Like millions of Americans, I was able to see the absolute joy experienced by hundreds of gay and lesbian couples who are now able to legally marry in Washington, DC. I wept when I saw television reports of couples who have been together, some for decades, finally able to share in the joy and happiness afforded automatically to their straight brothers and sisters.
Hooray for the Washington, DC City Council and Mayor Fenty for allowing all its residents full equality under the law just like our founding fathers intended.
More...
March 8, 2010
March 2, 2010
Dylan Ratigan Goes Off On Tea Party Guest, Kicks Him Off Show: ‘You’re Offensive’ (VIDEO)
On Tuesday afternoon, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan got so upset with one of his guests, "Tea Party" leader Mark Williams, that he cut off his mic mid-interview, dispatching him off the air prematurely. Williams was on MSNBC talking about his upcoming Tea Party Express nationwide bus tour culminating in Washington, DC on tax day, and the conversation heated up almost as soon as the segment began.
Ratigan began the segment by asking Williams how he draws the line between the "admirable and understandable" principles advocated by many in the Tea Party, and the radical and racist views of some "hiding" under the Tea Party umbrella.
More...
Ratigan began the segment by asking Williams how he draws the line between the "admirable and understandable" principles advocated by many in the Tea Party, and the radical and racist views of some "hiding" under the Tea Party umbrella.
More...
March 1, 2010
A Train Ride with the Rich and Famous
The Acela "high-speed" train between Washington, DC and New York City may cost three times as much and not go much faster than the regular Amtrak train but, boy, is it more interesting! Last week I was on the 10:00 a.m. train heading to New York for a celebration of my sister's 50th birthday. The really driven Washingtonians take the earlier train so this one was relatively uncrowded. I chose a nice window seat about halfway up the aisle of a car. My copy of The Washington Post and a bottle of water, along with my Blackberry and a great novel would see me through the expected three hour trip.
But fate intervened. A handsome older man with a shock of white hair strode down the aisle and claimed the seat directly behind mine. My brain took a moment to connect a name to the face but it came quickly -- Al Hunt. Washington media darling, head of Bloomberg News' DC bureau, husband of Judy Woodruff, friend of the rich and powerful, a true Washington insider. He settled in with his computer -- no earphones by the way -- to watch something on C-Span. As I was tucking my novel back into my bag, another debonair older gentleman came down the aisle and settled into the seat directly opposite mine. He looked famous, but him I couldn't place. Luckily, I didn't have to. He announced himself loudly on the phone as soon as he was seated, "Hey Buddy, it's Bill Chatfield."
More...
But fate intervened. A handsome older man with a shock of white hair strode down the aisle and claimed the seat directly behind mine. My brain took a moment to connect a name to the face but it came quickly -- Al Hunt. Washington media darling, head of Bloomberg News' DC bureau, husband of Judy Woodruff, friend of the rich and powerful, a true Washington insider. He settled in with his computer -- no earphones by the way -- to watch something on C-Span. As I was tucking my novel back into my bag, another debonair older gentleman came down the aisle and settled into the seat directly opposite mine. He looked famous, but him I couldn't place. Luckily, I didn't have to. He announced himself loudly on the phone as soon as he was seated, "Hey Buddy, it's Bill Chatfield."
More...
February 24, 2010
What I Told President Obama
Last week, I joined nearly two dozen human rights defenders for a White House meeting with President Obama and senior National Security Council staff. It was an opportunity for human rights defenders from around the globe who have gathered in Washington, DC for the 2010 Human Rights Summit to tell the President and his team about what is happening on the ground in our respective nations. Here is what I said:
We have no doubt that we are living through a period of global backsliding of democracy and autocratic assault on vital freedoms. We, human rights defenders in different countries, feel it with our own skin, in our own work and life, not only read in the Freedom House reports.
More...
We have no doubt that we are living through a period of global backsliding of democracy and autocratic assault on vital freedoms. We, human rights defenders in different countries, feel it with our own skin, in our own work and life, not only read in the Freedom House reports.
