Sound of Silence

What's going to get done has been done

2012-01-19T17:00:00.000-08:00

For the past two years, I have tried to come up with an annual list of positive accomplishments of Congress. This year, facing a record level of dissatisfaction among voters (with a near 85% disapproval rating), I found it unsurprisingly difficult to even come up with even one positive accomplishment.

An accomplishment to me is when both chambers of Congress pass a piece of legislation that is beneficial to society, regardless of whether the president signs it. I would also count the passage of legislation in one chamber that has at least a moderate chance of passing the other chamber too. Therefore, the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" and "Protect Life Act" do not fit this definition, because they do not have a moderate chance of passage in the Senate.

Also, averting both a government shutdown and a default on our debt are not considered successes, because these are two situations where Congress made non-issues into potentially cataclysmic disasters.

Maybe I missed a piece of legislation that would qualify as an accomplishment. Any suggestions?

Or maybe I can highlight some accomplishments coming from the Obama Administration. Finding Osama bin Laden, raising CAFE standards, limiting mercury emissions, denying the sale of aboritfacients to girls over-the-counter, and "ending" the War in Iraq (whatever that means). Any other ones I missed?

8th Annual Walk for Life

2012-01-08T11:00:00.000-08:00

When he spent time in the Birmingham Jail nearly half a century ago, civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

We live in a time and society where people have lost sight of this. Last year alone, we have seen dangerous decisions coming from our national capital. The Department of Health & Human Services is about to decide whether or not to force all Catholic institutions to provide contraception or face closure. The same department also denied a grant request from the USCCB that would have allowed the organisation to continue providing services to refugees and migrants just because Catholics refuse to use that money to provide contraception and abortion services to these refugees. There was also the execution of Troy Davis and dozens of others in the United States. The case of Troy Davis drew the criticism of many prominent world leaders, past and present, including Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former President Jimmy Carter, and Pope Benedict XVI.

However, we can also look at the other side of the coin and see that 2011 has also been a good year. The same department mentioned above issued a decision to not allow certain contraception that are abortifacient in nature (i.e. drugs that cause abortions, such as the morning-after-pill) to be sold to girls over-the-counter. 2011 also saw the official end to the decade-long War in Iraq, which both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have condemned on numerous occasions to both former President Bush and President Obama. Another sign of hope is that the number of executions carried out in one year in the United States for the first time has fallen to less than 100 people. Also, about a month ago, the governor of Oregon announced a halt on all future executions in the state and at the same time, there is a growing movement in California to completely outlaw executions in 2012.

Later this month, on Saturday, January 21, we have the opportunity once again to join other pro-lifers in San Francisco to peacefully pray for and reflect on a society that supports life from conception to natural death. It is our moral obligation as Catholic Christians as well as human beings to oppose all forms of violence that threaten to end God’s gift of life to humanity. This is a family-friendly event, so please feel free to invite your family and friends (they do not need to be Catholic) to join us this year at the Walk for Life!

Decision 2012: Intro

2012-01-03T17:00:00.000-08:00

Today marks the official start of the 2012 presidential election season as voters in Iowa vote for who they think the Republican nominee should be. Over the next several months leading up to the general election in November, I hope to blog more regularly about important issues that have come up in the past few years as my personal reminder for when I step into the voting booth this fall.

The plan is to post every other week and to touch upon the following issues:

Respecting human life and dignity
Conscience protection and religious liberties
Protecting the sanctity of marriage
Economic crisis & public debt
Comprehensive immigration reform
War on Terrorism (and violence in the Middle East)

This is not to say that these are the only issues that matter, because there are definitely other issues to consider (such as education, responsible media, adapting to climate change, environmental protection, international aid, overcoming discrimination, etc.), but the above issues are ones that appear to have become more urgent to examine in light of events over the past few years.

Peace & Life Connections Fall 2011

2011-12-16T17:00:00.000-08:00

Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, September 26, 2011

You’re hard to figure out...I mean, you’re pro-life, yet – [clip showing debate where Brian Williams says to Rick Perry: “Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times” and gets vigorous applause]. What was that? You’re afraid of death panels. Yet for uninsured coma patients – [clip of Wolf Blitzer asking “Are you saying society should just let him die?” and audience response of some people yelling “yeah!”]...It’s like the Republican base is at war with its own talking points.

E.J. Dionne Jr., Only conservatives can end the death penalty, Washington Post online editorial

A survey last year...showed that if a variety of alternatives were offered (including life without parole plus restitution to victims’ families), respondents’ hard support for the death penalty was driven down to 33 percent. If a majority is open to persuasion, the best persuaders will be conservatives, particularly religious conservatives and abortion opponents, who have moral objections to the state-sanctioned taking of life... Despite the cheering for executions at a recent GOP debate, there are still conservatives who are standing up against the death penalty. In Ohio this summer, state Rep. Terry Blair, a Republican and a staunch foe of abortion, declared flatly: ‘I don’t think we have any business in taking another person’s life, even for what we call a legal purpose or what we might refer to as a justified purpose.’...Political ideology has built a thick wall that blocks us from acknowledging that some of the choices we face are tragic. Perhaps we can make an exception in this case and have a quiet conversation about whether our death-penalty system really speaks for our best selves. And I thank those conservatives, right-to-lifers, libertarians and prison officials who, more than anyone else, might make such a dialogue possible.

Daniel Berrigan, 2007, Signing an online petition in opposition to Amnesty International’s move to endorse abortion as a “right”

My moral conviction on abortion and the rights of the unborn are more serious than 'a point of view'...It's as close to my conscience as war and the death penalty.

Mother Teresa

Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants.

Stephen Zunes, Consistently Opposing Killing, p, 183

Using nonviolence to overthrow dictatorships and establish democracy appears to impact popular attitudes towards violence overall. In virtually every country with a successful nonviolent insurrection against an autocratic regime, the new democratic government has abolished the death penalty, dramatically reduced military spending and passed stronger environmental laws. In former dictatorships where minority groups were legally discriminated against, such laws were overturned. Some of these new democracies have imposed greater restrictions on abortion, while virtually none have liberalized abortion laws.

Dennis DiMauro, Lutherans for Life, Devotional for Day 23 of 40 Days for Life, October 20, 2011

God doesn’t value people and things like we do. Jonah loved a shade tree more than an entire city of sinful people. We love our dogs more than a terrorist. We love our cars more than a beggar on the side of the road. And sometimes, we love our money more than a child growing in a desperate teenager’s womb. But God isn’t like us...And the book of Jonah tells us that He loves even the most sinful people and seeks to bring them into His merciful arms. And it’s a love that seeks to touch all of his created children: that desperate teenager, the baby growing in her womb, even tyrants and terrorists.

Terri Herring, discussing the Nov. 8 Mississippi “personhood amendment” ballot measure

In Mississippi, we have the opportunity to lead the way on a social justice issue. We may have been behind on civil rights, but we can be ahead on human rights, and that's what personhood is really all about.

Charles J. Chaput, Being Human in an Age of Unbelief, November 8, 2011

The pro-life movement needs to be understood and respected for what it is: part of a much larger, consistent, and morally worthy vision of the dignity of the human person. You don’t need to be Christian or even religious to be “pro-life.” Common sense alone is enough to make a reasonable person uneasy about what actually happens in an abortion. The natural reaction, the sane and healthy response, is repugnance.

Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963, Letter from a Birmingham Jail

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Emmanuel Charles McCarthy, “Abortion and War,” Center for Christian Nonviolence

As I read the triumphant headlines in the newspapers day after day—‘U.S. Pounds Iraq from Air’—and saw the pictures of missiles streaking into Iraq, I could not help but hear the silent screams of all the little Iraqi children in utero who were having their lives ripped from them. The lucky ones were the ones who took a direct hit. The ones, who were aborted because of percussion, vibration or because of the terror, trauma, malnourishment and/or exhaustion visited upon their mothers by war, would probably have suffered less agonizing deaths at the wrong end of a suction machine in an abortion clinic.

Robert Arner, Consistently Pro-Life: The Ethics of Bloodshed in Ancient Christianity

In this study, I have traced the ethic of the pre-Constantinian church through a series of individual moral issues related to the taking of human life, and have found that, without exception, the church strongly condemned the taking of human life in any form whatsoever. Neither homicide, nor feticide, nor infanticide, nor suicide, nor capital punishment, nor killing in war were considered acceptable to a church fiercely committed to following the teaching and moral example of the incarnate Lord.

Four Degrees of Separation (from reality)

2011-12-12T19:49:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend, the big news from Durban, South Africa is that the international community reached a compromise about what the world economies should do to curtail climate change. While politicians celebrate the victory of agreeing on a deal, scientists are shaking their heads.

It is not a surprise that this "deal" was reached after the embarrassing failures at Copenhagen and Cancun.

The majority of climatologists agree that in order to prevent significant climate change, the Earth can only tolerate about 350 ppm of greenhouse gases in order to keep the average global temperature from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius. Currently, we will be approaching 500 ppm soon and the events of this past weekend indicate that we are going to be reaching about 4 degrees within the next half century. In fact, in order to get to the 350 ppm mark before it is too late, greenhouse gas emissions will need to reach their peak in the next five years and by the end of the decade will need to decrease by at least 40% (from 1990 levels).

Even though mitigating climate change is now a political impossibility, there are still ways we as an international community can adapt to the effects of climate change. This will not be any easier than mitigating climate change, because as The Guardian reports, a world that averages a rise of 4 degrees Celsius can expect the following:

...the Arctic permafrost enters the danger zone. The methane and carbon dioxide currently locked in the soils will be released into the atmosphere. At the Arctic itself, the ice cover would disappear permanently, meaning extinction for polar bears and other native species that rely on the presence of ice. Further melting of Antarctic ice sheets would mean a further 5m rise in the sea level, submerging many island nations. Italy, Spain, Greece and Turkey become deserts and mid-Europe reaches desert temperatures of almost 50C in summer. Southern England's summer climate could resemble that of modern southern Morocco.

There is also an interactive map that the Met Office has developed that you can check out here. It shows that in California, we can expect about a 3-degree increase from pre-industrial levels, but what does this mean?

Less snow in the Sierra Nevadas and more rain for the rest of California.
At first, this sounds like a good thing, because it can reduce the times we are in drought. However, our current infrastructure is built to handle the gradual melting of snow and not intense periods of rainfall. All the additional rainfall will also cause more flooding, especially if we do not retrofit our ageing levies. We will also need to accommodate for the increase in demand for potable drinking water in the next several decades.
Increases in public health hazards
More extreme heat will naturally lead to more deaths due to heat stroke and other conditions that the infirm may develop due to inability to handle high temperatures. It also means that diseases that thrive in warmer temperatures south of the border will progressively find a natural habitat in California. Finally, there will be increased risk of wildfires and worsening air pollution.
Increases in energy demand and decreases in energy supply
The obvious result of warmer weather is that people use the AC more often, but climate change causing less snow-melt is that there will be a reduction in hydro-power. This means that we will need to offset that with other energy sources, whether it be renewable or conventional sources.
Dwindling bread basket of America
Crops that are not adjusted to the changing climate will naturally die off, which poses a problem for the economy of the Central Valley and California as a whole. All the hazards that affect humans will affect plants too, such as flooding, new diseases, etc.

It is time that the leaders of our country focus more on adapting to climate change as part of economic recovery instead of seeing it as something that hinders economic recovery.

It's not me, it's you.

2011-11-01T11:55:00.000-07:00

During the holiday season way back in 2000, I opened my first bank account with Washington Mutual, or WaMu as her friends called her. Her tellers provided excellent customer service and had all the banking needs a person could ask for. Those were the days of 6% APYs on certificate of deposits, which is what first attracted me to WaMu. The summer before my senior year in high school, I would wait in line on Fridays every other week after work to physically deposit my hard earned money. Honestly, at times I grew impatient at how many people were also doing the same, but at the end, it was all worth it to see that balance increase.

In college, with the increasing popularity of online banking, I had the option to make life more convenient by utilizing this new feature. However, I still enjoyed the routine task of going by the bank and physically depositing my check. It was different than at home due to the difference in security between the suburbs and an urban downtown setting so understandably, customer service reflected this environment. This is when I decided that I should get a debit card so I would not need to see a teller every time I wanted to withdraw money. When I was home one summer, I told the teller that as my reason for wanting a debit card and he said, “But we like it when our customers come in to visit.”

The convenience of Direct Deposit and a debit card became too alluring, thus my relationship with WaMu continued and I did not give it a second thought.

At the beginning of my senior year in college, the first signs of our destiny began to show themselves. WaMu died and Chase came into my life. I did not see the death of WaMu as life altering, because Chase pretended to fill the void WaMu left by allowing me to continue with my WaMu Free Checking (which she later converted into the Chase Total Checking). I was cautious and began looking into Chase only to discover that she was not the same bank as WaMu. She is not only part of the American banking tapeworm, but she also absorbed a smaller bank that had been involved in the American slave trade. I began to have serious doubts about the morality of keeping my money in such a financial institution, but it took me a year before I my gaze began to wander and I began to really check out other financial institutions.

At this point, I met the credit union. Distinguishing itself as different from big banks in that all its members are part owners of the credit union itself. The credit union is a local financial cooperative that directly invests in and benefits the local community, in which its members live and work. It has the same convenience of major banks such as online banking, direct deposit, a huge network of free ATMs, and deposits (up to $250K) are insured by the United States Government. Plus, credit unions have better interest rates and they do not have all the fees that most major banks have. Furthermore, Catholic Social Teaching even advocates such a cooperative effort as the driving force behind a moral economy! This was truly a fresh, attractive alternative when compared to Chase.

Then the abuse began to be obvious when the economy collapsed and at my (and all taxpayer’s) expense, our Big Government issued a massive bailout to Chase and all her Big Corporation friends, because they were all engaged in toxic investments. I received emails on Valentine’s Day urging me to “break up” with Chase. I received emails on Independence Day urging me to “declare my independence” from Chase. Yet, I did not feel the urge to get out of my abusive relationship while simultaneously continued my infatuation with credit unions.

This year, I saw that I was not alone. Hundreds of thousands of people just like me were stuck in this abusive relationship with their banks too and decided to take to the streets. A local alliance of faith organizations including a Roman Catholic parish decided to close their accounts worth millions of dollars and move to a local credit union. They have had a relationship with Big Banks for a few decades and still worked up the courage to end it. This caused me to think, “If they can do it, why can’t I?” Furthermore, a recent statement that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace re-iterating the message of multiple papal encyclicals over the past century that highlighted the immorality behind unbridled capitalism, the same kind of unbridled capitalism that we have seen running amok this past decade.

So I decided it was time. At the start of November, I would tell Chase that we are over. After work yesterday, I walked into my local Chase branch for the last time and asked the teller to close my account. I was cautious not to tell him why, for fear of retribution as I have heard from other banks. What I would have liked to say to Chase was, “I don’t think we’re just meant to be great friends. You want more than I’m prepared to give (sometimes literally). You’re clearly not ready for a relationship right now. It’s not me, it’s you. I do not love you and I’m not in love with you.”

This morning as I wrote my last WaMu check to open my account at a credit union, I wrote in the Memo line, “I AM THE 99%.”

If you are part of the majority of Americans across party lines tired of our Big Government funding Big Corporations, and Big Corporations telling Big Government what to do, please consider getting out of your abusive relationship with your megabank and look into joining a local credit union.

Free China Will Not Perish 中國不會亡

2011-10-07T23:20:00.000-07:00

Despite being marketed in the United States as Jackie Chan's 100th film of his career, "1911 辛亥革命" is really about the struggle of Chinese revolutionaries to establish Asia's first constitutional, democratic republic. After years of failed revolts against an ever-weakening autocracy, October 10, 1911 would mark one of the most important dates in five millennia of Chinese civilisation.

From the beginning, the film illustrates the martyrdom of Qiu Jin, arguably the most famous female Chinese revolutionary, and the failed 3.29 Guangzhou Uprising. Tradition says that 72 young men sacrificed their lives during this massacre, which history would show to be the final failure before the collapse of the Manchu Qing Dynasty. Just as with any battle, the lives lost are sons, brothers, and fathers killed just as they enter the prime of their lives. Later research would find that the number of young men who died that day was closer to 90.

We see that Dr. Sun Yat-sen, being the bona fide revolutionary he had become by this point, wanted to stay in China to fight with his compatriots. However, his pragmatic friend (played by Jackie Chan) convinced him that he could serve the revolution better abroad, galvanising the moral and financial support of the overseas Chinese community. In fact, it is due to this very seminal support that to this day, overseas Chinese have representation in the legislature of the Republic of China and a (non-public) holiday in Taiwan known as Overseas Chinese Day.

What is most striking about the film is the number of obvious parallels between the Manchu Qing government and the Chinese Communist Party. Both are infested with corruption, obsessed with garnering the monetary investment of the foreign community, insist on autocratic rule, and completely out of touch with the average Chinese. In fact, I am surprised at how all the government censors failed to see this film as a major critique of the current regime on Mainland China. (The CCP partnered with Jackie Chan to make this film). The calls for democracy in 1911 are the very under currents today that the CCP feverishly are attempting to suppress.

The film managed to be free of any major propaganda until the very last line of the Epilogue where it says something along the lines of Sun's dream was fulfilled by the Chinese Communist Party. This could not be more incorrect, because Mainland China, unlike Taiwan, currently does not have a government of, by, and for the people.

Dr. Sun Yat-sen spent a couple years as a teenager in the Territory of Hawaii (and attended the same high school that President Obama would eventually also attend). This is where Christian influences and Western political philosophy first took root in the future revolutionary's heart. Abraham Lincoln's idea of a "government of, by, and for the people" would become the cornerstone of Sun's political theory known as the "Three Principles of the People." The film only mentions this idea once at the very end, because to this day, it remains a sensitive topic in Mainland China. Yes, there is agreement that the point of the Chinese revolution should be to bring about a more peaceful society for future generations. However, it would not be fair to the martyrs of the Chinese revolution to downplay the significance of the Three Principles in developing a better society.

A government of the people means that regardless of ethnicity, all Chinese people would stand as one nation, in which everyone, rather than only a few selected elites, is a participant.

A government by the people means that there is universal suffrage, referendum, recall, and initiative that form a check on the government, namely, the executive, legislative, judicial, auditing, and examination branches.

A government for the people means that every citizen must have access to food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education. Land and natural resources belong to everybody, because individuals only own what they create.

There are the core tenets on which Dr. Sun founded the Republic of China. It is impossible for anyone to claim to carry on his legacy if these foundational principles are not upheld. This is for what the Chinese revolutionaries died.

In fact, the perseverance of these revolutionaries has also pervaded throughout the 100-year history of the Republic of China. The successor to the presidency after Dr. Sun attempted to suffocate the Republic in its infancy when he made himself the new Emperor of China. The Government of the Republic of China then fought back and gained the nominal loyalty of all the various Chinese warlords and finally reunified the country at the end of 1928 and thus ended the rule-by-military phase. The nation embarked on a massive modernisation effort for the next ten years while simultaneously suppressing the communist rebels. Not being able to ignore Japanese aggression, in 1937 the Republic of China declares war on the Empire of Japan and draws blood from the foreign imperialist until the United States joins in December 1941. After the war, the 1947 Constitution ends the rule-by-party phase in the midst of the resumption of the Chinese Civil War. However, the realisation of a democratic government codified in the 1947 Constitution was delayed following the loss of Mainland China in 1949 with the establishment of martial law in Taiwan. For the next 20 years, efforts to counterattack and reclaim the Mainland failed, but efforts to hold off an invasion by the People's Liberation Army succeeded time and time again. Starting in the late 1960s, the economy of Taiwan experienced what was considered at the time miraculous growth and at the same time, activism calling for the end of martial law began to take root and spread throughout Taiwan. Due to the unwavering determination of these democratic activists, President Chiang Ching-kuo ended one-party rule in 1987 and martial law was officially lifted in 1991 under his successor. The 1990s saw the fruits of the democratic movement as talks between the Chinese Communist Party and the ROC resumed and elections were held for seats in the National Assembly. Taiwan has since established itself as a developed economy, with universal health insurance, a booming high-tech sector, and all the freedoms that a democratic society is able to enjoy.

This Monday, October 10, 2011, as 23 million people on Taiwan celebrating the uprising a century ago sing the National Anthem of the Republic of China, the lyrics remind us that we must be diligent and courageous in upholding these principles with one heart and one mind until the very end. Even though today China is split into two areas with two different governments, the revolutionaries have not died in vain. Their sacrifice is merely a reminder that the revolution is not over. 革命尚未成功。同志仍需努力。

Peace & Life Connections Summer 2011

2011-09-23T18:00:00.000-07:00

George Ellis, South African scholar, Science in Faith and Hope: An Interaction (2004, Quaker Books), pp. 20-21

Sociobiology and evolutionary psychology produce arguments which claim to give complete explanations as to where our ethical views come from...if you did follow those precepts, you would rapidly end up in very dangerous territory, namely the domain of social Darwinism...The historical record is quite clear on this: see Richard Weikart in From Darwin to Hitler. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially the view that human life is sacred. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially intelligence and health) to be the highest arbiter of morality. Darwinism played a key role in the rise not only of eugenics, but also euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination.

Ross Douthat, “160 Million and Counting,” New York Times, June 27, 2011, commenting on the book Unnatural Selection by Mara Hvistendahl

Western governments and philanthropic institutions have their fingerprints all over the story of the world’s missing women. From the 1950s onward, Asian countries that legalized and then promoted abortion did so with vocal, deep-pocketed American support. Digging into the archives of groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Hvistendahl depicts an unlikely alliance between Republican cold warriors worried that population growth would fuel the spread of Communism and left-wing scientists and activists who believed that abortion was necessary...For many of these anti-population campaigners, sex selection was a feature rather than a bug, since a society with fewer girls was guaranteed to reproduce itself at lower rates...[The victim is] society at large, [Hvistendahl] argues, citing evidence that gender-imbalanced countries tend to be violent and unstable. It’s the women in those countries, she adds, pointing out that skewed sex ratios are associated with increased prostitution and sex trafficking. These are important points. But the sense of outrage that pervades her story seems to have been inspired by the missing girls themselves, not the consequences of their absence. Here the anti-abortion side has it easier. We can say outright...The tragedy of the world’s 160 million missing girls isn’t that they’re "missing." The tragedy is that they’re dead.

Frank Pavone, Director, Priests for Life, Note: He’s addressing the misunderstanding that the consistent life ethic requires people who address one issue to likewise address a multitude of others.

This misunderstanding often causes people to criticize those whose individual or group ministry focuses on a specific issue exclusively...It is somewhat like accusing the Alcoholics Anonymous movement of not doing anything about the arms race...[and] it can tend to expect the impossible, and expect people and groups to use their already limited time and resources to address any number of issues, any one of which could easily require a lifetime of effort...Yet there is a truth here which must be stressed: no person or group is free to be unconcerned about all the attacks on human dignity, nor are we free to ignore the interdependence of all the efforts on behalf of human life. There are numerous activities being carried out in defense of human dignity. There may not be room for all of them on our schedule, but we must make room for all of them in our heart.

Gaudium et Spes, 24 (official Catholic document)

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on the body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where [people] are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury.

Faye Wattleton, then President of Planned Parenthood, Donahue, May 15, 1989, Transcript #3288 NBC

Women are not stupid...women have always known that there was a life there.

Peter Hitchens, British journalist and brother of Christopher Hitchens, The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith (Zondervan, 2010), pp. 141-42

Left to themselves, human beings can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities, the mass deportation – accompanied by slaughter, disease, and starvation – of inconvenient people, and the mass murder of the unborn...The Second World War, in which the good side committed dreadful crimes and the bad side worse ones, is a constant source of such confusion...Anyone who speaks the unpleasant truth about that war, and especially about the bombing of civilians, is met to this day with rage and resentment, just as is anyone who draws attention to the unpleasant truth about abortion (the one act of violence that British television refuses to show)

Jonathan Schell, The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People, p. 144

Violence is a method by which the ruthless few can subdue the passive many. Nonviolence is a means by which the active many can overcome the ruthless few.

