Business

Hey, there's a great new attorney opening an office in Shelby, NC. You should go check him out and hire him for all of your legal needs. I highly recommend him.

He also needed me to put this image on the web so he can add it to his email since he hasn't set up his own website yet.

Tom Friedman Lives In a Parallel Universe

I know, I know. It has become somewhat of a sport to mock the endless illogical musings of the New York Times's favorite intellectual bullshit artist, Tom Friedman. Matt Taibbi has perfected the art, actually. For example see his Ultimate Tom Friedman Porn Title contest , which had a surprise winner.

Friedman has become so bad, with each week's column being more illogical, vacuous, and non-sensical, that I actually at one point started to doubt that Tom Friedman actually existed. It appeared that he was simply an algorithm which spit out words and pithy phrases and arranged them into a column twice weekly. 

But today's article took the whole Friedman experience to an entirely new level. His column about Edward Snowden and Vladamir Putin's chance to make a second impression ("You only get one chance to make a second impression" starts the column in a typical Friedmanesque turn of phrase) is so full of factual errors and illogical conclusions that the only explanation I can come up with is that Tom Friedman lives in a parallel universe not accessible to the rest of us. You can read the article here if you must. However, I will dissect the second paragraph (just one paragraph) to show how different these parallel universes are. (I have to confess that after reading the second paragraph of the article my brain exploded rendering me incapable of taking in any more of the article).

First sentence. 

"Considering the breadth of reforms that President Obama is now proposing to prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering, in the wake of Snowden's disclosures, Snowden deserves a chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistle-blower, not a traitor."

Whew! That first sentence is a whopper. I won't try to diagram it due to lack of space and out of respect to the English language, but I'm going to have to take the sentence apart just to analyse the myriad of untruths it contains.

First off, Friedman suggests that the reforms that Obama proposed are actually significant. I'm sure that there are many who share the Friedman Universe who would agree with him. For instance, fellow NYT columnist David Brooks would likely provide a sympathetic ear to this argument. However, outside of this Bizzarro Friedmanverse, or MSNBC, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees that Obama's proposals are more than window dressing. For instance, perhaps Friedman could have read the editorial published immediately after the President's speech by his own newspaper which assailed the proposals as "tinkering around the edges of the nation's abusive surveillance programs."

This leads to another incredibly frustrating thing that I have noticed. It seems that for the rabid loyalist Obama followers (I didn't call them Obamabots) for the President to say something is the same as the President doing something. This, of course, to anyone who has been conscious for the last five years is the opposite of reality. In fact, it has gotten to the point where if President Obama says something, you can rest assured that he is going to do the complete opposite (perhaps this is why he is so admiring of Larry Summers, but I digress).

The very idea that the President has proposed reforms that will prevent privacy abuses in intelligence gathering ignores the fact that it was the President who ordered the abuses in the first place. It's not like this happened by accident. It's not that the President didn't know this was going on. His Justice Department developed this plan, the President included these proposals in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and the FISA Amendments Act. He is the one who came up with the damn program, and now you are lauding him for trying to prevent the abuses that he caused?

OK. Deep breath. Next phrase.

Friedman slips in the phrase "in the wake of Snowden's disclosures." So I guess somewhere in the ether of the Friedmanverse there is some acknowledgement that Snowden deserves some credit for bringing about these wide-ranging (look at their breadth) reforms being proposed. However, this is completely blown away by the fact that he then says he "deserves chance to make a second impression -- that he truly is a whistleblower, not a traitor."

I assume by all of this second impression theme that Snowden's first impession on Friedman was not a good one. Apparently his first impression on Friedman was that Snowden was a traitor. This, despite the fact that his disclosures have led to the wonderful reforms that will protect all of our privacy. Apparently in the Friedmanverse, informing Americans that their government is collecting data on every phone call you make, every e-mail you send, and everywhere you go on the internet, means that you are a traitor. But, Friedman's a good guy and he'll give you a second chance to show you live up to the dictates of the Friedmanverse.

Next sentence.

"The fact is, he dumped his data and fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused."

I didn't think it was possible to outdo the first sentence. However Tom Friedman never ducks from a challenge and he met this one with gusto. Whereas the first sentence was merely intellectually, if not factually, dishonest, the second sentence simply wrings the neck of logic until logic is left lying on the floor, unconscious with its last death rattle slowly escaping its body.

Apparently in the Friedmanverse, a fact is a fact simply if Friedman states it is a fact. Glenn Greenwald took issue with this "fact" in a tweet this morning, stating:

"Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

6h

Tom Friedman says of Snowden: "The fact is, he dumped his data" - when did this "fact" happen?"

Greenwald's mistake is thinking that "facts" as we define them have anything to do with "facts" in the Friedmanverse. To Friedman, apparently carefully selecting documents that prove the mass surveillance of millions upon millions of Americans by their own government without probable cause or due process to two carefully selected reporters and doing so in such a way that these files were protected from being received by anyone other than those two carefully selected reporters is the definition of "dumping data."

Now, here is where logic really takes leave in the Friedmanverse. Friedman then says that Snowden fled to countries that are hostile to us and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that a second. Snowden as is well known fled to Hong Kong, which is in the People's Republic of China, and then to Russia where he was forced to remain by the fact that the U.S. revoked his passport and threatened every country which was offering Snowden safe haven (it is probable that Snowden was on his way to Ecuador when he stopped in Russia, but was unable to continue his journey due to the U.S. government's actions).

Friedman states that these countries are hostile to the U.S. and to the very principles he espoused. Let's think about that for a minute. There's no doubt that Russia and China are two of the world's "bad guys." They treat their people badly, their policies both domestically and internationally are in opposition to ours, and they support some of the world's worst groups. So, ok. Russia and China are bad. But, there is also no irony in the Friedmanverse. Because if there was, it would become clear rather quickly that saying that these countries, which allowed Snowden to remain free from the United States government and granted him political asylum were not actually acting in a way that was hostile to the principles Snowden espoused. The country that was seeking to arrest and imprison Snowden was actually the one that was acting against these principles.

Next sentence.

"To make a second impression, Snowden would need to come home, make his case and face his accusers."

OK. A quick aside. Does anyone else get tickled in the fact that Tom Friedman actually has thought about how Snowden's action personally affected him? I mean really. It seems that Snowden's worst crime in the  Friedmanverse was that he made a bad first impression on Tom Friedman. In the Friedmanverse, this makes Tom Friedman the benevolent dictator around whom the thanks of his grateful devotees lavish their thanks and praise. However, in the real universe this makes him the single biggest narcissist who has ever lived.

But in this sentence, Friedman picks up a theme that has played out endlessly among Democratic political operatives, and almost every MSNBC host. That in order to qualify as a whistleblower, Snowden should have to come back to the United States, be arrested, if he is not rendered to another country to be tortured, kept in solitary confinement, put on trial eventually, and sentenced to life in prison. Or perhaps he should just be droned. Here is MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry's over the top open letter to Edward Snowden making the same point.

The fact that this theme has been discounted by meta whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and civil rights hero extraordinaire John Lewis , doesn't seem to make this argument go away, even when those making the argument use Daniel Ellsberg and John Lewis to make their argument. But moreover, the argument engages in a logical fallacy -- that in order to be a true whistleblower, Snowden has to come back and serve a lengthy prison sentence to pay for his "crimes." This is the exact opposite of what a whistleblower should have to do. This is why we have whistleblower protections, to encourage people who are in Snowden's position who see crimes being committed by their employers to come forward and disclose these crimes without the fear of prosecution.

Next sentence.

"It would mean risking a lengthy jail term, but also trusting the fair-mindedness of the American people, who, I believe, will not allow an authentic whistle-blower to be unfairly punished."

This is where my head exploded. I mean seriously. I didn't know Friedman was a comedian. I don't know. Perhaps he's just trolling us. I mean, really?

There is no explanation for this sentence other than Friedman actually lives in a parallel universe where the sky is green and the grass is pink. Because if he lived in this universe, especially being as intelligent and aware of current issues as he's always reminding us that he is, he would know that we are currently conducting a trial of Private Bradley Manning, an Army enlisted soldier who leaked a huge amount of classified cables to the website Wiki Leaks who in turn subsequently published many of these diplomatic cables, and other documents including videos which exposed alleged war crimes being committed by American servicemen. Manning was kept naked in solitary confinement for months on end, was subjected to horrific treatment prior to his trial and still faces up to 90 years in prison for the crimes for which he has been convicted. He would know of Thomas Drake, another NSA employee who actually did go through "proper channels" in exposing the illegal warrantless wiretapping program that was being conducted, only to have every avenue shut down until he finally exposed the program to journalists only to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act, before the government's case literally fell apart during trial. He would know John Kiriakou, the only CIA employee to go to prison in connection to the torture program conducted by that agency, not because he conducted any torture himself, but because he confirmed the name of an agent who did conduct torture. He would know that the Obama administration has prosecuted four times the number of people under the Espionage Act that every administration before him combined.

