How many laws does Virginia already have on the books dealing with "illegal aliens"?

The answer is at least these thirty plus, some of which have been on the books for more than 40 years:

1950 -- Mental health department required to determine the nationality of any person admitted to a state facility and to report to immigration anyone determined to be an alien, §37.2-827 of the Code of Virginia;

1950 (last amended in 1994) -- Sheriffs and the department of corrections required to identify criminal aliens in Virginia jails and prisons and report them to the Central Criminal Records Exchange, §53.1-218 of the Code of Virginia;

1950 (last amended 1982) Clerks of court required to furnish court records to ICE regarding any alien committed to a correctional facility after conviction, 53.1-219 of the Code of Virginia;

1950 (as amended in 2006 and 2007) Crime to extort money from aliens by withholding immigration documents or threatening to report them to ICE, §18.2-59 of the Code of Virginia;

1977 -- Crime for employers to knowingly hire illegal aliens (although there is some question now if it is constitutional because of a federal law passed in 1986) §40.1-111 of the Code of Virginia;

1977 – Proof of legal presence required for unemployment compensation benefits, § 60.2-617 of the Code of Virginia;

1985 – Provides for transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody or to be held pending deportation, §53.1-220.1 of the Code of Virginia;

1985 (last amended in 1994) – Probation and parole officers required to ask about citizenship status and report to the State Police anyone who fails to produce evidence of citizenship; State Police required to review arrest reports from law enforcement and reports from probation and parole and report to ICE the identity of all convicted offenders suspected of being illegal aliens, § 19.2-294.2 of the Code of Virginia;

1993 – Aliens (except lawful permanent residents) prohibited from owning, possessing or transporting assault firearms, §18.2-308.2:1 of the Code of Virginia, and dealers prohibited from selling assault firearms to aliens (except lawful permanent residents), §18.2-308.2:2 of the Code of Virginia;

pre-1994 -- Strict domicile requirements for in-state tuition prohibit illegal aliens from qualifying for in-state tuition at our colleges and universities, §23-7.4 of the Code of Virginia;

1995- Aliens (except those lawfully admitted to permanent residency) prohibited from obtaining concealed weapons permits, §18.2-308 of the Code of Virginia;

1996 - English the official language of the Commonwealth, § 1-511 of the Code of Virginia;

2000 – Gun dealers prohibited from hiring illegal aliens to sell firearms, §18.2-308.2:3 of the Code of Virginia;

2003 -- Proof of legal presence required to obtain a Virginia drivers’ license or a state id card, § 46.2-328.1 of the Code of Virginia;

2004 – Persons not lawfully present in the United States prohibited from owning, possessing or transporting any firearm, §18.2-308.2:1 of the Code of Virginia;

2004 - Police officers given authority to arrest without a warrant anyone committing a crime who is an illegal alien previously deported after a felony conviction. § 19.2-81.6 of the Code of Virginia;

2004 – Compensation Board required to maintain records re: citizenship of inmates and to encourage local jails to participate in the USDOJ State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, Appropriations Act of 2004.

2005 -- Proof of legal presence required to obtain state benefits including welfare and Medicaid, §63.2-503.1 and §32.1-325.03 of the Code of Virginia;

2006 – Juvenile justice intake officers required to report to ICE any juvenile charged with a violent juvenile felony being detained in a secure facility who the intake officer has probable cause to believe is not lawfully present, §16.1-309.1 of the Code of Virginia;

2006- Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice required to coordinate with the Dept of Corrections requests for compensation from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program for the costs of incarcerating undocumented aliens, § 66.3.2 of the Code of Virginia;

2006 – Person who threatens to report someone as unlawfully present in order to extort money or pecuniary benefit is guilty of a class 5 felony, §18.2-59iii of the Code of Virginia;

2006 – Person who falsely identifies himself to a law enforcement officer guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, §19.2-82.1 of the Code of Virginia;

2006 – DMV required to send info it gets on noncitizens to State Board of Elections and State Board directed to remove names from election roles, §24.2-404 and §24.2-410.1 of the Code of Virginia;

2007 (HB 2923) – Establishes the Commission on the Prevention of Human Trafficking, §30-287 et seq of the Code of Virginia;

2007 (HB 1673) Establishes the Virginia Commission on Immigration, §2.2-2530 et seq of the Code of Virginia;

2007 (HB 1921 and SB 815) – Person who destroys another’s passport or other immigration document in order to extort money or pecuniary benefit is guilty of a class 5 felony, §18.2-59iv of the Code of Virginia;

2007 (SB 1192) – Allows the courts to assess as part of the costs taxed to the defendant the costs of any interpreter appointed for the defendant when the defendant fails to appear for trial and is convicted of a failure to appear and the interpreter appears in the case and no other case on the date the defendant is convicted, §19.2-164 of the Code of Virginia;

2007 (HB 2261) -- Penalties for residential overcrowding violations increased, §15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia; and

2007 (SB1412) – Local zoning administrators given unprecedented authority to subpoena birth certificates and other personal documents in order to enforce local housing ordinances, §15.2-2286 of the Code of Virginia.

In the words of the NRA, is it possible that we have "all the laws we need" and that we "just need to enforce the laws we have"?

That's what's suggested in the report to the Crime Commission Task Force on Illegal Immigration and Law Enforcement which indicated that only 68% of 51% of sheriffs responding to the survey were complying with the identification and reporting requirements in existing state law. See copy of the survey results posted on the Task Force website here.

On the other hand, testimony of college and university officials over the past 5 years and evidence in this lawsuit challenging the refusal of Virginia public colleges to admit undocumented students makes clear that the current strict domicile laws are all that is necessary to prevent undocumented students from being admitted to 4 year schools as in-state students and even the community colleges that do admit students without documentation of legal status only do so as out of state (full pay, no taxpayer subsidy) students.

Before we put more unneeded "brochure bill" laws on the books, let's take a look at what's in place already and ask whether the current law is being implemented, and, if not, why not.

Sounds like a job for the new Virginia Commission on Immigration . All the members have been appointed and the Commission will start meeting to look at the costs AND benefits of immigration this fall.

Let's let the new Commissioners do the difficult job of gathering the facts and sorting through policy options and hear from the Crime Commission Task Force on law enforcement issues before we enact unnecessary, poll driven proposals or act out of ignorance and fear instead of fact and common sense.

Marriage Amendment Opponents are Very Much in the Mainstream of Virginia Voters

I am getting more than a little tired of folks who continue to try to claim that people and politicians who opposed the marriage amendment represent some fringe group of Virginians out of the mainstream, and, having won one election, can't resist playing the poor winners by continuing to try to use this issue to gain some ill-defined political advantage.

The absolute number of NO votes against the so-called marriage amendment totalled just under 1,000,000 (999,687 to be exact), just 26,255 fewer than Tim Kaine got in his winning gubernatorial campaign and 20,422 more votes than Bill Bolling got in his winning Lt. Governor’s race and 28,801 more votes than Bob McDonnell got in his winning race for Attorney General.

Yes, that’s right … more people didn’t want our constitution amended to include this deprivation of rights amendment than wanted either Bill or Bob elected to office.

Think about that … those of you who keep claiming that NO voters are “out of the mainstream” of Virginians.

This Blog is Rated G

Too funny. A G rating despite the use of "breast" twice and "gay" once.

Webb and Warner Collaborate on Court Nominees but ...

Howling Latina has a good post up on the five guys who Senators Warner and Webb have jointly nominated for appointment to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The list has some men on it for whom I have great respect. But, I have to ask ... at a time when nearly 50% of all law students are women, and when there are a significant number of well-respected partners in law firms and women serving as state court judges, the Senators couldn't find a single qualified woman to nominate?

Sorry, guys, but 52% of the population deserves meaningful representation on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and it's time for Virgina to join Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina as states in the circuit that have a woman among their representatives on this important federal bench.

The bar associations need to do a better job of identifying qualified women (and minorities) for the Senators to consider, and the Senators need to agree that they won't send up a list of nominees for any judicial appointment that isn't inclusive of qualified women and minorities.

There was a time when you could defend the decision to nominate only men for an opening on a federal court bench saying there weren't enough women with the requisite experience at the bar to qualify, but that time has long since past.

Our Senators need to do better and women in Virginia, and, particularly women attorneys in Virginia, should expect more.

Who said this and why?

See if you can identify who said this, when and why.

The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The Legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state.

The answer will appear later in the comments.

Why Progressives (and Others) Should Oppose Webb's Amendment to the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Legislation

The amendment Senator Jim Webb (D Virginia) is offering to the comprehensive immigration bill that will be debated in the Senate next week is not a positive one unless you favor the status quo that encourages scofflaws and worse.

Senator Webb's amendment (#1313) cuts the heart out of one of the key components of the bill -- getting the millions of undocumented people now in the US out of the shadows and on the path to earned legalization and citizenship.

