On one of my (many, frequent, and inadvisable) study breaks (eep!), I found this video. It's too irresistible to keep to myself. Enjoy!

"On the twelfth day of Christmas, the liberals gave to me:

• Twelve senators failing


• 11% Approval


• Ten Paychecks burning


• Nineteen thousand freezing


• No more secret ballots


• 700 billion in new spending


• Six troop funding cuts


• Hillary's Woodstock museum!


• Four bucks a gallon


• Al Franken ranting


• Two liberal Udalls


• And a tax hike for every family!

"If you thought our singing was bad... just wait until the Democrats get their hands on your paycheck next year" ~Paid for by the Republican National Senatorial Committee. (I'm sure their viewers will be glad this is what they're spending their money on)

read more...

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

This simple phrase was the touchstone of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign against H.W., who was trying to change the subject. The Clinton Administration presided over a period of booming economic growth, and that—more than his social or foreign policy records—is what he is remembered for.

When it comes down to social values, Democrats aren’t winning anyone over. But a healthy economy is one thing everyone can agree on—and it’s a battle that has been largely overshadowed in the early part of the millennium.

The treasury department announced a voluntary plan among lenders to help alleviate the pain of the sub-prime mortgage crisis by encouraging lenders to not increase interest rates on certain sub-prime loans. The idea is to stabilize the real estate economy to prevent economic growth from being undermined—and in the process, help out a few people who would otherwise lose their homes.

So before the Democrats leap feet-first into judgment, they should remember Clinton’s famous words. The subprime lending proposal should be evaluated strictly in terms of the health of the economy for everybody—and not just the advantage of a very small sectors such as the real estate and lending markets.

Democrats and Republicans alike don't place the economy at the forefront of their campaigns. But if partisan politicians aren't concerning themselves with the issue, the everyday American certainly is. When it comes to winning elections, the promise of a strong economy is an enticing one. The Democrats ought to use this opportunity to refocus attention where it has been severely lacking: the economy, stupid.

read more...

According to a recent National Intelligence Estimate, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003—but George Bush isn’t buying it. During today’s press conference with CSPAN, Bush struggled through a convoluted statement regarding Iran. Blanketed within defensive mumbles and rhetoric was the profound concern that “they could restart it.”

The NIE was called for by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was reacting to the “scary noises” being made about a possible military strike in Iran. Many hoped the report would hush the Administration’s vague suggestions of the strike, which Bush had refused to rule out in October, after Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the possibility. Bush took the case a step further when he claimed that preventing Iran’s weapons program was essential to “avoiding World War III.”

C-SPAN press seemed skeptical of Bush’s aggressive attitude towards Iran. Many of the questions posed drew parallels to the phantom WMDs in Iraq, and at one point a reporter asked the President, “Are you concerned that the United States is losing credibility in the world and now may be seen as the boy who cried wolf?”

Granted, the report warned that Iran could enrich enough Uranium to build a nuclear weapon by 2010. But with a weapons program that has been dormant for four years, does Iran constitute a threat to world peace? Bush still thinks so. The President’s reaction to the NIE echoes a growing concern that the lame-duck President will launch a strike against Iraq before January 2009, leaving the next President with an even bigger mess to clean up.

Iran’s aggression is doubtlessly uncomfortable, and perhaps Bush is right in remaining vigilant and keeping the issue on the table. But the possibility of another strike is even less appealing, current facts considered. I think Wonkette says it best with their headline:

“Bush’s opinion on Iran hasn’t changed, and that’s why 65% of America thinks he’s an idiot.”

read more...

Mike Huckabee is now the front-runner for the Republican nomination in Iowa. If that’s surprising to you, it shouldn’t be—though his numbers in the polls were slow to pick up momentum, there’s something about Mike that might appeal to Republican voters more than Romney’s polished charisma, Giuliani’s middle-of-the-road electability, or McCain’s resume. Huckabee has genuine, down-to-earth personality and an earnestness that just might play to his advantage in less than a month, when Iowa takes the first step towards choosing our presidential nominees.