But in the Friedmanverse, none of this matters. In this parallel universe known only to Tom Friedman and a few others, Americans would not sit back and allow a whistle-blower to be mistreated by their government. The fact is, that with pompous blowhards like Tom Friedman cheering them on, the American people have done this time, after time, after time, after time again.

The Friedmanverse is a scary place. Just catching a glimpse of it in this one paragraph of one column has been a horror show. I certainly wouldn't want to spend any time there myself. Unless, of course, I was Tom Friedman.

Legislature Seeks to Ban Arabic Numerals

In its ongoing fight against creeping Sharia law, and the influences of Islam, the state legislature today introduced a bill to ban Arabic numerals in the state's schools. Citing citizen complaints and the fear of the growing influence the imposition of such foreign teachings, bill sponsors said they will continue fighting to rid our schools of all Islamic teachings.

"I never would have thought that our teachers would have been taken in by such an insidious plot as the use of foreign, Islamic, Arabic numerals," bill sponsor Willie Bob Peckerwood said. "It's a slippery slope. First you introduce Arabic numerals, then you move on to Arabic language, before you know it our children are bowing five times a day to Mecca and reading from the Q'aran."

Peckerwood was surprised to find that all of the state's schools were already using Arabic numerals in their math classes, as well as several other classes. "I don't know how this got by us," he continued, "They already snuck in these God forsaken foreign influences trying to turn our children against us. We're behind in this fight, but we are catching up fast."

The bill is expected to receive bipartisan support in the legislature as members of both parties are lining up to get on the record as opposing anything that would be seen as supporting terror or being Anti-American.

Legislator Nancy Goodkind, usually seen as Peckerwood's political nemesis, joined in with praise for Peckerwood's bill. "When I first heard of this bill, I couldn't believe that our schools would be dumb enough to use Arabic numerals. But once I found out that Arabic numerals were already being found throughout our schools, I was quick to join on to support this bill and protect our children. Why can't we use the good old American numbers we all grew up with?" Goodkind added.

Early polls show that the measure is widely popular with the electorate with over 80% supporting the ban.

The bill is expected to sail through committee and could be up for a vote among the entire legislature within the week. There is no comment from the Governor's office as to whether the Governor will sign the measure or not. However, sources say that it would be hard to oppose such a popular measure.

What George Zimmerman Tells Us About Ourselves

"Which one of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?" He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise." - Luke 10: 36-37 (New Revised Standard  Bible)

Every once in a while events happen that can best be explained, to me anyway, as happening only by God's Providence. That is why, I believe, that across this nation on the morning after the verdict in the George Zimmerman trial that millions of Americans attending their church services had as their Gospel reading the parable of the Good Samaritan.

We are all familiar with the story of the man beset by robbers and left bloodied and for dead, who is passed by both a Priest and a Levite who offer him no help. It is only the lowly Samaritan who saves the man, treats his wounds and cares for him until well. Jesus offers this as an example to a inquisitive lawyer (imagine that!) as to living the law of God to love one's neighbor as one's self.

It struck me as particularly poignant that this would be the Gospel lesson on the day after the conclusion of such a bitterly divisive and inflammatory trial. Throughout the night and into the morning, our airwaves were full of pundits offering opinions about the not guilty verdict, social media was exploding with outrage from those who understandably felt Zimmerman should be punished for killing an unarmed black minor, and less understandable celebrations for those who were rooting him on (whatever you feel about the evidence, celebrating the death of a child will never make sense to me).

My first reaction following the verdict, which to me personally was a disappointment because of what the case said about the state of our society and our laws, was to turn to prayer. I immediately opened the electronic kindle version of the Book of Common Prayer that I keep on my iPhone. During what has become my spiritual reawakening in the just more than a year I have spent in the Episcopal Church, the Book of Common Prayer has been an indispensable guide for faith and living. I looked for a prayer which would encapsulate my feelings and address the fears I had of violence that could come from this. Here's what I found:

Grant, O God, that your holy and life-giving Spirit may so move every human heart and especially the hearts of the people of this land, that barriers which divide us may crumble, suspicions disappear, and hatreds cease; that our divisions being healed, we may live in justice and peace; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer, p. 823

I prayed this prayer silently to myself, and shared it with my friends on social media. I prayed then for the family of Trayvon Martin whose life was once again shattered, I prayed for the family of George Zimmerman and for George Zimmerman himself, that his heart, hardened for whatever reason, could know peace and love and that his life could turn to one of serving his fellow man.

The next morning what struck me the most as I listened to the words of the Gospel read by my Deacon at Holy Eucharist, was how we as a society treat our neighbor. We are falling far short of living the law, not of self-defense or stand your ground, but the law which Christ gave for us. The law that the lawyer could recite as the key to eternal life -- "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself."

Whatever your view of what transpired on the night Trayvon Martin was killed, love was certainly lacking. Love does not treat its neighbor with suspicion because of the color of his skin or the way that he is dressed. Love does not meet an encounter between strangers with violence and rage. Love does not refer to its neighbors with racial epithets and insults.  Love does not take a life.

There has been plenty said of the actions of both George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin on that fateful night, and there will be plenty more as our collective rage justifies more outrage, insult, and pain from all sides. But what there hasn't been talked about very much is what George Zimmerman tells us about ourselves.

From the little that is known about that night, what it appears that George Zimmerman did was to see a tall, young, black-skinned man, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and based on his experience, prejudices, and beliefs, and the totality of the situation saw him as a threat. He felt so threatened that he called 9-1-1 and reported this suspicious person. He followed him, armed, and ready to use deadly force if it became necessary. And finally, for whatever reason, ended up in a physical confrontation during which he said he feared for his life, and shot and killed the young man.

At his trial on charges of Second Degree Murder, Zimmerman claimed self defense. The jury found him not guilty under this theory. And if we want to look at it objectively, the jury upheld the law in Florida as it is written.

But how many of us who condemn the actions of George Zimmerman excuse or even celebrate similar actions when they are taken on our behalf by our own government. Did George Zimmerman do anything different than our President, through his policy of drone warfare does every day? It is known that through "signature strikes" that American drone pilots target individuals based on circumstances that include their location, their sex, their clothing, etc. Isn't this exactly what George Zimmerman did that night in Florida? Our government brands these individuals based only on these external factors as "militants" even though, just like Zimmerman, they don't even know who the individual they are targeting is, or anything about their intentions. Just like Zimmerman, we Americans justify these actions through arguments of self defense and the prevention of harm to others.

I was struck by the words of an Arab American who tweeted Friday night, echoing or parodying the words of our President about Trayvon Martin, "If I had a son, he would look like Abdulrahman Awlaki" referring to the 16-year-old American citizen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen two weeks after his father, also an American citizen, was killed similarly in a U.S. drone strike.

The fact of the matter is, that we as a nation, are failing to live up to the beliefs that a vast majority of us claim. We are failing to live up to the teachings of Jesus Christ. And despite the claims of the so-called Christians of our land, many of whom were all over social media this weekend fomenting the fires of hatred, it is not because of gays, or prayer in public schools, or the posting of the Ten Commandments in public squares, or whether we say "Merry Christmas" that our nation is failing to live up to our collective Faith. It is due to the lack of Love and the treatment of our neighbor.

As long as we accept policies and laws which result in the death of our fellow human beings without justification and without reason, we are failing to live up to the law that our Savior has given us. As long as we treat others with suspicion and disgust, we go against God's law. As long as we justify hatred, discrimination, and persecution based on race, religion, status, gender, sexual orientation, or difference, we fail as Christians.

In fact, as long as we do so, we can collectively say that we all are George Zimmerman.

Heroic Stands on Same Sex Marriage Could Hold Back Legalization

Stands like that of Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane are courageous symbols for elected officials to take as the nation struggles ever so slowly to reach complete marriage equality nationwide. However, such heroic stands may actually end up delaying the ultimate nationwide recognition of same sex marriage.