Webb was right during the campaign:

For his part, challenger Jim Webb, a writer and former Secretary of the Navy, has been clear about his position on immigration reform. He has said he is for a more secure border, but told reporters last week:

"People who say 'no amnesty' or that we are not going to do anything with the individuals who are here are basically looking at a fairy tale….The people who actually have put down long roots in these communities, we need to find a process to bring them properly into society and into the work force."
-- Washington Times, "Webb focuses on income gap," October 24, 2006

He is wrong now.

Senator Webb's amendment will deny millions of hard working immigrants and their families now in the United States any hope of earned legalization.

Senator Webb's amendment would only allow people to have the chance to earn legalization if they have been in the United States for four years prior to the date the bill is passed and are employed.

Even the people who can meet this standard would be denied the opportunity to become legal unless they can prove to the Director of the Department of Homeland Security that they have "sufficient community ties" to be allowed to walk the path to earned legalization and citizenship.

Under Webb's amendment, no one who is not currently working (e.g., a spouse or child of a worker, a student in college, a person who is disabled) could ever qualify for earned legalization. (This is a particularly ironic requirement that would reward those who have broken our laws by working without authorization but penalize those who are their family members or others who are in the country without documentation but have not worked in violation of the law.)

And, even those who are working may not qualify under Webb's plan if they can't show that:

they "have immediate relatives" living in the US (hard to do if it wasn't legal for your family to join you);

"own" property or a business (nearly impossible to accomplish without a driver's license, a bank account or a social security number);

attended school or college in the US (difficult if you can't afford college because you've been denied in-state tuition or can’t be admitted because the state’s AG has issued an opinion discouraging colleges from admitting those without documentation);

and have paid taxes (also, if this means income taxes, difficult to accomplish as an individual if you can't get a bank account).

Senator Webb's amendment will leave millions of people now in the United States without documentation or the lawful right to remain in our country.

With Senator Webb's amendment, the Senate compromise would be neither comprehensive nor a reform.

The millions who would remain undocumented under Webb's proposal would continue to live in the shadows, creating opportunities for economic and criminal exploitation, requiring billions to be spent on law enforcement to identify them and remove them, and continuing to feed the political frenzy that increasingly surrounds this issue at the state and local level.

Senator Webb's amendment would also divide families, allowing some members to get on a path to citizenship and leaving others behind.

It would leave state and local officials dealing with the millions not allowed to even enter the process toward legalization.

Senator Webb's amendment would create a bureaucracy that is neither workable nor likely to be funded to meet the demand.

Senator Webb’s amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to make millions of individualized decisions before people are admitted to the legalization process. The bill as introduced requires a criminal background check and payment of a fine before a Z visa is issued and adds requirements as the person progresses along an 8 year path to full legalization (learning English, getting a job, etc).

The effect of Senator Webb’s amendment would be to make the decades long backlogs now familiar to anyone trying to adjust status or seek permission to immigrate look speedy.

Senator Webb says that his amendment would introduce "fairness" into the "broken immigration system." The immigration system is broken, but his amendment is anything but "fair." A system, like our present system, that isn’t either efficient or effective is not fair.

Senator Webb has indicated that his amendment was motivated, in part, by a desire to protect American workers.

Leaving millions of hard working immigrants in the shadows where they can be further exploited will do nothing to protect American workers.

Only when we have a system that works with our economy and makes legal immigrant workers the rule rather than the exception will we have a system that protects American workers.

Webb's amendment will do nothing to remove the incentives for economic and criminal exploitation that currently exist and will ensure that we continue to have a system where immigrant workers are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who work them in unsafe conditions and too often fail to pay wages that they have earned.

Senator Webb's amendment is not good for Virginia or for the United States, and it should be defeated.

Note: Full disclosure ... I am working as the Virginia coordinator for the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform which sees the proposed Senate bill as the first step in a long process that we hope will produce a final bill for the President's signature that reunites families, ensures national security, protects workers, and provides a path to citizenship for immigrants who uphold and embrace American values of hard work, family, patriotism, and faith. If you want to know more about the bill and the Coalition or make your views known, you can find more information at www.cirnow.org.

Watch and Learn -- High School and Middle School Students Have Something to Teach Us

Take a look at the winning videos in the annual CPAN video documentary contest for middle and high school students. Topics range from gay marriage to global warming to intelligent design to a woman president and immigration.

The winning video documentary, "Jupiter or Bust," was done by high school students in Jupiter, Florida, and documents the town's constructive response to the growing number of Guatemalan immigrants now living in Jupiter. Watch the video and the interview with the poised high school student who made the film and share it with your children. The teen's mature, measured, thoughtful, and sympathetic portrayal of the immigrant community in his town is a lesson for all of us.

You'll see none of the raw, negative, and largely uninformed, emotion infecting much of the debate on immigration today. Just three teenagers telling a story about a town's decision to address a problem in their community (laborers lining a main street looking for jobs) without acrimony or political flame throwing.

I hope we can let the younger generation be our teachers here as they have been on other issues like seatbelt usage and smoking.

Hoos Support for Hokies Makes this Alum Proud

The letter copied below from student leaders at Virginia Tech (sent to me by my brother Mike, another 'Hoo) makes me proud to be a graduate of the University of Virginia. Again, the younger generation teaches us that competition need not preclude compassion, that rivalries can be spirted and inspirational, that small gestures (finding candles) can be meaningful.

Thanks to all of the current students at UVA (and the administration supporting them) who, standing with their brothers and sisters at Tech in this most difficult time, have made this UVA alum stand just a bit taller, misty-eyed and all.

CG2


Letter to the Students and Administration of the University of Virginia

Date: April 17, 2007

On behalf of 30,000 students, administrators, and our Virginia Tech community, I cannot begin to express our gratitude for the outpouring of sympathy, support, and compassion UVA has shown us in the past two days.

It is an understatement to say the aftermath of our losses has been emotionally trying for us. The realization of losing 32 valuable lives in our Virginia Tech family is something that we are trying desperately to recover from...but even in the most difficult day of Virginia Tech history, we have found strength-it is your university in particular that has sustained us, far beyond what you will ever know.

We thank you for your students and faculty that gathered to memorialize our victims and to share in our sorrow.

We thank you for the initiative and commitment your student government made towards finding 30,000 candles for our grieving campus, so that our student leaders could focus on healing and comforting instead.

We thank you for the hundreds of Hokies who saw your painted bridge, and were moved to tears.

We thank you for the way your students instantly put aside our infamous rivalry to the point where the greatest measures of compassion from another institution have been from you.

Your aid has had such a profound impact upon our students. Please know what UVA is doing is being noticed, is making a difference, and is nothing short of extraordinary.

Thank you for being a testament to the best of collegiate student leadership-and to humanity in general. In what we have been calling the darkest night Virginia Tech has ever seen, you are one of our brightest lights. The strong alliance that has been formed between our school and yours is part of our foundation in moving forward.

From our hearts to yours, thank you for your noble efforts. May you also find solace and restoration as we grieve together as students and as a nation.

In or out of times of need, Virginia Tech will stand beside you as fellow students, Virginians, and most importantly, as friends.

With gratitude,

Elizabeth Hart on behalf of Virginia Tech students

Virginia Tech Student Government Association

Director of Public Relations

eahart@vt.edu

The Edwards Story

I'm always amazed at the ability of some people to see themselves as knowing what's "right" for everyone else.

Today, there's been a lot of that judgmental pap threading its way through (mostly Republican) blogs. The same sort of people who write letters to the editor telling women (not men) they shouldn't seek public office if they have small children at home (even where Dad has volunteered to take on the primary child care role) are out in force on the blogs today telling John Edwards that a "real man" would quit his campaign and go home to "there,there" his wife all day while she lives like she is dying.

Others are flogging Edwards for holding a news conference to discuss his wife's health portraying him as a candidate desperate for press coverage ... a narcissist looking for the spotlight.

Read some of the 86 comments on this post for a taste of what I'm talking about. Nice contrast is this post on The Ward View.

Who here doesn't know that the Edwards faced a choice when she got the diagnosis ... put the story out there their way or wait for the news to leak (probably on some blog using an unverified, "reliable source" ... oh, wait ... that already happened this morning). When you're running for president, as we've learned, nothing is private. So, the Edwards chose the better of the Hobson's choice they were facing ... look like they were hiding something while info oozed out or do a show and tell and get criticized for doing that.

Frankly, if I were Elizabeth Edwards modeling the behavior I'd want my children to learn from, I wouldn't go home to die and ask my husband to come hold my hand while I was doing it either. Elizabeth has chosen to live while she may be dying rather than to die while she is still living. A strong, positive message for her kids, who I am sure will receive all of the love and support that their parents can give them in this difficult time.

Now we didn't hear all these sanctimonious people telling Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis to pack it up and go home to be with her husband, ride her horses and die when she announced the recurrence of her breast cancer did we? Nope. It was "keep her in your prayers." "As she did in informing constituents of her diagnosis and treatment throughout the past 16 months, Davis will serve as a role model and educator for other women facing the challenge of ongoing breast cancer."

