MICHAEL O. ALLEN

Tag

California

SEARCH FOR MEANING IN SLAY

By Homepage, New York Daily News, South Africa: The Freedom VoteNo Comments

By GENE MUSTAIN and MICHAEL O. ALLEN, Daily News Staff Writers | Sunday, April 24, 1994

CAPE TOWN—The trial is in its sixth tedious month, but residents of the area anxious whites call the Ring of Fire still come into town to cheer the young comrades accused of murdering Amy Biehl.

From the courtroom balcony, they mouth encouraging words to the alleged killers and mock witnesses who testify about the young American who came to South Africa to help blacks learn about democracy.

“We come because they didn’t do it,” a man in the cheering section snaps at day’s end, before heading back to Guguletu, one of the ring of squalid black townships on the fringes of this otherwise beautiful city.

Read More

. . . or Mexico

By HomepageNo Comments

Gaza Is Not Toronto: It Has Been Under Full Occupation For Over 40 Years

user-pic

“I ask any of my colleagues to imagine that happening here in the United States. Rockets and mortars coming from Toronto in Canada, into Buffalo New York. How would we as a country react?”

It is hard to believe that the Democratic Senate majority leader would parrot that ridiculous line.

But it is in all the “information” packages that the lobby is distributing, changed to reflect geography. In California, the question is what the people of Chula Vista, CA would do if they were being shelled from Tijuana, Mexico. In Burlington, Vermont, the missiles come from Montreal, Quebec. The info packets can apply the analogy to any two places located on an international border.

And the average Joe is supposed to ignore the huge difference in the two situations. The United States does not occupy Mexico or Canada, If we did, the missile attacks on Buffalo or Chula Vista or whatever might not be considered bolts out of the blue. Millions of Americans would demand that rather than bombing Ottawa or Mexico City, we consider ending our occupation of Canada/Mexico.

Continue . . .

“Gonna be a Bumpy Ride”

By HomepageNo Comments

The Central Virginia Progressive-The DAVISReport sends us

Foreshadowing the “R” Word- A Day Late and Many Dollars Short

Our Government is finally admitting what seems to surprise only them, that we are in a recession and have been for some time. “Duh”?! The following is a re-posting of a previous entry on this blog originally dated July 11,2008. Read in today’s light it seems like a 1,000 years ago and a lot more unsettling . . .

I just got back from a trip to California, going from Mexico to San Francisco, and other than the shore line, it is one big brown state. And the smoke, when you see all that dry dessert grass on the mountains, you get an understanding of their fire risk and why that state won’t stop burning.

In Mexico I learned two things I didn’t know. First California was named by early Mexican natives and it means “hot oven” and second it is a statement of accepted fact there that the U.S. is in a recession. My personal, though admittedly limited, international focus group collection data revealed that our international neighbors throw the fact of our recession around pretty comfortably and seem unaware that our own administration states we aren’t in one.

(“Oh Amigo, tourism is down due to American recession”; “The artisans will barter as business is down due to the American recession”). Is it important what the rest of the world observes about our economic health? I think so.

Read More

The Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time

By HomepageNo Comments

While much of the country is rightly focused on the presidential election, there’s no contest more important to me this year than an initiative on the ballot in California. If it passes with a simple majority, Proposition 8 will take away the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples in that state. The measure has the heavy financial backing of the Mormon church, and recent polls suggest that the outcome could be very close.

I strongly oppose Proposition 8 because it’s unfair and wrong. Please join me in donating here. There’s still time to have an impact, and no amount is too small. And if you vote in California, please vote No on Prop 8.

You might wonder why I care at all about Prop 8. I live in Georgia. I’m straight. And I’m already married. What’s in it for me?

Well, you see, this issue is personal for me. My wife and I are an interracial couple. She’s black. I’m white. We’re both mindful that, not so long ago, interracial marriage was illegal in our home state. We believe very strongly that loving couples should have the right to marry without fear of discrimination. Our own marriage was only possible because the United States Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage, and I shudder to think what my life would be like today if the right to marry someone of a different race or color had been put to a majority vote.

Yet that’s precisely what thousands of same-sex couples in California face right now. A referendum on human dignity and equality.

We can’t let Prop 8 pass. This is too important. This is the civil rights issue of our time, and we must rise to the challenge. Do something — please.

Go to www.noonprop8.com to help, or make a donation here.

Cross-posted from Facebook.

further reflections on the California marriage decision

By HomepageNo Comments

First, let me clear my throat:

These thoughts are the outgrowths of a discussion I was having with a friend (I’ll call her Gigi). I am not sure that it is germane but let’s note that I am a straight, married man and that my friend identifies as queer and cannot, as of yet, legally marry her partner in New York State.

That is, if she wanted to. As it is, she is against marriage. For both straight and gays. Period.

Anything insightful, original, or radical in this post, I would have to attribute to her.

That isn’t without caveat. The first point that she and I agree on is that, and this is a direct quote from her:

relationships free of commitment can lead to a lot of exploitation and can wreak havoc on women and children who only gain protection through formalized relationships.

The other point we agree on is that marriage, if it exists at all (this last clause would be revelatory to my wife), should be available to all. It is in that vein that we celebrate the truly groundbreaking, epochal California marriage decision.

I know now that those on the right – religious or otherwise – and the other know nothings will take this decision as their battle cry to not only reverse it, but to also erase gains that gays, lesbians and the transgendered have made in our society. We must stop them from doing this.

But we cannot just play defense.

