balanced coverage of the event.

Unfortunately, under the situation in which I was writing this story, I
was not giving a balanced assessment of the issue but letting the other
side have their say to give the overall coverage some balance.
Therefore, in reading my story by itself, it does appear to be a forum
for the other side. Assuming that you agree that the overall coverage of
our newspaper was very fair, comprehensive and balanced on this event,
please don't zero in on the messenger for the message that was delivered
by the people who were quoted in this story.

Thank you for reading and best regards.

Jerry Needham
Staff Writer
San Antonio Express-News

Mr. Needham, thank you for your response. He is correct that these 7 other articles did appear in the news and they - collectively - did indeed display broader reporting than this article did on its own. I find this article in the context of the other articles, is proper and warranted to maintain balanced. I apologize for my FoxNews remark, and withdraw it.

However, this was still the article placed front and center on the protest issue on the MySA.com website, on Monday (late) night (ie. Tuesday EARLY morning).
Here's the danger of the 24-hour news cycle. While Mr. Needham is writing for the newspaper - assuming that his article will be placed into the context of the other 7 articles - MySA.com did not post the others at the same time - perhaps because they were still being written. (I don't know when newspaper deadlines are - hopefully sometime before the time that I read it, which around 12:30am - not 10:30pm, which is when the blog timed it - I guess it thinks we're in Pacific time, or something.)
ANYWAY, the 24-hour news cycle - The website is being referred to at any time, not just the morning when the S/A E-N is hitting the front lawns. Therefore, it - and any other 24-hour news outlet, like CNN - will be in need of news 24/7 - and will post that news when it is received. This article, basically poo-poo'd the march. For that to be the first news coming out of the MySA website was upsetting. Someone who participated in the march and felt the energy of the march would probably feel the same way. I hope you'll understand the ire - I am likely not alone.

Jaime Castillo is Absolutely Right

Nothing could say it better than today's Jaime Castillo Column.

We need to be conscious of the implicit messaging in the protests. I understand the urge to fly the Mexican flag as a symbol of ethnic pride, and as an assertion of cultural dignity. But this protest serves a political goal, and the symbolism of the Mexican flag miscommunicates its intent to what must be our intended audience - the American public at large.

We, the San Antonio Young Democrats will be flying the American flag, citing the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

Immigration is the most integral part of the American Nation. Consider that 95% of us have an ancestry that is not native to the lands that the United States now occupies. If immigration is bad - what does this say about America as a whole?

The economic argument is one that is not lost on us - we know that immigration of cheap labor is a downward pressure on wages, but at the same time that labor undergirds the American economy. The economic argument flows both ways, and the economics of immigration are too complex to put in 200 point font (marker) on a 2'x3' protest sign.

The important part is: where's your gut instinct? Should America welcome new immigrants or turn them away? It is my feeling that to turn them away is a hypocritical stance for any non-native American to make.

"Those who deny Freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves" To cite Abraham Lincoln. GWB has made use of that line himself. Well, George, the same needs to be said about economic opportunity.

Berlusconi is Going Down - Maybe....

UPDATE No. 3 - 4-12-2006
Yep, Florida it is. Belusconi basically wants a recount. Prodi won the vote by a slight margin. President Ciampi, who's term is about to expire will be leaving it to his successor to name a Prime Minister. It'll probably be well into May before this is all settled.
ABCNews - Reuters

UPDATE No. 2:
Florida 2000 revisited in Italy!! Romano Prodi is declaring victory, but Berlusconi wants to count the ballots! The Center-Left Coalition has a slightly marginal majority in the Senate, and if they came out ahead in the Lower House, they'll control 340 of the 630 seats.
Read all about it from the AP on ABCNews.com

UPDATE:
Exit polls have Berlusconi ahead in the Senate, but neck and neck with Prodi's party in the Chamber of Deputies... this one's going to be tight folks....

------------------------

2 exit polls have Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi trailing behind Romano Prodi, who heads a center-left coalition of political parties. (ABCNews: AP Wire)

I may be smelling something in the air, that right-wing politics in Europe - and perhaps in the West as a whole (we may hope) - are on the decline, and we can have a little more sanity in governance again.

For more background information on this election, Wikipedia is beyond compare.

Anyway, for Italians Silvio Berlusconi is like George Bush, Rupert Murdoch and Kinky Friendman all rolled into one.

Italy has been a member of Bush's "Coalition of the Willing in Iraq". Berlusconi, after mounting pressure had promised to pull the italian troops out of Iraq in 2005, but George W. talked him out of that. He's again promised to do so this year, but I'm sure that with Romano Prodi in charge this is a certainty.