Not one pundit I could find lambasted Davis for not putting her husband first and going home to spend time with him, her children and her grandchildren while she is facing the same kind of prognosis that Edwards is. In fact, after Davis was first diagnosed with cancer, folks were downright cranky that someone was suggesting that Davis might be vulnerable to a primary because of her fragile "health."

So, what's that about? Partisan perspectives. Why Scarlett ....

The lesson here ... be true to yourself. Others will try to make you into something that you are not. Stay authentically you. There really isn't a choice. Ultimately, folks will "see" who you are and what you are made of. If you're running a scam, it will become clear. If you are not, that will become clear, too.

May Elizabeth and John Edwards continue to look forward with optimism and make the life choices that work best for them. May their family be rewarded with years of joy and success in achieving their life goals. May they find peace and love between the difficult moments and the tears.

May all of the "carpers" and "know betters" go home to their own lives (if they have them) and make their own life choices.

Nebraska 1923 Revisited

Just to prove that history does repeat itself, check out this 1923 Supreme Court decision invalidating a Nebraska law that forbid the teaching of German.

Here's what the lower court had said was the reason for the law:

The salutary purpose of the statute is clear. The Legislature had seen the baneful effects of permitting foreigners, who had taken residence in this country, to rear and educate their children in the language of their native land. The result of that condition was found to be inimical to our own safety. To allow the children of foreigners, who had emigrated here, to be taught from early childhood the language of the country of their parents was to rear them with that language as their mother tongue. It was to educate them so that they must always think in that language, and, as a consequence, naturally inculcate in them the ideas and sentiments foreign to the best interests of this country. The statute, therefore, was intended not only to require that the education of all children be conducted in the English language, but that, until they had grown into that language and until it had become a part of them, they should not in the schools be taught any other language. The obvious purpose of this statute was that the English language should be and become the mother tongue of all children reared in this state. [citations omitted]

And, here's what the Supreme Court said in reversing the Nebraska court on constitutional grounds:

The desire of the Legislature to foster a homogeneous people with American ideals prepared readily to understand current discussions of civic matters is easy to appreciate. Unfortunate experiences during the late war and aversion toward every character of truculent adversaries were certainly enough to quicken that aspiration. But the means adopted, we think, exceed the limitations upon the power of the state and conflict with rights assured to plaintiff in error. The interference is plain enough and no adequate reason therefor in time of peace and domestic tranquility has been shown. ... As the statute undertakes to interfere only with teaching which involves a modern language, leaving complete freedom as to other matters, there seems no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child's health by limiting his mental activities. It is well known that proficiency in a foreign language seldom comes to one not instructed at an early age, and experience shows that this is not injurious to the health, morals or understanding of the ordinary child.

Every period of immigration has resulted in the same cycle of fear, ultimately unnecessary and ham-handed attempts at forced assimilation, and legislative isolationism.

As Santayana said: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

What's next ... shall we repeat the experience with internment of the Japanese?

How many more apologies will future Virginia legislatures need to offer?

"We are made wise not by the recollection of our past, but by the responsibility for our future." George Bernard Shaw

Undocumented Students and In-State Tuition

In his new role as blogger turned press flak for the Republican Party of Virginia, Sean Kenney is "posting" press releases up daily that attack various Democrats for their votes, particularly on immigration related issues.

So, let's examine one of the votes that he flogged the media with this week ... David Marsden's vote on HB 2623, Jack Reid's bill to deny undocumented students the opportunity to prove on a case by case basis whether they can meet the standard for in-state tuition.

Let's begin by adding a few facts to the hot rhetorical mix:

1) under current law no one can qualify for in state tuition without proving that they are domiciled in Virginia; see, the Code Section here.

And, the many pages of regulations, starting here.

2) Very few if any undocumented children can meet the current legal and regulatory standard.

So, what would the bill that Marsden voted against do?

It would deny any child who is undocumented the chance to prove that he/she can meet the same eligibility standards for in state tuition as are applied to anyone else.

One young woman who testified in committee against the bill, has a work permit, is paying state taxes (as are her parents) and has lived in Virginia most all of her life. Yet, because she is still in the process of adjusting her status (papers were filed years ago; there was a fraud committed against the family by someone purporting to offer immigration services), under Reid's bill she couldn't even apply to be considered for in-state tuition.

And, for all you guys worried about in-state tuition and slots for Virginia taxpayers ... while this young woman, who is a Virginia taxpayer, was waiting to testify, she had to sit through more than an hour of committee discussion of the many ways that they are changing the law to allow military dependents, (who do not pay Virginia taxes and whose parents choose to have their tax home elsewhere and do not pay Virginia taxes) to qualify automatically for in-state status.

I support the troops and military wives and families, but as a military brat whose father CHOSE to keep his tax home in another state when I was in high school in Virginia, I have no sympathy for those in the military who want the benefit of our Virginia colleges at in-state rates but refuse to become state taxpayers. It wasn't a privilege offered to me when I graduated from high school in Virginia nor did I think that it should be.

Voting against Reid's bill doesn't do anything but preserve the status quo which is simply this:

Everyone living in Virginia has the same opportunity to prove that they are in-state residents on the same standards as everyone else (military families excepted). Very few, if any, undocumented students will be able to meet this standard and there is little evidence that any have done so in the past.

So, the bill Marsden voted against is nothing more than a campaign inspired, do nothing message bill, and we all know what the message was.

Marsden and others were right to vote no.

The Book Quiz -- A Little Too Close to Home

I took the book quiz that Vivian suggested and it turns out I'm Compassion Fatigue! by Susan Moeller

You used to care, but now it's just getting too difficult. You cared about the plight of people in lands near and far, but now the media has bombarded you with images of suffering to the point that you just don't have the energy to go on.
You've become cold and heartless, as though you'd lived in New York City for a year or so. But you stand as a serious example to all others that they should turn off their TV sets and start caring again.



Feels too damn accurate. Not a good sign on the eve of a General Assembly Session that will be bogged down in anti-immigration and other mean-spirited legislation.

Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Political Ill Wind?

Today in Austin, Texas, city streets were shut down in the State Capitol on the eve of their legislative session because 60 pigeons, grackels and sparrows were found dead. I've heard of political hot air but this seems to be a new form of political toxic cloud accompanying the arrival of their state legislators.

And, in NYC, another ill wind was blowing.

Hmmmm. Better be careful to stay away from Jamestown on Wednesday. Oh, that's right, there's no room for the public anyway.

Gathering Change... New Music

Well, this isn't about a big idea, and it's not a "musing". It isn't even about politics. Just a sister bragging on a brother.

My brother Gus Guthrie (a Fairfax County art teacher nominated for teacher of the year) is a multi-talented guy. You can hear his latest music project, a CD on which he does lead vocals, called Gathering Change, here.

If you can get past this saccharine slop, "a beautifully crafted platform for listeners to hear Gus Guthrie’s soulful and sincere voice", you might actually enjoy the music which is a bit folk, a bit Latin with a hint of the islands.

You can also hear Gus' band, No Better Off, on Saturday night, January 6th at Bangkok Blues in Falls Church. More info here.

So, walk away from the keyboard and the blog wars and go take a listen.

UPDATE: XM Cafe is playing selections from "Gathering Change" in its Nude Music Review. XM Cafe is Channel 45 on XM Radio. Here's the schedule if you want to catch a song:

Nude Music Revue
Monday - Midnight ET Listen to new music every week on the Nude Music Review when XM Café - XM 45 plays multiple tracks from the latest CDs. Encores:Tuesday - 9 PM ET Wednesday - 3 PM ET Thursday - 9 AM ET Friday - 3 AM ET

And, No Better Off is appearing at Stacy's Coffee House at 709 W. Broad Street in Falls Church on Saturday night, February 10th from 7:30pm to 9:30pm.

New Year's Resolutions ... Redux

So, last year I set out my resolutions for 2006 and it's time now to see how well I did ....

1) "To get the hundreds of business cards sitting in a box in my office scanned into my contact manager."

Not one is done. The box is fuller. Guess I can leave this one on the list for this year, too.

2) "To synchronize my passions and my pocketbook."

Working on this one. Am spending my time doing what I am passionate about; just need to find a way to improve the $$ rewards of doing so.

3) "To teach my 5 nieces about the time value of money."

I've made a little progress here. More work to do. They are all smart young women and definitely can "finish rich" if they start now.

4) "To live the reality that time, like money, must be budgeted."

Some improvement here, but still need to jettison some time wasters and focus more on the truly important things.

5) "To blog daily."

One of the casualties of making progress on #4. Blogging is more of a "want to" than a "must do." It's unlikely to change in this year's "time budget" either.

6) "To truly live each day as if it were my last."