Huckabee is now leading in Iowa polls by an even greater margin than Obama, supported by 29% of likely caucus-goers. His campaign has been slowly building him up to be a candidate with an almost universal appeal: an ordained Baptist minister, Mike plays bass in a band and is now running campaign ads that boast of Chuck Norris’ support. With his staunch Christian values and his socially conservative bent, Huckabee caters easily to values voters. But this isn’t the be all and end all of his campaign, as he is also an advocate for issues such as health care, federal arts funding, and climate change. With his wide range of issues and his pop-culture endorsements, he is reaching for the support of all conservatives.

And he just might be getting it. With the Iowa caucus just a month away, conservative voters are thinking hard about candidate electability. Only time will tell, but Mike Huckabee might pass the test. Due to the relative lack of attention given to his campaign in the early months of election coverage, he has come out with an untarnished reputation. What’s more, he has a sense of humor that might appeal to younger conservative voters.

Says Huckabee, “I certainly think social issues matter, because they go to the core of our convictions and principles. But I don’t think that’s all there is…People look at a history of effective government. People want somebody who actually has a record of being able to accomplish something — not just talk about it, but do it.”

As of now, It’s hard to tell whether voters are really taking Huckabee seriously. Still, though the cards have yet to be drawn, Democrats might be faced with an unexpected opponent next fall. The question is, how far will Huckabee’s charm take him in wooing the nation’s undecided voters?

read more...

It’s basketball season, which means that our campus is once again bleeding Hoya blue. Excitement ran high after we crushed Michigan 74-52 at our last home game. But while everyone else was screaming the fight song, a friend of mine was having a nationality crisis.

She is the quintessential international Hoya—half French, half Filipino, she was born in Venezuela and raised in Singapore. (And yes, she’s in the SFS). Which explains why she might not know all of the words to our national anthem. And sure, she wasn’t wild about placing her hand over her heart and staring at the American flag, waving high above our heads in the stadium rafters. What America had to do with basketball, she wasn’t sure, though she was willing to play along. But the climax of the anthem inspired in her a profound sense of isolation, as she stood surrounded by her apparently reverent American peers. It prompted a question I stumbled over, whose answer seemed at once obvious and uncomfortable. She asked me why Americans cheer at the words “the land of the free.”

It’s true—every time I’ve heard the Star Spangled Banner, the applause is loudest at our anthem’s natural climax, the word “free” striking the song’s highest note. Nowadays, the anthem is linked to the stadium crowd, to hot-dog-and-popcorn-toting fans clutching extra-large slurpees to their chests as they murmur along with the celebrity vocalist du jour. “The land of the free” is a phrase both sets of fans in the stadium can agree on; it may be the only time during the game that the two sides are cheering for the same reason. Watching my bewildered friend describe our reaction as the “American swagger,” I couldn’t help but think of the political visions for America in 2008. For me, it begs the question, which side of the political spectrum is really fighting for the land of the free?

Americans are divided on more issues than Congress can legislate in a decade. So, too, are they divided on what freedom means for America. Democrats and Republicans alike cheer along with the stadium fans when talking about America as a free nation. But the Land of the Free is a big claim to make—and a liberal opinion of our country is not without its share of censure. Truthfully, many aspects of America are not all that free. Antiquated laws prevent certain marriages on no justifiable basis, and many poor children still receive little or no medical care. And while conservatives are all vying for the best way to defend our country from an elusive enemy, a Democratic administration will be faced with the weighty task of correcting the fractured image of America abroad. A Republican administration, on the other hand, seems to envision freedom from taxes, gun control, and atheists. Many of the issues dividing the parties boil down to various “freedoms from” and “freedoms to”—gay marriage, border control, abortion, the War on Terror, tax reform, the 2nd amendment, and civil rights, to name a few. Though the Republicans are heralded as the patriot’s party, conservative campaign slogans such as Tancredo’s “It’s your culture: fight for it!” seem to fly in the face of any logical understanding of freedom.

As a liberal, I do my fair share of critiquing the current government. But I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to stand with my hand over my heart and sing our national anthem. Yet I am not fully confident when our collective voices reach that highest note. The land of the free is a vision for the future, it is about hope and about progress. A successful Democratic administration must not compromise our freedoms for power’s sake. But just like that old joke, maybe that’s why Francis Scott Key put “freedom” such a high note—because it’s so hard to reach.

read more...