More on the Protesting Students

In a comment to my post on protesting students, my friend Todd Bucy – a political anthropology major, who in my academic opinion is making tremendous strides toward awesome, useful and relevant research – responded to my thoughts with the following:

Todd Bucy said...
I tend to agree with your musings on the high school kids but (if I may put on my anthro hat) I think that it has more to do with our cultural tendency to rebel against authority figures at that particular age. As such, this issue should be seen as an opportunity to create a strong sense of ‘communitas’ with a group that is otherwise inclined to be apathetic to these issues. We have been waiting for an opportunity for something like this. I urge everyone to withdraw your kids from school and escort them to this event. Who knows we all might learn something.

In drafting a response to his, I found that I really had too much to say to put it into a comment box, and I thought I’d make a full post out of it. I also found that I meandered toward a point I didn’t set out to make, but heck, it made for a good yarn, and brought me to a thought that I’d like to share.

Todd,
I think that you may have a good analysis, and I like your prescription.

I’m taking what you’re saying as a way for Democrats – and the Young Democrats (incidentally the purpose of this blog) specifically – to engage young voters. I see three ways of engaging the youth - by which I mean late teens and twenties (not old farts, like you and me).

The first - I think you hit the nail on the head - ‘communitas’. Make it a community value to participate in politics, through which they can voice rebelliousness, if they choose. Make them knowledgeable about politics, so that they know how to voice their dissent. Unfortunately, really creating such broader community, where there really is none now, if far too great a task for the present Democratic infrastructure to manage. (The Republicans, on the other hand do have that infrastructure - they've taken over the churches in order to do this.)

The second, we can gather energy by having a club that is REALLY fun to be a part of - and oh, we vote once in a while too - to simply associate voting with "fun" things, like drinking and partying. That may get more young people involved, but the organization, unfortunately, loses any serious credibility it might have. ("We'll vote for the guy who brings the booze!")

The third, and from my perspective the most fruitful, is to target those already engaged. Unfortunately for us, the young-uns that I see being really engaged are either Republicans, Greens or workers rights groups. The former are a lost cause for us. However, what about the Greens and workers rights groups? They have a lot of young people who are active! At the Cesar Chavez march, at 1st Fridays, at the Esperanza Center, the Greens and worker's rights groups, as well as unclassifyable activists, are crawling out of the woodwork!! When I ask them, "Why won’t you participate with the Democrats?", it really comes down to credibility. We’re the party of compromise – ie. The ones who will sell their values downriver to get moderate votes. That's troubling, and we need to look at that.

This doesn’t mean that I think we should become so stalwart that we righteously shoot ourselves in the foot in order to bring these guys and girls - greens and workers rights groups - on board. We need to remain the party of responsible government, and responsible government means that you need to chart your course through competing values. But what we need to do is engage. We need to show respect for their ideals. We need to collaborate: ie. tie them to us through activities. In the end, I think, if we positively engage them, they’ll come around to our side, and meanwhile, the fruits of the collaboration can be very worthwhile.

Authored by: Michael Wright, SAYDs Treasurer

Posting To Our Blog

Welcome!!!

This is our blog! If you'd like to comment on any of our postings; feel free to do it. Should you want to make your own post just email any of us and we'll post it for you. Have Fun Bloging!!!

We are open for comments

I have just enabled comments for anyone, rather than just registered users.

Enjoy your free speech.

Please don't rag on us too much.

Latest Episode of G.O.P.S

For the intro video (in Flash) go here: G.O.P.S.

Pink Dome has the scoop:

MIAMI (AP) - The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl, authorities said.
(full story: MyWay AP)

In the past we brought you:

• David Safavian (some corruption),

• Bill Frist (more corruption),

• Abramoff (even more corruption)

• Tom DeLay (plenty more corruption),

• Karl Rove (leaking)

• "Scooter" (more leaking)

• Cheney (shooting people)

• Brown (being an idiot)

But now - Brian Doyle, Press Secretary of OHS - being a touch too indiscreet with his sexual advances toward a teenager.

I’m so glad the Conservative Republicans, the Christian Right, and the Moral Majority, came to save us from ‘dirty liberal politics’. How far down the path of Sodom and Gomorrah would we be without them?

Authored by: Michael Wright, SAYDs Treasurer

Students Protest Immigration Legislation - in the Streets

So, there we are – my girlfriend and I are walking from my downtown apartment down to the Justice Center to vote (for Radnofsky, by the way).

Police cars are blocking the road. My apartment manager is striding over to see what’s going on. There are kids walking over the street, headed for downtown.

Obviously, it was part of today’s student protest. MYSA.com has the story here.

A few minutes later, the election judges at the early voting site at the Justice Center are commenting on it - “They’re just doing to get off from school – they don’t know why they’re marching. They just want to skip class.” Well, there probably is that, I thought.