An ongoing objective; some days I can say I've met the objective ... others ... not so much.

So, I guess that I'll keep numbers 1-4 and 6 as goals for this year, too. All except "blogging daily." The rest still feel "right" ... from the tedious (managing my contacts) to the lofty (living each day fully), and I clearly haven't achieved them yet.

As to blogging, it'll still be something I do when the spirit moves or a topic incites, but daily isn't an objective for this year (or likely beyond). In part, that's because, like others, I've been demotivated by the increasingly bilious tenor of the VA political blogosphere (who wants to be identified as a member of this peevish and, too often, juvenile club?). But, more importantly, I see my blog as a tool to serve my need for self-expression rather than as an independent imperative to which I am bound regardless of its usefulness or my need because some suggest that regularity (i.e., quantity) is a measure of the quality of a blog.

Thus, freed from the artifice of external imperative, I will continue to write when I have something I think worth saying, and will resist mightily the siren call to echo others when I actually have nothing meaningful to add.

With best wishes to all for a prosperous and happy 2007,
CG2

Enough Goode

I've known Virgil since we were both in law school (he was third year my first year) and I can say from experience that I liked him better back in the 70's when we were both campaigning for the Equal Rights Amendment or in the 80's when we both supported Doug Wilder for Lt. Governor and Governor. He has certainly "morphed" politically over the time that I have known him ... not for the better in my view.

Virgil says in his now infamous letter to some of his constituents (thanks, I'm Not Emeril, for the link to the full text), that we must "adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration" or there will be more Muslims elected to office and that we need to adopt "strict immigration policies" ... no more "diversity visas" to preserve "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."

Since when has discrimination based on race or religion been restored to status as a "traditional" "value" we must protect in America?

The gentleman elected to Congress who is a Muslim isn't an immigrant ... is Virgil really saying that a native born American citizen shouldn't be able to run for office because he is a Muslim? Is the implication here that, because Virgil sees the US as a "Christian nation," we must preclude nonChristians from seeking public office, even if they meet all other Constitutional requirements? Will he extend the election prohibition to Jews, Buddhists, atheists, Hindus, Quakers, Greek Orthodox ... Catholics, because, really, aren't we a Protestant Christian nation?

And, just what is the "Virgil Goode position on immigration" he demands we adopt? It is clear from his letter that it extends beyond reasoned opposition to illegal immigration and includes some largely unelucidated limits on legal immigration, but expressly includes elimination of the diversity visa program that Goode says is "allowing many persons from the Middle East" to come to this country.

The diversity visa program allows 55,000 (yup, thousand) people to emigrate to the US each year from countries with low rates of immigration. Each person must meet strict eligibility requirements (education and experience) and no person can come from a country that has sent more than 50,000 people to the US over the last 5 years. No more than 7% of the visas can go to people from one country in any one year. And, the 55,000 are divided among 6 global regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, Oceana, South America/Central America/Carribean). Note that some of the countries in Virgil's "Middle East" are categorized in Africa and some Asia.

Mexico, India, Pakistan, Canada, Great Britain, China, Poland, Russia are currently not on the list of countries from which diversity visa applicants can come. That means all of these countries have sent more than 50,000 emigrees to the US over the last 5 years ... note that countries typically thought of as being in the Middle East are on the list of countries with low rates of immigration.

So, what is Goode really saying when he says he wants to eliminate "diversity" visas and keep Middle Eastern people out and Muslims from gaining political office?

Despite protestations from his defenders, I think that it is very hard to see his letter as other than an exhortation informed by bias against people of certain races, ethnicity or religion.

And that makes me sad.

It is not the Congressman from Minnesota who wants to place his hand on the Quran when he has his ceremonial (not official) private (not public) swearing in with whom we should be concerned.

It is the people who are the terrorists and extremists among us and across the world on whom we should be focused, be they Muslim or KKK, Protestant or Catholic, home grown militia members or members of foreign terrorist organizations.

To today's Virgil, who appears to view all Muslims as born or religiously-made terrorists (regardless of citizenship or religious antecedents) I say, taking a rhetorial turn from his beloved gun rights organizations, the Muslim faith doesn't kill people, people do.

Visible Invisibility: Women of Color in Law Firms

That's the name of a new study just released by the American Bar Association regarding the experience of women of color in law firms with 25 or more lawyers.

What did the study find? One of the study co-chairs, Paulette Brown said: "I thought the numbers would not be good. I didn't know they'd be so startling."

More from a report on Law.Com by Susan Hansen of The Minority Law Journal:

Of women attorneys of color, 44 percent reported being passed over for desirable assignments, compared with 39 percent of white women, 25 percent of men of color and only 2 percent of white men. (The study covered law firms of 25 lawyers or more; more than 1,000 lawyers responded to the online questionnaire.)

Nearly two thirds of those women -- 62 percent -- said that they had been excluded from formal and informal networking opportunities, compared with 4 percent of white men.

Almost half of women of color -- 49 percent -- reported being subjected to demeaning comments or other types of harassment at their firms.

The examples of such harassment that respondents described in written comments and follow-up focus groups would make even the most vocal critic of political correctness cringe.

One Native American lawyer, for instance, recalled being asked where her tomahawk was and whether she would mind being called Pocahontas. A Korean associate recounted that her firm's managing partner introduced her to a Korean client with the words, "She eats kimchi just like you." Soon after, the managing partner left a message on her voicemail in which he tried to sound like an Asian speaker. Another Asian-American woman reported hearing herself described as "a dragon lady" at her firm, while an African-American associate said that she was labeled "an angry black woman."

To [study co-chair Arin] Reeves, the sheer number of minority women reporting those kinds of comments was a major surprise.

"We've sort of been in this mode where [law firms] think they've left this kind of harassment in the past," says Reeves. Unfortunately, she adds, the study shows that firms still have a lot of basic work to do to make women of color feel welcome -- such as making sure they're in compliance with anti-harassment laws.

Reeves may have been surprised but I'm not.

There is open hostility and rising fear out there regarding the rate of change in America .. change that has pushed women into the majority among undergraduates in college ... change that is moving America consistently in the direction of greater population diversity and a reversal of the definition of "majority" and "minority" in some states (California, Texas) and many urban areas (Washington, DC) ... change that is moving America toward greater tolerance, and, ultimately, acceptance of sexual minorities.

This fear and hostility often reveals itself in the treatment of those perceived as less powerful ... women of color, gays and lesbians, immigrants, geeks in schools controlled by jocks, etc.

These folks are like the canaries in the coal mine. Evidence of continued intolerance toward the less powerful (the least of us), especially where such intolerance is accepted or rationalized (whether by faith, homeland security or otherwise), is a powerful suggestion that all is not well in our democracy.

We who fail to see the signs, those who refuse to speak out against intolerance/injustice where ever it appears, may yet reap a bitter harvest, as those who have power act to keep it and we who remained silent end up like the women in The Hand Maid's Tale consigned to certain roles by the will and force of "the majority."

"The years forget our errors, and forgive our sins, but they punish our inaction with living death." Robert Grudin, Time and the Art of Living

The Amendment Bit Allen Coming and Going

Looking at the CNN exit polls, it seems quite clear that the Marshall/Newman amendment hit Allen coming and going.

Early polling indicated that African American voters were not significantly more likely to vote yes on the marriage amendment than white voters. And this was born out by CNN's exit polls which showed white voters at 58-42 and black voters at 56-44.

On the other hand, CNN exit polls also indicate that black voters made up 16% of the electorate in this election. If that holds true, it means black voters made up a higher percentage of the electorate than in any other statewide election except Wilder's gubernatorial victory(17%).

Since black voters are more reliably Democratic in partisan contests (of which the amendment was not one), the push by va4marriage to turn out more pro-amendment voters, including those from African American constituencies, certainly did backfire on Allen.

The effort caused more black voters to turn out than otherwise would have been the case, and when they did turn out to vote yes on the amendment, they voted for Webb.

That this was an important aspect in Webb's victory seems clear where, as here, turnout in many high Democratic performance precincts was, on the whole, lower than in high Republican performance precincts.

Put this together with the fact that The Commonwealth Coalition's GOTV campaign was focused on turning out anti-amendment voters in swing districts (35 to 65% Dem performance) and anti-amendment voters were, on the whole, two to three times more likely to vote for Webb than Allen regardless of party.

Thus, it is fair to say that the ballot question turned out voters both for and against the amendment who were less likely to vote for Allen than for Webb.

Ironic, isn't it?

Just Asking ....

In George Allen's TV commercials he talks about his "more than 10 years" of public service to Virginia.

And, John Warner says Allen "has stood with me side-by-side for 22 years and no one ever challenged our record."

Is there some part of Allen's record that he isn't proud of?

Does Allen think we can't count?
8 years in the General Assembly
2 years in Congress
4 years as Governor
6 years as Senator

Maybe he's afraid that folks will think of him as a "career politician"? [After all, he's never had a "real job."]