In the recent Supreme Court decisions on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California's voter initiative banning same sex marriage, Proposition 8, the issue of standing came up in both cases. In both the DOMA case and the Proposition 8 case, the normal appellants (the parties who were sued and lost the case at the trial level) refused to file appeals of their losses. In DOMA, this was the Attorney General Eric Holder, and in Proposition 8 it was the State of California represented by Attorney General Kamela Harris. Both of these decisions were historic and incredibly unusual in that it almost never happens that a representative of the sued party decides part way through the proceedings that the law they are charged with upholding is unconstitutional and therefore refuse to defend it.

In the two cases, different groups rose to the occasion to appeal the lower court decisions and thereby defend the laws as written. In DOMA, Congressional Republicans hired their own counsel and filed the appeal on behalf of the United States. In the Prop 8 case, it was citizens groups which had organized turnout and worked to get the amendment on the ballot in California. In each case, the outcome was different. In the DOMA case the Court found that the appellants had standing to appeal, while in the Prop 8 case the court found that the appellants did not.

Standing, or the right to bring an appeal, was a hard fought issue in both cases. If the court had reached a different consensus on the issue of standing in the DOMA case, and the lower court rulings were left in place, what would have happened was that we would have been left with a mish mash of lower court rulings, some upholding the constitutionality of DOMA and some not, leaving the issue unresolved.

But, what is more interesting is had the State of California decided to pursue the appeal in the Proposition 8 case, in which the court found that citizens groups had no standing to appeal challenges to the Constitutionality of a state statute, there would have been no issue of standing at all. California certainly had the right to defend its own laws against constitutional challenge. That would have forced the court to address the constitutionality of state bans on same sex marriage on the basis of violations of the guarantees of equal protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Looking at the court's holding on DOMA, finding that it did in fact violate the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to equal protection on a Federal level, it is more than likely that the Court would have found that California's Proposition 8 also violated the imposition of this guarantee on the states, making same sex marriage legal nationwide.

There could be, depending on your point of view, arguments made that this was a fortunate decision on the part of the State of California not to defend this law. Because it allowed the court to move incrementally, essentially punting the decision on the application of the Constitutional issues on state law to a later date when the Supreme Court decision would have time to catch up to public opinion, some would argue that it is overall a good thing for the proponents of marriage equality and the nation as a whole. Some could also argue that the standing issue may have also prevented the court from striking down the 9th circuit's opinion finding Prop 8 unconstitutional, which would have been a big loss for the proponents of marriage equality.

However, at some point, a state is going to have to defend such Constitutional challenge in order for there to be a definitive answer on the application of these rights nationwide. By not defending the lawsuit brought against the State of Pennsylvania, the state Attorney General risks having at best a similar outcome to that of Proposition 8 -- a District Court decision which cannot be appealed due to the lack of standing of anyone to appeal it. This is great for folks in Pennsylvania, but doesn't really push the issue forward.

This also brings up another issue as it relates to the function of the law as a whole. Very often attorneys are faced with the question, "How can you defend someone like that?" or "How can you defend someone you know is guilty?" Spending many years as a criminal defense attorney, I am very familiar with those questions and I understand completely the answers. The fact is that our system of justice only works in both sides in an adversarial system are represented zealously and to the full extent of the law. Any failure to do so, results in legal error and injustice. For instance, if a criminal defense attorney were to fail to put forth all of the defenses that his or her client is due because he or she has come to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty or should be put away, not only should that attorney lose their license, but the case will almost certainly be overturned on appeal (and should be), and the defendant who would have otherwise been convicted will likely walk free. The only way to ensure a conviction is to put forth every defense to which the defendant is entitled and make sure that the State proves their case against the Defendant. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but that is the way the law works in an adversarial system such as ours.

In the same way, the only way that the ultimate question in marriage equality -- the issue of whether the Court's holding that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, also applies through the Fourteenth Amendment to the states -- will make it before the Supreme Court is for the states to defend their laws vigorously and to the full extent of the law. I would go so far to say that it is the duty of the state and federal Attorneys General to do so. By acting in the role that should be reserved for the appellate judges, rather than in the role for which they were elected or appointed (to defend and enforce the laws of their state or country) they are showing an amazing lack of confidence in the integrity of the judicial system, and actually holding back the cause in which they claim belief.

6/26/2013

Now that I have had some time to ruminate on the Supreme Court decisions from a day ago, I wanted to write down some of my thoughts on my emotions, and analyze some of the practical outcomes of these monumental decisions. Regardless of any of these, I can say without hesitation that 6/26/2013 was an absolutely fantastic day that will go down in the history books as the day that America changed for good and for the good.

Elation

Since the day had started out with even more chaos than usual, being my daughter's fourth birthday and dealing with the schedule chaos brought by a week of late bed times from Vacation Bible School, I had not really given much thought to the coming decisions on DOMA and Proposition 8. I decided to check my twitter feed and saw that SCOTUSblog was about to start their live blog on the decisions. From past experience (Hello, CNN) I had learned that SCOTUSblog was the most proficient and accurate source for announcements and comprehension of Court decisions.

In the previous days and weeks as many of my friends awaited these potentially groundbreaking decisions, I noticed that their enthusiasm and optimism was growing daily. This worried me, quite frankly, because I remembered the absolute despair that many of my gay and lesbian friends felt after the North Carolina constitutional amendment banning recognition of same-sex relationships passed with an overwhelming majority of voters. I didn't want to see their hopes dashed again. I knew from my study of the law that regardless of what people think of the Supreme Court, decisions like Brown v. Board of Education are the exception, not the rule. The law moves slowly and is usually playing catch-up to social movements, only really recognizing them after they have already become the norm.

I did my best to prepare my friends for the disappointment that they would feel if the decisions came out differently than they hoped. I confess that what I felt was most likely is that the Supreme Court would take a pass and use procedural technicalities to send the cases back to the appellate courts and push the decision down the road. My biggest fear was that they would uphold both DOMA and Proposition 8, which, although I thought this was unlikely, was possible and would be a devastating defeat to the forces of equality.

As the time came close, I felt my pulse quicken. I didn't expect to have such a physical reaction to these decisions. Then shortly after 10:00, the SCOTUSblog live blog announced that they had Windsor (the DOMA decision) and that it was a 5-4 decision. I felt the adrenaline pumping in my veins and goosebumps rise on my arms. They announced that the decision was written by Kennedy (which told me nothing in a 5-4 decision because he would be the swing vote either way). When they announced he was joined by the four liberal justices I knew at least my worst fears would not be realized -- at least DOMA had not been upheld. What I didn't know is whether they had overturned it, or decided to kick the issue back to the appellate courts and put off the ultimate decision for a couple years.

What happened next was wholly unexpected. As I read the post that the Court had found that DOMA violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional, I felt my body shiver, tears welling up in my eyes and found that my hand was resting over my mouth, holding back sobs of joy. I knew right away that this was an incredibly important decision, one that would rank with the most important Supreme Court civil rights decisions in history. For the first time the court had decided that same sex couples were entitled to the same protections under Federal law as any other couples. This was monumental. This was astounding. This was a home run!!!!!!

Seeing the celebrations of my gay brothers and sisters on social media, on news outlets, through pictures and videos across the internet filled me with a total sense of joy. I knew that my friends who had suffered discrimination, threats, assault, shame, depression, suicide, abandonment, condemnation, persecution, fear, rejection, despair, now could say "I am equal to you" and had the force of the law of the United States to back them up.

The emotion was overwhelming.

As I began placing celebratory posts on Facebook, and reading tweets coming in from across the country, I cautioned that we still had the Perry Prop 8 decision to come, and as exciting as the DOMA decision was, I knew that it was unlikely that the Court would go as far with the Prop 8 decision. The reason was that if the Court ruled on Prop 8 and found that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated equal protection, they would be in essence saying that states did not have the right to ban same-sex marriage. Such a decision would be wonderful, but very unlikely at this point.

After some other cases were released of far less interest, finally Perry was released. As I had expected, the Court held that there was an issue as to the standing of the appellants (the supporters of the ban on same-sex marriage) to challenge the lower court ruling. My fear on this, however, was that they would simply kick the decision back to the circuit court for a decision, which would leave Proposition 8 in place for the time being in California. This was not, however, what happened. Because the Court held that there was no standing to appeal, the Court left in place the District Court judge's decision finding that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. Therefore, same-sex marriages could once again be performed in California.

This was truly a great day.

Although we are far from the finish line on this issue, the precedents set today and the undeniable momentum of the laws of this country are favoring the recognition of marriage equality in our near future. The next step will be challenging state bans, such as ours in North Carolina. But more on that in a bit. For now, let's keep celebrating.