Mark Shea, National Catholic Register, September 2, 2010, [Note: This is sarcastic; Shea is supporting our position.]

How can somebody be opposed to abortion and, at the same time, to the death penalty? Indeed, that is mysterious. It’s like being opposed to tyranny while simultaneously favoring freedom. It’s like enjoying exercise while simultaneously appreciating fresh air...Or singing both the words and the tune. Who can account for such a complete contradiction?

Joseph Bernardin, Put Life First, National Catholic Register, June 09, 2009

I know that some people on the left, if I may use that label, have used the consistent ethic to give the impression that the abortion issue is not all that important anymore, that you should be against abortion in a general way but that there are more important issues, so don’t hold anybody’s feet to the fire just on abortion. That’s a misuse of the consistent ethic, and I deplore it. But the misuse does not invalidate the argument.

Abby Johnson, former Planned Parenthood director, LifeNews.com, July 21, 2011

I am pro-life. I believe in the protection of all life. I am against abortion, euthanasia, and the death penalty. I am pro-quality of life. I believe all children deserve quality health care. I don’t believe in reducing assistance benefits for those who are disabled or who have special needs...It’s not just about “saving” the baby. It is about empowering the mother as well. I am not against abortion because it takes an innocent life — I am against abortion because it takes a life. Innocence has nothing to do with it. They lives are not more valuable because they are innocent. They will not always be innocent, but their lives will still hold the same value.

Tom Neuville, leading Republican on Minnesota's Senate Judiciary Committee, on Governor Pawlenty's efforts to reinstate the death penalty, Minneapolis Star Tribune, December 7, 2003

Life is a gift from God. It isn't up to us to take it away. Whether you take an innocent life of a baby, or of a person who has committed a heinous act, it is still an act at our hands, and it makes us a less caring and less sensitive society.

Richard A. Viguerie, When Governments Kill: A conservative argues for abolishing the death penalty, Sojourners, 2009

Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation...But here the end result is the end of someone’s life. In other words, it’s a government system that kills people. Those of us who oppose abortion believe that it is perhaps the greatest immorality to take an innocent life. While the death penalty is supposed to take the life of the guilty, we know that is not always the case. It should have shocked the consciences of conservatives when various government prosecutors withheld exculpatory, or opposed allowing DNA-tested, evidence in death row cases. To conservatives, that should be deemed as immoral as abortion...But even when guilt is certain, there are many downsides to the death penalty system.

Joseph Bernardin, The Seamless Garment: Writings on the Consistent Ethic, p. 55

Precisely because the unborn child represents the weakest member of our human community, there is an objective link to be made between unborn life and the lives of others who live defenseless at the margin of our society.

Allen Ault – retired warden of the Georgia prison in which Troy Davis was held, and five other retired prison officials

We write to you as former wardens and corrections officials who have had direct involvement in executions. Like few others in this country, we understand...from our own personal experiences the awful lifelong repercussions that come from participating in the execution of prisoners...Living with the nightmares is something that we know from experience...we urge you to unburden yourselves and your staff from the pain of participating in such a questionable execution to the extent possible by allowing any personnel so inclined to opt-out of activities related to the execution of Troy Anthony Davis. Further, we urge you to provide appropriate counseling to personnel who do choose to perform their job functions related to the execution.

DADT's Repealed

2011-09-20T18:47:00.000-07:00

September 20, 2011 marks the end of an almost two-decade struggle for our nation, a struggle that is meant to show that sexual orientation is not a determinant of how well one does in one's occupation.

The above video shows a touching phone conversation between a son and father that really encapsulates the kind of love that God shows us. We are all sinners, but God as our Father and Creator loves us for who we are, even though sometimes what we choose to do (or not do) tells God that we do not love Him and His plan for creation.

Moments like today make me proud that my country is taking a step in the right direction. In my opinion, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is possibly the lone positive accomplishment of the Obama Administration.

Miscarriage of Justice

2011-09-07T20:58:00.000-07:00

The story of Troy Davis is one that has rallied anti-death penalty activists for many years. He is accused of murdering an off-duty police officer in Georgia in 1989. Since his sentence was handed down, many key witnesses have recanted their testimony and another man has admitted that he, not Troy Davis, was the one who committed the murder. After three stays in execution and an appeal that was eventually turned down by the United States Supreme Court, the State of Georgia has once again set an execution date for Troy Davis.

This time it is September 21, 2011, merely 10 days after the 10th anniversary of the violent terrorist attacks of 9/11.

The story of Troy Davis has garnered widespread international attention from prominent figures such as former US President Jimmy Carter, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and Pope Benedict XVI all calling for a pardon.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the practice of execution is very difficult to justify given alternatives such as life imprisonment without parole. Society must focus on restorative, not retributive, justice. Restorative justice is not rooted in vengeance, rather, it is rooted in the idea that conflict resolution involves the victims (and/or their families) as well as the community as a whole in mending relations with the offender while at the same time the offender comes to realise her/his wrongdoing and takes responsibility. On the other hand, retributive justice not only violates human dignity, but it also violates the inalienable right to life. No actions done by any of us humans abrogate our individual right to life nor justify stripping away our dignity as children of God.

When talking about the barbarism of state-sponsored homicide, it is always important to keep in mind that opposition to this practice in no way justifies the alleged crime committed. The opposition to capital punishment merely reiterates the truth that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick so eloquently expressed, "We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. We cannot defend life by taking life." In fact, it is this very belief that motivated Catholic activists to convince the decision-makers in New Mexico and Illinois to abolish the death penalty recently. While the majority of nations in the world have abolished the death penalty or put moratoria on the death penalty, the United States is left in an ever-shrinking group of nations that include Saudi Arabia, Iran, northern Korea, and Mainland China.

The most important part of the situation of Troy Davis is that the state may very well be executing an innocent man. The case against Troy has gotten weaker with each round of appeals, despite the end result in each one upholding his sentence. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles has agreed to hear his appeal one final time on September 19. This board is the final gate before his execution in two weeks.

Every time someone is about to be executed (especially a possibly innocent man), Matthew 27:24-25 comes to mind.

When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. Look to it yourselves." And the whole people said in reply, "His blood be upon us and upon our children."

Are we the ones who have done what we can to move towards abolition or are we the ones pushing for crucifixion?

Update: At 23:08 EDT, September 21, 2011, Troy Davis was pronounced dead after the State of Georgia murdered him on behalf of the Georgian taxpayers.

Debt-finitely Not Cool!

2011-07-30T18:30:00.000-07:00

Chances are, if you turned on the news in the past few weeks, you will have heard the term "debt ceiling" about 14 trillion times and (should) have heard that this is the first time since the enactment of the debt ceiling nearly a century ago that Congress may not raise it in time to prevent the Treasury from not meeting our existing financial obligations.

That is exactly what the debt ceiling issue ought to be about: meeting our existing financial obligations. Sadly, the Republican Party has taken this issue as a hostage in order to pursue extremist liberal ("libertarian" in American English) goals. There is a time and place to discuss the importance of fiscal responsibility, of which the federal government has lost sense for the majority of the past three decades. Just within the past decade, the American taxpayer has seen immoral fiscal priorities such as the War on Terrorism, the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, TARP/other corporate bailouts, and "stimulus" spending/tax cuts. There is enough fiscal irresponsibility blame to go around among both parties.

However, amidst the biggest crisis our country has faced since 9/11, it has become increasingly clear that one party has taken it upon themselves to take the full burden of blame. The Republican Party is not to blame for expressing their ideas on fiscal policies and priorities, because the sharing of a variety of political viewpoints is the beauty of a democratic system. The blame the GOP must take is that of making an apolitical issue political and for dragging out its showmanship for so long. Either it fails to understand or simply does not care that failure to raise the debt ceiling not only has dire repercussions domestically, but also internationally. To me, it is one thing to shoot oneself in the foot, but it is a completely different story to shoot others in the foot. When one controls such a large share of global economic output, inevitably one must consider those that lie beyond our shores. This is something that the Chinese Communist Party does not comprehend and something that the Tea Partiers abhor. Unfortunately, the latter group has hijacked the historically procedural vote to raise the debt ceiling, sending the global economy into a bleak economic future.

To complicate matters even further, there are now calls among some Democrats for President Obama to exercise his alleged constitutional right to act unilaterally. Not only is this the result of massive failure on the part of the legislative branch to do its constitutional duty, but it would set an egregious precedent in which the separation of powers is blurred.

After all is said and done, I am opposed to the idea of structural debt, because even today we are paying off deficits from over three decades ago. However, the expenses have already been made long before most of the current members of Congress took their oath of office. Like so many have said over the past few weeks, it would be irresponsible for the government not to pay for goods and services we have already received. After the House overwhelming rejected the Senate plan this afternoon, it is suddenly very unlikely that an agreement will be reached before the August 2 deadline.

Update: Just after 4pm on Monday, August 1, the House passed the deal struck by the White House and Congressional leaders over the weekend. This deal is drenched in the political rhetoric that has dominated the debate on raising the debt ceiling. While it has prevented global economic catastrophe, the legislation has potential to still create an enormous amount of havoc for the average American family and the long-term economic outlook for the United States. While I am completely in favour of finding fiscally responsible ways to cut spending while raising revenue, I remain firmly opposed to any attempts such as this bill to tie politics with the increase in debt ceiling.

My Take: Jesus didn't come to condemn...and neither do we

2011-06-21T23:26:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Dudley recently published an opinion piece on CNN berating Christianity for interpreting the Bible incorrectly with regards to homosexuality. From the very first couple sentences of his piece, he is mistaken: God does not condemn homosexuals (or anyone for that matter). In John 3:17, Jesus is speaking to a Pharisee (Nicodemus) about the life-giving aspect of Jesus’ purpose on earth. Jesus himself said that “God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” Condemnation is, in fact, self-inflicted. In choosing to sin, we condemn ourselves to eternal punishment, but that is not what God the Father sent Jesus to the world to do. Sexual sin, such as fornication, adultery, and sodomy, is a serious severance between us the sinner and God. Gay people have inherent dignity as a human being that, like the rest of us sinners, cannot be denied.

Dudley then proceeds to attempt to draw a comparison between St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans and his first Letter to the Corinthians whereby he misinterprets the word “nature.” In both passages, the English word “nature” is used, but the original Greek will show that it is in fact two different words. In Romans 1:27 (“…and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another…”), the Greek word is “phusikos” meaning “produced by nature, inborn.” In 1 Corinthians 11:14 (“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears his hair long it is a disgrace to him…”), the Greek word is “phusis” meaning “the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics.” Furthermore, Dudley completely takes the latter reference out of context. In this passage from 1 Corinthians, St. Paul is saying talking about how in Greek society at the time, women were expected to wear head coverings when worshipping and it would be shameful for a man to do the same. (The rationale of this comes from the second Creation story, which we will not get into in this post). Hair is seen as natural (phusis) head-covering and thus it would be a disgrace for a man to have long hair.

Then Dudley proceeds to argue that Christians are going against centuries of teaching that marriage was morally inferior to celibacy. The caution here is that when something is morally inferior, it does not necessitate that it is morally reprehensible. The warning that the Church Fathers gave about marriage is that marriage is not an excuse for unadulterated sex. In his critique of Jovinian (Against Jovinianus), St. Jerome writes that “the Church does not condemn marriage, but makes it subordinate.” Furthermore, he states that a man should “govern his voluptuous impulses, and not rush headlong into intercourse. There is nothing blacker than to love a wife as if she were an adulteress. Men who say they have contracted marriage and are bringing up children, for the good of their country and of the race, should at least imitate the brutes, and not destroy their offspring in the womb; nor should they appear in the character of lovers, but of husbands.” St. Augustine also echoes this very sentiment:

Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence, although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting of children, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bring to pass some good. Next, in that the lust of the flesh is repressed, and rages in a way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. For there is interposed a certain gravity of glowing pleasure, when in that wherein husband and wife cleave to one another, they have in mind that they be father and mother. Of the Good of Marriage

The Church today still upholds the virtue of chastity for all people, single and married (CCC 2349). That is why any sexual acts outside the context of a conjugal union open to the gift of procreation is seen as immoral, whether it is between straight or non-straight people.

Perhaps the most outrageous claim from Dudley’s piece is that the Church’s stance against direct abortion is a relatively new occurrence. Quoting St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas without context as he did St. Paul, Dudley conveniently forgets seminal Christian works from the 1st Century A.D., which predates both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. The Didache 2:2 says, “thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide.” In Tertullian’s The Apology, he says that “murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb…to hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth.” If these texts are not sufficiently old enough to constitute foundational beliefs, Dudley can refer to a text from the 6th Century B.C., in which the Lord says to the prophet Jeremiah, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you” (1:5). While American evangelicals may not have been against abortion until the 1970s, the Roman Catholic Church has always been against abortion, regardless of former Speaker Nancy Pelosi may claim.

Divorce is arguably the biggest threat to the institution of marriage in our country. Ever since Governor Ronald Reagan legalised no-fault divorces in the State of California, this plague has been tearing at the fabric of American society. In a homily to thousands of Catholics in San Marino earlier this week, Pope Benedict XVI said that “hedonistic models that cloud the mind and risk quashing morality altogether” cause many of the difficulties modern societies face. It is precisely this deification of hedonism that has led to the normalisation of divorce, fornication, abortion, and sodomy. The constant advertisements that indoctrinate us to accept that what feels good is good for us unfortunately leads people like Jonathan Dudley away from the faith. I too am far from immune to these messages and not a day goes by when I am not presented with opportunities to question values derived from Natural Law instead of surrendering to societal norms.

The only charade I see is that in which we continue to think that truth is subjective. The truth is that we must protect the life and dignity of each human being, regardless of sexual orientation, and that we must cultivate communities consisting of families led by a man and woman joined in the self-giving, Christ-like love of matrimony, working together to raise children, whose presence are gifts from our Creator.

Peace & Life Connections Spring 2011

2011-06-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

Joseph Bernardin, The Seamless Garment: Writings on the Consistent Ethic, edited by Thomas Nairn, p. 13

If one contends, as we do, that the right of every fetus to be born should be protected by civil law and supported by civil consensus, then our moral, political, and economic responsibilities do not stop at the moment of birth. Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker. Such a quality-of-life posture translates into specific political and economic positions on tax policy, employment generation, welfare policy, nutrition and feeding programs, and health care. Consistency means we cannot have it both ways: we cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.

Ginette Paris, The Sacrament of Abortion, 1992, 25-27

Men have the right to kill and destroy, and when the massacre is called a war they are paid to do it and honored for their actions. War is sanctified, even blessed by our religious leaders. But let a woman decide to abort a fetus...and people are shocked. What's really shocking is that a woman has the power to make a moral judgment that involves a choice of life or death. That power has been reserved for men...the ancient Goddess Artemis invites us to imagine a new allocation of life and death powers between men and women, an allocation that allows men to appreciate the cost of a life and women to make decisions based on their mother-knowledge.

Nat Hentoff, columnist, speech to the Americans United for Life Forum in Chicago on October 18, 1986 (condensed)

I remain an atheist,a Jewish atheist. For me, this transformation started with the reporting I did on the Babies Doe. While covering the story, I came across a number who were convinced that making it possible for a spina bifida or a Down's syndrome infant to die was the equivalent of what they called "late abortion." These infants were born. They were entitled to at least the same rights as people on death row – due process, equal protection of the law. So for the first time, I began to pay attention to the "slippery slope" warnings of pro-lifers. And I began to find out, in a different way, how the stereotypes about pro-lifers work. When you're one of them and you read about the stereotypes, you get a sort of different perspective.

Jane Addams, 1893, A New Impulse to an Old Gospel

The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life.

Mary Krane Derr, “Activism Throughout the Centuries” in Consistently Opposing Killing, p. 127

Many of the earliest Euro-American suffragists were connected to upstate New York, among them the great “suffrage triumvirate” of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Matilda Joslyn Gage, and their beloved elder Lucretia Mott. The area’s Native Americans, the Haudenosaunee Six Nations (whom the French called Iroquois), tremendously inspired them. Haudenosaunee women enjoyed remarkable freedom in matters of sex, motherhood, property, marriage, divorce, work, religion, and government. The Haudenosaunee religion’s Code of Handsome Lake cautions against environmental devastation, domestic violence, child abuse, the stigmatization of non-marital pregnancies, and abortion, regarded as unjust fetal life-taking that hurts women, too.

Jonathan Dymond, An Inquiry into War, 1824

When the mind has been familiarized to a practice, however monstrous or inhumane, it loses some of its sagacity of moral perception – profligacy becomes honor, and inhumanity becomes spirit. But if the subject is by some circumstances presented to the mind unconnected with any of its previous associations, we see it with a new judgment and new feelings; and wonder, perhaps, that we have not felt so or thought so before.

Ron Paul, 2008 candidate for U.S. Republican nomination, U.S. Representative from Texas, Liberty Defined, 2011

The consistent right-to-life position should be to protect the unborn and oppose abortion, to reject the death penalty, and to firmly oppose our foreign policy that promotes an empire requiring aggressive wars that involve thousands of innocent people being killed. We would all be better off for it, and a society dedicated to peace, human life, and prosperity would more likely be achieved.

Dick Gregory, Ebony Magazine, October, 1971

Government family programs designed for poor Blacks which emphasize birth control and abortion with the intent of limiting the Black population is genocide. The deliberate killing of Black babies by abortion is genocide – perhaps the most overt of all.

William Brennan, Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives

One of the most remarkable features of anti-life rhetoric is the sheer consistency and stability underlying the denigrating concepts that engulf a wide variety of people rendered expendable. While the range of victims has fluctuated down through the years, the semantic assaults against them have remained stubbornly constant.

Any war, whether semantic or otherwise, requires an identifiable enemy upon whom to impose the derogatory labels. At one time or another almost every imaginable racial, ethnic, religious, age, and social group has suffered the consequences of linguistic abuse...the unborn, the dependent and/or disabled, women, those exterminated in the Nazi Holocaust (primarily Jews, but also Gypsies, Germans with disabilities, Poles, and "asocials"), the targets of Soviet tyranny, African Americans, and Native Americans.

Chang Kao, “The Twelve Medical Talks,” cited in T’ao Lee, “Medical Ethics in Ancient China” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 13 (1943): 268-277

A woman called Pai Mu-tan lived by selling drugs for artificial abortion...Her crying at night could be heard by all the neighbors. One day she asked her son to burn all the prescriptions for abortion and warned him not to engage in such a vocation as hers. Her son asked her why she would not hand down the prescriptions to him. She answered "I dreamed of hundreds of infants striking at my head every night. My illness is entirely due to my selling drugs for abortion."

Don Sloan, abortion doctor, Choice: a Doctor's Experience with the Abortion Dilemma (second edition, 2002), p. 84

Is abortion murder? All killing isn't murder. A cop shoots a teenager who "appeared to be going for a gun," and we call it justifiable homicide – a tragedy for all concerned, but not murder...And then there's war. In theory, soldiers shoot only at each other. But in practice, lots and lots of other folks get killed. We drop bombs where there are non-combatants – women and children and old people – and when they die we call it not murder but "collateral damage." Our soldiers get killed by "friendly fire" – often by people who aimed directly at them. Is that murder? All killing like that, to me, is morally wrong. But murder? Calling abortion "murder" doesn’t make it murder. We are hearing someone’s value judgment placed on what others do.

A.J. Muste, (1885-1967), Executive Secretary of Fellowship of Reconciliation (1940-1953), in All Saints, ed. Robert Ellsberg, Crossroad Publishing, 1997, p. 72

The way of peace is a seamless garment that must cover the whole of life and must be applied in all its relationships.

David Gushee, “Common Ground on Abortion?” Prism, Jan/Feb 2011, page 4, Commenting on his experience at the Princeton life/choice dialog conference

I was struck by the weakness of the positions taken by those on the pro-choice side...I was asked to concur with the view that even when poor women choose abortion (70 percent of abortions are "chosen" by women who live at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty line) it is a positive expression of their moral agency. I instead am more deeply convinced than ever that the disproportionate resort to abortion among the poor reflects and deepens their entrapment in situations of powerlessness.

Agape

2011-05-02T20:13:00.000-07:00

Just after 7:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time on Sunday, May 1, 2011, I was on Facebook (yet again) when I noticed I had received a new email. CNN Breaking News reported that Osama bin Laden had died.

This surely must have been the latest gag from the Yes Men or some other similar group. Something that should not have taken more than 10 weeks to do back in late-2001 is occurring now, 10 years later? Impossible!

The disbelief/denial wore off once I noticed that five of my friends on Facebook had just posted the same exact headline that the world’s most wanted terrorist was indeed killed and that President Obama was about to make a speech.

Turning on the news, every major station had interrupted regular programming to break the news and at the moment I saw it on television, I was euphoric. In my mind, the phrase “Osama bin Laden has been killed” translated into “the War on Terrorism is (finally) over.” Not remembering the last time I heard such major and good news about my country, I immediately felt the urge to spread the news to everyone in my contacts list and display Old Glory even as dusk set in, even though it is not proper flag etiquette to display the flag without illumination at night. I did not care; this was a historic day in our generation. The war was finally over!

The President of course was more than fashionably late as millions across the country tuned in with eager anticipation to hear the announcement officially come from our Commander-in-Chief himself. Our country had not seen the light of day for a decade and now a ray of light shone from the heavens with the hope of finally moving past the victimhood of 9/11.

President Obama finally arrived and began making his speech. I waited and waited to hear those magical words that never came. His cold delivery of the news and complete forgetfulness of the point of invading Afghanistan quickly extinguished that ray of light from up above. Bin Laden had been relegated to just one objective of the mission and was no longer the only objective.

The war was not over.

As the news stations began to broadcast the crowd of dozens, which later grew to hundreds (and reportedly thousands after I stopped watching) in front of the White House reminded me of the scene on the campus of UC Berkeley the night of November 4, 2008 upon the news that Senator Barack Obama had been elected President of the United States of America. Young people waving American flags, singing the national anthem, chanting “U-S-A” was very moving, because it indeed encapsulated the emotion of the nation on this momentous night.

However, as I watched and thought about the event that had just transpired half a world away, a sickening feeling began to develop within me. My fellow countrymen were not celebrating a turning point in the War on Terrorism; they were celebrating the United States government killing a human being.

That same day, the Church beatified a man who championed human life at all stages of development, a holy human being who spoke out against abortion, upheld the dignity of the elderly and terminally-ill, condemned unjust military actions in Iraq, and forgave someone who attempted to assassinate him. The stark contrast between the celebration of life when the sun rose that day and the celebration of death at the sun’s setting is very poignant contrast between the Church’s promotion of a Culture of Life in the global context of a Culture of Death. Bin Laden had been killed and vengeance still reigned at the end of the day.

The war is not over.

As the country revelled into the night (or in my case, slept), the news spread across the international community. The next morning, I discovered that Pope Benedict XVI issued a statement, which truly reflected the message of the Easter Season, which is to celebrate the life-giving resurrection of our Lord and Saviour.

In the face of a man's death, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibilities of each person before God and before men, and hopes and works so that every event may be the occasion for the further growth of peace and not of hatred.

The Holy Father’s words caused me to pause and really mull over bin Laden’s death in the context of my faith tradition. While I never intend to commit the intrinsically evil actions that bin Laden ordered to be carried out through Al-Qaeda, what areas in my life do I choose to reject God?

It is never easy to be a Christian, is it? As Jesus reminds us in the Good News according to Saint Matthew:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.

The counterintuitive love is that which society does not teach. This type of unconditional love has one source and one source alone. I will be the first to admit that I am not perfect and this kind of love is difficult to emulate, but it takes moments like these that highlight the contrast between what is popular against what is right that reminds me which path to take.

The war will not be over unless each of us, regardless of faith, takes up the cross of which Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us. An event such as the murder of Osama bin Laden ought to be an occasion for further growth of peace.