But on the way out of the poll site, I thought about it some more. These are my musings:

It does not matter what any individual student walking out of the school to protest is thinking. It doesn’t matter if she knows that she’s protesting H.R. 4437, the ‘Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005’, which is a Republican attempt to make illegal immigration a felony and criminalize those who assist immigrants, or if he just thinks its cool to get out of school.

I’m a political scientist by training, so let’s put that hat on. Let’s consider cause and effect. Are kids any more desirous to get out of school at this point than they are on any other day? No, not really – school is pretty much equally onerous to the average student every day of the academic year. Therefore, if simply getting out of school is their motivation, why not do it on any other day? What does make the timing of this unique – the anticipation of crazy Republican legislation on immigration. If you know of any other independent variable, please let me know. Regardless of assisting motivations on the part of the individual student, they - the students in aggregate - are out on the streets over immigration.

We can also talk about the effectiveness of the protests – this is different. Personally, I don’t think that waving the Mexican flag is really the most shrewd use of political symbolism to bring about a desired political result. Still, it lets people know that folks are upset.

Our dear Senator Cornyn’s response: "I do not believe it is helpful and this will just inflame passions and undermine our ability to get a good result," (WOAI)

Yo, Bub! Ya think?!
That’s the whole point of a protest march!! A ‘good result’ according to Senator Cornyn probably involves concentration camps for Mexican slave labor. And, about inflaming passions – that’s the whole point as well. Dr. King said that a protest is “to dramatize an appalling condition.” in the I Have a Dream speech. You don’t protest because you’re fine with what’s going on – you protest to let people know you’re not happy with what’s going on, and you want what’s going on to be stopped or changed.

Spreading the word that the students protesting don’t know what they’re protesting is seriously missing the point. They are out on the street for a reason. It’s not spontaneous – somebody is organizing this, and that somebody has got a friggin’ clue. If that person, or those persons, can stage this type of action, where hundreds of students at schools all across Texas get up out of their benches and walk out of the school, somebody in the halls of power had better wake up and smell the coffee!

Poo-pooing the kids also distracts from the central message. It’s not about what the kids know – it’s about what the Republicans are trying to do in Washington, D.C.. Talking about the kids not knowing why they’re protesting is sign that we need to improve our schools – there’s another reason to protest, by the way.

I think street action is a good idea. ‘The man’ (in this case, that’d be you, Messrs. James Sensenbrenner, Lamar Smith & ilk) been stickin’ it to us for far too long, and we ain’t gonna take it no more! Should Democrats (young or otherwise) be a part of this – hell yeah! The people on the street need to know that we’re on their side. We need to give them a reason to vote for us.

Does this mean that we’re against immigration reform of any kind? No, of course not, but we ARE DEFINITELY against immigration legislation that is degrading to the inherent human dignity of the immigrant, and criminalizing of the human charity of those who help immigrants.

Authored by: Michael Wright, SAYDs Treasurer

Breaking News - The Hammer Has Fallen

Now that we've all exhausted ourselves dancing over DeLay's political gravesite (go ahead - get it out of your system), we should ask ourselves, how exactly does this affect the political landscape?

Let's run through the list of all those who stand to lose or gain, starting with the most obvious:

1.) Tom DeLay: Well folks, he's done for. And the standard Congressional retirement plan - a cushy lobbyist post up top Capitol Hill - is probably out of the window. But why drop out now? My guess is that he could heard the sirens blaring outside his window, and he wants to spend some time with his real family before having to adopt another one in Leavenworth. I wonder what fanciful new moniker his celly Bubba will bestow upon him - I doubt "the Hammer" will stick. Pookie, perhaps?

I'm thinking that Tom DeLay stepped aside for some combination of the following reasons:

• The Abramoff Scandal: Recent events convinced him that the paddywagons are coming to collect
• Ronnie Earle: He just couldn't shake that derned money laundering charge loose.
• Party Pressure/Nick Lampson: The initial poll numbers weren't looking so hot. It's likely that the returns on some on his tracking polls looked even worse. Lampson was probably going to squeeze past DeLay in November, and the powers-that-be weren't having that.
• None/All of the above: If none of these factors alone was troubling enough to topple him, maybe, after some deliberation, it just kind of dawned on him that his career as the Big Dog is over. And, maybe he just down on the idea of once again being just another weenie dog yapping for the scraps...but, then again, yeah, okay, he's probably going to jail.

In his own words:

"I feel that I could have won the race," DeLay told Time. "I just felt like I didn't want to risk the seat and that I can do more on the outside of the House than I can on the inside right now."

...yeah, like illegally bribing members of Congress.

2.) Nick Lampson: Okay, not looking so good here. Lampson's well-funded, experienced, and has some measure of name recognition, but he has the great disadvantage of being an outed Democrat in a goofily Republican district

3.) The Texas Democratic Party: Generally good. Hopefully, we'll capitalize quickly, raise a little coin, and get noticed by whatever real independents are left.