More...
J-Street IS Pro-Israel
It appears that J-Street is doing something that has never before happened in the history of American involvement with trying to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: it is flummoxing the Israeli government. And this is very unfortunate, indeed unnecessary. It started with Ambassador Oren's refusal to speak at J-Street's founding conference, a gathering of 1500 pro-Israel, pro-peace Jews in Washington, DC last fall. He has subsequently been working to dial back his rhetoric and now speaks of resolving the conflict between himself and J-Street. In fact, he had some very positive remarks about J-Street in his recent address to the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA) plenum in Dallas. However, his bosses in Jerusalem ratcheted up the animosity last week when Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon apparently called for a "boycott" of a United States Congressional delegation that J-Street brought to the region. After speaking to the Conference of Presidents and telling them that J-Street "should stop calling itself pro-Israel," Ayalon attempted, if only behind the scenes, to prevent Israeli government officials from meeting with the five House members. Yet, the delegation met with several members of the Knesset, defense officials, party leaders and opposition leaders. After releasing a statement calling for "clarification" from the Foreign Ministry, the delegation received an apology and a meeting. The Israeli press was alive with rumors and unsubstantiated stories about this issue, including some that attacked J-Street for lying about the whole affair. What is going on here? Why is there such unease between a newly minted, rising pro-Israel powerhouse in Washington DC, bringing Jews together around the cause of a negotiated two-state solution, and segments of the Israeli government? What is the fear?
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the more maddening issues in our world today. In no other conflict that I can think of in modern times do the parties know exactly how the conflict needs to end, yet face such a seemingly impossible road to getting to the end game. J-Street understands that a negotiated, fair and equitable two-state solution, one that sees a secure and prosperous State of Israel living alongside a contiguous, secure and prosperous State of Palestine, is the only way to end this conflict. And in fact, subsequent Israeli and American administrations have accepted this as the goal. What was once a pariah idea, the two-state solution, is now commonplace. So, why the rancor? One reason, I believe, is because J-Street is willing to push members of Congress and the Obama Administration to not sit on its hands while the parties refuse to negotiate; namely, J-Street is saying, "Talk about a two-state solution is not enough. What are you willing to do, right now, to help bring it about?" Action scares those in power, especially when it is easier to sit by and blame one side or the other for inaction and maintain the status quo. J-Street does not seek to undermine Israel; to the contrary, its policies and leadership seek to bolster the hope for achieving peace and ending the conflict by educating members of Congress to the complexities and nuances involved, pushing the Obama Administration to work harder on negotiations, and by bringing a more balanced and healthy dialogue to university campuses around the country. All of these efforts can only enhance the possibilities for peace. Why the Israeli government is not embracing these efforts is odd, to say the least.
More...
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the more maddening issues in our world today. In no other conflict that I can think of in modern times do the parties know exactly how the conflict needs to end, yet face such a seemingly impossible road to getting to the end game. J-Street understands that a negotiated, fair and equitable two-state solution, one that sees a secure and prosperous State of Israel living alongside a contiguous, secure and prosperous State of Palestine, is the only way to end this conflict. And in fact, subsequent Israeli and American administrations have accepted this as the goal. What was once a pariah idea, the two-state solution, is now commonplace. So, why the rancor? One reason, I believe, is because J-Street is willing to push members of Congress and the Obama Administration to not sit on its hands while the parties refuse to negotiate; namely, J-Street is saying, "Talk about a two-state solution is not enough. What are you willing to do, right now, to help bring it about?" Action scares those in power, especially when it is easier to sit by and blame one side or the other for inaction and maintain the status quo. J-Street does not seek to undermine Israel; to the contrary, its policies and leadership seek to bolster the hope for achieving peace and ending the conflict by educating members of Congress to the complexities and nuances involved, pushing the Obama Administration to work harder on negotiations, and by bringing a more balanced and healthy dialogue to university campuses around the country. All of these efforts can only enhance the possibilities for peace. Why the Israeli government is not embracing these efforts is odd, to say the least.