Just asking ....

It's been almost a month since I posted here. Been busy over at Blogging the Amendment ... no time for flights of fancy or frivolity. Not even time for serious reflection.

But, tonight the well-documented reports of active voter suppression throughout Virginia has me wondering ... where is the blistering law and order commentary that I've come to expect from Commonwealth Conservative and the rest of the folks in the Old Dominion Blog Alliance?

Do you all not care about the rule of law? Is it okay in your eyes for cynical purveyors in the political consulting world to instigate, invent or implement the kinds of activities reported today (telephone calls telling someone they are registered in NY and it will be criminal for them to vote in VA; fliers telling folks to skip the election)? Where is the outrage and gnashing of teeth about election fraud that usually accompanies the justification for voter ID requirements? Where is the concern for the integrity of the process that one hears routinely when anyone suggests same day registration or even no-excuse absentee voting?

Would you all in the Old Dominion Blog Alliance rather win an election by dirty tricks and outright criminal behavior than lose honorably and honestly?

I sure hope not.

Time to speak up and speak out against this kind of behavior.

If you don't, we'll have to assume that you think that it's okay to do this kind of thing as long as you win.

Representation without Taxation? Different Rules for Different Voters

We're fixing to create two classes of temporary residents in the Commonwealth when it comes to voting. Students and the military.

Now don't get me wrong ... my dad was in the Army for 39 years and retired as a 4 star general. I support the folks in the military and am grateful for their service ... including the "service" of the families who often don't get adequate recognition for the sacrifices they make!

But, I can't for the life of me figure out why we should we want folks to vote in Virginia when they choose to maintain their domicile in another state just to avoid paying taxes in Virginia.

Representation without taxation? As a taxpaying Virginian, I don't think it's right to say that folks who refuse to invest here should help decide who represents me. But that's exactly what Bob McDonnell seems to be okaying in an official opinion that he wrote to the Secretary of the State Board of Elections that was released this week.

To be registered to vote, one must both reside in Virginia and be domiciled in Virginia. Domicile requires a present intention to remain indefinitely. The attorney general says that a military person who tells Virginia he isn't subject to taxation because he resides elsewhere for tax purposes cannot automatically be denied the right to register to vote in Virginia. To that I say, why the heck not?

It's one thing to change the law as we did this year to grant active duty military and their dependents the automatic right to in-state tuition as a gift from the taxpayers of Virginia in recognition of their service. But, it's quite another to say that these same folks who choose not to pay taxes here should have a role in deciding who represents those of us who do (especially locally).

The Attorney General's opinion is just another in an increasingly long line of opinions written to advantage his political supporters (e.g., the opinion saying the governor can't set personnel policy, the opinion on the budget, the opinion on the bill opening up the chance to qualify for in-state tuition to undocumented children, the opinion requiring proof of legal presence for business licenses, and the opinion on the so-called marriage amendment).

Who benefits here?

Thelma Drake is in a tough political fight in the 2nd Congressional district. Her district has a number of active duty military families living in it who have their tax homes elsewhere. Those same folks also populate Paula Miller's Norfolk house of delegates district, sure to be hotly contested in 2007, and others like them are heavily represented in NOVA legislative districts also likely to be fiercely contested in 2007. The AG's opinion is clearly intended to offer a perceived political advantage for Republican candidates in these districts.

Now, let's contrast this with what's going on with voter registration for college students.

The Daily Press ran a story this week headlined:

"W&M PRESIDENT CRITICIZES PROPOSED VOTER REGISTRATION GUIDELINES AS UNFAIR TO COLLEGE STUDENTS"

The president's comments refer to uniform voter registration guidelines proposed by the State Board of Elections that he says will lead to some students being treated differently than others when they register to vote.

According to the article:

Nichol, a law professor, has called Virginia's voter registration process unconstitutional because students at some colleges can register to vote in their college towns while others can't. Williamsburg's voter registrar doesn't consider students with dorm addresses permanent residents of the city.

"Constitutional standards demand uniformity," Nichol wrote. The General Assembly could follow Iowa's lead by passing legislation giving permission to students to choose where they want to vote, he wrote.

"Accordingly, a student who grew up in Richmond and whose parents still reside there, but who is now attending college in another Virginia community, could choose to vote either in her new locale or where she grew up," he wrote. "That rule could then be applied uniformly across the Commonwealth."

Nichol's comments make sense ... particularly if we're going to define domicile differently for the Commonwealth's other large class of temporary residents ... the military and their families.

And, students who live and work here while in college are taxpayers ... they don't have the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act to protect them from Virginia law that says if you live here for 12 months, you have to pay taxes here:

""Resident'' for purposes of taxation, except as to Chapter 3 (§ 58.1-300 et seq.) of this title or as otherwise specifically provided, includes every person domiciled in the Commonwealth on the first day of any tax year, and every other person who has had his place of abode in the Commonwealth for the longer portion of the twelve months next preceding January 1 in each year, unless on or before that day he has changed his place of abode to a place outside the Commonwealth with the bona fide intention of continuing actually to abide permanently outside the Commonwealth.

The fact that a person who has so changed his place of abode, within six months from so doing, again abides within the Commonwealth shall be prima facie evidence that he did not intend permanently to have his actual place of abode outside the Commonwealth. Such person so changing his actual place of abode and not intending permanently to continue it outside the Commonwealth and not having listed his property for taxation as a resident of the Commonwealth for the purpose of having his personal property listed for taxation in the Commonwealth, shall be deemed to have resided on the day when such property should have been listed, at his last place of abode in the Commonwealth. The fact that a person whose place of abode during the greater portion of such twelve months has been in the Commonwealth does not claim or exercise the right to vote at public elections in the Commonwealth shall not, of itself, constitute him a nonresident of the Commonwealth within the meaning of this term.

So ...

why then are we treating students, who most often are paying taxes on income here, differently from the military, who often choose not to pay income taxes here, when it comes to voter registration?

I think the answer is clear.

Because the perception is that the military are more likely to vote Republican.

Now, go back and read my post on why voters should care who our Attorney General is...

And, the one titled "McDonnell as Activist Judge"

While the Attorney General is certainly an elected official, and the office is obviously "political," I don't think any Virginia Attorney General has ever used his or her opinion writing power so blatantly to service his political base as General McDonnell has ... and we're still in the first year of his 4 year term.

States I've Visited

Couldn't resist playing the game that other Virginia political bloggers are playing.... and, yeah, if they're going to include DC, they should include Puerto Rico, Guam and the territories of the USA ... that way I'd be able to say I've been to Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands... and I could shoot for American Samoa and the Marianas.....don't think I'll work toward Johnson Atoll, though....

Of course, when I included the map here ... it screwed up my formatting ... so I've taken it out... showed that I haven't visited Mississippi, Arkansas, Alaska, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire. Other than that ... I've been there.


create your own visited states map

Blogging the Amendment and Other Distractions

Saw Ben Tribbet (Not Larry Sabato), Vivian Paige, Waldo Jaquith, Kenton Ngo, and Jim Bacon at Warner's Pig Roast today.

Ben was basking in media attention from some guys filming a documentary on bloggers. I'm sure I should know who those guys were doing the filming and why they were doing it... but I was too busy working the crowd on the so-called marriage amendment to find out.

Ben did take time to give me a hard time about not posting regularly enough here, and he's right. I haven't lived up to my New Year's resolution about blogging daily, although if you count all the places that I blog or comment regularly in addition to here, some weeks I come close. Best laid plans and all.

Fact is right now I'm responsible for Blogging the Amendment and trying to keep things current there is about all I can say grace over given my other campaign responsibilities.

So, Ben, I'll continue to try to post here when I'm really moved by something (like the Andrew Young matter) or tickled by something (dead penguins), but look for me primarily on Blogging the Amendment between now and NOvember 7th. Defeating Ballot Question #1 is my priority and passion right now.

Come join me in that fight ... www.voteNOva.org.

Check out the ad that Not Larry Sabato calls the best of this cycle and then make a contribution over at www.voteNOva.org so we can get the ad the airtime it deserves!

Brad Pitt .... I knew I liked this guy

News reports quote Brad Pitt as saying in October's Esquire that he won't get married until everyone who wants to can.

Folks shouldn't be allowed to be that good looking and that willing to stand up for the other guy.

Of course, there will be the usually bloggery about what this all means ... but for me I'm just enough of a Pollyanna to believe that he's just a socially conscious nice guy who is committed to using his celebrity to advance causes about which he cares deeply.

Oh, yeah, I've been disappointed before, but I've never regretted believing in someone's good nature/social consciousness even when I turned out to be wrong.

On Andrew Young

This week a man for whom I have long had great respect disappointed me.

I am not referring to George Allen.

I am, of course, referring to Andrew Young.

Young was hired by Working Families for Wal-Mart to help the company defend itself against criticism of its business/economic model and its allegedly discriminatory employment practices (a role for which he'd previously been criticizedhimself).