As radical extremists in isolated pockets around the world continue to kill innocent civilians, as injustice continues to create divisions and conflict in our neighbourhoods and families, and as the War on Terrorism powers ahead with full force and support from the Government of the United States of America, my homeland, I urge everyone to offer up this prayer as a reminder of what each of us can do personally to not just support non-violence but to be makers of peace:

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love.
Where there is injury, pardon.
Where there is doubt, faith.
Where there is despair, hope.
Where there is darkness, light.
Where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

Amen.

Peace & Life Connections Winter 2011

2011-03-18T17:18:00.000-07:00

Edward Allred, millionaire abortion doctor, San Diego Union, October 12, 1980

When a sullen black woman of 17 or 18 can decide to have a baby and get welfare and food stamps and become a burden to us all, it's time to stop. In parts of South Los Angeles, having babies for welfare is the only industry the people have.

Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life, “Convergence,” mailing of January 2011

January 15 is the birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and on or around that day we observe a national holiday in his honor. A week later, on January 22, we recall the tragic decision made that day in 1973 by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, unleashing a policy of abortion on demand...Both the civil rights movement and the pro-life movement are evidence of this common engagement. Both movements seek to secure equal rights for marginalized human beings, despite their appearances...Defending the equal dignity of every human being after birth strengthens our witness to the rights of those in danger before birth, and vice-versa. The witness, in fact, is ultimately one.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, New York Times Magazine, July 2009
Ginsberg is commenting on her puzzlement that the Court allowed bans on Medicaid funding of abortion.

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

John M. Perkins & Charles Marsh, Welcoming Justice: God's Movement Toward Beloved Community, 2009

Family values and social justice aren’t separate issues. The health of the community depends on the health of the family and the health of the family depends on the justice of the community.

Juli Loesch Wiley, Consistently Opposing Killing, “An Oral History of Prolifers for Survival”

Brent Bozell [was] the most right-wing person I’ve ever met. He was married to Pat Buckley, Bill Buckley’s sister, but he broke with the Buckley family because they were too liberal...He came to see me one snowy night in the early 1980s. He drove through a snowstorm from Washington D.C. to Erie, Pennsylvania nonstop because he wanted to talk to me about nuclear arms. He thought nuclear arms were an abomination...just the theory of nuclear deterrence, but even the mere possession of nuclear weapons, he thought was a mortal sin. And this is a guy who took very seriously the concept of mortal sin...if you threaten, if you possess these diabolical things you could compare it to the possession of hardcore pornography and other things that simply as property don’t deserve to exist. He said some kinds of property don’t have a right to exist...like instruments of torture, nuclear bombs, or [abortion] suction machines.

David Gushee (CL Endorser), “Common Ground on Abortion?”in Prism, Jan/Feb 2011, page 4

I was laughed off [by pro-choicers] when I claimed that abortion places on women the burdens of the sexual revolution’s "liberation." But as a man I totally and viscerally understand that the availability of abortion and the leverage a man has to demand it of "his" lover enables us to exploit our access to women’s bodies without having to pay the ultimate price if it results in an unwanted pregnancy. The pro-choice side can talk about women’s moral agency all day long, but moral decision making happens in contexts of power. To the extent that a man has power or leverage in a relationship with a woman, he can affect or sometimes even direct her decision to have an abortion.

Lanza del Vasto, 1975

"Justified” violence is the worst. Unjustified violence bursts out of a bad character or bad feelings, but it doesn't go very far. But when people feel justified in the use of violence, it becomes systematic and leads to all the horrors of history.

Jesse Jackson, 1977 "March on Washington"
Note: Unfortunately, he changed positions in time for his 1984 run for the Democratic Party nomination, but his reasoning remains.

There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life...that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned. What happens to the mind of a person, and the moral fabric of a nation, that accepts the aborting of the life of a baby without a pang of conscience? What kind of a person and what kind of a society will we have 20 years hence if life can be taken so casually? It is that question, the question of our attitude, our value system, and our mind-set with regard to the nature and worth of life itself that is the central question confronting mankind. Failure to answer that question affirmatively may leave us with a hell right here on earth.

Richard Rohr (a CL endorser), Daily Meditation, November 19, 2010, Center for Action and Contemplation

If we do not have a seamless garment of justice that applies to all of our relationships and all of society, we will not be taken seriously on any individual hot-button issue. If we do not seek and pursue justice across the board, then any concerns for or against issues of abortion, homosexuality, immigration, women’s rights, prison reform, opposition to war, etc., should and will be seen as a small rag that has been torn from any clean or consistent cloth of thinking. It is seen as mere self-interest or angry moralizing.

William Saletan, Slate Magazine, June 1, 2009
Note: Saletan favors abortion legality, and as such still makes the connection between it and war.

[George] Tiller was the country's bravest or most ruthless abortion provider, depending on how you saw him ... To me, Tiller was brave. His work makes me want to puke. But so does combat, the kind where guts are spilled and people choke on their own blood. I like to think I love my country and would fight for it. But I doubt I have the stomach to pull the trigger.

Diane Gianelli, "Abortion Providers Share Inner Conflicts," American Medical News, July 12, 1993

A New Mexico physician said he was sometimes surprised by the anger a late-term abortion can arouse in him. On the one hand, the physician said, he is angry at the woman. "But paradoxically," he added, "I have angry feelings at myself for feeling good about grasping the calvaria, for feeling good about doing a technically good procedure which destroys a fetus, kills a baby."

Nostalgia 鄉愁

2011-02-27T21:11:00.000-08:00

"Nostalgia" is a poem written by a Chinese poet from Taiwan (余光中). Written during the Cold War, it encapsulates the sentiment of many living on the island at the time.

小時侯﹐鄉愁是一枚小小的郵票:
我在這頭﹐母親在那頭。

長大後﹐鄉愁是一張窄窄的船票:
我在這頭﹐新娘在那頭。

後來呵﹐鄉愁是一方矮矮的墳墓:
我在外頭﹐母親呵在裡頭。

而現在﹐鄉愁是一灣淺淺的海峽:
我在這頭﹐大陸在那頭。

During childhood, nostalgia was a small stamp:
I was on this side, mother was on the other side.

Having grown up, nostalgia was a slender boat ticket:
I was on this side, my bride was on the other side.

Then, nostalgia was a short grave:
I was on the outside, mother was on the inside.

And now, nostalgia is a shallow strait:
I am on this side, the mainland is on the other side.

It is natural human tendency to recollect the past, whether it be positive or negative. Today, Peace Memorial Day, people on Taiwan commemorate the 64th anniversary of the 228 Massacre, during which thousands of Chinese civilians were slaughtered at the command of Governor-General Chen Yi. Society must learn from the past in order not to repeat mistakes. The days of martial law are no more and a whole generation has no first-hand experience whatsoever of those dark days, because the people of 21st Century Taiwan live in a vibrant, but young, democracy. The era of White Terror undoubtedly has scarred a whole segment of society, many of which have never liberated themselves from this state of pain. The pro-democracy advocates of the 1960s and 1970s have achieved the morally worthy goal of a free and democratic society, the first of its kind in East Asia to boot. It is important to remember the past, but it would be a pity to dwell on the past, because it can blind us to the beauty of the present.

A major force that drove the era of White Terror was the assumption of an internal threat. Even today in political discourse, politicians seem to accuse the other party of betraying the people on Taiwan. If there is anything that government officials in Taipei can do to truly memorialise peace it is to stop politicising everything in an us-against-them framework. Just for one day, can the 23 million people on Taiwan stand in solidarity with one another?

Women Deserve Better

2011-02-21T19:35:00.000-08:00

Abortion has been taking front and centre this past week in the news with the release of the latest Rolling Stone Magazine interview of Justin Bieber as well as Representative Jackie Speier's shocking personal revelation during a House floor speech in opposition to the Pence Amendment in H.R. 1, which would cut all federal funding for abortions. In the days after the final vote on the Pence Amendment, there has been a spattering of posts on my Facebook News Feed of a petition in support of Planned Parenthood. It is easy for people to demand widespread access to abortion, because it is far more difficult to address the causes of abortion. The Chinese have a phrase for this: 治標不治本 (Hanyu Pinyin: zhì biāo bú zhì běn; literal: to alleviate the symptoms but not find the cure).

The fact of the matter is that our society has come to accept (with some segments of society even demanding) this form of violence against women and the foundation of society. Abortion is actually symptomatic of other social ills such as hedonism, abuse and racism, and poverty. In fact, it is impossible to significantly reduce these things so long as abortion is socially acceptable.

Hedonism
After the sexual liberation that occurred in the 1920s, Christian denominations and American society itself broke from the traditional stance against artificial contraception en masse. American culture brushed off the Roman Catholic Church as the stick in the mud in 1930 with Pope Pius XI's encyclical Casti connubii (On Christian Marriage). The social acceptance of artificial contraception incepted the idea that sex is purely a physical act of pleasure devoid of any other meaning. This mentality snowballed into the social acceptance of other once immoral acts such as fornication and adultery as well as facilitated the widespread epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases.

If two heterosexual people can enjoy this purely physical act, then why not multiple heterosexual people or even non-heterosexual people? Furthermore, why involve other people at all when one can engage in solitary personal gratification? In 1984, singer Tina Turner would sum this whole idea up best with her hit song, "What's Love Got to Do With It?" As the slippery slope continued throughout the 1960s, Pope Paul VI made a last ditch attempt to correct the increasingly global mindset with the prophetic encyclical Humanae vitae (On Human Life) in 1968. By this point, American culture had been so wrapped up with sexual "liberation" that the words of the Holy Father regarding contraception seemed to have fallen on deaf ears.

Abuse & Racism
As everybody knows, artificial contraception is not 100% effective. The legalisation of abortion corrected this defect. However, it also means that a more sinister notion became unleashed upon society: a woman's right to choose has become a man's right to use. It is perceived that a man now has absolutely no responsibility anymore regarding unplanned pregnancies, because a woman can get an abortion whenever she wants. This irresponsibility can be used to justify a range of perverse actions such as prostitution, rape, and incest. Women are once again dehumanised and can be perceived as merely an object for instant gratification. In trying to liberate women from male patriarchy, abortion has only subjugated women even further, reversing the accomplishments of feminists such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and Sojourner Truth.

Early feminists not only championed women's rights, but also equal rights for Blacks. They understood that the two issues of women's rights and racism were (and still are) intimately linked. It comes as no surprise that Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (then called the American Birth Control League), was heavily influenced by the eugenics movement, which aimed to cleanse the United States from racial impurity and physical deformity. Early advocates of abortion aimed to eventually mandate forced sterilisation for certain kinds of women: non-White, poor, and disabled. Today, abortions are the leading cause of death among the Black population in the United States. The idea of forced sterilisation also influenced the One-Child Policy of the Chinese Communist Party, which has ironically also disproportionately affected females, because many parents even as recently as the 1980s would commit infanticide if their child was a girl.

Poverty
It is also no secret that a greater percentage of low-income women have abortions than women of greater income, who can afford proper maternal health care. For the past few decades, the widespread access to abortion has prevented the government from seriously examining our deficient health care system, which many conservatives falsely claim is the best in the world. In fact, the infant mortality rate in the United States according to the CIA is higher than that of Cuba and barely lower than countries like Croatia, Belarus, and Lithuania. The goal of society should be to provide better pre- and post-natal maternity care as well as quality health care coverage for children.

Poverty is also highest among female-headed households, which is caused by a combination of equal work receiving unequal pay and by men who again only see women as objects of pleasure (also partially facilitated by rampant consumption of pornography in the United States) and not as mothers of their children. The very disintegration of the nuclear family as the foundation of society unfairly places the burden of poverty on women and children. Barriers to break free of poverty such as unaffordable higher education and the welfare state ensure that these victims of poverty forever remain victims.

What does "better" look like?
The debate on the legality of abortion has not subsided in the past 40 years and does not show signs of abating any time soon. However, the legality of abortion is influenced heavily by social acceptance of abortion. Social acceptance of abortion is and will be dictated by the environment in which women are pregnant and raise children. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act paints a better picture already, with several pro-women and pro-children features such as:

the inclusion of maternity coverage and the availability of riders for additional family members in student health care,
family housing and child care,
flexible or alternative academic scheduling to allow students to stay in school,
education to improve parenting skills,
maternity and baby clothing, baby food, baby furniture, and similar items,
post-partum counseling and support groups,
funding for programs that help pregnant or parenting teens stay in or complete high school and prepare for college or vocational education by providing resources and assistance,
assistance to states in providing intervention services, accompaniment, and supportive social services for pregnant victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, or stalking,
additional resources for public awareness and outreach so that pregnant and parenting teens and women are aware of services available to them,
eliminates pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, and
enhances Adoption Tax Credits.

However, the bill is far from perfect. In regards to women's rights, the grave error is that it allows federal funding for abortions. In order to correct this problem, the House has introduced H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, which would codify the accepted standard of not providing federal funding for abortions without repealing the entire bill and starting from scratch.

As Rep. Jackie Speier shared, a large number of abortions are not made nonchalantly. Many women who have had abortions can attest that going through with an abortion is the hardest and most devastating experiences they have had. More often than not, the environment in which these women live force this "choice" upon them. Therefore, it is not our place as imperfect mortals to condemn others. However, we must not remain silent and complacent when there is a grave injustice such as violence in society. We are morally obligated to eliminate the causes of violence and uphold the life and dignity of the human person. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., pro-life civil rights activist, put it simply in 1958 when he said, "Violence begets violence."

Walking for Life, Praying for Peace

2011-01-18T20:55:00.000-08:00

Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them…God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. –Genesis 1:26-27,31a (NAB)

What do all these people have in common?

They all have the right to life and they each have inherent dignity as a human being.

The conclusion of the first chapter of the Bible illustrates the beauty and sacredness of God’s creation. It is no wonder that God’s breath of life in all of His creation also serves as the foundation of Catholic Social Teaching. The Life and Dignity of the Human Person is the theme from which all other social justice themes arise. In spite of the fact that we are all sinners, we are all made in His image and loved as His children. This dignity and right to life is not earned; it is something God has gifted to us. God is the source of all human life and as stewards of creation we have no right to end the life of another human being.

The Catholic Church encourages all public and private citizens to uphold the sanctity of the life and dignity of the human person in her teachings throughout the centuries. There are certain intrinsic evils such as direct abortions, embryonic stem cell research, physician-assisted suicide, and genetic modification. The Church also believes that there are rare, if any, instances when it is morally acceptable to carry out the death penalty. Even warfare is limited to the Just War Theory with its roots going all the way back to Doctors of the Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo.

The Church’s teachings on life and dignity could not be more relevant today in our country. Abortions have increased ever so slightly for the first time in nearly three decades. Embryonic stem cell research is once again legally permissible. An increasing number of states continue to introduce legislation to legalize physician-assisted suicide. California just last year ended its moratorium on the death penalty. This past Sunday marked the 20th anniversary of our involvement in the conflict in Iraq.

However, through the hard work of the pro-life movement, including many Catholics, we have had many victories. Since 1994, almost half the states in our country introduced over a hundred pieces of legislation collectively to legalize physician-assisted suicide. None of them passed. In 2009, New Mexico abolished the death penalty. In 2010, 11 states passed dozens of bills that restricts access to abortion.

This weekend as tens of thousands of pro-lifers in San Francisco participate in the 7th Annual Walk for Life West Cost, we as Catholics are called to pray for all those who are victims of violence of any kind. Let us also take this time to re-dedicate ourselves to personally living more non-violent lifestyles in both our words and actions and urge those in power to champion policies, both domestically and internationally, that foster God’s sustaining peace.

Halfway There

2011-01-01T18:20:00.000-08:00

Now that the Democrats have lost the House and significantly lost their majority in the Senate of the 112th Congress, it is time to pause and reflect on the accomplishments of the 111th Congress. The blog post I wrote at the halfway mark of the 111th Congress at the start of 2010 recognizes 2.5 victories that will move the country forward. This note will add to what has already been mentioned.

The first victory also happens to complete the 0.5 victory from last year and that is the passage of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act in the Senate. The merits of the bill were listed previously, but I would be remiss if I did not point out the manner of horror in which this was passed. SAFRA passed as a rider to the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 or what I have been calling Romney-care (also referred to as Obama/Kennedy/Romney-care). My position on this health insurance reform debacle has been made known many times, so I will not get into it here. The passage of SAFRA in and of itself merits a place on my list this year, even if it means a bailout of health insurance companies in perpetuum too.

The second victory this year is something I challenged Congress to do last year, which is to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. The double whammy in the 111th Congress of the Matthew Shepherd Act and the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 shows that despite all the other compromises and misplaced values of the Democratic Party, gay rights is the one issue they got right and more importantly got results. Unfortunately, the Employee Non-Discrimination Act floundered once again in Congress, however, this should not overshadow the momentousness victory the 111th Congress has achieved in terms of gay rights. While there is always work to be done at the individual level in promoting equality, I look forward to the day when (an amended) ENDA passes so I know that at least legally, the United States federal government has done all it can in promoting equal rights for non-straight Americans.

The final victory of the 111th Congress is the ratification of New START, which is the nuclear arms treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation. This treaty is an important and essential step toward a long and difficult road towards a nuclear-weapons-free future. Nuclear weapons are one of the most anti-life practices in which the human race has ever engaged, because it kills disproportionally and indiscriminately. The New START will also make our nation and world safer by encouraging other nations to meet their non-proliferation responsibilities and control nuclear materials, reducing the likelihood that a nuclear weapon will fall into the hands of sub-national entities that wish to terrorize civilians.

That is the end of the 111th Congress. We have five concrete victories to put up on the refrigerator and that really puts things in perspective. Throughout the year, concerned citizens are always dogging their Congressmembers and critiquing the way the Obama Administration is doing its job. Things never go the way we plan, but it is important to periodically step back and reflect on what we have actually done right for this country. Now it is up to the 112th Congress to tackle the biggest issue our country has been facing for the past 25 years: a crushing public debt that equals our country's GDP. The next Congress must put our federal budget on a sustainable path of not only having no deficit, but one that will pay off our public debt in a way that gives a preferential option for the poor and vulnerable in our society and encourages the wealthy to realize their obligation to their fellow Americans. We cannot balance the budget without both cutting programmes and raising taxes.

Peace & Life Connections Autumn 2010

2010-12-17T17:05:00.000-08:00

Suzanne Poppema, Why I Am an Abortion Doctor, 1996, pp. 125-126

Sorrow, quite apart from the sense of shame, is exhibited in some way by virtually every woman for whom I’ve performed an abortion, and that’s 20,000 as of 1995. The sorrow is revealed by the fact that most women cry at some point during the experience...The grieving process may last from several days to several years...Grief is sometimes delayed...the grief may lie sublimated and dormant for years.

Alan Guttmacher, 1970
This is the man after whom the research arm of Planned Parenthood is named, so here’s another example of someone who makes the same connections we do but from the side of favoring rather than opposing the violence.

If you're going to curb population, it's extremely important not to have it done by the damned Yankees, but by the UN. Because, the thing is, then it's not considered genocide. If the United States goes to the black man or the yellow man and says slow down your reproductive rate, we're immediately suspected of having ulterior motives to keep the white man dominate in the world. If you can send in a colorful UN force, you've got much better leverage.

Joseph Bernardin, address to the Woodstock Theological Center, 1990

[T]he consistent ethic...is helpful in that it illustrates the consequences on a range of issues when we fail as a society to protect the sacredness of every human life. A moral vision which does not have room in the circle of the human community for unborn children will inevitably draw the circle of life too narrowly in other decisions of social and economic policy...There must be a connection...between our lack of moral vision in protecting unborn children and our lack of social vision in the provision of basic necessities for women and children.

Mark Crutcher, LifeTalk News, October 1, 2010
In a roundtable conversation, Mark is discussing Republicans who think the abortion issue should be toned down.

These guys say we ought to separate the “moral” issues from the “economic” issues...[Prochoicers] don’t have the moral foundation to make these economic decisions...What these guys ought to be saying is, even if we don’t care about abortion...we ought to be willing to at least use that as a barometer for what kind of economic decisions they’ll make...The military. If you think that going to war doesn’t have moral components to it, you’re nuts. And if we say we don’t want to deal with these moral issues, we want to deal with the money and the military and the terrorism – if you don’t apply morals to those issues, you’ve lost your mind.

Mohanda Gandhi

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary – the evil it does is permanent.

from All Men Are Brothers, Autobiographical Reflections, New York: Continuum, 1980, p. 150

It seems to me clear as daylight that abortion would be a crime.

Jim Wallis, “Pro-Life Democrats? There are millions of votes at stake in this liberal miscalculation,” Sojourners, June 2004

The tragedy is, in America today one can’t vote for a consistent ethic of life. Republicans stress some life issues, Democrats others, while both violate the seamless garment of life on several vital matters. But the consistent life ethic still serves as an invaluable plumb line by which to evaluate all political candidates and parties.

George Monbiot, “The Values of Everything” The Guardian, October 12, 2010
He’s not actually discussing the consistent life ethic, but we think the point applies.

We must shed old thinking and stand up for those who believe there is more to life than the bottom line. But there’s a paradox here, which means that we cannot rely on politicians to drive these changes. Those who succeed in politics are, by definition, people who prioritise extrinsic values. Their ambition must supplant peace of mind, family life, friendship - even brotherly love. So we must lead this shift ourselves. People with strong intrinsic values must cease to be embarrassed by them. We should argue for the policies we want not on the grounds of expediency but on the grounds that they are empathetic and kind; and against others on the grounds that they are selfish and cruel. In asserting our values we become the change we want to see.

Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, 1866, Proceedings of the Eleventh Women's Rights Convention

We are all bound up together in one great bundle of humanity, and society cannot trample on the weakest and feeblest of its members without receiving the curse in its own soul.

Jane Addams (1860-1935), First woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize

I believe that peace is not merely an absence of war but the nurture of human life, and that in time this nurture would do away with war as a natural process.

Thomas Merton, 1968

The whole idea of compassion is based on a keen awareness of the interdependence of all these living beings, which are all part of one another, and all involved in one another.

Shane Claiborne - The Simple Way

A consistent ethic of life is one of the most urgent needs in the world today. Christ was the Way, the Truth, and the LIFE. It is time for a movement of people who are all about interrupting death and cherishing life, from the womb to the tomb. I am grateful for the persistent and courageous work of the Consistent Life foundation. May we all continue to join them in graciously getting in the way of all that destroys life – whether it be abortion, poverty, capital punishment, war, or apathy.

John Noonan, A Private Choice, 1979, p. 82

Why did the slave-holders act as if driven by the Furies to their own destruction?...Why did they take such risks, why did they persist beyond prudent calculation? The answer must be that in a moral question of this kind, turning on basic concepts of humanity, you cannot be content that your critics are feeble and ineffective, you cannot be content with their practical tolerance of your activities. You want, in a sense you need, actual acceptance, open approval. If you cannot convert your critics by argument, at least by law you can make them recognize that your course is the course of the country.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Christmas Sermon, 1967

The next thing we must be concerned about if we are to have peace on earth and good will toward men is the nonviolent affirmation of the sacredness of all human life...when we truly believe in the sacredness of human personality, we won't exploit people, we won't trample over people with the iron feet of oppression, we won't kill anybody.

State Props and Me...

2010-10-01T22:27:00.000-07:00

Prop. 19 - No

Prop. 20 - No

Prop. 21 - Yes, with reservations

Prop. 22 - Yes, with reservations

Prop. 23 - Hell no!

Prop. 24 - Yes

Prop. 25 - Yes, with reservations

Prop. 26 - No

Prop. 27 - Yes, with reservations

Peace & Life Connections Summer 2010

2010-09-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

Daniel Berrigan, Reflections(Amherst, Mass.), vol. 2, no. 4 (Fall 1979), 1-2.

I come to the abortion question by way of a long, long experience with the military and the mainline violence of the culture, expressed in war . . . So I go from the Pentagon and being arrested there, to the cancer hospital, and then I think of abortion clinics, and I see an "interlocking directorate" of death that binds the whole culture. That is, an unspoken agreement that we will solve our problems by killing people in various ways; a declaration that certain people are expendable, outside the pale.