4.) The Texas Republican Party: Generally bad. I think the reasonable people of this state are suffering from DeLay fatigue - just ask the voters in his own district. As for riling their base, of course this will strike a certain contingent of fundamentalist voters as yet more "evidence" of the "War on Christianity" that the left is waging in this country. But, when it comes to them, whaddaya gonna do?

5.) The National Republican Party: Generally good (not a typo): Now these yahoos can demonstrate how anxious they are to clean up their act. They had already lost DeLay as their Majority Leader some months ago, and Boner (not a mistaken typo) has established himself as a satisfactory replacement. Yesterday, they were in danger of losing a house seat. Today, their odds in TX-22 got a heckuva lot better.

6.) The National Democratic Party: This could go either way:

• Good: See! We told you so!!! A CNN reporter mentioned that the Democrats have lost their "whipping boy". Well, sure. Now if the Dems want to run on a platform of anti-corruption (not to mention challenging incompetence and for fiscal responsibility, for chrissakes!), all we have left is professional palmgreaser and convicted felon Jack Abramoff; Rep. Bob Ney; hero-turned-Congressman-turned-felon, Randall "Duke" Cunningham; borderline scandalous Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist; oh yeah, and CIA-agent-outing traitor (and amateur belle-lettrist, ew!) Scooter Libby.
• Bad: We can't play "Dogpile on DeLay", now. It does look a little unseemly to kick the man while he's down. That is unless he doesn't go mouthing off against some Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. He'd best sit quietly with his tail between his legs, and give us those puppy dog eyes...if he knows what's good for him. If he goes shrill on us, as, indeed, is his wont, then he's fair game.

Authored by: Clifton Walker, SAYDs Vice-Chair

International Law

Sunday, I attended a seminar put on by the ACLU up in Austin. The discussion was on racial profiling in the context of Human Rights.

Now, appealing to international human rights treaties is not the best way to package your human rights argument in today’s political environment in the United States – worse still in the Texan part of the United States. You know, all that “furriners tellin’ us Americans how we oughta live.”

But why the hell not appeal to human rights?? Here’s the first preambulatory clause of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,..."

That’s not Europe dictating how the United States should live – that is the American credo, inspired by OUR Declaration of Independence! That is President and Eleanor Roosevelt’s legacy. This is our native ideology of freedom being spread to the rest of the world, rather than the other way around. Oh, freedom? Heard George Bush use that term lately? Yeah, he’ll advocate it for others, and insist on other’s freedoms at the point of a gun, but what’s the real republican legacy on Human Rights?

Let’s take the most striking examples:

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – NOT ratified by the Republicans. That puts the United States of America together with Brunei Darussalam, Iran, Nauru, Palau, Qatar, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga. (CEDAW)

Can anyone say: Hall of Shame?

But hold on to your hat, it gets better:

Convention of the Rights of the Child – NOT ratified by the Republicans. That makes the list of countries that haven't ratified this document limited to the United States of America and Somalia. The reason for Somalia is that they do not have an internationally recognized government to ratify the Convention. The reason for the Republicans not ratifying? Article 37(a) of the Convention states:

"Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;" (CRC)

Yup, we don’t want to have the international community tell us not to execute our kids.

Please allow me to segue into that topic:

Remember Roper v. Simmons? Last year, the Supreme Court ruled (5-4) that kids should not be executed. (Thomas, Scalia, O’Connor and Rehnquist dissenting) Writing the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy appealed to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and added:

“In sum, it is fair to say the the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.”

Justice Stevens wrote a concurring majority opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, stating:

“Perhaps even more important than our specific holding today is our reaffirmation of the basic principle that informs the Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today.”

Justice O’Connor, writing for the minority, wrote:

"Nevertheless, I disagree with JUSTICE SCALIA’s contention... that foreign and international law have no place in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Over the course of nearly a half a century, the Court has consistently referred to foreign and international law as relevant to its assessment of evolving standards of decency."

I can hear the Republicans now: 'Damn those activist judges! They ruled that we can't legally kill children anymore! Well, we'll show them - we're still not going to ratify that international liberal soft-on-kids nonsense. How are kids supposed to grow up to be good moral human beings if we can't execute them?'

Anyway, to get back on topic: International law is important - and, by and large, it is becoming more enlightened than what the Republicans are allowing our domestic laws to be.

I don’t think it’s particularly un-american to appeal to human rights and international law – America was one of the founders of universal human rights and international law as we know it today. Conversely, Republican abhorrence for the outside world (with the exception of scottish golf courses) has made America the ridicule of the world and has sold our own soul down river.

Authored by: Michael Wright, SAYDs Treasurer