In his role as chair of Working Families and Wal-Mart spokesman, Young was asked, according to news reports,"whether he was concerned Wal-Mart causes smaller, mom-and-pop stores to close."

His answer:

"Well, I think they should; they ran the `mom and pop' stores out of my neighborhood," the paper quoted Young as saying. "But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us, selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough. First it was Jews, then it was Koreans and now it's Arabs; very few black people own these stores."

This response drew "forceful condemnation" from several fronts, including from among leaders in the Jewish, Arab and Asian communities, and Wal-Mart executives, which led Young to resign from Working Families, which issued a statement calling the remarks "insensitive".

But, if Allen's apology for his recent public expression of personal prejudice was "feeble," Young's response was positively "incapacitated", even though preceded by "it's against everything I thought in my life":

Young, who has apologized for the remarks, said he decided to end his involvement with Working Families for Wal-Mart after he started getting calls about the story.

"Things that are matter-of-fact in Atlanta, in the New York and Los Angeles environment tend to be a lot more volatile," he said.

He also said working with the group "was also taking more of my time than I thought."

Mel Gibson came off as more sincere than that.

"Matter-of-fact"? Does he really mean that it would have been okay to say what he said in Atlanta, and that he only got in trouble for saying it because he said it in LA?

Young's comments haven't provoked the almost worldwide negative commentary and reaction that Gibson's and Allen's did.

Why not?

Partly, I suspect, because there is no video for YouTube, proving, once again, the power of the visual over text.

But, there is clearly a double standard here.

And, we shouldn't tolerate it!

To folks like Howling Latina who today tried to dismiss the Young comments as not worthy of press attention, much less opprobrium, I say (and said on her comment page, some of which is repeated below), I could not disagree more.

Why?

In reaching for some way to defend WalMart against growing criticism of their economic model and allegations of corporate discrimination against minority employees, Young fell into behavior he's criticized in others ... repetition of irrelevant religious, ethnic and racial stereotypes.

His language (and Allen's) reflect the growing divisions in this country, along ethnic and racial lines, where suddenly the term "immigrant" means folks (mostly people of color) who've come here in the last decade rather than all Americans who came here from somewhere else during the entire history of our great nation.

It is the willingness to use this kind of intemperate and inflammatory language about which I expressed concern in recent posts on this blog and Bacon's Rebellion.

Howling Latina and others demean themselves by trying to distinguish Young's words from Allen's words. Their offenses are equivalent, except that Allen's behavior clearly was, in part, that of school yard bully which gave his offense extra weight, particularly when judging his fitness for higher office.

Allen's and Young's (and Mel Gibson's)language is cut from the same cloth ... a cloth of intolerance and fear of other.

The ethnic and religious background of people who exploited the poor was irrelevant to Young's principle point ... that there have always been people ready to rip off the poor by providing poor quality goods and services at higher than average prices (see, e.g., pay day lenders) and that the Walmart effect (driving small businesses, including these alleged exploiters, out of the marketplace) isn't a bad thing given that history.

Young's unnecessary reference to the race, ethnicity and religion of some of these people, however, reflected a personal predjudice -- nothing more, nothing less.

Using ethnic or religious stereotypes isn't properly classified as "racist" but it certainly is intolerant, and can, as in this case, reflect deep-seated prejudice.

The Penguins May Have Died but The Chicks Live

I'm now an official Blogging Chick! Find other chicks who blog; learn more about the technical side of blogging; read the blogger chick carnivals over on BloggingChicks.

Nothing too serious now.

Bacon's Rebellion: Virginia's Marriage Amendment -- Not Just a Culture-Wars Issue

Jim Bacon gut says vote NO on Ballot Question #1, the Marshall/Newman amendment.

I'm with Jim.

Bacon's Rebellion: Virginia's Marriage Amendment -- Not Just a Culture-Wars Issue

Penguins Die in Crash; Octopus Uninjured

On a night when political junkies are surfing the net looking for the most recent results from the Connecticut and Georgia polls, how can you not get sucked in by a news link on CNN.com: Penguins Die in Crash; Octopus Uninjured.

Now the story is that a truck overturned carrying some unusual livestock.

"Four penguins and some exotic fish were killed in the accident, including three penguins that were hit by passing motorists, said Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper Richard Buchanan.

"The rest of the penguins kind of stayed together in the ditch," he said.

And the octopus was uninjured.

But, it coulda been worse:

The trooper said it was the oddest traffic accident he had ever handled.

"We've worked several wrecks involving cows, horses, pigs, even fish, but this is the first where the live animals were penguins."

Buchanan said he was glad the accident was not worse.

"There was another truck full of snakes and alligators that was an hour ahead of them, so luckily we didn't have to deal with the alligators," Buchanan said.

I know that there is a metaphor in here somewhere for Democrats watching tonight's election returns. I just haven't figured it out yet.

Keeping it Civil; "Hate" is Not a Political Slogan or a Civic Value

Update: Style Weekly published a slightly edited version of this post on its Back Page on August 30, 2006.

This morning I listened to a civil debate between surrogates for Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

Then, I read this quote from Buck O'Neil, a self-described "proud ... Negro League ballplayer," on the occasion of the induction this week of 17 Negro leaguers and Negro leagues executives into the National Baseball Hall of Fame:

And I tell you what: They always said to me, "Buck, I know you hate people for what they did to you or what they did to your folks." I said, "No, man, I never learned to hate."

I hate cancer. Cancer killed my mother. My wife died 10 years ago of cancer. I hate AIDS. A good friend of mine died of AIDS three months ago. I hate AIDS. But I can't hate a human being, because my God never made anything so ugly. Now, you can be ugly if you want to, but God didn't make you that way.

It got me thinking again about one of the points that Mary Sue Terry made in the great speech she gave at the recent Virginia Women in Politics Conference. After speaking thoughtfully about the need to use long-term thinking in solving current issues and avoiding lost opportunities, Terry urged careful consideration of the language of politics. She expressed concern about language that makes politics a war or battle rather than a conversation or discussion. She talked about the need to change the nature of political discourse. She urged women not to participate in the use of "war" and "battle" language in politics. She reminded the audience that the language used can become a predictor of behavior.

This is a theme I have visited before. In spring 2000, I asked noted linguist Deborah Tannen, who had just published her book, The Argument Culture: Stopping the War of Words, to address the language of conflict in politics at the annual Southern Women in Politics Conference held that year in Northern Virginia. She has spoken and written about this here, here and here.

Her message:

... there's something deeper that I'm trying to talk about-the power of words to frame how you think about things, how you feel about things, how you perceive the world. The tendency in our culture to use war metaphors so pervasively, and to frame everything as a metaphorical battle, influences how we approach each other in our everyday lives. We end up thinking problems are insoluble, because we have allowed the polarized extremes to frame the debate.

In March 2005, I wrote a piece titled: "Let's Change the Language of Politics -- It's Time to Stop the Hate." Writing about the use of the term "hate," particularly by Kerry supporters, in the 2004 presidential campaign, I said:

I have trouble understanding why many of my politically passionate friends (regardless of party affiliation) without hesitation describe their disagreement with particular politicians on policy as reasons to "hate" that person. ...

I believe "hate" is a term that should be reserved for persons whose actions are so antithetical to common decency and civility, such an affront to our common humanity, that they should provoke a visceral, unreasoned antipathy among all people of good heart and right reason.

Should we not "hate" our captors if we were Iraqi prisoners subjected to abuse and torture or the relatives of kidnapped civilians beheaded on video for worldwide consumption? Should we not "hate" terrorists who purposely kill civilians to make a political point? Should we not "hate" bigots who maim and kill solely because someone is of another race, religion or sexual orientation? ...

What troubles me about the almost routine use of the term "hate" to describe people with whom we disagree in our daily discourse on matters of public concern is that it desensitizes us to the real meaning of the term and the emotion and passion that it normally evokes.

Can leaders and parents teach tolerance or expect tolerance from our children when we are so ready to describe objects of mere political disagreements as people we "hate"? ...

Before we continue to speak about our political opponents as people we "hate", we should think about the message we are sending to our children about when it is okay to "hate." We should not be teaching our children that it is okay to "hate" anyone just because they have different beliefs, unless those beliefs are so abhorrent that they shock the conscience.

We should consider the words of President George Washington, and ask ourselves before we speak if our words will live up to his expectation of the "demeanor" of "good citizens":

"Happily the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction and to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demeanor themselves as good citizens."

We should give bigotry no sanction and persecution no assistance by sending the wrong messages to those we lead or nurture. As Max DePree says in his book Leadership Jazz, "[w]e are dealing with God's mix, people made in God's image, a compelling mystery." "We are all authentic in our own right; no person awards us authenticity; we are born with it."

No one is worthy of hate, when that assessment is made only because they bring to that mix a different point of view, a different tradition of faith or a different political position.