The pro-life / pro-choice debate has long been a point of contention within American partisan politics. Simply put, democrats are pro-choice, republicans are pro-life, and the public votes along these lines. But this oversimplification is being tested now that a pro-choice Republican is running for president—and now stands as the Republican frontrunner.

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, only two U.S. presidents have been Democrats, and nearly all of the Republican presidents have been pro-life. Furthermore, Republican administrations are responsible for 12 of the past 14 Supreme Court nominations. The issue was tested again in 1992 regarding the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which overruled five provisions for abortions in the state of Pennsylvania. Abortion remains legal, despite the supremacy of pro-life administrations. But the debate persists as a key component of any candidate’s platform.

On Wednesday, Fred Thompson was officially endorsed for president by the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization. He was touted as “the best candidate to beat Giuliani.” But does this matter? The coming election might test just how powerful a constituency the religious right is. The question remains, does the religious right have enough power to swing the entire primary in a more conservative direction?

A Giuliani nomination—horrifying as that may be—will stand out as a landmark for the Republican Party. Whether the religious right will endorse a third party candidate and (foolishly) split the Republican vote (handing victory to the Democrats) remains to be seen. But should they follow the Republican Party in supporting Giuliani, this might be an indicator that the religious reigns on American conservatives are loosening- or, if nothing else, that the pro-life debate is losing its sway.

read more...

Run a search for the word “Liberal” in Google. Just a few entries down, underneath the Wikipedia articles and dictionary definitions, is Conservapedia.com’s ever-brilliant perspective. Yes, it’s their word now. The conservative website (self-titled “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”) defines liberalism in a nut shell, beginning with the “denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)” and including “support of obscenity and pornography”, “limits [to] conservative talk radio”, and “opposition to a strong American foreign policy.” The accompanying illustration, The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat, provides a nice summary of today’s understanding of Liberals and their silly, self-serving, and anti-American principles.

The term “Liberal” now brands Democratic politicians—it has become an insult rather than a political position. The word is thrown around with a new conservative spin, using phrases such as “the liberal media,” “tax-and-spend liberal,” and “dirty liberal hippie” to disparage ideals once considered to be Democratic. The 21st century Liberal is imprudent, radical, even silly—and to be labeled a Liberal is political suicide. But its connotation now extends far beyond the limits of its definition; indeed, popular understanding has altogether changed the meaning of the term. Today’s most powerful Democrats refuse to call themselves Liberals, instead opting for the elusive “Progressive” label. What the substantive difference is between these two ideologies is unclear, except that the former has been hijacked by the conservative wing to represent all that is wrong with the Democratic Party in general.

First of all, let’s go back to the origins of the word “Liberal”. Having its root in the word for freedom, to be liberal is to be generous, tolerant, open, and understanding. Outside of a political context, one can give liberally, have liberal amounts of, or be liberal-minded. And Liberalism as a political ideology emphasizes freedom and equality, insisting on individual rights and equal opportunity. Now, that doesn’t sound silly to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like the platform of a Progressive—or whatever it is that the Democrats are calling themselves these days. Yet Democrats have developed an aversion to the word, succumbing to the negative spin placed upon it by conservatives. Conservatives would logically demonize Liberals—after all, they are proponents of fundamentally different values and policies. Fending off the Liberal label only legitimizes the conservative smear campaign aimed at making the Democrats into something ridiculous. But why are Democrats running from the very principles that define their Party? If they are looking for conservative approval, they are certainly not going to find it by touting Progressivism in its stead.

To be sure, the Democrats are trying to cultivate a less “radical” image to appeal to a wider audience (for wider audience, read centrist voters). Liberalism no longer represents the noble ideals the Democratic Party once stood for—instead, it seems to belong in the derogatory word pool with the Commies and the Fascists. There is no conservative equivalent to this rejected term. Calling someone a conservative merely describes his or her political position, one with which you can agree or disagree. Whereas Democrats plug their ears when they hear the word ‘Liberal’, ‘Conservative’ just doesn’t have the same ring. Republicans stand their ground on conservative issues, while Democrats waver self-consciously between left and center. They are eager to please and easy to upset, and as a result have cultivated an image insecure in their own principles. The refusal to embrace the term is a concession of sorts, admitting that there is something ridiculous about the Democratic Party. Our fear of the word ‘Liberal’ gives ammunition to the conservative campaign against the very values Democrats claim to hold.