Daphne Clair de Jong, “Feminism and Abortion: The Great Inconsistency,” reprinted in ProLife Feminism: Yesterday and Today

In the same way that many opponents of slavery and racism have failed to apply their principles to the question of women’s rights, so feminist writers have a peculiarly dense blind spot about the unborn. No argument in favour of freely available abortion is tenable in the light of feminist ideals and principles. And all of them bear an alarming resemblance to the arguments used by men to justify discrimination against women.

Scott Rains, disability-rights activist

My own decision to become publicly active in the prolife movement was, I admit, rather selfish. I followed the news stories while a newborn child was starved at an Indiana hospital because he was born with Down's syndrome. The years I had spent fighting for federal architectural standards, for equal access and equal employment suddenly didn't make sense. If the new strategy was to eliminate those of us with disabilities at birth, then that was where I would stand up for our rights...Having looked at the world with the perspective of a man with a physical disability, I saw an attitude - and a mechanism - of oppression, as tangible as racism, that held people like myself at the margins of society...If being open to the experience of one's disability can lead to action in the prolife movement, what about in the peace movement? A disabled veteran of Vietnam is not likely to have a romanticized idea of war. The disabled children of hibakusha (survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) don't need to ask if it is a sin to build nuclear weapons.

Nat Hentoff, columnist, “You Don’t Have to Believe in God to Be Prolife,” U.S. Catholic, March 1989, 28-30, p. 29

A primary objection, I was told, to the seamless-garment approach was that it would dilute the anti-abortion message, and that was more important than any other because the unborn were being killed right now...I understand the point, but the anti-abortion movement would be stronger if it had more members – members across the spectrum of American politics, religion, and no religion.

Dr. Frank Behrend, M.D., whose practice included abortions, tape-recorded speech November 7, 1977

Reference was made to my agreeing that abortion is taking a human life, which it is. However, let us remember that war is also legalized killing, that the pilot that dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima killed human life. He got medals for it. We bless our troops when they go into battle to kill human beings, so that the taking of human life, including the death penalty in certain states like Utah, where the man was shot, is not a strange behavior in a society.

Gerard Wilberforce

I am writing as the great great grandson of William Wilberforce, who campaigned vigorously for the ending of the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, which ultimately paved the way for the abolition of slavery itself throughout the entire British Empire in 1833. I am often asked what would be the campaigns Wilberforce would be fighting if he were alive in 21st century Britain. I believe that there would be a number of different issues – among them human trafficking and the scourge of drugs. But almost certainly at the top of the list, would be the issue of abortion...are great similarities between the status of the foetus and the status of African slaves two centuries ago...[In] our decision to abort unwanted children, we are no better than those slave traders who put their interests and world view higher than they placed the sanctity and value of human life...Whilst our hearts go out to those who have chosen abortion, there should now be much greater emphasis on the alternatives that exist.

Nicholas D. Kristof, “Another Pill That Could Cause a Revolution,” New York Times Op-Ed, July 31, 2010

Could the decades-long global impasse over abortion worldwide be overcome — by little white pills costing less than $1 each?...Five-sixths of abortions take place in developing countries, where poor sterilization and training often make the procedure dangerous..."I feel like people must have felt when they discovered the nuclear bomb," says Dr. Beverly Winikoff, president of Gynuity Health Projects..."This technology is world-shaking."

Wangari Maathai, Nobel Peace Prize Winner from Kenya, December 7, 2004, press interview

When we allow abortion, we are punishing the women—who must abort their children because their men have run away—and we are punishing the children whose lives are terminated...I want us to step back a little bit and say: Why is this woman and this child threatened? Why is this woman threatening to terminate this life? What do we need to do as a society? What are we not doing right now as a society? A part of that answer lies in this House [pointing at the Kenyan Parliament building].

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, Talk, “The Approach of Midnight” (mid-1970s)

How do we know the limits of the identity of the state of Illinois? By its boundary lines. A basketball court? By its foul lines. How do we know our own identity? By limits; by boundaries; by law; by order. And I think we lost all of these at 8:15 in the morning August the 6th 1945 when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. That bomb blotted out boundaries of life and death, civilian and the military; and trust among nations. And so abortion from that point on is defended on the ground that one may do whatever he pleases.

Helen Prejean, endorsing Consistently Opposing Killing

The societal wounds of racism, poverty, and a penchant for using violence to address problems are intimately connected to the death penalty, to war, to the killing of the old and demented, and to the killing of children, unborn and born. If more people were familiar with the consistent life ethic, as expounded in this book, then the voice of all unseen vulnerable people would be better heard.

Mattie Byrd, Letter to Ira Reiner, Los Angeles District Attorney, around 1989 (therefore referring to a legal abortion)

I am the mother of Belinda A. Byrd...I am also the grandmother of her three young children who are left behind and motherless. I cry every day when I think how horrible her death was. She was slashed by them and then she bled to death, taken from this world on January 27, 1987. She has been stone dead for two years now, and nobody cares. I know that other young black women are now dead after abortion at that address...Where is [the abortionist] now? Has he been stopped? Has anything happened to him because of what he did to my Belinda? Has he served jail time for any of these cruel deaths? People tell me nothing has happened, that nothing ever happens to white abortionists who leave young black women dead.

Frank Kennedy, Who will be today's Wilberforce for unborn children?

Why should slavery, which we now find intolerable, have been accepted 200 years ago? There were many arguments for slavery, some as frivolous as saying that the slave trade "nurtured sailors for time of war," which implied that it desensitized them to the horrors of war. Captain Robert Norris claimed his voyages were "pleasure cruises for slaves" and the West Indian bloc in the House of Commons...claimed that the happiest day in an African's life was when he was shipped away from the "barbarism" of his homeland to the Americas. Is this not like the suggestion that some unborn children (particularly those with a disability) are better off being killed than being given the chance to live?

Dr. Alveda King, Director of African American Outreach for Gospel of Life and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., endorsing Consistently Opposing Killing: From Abortion to Assisted Suicide, the Death Penalty, and War

The authors consistently and rationally support the position of opposition to murder in a society where wrong may seem right, to the detriment of life, liberty and justice.

Turning the Other Cheek?

2010-07-05T19:16:00.000-07:00

The Chinese Civil War, which took a decisive turn in the end of 1949, has kept the Taiwan Strait a potential flashpoint in the 21st Century. One week ago, the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) based on Taiwan and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) based on the Chinese mainland, signed the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which acts as a free trade agreement between the two economies. The majority of those in Taiwan and in the international community welcomed this new agreement as part of ever-improving ties between the two sides.

Even before this agreement has arrived for final review in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China, there are already rumblings from unknown sources that this may affect U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Even though the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), which has served as the de facto American embassy to Taiwan R.O.C. since 1979, has denied this, it is still not enough assurance considering what was said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on the FY11 Defence Budget on June 16.

Near the end of the hearing (starting at 1:18), Senator Feinstein asks Secretary Gates about US arms sales to Taiwan. The senator had visited the Chinese mainland and met with top members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and then visited Taiwan where she met with ROC President Ma Ying-jeou a week prior to this Senate hearing. Senator Feinstein states that she wants to see military exchanges between the United States and the People's Liberation Army, but during her visit, the CCP made it known that these exchanges do not happen due to US arms sales to Taiwan. Senator Feinstein stated for the public record that these arms sales are and will remain an "irritant" to Sino-American relations.

First, I want to make clear that the vast majority of international experts on the region, including the overwhelming majority of those on Taiwan want a peaceful resolution to the civil war. Increasing cultural exchanges allows both sides to recognize the diversity of Chinese culture from different localities. It also allows the Mainland Chinese to rediscover aspects of Chinese culture preserved in Taiwan that were purged during the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution from 1966-1976. Increasing trade allows the Taiwanese economy to grow after a decade of increasing isolation and allows the Mainland to embrace the market economy a little more. Ultimately, increasing links between the two sides allows more exposure on the Mainland to the world outside the influence of the CCP. The thawing of tension since the inauguration of Ma Ying-jeou is a major watershed in cross-strait relations.

Even so, possessing arms of defensive nature is crucial to ensure that Taiwan will not be intimidated in future talks with the Mainland. Defensive arms allow Taiwan to repel any and (hopefully) all potential military offensives by the People's Liberation Army. It would be erroneous to think that I support violence, because I cannot stress enough that all nonviolent solutions must be attempted with all efforts from both sides when dealing with conflict resolution. However, the 1,200 short-range missiles pointed at Taiwan on the other side of the narrow Strait along with many more medium-range missiles in the Chinese hinterland are constant reminders that self-defence may be necessary as a last resort. (This kind of defence also differs from preemptive strikes and imperialism as we have seen from other more powerful militaries.) The defence that Taiwan is concerned with cannot be resolved by promises of missile redeployment from the leadership of the CCP. As Senator Feinstein herself admits, redeploying these missiles does not mean removing them.

What can the CCP do so the United States would stop selling arms to Taiwan? Well, Senator Feinstein, as Secretary Gates pointed out, arms sales to Taiwan is codified in the Taiwan Relations Act that the U.S. Congress passed in 1979, so arms sales will not end overnight. It will take years, if not decades of decreased tensions between the two sides of the Strait before the United States should consider canceling all future arms sales to Taiwan. In a recent CNN interview, President Ma Ying-jeou explicitly stated that he will never ask the United States to fight for Taiwan. This is because Taiwan should be able to defend itself, but it cannot do that with its aging and outdated military equipment. This is mainly due to the fact that arms sales experienced a de facto freeze from the late-1990s to the late-2000s when tension between the two sides of the Strait were at its highest since the 1950s. Therefore, with relations between the two sides now at its best in history and brinkmanship low, there can be no better time to ensure that Taiwan is well-equipped militarily. Reducing defensive arms sales to Taiwan now would be a major mistake, not only because it would be seen as the United States appeasing the People's Liberation Army, but also because Taiwan needs to continue to be able to work from a position of confidence with the CCP in its efforts to increase exchanges between the two sides.

Peace & Life Connections Spring 2010

2010-06-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

Consistent Life sends out weekly email updates on promoting peace and life and it always includes really insightful quotations regarding life issues (either from those who are pro-life or the opposition). I definitely want to save all of them, so every quarter or so I will post all the quotations from these emails.

Hubert H. Humphrey speech, November 4, 1977

The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.

Richard A. Viguerie, conservative activist, Conservatives Betrayed (Bonus Books), 2006

Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice . . . support for [capital punishment] undermines our arguments against abortion, euthanasia, and related practices.

Maria Vitale, LifeNews.com Editorial Columnist, March 29, 2010, “Abortion's Slippery Slope Led to Killing Terri Schiavo”

When I was in seventh grade, our pro-life teacher drew a line on the blackboard connecting the word ‘abortion’ with the word ‘euthanasia.’ The killing of pre-born children leads to the killing of older people, people with disabilities, and people who are ill. Life is a tapestry, and when one thread has been pulled out by advocates of abortion, the rest of the threads begin to unravel.

Sharon Lerner, “Nowhere to Hyde,” The Nation, April 19, 2010

The months of debate and politicking around the healthcare overhaul provided a glimpse of the political strength of the prochoice movement that hasn't been possible for years. The picture that emerged wasn't pretty, as supporters of choice found that they don't have the influence many assumed they did. . . . after the frenzied horse-trading that finally produced a law, women across the country were left with less access to the procedure and a seriously weakened power base from which to protect and advocate for abortion rights. ‘It's an enormous setback,’ says Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy for [Planned Parenthood].

Colman McCarthy, columnist, Washington Post, April 11, 1992

Both the military ethic and the abortion ethic are grounded in the same belief: Life is cheap. Iraqi life. Fetal life. . . . The language of the war lobby and the abortion lobby is from the same glossary of evasions. No one likes war, say the generals. No one likes abortions, says NOW. But let's keep the killing option, just in case. And cases keep coming. If Iraqis are causing trouble, or Libyans, Grenadans or Panamanians, bomb them. If fetuses pose problems, destroy them.

Edward Allred, millionaire abortion doctor, San Diego Union, October 12, 1980

Population control is too important to be stopped by some right wing pro-life types. Take the new influx of Hispanic immigrants. Their lack of respect for democracy and social order is frightening. I hope I can do something to stem that tide; I'd set up a clinic in Mexico for free if I could.

Mary Meehan, “Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life: Consistency Demands Concern for the Unborn," The Progressive, September, 1980

Some of us who went through the anti-war struggles of the 1960s and early 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement . . . We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" – the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.

James Wilson, United States Supreme Court Justice, signer of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, "Lectures on Law," 1791

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by common law. . . . By law it is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence.

LeRoy Carhart, M.D, specialist in late-term abortions, CBS Evening News, Dec. 4, 2009

I totally believe in this cause every bit as much as I did believe every morning when I got up in the military that I was doing the right thing.

Juli Loesch, founder, Prolifers for Survival. June 18, 1981, tape recording

I started into this kind of agitation thinking I was going to be a bridge-builder -- you know, a bridge-builder between peace and pro-life, a bridge-builder between feminism and pro-life. And what I experienced in the first few years of this [was] sometimes attracting bricks from both the right and the left coming at me simultaneously. And where those bricks came from was from the rift in the wall – from people's own consciences tearing in two . . . And it pleases me now to see that instead of being a bridge-builder, I started off being a wall-breaker. You take all those loose bricks, and that's what you make the bridge out of.

Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life

Peace is more than the absence of war. The foundation of peace is justice, that everyone’s rights are protected and everyone’s dignity is recognized. . . . To fight abortion, therefore, is one of the ways that we work for peace. Abortion completely oppresses and diminishes the rights of the child who is killed. Rather than fostering right relationships, it destroys them, starting with the most basic relationship between a mother and her own child.

Erma Clardy Craven, social worker, Abortion and Social Justice, Sheed & Ward, 1972

It takes little imagination to see that the unborn Black baby is the real object of many abortionists. Except for the privilege of aborting herself, the Black woman and her family must fight for every other social and economic privilege. This move toward the free application of a non-right (abortion) for those whose real need is equal human rights and opportunities is benumbing the social conscience of America into unquestioningly accepting the ‘smoke screen’ of abortion. The quality of life for the poor, the Black and the oppressed will not be served by destroying their children.

Sam Brownback, Republican United States Senator, U.S. News and World Report, April 11, 2005. p. 34

If we're trying to establish a culture of life, it's difficult to have the state sponsoring executions.

State Props and Me...

2010-05-12T20:32:00.000-07:00

Proposition 13: No, with reservations.
Proposition 14: NO!
Proposition 15: YES!
Proposition 16: NO!
Proposition 17: NO!

Measure K: Yes, with reservations.

101 Delights!

2010-03-24T19:28:00.000-07:00

here's a list of 101 delightsthat are worth enjoying today (not all in one day, though!).

coloring (yes, grown-ups can do it, too)
crisp cotton sheets
soft skin
old family recipes
the first daffodils of spring
sleeping in
an exercise endorphin high
window boxes
a perfect cup of coffee
a genuine compliment (giving or receiving)
the way babies smell
a handwritten letter
waking up in a good mood...for no real reason
singing in the shower
finding a couple forgotten dollars in your pocket
doing something nice for your neighbor
a home cooked meal
laughing
movie theater popcorn
playing hookey
a bubble bath
swimming
an afternoon nap
street musicians
your favorite song
saying thank you
helping someone in need
old fashioned photo booths
fresh whipped cream
inspiring blogs
a glass of wine
rainy afternoons
the funny things kids say
a novel you can get lost in
finding the perfect piece of clothing...on sale
clean laundry
the wind in your hair
treating the person behind you at the drive-thru
sharing an umbrella
the smell of lavender
a long walk that clears your head
a bear hug
The Beatles
smiling at a stranger
eating with chopsticks (Chinese food optional)
butterflies
staying in your pj's all day
singing along to the radio and knowing all the words
fresh herbs
ordering in pizza
happy endings...even if they're fictional
flying a kite
puppies
root beer floats
holding open the door...
...or having someone hold the door for you
fountain soda
white, fluffy towels
sunshine
spending an afternoon at a museum
really great advice
green lights all the way home
the sound of rain hitting the windows
sitting in a booth
holding hands
a great hair day with no effort
building a fort with your kids
when someone falls asleep with their head on your shoulder
fireflies
the perfect taco
geraniums on a windowsill
slow dancing
the smell of fresh-baked bread
cheesy, uplifting musicals
greatstories
the smell of gasoline
the cold side of the pillow
love letters
old friends...
...new friends
a pull-through parking space
a baguette -- crisp on the outside, airy on the inside
when a dog licks your hand
sitting at the counter at an old-fashioned diner
using your favorite dishes
reading your child a bedtime story
Girl Scout Cookies
flossing
kissing someone you love
the smell of onions and garlic cooking
hot chocolate
jumping in puddles
old photographs
birds hopping on the sidewalk
Ella Fitzgerald
a spoonful of peanut butter straight from the jar
your softest t-shirt
a new magazine in the mail
fireplaces
having exact change
bacon and pancakes cooking on Saturday morning

Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires

2010-03-10T21:15:00.000-08:00

Representative Kucinich conducted a 3-hour debate on the constitutionality of the continued American occupation of Afghanistan. Throughout the debate, Rep. Kucinich (D-OH), Rep. Jones (R-NC), Rep. Paul (R-TX), and several others made the case for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. The arguments covered a spectrum of political beliefs, some of which I have never heard before, but were equally valid and convincing.

Rep. Kucinich made the case that this violated the War Powers Act of 1973, because while Congress authorized military action at the end of 2001, it did not authorize the current military objectives (also known as mission creep). The Department of Defence has confused Al Qaeda and the Taliban, capturing Osama bin Laden with nation-building. Rep. Jones, as did others, brought up the case that returning veterans are not given the proper attention and respect they deserve. Many have suffered mental illnesses that lead to suicide, homelessness, and in rare cases homicide. Rep. Paul, being one of the few conservatives in Congress, stuck to the conservative value of nonintervention as reason for troop withdrawal.

Yes, there were opponents from both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Democrats, for the most part, disagreed with the resolution, because they do not see it as a violation of the War Powers Act of 1973, as Kucinich claims. Others, like their Republican counterparts, want to give the troop surge a chance. They argue that the surge is how we won in Iraq and will allow for an American victory in Afghanistan.

The disturbing thing is that opposition views this resolution as disrespecting our troops, which could not be farther from the truth. This erroneous claim was repeatedly brought up and repeatedly denounced. In the end, it really did not matter what justification the opposition had to this resolution, because only 65 Congresspersons voted in favour (60 Democrats and 5 Republicans). The Congressional Progressive Caucus has 79 voting members in the House, and the Democrats only managed to squeeze 60 Yea votes.

The result was quite disappointing. Afghanistan and the entire War on Terrorism is crushing out nation with debt, putting us on an unsustainable path. Many argue that this debt will be paid on the backs of our children and grandchildren, but it does not look like the United States will survive that long. The national debt will literally crush our country if we do not act now. We should not re-invest these funds into domestic programmes; we need to stop spending what we do not have. Until we learn that structural deficits are bad, we should not be spending any money.

As our representatives mentioned today, "We won in Iraq; we won in Afghanistan; it's time to bring our troops home." When all is said and done, "war is hard, but peace is harder."

Strait But Not Narrow

2010-02-10T12:52:00.000-08:00

The most recent ICLP Newsletter had an article covering the talk Professor Shelley Rigger made concerning Taiwanese politics and cross-strait relations. The following is my response to the article.

Dr. Rigger makes an excellent point in stating that cross-strait relations is a fundamental issue to peace and security in Northeast Asia. However, I find that there is another way to look at the issue in light of recent events.

She mentions that cross-strait relations is unsustainable, because cross-strait relations is directly related to Sino-American relations. The cornerstone of cross-strait relations is obviously the 1992 Consensus, which both governments view as an internal agreement. However, it is another issue completely when the United States is involved. The Chinese Communist Party does not tolerate what it perceives as the United States meddling in its internal affairs when it comes to Taiwan. Therefore, allowing then-president Lee Teng-hui to make such a public appearance was perceived by the CCP as the United States’ tacit recognition that Taiwan is a separate country. The collapse of cross-strait relations in 1995 was the direct result of how the CCP wanted to rattle its sabre at the United States and those who deviated from the agreed-upon One China principle. No doubt, this is the example (or at least a major piece of evidence) for Dr. Rigger’s conclusion. However, one may also argue that cross-strait relations is inversely related to Sino-American relations. From the period of 2002 through 2007, Sino-American relations were arguably the best they have been since 1979 while cross-strait relations reached a low not seen since the 1950s. The arms package the United States proposed in 2001 was halted during this time for almost a decade, no doubt as a gesture of goodwill to the CCP. With the recent announcement of the $6.4 billion arms sales to Taiwan, the CCP has only threatened the United States. It has not significantly hurt cross-strait relations, as the CCP continues to support further talks with Taiwanese delegates about the pending Economic Cooperative Framework Agreement. There are no signs of retaliation in the form of reducing the Three Links or other ties.

Instead of saying that cross-strait relations is unsustainable, I propose shifting the idea a little to say that it is the status quo that is unsustainable. Taiwan cannot be neglected internationally as under the control of the communist regime, because the fact is that Taiwan has never been part of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan can only increase its international presence if the CCP stops competing with it for diplomatic allies, which is has done, and if it reciprocates goodwill to show that it means what it says, as exemplified through Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Assembly. The resolution of this conflict hinges on continuing cross-strait talks and interactions. Taiwan is already the largest source of import for Mainland China, and, regardless of politics, the two economies are inextricably linked. Increasing exchanges between the two sides will also increase understanding of the different cultures on both sides thus decreasing potential for conflict. Taiwanese people have forgotten certain aspects of common cultural traditions between Mainland China and Taiwan due to a decade of false identity fabrication. Most importantly, the end of authoritarian rule on the Mainland is the ultimate goal of increased interactions from the perspective of Taipei. Increased interactions with the outside world necessitates the progressive weakening of control that the CCP has on the entire country. While in the short-term, cross-strait relations depends on Taiwan going to the negotiation table from a position of strength and confidence, in the long-run, cross-strait relations is necessary for the resolution of this issue. Cross-strait relations is not only sustainable, but it along with a resolution to this issue are inevitable. Taiwan can choose to have a say in how this conflict is resolved through increasing cross-strait dialogue and interaction, or it can be forced to accept the outcome dictated by the CCP should Taiwan choose to boycott further dialogue and interactions.

Whatever the outcome of this cross-strait issue, Dr. Rigger and I both agree on one thing: if you are interested in Northeast Asia, this is an issue you will want to study more closely.

Support Arms Package to Taiwan

2010-01-29T20:25:00.000-08:00

Dear Congressman:

Please support the $6 billion arms packageto the Republic of China. As the oldest republic in East Asia, we have a responsibility to enable it to protect itself frompotential aggressive actions by the Chinese Communist Party.

Taiwan

perennially ranks as one of the top champions of human rights and freedom inthe world and as such, deserves our continued commitment.

The ROC government under the MaAdministration has proven to be a responsible partner in peace and security in East Asia. It has rejected the brinkmanship attitude ofthe Chen Administration. President Ma's modus vivendi demonstrates that herejects the idea of unilateral action in cross-strait relations, but this doesnot negate the fact that

Taiwan

'sdefences are very outdated and cannot counter an attack by the People's LiberationArmy from the Mainland.

It is imperative that the

United States

fulfilsits obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act to supply the armed forces ofthe Republic of China with weapons of defensive nature, such as Patriotmissiles, Black Hawk helicopters, F-16s, and other equipment. The majority ofyour foreign-born Chinese-American constituents were born and raised in

Taiwan

. Please activelysupport the Republic of China and its right to protect itself againstaggression from the Chinese Communist Party in order to ensure that ourhomeland is protected.

SOTU 2010 Highlights

2010-01-27T19:45:00.000-08:00

Best moment: Supreme Court burn

Best "oops" moment: Asking for a better health insurance reform plan

Best awkward moment: Freezing spending in 2011 followed by Republican laughter(but it was pretty darn funny)

Best "I can't believe you just said that" moment: Nuclear, offshoredrilling, and clean coal

Best "it's about freaking time you get it" moment: repealing Don'tAsk, Don't Tell

Best Shout-out: Making higher education affordable

Best husband moment: Embarrassing Michelle

One Down, Three to Go!