Religion

I can't begin to explain how wonderful it was to be able to celebrate the decisions of the Supreme Court with my church community. Most of the celebratory tweets on my twitter feed were from members, clergy, and bishops of the Episcopal Church. Episcopal Churches across the country rang their church bells in celebration of the Supreme Court decision. The National Cathedral rang their carillon and held prayer services both before the decision and after in order to celebrate.

Belonging to a faith community which welcomes and celebrates the LGBT community equally and fully is a powerful witness to the true power of God's love. I have seen the effect that this has on gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals. To finally realize, many for the first time in their life, that they are worthy of God's love, not only if they give up who they are, but because of who they are is a remarkably empowering feeling. The Episcopal Church through its radical openness and acceptance (along with many other Christian denominations as well) is literally saving lives, and acting as living examples of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

While I was enjoying this new spiritual experience, being able to celebrate such a wonderful day openly with my fellow church members, I felt a sense of sadness come over me for my friends who, despite agreeing with me whole-heartedly on this issue, were not able to experience the same spiritual joy I was. As the Episcopal Church almost uniformly praised the actions of the Court, the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church was having the opposite reaction.

By mid-afternoon, the statements from the usual suspects -- Archbishop Dolan of New York, Bishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage, and on and on and on -- were spouting the most hateful, demeaning, and damning statements about the Courts decision and gays and lesbians themselves. Two of the most prominent Catholic members of the Court -- Justices Scalia and Alito -- were reading their dissents, dripping with hateful ignorance and sarcastic insults, from the bench.

I am familiar with the tension such days cause, being raised in the Catholic Church and considering myself a Catholic in varying degrees of practice, for the first 40 years of my life. Days like this would be seen with personal happiness, but dulled by the reminder that your personal beliefs were not only not shared by your faith, but condemned by it. Along with your congratulations to your gay and lesbian friends who would be directly impacted by the decisions, would be the caution to not express your views too loudly or openly for fear of repercussions.

Being an American Roman Catholic is to live daily with a sense of cognitive dissonance. The discomfort felt by the incompatibility of a faith which teaches that the beliefs that a vast majority of Catholics feel toward issues such as gay rights, contraception, pre-marital sex, divorce, etc. are going to land you in Hell is something quite familiar to most American Catholics. Most, either out of a sense of tradition, or a sense of obligation, or a duty to family, or from true personal faith despite the Church's leadership, choose to remain in the Catholic Church. For those, I felt sadness because I understood all too well the pain they were feeling yesterday.

I had come to the realization that I could no longer live with such discomfort and confusion and that I never wanted my daughter to feel torn between her faith and her beliefs, a couple of years ago. On this wonderful day on which I celebrated the anniversary of the birth of my daughter and the freedom of my gay and lesbian friends, my decision to break from the spiritual and intellectual shackles of the Roman Catholic Church was celebrated as well, especially as I heard those beautiful carillon bells ring out from the highest point of our nation's capital celebrating equality, freedom, and most of all love.

What Now?

There were certainly some shortcomings in the decisions of the Supreme Court yesterday. The parts of DOMA which apply to states' recognition of marriages from other states are still in effect. Therefore, even though marriage equality is recognized in 16 states and the District of Columbia as of now, 34 states have either statutory or constitutional bans prohibiting same-sex unions.

I will speak of North Carolina, which last year passed a Constitutional Ban to add to its already existing statutory ban of same-sex marriage, and where we go from here.

The decisions of yesterday certainly lay a groundwork for challenging North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. Because the Court recognized that same-sex couples have a Fifth Amendment right to equal protection under the law, the ultimate recognition of same-sex unions nationwide is all but inevitable.

Since the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Fifth Amendment's guarantees of equal protection to the States, a violation of equal protection from a state ban would fall under the same rationale in the Windsor case. Certainly there will be challenges based on disparate treatment of tax laws, such as there was in Windsor, whose plaintiff was made to pay $320,000 in estate tax from her spouse's estate she would not have had to pay had her deceased spouse been male. This would seem to apply to couples legally married in a state recognizing same-sex marriage, who then move to a state not recognizing such. If a surviving spouse is forced to pay a state tax on their deceased spouse's estate, this would almost certainly have to be found to violate equal protection under the holding of Windsor.

Another situation that does apply in North Carolina deals with rights to child custody and adoption. North Carolina has an outright ban on same-sex couples adopting children and does not recognize under the law the right of a same-sex partner who is not the legal parent of the child to visitation or custody in the case of a split, even if the couple were legally married in another state. This will almost certainly be challenged either in State or federal court before long, based on the rulings yesterday. The law is clear that North Carolina does not recognize these rights, so a trial court judge would essentially be powerless to rule otherwise, so it would be up to the appellate courts, either state or federal, to make these decisions.

One area which would be ripe for challenge under North Carolina law is the preferential treatment under the law married couples are given in the area of real property ownership. North Carolina has a special category of real property ownership available only to married couples. Tenancy by the Entirety has real and tangible benefits for married couples. For instance, if one spouse has debts to which the other party is not subject, the real property owned as Tenants by the Entirety cannot be attached to these debts and therefore the property cannot be sold in order to satisfy the debts. Also, a tenancy by the entirety is not able to be dissolved without the consent of both parties, therefore protecting both spouses rights and interests in the property in the event of a split. Lastly, tenancy by the entirety is automatically transferred upon the death of one of the parties, and that transfer is not counted as part of the decedent's probate estate. This has a profound effect on both the rights of the surviving spouse to inherit free from challenges from family members, as well as the economic benefits of having a smaller probate estate.

I can foresee a plaintiff who is married in a state which recognizes same-sex marriage and then moves with their spouse to North Carolina and purchases property. Because North Carolina law prohibits them from owning as tenants by the entirety, they would be able to show actual harm based on the benefits being denied to them because of North Carolina law's non-recognition of their valid marriage in another state. I would not be surprised if they challenged this in Federal Court that based on the rulings from yesterday they would be successful in ruling North Carolina's statutory and Constitutional bans on same-sex marriage invalid as a violation of their right to equal protection under the law. If someone is in that situation, get ye to a lawyer pronto and let's get this ball rolling!

The upshot of yesterday's rulings, and the reason that yesterday will be remembered in history, is that the question of whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans will have equal rights in this country is no longer a question of "if" but instead a question of "when." There is still work to be done to recognize these rights uniformly across the nation. However, the work has gotten a whole hell of a lot easier.

Cheers!

Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Domestic Spying

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post called "Rooting for Uniforms" about how Americans tend to support programs they once opposed when they are proposed by members of their own political party. Nothing has exemplified this phenomenon more than the NSA spying scandal.

During the Administration of George W. Bush, when it was revealed that the government was engaging in warrantless wiretapping, the Democratic party and liberal blogosphere exploded with rage. This was called, rightfully, an absolute infringement on the Fourth Amendment, an extra-constitutional expansion of executive police power, and an erosion of our right of privacy. The Conservative political class responded with the usual terror scare tactics, and how in a post 9/11 world we were going to have to live with giving up some liberties in order to remain safe.

In the last two weeks, thanks to the leaks of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden and the reporting of Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwald, we have learned the under the Obama Administration the NSA has expanded its domestic surveillance including gathering metadata on every phone call made within the United States, and collecting data directly from the servers of many of the largest internet companies in the United States. The administration claims that these types of activities were authorized under the re-authorization of the Patriot Act as well of the FISA Amendemnts Act (FAA).

You would think that this disclosure would have resulted in a huge liberal backlash against the Obama administration. But, you would be wrong if you did. Instead, every mainstream liberal talking head went into overdrive trying to defend the administration's actions as being necessary for the protection of our country, and painting the whistleblower Snowden as a traitor. From Lawrence O'Donnell to Bill Maher to Joy Reid, the airwaves were filled with liberal commentators who had eviscerated the Bush administration for similar, though less intrusive, programs of domestic surveillance, praising the Obama Administration for their unprecedented dragnet of personal information about virtually every American citizen. Democratic Senators and Congressmen were lining up to defend the administration's actions declaring them legal and even transparent, though conducted in complete secrecy. Even Senator Al Franken, considered one of the most liberal in Washington, said he wasn't the least bit worried about these intrusions.

During all of this, Pew Research Center released a poll looking at the views of the government monitoring e-mails based on party affiliation which when compared with a similar poll of a similar question in 2002, showed disturbing results:

It seems that the partisanship that has brought our legislative process to a complete halt across the nation has permeated throughout the electorate itself. We, as a nation, have nobody to blame for our broken political system than ourselves. As long as we judge the worth of a policy based on which party is proposing it, rather than whether it is good for the country, we don't deserve anything other than the sleazy, partisan, broken government that we have now.