Political success does involve compromise, and alienating more moderate voters will undoubtedly prove fruitless. But it doesn’t have to, and indeed it must not, involve sacrifice. Relinquishing control of the Liberal label to the conservatives is a political defeat that extends beyond the thesaurus. The truth is, Democrats are liberals—but liberal is not synonymous with radical. We must recover ‘liberal’ from the conservative smear machine and reestablish it in terms of truly Democratic values. ‘Liberal’ is not a dirty word, and a Liberal by any other name is still a Liberal.

read more...

Michael Mukasey was confirmed as the 81st attorney general late tonight, but by a very narrow margin. The Senate voted 53-40 to confirm Bush’s nomination, only six of which were votes made by Democrats. This is the closet vote of its kind in over 50 years. When President Bush first nominated Mukasey, his victory looked promising, and many Democrats viewed the retired federal judge as a “consensus nominee”—and the best they could hope for during the tail end of the Bush Administration. However, Mukasey is now unpopular among Democrats for his weak position on the constitutionality of waterboarding. In his October 18th testimony, Mukasey would only go so far as to condemn the use of torture for interrogation purposes, but at one point refused to define waterboarding as torture. This unpopular stance was widely criticized, and the attorney general’s success seemed doubtful.

The six Democrats who voted to confirm Mukasey as the next attorney general ultimately viewed their decision as a practical matter. Though critiquing his views on the state-sanctioned use of a torture technique, Senators such as Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) considered him to be the best—and safest—compromise, especially in Alberto Gonzales’ wake. Politics aside, Democrats and Republicans alike hope that Mukasey can clean up the justice system of late. However, dissenters fear that Mukasey’s position on torture already indicates a path towards a dangerous alliance between the Justice Department and Bush’s top aides, who espouse controversial anti-terrorism techniques.

All four of the Senate Democrats running for President—Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd—announced their opposition to nominee, but were not present when the vote took place. Their presence would not have been enough to avoid the nomination altogether, but a 49-44 vote is an even closer call. That another disappointing nominee has secured a position of power—despite his overwhelming lack of support from the Senate Majority—stands out as another example of Congress embracing a defeatist attitude: Attorney General Mukasey may not be the right guy, but he’s the best we can do.

read more...

Powershift 2007, a four-day national youth conference, will convene at University of Maryland tomorrow. The conference is sponsored by the Energy Action Coalition and is expected to attract 6,000 students from all over the country (including many Georgetown students). Powershift aims to increase energy and environmental awareness among students, and encourage political participation as well. Its goals are to “to make the U.S. Presidential candidates and Congress take global warming seriously, to empower a truly diverse network of young leaders, and to achieve broad geographic diversity”.

Powershift 2007 is the largest national youth summit of its kind, and will feature keynote speakers such Nancy Pelosi and Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection Agency. After two days of workshops and panels, the conference will travel to D.C. to lobby Congress and to rally on the steps of Capitol Hill.

“Power Shift will take the climate movement to new levels. At this conference, leaders of our generation will share ideas, learn new skills, make new connections, establish a national voice for our generation, and send a united message to our national leaders: we are moving beyond the same old special interests, empty promises, and inadequate results to embrace a new paradigm that leverages our strengths and achieves what is possible for our future. Something incredible is happening.”

read more...

November 4, 2008. If you’re anything like me, chances are you’re waiting for this day with bated breath. But what about November 6, 2007—an election that is taking place not next year but next week? Back in my hometown, the local Democrats have spent close to a million dollars to regain control of the school board and reinforce their majority in the township board of commissioners. But this is an off-off year election, and voter turn out is predicted to be 20% at best.