More...
February 19, 2010
Climate Skepticism and Clean Technology
When the UN awarded the Nobel prize to the scientists who make up the IPCC and Al Gore in 2008 for their work in documenting climate change from greenhouse gases, in the eyes of most of the world, the science on this issue was solved. In recent months, however, a number of events have given heart to climate skeptics who never went away. First hacked emails of scientists at the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia England contained statements that caused the institute's director, Phil Jones to resign. Then the IPPC's chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri became embroiled in conflict of interest questions. The weather itself turned cold at least in influential places like Washington, DC which received a huge snowfall last week. And Phil Jones recently told the BBC there is no statistically significant different in warming trends now and in the 19th Century. The cascade of events brought the issue to the editorial page of the New York Times which this week published an editorial on the controversy, saying the stakes are so high that scientists need to act in a way that is beyond reproach. The new datapoints are not enough to change the views of experts, but they have given the skeptics ammunition with which to launch a full scale offensive in the conservatie media and led, Donald Trump, for example, to call for Al Gore's Nobel prize to be revoked.
While I am not a climate scientist, to my mind abornormally cold weather could be as much an argument for climate change as abnormally hot weather and what happens in Washington DC is not representative of the planet as whole. But I believe these questions are best left to scientists. The question I want to address is whether cold weather this year has any bearing on the need to build a cleaner more efficient economy. In my view, the answer is no. The business and policy case for clean technology is compelling whatever may be happening to global temperatures year to year.
More...
While I am not a climate scientist, to my mind abornormally cold weather could be as much an argument for climate change as abnormally hot weather and what happens in Washington DC is not representative of the planet as whole. But I believe these questions are best left to scientists. The question I want to address is whether cold weather this year has any bearing on the need to build a cleaner more efficient economy. In my view, the answer is no. The business and policy case for clean technology is compelling whatever may be happening to global temperatures year to year.
More...
February 5, 2010
Obama’s Message to Undocumented Immigrants: No Se Puede
It's quite possible that President Obama's omission of a comprehensive immigration reform agenda in his State of the Union address is exactly the spark that immigration reform proponents needed to reinvigorate their efforts. Activist groups are drawing on their frustrations to develop new campaigns to bring immigration reform back to the forefront, as illustrated by Illlinois Representaive Luis Gutierrez's visit to Olvera Street in Los Angeles.
This single event brought together representatives from a broad array of immigration reform supporters, like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, labor unions, immigrant advocacy organizations and student activist groups. A similar trend seems to be occurring in other places, such as Illinois, where a student group, the Immigrant Youth Justice League, raised $243,000 on Saturday to bring 10,000 marchers to Washington, DC next month to lobby for immigration reform.
More...
This single event brought together representatives from a broad array of immigration reform supporters, like the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, labor unions, immigrant advocacy organizations and student activist groups. A similar trend seems to be occurring in other places, such as Illinois, where a student group, the Immigrant Youth Justice League, raised $243,000 on Saturday to bring 10,000 marchers to Washington, DC next month to lobby for immigration reform.
More...
February 4, 2010
The End of the Corporate Zombie?
Washington, DC -- There are two clear impacts from the Supreme Court decision to treat corporations as American citizens -- regardless of how controlled or where domiciled -- for purposes of political spending (if not yet direct cash contributions to candidates). The obvious impact will be a flood of campaign spending by corporations, one that further undermines the substance of a free press and of elections where each citizen's influence is, approximately, equal. But the second impact will cut the other way. The Citizens United decision was such a naked power grab, such a nihilistic violation of conservative jurisprudence, and it came at such a fractured time, that it might just spawn a counter movement so powerful that the decision's alleged beneficiaries, major multinational corporations, may come to view it as a disastrously Pyrrhic victory.
More...
Let's begin with the legal theory. Here's the majority's reasoning: We found in 1886 (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) that "corporations are people." And we later found, in 1st National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, that "money is speech, unless delivered directly to a candidate." Therefore, corporate money cannot be constrained at election time.
More...