I will say this again: when you look at any proposal of any kind, especially one in which the government asks for more power to intrude on your every day lives, ask yourself if you would support the policy if it were put forth by the other party. If your answer is no, then it is a bad proposal and you should be against it.

What this latest grab of power on behalf of the government should show us is that neither of the two major parties in this country represent our best interests as Americans. Any government that would spy on its on people en masse, is not a representative democracy and does not deserve our allegiance. The only thing that this current group of so-called leaders in Washington and elsewhere deserves is to be thrown out of office, each and every one of them. And if the next group that takes their place shows as much contempt for the protections of the individual liberties of our citizens as the current  Congress, then they deserve the same fate.

It is time for us to stand up to our leaders and reassert our power as Americans. We must hold both Democrats and Republicans responsible for the lawlessness that they have unleashed on this nation and demand a government which doesn't see its citizens as enemies of the state.

The Amazing Benefits to NSA's Domestic Spying Program

It was revealed this week that the National Security Agency and the FBI have been collecting metadata on every telephone call placed within the United States for the last seven years. A day later it was revealed that through its PRISM platform the NSA has been tapping directly into the servers of virtually every major internet company beginning in 2007.

Now there has been a lot of bellyaching on the part of the civil liberties community (read: America hating communists). Woe is me! Our data is being collected! Cry me a river.

I would like to focus on the benefits that such a treasure trove of data could bring to us.

For instance, the next time you are filling out a job application and it asks for your most recent five addresses and you can't seem to remember the address of that studio apartment you lived in for three months, just dial up the NSA and ask.

The next time you can't remember your password? The NSA can help you out with that.

Ever had a hankering to view your old zombie My Space page and don't remember what your login was or if My Space actually still exists? The friendly folks at the NSA can easily pull up those pages for you.

Hey, NSA, what was my old friend's Spotify playlist that I liked so much? You know, the one that had the really great tribal beats on it? Yeah, that's the one. Thanks, man. I couldn't have done that without you.

So, the next time you want to whine about all the privacy invasion this and military industrial complex that, remember: Let the Surveillance State's massive data mining work for you!

This message brought to you by the new NSA: We're not just for indiscriminate killing anymore; and by Organizing for America.

A Short Note on Obama's Drone Memo

The Obama Administration through a memorandum written by Attorney General Eric Holder revealed what many have suspected for some time - that the United States has killed four U.S. citizens in drone strikes in foreign countries. What may be most revealing about the memo is that only one of the four was actually "targeted" by the U.S. government - Anwar al Awlaki. 

This has caused many to speculate that 3 out of the 4 were therefore killed "by accident."  This is likely at best a mis-characterization of what actually happened. 

Although the memo is bereft of any additional information on the circumstances surrounding these 3 strikes, it is likely that these three Americans (one of them 16 year-old Abdulraman Awlaki) were victims of what are known as "signature strikes." That is, that the targets, although unknown, fit a certain set of characteristics which this administration has determined justify death from above. 

Now, of course, the administration won't tell us (or anyone else apparently) what these characteristics are. From what investigative journalists have been able to surmise, these characteristics involve sex (male), dress, possession of firearms and other similar characteristics which the administration has determined are indicative of terrorists. Unfortunately, these are also indicative of many adult males in the areas of Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan that are the regular targets of U.S. drone strikes. Therefore, these strikes often lead to the murders of innocent civilians, a statistic on which the administration is still unwilling to comment, and which fuels much of the animosity felt in the Arab world toward the United States. 

What is important to keep in mind about this revelation is that these killings of U.S. citizens without trial, charge, due process, or any judicial involvement were not accidents. They are just part of standard operating procedure for the Obama administration. Although they did not know that 3 of the 4 were American citizens when they were killed, it wouldn't have mattered if they had. This coupled with the ever expanding definition of "combatant" (now defined as any male of military age who is in a targeted area) make a large portion of the Arab world, terrorist or not, a legitimate target of deadly American military might. 

Following 9/11 we asked why it was that "they" hated us and there was no one answer. Now there is: drones. It is for this reason that this policy of extrajudicial assassination by the use of armed unmanned drones must be ended immediately and never pursued again. 

Lack of Serious Opposition Leaves Obama's Power Unchecked

The press and blogosphere has been alive with been alive with scandal these past weeks, all pointing toward a serious problem for the Obama Administration. Starting with Benghazi, then the IRS scandal, then the subpoena of AP phone records and the subpoena of a Fox News journalists email in which the DOJ referred to the journalist as a co-conspirator or aider and abettor to the crime in which it was investigating, the alleged leak of classified information on North Korea by a State Department official.

While any one of these issues would be considered serious, it is only the escalating attack on journalists that really has any potential to be seriously harmful to the administration. However, you would not know this by following the news or listening to Republican leaders.

In a week that revealed serious infringement of First and Fourth Amendment by the same Administration that at its outset promised to be "the most transparent administration in history," the leaders of the President's opposition were screaming about "Benghazi" and believe it or not, whether or not the President should have held his own umbrella at a joint appearance with the Prime Minister of Turkey. Seriously.

Ever since President Obama took office, the Republican party has made its mission to obstruct, embarrass, and harass the President at every opportunity. They have done this generally by simply ignoring reality and creating a President who doesn't actually exist. This foreign born, Marxist, Socialist, Muslim, terrorist President I refer to as Fauxbama. Although attacking Fauxbama did gain the GOP the House of Representatives in 2010, it has generally failed to do any serious harm to the administration because the attacks are so far from reality that they allow the administration to discard any attack from the opposition, whether it be legitimate or not, as a tin-foil hat, black helicopter, conspiracy theory.

Because of their inability or unwillingness to make serious arguments against the Obama administration, the GOP has abdicated its responsibility to act as a check on the growing and disturbing expansion of executive power, begun under the previous administration, on which the Obama administration has embarked. This was seen in stark terms this past week.

When it was learned that DOJ seized two months worth of phone records of the AP and its journalists as part of a leak investigation supposedly concerning an article the AP had published about a failed Al Qaeda bomb plot against the United States, most civil libertarians hit the roof. For some time, based on the prosecutions of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act, the prosecution of Army Private Bradley Manning, and the investigation of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, the civil liberties community had been warning about this administration's disregard for privacy and press freedom for some time. However, the mainstream press and both sides of the political aisle had more or less ignored the issue. Now, that one of the largest mainstream news organizations had been targeted in an investigation which appears from all indications to have overstepped even the DOJ's own policies regarding obtaining press records, it appeared that we now had a scandal which had some legitimacy to it.

This week, close on the heels of the AP subpoena, it was uncovered that the DOJ had obtained e-mails of a Fox News reporter who had gathered information from a State Department official on North Korea. In the subpoena, which was issued nearly three years ago, the reporter, James Rosen is referred to as a co-conspirator or aider and abettor of the subject of the investigation by soliciting the disclosure of classified material. In essence, the DOJ is saying that Rosen committed espionage by simply acting as a journalist. This kind of attack on the press is almost without precedent (the Nixon administration after failing to prosecute whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg or prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, tried to prosecute the reporter who published the story, Neil Sheehan to no avail).

However, as has been par for the course for the GOP, instead of going after the Obama Administration for something that clearly appears to be an inexcusable and unwarranted expansion of executive power, the Republicans instead focused on their old standbyes, the attack on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya in which the U.S. Ambassador to Libya was killed, and what appears to be a troubling, but minor scandal involving increased scrutiny given to Tea Party groups seeking tax exempt status as 501(c)(4) organizations.

The problem with these is that there appears to be very little to either of these "scandals". There has been no incident that has been investigated more by the Republicans than the Benghazi attack. Yet, all that they seem to have come up with so far is that the talking points given to U.N. Secretary Susan Rice were incorrect and either intentionally or incompetently misleading, and that the President described the incident as an "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack."

There appeared late last week to be some momentum to this story after ABC News White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported that he had obtained White House e-mails that showed that the talking points were changed in order to protect the State Department. However, what appeared to be a major scoop and perhaps a "smoking gun" was quickly dashed when it was reported (embarrassingly by Jake Tapper at CNN, the reporter whom Karl replaced at ABC) that the e-mails in fact said nothing of the sort, a fact which was confirmed when the White House released the actual e-mails. Karl was forced to admit that in fact he had not seen the e-mails but a "source" had read him a summary of the e-mails, a summary which turned out in fact to be fabricated. Inexplicably, Karl is still standing by his story, but that is an issue for another post.