2010-01-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

One year ago today, the election of Barack Obama proved that the American electorate wanted something different after eight years of George W. Bush. While it would be far too easy to look at all the shortcomings of the Democrats and all of the scary similarities between Bush and Obama, I want to take a moment to savour the few victories Obama delivered with the aid of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate.

There are three pieces of legislation (and yes, unfortunately Democrats were only able to deliver three good bills this past year) that are worth mentioning.

The first is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which the President signed on January 29. This law comes after a long battle of a woman (any probably many other women since the Civil Rights Movement), who was unjustly discriminated by a major corporation due to her sex. This legislation officially overturned a ruling by the Supreme Court, which stated that Ms. Ledbetter could no longer sue Goodyear for unjust discrimination, because the case had exceeded the statute of limitations. This is significant, because it has prevented a step backwards in the movement towards gender equity, especially in terms of equal pay for equal work.

The second is the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which is unlike the other two pieces of legislation I am mentioning, because it has only passed the House. The Senate has yet to send it to Obama for signing. This is significant, because it finally increases the maximum amount for the Federal Pell Grant to $5,500 and indexes its increase to inflation. For the last 35 years, the real value of the Pell Grant has substantially decreased. College tuition continues to increase and without the Pell Grant, many low-income students would not be able to pay tuition (I said tuition, not the total cost of college attendance). While we have a long way to go before most Americans understand that as the richest country in the world, higher education ought to be a right for anyone who wants it, this is an important step to ensure that low-income students still have some hope of going to (although not necessarily graduating from) college.

The third piece of legislation passed by the Democrats, and only major victory, is the Matthew Shepard Act, which the President signed on October 28. 40 years after the initial federal hate crime law was signed, the United States government finally recognizes that a crime motivated by perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability also qualifies as a hate crime. People who do not identify as straight or as either male or female are human beings too. As such, they are also afforded the same inalienable right to life. It amazes me that what happened to Matthew Shepard was as recent as 1998 and that around the country, until just a few months ago, this act of hate was not recognized as such. Even more amazing is that it took 11 years to pass this bill. This is a major step in the right direction for not only the LGBT community, but for the country as a whole. The only damper on this victory was the fact that it was passed on the back of the National Defence Authorization Act for 2010. The next step is to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Now the question is: what will the 111th Congress do in its last year? Will we pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Will we finally close Guantanamo Bay and all prisons of that nature? Will we finally take leadership in the fight against climate destabilization and provide real solutions? Will we pass fiscally responsible, universal health insurance for all Americans? Will we seriously re-think our economy to prevent a third Great Depression? Will we learn how to balance our federal budget so the United States does not become the next Soviet Union? Congress, these are all questions that need to be answered. I understand it is hard, but just pick one of these and make it happen. Just one, that is all I am asking.

The Forgotten Case for Traditional Marriage

2010-01-12T23:39:00.000-08:00

There has been an enormous amount of talkabout “marriage” in the last couple years in California with the State Supreme Court’s decisionto allow same-sex couples to wed due to the State Constitution not explicitlystating otherwise followed by the passage of Proposition 8 (2008). However, there is a major misconception of “marriage”embedded in American society, and I am not just talking about sexualorientation.

The degradation of marriage began not withthe debate about same-sex unions, but during the era of sexual liberation inthe 1960s. Then Republican Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the FamilyLaw Act of 1969, which abolished the long-standing tradition of requiring proofof fault by one spouse in order to dissolve the marital status of both spouses.The idea that two people can get married without much thought, because they canget out of it without much thought, has led to the idea that marriage is aright. Why wouldn’t it be a right if it were not a big deal? As long as twoconsenting adults want to enter into a contract, which needs no reason to beabolished, why should the government stand in their way? The right to marriageencourages the false sense that couples also have the right to a divorce,thereby the right to dismantle the foundation of society. It is no coincidencethat since the era of sexual liberation, we have seen the social fabric comingundone with the legalization of abortion, increasing poverty amongfemale-headed households, and a preoccupation on defining one’s worth by materialgoods instead of each person having intrinsic worth as a human being.

People have lost sight of the basic fact ofmarriage, which is that it cannot be undone. There are those who will now wantto argue that annulments effectively undoes a marriage, but that is erroneousthinking, because an annulment merely recognizes that some marriages areputative, meaning that it did not exist in the first place. Therefore, youcannot disband something that was never in existence. Annulments and putativemarriages are another topic altogether, so I will not be discussing it muchfurther in this essay. Society seems to have lost sight of the permanence ofmarriage due to its misguided notions of love. “Marriage is about love,” peopleoften say. Even Captain and Tenille sing that “love will keep us together.” Itwould be foolish to argue that love is not an important aspect of marriage, butit would be equally foolish to argue that love is what marriage is about. Iftwo people truly loved each other, they would not need a piece of paper andlegal benefits to prove it. Unfortunately, the fading of love between twopeople is exactly what leads to “irreconcilable differences,” meaning thatafter the love has gone, so has the marriage.

The idea that marriage is a right combinedwith the idea that marriage is about love brings us (backwards) to the 21stCentury. There is a lot of unnecessary discussion right now about theconstitutionality regarding the legalization of “same-sex marriages.” However,how can society even think it has the authority to discuss these unions when wehave utterly failed at defining traditional marriage correctly? There are thosewho love to quote the Scriptures regarding homosexuals, but fail to read whatJesus says Himself about divorce. The Gospel according to St. Mark explicitlystates:

“…from thebeginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a manshall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the twoshall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Thereforewhat God has joined together, no human being must separate." In the housethe disciples again questioned him about this. He said to them, "Whoeverdivorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if shedivorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

The irony is that the same verse fromGenesis that Jesus quotes to condemn divorce is one of the same versesopponents of “same-sex marriages” use to oppose “same-sex marriages.” California,let us re-examine how we have strayed so far off the path of what traditionalmarriage ought to be and correct this egregious error before we talk aboutwhether or not to expand the definition of marriage to non-heterosexualcouples.

What's the deal with Copenhagen?

2009-12-07T00:59:00.000-08:00

Recently, my sister sent me an email asking about what's going on with Copenhagen and the greater picture of American involvement in stopping global warming. My response was super long, but I think it is good enough to repost as a blog entry. Here it is, crash course to climate change, Copenhagen, and the United States.

As far as American foreign policy on tackling climate change is concerned, for several months, the Obama Administration has indicated that it will not agree to European targets of 20% reductions (from the 1990 level) by 2020. This has made many European governments upset and they have (politely) expressed their indignations in their media. Domestically, Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Kerry (D-MA) have crafted a bill which would outline emissions reductions targets and procedures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (from the 2005 level, which equals about 4% from the 1990 level) by 2020, because they are working with the target of 450 part per million of carbon dioxide.

As far as the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has actually signed the document during the Clinton Administration. However, you are correct in observing that the United States has not yet ratified Kyoto. Yes, the main argument then (as it remains today on any climate change treaties) is that the United States will not sign it if other major polluters like Mainland China and India refuse to sign it, because it would hurt the American economy's competitiveness. Just last week, Mainland China has indicated that it will reduce its carbon intensity per unit of output, meaning that it will produce goods at more efficient levels, leading to a slowing of their carbon pollution growth rate. In other words, their carbon pollution will still increase, just not at the same rate it would have if it were not for this new policy.

However, there are several concerns I have about the current situation as described above. First is that many leading climate scientists have concluded that the 450ppm target is based on outdated scientific data and that the situation in 2009 is projecting along the worst case scenario predictions made in 2006. The safe level of carbon dioxide to prevent global climate destabilisation is actually around 350ppm (we are currently at 390ppm). Furthermore, their models show that a 40% reduction (from the 1990 level)by 2020 has a 50% chance of preventing runaway global climate change. There are other scientists who are arguing that in order to fully solve this problem, we need to see 75%-80% reductions by 2020.

The Kerry-Boxer bill also favours non-green solutions such as nuclear and ethanol/biofuels. Nuclear energy, while providing the cheapest energy by the unit, takes about 25 years to break even (meaning it takes about 25 years of providing cheap energy to compensate for the cost to build and run a nuclear power plant). Also, there is no way to safely dispose (not just store) nuclear waste. There are other arguments against nuclear, but these are the two most compelling ones in my opinion. Ethanol, and other biofuels, are not green, because like all combustible fuels, they emit pollution. Yes, they emit less carbon dioxide than traditional gasoline, but they also emit more nitrous oxides into the atmosphere. Nitrous oxides, as you probably know well better than I, reacts with the Earth's atmosphere to form ozone. However, when ozone lingers close to the surface, it is known as smog, which not only produces sulphuric rain, but also is the leading cause of asthma and other respiratory-related illnesses in major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles. Ethanol and biofuels are also not renewable energy sources (nuclear energy sources also last a long time, so while it is technically not renewable, it will not run out before the human race goes extinct).

The next problem is with the actual policy proposed by European governments and our own in trying to solve climate change. The consensus is that we need to implement a "cap-and-trade" system, whereby the government sets a cap on the total amount of pollution that is allowed to be emitted. Each major domestic polluter would then get a fixed number of carbon credits, which determines how much it can pollute. If it does not use all its credits, it can sell it to other polluters who exceed their alloted amount. However, Europe has implemented this system after ratifying Kyoto, and with just 3 years to go until the end of Kyoto, they have not seen significant decreases in GHG emissions. Cap-and-trade grandfathers in pollution, meaning that it entitles existing polluters to continue polluting to a certain extent. It treats GHG emissions as permissible, when it should be treated as bad altogether, in my opinion.

Others have proposed that we implement a carbon tax, meaning for every unit of carbon dioxide someone/company emits, it is taxed a certain amount (perhaps, $20/ton). However, like cap-and-trade, this does not address the argument that if major polluters like Mainland China and India do not sign on, it will hurt the American economy. That is why Oxford professor, Deiter Helm, has proposed a "border tax". This is essentially the same as a carbon tax, but puts the burden on the consumption of carbon, rather than production. For example, if the United States imports toys from Mainland China, the carbon dioxide emitted to produce these toys will be placed on Americans rather than the Chinese producers. That way, even if Mainland China does not agree to a bill with this in place, it will still encourage American consumers to buy less from the Chinese, causing the Chinese to produce less, and thus forcing Mainland China to reduce their overall GHG emissions.

Like the Kyoto Protocol, and all international treaties, signing and ratifying are two separate things. Signing means nothing if it is not ratified by the domestic legislative body/ies. Assuming that we are able to agree to 80% reductions and a border tax, the House will not ratify it, because of pro-business Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans and the Senate for sure will not ratify it, because the Senate tends to be more conservative than the House.

I know, this is quite an unsatisfying conclusion to such a long email, but at this point, if Obama and the United States agrees to a 40% reduction, it would be considered a major victory. The rest is all but a daydream of the ideal situation.

My Swan Song for Health Insurance Reform

2009-11-05T03:31:00.000-08:00

Dear Congressman:

I have been closely following the health insurance reform bills moving through Congress. I have long been an ardent supporter of health insurance reform that: respects human life and dignity, creates universal access with a special concern for the poor and inclusion of immigrants, pursues the common good and preserves choice of doctors, and restrains costs and applies them equitably among the insured.

Therefore, it saddens me to see the devolution of the bills whereby single-payer has not been given a fair discussion. Furthermore, House Democrats have completely removed the Kucinich Amendment to HR 3200 from the final House bill. A single-payer, Medicare for All insurance system is the only way to achieve comprehensive health insurance reform. Without even allowing states to implement such a system will ensure the continued rise of health care costs in our great country.

Mandating insurance through the proposed bills in Congress is faulty, because it works like auto insurance. If someone does not want auto insurance, she can stop driving. However, if someone does not want health insurance under the proposed legislation, is she supposed to stop living? If the Kucinich Amendment to allow individual states to implement a single-payer system is not included, I demand that you oppose the final bill.

The second egregious flaw within the proposed legislation is that it threatens over 30 years of protecting conscience rights. During House floor debate on a health care reform bill, Rep. Bart Stupak is prepared to offer an amendment that addresses essential concerns on abortion funding and conscience rights. Please oppose any Rule that will not allow a vote on the Stupak Amendment. If the serious concerns on abortion funding and conscience rights are not addressed, I demand that you oppose the final bill. Genuine health care reform should protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death.

A moment to make substantial change does not come often, but you have the uneasy task of being part of this moment. Will the Democratic Party support the lives of ALL American citizens and documented immigrants or will it decide to do what is politically convenient and succumb to the interests of for-profit insurance companies?

You and your colleagues will be in my prayers these coming days. For the sake of future generations, please do the right thing and be a voice for the voiceless.

Nobel War Prize

2009-10-16T05:28:00.000-07:00

Last week, a member of the Norweigian Parliament announced that the committee charged with selecting the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize has decided to award President Obama with this honour. Within 24 hours, the blogosphere received a flood of comments that showed a polarised response to this news.

Past Nobel laureates include: Albert Schweitzer, Martin Luther King, Jr., Amnesty International, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Nelson Mandela, Kim Dae Jung, Jimmy Carter, the Grameen Bank, and Al Gore. These figures and organisations have all contributed something significant to the global community.

The biggest argument made in favour of Obama is that the Nobel Peace Prize, even in the past, has sometimes been awarded to those who intend on working towards a more peaceful society and may not represent accomplishments toward the goal of peace.

It is difficult to see how Obama's policies resemble even an intent to achieve peace. The Commander-in-Chief continues to preside over the War on Terrorism, which is one of the largest expenditures in our budget and the largest contributor to our exponentially-growing public debt. Instead of closing Guantanamo, he is proposing transferring prisoners to Iraq. He also has not shown significant departure from Bush Administration policies regarding civil liberties. There are even rumblings about attacking Iran and Pakistan. Obama has not spoken out about the crimes against humanity that the Israeli government committed against the citizens of Palestine.

Supporters also argue that there are also examples in the past that show the Nobel Peace Prize encouraging someone to walk down the road of peace, namely, Gorbachev receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as facilitating the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Perhaps, Norway just does not understand, because there are no American military bases in Norway. Is the hope of the Norwegian Parliament that Obama will abandon American imperialism for the sake of world peace? If this is their endgame, they should focus more intellectual resources towards debunking the theory of hegemonic stability. I believe this theory may be one explanation out of many varying factors that lead to security internationally, but there are also many other ways to maintain international order. However, the defence industry in the United States will never allow a reduction in American imperialism. It may be more effective to award Lockheed Martin the Nobel Peace Prize.

The two main arguments in favour of Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize seems to not stand its own ground. The only other reason that he would be given this honour is because after 8 years of George W. Bush, even the international community is clinging on to the hope on which Obama campaigned. His powerfully inspiring rhetoric during the extensive campaign season affected not only people of the United States, but also other countries (like Norway). The danger of words without corresponding action can be dangerous as it may lead to demagoguery. Many Democrats have snapped out of the Obama-trance while Republicans insist on perpetuating the lie that Obama is a socialist. It is about time that everybody looks past the facade and see Obama for whom he is really.

Misunderstanding the Millennials?

2009-09-22T19:22:00.000-07:00

AP published an article about youth and their fading support for Obama.

My problem with the article is not its claim that young people across the country are becoming bystanders in their support of Obama. My problem is with the gross misunderstanding of the Millennial Generation.

First of all, stop calling us Generation Y! I am not cut from the same mold that shaped Generation X.

Second, we are not the “entitlement generation” nor are we the “me-me-me generation”. Unlike our parents or even our older cousins, my generation will actually need to work for what we have. Our parents grew up in a time when the American economy was in its heyday; they are the “entitlement generation,” they are the “me-me-me generation”. The Millennials are here to literally save the world as the GI Generation did (albeit maybe not through the same circumstances of a world war). From teamwork to valuing our local communities, my generation has been groomed to lead the world in ways that the Boomers and Xers could never and will never achieve. If anything, I am part of the “we-we-we generation” because we are all in this together and we are not entitled to anything.

Like our parents’ generation, we see so much potential for our country’s greatness and our optimism has driven an overwhelming majority of 18-25 year-olds to vote for Obama. However, some of our generation were able to see past the talk during campaign season while the overwhelming majority of Obama supporters a year ago are now seeing the man behind the mask. The latter have grown weary not because they want change immediately due to individualism as Martha Irvine claims, but rather, they want change immediately because we all sense the urgency of now (as Obama so often quipped).

I hope that many are now ready to admit what they feared to be true all along: the corporate duopoly cannot be trusted to usher in the meaningful change we can believe in. It is time for the truth to come out. There is only one home for progressive Americans and that is the Green Party of the United States. Greens from all around the world agree on four basic pillars of truth: grassroots democracy, social justice, peace, and ecological wisdom. The corporate duopoly does not understand how to fully achieve all (if any) of these core values.

The Obama campaign has illustrated that across college and high school campuses, the lamps for change have been lit within each of us, but becoming a bystander-supporter of the duopoly in this critical time is the same as hiding that light. It is time to take those lamps and put them on lampstands to light up the entire nation and come home to the only party pushing for meaningful change now! Start a College Greens chapter, get involved with your local Greens, mobilise students around Green issues like Medicare for All, ending the War on Terrorism, pushing for meaningful climate change policies, run for office! Most importantly, we need to show the Baby Boomers and Xers how they have been getting it wrong and how the world ought to be run. Our call to action should not seem daunting, because through our collective efforts, the Millennials will leave this world better than how we found it.

The (Easy?) Road to the White House

2009-09-08T18:35:00.000-07:00

President Obama's speech today to students all across the United States is problematic, because it tokenises the successes of a few while ignoring a deeper problem in American society. Obama's speech only makes sense if there were truly equal opportunity and access to education for all students in the country. Reality shows that this is far from the truth.

Students do not only drop out of school, because they do not try, but some do so because their family's financial circumstances do not allow them to even finish high school. If a student's family has to choose between sending their children to school or working full-time to make ends meet, it is not hard to see where the obvious choice lies.

Furthermore, even if students try hard, there is no guarantee that they will be able to go to a university that prepares them for occupations that the President speaks about, such as being a senator, doctor, innovator, etc. This is NOT to say that one must have an advanced degree to become these things, but it helps infinitely. In California, such universities start at the price tag of $9000+ per academic year for student "fees" and the price tag is much higher for private institutions. Living expenses included, one year at a good university can exceed $25,000. Fiscal irresponsibility has scaled back Cal Grants, which would have allowed students of low-income to afford tuition. However, the bigger problem lies in those middle-class families who are not poor enough to qualify for Cal Grant and not rich enough to pay for college. This also does not address the fact that undocumented students cannot qualify for any public financial aid at all. The United States only believes that education is a right up through high school; higher education is not seen as a right. Which of the occupations the President described is realistically attainable with, at best, a high school diploma/GED?

Another problematic part of Obama's speech is his condemnation of those who quit school and thus are quitting on their country. This is a whole new can of worms, but I think the best way to summarise the problem is to quote the First Letter of John, "We love because He first loved us."

While President Obama is very correct is saying that nobody's current situation forces their destinies to be a certain way, it is also very inconsiderate to think that one's current situation does not have a role to play in one's future. Sometimes no matter how much hard work one may contribute, the road to the White House is not accessible to her/him.

Something Really Worth Forwarding

2009-08-13T13:42:00.000-07:00

Dear Friend,

This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country, we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”

So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

PS. The following is a response to the email sent out by David Axelrod. The information below is in no way associated with the White House or any members of the Obama Administration (unfortunately). The following information is taken from the website of Physicians for a National Health Program. More online resources are located at the very end of the email. Please ask your Congressperson to support HR 676 and the Kucinich Amendment to HR 3200 and ask your Senators to co-sponsor S.703.

6 ways the public option provides security and stability only to those currently with coverage

A public option will not increase choice for patients: A public plan option will not increase choice of caregivers and choice in location of care. Patients will still have a limited choice of provider restricted by networks and will pay more to see providers outside of their network. Patients will still have to seek authorization for treatment.

A public option does not guarantee patients can keep their own doctor, regardless of changes in employment or health: A public plan option leaves the employer based system of health care provision intact. If an employer chooses to change to a new plan, patients may have to change their doctor or pay higher fees to stay with their doctor. Insurers have strong financial incentives to enroll the healthy while avoiding the sick patients; thus if a patient becomes ill, they still risk losing their employer based insurance.

A public option will not force private health insurers to compete on a level-playing field, especially in limited markets: The Medicare HMO experience shows private plans undermine fair competition despite regulations. The current Medicare experience combined with experience in many different states that have tried this type of reform shows that public plans are left with the sickest patients and fail due to rising costs while the private insurers continue to collect premiums from the healthiest patients and maintain their high profits.

A public option is unsustainable: Health care reform that includes a public plan option will add tens of billions of additional dollars annually on top of $2.5 trillion, (twice what any nation spends per person). Absent effective cost control, any increase in coverage or benefits will quickly be erased by rising costs of insuring the sickest patients, whom private insurers refuse to insure. Vast domestic and international experience with public option schemes show that in no case have they resulted in universal coverage.

A public option would not improve overall quality: (1) it would leave in place the deficiencies that have resulted in very high costs with the poorest health care value of all nations, (2) it would keep intact for-profit, investor-owned hospitals, HMOs and nursing homes that have higher costs and score lower on most measures of quality than their non-profit counterparts, and (3) it would add yet another payer to our fragmented system perpetuating challenges to coordinated care, for example, there will still be a need to collect premiums, track enrollment, disenrollment, etc, and hospital/NH payment will still require the an enormous billing apparatus.

A public option will not reduce health care costs: Adding a public option to the array of private insurance companies in existence will only exacerbate the waste and inefficiency inherent in a patchwork system of health care finance. In their drive to fight claims, issue denials and screen out the sick, insurance companies generate more than $350 billion in administrative paperwork waste. The proposed insurance industry regulator entity will only add another layer of needless bureaucracy to this already bloat-heavy system. Maintaining this system means that no effective cost control is possible and the system will rapidly deteriorate as costs increase.

6 common myths about single-payer:

Won’t this result in rationing like in Canada? The U.S. already rations care. Rationing in U.S. health care is based on income: if you can afford care, you get it; if you can’t, you don’t. A recent study by the prestigious Institute of Medicine found that 18,000 Americans die every year because they don’t have health insurance. Many more skip treatments that their insurance company refuses to cover. That’s rationing. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. A single-payer system will save enough on administration to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing.

Won’t this cost me more money? Almost all Americans spend more than 3% of their annual income on co-pays, deductibles, and premiums while most businesses currently paying for private health insurance spend about 9% annually. A single-payer system would decrease costs to both employees and employers. It will eliminate bankruptcies due to medical bills and possibly stop the outflow of companies from the United States to Canada.

What will happen to all of the people who work for insurance companies? The new system will still need some people to administer claims. Administration will shrink, however, eliminating the need for many insurance workers, as well as administrative staff in hospitals, clinics and nursing homes. More health care providers, especially in the fields of long-term care, home health care, and public health, will be needed, and many insurance clerks can be retrained to enter these fields. Many people now working in the insurance industry are, in fact, already health professionals (e.g. nurses) who will be able to find work in the health care field again.

Won’t competition be impeded by a single-payer system? Past competitive activities in health care under a free market system have resulted in major expenditures on overtreatment, advertising, and marketing. These expenditures have been wasteful and expensive, and are the major cause of rising costs. Unlike the current system, which locks patients in to doctors in the network, a single-payer system promotes competition by allowing patients to choose whichever doctor they prefer without major administrative expenses currently expended on advertising and marketing.

What about incremental reform of the health system? Many well-meaning supporters often push these bills as “feasible steps” to move us towards single-payer, but the history of these kinds of health reform efforts shows that despite their claims of pragmatism, incremental reforms have consistently failed for more than three decades. Incremental reforms cannot garner administrative savings and redirect them to care. Hence, they always founder on the shoals of cost. In addition, these reforms distract attention from the economically realistic, if politically challenging, option of single-payer reform.