When asked, I say I’m from Philadelphia. That’s because few outside of the area know anything at all about Lower Merion, the township adjacent to a city nearly 50 times its size. Politically, that puts me in Pennsylvania’s 6th U.S. congressional district, the 17th state senatorial district, and the 149th state representative district. These districts refer to our representation on a national and state level. Next week’s election, however, is an exercise in local politics. LM’s school board may be relatively insignificant when compared to the office of the President of the United States, but its outcome will have a huge effect on one of the ‘08 race’s hottest issues: education. The local public schools are outdated, inaccessible, and in various stages of disrepair. They are also far too small. Our choices? Raise property taxes to rebuild schools, or “make do” with the resources we already have. No surprises here: a democratic majority on the school board would vote to build two state-of-the-art educational facilities for the township. This would cater to the growing demands of students’ families, such as class size, handicapped accessibility, and technology. Should we fail to grab the majority of seats on the board, Lower Merion will favor the demands of large and valuable property owners, leaving the school system to quite literally gather dust until the next off-off year, meanwhile cramming more and more students into undersized classrooms.

What’s going on locally in Lower Merion has no real implications for anyone living outside of the township. So why is this important? For one thing, no Democratic presidential candidate will get those two new schools built, no matter how many educational reforms he or she signs into law. Local politics are so often obscured by national elections, whose issues seem infinitely more impending and important than the concerns of the sixty thousand residents of my town. But local elections have the biggest impact on the communities they represent, and some of the best national changes start at home.

Sure, I’m hanging on to every word of every presidential hopeful. I’ve got November 8th, 2008 circled in red on my calendar. But in the meantime, I’m sending in my absentee ballot, so that the United States has two fewer schools to worry about.

read more...

I like Barack Obama. I like him even though he didn’t put his hand over his heart the last time he heard the national anthem. I like him even though he doesn’t wear an American flag on his lapel. And I still like him, even though he plans to appear on stage with Donnie McClurkin, an “anti-gay” gospel singer. I like Barack Obama because Obama is trying really hard to get me to like him.

I can understand his desire for popularity—after all, isn’t that what buys a presidential victory? Still, watching his recent campaign performances, I can’t help but wonder if Obama is trying a little too hard. Take the senator’s South Carolina Gospel Tour, for example. The Gospel Tour features predominantly African-American acts, including “ex-gay” Reverend Donnie McClurkin and other gospel singers. This sensational political strategy, focused on a state where half of the democratic voters are black, was intended to be a vehicle through which this presidential hopeful could compete with Hillary’s popularity among black voters.

Yes, Obama is trying to be original. He is trying to build support from a grassroots level by taking part in a powerful cultural identity. But in his attempt to win the support of black voters, Obama has provoked the LGBT community. His on-stage companion, Reverend McClurkin, has made homophobic remarks regarding the need to “break the curse of homosexuality,” prompting the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to condemn the senator’s affiliation with the gospel singer. Instead of taking a stance either way, Obama attempts to neutralize McClurkin’s incendiary effect by tacking on an openly gay minister to the front of his tour. The situation that ensues is abominably awkward. Obama does not support McClurkin’s homophobia, nor does he want to take any chances at offending the black community by renouncing the reverend’s partnership. By catering to both sides, he seems unassured and hesitant where he should be decisive.

Barack Obama wants everyone to like him, and that’s his biggest problem. People do like Barack Obama. He seems to be a genuinely good guy. But the HRC is not asking for him to be buddies with a gay minister. They—along with the rest of America—are looking for leadership. They’re looking for a man with the backbone to stand up for real values and to make real change.

The Barack Obama I like tries to befriend everyone and offend no one. He cracks jokes, organizes concerts, and relates to voters on a personal level. But the Barack Obama I might vote for is a man with vision, passion, will, and the agency to replace ideals with actions. I believe in his message. I believe in his visions for the future, in his hopes and his fears. What’s more, I believe that he has the potential to make his dreams for our America into our reality. But when Obama favors popularity over principal, voters lose confidence in his efficacy as a leader. It is when he stands soundly behind his own opinions, and delivers his message with the confidence of a president of the United States, that Barack Obama becomes a man who voters can believe in.

I like Barack Obama, but I’m crossing my fingers.

read more...

Yesterday, the President encouraged Congress to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars, remarking that “every program sounds like a great program, but without setting priorities, the temptation is to overspend.” Yes, President Bush certainly has got his priorities straight. After approving an additional $190 billion dollars for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he blasted Congress for their proposed $205 billion dollars of additional government spending, which he deemed excessive. No surprises here—President Bush has demonstrated, once again, his unapologetic hypocrisy. While investing hundreds of billions of dollars in an increasingly unpopular war, the President has criticized a Democratic congress that is desperately trying to pass spending bills such as SCHIP. His defense? “It’s important for our citizens to understand that we spend $35 billion dollars a year for poor children’s health care…my attitude is, let’s help the poor children.”