This is an important lesson to learn for those of us participating in the debates of this campaign season about candidates and issues, including the Marshall/Newman amendment.

We do ourselves and our causes no good if we stoop to name-calling and demonizing our opponents. We teach our children the wrong lessons if we teach them through the language we use that it is okay to hate someone for their beliefs or their being or that politics is a "battle" or "boxing match" properly "fought" from opposite "extremes" or opposing "corners."

Anyone who doubts the power of words to incite behavior need look no further than the recent incident of hate violence against a gay couple living peaceably in Loudoun County. Can anyone doubt that words of hate fueled the attack there?

I haven't quite gotten out of the habit of participating in the use of "fighting" references in my political lexicon, as Mary Sue recommended. But, I'm working on it. Bad habits are hard to break and good habits are hard to keep.

What I do know is this.

Hearts and minds are not changed by force of battle. They are led to change by love and the gentle persuasion of conversation and thoughtful consideration.

Spinning around the Poll; Allen Set Up for Election Day Surprise?

Not Larry Sabato has an early look at the most recent Mason/Dixon poll that shows Allen over Webb by 48% to 32%.

Bloggers for Allen are doing their level best, here, here and here to spin this and other recent polling as positively as they can for their candidate.

But, the reality is that Allen's consistent showing at or below 50% is a sure sign of trouble for him and any incumbent.

Check out this analysis over at PollingReport.com by Nick Panagakis , for example, that reports:

An incumbent leading with less than 50% (against one challenger) is frequently in trouble; how much depends on how much less than 50%. A common pattern has been for incumbents ahead with 50% or less to end up losing.

The key is the behavior of undecided voters. Again, according to Panagakis:

our analysis of 155 polls reveals that, in races that include an incumbent, the traditional answers are wrong. Over 80% of the time, most or all of the undecideds voted for the challenger.

And, as to the "spread":

The overwhelming evidence is that an incumbent won’t share the undecideds equally with the challenger. To suggest otherwise by emphasizing point spread or to say that an incumbent is ahead when his or her percentage is well under 50% leads to election day surprises.

But, according to Zogby, the 16 point spread shown in Mason/Dixon may indicate some break in the clouds looming over the Allen campaign:

... traditionally, the undecideds break for the challenger against the incumbent on the basis of the fact, simply, that the voters already know the incumbent, and it's a referendum on the incumbent. And if the incumbent is polling, generally, under 50 percent and leading by less than 10, historically, incumbents have lost 7 out of 10 times.

At a minimum, the weak Allen showing indicates that Virginia voters may be willing to consider a change. Check out this analysis of the Daschle/Thune race on election eve. Or this report re: Lieberman's travails.

It's up to Webb to prove that he's a viable challenger and preferable alternative to Allen. If he can do that, victory may be his on November 7th.

"Activist" Judges Defined; Test is Eye of the Beholder

Found this interesting definition of "activist judge" in the Christian Coalition of Georgia's 2006 questionnaire for judges, who unlike judges in Virginia, campaign to get elected:

"Judicial activism occurs when a judge interjects his or her own personal beliefs and policy views to achieve a desired outcome by failing to adhere closely and strictly to the text of a statute or constitutional provision."

The questionnaire asks candidates to declare that this would never be appropriate in any case.

It also goes on to ask judges (often in biased language and slanted wording) for their personal, moral or policy views on a variety of topics including:

Roe v. Wade
Denial of adoption based on sexual orientation
Domestic partner benefits
Same sex marriage
Prayer in schools
Flag burning and
Tort Reform

These are just some of the policy, personal and moral issues covered in the 37 question form candidates for Georgia judgeships are asked to sign.

Forget judicial independence. Forget that the common law tradition we brought from England is a tradition of judge-made law that still controls much of tort and contract law.

Just ask yourself, if personal views are to be set aside, why do we need to know what a judge's views are?

Now it's clear. The Christian Coalition is simply looking for judges who will be activists on their side of the issues.

Kind of like when Jerry Falwell went shopping for a federal judge (supported by the ACLU) when he wanted the Virginia constitutional provision banning the incorporation of churches declared unconstitutional under the federal constitution.

Now that a federal judge has held Virginia's constitutional limitation unconstitutional, the voters will be asked in the fall to vote to repeal it as "obsolete".

Seems kind of ironic doesn't it? Asking the voters to approve the unappealed finding of a single "activist judge" who held a provision of Virginia law must yield to the higher power of rights guaranteed in the federal constitution.

Where in the US constitution does it say that a church has a right to be incorporated? Does a church have freedom of religion? Isn't it a judicial extension of the First Amendment to say that its protection of individual religious free exercise extends to the corporate form of organizational entities?

Just asking.....

President Bush Commits Assault

Jaded JD has a LOL post up including this video clip of the President of the United States committing a simple assault (an unconsented touching) on the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

It's too generous to call what the President did sexual harassment, although it is clear that the President did something to the prime minister that he, clearly, would not have done to a male member of the G8.

This is one where a picture is worth a thousand words.

Now, I know that there are some who will defend this as a "nice" gesture, designed to ease the Chancellor's tension. That dog won't hunt.

My guess is that Merkel had annoyed the President or was perceived by him to be too assertive or to have too much power in the room. This move is one that asserts his role as the alpha male and is designed to diminish the stature of the person over whom he shows physical dominance.

I'd like to think that Bush is smart enough to have done this in a calculated way. Unfortunately, my guess is that it was simply an instinctive (and immature) reaction to a situation that was unconscious.

And, that speaks volumes about Bush, his stature on the world stage and his basic attitudes toward woman.

Scary isn't it?

Blogger badge

If I were smart I could get one of these on my sidebar without messing up my template format ...but having tried for longer than I care to admit... I have to admit I'm just not that smart.

Sisyphus: Commonwealth Coalition fundraising concert July 8th

Sisyphus has this post about a concert this weekend to benefit The Commonwealth Coalition, an organization of individuals and organizations committed to voting NO on the Marshall/Newman amendment.

Sisyphus: Commonwealth Coalition fundraising concert July 8th

Blogs United in Martinsville

Alton has posted up some more detail about the agenda for the Blogs United conference over at ImNotEmeril.

Topics on the program include libel, FOIA, Net Neutrality .... lots of time for schmoozing with fellow bloggers.

Attorney General McDonnell will speak again ... wonder if there's any chance for an elected Democrat to have a shot at the podium?

And, it would be nice if Vivian or Kat or one of the other talented women bloggers or women who could contribute to the topics on the agenda were added to the list of speakers/panelists.

Looking good, Alton... keep on keeping on.

Alton/ImNotEmeril ... I apologize... Send me more info, please

Alton:
You asked for an apology. Here it is.

I am sorry. I did not mean to hurt your feelings, impugn your integrity or cause any other personal affront or offense.

Please send me permalinks (other web addresses) (or post them in comments below) with the following information so that I can better help promote your efforts:
1) date, time, place of the bloggers conference you are planning;
2) names of persons participating in planning or scheduled to present;
3) program for the event;
4) information on registration;
5) posts or other communications inviting comments/participation from fellow bloggers;
6) any other information that would be valuable in marketing the conference to other bloggers.

Thanks.
Claire

2006 VA Political Bloggers Conference

Some random thoughts on this weekend's bloggers conference in Charlottesville (unfortunately, I was only able to be there on Saturday):

Decrying the Divide
I am disappointed that the Virginia political blogosphere has allowed egos, partisan bickering and polarization to divide bloggers into those who attended the "liberal" Sorenson conference (strange denomination given keynotes by McDonnell and Bolling, but it is true that conservative bloggers were outnumbered) and those who will attend a "conservative" bloggers conference in Collinsville in August.

Last year's blogger's conference was distinguished by the collaboration of Chad and Waldo bringing the blogging world together as a "community" to engage in reasoned discourse across philosophical and political lines. Perhaps we should all go to Collinsville to seek to rebuild communications across the silly battle lines drawn this summer, that is, if those of us who participated in this weekend's meeting are "allowed" to attend the other.

C'mon guys... Do we need to model our behavior on the traditional organizations that we all so often criticize? Wouldn't it be refreshing if we could come together despite egos and politics to engage each other as peers? We should try to do better.

Blue Dog
Being obstreperous and contentious is my friend Steve's brand. He didn't disappoint.

Campaign Finance
Chris Piper did his usual effective job helping folks understand the state campaign finance rules to the extent that they are understandable. Audience member, former governor's counsel, and campaign law expert, Lee Goodman, added great substantive comments to the discussion.

For the most part, using common sense works. If you get paid to blog, campaigns would have to report your fees just as they'd have to report any other payments for services. If you get paid to blog by others and you give your services to the campaign, the market value of the services should be reported as an in-kind contribution. If someone pays you for an ad, they'd have to report it; if you give a campaign free ad space for which you charge others, it's an in-kind contribution. But there are a lot of gray areas.