What about the claim that a patient in Canada would have died of a brain tumor if he hadn’t come to the U.S. for an MRI? The claim that he would have died had he waited the four months for an MRI scan is an outrageous lie. A C-T scan was done immediately. The tumor was identified, and it was of a nature that did not require emergency management. An emergency MRI would have been done if it were indicated, but it wasn’t. This is an article on low-grade astrocytoma, confirming that this was not an emergency.

Please ask your Congressperson to support HR 676 and the Kucinich Amendment to HR 3200 and ask your Senators to co-sponsor S.703.

Educate yourself and others with the following resources:

California OneCare

California Nurses Association

Healthcare for All – California

Healthcare-NOW

Medicare for All

Physicians for a National Health Program

Progressive Democrats of America

Public Citizen

Single Payer Action

Please ask your Congressperson to support HR 676 and the Kucinich Amendment to HR 3200 and ask your Senators to co-sponsor S.703.

Morality Behind Health Care Reform

2009-08-10T13:45:00.000-07:00

A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform is the magnum opus of Catholic health care reform, which the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released the summer of 1993. It continues to dictate the criteria for moral health care reform as we end the first decade of the 21st Century. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that health care is a basic human right, which can be explicitly traced back to Pacem in Terris (1963) and Jesus' teaching to serve the least among us.

The statement sets forth the following criteria: respect for life, priority concern for the poor, universal access, comprehensive benefits, pluralism, quality, cost containment and controls, and equitable financing. There is a lot of buzz in the media about healthcare reform, especially Obama's public option, so it is worth studying how Obama's plan is or is not morally acceptable.

Obama's plan at a most basic level cannot be labelled "universal" healthcare, because it does not provide ready universal access to comprehensive health care for every person living in the United States. The public option will only end up covering about 4% of the population and leave more than 20 million people uninsured, because they cannot afford it. No public option that states or other countries have implemented have resulted in universal coverage. However, for those who are able to afford it, the public option will provide mostly comprehensive benefits (except for adult vision and dental care and long-term care).

The public option also does nothing to ameliorate the plight of the poor and vulnerable in our country. Even though it will provide decreasing subsidies as income increases (up to 400% of the national poverty line), the public option will segregate patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable ones in the public plan. Basic principles from a high school economics course will show that the free market/private insurers will never profit from caring for sick people. Therefore, the private insurance companies will continue with business as usual and the public insurance system will grow increasingly expensive and collapse.

The major deal-breaker (if the above has not yet done the job) is the sheer fiscal nightmare the public option creates. On top of the 15% of GDP we currently spend on healthcare (about one-third of which is wasted on administrative costs, profits, and advertising), the public option will cost taxpayers over half a trillion dollars over the next decade! A similar programme has already been implemented in Massachusetts and costs have increased 10% annually since its inception! The way that the public option will be financed only makes this bad situation even worse. If you do not buy health insurance, you will be fined $1000 or have a 2.5% tax imposed on your income. The public option also does not eliminate the current system of co-pays, deductibles, and premiums.

While it may appear that there is no moral health care option left on the table, there is actually an option that many countries have already implemented successfully. In fact, there is a bill in the House right now that has 85 co-sponsors that advocate for a not-for-profit health insurance system.

Americans also refer to it as Medicare-for-All, although it is officially known as single-payer. Single-payer actually fits all the criteria the American bishops outlined over 15 years ago and for which they continue to advocate.

Single-payer is the only successful insurance system that guarantees universal coverage and comprehensive benefits for every resident (regardless of age, income, health status, marital status, employment status, gender, race or location) from conception to natural death. It covers all medically-necessary services including primary care, inpatient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long-term care, palliative care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.

Single-payer significantly improves the quality of health care in the United States, because there will be a much stronger emphasis on prevention. Preventive care yields long-term benefits and is minimal or even non-existent in the current health care system, because there are no short-term profits for private, for-profit health insurance companies. Healthier citizens mean healthier students and employees, which translates into a stronger economic future for the country. Furthermore, all health care decisions are made by the patient and her/his chosen health care professional.

Single-payer contains and controls costs, because it will save $400 billion annually from administrative waste. The current Medicare system only generates 2% in administrative costs while the private insurance companies, as mentioned above, uses over 30% of all revenue on these costs.

Single-payer provides a priority concern for the poor through equitable financing. It would simplify the current bureaucracy, because it would combine Medicare, Medicaid, SCHiP, and Veterans' Affairs health funding (and other public health programmes). It would save employees money, because they would only pay 2%-3.3% in payroll taxes and never pay for medical bills again. In fact, it would even save employers money, because it would drastically reduce the amount they currently pay private insurance companies to contribute no more than a 9% payroll tax. Single-payer is so affordable that Americans (except for the Top 5%) would pay less for healthcare, with the elimination of co-pays, deductibles or premiums and there would definitely be no more bankruptcies due to medical bills.

Overall, single-payer is a public insurance system operating with private health care providers independent of the government. Patients can choose whichever doctor or hospital they want without fear of being out of their network. Most importantly, single-payer is the only moral solution to the health care crisis in the United States. It is no wonder that 3 out of 5 doctors and Americans support such a solution for universal health care.

Violence in Sinkiang

2009-07-06T22:12:00.000-07:00

Sinkiang has been the source of much tension for Chinese authorities for the past century. The most recent outbreak of violence, while not directly related to the splittist activities of the past, highlights the continued misconception of Muslims versus Han. The continued mentality of us-versus-them illustrates the continued failure of the authorities in Peiping to promote the Chinese identity that should supersede these smaller sub-divisions.

There is much diversity within the Chinese nation and the continued authoritarian control that the Chinese Communist Party imposes upon the country stifles this diversity. At best, it provides an illusion of tolerance, but violent outbursts similar to the events in Sinkiang display the reality of the situation. The post-9/11 world has made the situation more volatile, because the CCP has used the War on Terror as further justification to take definitive action against Chinese Muslims, particularly those in Sinkiang. Furthermore, the major oil pipeline that supplies Mainland China coincidentally runs through the region, making regional stability that much more valuable. The misguided policy of the War on Terror coupled with the addiction to non-renewable energy sources has hurt the Chinese nation.

The solution is easier said than done in the case of Sinkiang. There has not been a solution that has appeased both the Chinese Muslims and the political decision-makers for at least the past century. Therefore, the first step should be to acknowledge the privilege that the Han Chinese living in Tihwa have received and begin reversing that process. Second, Chinese Muslims (and other religious groups such as Tibetan Buddhists and Catholics) need to be free to practice their faith. Lastly, we need to move beyond outdated assumptions about what it means to be "Chinese" to incorporate groups like Chinese Muslims. After all, Chinese Muslims are considered one of the five traditional Chinese nationalities. We are not defined by our individual Chinese ethnic groups. We are defined by the fact that we are Chinese. We are all Descendants of the Dragon.

Don't Understand Don't Ask, Don't Tell

2009-06-29T17:00:00.000-07:00

It still amazes me that Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is law in the United States. There are thousands of men and women in the military (not to mention hundreds of thousands of veterans) who identify as something other than heterosexual and have devoted themselves to the service of our country. To deny them the right to continue working in the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation is completely irrational.

In fact, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network reports that in 2007 an average of 12 people every week were discharged for being gay. During the time Obama has been president alone, 275 people have been discharged!

Let's step back a minute and think about this. What other occupation in the public sector requires someone to be fired due to their sexual orientation? None, so why the military? Also, isn't this policy fiscally irresponsible? We spend millions of dollars annually training these folks and then once they develop these crucial skills (like learning Arabic), they are fired. The corollary is that we are also losing servicemembers who are necessary for our national security. Lastly, polls for at least the past year have shown that both the majority of the American people and servicemembers do not object to LGB folks openly serving in the military.

For the first time, we have a President who has campaign-promised to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and replace it with a policy of non-discrimination. An overwhelming majority of Americans support lifting the ban, and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (MREA), which would get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" once and for all, already has 150 co-sponsors.

It’s clear that the movement to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is gaining momentum every day. The time for repeal is now.

State Props and Me...

2009-05-05T00:00:00.000-07:00

NO on Props 1A-1F! Say NO to Sacramento's Rotten Deal on Tuesday, May 19.

Tibetans, Catholics, and Religious Freedom

2009-04-25T09:53:00.000-07:00

Just about every single person in Berkeley seems to support Tibetan independence. Most take this stance as the chic activist, who thinks that she is standing up for injustice when in reality, she fails to understand the root of the problem. The issue with the Tibet Region (衛藏) is not one of independence, but reflective of the larger human rights violation of the Chinese Communist Party. The authoritarian regime of the CCP continues to deny one out of five people in the world the freedom of religion. This includes not only the 5 million Tibetan Buddhists but also 10 million Roman Catholics in China.

Vatican City under the authority of the Holy See remains the only European state not to recognise the legitimacy of Communist China. The lack of normal relations between the two entities, due to conflicting values of the Catholic Church and the CCP, has caused a predicament for the Roman Catholics in China. Chinese Catholics are forced to choose between the state-sanctioned Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which the CCP controls and operates, and the underground community loyal to the Holy See. Those who refuse to worship in the CPCA and continue worshipping in underground churches are subject to punishments including the death penalty. Cardinal Joseph Zen, the former Bishop of Hong Kong, has repeatedly criticised the CCP for its continued religious persecution on the Mainland. His successor, Bishop Tong has continued the rhetoric of Cardinal Zen saying that “the present situation in China regarding the human rights and religious freedom is still far from ideal”. Even Pope Benedict XVI has accused the CCP of "grave violations of religious freedom".

The plight of Tibetan Buddhists and Chinese Catholics are closely related. Both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have held audiences with the current Dalai Lama. They all agree that the CCP is essentially morally bankrupt. The Dalai Lama has said that “because of its very poor record on human rights and religious freedom and freedom of expression and freedom of the press -- too much censorship -- the image of [the CCP] in the field of moral authority is very, very poor”. Even though Communist China is perennially the subject of lengthy human rights abuse reports, the Republic of China rarely, if ever, appears to violate the freedom of religion. President Ma Ying-jeou made one of the boldest statements among any head of state last year concerning the Olympic Games in Beijing when he threatened that the Taiwanese delegation would boycott the Summer Games if the CCP “continues to suppress the Tibetan people and the situation gets worse”. The continued support for the freedom of religion is evident in the fact that over two-thirds of Taiwan is Buddhists and/or Taoists. Furthermore, there are over a million people who identify as either Christian or Muslim in Taiwan.

Therefore, the example that the Republic of China has set forth ought to offer some hope to the continued struggles of the Chinese Catholics and Tibetan Buddhists along with millions of others under the oppressive rule of the CCP. While individually these faith communities seem small, Luke tells them, “Do not be afraid any longer, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you the kingdom”. Matthew echoes Luke’s call to persevere because the faithful “are the salt of the earth…you are the light of the world…just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds”.

In conclusion, I would like to share a prayer Pope Benedict XVI included in his letter to Chinese Catholics in 2007: May Mary Most Holy, Mother of the Church and Queen of China, who at the hour of the Cross patiently awaited the morning of the Resurrection in the silence of hope, accompany you with maternal solicitude and intercede for all of you, together with Saint Joseph and the countless Holy Martyrs of China.

That's What Friends Are For!

2009-04-10T09:10:00.000-07:00

The Republic of China had been an ally of the United States since World War 2, keeping the Japanese troops occupied for several years before the United States joined the Allied effort. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Nationalist government successfully developed the economy of Taiwan, which Western economists branded one of the Four Asian Tigers. It exported many products to the United States, which increased the standard of living in our country. The Republic of China was also instrumental in the American war effort during the Cold War in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars as a stalwart against the spread of communism.

The 68th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of China was a sombre day for the people on Taiwan and overseas Chinese across the world. On that day, the United States of America formally severed official diplomatic ties with Free China and recognised Red China. This was more than a slap in the face from a friend; this was a friend stabbing another in the back. President Jimmy Carter soon found that selling out democracy for the sake of making a profit did not settle well with the United States Congress, the representatives of the American people. Therefore, on April 10, 1979, both chambers of Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act in an act of major condemnation of President Carter and the Executive Branch’s unilateral decision to forge ties with Communist China. The Carter Administration foolishly hoped that this recognition would bring about a peaceful resolution to the Chinese Civil War.

In the 30 years since the recognition of Communist China, the world has seen that despite unprecedented economic growth on the Mainland, it has been plagued with a rapid growth in income inequality, egregious human rights violations especially in terms of freedom of religion and speech (ex. Tiananmen Massacre and the Great Firewall of China), serious environmental degradation that continues to have global impacts, and the Chinese Communist Party’s continued support for authoritarian regimes around the world. On the other hand, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has not only seen maturation into a liberal democracy, but it is ranked perennially as one of the top champions of human rights around the world. However, the Chinese Communist Party continues to bully the international community into not recognising the accomplishments or the very existence of the Republic of China.

The 23 million people living on Taiwan have no representation in the United Nations. It has less than two dozen international allies, most of which are small Pacific islands. Athletes also cannot compete under the flag of the Republic of China nor can they sing their national anthem at any international sporting event. During the SARS and Avian Flu epidemic, the Chinese Communist Party blocked the Republic of China from accessing the resources of the World Health Organisation, which could have proved fatal for the global community. Moreover, the Chinese Communist Party has continually threatened using military action to conquer Taiwan for over a decade, hoping that these threats will deter the deepening of democracy on the island.

The United States Congress must reaffirm its commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act and help the Republic of China defend itself should the Chinese Communist Party decide to invade. The United States should also push for more meaningful participation internationally, especially by actively advocating for the Republic of China (Taiwan) to be a full member of the World Health Organisation. 30 years after switching official diplomatic recognition, the United States must realise that the majority of Chinese Americans hail from the Republic of China and our continued contributions to American society must mean more than just verbiage from our elected representatives. We deserve continued economic and cultural exchanges between the two sides of the Pacific and we deserve to know that the United States supports maintaining the territorial integrity of the home of our ancestors.

Call Senator Boxer (202.224.3553) today and ask her to support House Concurrent Resolution 55, reaffirming the commitment of the United States to the Taiwan Relations Act. 永遠記住﹐我們是龍的傳人!

遙遠的東方有一條江, 它的名字就叫長江
遙遠的東方有一條河, 它的名字就叫黃河

雖不曾看見長江美, 夢裡常神遊長江水
雖不曾聽見黃河壯, 澎湃洶湧在夢裡

古老的東方有一條龍, 她的名字就叫中國
古老的東方有一群人, 他們全都是龍的傳人

多少年砲聲仍隆隆, 多少年又是多少年
巨龍巨龍你擦亮眼, 永永遠遠的擦亮眼

Healthcare for All?

2009-03-07T18:24:00.000-08:00

President Obama has made his way to the White House by appearing to make a lot of promises and using rhetoric that portrays the next 8 years as an era of change from the Bush Administration.

The biggest challenge he has ahead of him is the economic meltdown of the neoliberal financial system. Yet, during the health summit he convened this past week, he has once again affirmed his position against providing universal healthcare that covers every single American. He has sided with the for-profit health insurance companies instead of the American employee and employer.

The current health insurance system places a heavy burden on both non-health insurance companies and most American workers. The only solution to alleviate the financial burden on both is to get rid of the for-profit health insurance system and replace it with a not-for-profit health insurance system. The American taxpayer will end up spending less on health insurance even though the Medicare tax would increase while accessing the same quality health care we currently have. Such a solution has already been introduced in Congress as House Resolution 676 (Conyers) and at the state level in California as Senate Bill 810 (Leno). The former has nearly 100 co-sponsors and the latter has passed cleared both the California State Assembly and the California Senate in both 2006 and 2008. Furthermore, nearly 3 out of 5 ordinary Americans and physicians support a not-for-profit health insurance system.

President Obama and Senator Kennedy are ignoring the will of the people and seem to be more concerned with their political legacy. If they pass their version of "universal" healthcare, their only legacy will be that of putting profit above people. In a real democracy, this would not stand.

Oh, Canada...

2008-12-08T22:28:00.000-08:00

For those of you who missed it last Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was successful in proroguing Canadian Parliament to prevent them from holding a vote of confidence against him today. It's kind of like if President Bush were to send Congress into recess because they were to start impeachment hearings (not exactly the same thing for a couple minor differences).

This is absolute insanity! What kind of a democracy allows this to happen?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkh8QCsTOeg

Goodbye, Ah Bian!

2008-11-13T00:01:00.000-08:00

The recent news of the detention of former Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian is bittersweet. On the one hand, I am happy to see that his prosecution is finally making progress despite the antics his wife and him played over the past two years. On the other hand, it shows that graft still plagues the highest office of the Republic of China, transitioning between different parties is not smooth, and that the deep resentment of the DPP has not eased a bit in the past 8 years.

Inmate 2630, as former President Chen is now known as, is putting on a great show. First, he predicts his detention before his 6-hour hearing. Second, he proudly displays his handcuffs to the media waiting outside the courthouse and yells political slogans supporting Taiwan independence. Meanwhile, he has repeatedly stated that he is a victim of political persecution. He claims that the KMT government is only doing this to appease the Communist officials in Beijing for the protests over the visit of ARATS representative Chen Yunlin last week. This is an absurd claim, because the investigation into his family's misuse of state funds goes back to 2006, way before the KMT came back into power. However, as president at the time, ROC law prohibited putting him on trial. Thus the courts could not legally investigate him until after he stepped down as president. Lastly, he further emphasizes the KMT's persecution by not eating anything while in prison. If his health deteriorates enough, he will not be able to stand trial, thus prolonging the inevitable verdict.

Calling this childish behavior would be an understatement. This is just plain idiocy. Inmate 2630 is not only an embarrassment to the DPP and Taiwan, but the Republic of China. He is the second elected president of the ROC and he shows that his politics is no better than those of General Chiang Kai-shek; both used their power for unfettered personal gain. I hope that when you sit in your jail cell, Inmate 2630, you think about the failure you have been as the leader of our country.

There should never have been nor should there be any place in our government for corruption, regardless of which party you belong. The DPP needs to stop the senseless protests, the police need to stop brutalizing citizens of the ROC, and the KMT needs to work with the DPP to investigate all allegations of graft in the current government as part of its domestic policy. We need to continue dialogue with the Mainland, although we should never invite another Communist to the province of Taiwan. The DPP has not only stalled dialogue for 8 years but has in fact moved cross-strait relations backwards in the past decade.

The KMT under the Ma Administration needs to show that we take the high road and have the interests of the 23 million Chinese citizens living in the Taiwan Province above all else.

The Republic of China is the one and only China and don't you ever forget that.

Change We Can Believe In!

2008-11-04T20:58:00.000-08:00

Today marks an important benchmark in American history, because for the first time, a half-White person will be the leader of the Free World. This will undoubtedly usher in an era of change in the areas of the environment, peace, social justice, and democracy.

Environmentally, we will see a change in global warming policy. Instead of sitting idly while global warming irreparably damages our planet, we plan to do what is politically convenient by cutting back our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050 through a cap-and-trade system instead of a carbon tax. We will also see a change in our energy policy. Instead of running our economy on dirty fuels such as oil and coal, we plan to expand vastly other dirty energy sources such as nuclear, biofuels, and “clean” coal, and in the short-run, we will also change our policy that banned offshore drilling.

In regards to peace, we will see a change in both our foreign and domestic policy. We will change our military campaign from Iraq to Afghanistan, not ruling out invading other countries in the region with our wasteful, bloated military budget. We will allow countries like India to engage in a nuclear weapons program without forcing them to sign on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which basically tells nonnuclear countries that it is ok to start producing nuclear weapons for their self-defense too. Domestically, we will see continued support for legal homicide, criminalizing the poor, police brutality, and the continued failure of the War on Drugs.

Even more conspicuous is the amount of change we will see in terms of social justice. Our healthcare system will be transformed into one that continues to favor private health insurance companies with huge overhead costs, leaving millions without insurance. The government will change the way they spy on Americans from an illegal practice to a legal one thanks to the provisions of FISA. We will change the way our civil liberties have been compromised by continuing the Constitution-shredding USA PATRIOT Act, Secret Evidence Act, and Military Commissions Act. We will eliminate poverty by failing to increase the real minimum wage to a living wage, leaving millions below the poverty line. We will change the level of education Americans receive by not providing free preschool through junior college public education. We will change the way we trade with other countries by implementing more free trade agreements that do not value workers’ rights. Lastly, we will change the distribution of wealth in our country by implementing the corporate socialism that Congress started with the $750 billion bailout of Wall Street.

Lastly, and arguably most importantly, we will see significant change in the democracy of our great nation. We will see the continuation of democracy-weakening practices such as winner-take-all voting, the Electoral College, restrictive ballot access, and corporate control of presidential debates and political “dialogue” in our country. This will further institutionalize our change-wielding two-party duopoly and marginalize all other perspectives.

Truly, this is an election like no other in our nation’s history and the amount of change we are about to witness is evident. This could not have happened without YOUR help, so thank you for making the best country on the planet that much better. God bless America!

State Props and Me...

2008-10-21T00:40:00.000-07:00

It's final; this is how I'm voting:

Prop. 1: No (with regrets)
Prop. 2: Yes
Prop. 3: No
Prop. 4: Yes
Prop. 5: Yes
Prop. 6: No
Prop. 7: No
Prop. 8: Yes
Prop. 9: No
Prop. 10: No
Prop. 11: No
Prop. 12: Yes

Open the Debates, Cease the Exclusion

2008-10-10T00:00:00.000-07:00

Third Party Candidates in Political Discussions Illuminate Important Issues for This Country

The exclusion of third parties from political debates is something that has been institutionalized in our country during the past 20 years. In 1988, the League of Women Voters ceased sponsoring the televised presidential debates saying that they have become "devoid of substance, spontaneity, and honest answers to tough questions." Walter Cronkite called the two-party debates an "unconscionable fraud." New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls them a "mockery."

In a press conference last month in support of third parties, Congressman Ron Paul stated that he has "come to the conclusion, after having spent many years in politics, that our presidential elections turn out to be more of a charade than anything else." The elections and debates only cover a narrow range of issues and solutions. As history has shown, the two major parties have often sidelined major issues that we take for granted today.
Consumer advocate and Peace and Freedom Party presidential nominee Ralph Nader has pointed out that "the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, Social Security, fair labor standards, and protection of farmers were all first championed by third parties. The mainstream ultimately adopted these 'marginal' issues, and we are better for it. The legacy of third-party candidates in American history is not that of 'spoilers' but of visionaries."

The first step we need to take as a country is to open the debates in order to diversify the dialogue that ought to occur for American voters to make an informed decision. Former Democratic Congresswoman and current Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney believes that "voters deserve to know which candidate best represents their interests and ideals. Any presidential candidate who is on enough ballots to be elected deserves to participate."

She is referring to a solution to the debate exclusion problem that many third party members advocate. As long as a candidate has overcome the restrictive ballot access laws in enough states to account for over half of the electoral votes, she or he ought to be included in the televised presidential debates. If this were the case in 2008, the debates would include Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney and independent candidate Ralph Nader. If you factor in the states in which they are write-in candidates, they each account for over 90 percent of the electoral votes. In fact, a Zogby poll reflected these sentiments showing that nearly three out of five Americans want third parties included in presidential debates.

With the election less than a month away, it is more crucial now than at any other point in the election season to inform ourselves of all our choices for our commander in chief. For more information on the nationwide campaign to open the debates, please visit www.opendebates.org.

The Students for Ron Paul at Berkeley, Cal Libertarians, Campus Greens-Berkeley Chapter, and Students for Ralph Nader at Berkeley also encourage you to visit each candidate's Web site. Chuck Baldwin (write-in): www.baldwin08.com; Bob Barr (Libertarian): www.bobbarr2008.com; Cynthia McKinney (Green): http://votetruth08.com; Ralph Nader (Peace and Freedom): www.votenader.org.

Thank you Congress for not passing bailout (not being sarcastic)

2008-09-29T22:11:00.000-07:00

Sign Senator Bernie Sanders's petition to Secretary Paulson!