Another direct quote from Gigi:

Giving rights to married people and using those rights to exclude others for me makes the state a moral judge, an enforcer of cultural norms, and does injustice to the complexity of our lives and does violence to a wider, larger concept of love.

How about, instead of extending such protections only to people who have sex with one another, that the protections that “marriage” contain be extended to all the myriad ways that family and commitment manifest in our lives.

Gigi:

People should be able to contract their relationships. For instance, two sisters who live together and share finances should be able to draw up a contract for a 5, 10, 20 yr agreement which dictates they share rights of inheritance or end-of-life decision power for one another.

Or two people who are sleeping together draw up a contract that says they share x, y, and z — but want their property to revert to their children if they should pass.

The point would be not to limit those options and not to give any relationship a privileged status.

So, let the battle be joined. We should draw up our own manifesto on where we should be as a society and put that up against the people who, against all reason, would plunge society into the dark ages.

California Ruling Reignites Same-Sex Marriage Debate

By HomepageNo Comments

By NATHAN KOPPEL and T.W. FARNAM , May 16, 2008; Page A1

The California Supreme Court opened the door to same-sex marriages in the nation’s largest state, reigniting a hot-button social issue amid a presidential election campaign so far dominated by economic issues and the war in Iraq.

The ruling makes California the second state, after Massachusetts, to give gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. But lawyers said the state’s national influence and size — representing 12% of the country’s population and one-fifth of the electoral vote need to win the White House — make the decision the most important legal victory to date for proponents of same-sex marriage. The decision, coming six months before the presidential election, also could galvanize voters on a topic that in this campaign cycle has largely been on the sidelines.

“The California Supreme Court is a famous and respected court, and [same-sex couples] have lost more legal challenges than they have won, so this is big news,” said attorney Jeffrey Trachtman, who lost a 2006 case that attempted to overturn New York’s ban on same-sex marriages.

A handful of states, including California, Vermont and New Jersey, allow same-sex couples to enter civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford many of the rights of marriage. But the California court, which was considering whether state law prohibiting gay marriage violates California’s constitution, voted 4-3 that such protections didn’t go far enough.

“[R]etaining the designation of marriage exclusively for opposite-sex couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples are in some respects ‘second-class citizens,'” wrote the court.

Barr on gay marriage: California decision is how it’s supposed to work

By HomepageNo Comments

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Friday, May 16, 2008

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr says that when it comes to gay marriage, what happens in California is California’s own business. He’s a states’ rights man.

Here’s the statement Barr’s issued, which — one week before the Libertarian national convention in Denver — is likely to generate some talk:

barrgay.jpg

“Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress).

The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded.

Read More

The Lady is a Champ

By Homepage


Barack Obama is winning some states but Hillary Clinton appears to be winning the significant ones. California is not in but, based on what’s gone on so far, I just don’t expect Obama to win there. I don’t know why I thought he could win in New Jersey and New York. Clinton not only won here but also in Oklahoma and Tennessee.

I know I sound ridiculous but, from this point on, Obama is running for vice president if he stays in the race. The sort of magic he packs shrivels in a vice presidency. Besides, with Bill as a virtual co-president, Mrs. Clinton won’t need anyone substantial as her vice president. Is there a Joseph Biden clone out West or in the South?

Obama could be President Clinton’s first nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

A Rip in the Fabric

By Homepage

I found this New York Times story very fascinating. The Sanchez sisters’ story was affecting but the story that affect me the most was the one involving Christopher Edley and Maria Echaveste.

Christopher Edley and Maria Echaveste, a married couple who met while serving in the Clinton administration, have actually started debating each other. Not just at their kitchen table, but in front of audiences across California and on television.

“It’s not easy,” Ms. Echaveste, who is a paid consultant to Mrs. Clinton, said in a joint telephone interview with her husband, who advises Mr. Obama. “You’re having a discussion and your husband is basically saying that your candidate doesn’t have a moral compass.”

With that, Mr. Edley broke in. “Or your wife is saying that your candidate isn’t smart enough to figure out where the bathrooms are,” he said.

“I never said that,” she replied.

The couple has relived some of the campaign’s most rancorous moments, such as when Ms. Echaveste, echoing Bill Clinton, told her husband that Mr. Obama was “naïve.” The word conjured up racial stereotypes for Mr. Edley, who is black, and has known Mr. Obama since he taught him in law school. “There’s the childlike Negro,” he explained. “There is the superficial but glib minstrel.”

Ms. Echaveste, who is Hispanic, now understands why her husband exploded in response. “Regardless of being dean of a law school” — at the University of California, Berkeley, where both teach — “he’s still in a box called being a black man,” she said. Still, she said, “I ought to be able to make that point and not trigger these reactions.”

And with that, Mr. Edley responded, his wife countered, and they started to debate once more.

This couple’s conflict played out for me this way:

I was open-minded about Hillary Clinton’s campaign for nomination and could have seen myself voting for her. Then, in a Jan. 13 appearance on ‘Meet the Press,’ she refused to answer Tim Russert’s question about whether Obama was qualified to be president. Obama has more years in elected office than she does and he’s the exact same age Bill Clinton was in 1992. So what is the problem? And this was going on at a time when Hillary and Bill were channeling Lee Atwater in South Carolina by turning Obama into “the black candidate.”

Call me sensitive, thin-skinned, but it became hard for me to support her after that. I started wishing John Edwards had been a stronger candidate, that his message had resonated with the voters more. I did not want Obama to benefit from my disappointment with Hillary Clinton.

So, this is where we’re at.