The IRS scandal has a little bit more legitimacy to it. It is certainly improper for any administrative agency to use political beliefs to target certain groups, and that appears to be, at least in part, what the IRS did to Tea Party groups. However, there is some legitimacy to doing this in this circumstance, based on both the proliferation of 501(c)(4) groups following the Supreme Court's Citizens' United decision, as well as the quick expansion of Tea Party groups following the 2008 election. Inquiring whether or not these groups were legitimate non profits seems to be something we would want the IRS to do. Now, if only right wing political groups were targeted, or if these groups disproportionately had their applications denied on strictly partisan grounds, this is something that is very troubling indeed and needs to be investigated and prosecuted. However, there is no evidence that either of these things are the case now.

So, why has the GOP focused on these, rather than the AP scandal, and ongoing increasing scrutiny of journalists? There are probably a number of reasons. First among these is that it is quite possible that the GOP leadership agrees with Administration policy on these issues. In fact, this weekend, Senate Majority Leader said so on Sunday's Meet the Press, while again focusing on the IRS and Benghazi issues. Second, is that the AP and Fox News scandals, and the ongoing war on whistleblowers and journalists is not a simple issue. It involves very complicated issues of national security, the classification of information, Constitutional protections, and the reasons for the Administration taking the position they have on prosecuting leaks with such zealousness.

However, the more that is brought out about both the AP and Fox News stories, the more it appears that this is a scandal which could end up doing serious damage to this Administration. For the most in depth investigations into the AP scandal I have seen, please read the work that has been done by Marcy Wheeler. You can find her very good Salon.com article here, and can read her continuing investigations into the AP story at www.emptywheel.net or follow her on Twitter @emptywheel. From reading her work, and other articles about the AP investigation, appears that there is more than simply a leak investigation going on here. At the very least, it appears that the administration may be trying to hide either internal leaks that were authorized and had much more serious implications for our security and the security of our agents than the AP story, or that there is a cover up of administration politicizing threats to the U.S. surrounding the anniversary of Osama Bin Laden's death, when in fact no such threats actually existed.

In any event, outside of the political implications of such a scandal, what the most serious implication of both the AP and Fox News scandals is that the Obama Administration is trying to curtail the last, most effective check on executive power that we have in a free society -- a free and unhindered press. They are doing this by freezing out any and all sources of information that do not comport with official administration views. With the Democrats showing repeated unwillingness to stand up to anything this President does, no matter how wrong or inconsistent with previously stated policies, and the Republicans unwillingness to seriously hold the administration responsible for its repeated misdeeds, the press is our only hope to uncover the truth and hold our government accountable.

If we fail to protect our press and hold the Obama Administration accountable for its attacks on press freedom and privacy, we will have nobody left to defend us at all.

On Empathy

I can't help it.

When I see somebody crying, I cry. When I see someone in pain, I feel pain.

It's who I am. It's all I know.

It seems though that I am the exception rather than the rule.

We have an empathy deficit in our country. We are cold. We are suspicious. We are unfeeling. Our hearts are hard. Our souls are empty.

On April 15, once again our country was the subject of a terrorist attack. It was carried out not by a well organized cell of foreign terrorists, but by two bumbling young brothers whose motives are still unknown.

Already there are calls to take action both domestically and internationally. This isolated and incredibly stupid attack is being used as justification for everything from increasing domestic surveillance, to attacking immigrants, to going to war yet again.

The FBI is swooping in to charge or pressure everyone who ever knew the brothers. The younger brother has been arrested and his friends charged as accessories after the fact. The older brother's widow is being followed and surveilled 24 hours a day. In possibly the most disturbing occurrence, she can't even find anywhere to bury her husband, as if somehow by denying his body a resting place, we can undo the damage he had wrought through his bombs.

What the hell is wrong with us? Is this what we have become as a nation?

Just a quick perusal of the news headlines or my twitter feed shows that what happened in Boston on April 15 is an every day occurrence across much of the world. In most cases the suffering inflicted on these civilians in other countries is either directly or indirectly the result of the policies and actions of the United States.

I point this out not to excuse the actions of the Tsarnaevs or to cast blame on the US for what happened in Boston. I point it out simply to say that this is an opportunity for us to understand, just a little bit, what many people around the world suffer every day. That maybe, just maybe, we could form a connection with those civilians across the planet who live with the threat of bombs, with the reality of lost limbs, maimed bodies, dead children on a daily basis.

I recall in a discussion on race while in law school following the verdict in the OJ Simpson murder trial, saying that this was an opportunity for white folks who were outraged at the verdict and were feeling rage and disbelief many felt at that time, to understand just a little bit what African Americans felt after the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. That if we could understand that, perhaps we could move beyond the divisions that continue to separate us.

That didn't go so well. But, I'll try it again.

As we go forward from this point, we need to remember what the last 12 years have brought us. In our understandable rage following the September 11 attacks, we gave up our privacy, our security, and many of our rights. We have been at war for 12 years. We have destroyed our economy. We have turned much of the world, who was with us in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, against us. We have tortured, we have assassinated, we have droned. We have turned against many of our most cherished values in the name of safety and the prevention of "terror."

We have tried everything except understanding.

We still have a chance. We can increase our empathy. We can see those things that we share with those "others" that we see as our enemies. We can make a small effort to feel the pain that these "others" feel and recognize it as our pain too. We can see that the mourning that is felt by the parent of an Arab child killed in a drone attack is the same mourning of the parent of a child killed in Newtown. We can see that the shame felt by a devout Muslim seeing her religion slandered by a suicide bombing is the same shame felt by a devout Christian seeing her religion slandered by a zealot holding a sign that says "God Hates Fags." We can see that the fear felt by a villager in Yemen afraid every day of having their village bombed in the same fear we have of being attacked by another unknown terrorist.

We've tried everything else. Look where it has brought us.

Raw and Scattered

Raw and scattered pretty much describes my feelings regarding the bombing at the Boston Marathon yesterday. It really hasn't sunk in what happened. I don't really know what to say, but bear with me as I process through some of what I have seen, read, and heard over the past day.

What surprises me is that I don't have the raw anger that I felt after other tragedies such as 9/11, or Newtown, or similar unspeakable horrors. Perhaps I'm too tired to be angry. Too tired of these senseless things happening, too tired of feeling helpless, too tired of hate. There certainly is a lot of anger out there -- you can see it in the streets, on social media, or on television as people lash out at whoever they can, even though we don't know and may not know for a long time who it was that committed this atrocity or why.

What I do feel is sadness and pain. The unedited images of the injuries to those in Boston yesterday -- some race participants, others spectators or supporters -- are images that I will probably never forget. They are images of unimaginable injuries -- legs with all their flesh blown off until only a jagged remnant of a bone remains, scorched skin, faces numb with shock. What makes me sadder is that it appears from the placement and design of the bombs that this was exactly what was intended as the outcome -- to maim as much as to kill.

Maybe not knowing who is responsible for these evil acts is for the best. Maybe it will cause us to take a look at evil and hate itself. Maybe it will make us look at what leads one to these acts of unimaginable violence. Not knowing who is responsible prevents us from blaming a particular ethnicity or group or religion or political belief (although many still do). It makes us see that regardless of who is responsible, the act itself is still wrong, and hopefully teaches us that responding in kind will do nothing but foster more of the same type of actions.

Looking at those gruesome images from the bombing made me think of those who have been through wars and have seen these things before. When faced with such horror, one can have one of two reactions -- one can give into the violence, ratchet up their hate, and vow eternal vengeance; or one turn against the violence, increase their love, and work for peace. I am amazed at those that have viewed such carnage up close and still can love, can have hope, can have faith, and can work for peace and justice. I look at people like Chris Hedges who as a war correspondent has witnessed some of the most inhuman brutality one could ever witness, and still devotes his life to causes of peace through his journalism and activism and throughout maintains a deep religious faith. If more of us could aspire to that, the world would be a much better place.

It is said often by many that God is Love. If that is true, then the inverse is also true -- Love Is God. The only way we can respond as people of faith is to love more. The only way that we can aspire to be more like God is to love more. The only response to hate for the faithful is love.

Love more. It's all we have.

Rooting for Uniforms

This is a post in three parts. Not to be confused with This American Life.

Part I: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Kevin Garnett

I grew up loving the Boston Celtics. I loved everything about them. Their teamwork, their style of play, their attitude, their ugliness -- everything. Maybe it had to do with the fact that I was an average sized white kid who had no hops, but loved basketball, and instead of relying on talent, had to rely on a bruising, physical game in order to survive. Whatever the reason, I lived and died with Boston Celtics basketball.