Rep. Barbara Lee and Rep. Dennis Kucinich give speeches on the House Floor regarding the failed economic bailout

Cynthia McKinney, 2008 Green Party Presidential candidate, speaking about the state of the economy

A Gift for a Generation: A U.S. Financial System of Our Own

by former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
September 25, 2008

Last week, I posted ten points (that were by no means exhaustive) for Congressional action immediately in the wake of the financial crisis now gripping our country. At that time, the Democratic leadership of Congress was prepared to adjourn the current legislative Session to campaign, without taking any action at all to put policies in place that protect U.S. taxpayers and the global community that has accepted U.S. financial leadership. Those ten points, to be taken in conjunction with the Power to the People Committee's platform available on the campaign website, are as follows:

1. Enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now before the next phase of ARM interest rate increases take effect;
2. elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans;
3. establishment of new mortgage lending practices to end predatory and discriminatory practices;
4. establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;
5. redefinition of credit and regulation of the credit industry so that discriminatory practices are completely eliminated;
6. full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership;
7. recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets;
8. full funding of a fund designed to cushion the job loss and provide for retraining of those at the bottom of the income scale as the economy transitions;
9. close all tax loopholes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners; and
10. fairly tax corporations, denying federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs overseas repeal NAFTA.

In addition to these ten points, I now add four more:

11. Appointment of former Comptroller General David Walker to fully audit all recipients of taxpayer cash infusions, including JP Morgan, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG, and to monitor their trading activities into the future;
12. elimination of all derivatives trading;
13. nationalization of the Federal Reserve and the establishment of a federally-owned, public banking system that makes credit available for small businesses, homeowners, manufacturing operations, renewable energy and infrastructure investments; and
14. criminal prosecution of any activities that violated the law, including conflicts of interest that led to the current crisis.

Ellen Brown, author of "The Web of Debt" writes, "Such a public bank today could solve not only the housing crisis but a number of other pressing problems, including the infrastructure crisis and the energy crisis. Once bankrupt businesses have been restored to solvency, the usual practice is to return them to private hands; but a better plan for Fannie and Freddie might be to simply keep them as public institutions."

Too many times politicians have told us to support the "free market." The unfolding news informs us in a most costly manner that free markets don't work. This is a financial system of their making. It's now past time for the people to have an economic system of their own. A reading of the full text on the Congressional "Agreement on Principles" for the proposed $700 billion bailout reveals the sham that this so-called agreement truly is. Today our country faces an economic 9/11. The problem that is unfolding is truly systemic and no stop-gap measures that maintain the current bankrupt structure will be sufficient to resolve this crisis of the U.S. economic engine.

Today is my son's birthday. What a gift to the young people of this country if we were to present to them a clean break from the policies that produced this economic disaster, the "financial tsunami" that former Comptroller General David Walker warned us of so many months ago and instead offered them a U.S. economic superstructure that truly was their own.

Power to the People!

Senator Boxer wants to hear from you! (yes, you)

2008-09-25T17:28:00.000-07:00

As the Chairperson of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Boxer wants to know what she should prioritize for the next federal transportation bill. To respond to this message, please click here.

Dear Senator Boxer:

As one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, California is poised to take a leadership role in stopping global warming even if the United States does not. However, real change will need to happen in Washington DC to tackle this issue, so I am thankful that this is an issue that we both care about.

First, we need to seriously fund public transit and high speed rail in California and in major metropolitan areas instead of spending billions in the coming years expanding our highways and airports.

Second, we need to put serious pressure on the auto industry to produce green vehicles. Plug-in hybrid and electric vehicle technologies were available a decade ago, but GM decided to scrap the EV1. Learning from past mistakes, we need to increase our CAFE standards for cars to 60mpg and 45mpg for light trucks by 2012 if we are to reach the target of an 80% reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. The current plan for 80% by 2050 is not enough if we are to stop global warming, even though vague and distant goals may be more politically convenient.

Lastly, we need to show the world that we mean business when we talk about getting rid of our addiction to dirty fuels such as oil. There is too much talk about biofuels such as ethanol and other unclean, non-sustainable energy sources for our nation's vehicles. We need to seriously invest in converting to a solar economy with 100% electric cars. Gasoline, ethanol, and hydrogen are not the ways of the future, despite what big auto and oil companies are telling Congress and ordinary Americans. We also need to adopt a nuclear-free energy policy, a policy that the Republicans are going to do a major push for in the near future. The Democratic Party CANNOT give in to nuclear lobbyists and the conservative agenda!

Thank you for prioritizing the future of transportation in our country and I hope to hear your thoughts about these matters soon.

Find the Logic (this is a literal email conversation I had today)

2008-09-25T17:24:00.000-07:00

Email 1:
Hi,

Can you see if your groups can help make phone calls by clicking on this link for more info: www.barackobama.com/n2n .Thank you!!

Diane

Email 2:
We are unable to devote any resources to electing Obama or McCain because they both do not support a single-payer healthcare system, they both do not rule out expanding nuclear energy in our country, they both want to continue the Bush Administration's policy of heavily funding the Department of Defense and American aggression, they both refuse to stand up to corporate interests, they both refuse to democratize the presidential debates, they both shredded the Constitution when favoring FISA, and they both refuse to support a restorative criminal justice system.

Both Obama and McCain stand for policies that our group is firmly against.

Email 3:
While I may agree with you on several fronts, I find in life sometimes one must gravitate toward the lesser of evils, and Bush and his administration have dug us a deep hole. Do you want more of what we have been given with this administration? I, for one, am terrified by the prospect of 4-8 years of a McCain/Paley administration. By not voting for Obama it only strengthens the McCain/Paley ticket just like what happened with all those votes that went to Nader thus allowing Bush to win in the last horrific election. Help!

Diane
---------------

Ok, first of all, it's McCain/Palin. Second, I was not aware that Nader even mattered in the 2004 presidential "election." Third, did she even read my email? If so, how is her email even a semblance of a logical response to mine?

BBC on air: Are we turning a blind eye to China ? (01 Aug 2008)

2008-08-04T06:36:00.000-07:00

Hello / hola / bonjour / g’day from your anchor, Peter, on air at the usual time with World Have Your Say 1700 GMT.

Today we’re asking if, in the run up to the Olympics, we’re all turning a blind eye to China ? (Pssst, human rights anyone ?) With just a few days to go until the Opening ceremony are we all just about to be dazzled by the spectacle, the sheer size, the numbers and of course the excitement of sporting excellence - day, after day, after day - for two weeks. Will the Games be so engaging, so absorbing that we forget the other story of China ?

“Command Capitalism” sounds just dandy - and the figures make impressive reading: China’s foreign trade 30 years ago was pegged at about $20 billion a year. In 2005, it passed the $1,000 billion mark. Talk about an economic super-power. And then we get to the issue of human rights and Tibet, both journalistically underpinned by a ( slightly holier than thou ? ) media which has been over-egging the belief that the Chinese Government’s big plan here is, above all, not to lose face.

Also today the Chinese President Hu Jintao has again urged people not to politicise the Games. In a rare news conference, Mr Hu said politicising the event undermined the Olympic movement, and called for dialogue to resolve “contentious issues”. Hosting the Games showed China’s desire for peaceful global ties, he said. His comments came amid apparent concessions by Beijing in a row over internet access for journalists.

Beijing this week rejected claims that the human rights situation in China has deteriorated in the run-up to its hosting of the Olympic Games. China’s foreign ministry said a report by Amnesty International showed the group had “tinted glasses”. The report accused China of reneging on its promises of greater freedom, with activists jailed, journalists detained and more people sent to labour camps.

So, if you have a conscience can you watch the games, or even pay lip-service to the games, as an huge global event, being watched by MILLIONS of others without considering the other China ?

Can you park your ethics someplace else for those two weeks, and ignore (its critics would say) the REAL China ?

Let me know what you think ? Peter :o)

My response as posted on their site:

The People’s Republic of China promotes separating politics from sports when it is inconvenient for them (i.e. human rights) and drops that policy in a heartbeat when it works in favour of their agenda (i.e. Chinese Taipei). From the moment the PRC participated in the Summer Games in 1984, they have insisted on denying the atheletes of the Republic of China on Taiwan of flying their national flag and playing their national anthem. This demand affects the Chinese Taipei team not only in the Olympics but in all international sporting events.

Aside from the cross-strait rivalry, there is a larger problem concerning the PRC. Most Westerners who care about international affairs are so focused on “Free Tibet,” which reflects the tendency of the elite to speak out about an issue without really knowing the underlying causes of the issue. Even if you free Tibet, you are not addressing the hundreds of millions of other Chinese living on the Mainland, who are subjected to the oppression of the authoritarian government on a daily basis. The issue is not about Han vs. Tibetan; it is about freedom vs. oppression. The oppressive policies of the Chinese Communist Party know no bounds.

For the past twenty years, not just recently, the United States has turned a blind eye to the human rights violations of the PRC and continues to foster closer ties to a government whose political ideology is the complete opposite of that embedded in the United States Constitution and our government justifies its action for the sake of capitalism. The American people can protest all we want about whatever (Tibet, Darfur, Taiwan, etc), but as long as Corporate America wants friendly relations with the PRC, that’s what we’re going to get.

A breath of fresh air as we move forward

2008-05-19T20:50:00.000-07:00

Corruption.

Economic stagnation.

Military antagonism.

Vengeance.

Sedition.

Over 23 million people woke up today and carried on with business as usual. However, today would prove to be a different kind of day for there was a light breeze in the air as they went to work and school. The breeze quickly grew into a strong gale that blew away the stench of these five traits, which have suffocated the Republic of China for the past 8 years.

When the mighty wind generated by the votes of millions of Chinese on March 22 settled, the people saw a brighter future. The future offers a more peaceful relationship with their compatriots across the Strait, de-escalation of military threats, escalation of economic and cultural exchanges, and a cooperation that aims to establish both a liberal market and liberal democracy on the other side of the Strait.

China has been divided for almost 60 years. We have forgotten what Hou De-jian once sang:

雖不曾看見長江美，Though one has never seen the beautiful Yangtze,
夢裡長神遊長江水。the long spirit in one's dream is the waters of the Yangtze.
雖不曾聽見黃河壯，Though one has never heard the magnificent Yellow River,
澎湃洶湧在夢裡。the tempestuous surge exists in one's dream.
古老的東方有一條龍，In the Ancient East, there was a dragon,
它的名字就叫中國。it was called the Middle Kingdom.
古老的東方有一群人，In the Ancient East, there was a group of people,
他們全都是龍的傳人。they were all the descendants of the dragon.
巨龍腳底下我成長，I grew beneath the feet of the huge dragon,
長成以後是龍的傳人。after I grew up I became a descendant of the dragon.
不管你自己願不願意，Whether or not you yourself are willing to be,
永永遠遠是龍的傳人。always and forever a descendant of the dragon.

It doesn't matter if you are Taiwanese, Manchurian, Mongolian, Uighur, or Tibetan; we are all the descendants of the dragon. We need to work together to free our homeland from the stranglehold of authoritarianism. President Ma, congratulations on being chosen as the leader of Free China. The fate of our homeland rests in your hands.

What's love got to do, got to do with it?

2008-05-15T12:56:00.000-07:00

Why do we call a union between a man and a woman marriage? Shouldn't we all have domestic partnerships since marriage is technically a religious classification?

Since when was it okay to mix Church and State?

Big Change Coming to UC System

2008-04-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

I am writing about the following issue with extreme dysphoria, an issue that affects everyone who is in college, who wants to go to college, or know someone in either of these categories. California is facing a massive fiscal crisis and as a result, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed across-the-board budget cuts, including funding for the University of California system. I have not spoken with students and faculty at other UC campuses yet, but at Berkeley, most departments are seeing budget cuts, some as high as 60%. In the coming weeks, faculty and staff members will be receiving pink slips that indicate the termination of their employment with Berkeley at the end of the semester. Some of these people you will see at your next lecture. Others have become your friends. Others may have even made a profound impact in your life whether you have realized it or not.

It has become apparent that this is no longer about fee hikes or the rising cost of higher education. This is a direct assault on the future of our state and country. As the number one public university system in the entire world, graduates have contributed greatly to our global community. Cutting funding, lecturers, and classes gut the opportunities that students have worked so hard to obtain.

However, the Governor has not yet signed the final budget for next year. We still have an opportunity to stop the budget cuts. Everyone needs to call her or his state representatives and the Governor to demand that higher education funding not be cut. In addition to not cutting funding, we must also urge that they moderate the inevitable fee hike. A fee hike of as much as 20% is possible, which stands in stark contrast to the 7%-10% annual increases in the past several years. Even at the lower rates, the UC Educational fees have almost doubled in the past 8 years, well surpassing the inflation rate.

As Reverend Martin Niemoeller wrote during World War II

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Wake up people; if you don’t speak up, who? If not now, when?

One World. One Dream. One China?

2008-04-09T22:34:00.000-07:00

As many of you (should) know, the Olympic torch was in San Francisco (ever so briefly) today and so I went to SF from noon to 3. However, the two main camps were either pushing Tibetan independence or supporting the PRC. I do NOT support Tibetan independence and I do NOT support the authoritarian regime in power in the PRC. That's why a few of us decided to go to support "Free China".

The front of our yellow sign (look for it in the news) said, "FREE CHINA" and the back said, "一心一德，貫徹始終". Most frequently asked question, "What does Free China mean/What are you guys supporting?" Free China is an allusion to the Cold War phrase that refers to the Free Areas of the Republic of China (shortened to Free China), which stood in contrast with Red China (Mainland China). We have extended the phrase to mean a democratic China. Accordingly, as we told a reporter from USA Today, we support "Free Tibet" in the sense that we support Tibet having autonomy but remaining as part of China. We were very clear in stressing that we do NOT support Tibetan independence. As the oldest existing democracy in East Asia, the Republic of China (Taiwan) ought to serve as an example to phasing out authoritarianism on the Mainland and thus facilitate eventual unification.

Everybody (who could read traditional Chinese) understood the Chinese phrase on the back of the sign. For those of you who do not have Chinese installed on your computer or cannot read Chinese, the phrase translates into, "With one heart and one virtue, we carry through until the very end". It is also the last two lines of the National Anthem of the ROC and near the end of the National Flag Song, which many Chinese from Taiwan will automatically register. We did have one person ask us what the two had to do with one another. Basically, the first part (with one heart and one virtue) should remind us all that no matter which government we live under, we are all Chinese. The second part (we will carry through until the very end) means that as long as the ROC exists, we will always be working towards the complete democratization of the Chinese nation, which Dr. Sun started nearly a century ago.

Sure there were some subtly obnoxious Mainlanders, but overall, a lot of Chinese immigrants from Taiwan were very receptive of our presence. A couple young girls (maybe mid- to late-20s) said that when they saw the ROC flag attached to our sign, they felt tears well up in their eyes. We also passed out the extra ROC flags we had in little time since everyone wanted one (and one lady even offered to buy one off of us for $5). We also had several Americans come ask us about our sign and got more informed about the situation in China (with one nation but two states, how the Mainland will not let us compete under our flag and national anthem, how we're the democratic China, etc) and had several positive comments about how they support us standing up against the Communists/ more people should be doing so and even "This is the best sign here [at the protest]". I think that most people hadn't even considered that the ROC (Taiwan) issue was relevant to the Olympics amidst the Tibet problem so many Chinese from Taiwan were even more inflamed with pride when we flew the 青天、白日、滿地紅 amidst the sea of Red. One gentleman said that he has never seen these 8 words (referring to the Chinese characters on our sign) in the context of the Olympics and was really glad that we shared it today.

Seat Belts and Air Bags Not Required Anymore!

2008-03-28T12:36:00.000-07:00

Sounds ridiculous, right? Almost as ridiculous as increasing the amount of zero-emission vehicles in California. The two scenarios share one thing in common: neither are happening. Seat belts and air bags were important milestones in automotive consumer protection as zero-emission vehicles would have been. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) voted unanimously again yesterday to kill the electric car.

It is quite interesting. We want to cut back our greenhouse gas emissions as a state by 25% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. How the heck are we going to do that if we do not all convert to zero-emission vehicles? How the heck are we going to do that if we do not encourage more people to take public transportation? How the heck are we going to do that if we do not build high-speed rail connecting San Francisco to San Diego instead of flying? How the heck are we going to do that without significantly investing in solar, wind, and geothermal energy and instead keep fixing up our fossil fuel burning power plants and discussing the expansion of nuclear power?

How the heck are we supposed to stop global warming if we continue to let corporate interests supersede the public interest?

The following is the article from the LA Times. Other sources such as the Merc, Chronicle, and NY Times have also covered this tragedy.

State deals blow to zero-emission vehicle supporters
The Air Resources Board substantially reduces the number of clean-air cars that big automakers will be required to sell in the next few years.

By Ken Bensinger
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

March 28, 2008

California's Air Resources Board voted Thursday to slash by 70% the number of emission-free vehicles that carmakers must sell in the state in coming years, a significant blow for environmentalists and transportation activists.

But the panel set new rules requiring automakers to build tens of thousands of plug-in hybrid cars, which run on electricity and gasoline. And it adopted a motion to overhaul its entire Zero Emission Vehicle program to align it with tougher greenhouse-gas emission standards enacted in California in recent years. That could lead to the production of many more clean vehicles, but the overhaul won't happen until at least the end of 2009.

Under the new standards, passed unanimously, the board will require the largest companies selling cars in the state to produce 7,500 electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles for sale, lease or loan in California from 2012 to 2014 -- down from the 25,000 required in the period under the previous rules.

In addition, carmakers will be called upon to make about 58,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in the same period. The previous regulation, passed in 2003, made no provisions for plug-in hybrids because they were not considered viable at the time.

"Clearly advocates would like to have more of these technologies available," said air board member Daniel Sperling, who introduced the proposal that ultimately passed. "But it's my view that both plug-in hybrids and [emission-free vehicles] are tremendous stretches for the industry."

Environmental and transportation activists called the decision a victory for carmakers, which had lobbied vigorously against the mandates.

"It's a huge blow," said Chelsea Sexton, executive director of Plug In America, an advocacy group. "They sent the message to the carmakers that they can always get what they want from the board."

Automakers, though, were reserved. "We're going to have to take some time and study it," Ford Motor Co. spokeswoman Jennifer Moore said. "The question is still what technology is ready and what is going to be commercially viable."

Ford is one of six automakers -- along with General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Chrysler, Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co. -- subject to the mandates. Smaller car companies are not bound by the rules, though they could be if their sales increase.

At the day's outset, board Chairwoman Mary Nichols expressed a desire to increase the number of emission-free vehicles in California. "Our goal here today is to emerge with a clear direction that will get this program on track," she said.

Yet the final decision was anything but clear. By inserting last-minute provisions that create a hierarchy among types of zero-emission vehicles, the number of such cars that automakers will have to make by 2014 could vary greatly.

If, for example, carmakers produce only hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles with an operational range of 300 miles or more, the number they would be required to make could be as few as 5,357 -- or 297 cars per automaker per year. If they make only short-range electric vehicles, though, the required number would jump to 12,500.

Created in 1990 with the intent to improve air quality, the ZEV mandate initially sought to require that 10% of all cars sold in the state be emission-free by 2004. ZEV has since been revised five times, and, after Thursday's vote, will be again.

The latest plan to revise the mandate stems from the air board's desire to align the program with a 2006 state law that sets a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050, and another law that calls for reducing tailpipe emissions of all cars sold in California.

"For 2015 and beyond, we'll adopt a new program that will probably be even more aggressive than what is currently in effect," board member Sperling said, without mentioning any specific numbers.

Ten other states have joined with California on the ZEV program, with the Golden State acting as sort of a lead regulator. However, the board previously granted automakers an exemption from having to make any ZEVs for the other participating states until 2011. On Thursday, the air board extended that date to 2017.

The board also adopted a provision requiring automakers to publicly disclose how many "credits" for producing emission-free vehicles they amass or trade with others.

The vote was preceded by hours of comments from automakers, activists and even a few high school students.

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, now a senior advisor at investment firm VantagePoint Venture Partners, called the issue of emission-free vehicles one of "national energy security" and asked the board to boost requirements for electric cars and plug-in hybrids. VantagePoint is an investor in plug-in hybrid maker Fisker Automotive Inc. Ze'ev Drori, chief executive of Tesla Motors Inc., maker of an electric car, argued for more rigorous standards. Because of the complicated workings of the mandate, his company stands to make money trading the credits it earns when it sells its vehicles.

"The only impediment to this is the parochial, self-interested agendas of the automakers," he said.

Al Weverstad, executive director for environment, energy and safety at GM, asked the board for special consideration for the Chevy Volt, which is in development. GM says the car will have a longer range than rival plug-in hybrids.

"We'd ask that you give us some additional credits," he said. The board granted that request, valuing extended-range plug-in hybrids above shorter-range models.

Robert Sawyer, former chairman of the air board, called for simplification. "We should return to a 'zero means zero,' simple, easy to enforce program," he said.

ken.bensinger@latimes.com

Universal Healthcare Scam in California

2008-01-24T15:51:00.000-08:00

On Monday, January 28, Democrats and Republicans are expected to hold hands and pass a "universal healthcare plan" for Californians. However, DO NOT BE FOOLED!

In California, we can do way better than ABX1 1 healthcare reform, which is special interest policy that enriches the private health insurance companies.

ABX1 1 healthcare reform is inferior to SB 840 Single Payer (private care, public insurance) in 3 main ways:

1) ABX1 1 fails to provide universal coverage and SB 840 does. ABX1 1 denies 1/3 of the uninsured access to quality affordable healthcare and allows private insurers to drop people in many different ways. SB 840 covers all California residents.

2) ABX1 1 fails to control healthcare costs and SB 840 does through global budgeting. ABX1 1 costs $14 billion a year and SB 840 saves $8 billion a year.

3) ABX1 1 fails to enforce health quality controls and SB 840 does. ABX1 1 allows thousands of uncomparable private health insurance plans to set their own standards of quality. SB 840 creates one high quality, public insurance plan that is accountable to all Californians and not based on private insurance company profits.

Many groups join us in rejecting ABX1 1. Among them are The League of Women Voters of California, California Physicians Alliance, California Nurse's Union.

For more information on the two bills and what you can do to stop the passage of ABX1 1, please visit this website.

"News": Congress Writes Another Blank-Check for War

2007-12-15T18:50:00.000-08:00

Did your senators vote for a blank check?

Did your representative vote for a blank check?

It's time that we sent a clear message to the Democrats. You are not against the war if you vote to fund it. The time has come for us to declare our independence from the corporate duopoly and go Green. If we continue voting for Democrats, they think that it is ok for them to keep doing what they are doing. I don't care if you write to them, email them, call them, because at the end of the day, if you vote for them, that is what they care about. (A perfect example is Dianne Feinstein).

This is the land of the free and home of the brave and yet, our government is taking away our freedom and our country is full of voters who are intimidated by the two corporate parties. Be the change you want to see.

Moms get paid less than other women

2007-12-03T20:30:00.000-08:00

Hi everyone!

I just signed a petition to support equal pay for equal work, and I hope you will too. This past July, MomsRising members took action when the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision on Ledbetter vs. Goodyear which significantly set back women's rights to equal pay for equal work. At that time MomsRising members emailed over 18,000 letters to Congress demanding that all of us have protection from discrimination at work. Yes, sadly in these modern times we're still fighting for equality.

With these efforts, we're halfway to fixing this setback. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, but now it's stalled in the U.S. Senate.

Your efforts now can help push this important Fair Pay Act to a win.

Take Action: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1768/signUp.jsp?key=2905

MomsRising members across the nation will be delivering the signed petition in the coming months directly to U.S. Senators at constituent meetings in local communities. Help us send a strong message by giving our Mom Ambassadors a thick stack of petition signatures to deliver.

So please sign on, and then pass on. The more signatures we have, the more our voices will be heard.

Many assume that equal pay for equal work is the norm these days. Sadly it's just not true. In fact, a new 2007 study shows this unequal treatment often starts in the hiring process. This study found that mothers are 79 percent less likely to be hired than non-mothers with the same resumes! Another study found that mothers are taken off the "management track" with fewer late days than non-mothers. Workplace discrimination also shows in pay gaps: Studies show that women without children make 90 cents to a man's dollar, mothers make 73 cents, and single mothers make only about 60 cents to a man's dollar.