Yes, Mr. Bush, let’s help the poor children. Let’s start by appropriating the necessary resources to do so. The President has declared what he calls a “fiscal showdown” with Congress, in his valiant attempt to prioritize spending. The trouble is, his priorities don’t seem to be the same as our priorities. Bush’s version of fiscal responsibility involves pouring billions of dollars down the begrudging throats of our biggest foreign policy disaster, while refusing to fund significant national programs under the smug design of keeping our taxes low.

Bush is too proud of the recent improvements in the Government budget deficit. Sure, a balanced budget by 2012 would be nice, and the President is well on his way to success—by reducing domestic programs such as education and health care, while our war spending soars almost as high as the national debt.

I’m glad to see we’re really getting our priorities straight.

read more...

We hear about violence every day in this country. Our newspapers abound with stories of robbery and assault, and every day there is another conveniently edited sound bite about violent crime on our trusty television news networks. The way the news paints it, urban America is a not-so-safe place to live. But most of us at Georgetown—a haven for the “educated elite”—only experience violence from behind a television screen. We Hoyas are generally insulated from the everyday presence of violent crime in the D.C. area, not to mention the rest of the world. But last month’s assault on a gay Georgetown student hit a little too close to Healy Gates for comfort. Far from a mugging on the Lauinger Library steps, this crime has different implications for our student body. That the assailant is one of our own places hate and violence within the context of our own community, facing us with the unacceptable reality that Georgetown is not a bubble and that college students, too, can be victims—or villains.

Only a few weeks into the term, an anonymous Georgetown student was assaulted after being harassed about his sexual orientation. Philip Cooney, MSB ’10 (allegedly the son of Philip Cooney, Sr., former White House chief-of-staff of the Council of Environment Equality who was forced to resign after doctoring reports on the severity of Global Warming, which might explain why Jr. doesn’t play by the rules either), has been charged with assault with a hate bias. The incident was met with refreshing outrage on the part of GUPride, the College Dems, and other Georgetown students, which culminated in a Pride Ralley in Red Square on Tuesday, and a vigorous appeal to the administration that they must treat such incidents with a greater degree of gravity.

A hate crime on a Georgetown student, by a Georgetown student, may have come as a shock to the rest of us. But what’s more shocking to me is that it doesn’t happen more often. In a country where gay citizens are treated by the government as “separate but equal” at best—and even more frequently as second-class citizens—Americans are raised with conflicting notions about how to treat members of the GLBTQ community. Legislation, religion, and the news media all teach us in no uncertain terms that gay people are different, and an emphasis of that difference is only a stone’s throw away from legalized discrimination and socially condoned segregation. Under D.C. law, the punishment for a violent crime with a “bias/hate specification” is more severe than the same crime committed on an impersonal basis. And yet, current law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation every day. Gay people are not protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, are actively denied entrance into the armed services, and are barred from participation in the most fundamental of social contracts. So why should gay-bashing be a hate crime? It seems to me that this double standard is the government’s way of shirking responsibility. The government can assault gay people in the harshest way they can—by denying them basic rights—but the average citizen is held to a more stringent standard. Here in America, it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, as long as you don’t hit them.

I’m not accusing the Georgetown community of fostering the rampant homophobia that spurred an attack on one of our own. On the contrary, I appreciate that the student body is shocked, surprised, and angry. But the reality is that we operate under a government that marginalizes the GLBTQ community—and an administration that has even threatened to veto legislation that would nationalize the hate-crime laws. If we can’t expect equality from the government, then how can we reasonably ask it from the citizens? In short, I hope the hate crimes legislation passes, and I hope that the assailant is punished to the fullest extent of the law. But I also hope that we use this as an opportunity to demand from our government the same behavior it expects from us. Real change needs to happen on a legal level, and that means ending the heterosexist doctrine by which we are governed. The attitudes and behaviors of the people just might follow suit.

read more...