The Celtics went 22 years between NBA championships. The years between 1986 and 2008 were beset with tragedy (the deaths of Len Bias and Reggie Lewis) and mediocrity. Many of the Celtics teams scraped the bottom of the barrell, rarely winning and often times being an embarrassment to themselves and their fans. During the same time the game changed for the worse. The NBA no longer relied on quick, smart passing, elaborate teamwork, and superior shooting, but was a one-on-one up and down the floor style with brick after brick being thrown up. It was boring and almost unwatchable.

But, prior to the 2007-08 season, the Celtics signed two superstars -- Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen -- to supplement their resident all-star forward Paul Pierce and instantly became a contender for the NBA crown. They reached the 2008 finals against the hated Los Angeles Lakers, and there I was again, living and dying with each game rooting on my beloved Celtics.

So, why did I suddenly care? There was certainly no connection between the team that featured Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Danny Ainge, Bill Walton, Robert Parrish, Dennis Johnson and a host of various scrubs, and this sleek athletic showtime Celtics team chock full of superstars. I was certainly far removed from the teenager that obsessed over every statistic in every game all season long.

What it comes down to that we as Americans root for uniforms. If we grew up rooting for the Yankees, even though Reggie Jackson, Dave Winfield and Graig Nettles have long since retired, chances are we will still root for the Yankees, or Celtics, or Cowboys or what have you. This is the same if our team suddenly trades for a player we hated when he played for our rival team. He has our uniform now, so suddenly we love him today when we hated him yesterday. Our loyalty is not to the players or even the franchise, our loyalty is to the brand. There is something truly Capitalist about that, and the fact that brands can have such an influential effect on our behavior.

When this is related to sports teams, it really doesn't have a huge impact on our society. However, when it relates to politics and policies, this type of behavior is much more serious.

Part II: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love ObamaCare

The American political system for better or for worse (oh, ok, for worse) is divided into two main parties -- Democrat and Republican. Those who maintain their allegience to one of these parties really do see substantive differences between the two, and sometimes there are. However, it amazes me how the positions of these parties can morph almost imperceptably overnight and take their millions of loyalists along for the ride.

One example of this is the years long fight over ObamaCare.

When he was elected in 2008, and took office in 2009 as our nation's first African-American President, Barack Obama decided, whether wisely or unwisely, to make the push for a national health insurance system his number one domestic policy initiative. The policy that he introduced would mandate most citizens to purchase private health insurance, would make reforms to the private health care insurance system such as banning denials based upon pre-existing conditions, would set up health insurance exchanges similar to risk pools where individuals could shop for the lowest cost plans, and would penalize those who did not purchase insurance by making them pay a penalty or tax.

This plan was nothing new. It had been implemented in Massachusetts by then Republican governor Mitt Romney. But, the plan was much older than that. In fact it was the exact plan that had been hatched by the ultra conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation and floated as the Republican alternative to Bill Clinton's auspicious but ultimately failed universal national healthcare plan in 1993. I know this because I was standing outside the press conference where all of the Republican Senators announced their plan back then, handing out press releases to all of the reporters trying to get them to cover a press conference later that afternoon put forth by the Health Care Coalition, a conglomerate of labor leaders and other progressive groups pushing to support the Clinton plan.

The Republican plan in 1993 was roundly criticized by Democrats of all stripes as a boondoggle and a sell out to the insurance industry, falling fall short of the goal of universal coverage that was touted by the Clintons. As it turned out, nothing was passed and we were left with a system which became more and more expensive, leaving any kind of adequate health coverage beyond the reach of more and more Americans.

So, having a Democrat touting a plan which had been hatched by the most conservative parts of the Republican party and had been implemented by a self-described severely conservative governor to pretty good success, you would think that passage would be fairly easy. Of course, the opposite was the case. Republicans viciously attacked Obama's health care plan, alleging it limited freedom, was socialized medicine, would lead to rationed care, and would establish death panels who would decide when to kill your grandma. None of these were remotely true, of course, but their vehement opposition to the Affordable Care Act probably helped the GOP take over the House of Representatives and gain seats in the Senate in 2010, while at the same time costing them the Presidency in 2012.

To show how exactly this was "rooting for uniforms" much like in sports, let's look at what would have likely happened had Mitt Romney bested John McCain for the GOP nomination in 2008 and won the Presidency against Obama (it's less far fetched than you think).

Upon taking office, President Romney would have almost certainly introduced as his main domestic policy initiative, the very same plan which he so successfully implemented as Governor in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts health insurance plan is almost identical to Obama's Affordable Care Act. What would have followed would be almost farcical knowing what happened over the last five years. Immediately, every Republican elected official would line up touting the benefits of the plan. They would almost certainly emphasize that the Romney plan would promote personal responsibility and reward those who had purchased health care all along by lowering their rates and punish those who lazily refused to pay into the system by fining them. The benefits to small businesses by setting up separate exchanges for small business would be shown to be a way to lift up the job creators who up to now had been unable to afford to provide health insurance for their employees even though they had wanted to. Moreover, the Republicans would have responded to criticisms from the Left that unlike socialized medicine or a single payer system that was run by the government, the Romney health care plan kept individual choice and private benefits, keeping the government out of your health care decisions.

The main opposition to President Romney's plan would be led by Nancy Pelosi and probably Senator Obama, pointing out the huge subsidies being paid to the health insurance industry and drug manufacturers. They would call this more corporate welfare. They would lament the huge costs that would be imposed on the poor. You would hear heartbreaking tales of single mothers, or old retirees forced to choose between health insurance and food. These same working poor would end up homeless when forced to pay the penalty for not being able to afford private health insurance. This would be attacked as another tax being imposed on the least fortunate among us, while fat cats and the wealthiest with their Cadillac policies got superior coverage and at the same time were getting huge tax cuts proposed by the same Republicans trying to force this despicable plan on our nation.

Eventually the Democrats would squeeze out some small concessions probably in the form of expanded exchanges, or greater subsidies for lower income individuals, but would in the end go ahead and vote in favor of the Romney plan. This would be hailed by both sides as a huge step forward and much better than the system we had before hand. But you would never hear a peep about how the Romney plan was an attack on individual freedoms, nor anything about death panels or killing grandma. The only people railing about things like this would be considered lunatic libertarian fringe elements and this would never see the inside of any courtroom, much less come down to a breathless 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court.

Part III: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Drones

But nothing shows the outright absurdity of the willingness of Americans to support policies that they would have despised had they been proposed by the "other team" more than President Obama's drone program. When he ran for President in 2008, Senator Barack Obama was overwhelmingly critical (rightfully so, in my opinion) of the foreign policy of then President George W. Bush. He was most outspoken about the use of torture to attempt to obtain information and the prosecution of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on the posture of his campaign, one would have been reasonable in expecting that once elected, President Obama would reverse course on these programs, immediately draw down troops, close Guantanamo Bay, end indefinite detention, and in a responsible manner in our dealings around the world.

However, once elected, President Obama continued our troop deployments, increasing our troop levels in Afghanistan, kept Guantanamo open, increased the use of indefinite detention expanding it beyond any levels previously used by the Bush administration, and continued to act aggressively and recklessly in our foreign policy.

But the one policy implemented by Obama that has caused the most consternation world wide is his use of drones to carry out targeted killings across the Middle East. These attacks know no geographic limitations being carried out in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East. We actually know very little about the program, including the rules of engagement and exactly where the drones have been deployed, against whom they have been deployed, or the reasons that any particular individual or group was targeted based on the extreme secrecy the Obama administration has placed over the program.

What little we do know about the program is incredibly disturbing. We know that many of the attacks are so-called "signature" killings, not directed at any particular person or Al-Qaeda leader, but instead executed because the target fits a profile which is indicative of persons who may be terrorists. This has resulted in killings of innocent civilians. When faced with criticisms over the killing of civilians, the administration inexplicably simply re-defined the term combatant to include any male person of military age who is found in a combat zone.

We have learned that the administration does not exempt American citizens from being targeted by drones, as was evident with the assassination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen. Awlaki had been a high priority target of the Obama administration based upon his popularity among young Muslims who were exposed to his militant speeches mostly through You Tube videos, as well as his apparent participation in plots against the U.S. including the supposed underwear bomber on a plane headed for Detroit. Two weeks after his assassination, Awlaki's 16 year-old son, American citizen Abdulrahman Awlaki was killed by a predator drone. We still do not know if the younger Awlaki was targeted since the administration will not release this information, but there appears to be no evidence that Abdulrahman Awlaki had any involvement in Al Qaeda. When pressed to answer about the younger Awlaki's death by We Are Change's Luke Rudkowski, former Obama press secretary and current MSNBC contributor Robert Gibbs stated "I would suggest you should have a far more responsible father."