These studies show a pattern of consistent discrimination against mothers at work, yet the recent Supreme Court ruling, Ledbetter vs. Goodyear, dramatically limits employee's ability to challenge discrimination. It's time to turn this trend around.

Join us in making that happen: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1768/signUp.jsp?key=2905

PS. Please send this to your contacts, especially if they are mothers, would like to be a mom someday, and/or love their moms.

Hey, It's Not OK to be Apathetic

2007-11-07T16:40:00.000-08:00

Some of you may have read Victoria Tang's article in the Daily Cal today and if you are like me, you would disagree with her.

First, we need to keep in mind that this is an opinion piece and not Daily Cal reporting something. Second, in the United States, you are entitled to an opinion. Ms. Tang is no exception.

She asks, "Why should those who care less [about certain issues] be forced to pick a candidate, any candidate?" My answer is they shouldn't. However, people must be educated on these issues, even if it does not affect them directly. Why should I care about Social Security, AIDS, global poverty, farming subsidies, I could go on and on about issues I "shouldn't care about". However, it is our obligation as American citizens to know what is going on in our country and our obligation as Citizens of the World to know what is going on in our world. Yes, we are entitled to an opinion, but even more importantly, we must have an educated opinion.

She then goes on to talk about other channels in which people voice their (nonexistent?) opinion that "lead to more direct and immediate results." She mentions "writing letters to representatives, joining organizations that fight for their cause, and, if all else fails, there’s always the good ol’ fashioned protest, falling in line with the Berkeley tradition." As a political science major, she should know better than that. Why would your representative care about your letter if you are not going to vote for her/him (or anyone for that matter)? Why join an organization that fights for your cause if the people they are targeting are targets because voters elect them into power? Why protest...well, why protest? (Look where that got us with Iraq (nowhere, literally); I'm not going to elaborate because the argument degenerates pretty quickly into what is misconstrued by many as a cynical soapbox.) These are all great methods to voice your educated opinion if you vote!

Exercising your electoral power is the foundation of any and all other means of voicing your educated opinion. Political discourse throughout history has been an exchange of opinions. If you do not vote, you are not part of the discussion or solution. In fact, you are not part of anything because you just don't care.

In a post-9/11 world, our government claims that terrorists hate democracy. As Bree Van de Kamp from Desperate Housewives so eloquently put it, "The opposite of love isn't hate; it's indifference." When you do not vote, you say that you are indifferent to democracy.

Hillary-ism

2007-10-18T20:21:00.000-07:00

"People who are here legally deserve some better treatment and acceptance in the law than people who are not here legally"

Is this mentality what you would like to see represent the Democratic Party for the next 8 years?

2007-09-20T23:30:00.000-07:00

Today, Senator Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Cornyn (R-TX) introduced two separate amendments that condemned the criticism from MoveOn.org of Gen. Petraeus' report on progress in Iraq. Calling him General "Betray Us," MoveOn.org attempted to illustrate to the American people that the President is once again trying to fool Congress and us.

The President has failed to fool the American people again, but as shown through the passage of Sen. Cornyn's amendment, the President has once again fooled 49 Republicans, 22 Democrats, and 1 Independent. Among the Democrats fooled was our very own Senator Feinstein who has repeatedly voted for the War in Iraq (thank you to all the Democrats and so many Republicans who voted for her last November).

As for Boxer's failed amendment, it showed that 46 Democrats (some overlaps may exist), 2 Republicans, and 2 Independents were fooled by the President regarding the War. Among these Democrats, we have both of our Californian senators, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. Senator Dodd did not vote in either of the amendments.

After the Democrats failed to withdraw our troops from Iraq this year, MoveOn.org finally grew a pair and began to pressure the Democratic Party, which was a significant departure from the previous 6 years of toting the party line.

What does this mean? It means that the Democrats are willing to side with the Republicans on the anti-war movement and not with you and me, who are a part of the anti-war movement (I should refrain from calling it a movement, because that is a mockery of the term).

Why would you vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, who claim to be against the war and then condemn those who are against the war? Before you give me an alarmist answer, think about it. When I ask people why they support either of these candidates, the only response I get is "check their website." Are you telling me that you cannot even give me one legitimate reason why you are supporting who you are to be the next President of the United States of America?! What does that say about not only you but the American electorate?

What will it take for people to realize that we need to pay attention to what the candidates say and what they actually do?

To quote Will Farrell in his 2001 role in the movie Zoolander, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!"

2007-09-07T22:33:00.000-07:00

People are embarrassingly and annoyingly confused about their political terminology.

First of all, the political "spectrum" is not one-dimensional; it's three dimensional. In one dimension, you have the social or moral order scale, with libertarians on the left and authoritarians on the right. In another dimension, you have the moral rules scale, with interdependence on the left and independence on the right. In yet another dimension, you have the economic scale, with communism on the left and capitalism on the right.

SO WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?!

It means that you should be very conscious of what you call yourself and correct others who use the terms incorrectly. I don't want to hear you say "I don't really know what the difference between progressives and liberals are" or "People at Berkeley are all communists" or "All Republicans are fascists."

Also, my biggest pet peeve is when people say start talking to me about their obvious lack of environmental knowledge when they find out I\'m a Green. Greens value grassroots democracy, social justice, nonviolence, and ecological wisdom. greens only value the environment. Greens are a sub-group of progressivism. greens can be and usually are Democrats. All Greens are progressive BUT not all liberals are progressives! (Hillary Clinton really needs to stop calling herself progressive and Republicans need to stop freaking out about her, because she will be a major asset to the conservative agenda, if elected, as she has proven in the past 6 years).

We're All in This Together

2007-08-22T17:06:00.000-07:00

Disney's unexpected hit made-for-TV movie, High School Musical, has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in profit for the parent company of ABC, Buena Vista, ESPN, Miramax, Lifetime, and everything Disney. This tween phenomenon is unexplainable, considering High School Musical was mediocre and definitely not as good as its fanbase would suggest. Knowing that it could depend on this fanbase to fuel the soon-to-be profits generated by the sequel, Disney can imbue whatever message it wants to kids.

[SPOLIER ALERT: the following reveals parts of the plot to High School Musical 2. If you have not seen it yet and would not want to know what happens until you do, please stop reading.]

I decided to investigate what message Disney was sending out. It turns out that the message is the banner under which the Millennials have been raised: teamwork. The obvious plot is for the characters at Eastside High to get a summer job (showing responsibility). You can't miss this because that is what they are all talking about for the first 5 minutes. Once at the job, they feel as if their manager is too harsh, but the male lead (Troy Bolton) encourages them all to stay until the job is done, no matter how bad it turns out to be; exit strategies are not acceptable. There are constant reminders throughout the film that they need to stick together as a team, embodied by their occasional outbursts of "Wildcats!" (their high school mascot). The antagonist (Sharpay Evans) is overtly selfish, as illustrated in her first musical number, which sets up the dichotomy of good vs. evil, team-player vs. individualistic.

As part of the rising action, Troy becomes torn between his friends and his future. At first glance, this is a conflict you will see in a lot of movies. However, in HSM2, it is worth noting that these aren't just his friends, these are members of his team (and I'm not just talking about basketball). Again, team vs. individual. Troy's father subtly conveys to his son that if he needs to sacrifice the team for himself, that is ok. Troy's father is a classic example of Baby Boomer/Gen. Xer parents. "Keep your eyes on the prize," he says, which embodies the two former generation's mentality of "me, me, me" in direct contradiction of the Millennial battle cry of "us, us, us." In the end, he realizes that he belongs with his team, and not be individualistic like Sharpay. The film is wrapped up with a song whose chorus repeats the lyrics "everybody, one for all, everybody, all for one."

Even though none of the characters (besides the Evan siblings) show any character growth, I am not disappointed with Disney's message. Some critics call High School Musical the Grease of our generation. Stepping back for a second, I would say that not only would I agree, but I dare to say that HSM is better than Grease because times have changed. Grease, which targets our parents' generation, is very individualistic. Sandy does not conform with her upbringing and even rebels by conforming to Danny's lower standards (does nonconformity really exist?). What kind of effed up message is that? Both films contain cheesy musical numbers, some catchy songs, and some bad ones. Sure Zac Efron is no John Travolta (nor is he a Kevin Bacon), but when all is said and done, many will consider High School Musical 2 to be a guilty pleasure.

Chevy Volt

2007-08-18T11:26:00.000-07:00

I've been following this new car GM is going to produce in 2010. It is an electric hybrid, which means that it runs on electricity for the first 40 miles and then on gasoline. Considering that the average daily commute in California is about 30-35 miles roundtrip, it is conceivable that drivers of the Volt may never need to burn gasoline ever again.

You just plug it in when you get home and unplug it before you go to work (off-peak hours). At $0.15 per kWh, it only costs you $1.20 to drive your car for 40 miles. Gasoline for a normal car would cost you $4.80 (at 25 mpg and $3/gal)! How awesome would it be to spend 1/4 as much on "fuel" every year? Even better would be if you installed solar panels on your house, because then you would only be using the electricity you generate yourself. You wouldn't even need to use electricity from the grid.

GM is projecting the MSRP of the Chevy Volt to be in the $20k-$25k range (same as the Toyota Prius).

Removing the Fifth Amendment

2007-07-27T11:21:00.000-07:00

The fifth amendment clearly states that "[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

On July 17, 2007, President Bush issued an executive order that says that all property and assets of anyone who is against the War in Iraq can be "blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in."

Please join this group, which has further instructions on what you can do to make the Democrats in Congress do their job (aka. protecting our Constitutional rights).

Our Never-Ending Mistake

2007-07-20T16:35:00.000-07:00

Let me be the first to congratulate the Democratic Congress on allowing President Bush to win this war, which is founded on lies and has done nothing to make this world a safer place.

Before coming to the White House, our president wanted to control the oil underneath the sands of Iraq, one of the few countries left on our planet that has not encountered the problem of peak oil yet. The rest is what we call history.

However, an interesting development has arisen that will secure our president's victory in this war. The Iraqi Parliament is being pressured by the Democrat-controlled Congress to include passing an oil law as one of the benchmarks necessary for our withdrawal from Iraq. The oil law states that oil fields in Iraq could be put under the jurisdiction of foreign oil firms (like ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, etc). This proposed bill has caused much opposition from two out of the three people who wrote the bill, Iraqi oil experts, powerful Iraqi oil unions, and other groups all across Iraq.

Here's the funny part: passing this bill will show Congress that Iraq is one step closer to being "ready" for us to withdraw and yet, if oil companies go into Iraq, we will need to commit our troops there until at least 2040 to protect our economic interests. So in a sense, the war in Iraq is not only like Vietnam, but also Korea. It is a never-ending mistake.

However, it is not too late for us to stop this bill from passing. We need to call our senators and representatives to let them know that this benchmark needs to be removed. Our withdrawal from Iraq ought not be contingent on anything else except the fact that we should not have been there in the first place. We need to use pre-existing funds allotted to this illegal war to bring home our troops in a safe and orderly manner by the end of this year.

Support the DREAM Act Amendment to H.R. 1585

2007-07-15T11:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator Feinstein,

Please vote FOR the Durbin-Hagel-Lugar DREAM Act amendment to H.R. 1585. The DREAM Act provides a 6-year path to legal status for individuals who were brought to the U.S. years ago as undocumented children and who have stayed in school and out of trouble. This year, about 65,000 of these young people will graduate from high school. These graduates cannot put their lives on hold while Congress debates, so the DREAM Act must pass now, not next year or the year after that. So please SUPPORT this important amendment.

Thank Your Senators and Ask Them to Continue Good Work

2007-06-08T10:05:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator,

First, I want to thank you so much for passing the Lieberman amendment (#1191), which will establish detention standards for asylum-seekers and allow for their release on bond and defeating the Cornyn amendment (#1250), which would have restricted confidentiality protections in the legalization program.

Second, I want to thank you for standing up for what is right by voting in favor of the Menedez-Hagel amendment (#1194), which would have moved the cut-off date for family backlog reduction from May 2005 to January 1, 2007. This would have helped 800,000 applicants and strengthen family reunification. Thank you for voting in favor of the Clinton-Hagel amendment (#1183), which would have moved immediate relatives (spouses, minor children) of legal permanent residents to the uncapped category, thereby eliminating backlogs, [for Boxer only: and the Obama-Menendez amendment (#1202), which would sunset merit-based “point” system after five years.] Despite your best efforts, it was the fault of your colleagues in the Senate who failed to protect immigrant families when they rejected all three of these amendments.

Furthermore, your colleagues in the Senate continued to marginalize immigrants when they voted in favor of the Cornyn amendment (#1184), which will limit eligibility for the “Z” visa legalization program by disqualifying those who used false documents or other minor offenses. Thank you for again standing up for what is right by voting to reject this amendment.

[for Feinstein only: I am extremely disappointed that you stood with your colleagues and not immigrant families when you voted to reject the Obama-Menendez amendment (#1202), which would sunset merit-based “point” system after five years.] However, as you are well aware, the fight for comprehensive immigration reform is far from over. What’s done is done and all we can do is learn from our past successes and mistakes. Please SUPPORT the Dodd-Menendez Amendment #1199, which would increase the number of green cards for parents of U.S. citizens from 40,000 to 90,000. Please OPPOSE the Hutchinson Amendment #1440, which would require undocumented immigrants to “return home” at the beginning of the legalization program, before they receive a probationary visa. The current legislation would require Z visa holders to return home to apply for a “green card,” eight years after the beginning of the program, OPPOSE the Thune Amendment, which would prevent the Z program from beginning until several “triggers” - erection of a wall, hiring of 18,000 Border Patrol agents - are completed, and OPPOSE the Coleman Amendment # 1473, which would facilitate sharing of information between state and local law enforcement and immigration agents regarding immigration status.

Let’s not weaken and already mediocre immigration bill. Again, thank you so much for [for Feinstein only: mostly] standing in solidarity with Californians and immigrants everywhere.

U.S. About to Double Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2007-06-06T14:36:00.000-07:00

1. Congress could vote in the next fews weeks on a bill that would double our greenhouse gas emissions from planes and cars. It sounds crazy, but this is exactly what will happen if a current plan to use "liquid coal" passes. Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels and we have a serious global warming problem.

I signed a petition urging Congress to vote no on tax breaks and subsidies on coal. Can you join me here?

2. The Supreme Court just delivered a huge blow to the fight for equal pay for equal work. Help right this wrong. Sign this petition to tell Congress, "We Need Equal Pay for Equal Work--it is good law, make it enforceable!"

3. With our booming population growth, we have to invest in quality public transit to keep traffic congestion from getting worse and meet our commitments to cut global warming pollution. Two weeks ago, legislators spoke out against most of the Governor's proposed cuts during the Senate and Assembly Budget Subcommittees on Transportation. Now it is up to the Conference Committee to develop a budget both houses can support by June 15th. Legislators are also considering a CALPIRG-backed proposal to guarantee more stable funding for public transit in future budgets. Ask Your Legislators to Invest in Public Transit!

Thank you Senators Clinton, Obama, Kerry & Lieberman (no sarcasm)

2007-06-04T11:28:00.000-07:00

Pigs must be flying today because I am sincerely thanking both Hilary and Lieberman.

Tomorrow (June 5), the Senate is scheduled to resume work on S. 1348, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007, a bill that addresses border security and immigration enforcement, creates a legalization program for undocumented immigrants in the U.S., establishes a temporary worker program, and makes changes to the family preference and worker visa
systems.

The Senate bill contains many important elements of comprehensive immigration reform. However, there are certain aspects of S. 1348 that ought to cause significant reservations among the American people. Let's call on Senators to improve the bill to support family reunification and oppose amendments that would further restrict eligibility for the legalization program.

Californiains really need to pressure Senator Feinstein who has a bad record when it comes to civil liberties (ACLU gave her a rating of 69%).
-------------------------------

Subject: Improve S. 1348

Dear Senator Feinstein,

As a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform I am writing to urge you to support pro-family unification amendments that will be offered as you resume work on S. 1348, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007. I also urge you to oppose any amendments that would restrict eligibility for the Z visa legalization program.

Please SUPPORT amendments to strengthen families that will be offered by Senators Menendez, Clinton, and Obama during the floor debate.

Please also SUPPORT amendments by Senators Kerry and Lieberman that would protect the rights of immigrants. Senator Kerry's amendment would ensure due process rights for immigrants impacted by enforcement raids. Senator Lieberman's amendment would improve detention standards for asylum-seekers.

Please OPPOSE amendments that would limit eligibility for the Z visa legalization program offered by Senators Cornyn and Sessions. I also ask that you oppose an amendment offered by Senator Inhofe to make English the official language of the United States.

It is important that S. 1348 is improved so that families are protected and due process protections are preserved. In addition, the Z visa legalization program should not be weakened by limiting eligibility for the program.

Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue.

Congress Hates Immigrants, Do You?

2007-05-24T09:13:00.000-07:00

Dear Senator,

Thank you for moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

However, as a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform I have significant reservations regarding certain aspects of S. 1348, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

Therefore, I ask that you do everything you can to improve the bill to make it fair, workable and humane as you consider it the next several weeks.

Please ensure the following:

1. Changes must be made to the proposed temporary worker program to: 1) allow for a path to citizenship for temporary workers in the program; 2) allow for immediate family members to come with the temporary worker and 3) provide for a three-year renewable visa, not a two-year visa and a requirement to return home for a year.

2. Amend the legalization program. I strongly support the legalization of undocumented immigrants but S. 1348 should be changed to allow for immediate family members (spouses and children) to permanently join legalized workers in the first year. I oppose requiring the visa holder to return to their country of origin to apply for permanent residency.

3. Oppose elimination of family preference system. S. 1348 eliminates several categories of the family preference system and replaces it with a "point" system. Families are the backbone of immigrant communities--they start businesses, promote good citizenship, and contribute to integration. We oppose a system which replaces family reunification preferences in favor of a system skewed to highly skilled and educated workers.

I trust that you will do everything you can to ensure that any immigration reform legislation that is passed by the Senate is fair, humane and workable. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Mediocrity Alert: Bipartisan Immigration "Reform" Deal

2007-05-21T19:00:00.000-07:00

If you haven't already heard, the United States is discussing bipartisan immigration reform that is deeply problematic.

This Bush Administration immigration reform initiative will leave many immigrants in a permanent underclass and more vulnerable to exploitation and family dislocation. The Bush Administration has proposed an immigration plan which would undermine family immigration in several ways. It would:

1. eliminate several categories of family reunification, including adult sons and daughters, siblings, and parents of U.S. citizens;

2. prevent persons legalized under the legalization program from bringing in immediate family members (spouse and minor children); and

3. prevent temporary workers from bringing with them immediate family members. These family members would be re-directed toward an employment-based “point” system which would make family ties only one of several criteria considered for admission.

Any compromise immigration reform legislation MUST include essential components in order to warrant your Representative's and Senators' support. First, any earned legalization program must be fair, workable, and achievable for all eligible participants, must include a path to citizenship, and must allow for families to remain together. A new worker program must include important labour protections, family unity, and a path to citizenship. In addition, family reunification categories must be preserved and family backlogs must be eliminated. We ought to be strongly opposed to the elimination of family reunification categories in any immigration reform legislation and to the separation of families in a new worker program or in any new legalization program.

Call Senator Feinstein (202.224.3841) right now! She needs to hear that Californians will not stand by as she betrays California's immigrant population yet again! Call Senator Boxer (202.224.3553) too, just to be safe.

Tell Your Senators NOW: We want Comprehensive Immigration Reform!

2007-05-14T16:46:00.000-07:00

The Senate is expected to begin its work on a new immigration reform bill this week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that he will proceed with floor consideration of S. 2611, the bill the Senate passed last year, on Wednesday, May 16 unless a new bill is introduced by a bipartisan group of Senators trying to broker a deal.

Email or call Senator Feinstein (and Boxer) and tell her that:

"I support fixing our nation's broken immigration system with a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

As you begin debate on an immigration reform bill this week, I urge you to support the following:

1. Vote in favor of the cloture vote on the motion to proceed with consideration of S. 1348, a new version of the bill the Senate passed last year.

2. Enactment of comprehensive immigration reform that includes:

a) A workable program that legalizes the status of undocumented immigrants, promotes family unity and a realistic path to citizenship;

b) A new guest worker program that protects workers, living wage levels, and a path to citizenship; and

c) Preservation of family reunification programs that maintain all family preference categories and reduce visa backlogs.

Thank you for your support of these critical provisions to bring about a fair and workable solution to our broken immigration system."

The Sound of Silence

2007-04-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

"Fools," I said, "you do not know silence like a cancer grows. Hear my words that I may teach you; take my arms so I may reach you." But my words like silent raindrops fell and echoed in the wells...of silence.

"[The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter" Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2358

I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today.

What are you going to do to end the silence?

VT

2007-04-17T09:12:00.000-07:00

All life is precious, but this is especially highlighted when lives are lost due to violence. We must not forget about the millions of lives lost due to war, malnutrition, preventable diseases, incurable diseases, abortions, executions, assisted suicide, etc. I can understand why Americans are concerned about the tragedy at VA Tech, but we also need to show solidarity to all of these other things that end thousands of lives on a daily basis too.

Sound of Silence

What's going to get done has been done

8th Annual Walk for Life

Decision 2012: Intro

Peace & Life Connections Fall 2011

Four Degrees of Separation (from reality)

It's not me, it's you.

Free China Will Not Perish 中國不會亡

Peace & Life Connections Summer 2011

DADT's Repealed

Miscarriage of Justice

Debt-finitely Not Cool!

My Take: Jesus didn't come to condemn...and neither do we

Peace & Life Connections Spring 2011

Agape

Peace & Life Connections Winter 2011

Nostalgia 鄉愁

Women Deserve Better

Walking for Life, Praying for Peace

Halfway There

Peace & Life Connections Autumn 2010

State Props and Me...

Peace & Life Connections Summer 2010

Turning the Other Cheek?

Peace & Life Connections Spring 2010

State Props and Me...

101 Delights!

Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires

Strait But Not Narrow

Support Arms Package to Taiwan

SOTU 2010 Highlights

One Down, Three to Go!

The Forgotten Case for Traditional Marriage

What's the deal with Copenhagen?

My Swan Song for Health Insurance Reform

Nobel War Prize

Misunderstanding the Millennials?

The (Easy?) Road to the White House

Something Really Worth Forwarding

Morality Behind Health Care Reform

Violence in Sinkiang

Don't Understand Don't Ask, Don't Tell

State Props and Me...

Tibetans, Catholics, and Religious Freedom

That's What Friends Are For!

Healthcare for All?

Oh, Canada...

Goodbye, Ah Bian!

Change We Can Believe In!

State Props and Me...

Open the Debates, Cease the Exclusion

Thank you Congress for not passing bailout (not being sarcastic)

Senator Boxer wants to hear from you! (yes, you)

Find the Logic (this is a literal email conversation I had today)

BBC on air: Are we turning a blind eye to China ? (01 Aug 2008)

A breath of fresh air as we move forward

What's love got to do, got to do with it?

*Big Change Coming to UC System*

One World. One Dream. One China?

Seat Belts and Air Bags Not Required Anymore!

Universal Healthcare Scam in California

"News": Congress Writes Another Blank-Check for War

Moms get paid less than other women

Hey, It's Not OK to be Apathetic

Hillary-ism

We're All in This Together

Chevy Volt

Removing the Fifth Amendment

Our Never-Ending Mistake

Support the DREAM Act Amendment to H.R. 1585

Thank Your Senators and Ask Them to Continue Good Work

U.S. About to Double Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Thank you Senators Clinton, Obama, Kerry & Lieberman (no sarcasm)

Congress Hates Immigrants, Do You?

Mediocrity Alert: Bipartisan Immigration "Reform" Deal

Tell Your Senators NOW: We want Comprehensive Immigration Reform!

The Sound of Silence

VT

Big Change Coming to UC System