That's why it's time to seek greater clarity regarding the rules regarding "internet communications" in Virginia. The new federal rules (published March 27th) provide a helpful starting place. Under those rules, paid ads on blogs and payments for blogging services must be reported by campaigns. Otherwise blogging is pretty much exempt. There are other rules for mass emails, etc, that also deserve some thought.

Read the rules here, the FEC's FAQs here and some analysis here,and here.

Ethics and Standards of Conduct
Jim Bacon would be so pleased. Even the "wild westers" from last year seem to see some value in a voluntary code of ethics.

I agree with Mike Shear (WaPo reporter who was Saturday's lunch speaker) that, if a blogger wants to be seen as a journalist, a blogger has to act like a journalist -- not a repeater of idle gossip, innuendo and items of suspect truth.

I also believe that those of us in the blogospere who play varying roles, campaign worker, lobbyist, etc, owe it to our readers to make clear what role we are playing on our blogs or posts. Our profiles should contain sufficient information to allow readers to evaluate our biases. Specific posts should also include a disclaimer/other info where appropriate.

Pseudonymous blogging is not journalism. It is, like the Federalist Papers and other anonymous tracts, a platform for conveying a point of view without having to take responsibility for it or to hide from readers the bias/posture/profession/job of the author. That said, like the Federalist Papers, it is not inherently bad nor without redeeming social value.

Anonymous posting is the tool of the paid blogger or the troll or the irresponsible person or the person who wouldn't have the nerve to say or want to be judged for saying what he/she posts and who doesn't want to be tied to his/her doggerel even by a regularly used pseudonym.

EJournalism or Community
Bloggers need to decide 1) whether they are journalists (like Jim Bacon) who create an environment in which they publish information and opinion and where comments will, like letters to the editor, be less frequent and more substantive ;
or
2) whether they are writers/commentators trying to create an interactive community where they write and other folks come to share their views and opinions (hopefully, respectfully and with some measure of maturity).

I think that it is difficult to try to be both, although some seem to think it possible or a goal to be sought.

In either case, as Waldo says, you set the standard and you get back what you send out. If you are mature, you get mature. If you are juvenile, you get juvenile.

My blog is, unfortunately, in that wasteland in between jounalism and community.

Not regular enough nor informed enough to be journalism, and not "friendly" enough to generate community.

I need to think about that.

Let me know what you think.

Talking about a real woman

Okay. I admit it. I've got a "girl crush" on Dolly Parton.

I was at the Southern Women in Public Service conference in Nashville this week where Dolly was presented with the Lindy Boggs award for public service. She entered the ballroom to accept the award singing "9 to 5" ... gave a great speech ... got off some great one liners in an interview with 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Cissy Daughtry (think frumpy 60 something interviews not so frumpy ageless woman) ... and sang "her favorite song" "Coat of Many Colors" strumming her guitar expertly with improbably long fingernails.

Among the things she said I remember....

Asked to comment on her song for the movie Transamerica ... she began by saying that everyone should be free (as she says she is) to be exactly who they are. Then she reminded folks that she'd been nominated for "9 to 5" and lost in a year when Cissy Spacek did the Loretta Lynn movie and that this year she'd been nominated this year and lost when Reese Witherspoon was doing June Carter Cash in Walk the Line. She quipped that next time she hoped that she wouldn't be nominated in a year with a country music movie.

Asked what advice she had for a man thinking about becoming a woman she said, "I'd tell him the installation will be expensive, but it's the maintenance that will kill you."

Asked about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, she said that Republicans care about "the bottom line" and Democrats are more "top heavy." (Okay, think about it... Dolly Parton).

Asked what she thinks about dumb blonde jokes she said she didn't really mind them because she knows that she's not dumb and, more importantly, that she's not blond.

She poked fun at herself and had not a single remotely unkind word to say about anyone else.

She was "real" in every way you can imagine that matters, while acknowledging that almost none of what you see is "natural."

Dolly received her award in significant part because of her work in founding The Imagination Library.
Because of her efforts, children all over the country have books at home to inspire them to read and to help them prepare for school.

Let's see ... rich, smart, good looking, nice as can be, great sense of humor, focused on children as our future, great voice, wonderful songwriter ... etc, etc.

Now you can see why I'm smitten.

Watch out Men ... The Women are Coming

Two interesting articles recently highlight the enhanced role that women will play in the future of the American economy and in Washington politics ...

Cited on the Post's blog, On Balance,is an article that appeared in The Economist on April 12th (available online only to subscribers). In The Economist article titled Women and the World Economy, the lead was ...

WHY can't a woman be more like a man? mused Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady. Future generations might ask why a man can't be more like a woman.…

Commenting on the article, the Post blogger points out that women have made phenomenal progress in the last 50 years ... so much so that their success (and economic power) is beginning to threaten men. However, the reality of the marketplace is that women continue to make less than men on average.

One question that the article provokes for me is that posed by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid's Tale ... if men are threatened by women's economic strength, what steps might they take to stay in power and control rather than let "nature" and demography take its course?

And, if that weren't enough, today's K Street Confidential column in the business section of the Post is headlined "Women, Minorities Make Up New Generation of Lobbyists" Why the change? High powered women exiting government through the revolving door looking for work is one reason. Flexibility of the work is another. Here's a reason offered by a partner in a woman-owned lobbying firm:

"This town has shifted business models from the Old Boys Network to a focus on substance, competence and credibility," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal of Venn Strategies LLC, a woman-owned lobbying firm. "In the old model it was difficult if you were a woman. In the new model you can be a man or a woman and it doesn't matter."

Wow ... expertise over relationships or golf scores. What's this world coming to?

Ten Tips for Becoming an Effective Advocate

#1 Google rated blogger for women entrepreneurs,Kirsten Osolind, has a great feature on her re:invention blog. Every Saturday she posts 10 Tips for 10 Million Women -- featuring advice for women entrepreneurs by women entrepreneurs.

Last Saturday, she featured my Ten Tips for Becoming a Grass Roots Advocate (a revised and updated version of an article that I wrote for NAWBOTime). It's a handy reference for women business owners who want to succeed in the "business" of advocacy at the local, state or federal level.

Let Kirsten know if you've got 10 Tips that you'd like her to feature. You'll find the link to submit your wisdom on the blog.

The Path To Electing More Women May Lead Through Redistricting

GOP Hokie has been writing about the redistricting. Here's one thing he probably hasn't thought about:

American University Professor Barbara Palmer is the co-author of an interesting new book about women candidates for political office that got great coverage in David Broder's column in the Washington Post this week.

Among the most interesting of Palmer's findings reported by Broder is this:

Demographic changes now underway will increase the number of districts where women can compete. But the radical suggestion from Palmer and Simon is for states to use this knowledge of what makes a district "woman-friendly" in the next round of redistricting, after the 2010 Census, to increase substantially the number of women in Congress. As women in state legislatures position themselves for the coming redistricting battles, that's something they can keep in mind.

There's lots more of interest in the book, "Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling: Women and Congressional Elections," which looks at all of the women candidates who ran for Congress between 1956 and 2004 and identifies the characteristics of the districts in which they won and lost.

Sounds like a good read for anyone who wants to run for Congress or who would like to help identify women candidates for districts well-suited to electing them or who would like to know how to draw districts that would elect women!

Delegate Kilgore --- One Man --- Three Masters?

In a little noticed development upstate, Delegate Terry Kilgore has been named Dean of Institutional Advancement at the University of Appalachia, a new private university in Grundy. In the school's press release, Kilgore is quoted as saying he intends to continue representing clients in "serious injury" cases, and there's no indication that he intends to give up his seat in the legislature:

Delegate Kilgore noted that he is in the process of phasing out of his general practice of law and will maintain his legislative district office in Gate City where he and his wife, Debbie, also an educator, and their two children, Kayla and Kyle, continue to reside. “I will continue on a part time basis to represent a limited number of serious injury clients as part of my agreement with the University of Appalachia. It is important that I stay actively involved in the legal profession and it was not an easy decision to make this transition. But with all the expanding opportunities for further educating our high school graduates happening right here in Southwest Virginia I cannot resist doing what I can to make that happen on a larger and more aggressive scale.”

The head of the University said of Kilgore's selection:

"Terry will be instrumental in expanding program development, promoting scholarships and fundraising, and increasing the awareness of educational and health care needs of Southwest Virginia. He has shown great enthusiasm in taking this office and has begun making contacts and setting up site visits well before his start date. Terry strengthens our leadership team and will help make our mission become a reality.”

So, Terry will be an agressive advocate for the constituents who elected him, the University, and his continuing legal clients -- all at the same time. Wonder how we'll know when he's doing which job.

There is always the potential for conflict with a citizen legislature, but this may be a situation where it will be difficult to parse expected loyalties.

Can one man serve three demanding masters well and without conflict (especially when two of the jobs require significant fundraising)? Guess we'll find out.