We learned in a New York Times article that there was a secret kill list, presided over by the President himself, in which it is decided who will be targeted for assassination next. These weekly meetings have been dubbed Terror Tuesdays and the potential targets laid out on cards similar to baseball cards. The term developed for the criteria for which it is decided who lives and who dies is the Orwellian sounding "disposition matrix." In all of these drone strikes, meetings, assassination decisions, there is no judicial oversight and the position of the administration is that having representatives of the various parts of the executive branch alone discuss whether due process has been met is sufficient under the Constitution.

All of this came to a head during the confirmation hearings for CIA director John Brennan who had participated both in the prosecution of the drone program as well as in the previous administration's "enhanced interrogation", i.e. torture program. A couple of Senators, some Republican, some Democrat, pressed the nominee on the issue of drones and whether American citizens in the United States could be the target of drone strikes. It was learned that the Obama administration had failed to respond to multiple inquiries of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the drone program and had not provided any of the legal memos justifying the extrajudicial assassination program. It was clear that the administration was not only bypassing the judiciary, but the legislative branch as well, ignoring all oversight of its program. The climax of this was a 12 hour filibuster of Brennan's nomination by Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to draw attention to the administration's abuse of their power and refusal to give answers to the legitimate and reasonable inquiries of the Senate.

There is no doubt that had these policies been carried out by the Bush administration that there would be outrage on the left. It would be the top story every night on MSNBC. Democratic Senators would be lining up demanding answers, calling for hearings and investigations into the abuse of power by the Bush administration. There would be more than one call for the President to be impeached. There would be mass protests in the streets and robust debate over whether or not this activity was even legal under U.S. and international law.

So, what was the reaction from Democrats? Mostly silence. The very same people who vented overwhelming criticism at the previous administration now agreed overwhelmingly with these policies being carried out by Obama. This can best be exemplified in this picture showing the results of a phone in poll on the liberal Ed Show on MSNBC the night of the Brennan hearings:

It is simply inconceivable that the viewership of the Ed Show would be agreeing with a Republican president targeting American citizens for assassination, much less supporting it by a nearly four to one margin. This is probably the most overwhelming example of the American public rooting for uniforms, willing to accept something they previously found distasteful simply because it is proposed by someone they voted for or like.

Conclusion: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Third Parties

So what does this all tell us?

I'm not going to venture a guess as to why the American electorate acts this way, or why those who strongly identify as either Democrats or Republicans are so quick to defend any policy put forth by their party regardless of whether they supported or extremely opposed the same policy previously. That is something for psychologists and sociologists to study.

What I can conclude is that what this does show is that our two-party political system is much less about ideology and much more about gaining and maintaining power. The similarities between Democrats and Republicans are far greater than their differences. But by being able to marshall their party loyalists to support them no matter what and to stick with their parties as their policies shift more often than the wind, both Democrats and Republicans have been able to stave off any serious challenges from parties either on the left or the right.

Both the Republican and Democratic parties exist to maintain a system of corporate governance whereby elected officials adopt legislation which creates the most favorable conditions possible for their large corporate paymasters. As money becomes more and more involved in the political system and politicians rely on large donors to maintain their careers, the entrenchment of this corporatocracy will increase and become permanent.

Of course, as long as people are willing to support their stated political party no matter how far they stray from their stated positions, there will be less and less incentive for them to hold themselves accountable to their non corporate constituents. The parties know this, and as Obama has shown us, the ability to campaign in one way and govern in a completely different way is not only possible, but overwhelmingly successful. This will be the template upon which future Democratic campaigns will be built.

Until people are willing to demand accountability from their leaders, and be willing to walk away from their stated parties, this will not change. I cannot see myself voting for a Presidential candidate from either major party in the future. There will be those who claim to be liberals who will criticize this saying that I am empowering Republicans. But I simply refuse to take part in this grand political Kabuki theater wherein the candidates act out their elaborate roles simply for show, while carrying out policies which completely undercut their promises and stated beliefs.

It is only through more people making this kind of commitment to refuse the current corrupt system of government which controls our nation that we can begin to see real change.

Sympathy for the Coward

I want you to for a minute think of Jesus of Nazareth. Not Jesus our Lord and Savior, deity to more than a billion Christians around the world, but Jesus the carpenter, activist, revolutionary, the human being. It is thinking of Jesus in this sense, removed from his Godly nature, where I find much insight into both my faith and my life.

During this Holy Week, as in every Holy Week, the minds of Christians and non-Christians alike are drawn to reflect on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Every year, I focus much attention on one of the most fascinating individuals in the Bible - Pontius Pilate. Pilate is the notorious Roman governor of Judea who condemns Christ to death on the Cross. His notorious washing of his hands prior to giving into the will of the crowds calling for Jesus's crucifixion and inability to stand up for the law and his own beliefs in the face of the overwhelming opinion of the crowds facing him have condemned Pilate to eternal infamy in the annals of history.

But, should we not have sympathy for Pilate? Are we not surrounded by Pilates every day of our lives? Do we not ourselves give into the crowd and public opinion and authority rather than speak the unpopular or harsh truth?

My view on this, as with many things spiritual, is influenced greatly by my parish priest growing up. Father Tom's favorite and probably most profound sermon was on Pilate. He ended it in his usual crescendo and dramatic effect by saying "I know Pontius Pilate. I see him in the mirror every day." I keep coming back to this view of Pilate as my spirituality and reading of the Gospels grows within the Episcopal Church.

Pilate's ultimate failure is cowardice. It is clear from the Gospels that Pilate did not believe that Jesus had done anything to deserve death. He repeatedly states that he has no basis under the law to put him to death. He tries to foist Jesus off on the Jewish authorities to no avail. He does everything he can to clear himself of the responsibility for this rabble-rouser who is brought in front of him. Yet, ultimately, he accedes to the cries of  the crowd to crucify Jesus and against his own judgment and belief, sentences Jesus to die.

When looking at the circumstances, if we are honest with ourselves, it's really not all that difficult to understand why Pilate would do this. After all, here he is in God-forsaken Judea, probably the least attractive of all of the far flung assignments for a Roman bureaucrat. He is constantly dealing with insurrections, revolts, someone or another claiming to be the Messiah, and an unruly foreign group of people over which he was given rule. What would be the harm to him of sending another trouble maker to be hanged on a cross? It might even help him politically, after all.

Unfortunately, we have seen this act repeated throughout history right up to today and we will continue to see it in our future. How many people who, like Jesus, stood up for what is right and speak the truth even when it is unpopular end up meeting a similar fate to that of Jesus. Just in the last century, the list is frighteningly long. Mohandas Gandhi, a Hindu who followed the radical life of Christ forsaking his wealth and standing up to the greatest Empire of his time, assassinated. Martin Luther King, who in the face of the most vicious violence and racism refused to back down from his enemies while at the same time refused to give into violence, assassinated. Robert Kennedy, who dared us to see a world without poverty, without discrimination, without inequality, assassinated. Nelson Mandela, who stood up to one of the most evil governments of our time, challenging racist Apartheid through the use of law, imprisoned for 27 years. Even today, those that speak truth to power, Thomas Drake prosecuted for blowing the whistle and bringing attention to illegal wiretaps; John Kiriakou currently in prison for standing up to the government and exposing the horrific use of torture against prisoners at Guantanamo; Bradley Manning, facing life in prison for exposing U.S. military misdeeds and illegalities during the Iraq War; Julian Assange, who has become an international pariah and is stuck in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, due to his wide scale exposing of illegality around the world and publishing the truth for all to see.

I'm not saying that any of these people should be compared to Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, King of Heaven and Son of God. Remember, I'm asking you to look at the human nature of Jesus - the man courageously standing against the authority of his day both politically and religiously, professing radical truth to those who refused to hear it. What I am saying, is that for each of these individuals, there was at least one Pontius Pilate who refused to do the right thing and allowed their persecution or death to occur.

What's worse is how many times have we ourselves refused to stand up in the face of overwhelming opposition to do the right thing, to stand up for the person being treated unjustly, to voice the unpopular opinion, even though we knew doing so would be the right thing to do?

This is what we are called upon as Christians to do. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are called to do as he did, to stand up for the downtrodden, to voice the radical truth to those in power, to express the unpopular opinion because we know it is right, even though we may suffer persecution, ostracism, or even in extreme cases death.

This Holy Week, we must dedicate ourselves to act more like Jesus and act less like Pilate. Our world could use a lot more truth, and a lot less cowardice.