OK Tammy, we're square again

"Wise men say 'forgiveness is divine,' but never pay full price for late pizza."

I wanted to take a moment to give props to Tammy Baldwin, who recently gave one heck of a good speech in support of Barack Obama (and roundly smacking down McCain). I'd earlier criticized her for her support of Hillary Clinton during the primaries, despite Baldwin's district going overwhelmingly for Obama. I'm still a little miffed that she did, but her promise to vote for Clinton come convention time appears to have been the usual rhetoric you get when the race is still being contested. Now that Clinton has (finally, finally) bowed out and thrown her weight behind Obama, it makes sense that her pledged delegates would, too.

So while Baldwin's move is by no means particularly bold, I'm still going to commend it. She does insist, for instance, that she's supporting Obama not simply because of party loyalty, but because she genuinely believes him to be the right choice come November. I'm hopeful that further support like this will also do much to convince some of the Clinton hold-outs who've been threatening to vote for McCain out of spite for their preferred candidate's loss.

Thanks, Tammy.

Stranger at the gate

What's so terrifying about homosexuality?

Is it something in certain peoples' deep, primal psyches that takes issue with their inherent inability to procreate together? Bigotry and fear instilled by a religious system that decided to stigmatize homosexuality because its original oppressors (see: Romans) practiced it so freely? Ignorance? All of the above?

It can't be because it's "unnatural." Homosexuality exists in several species of animal--bonobos, dolphins, various birds, elephants, even lizards and fruit flies--and has been a recorded part of human history since we started keeping track.

It can't be because it's "harmful." Harmful to whom? I can't find a shred of unbiased research that shows any significantly higher risk of medical problems for homosexuals. Contrary to common stereotypes, gays and lesbians are no more or less promiscuous, prone to mental illness or likely to molest children than people who identify as straight. If anything, the only extra harm involved in being gay is that which comes from discrimination and hatred by other people.

So why is it, then, that homophobia is still so rampant?

Today, I read about Tammy Baldwin's partner being initially denied permission to fly with her on a military flight for a congressional trip to Europe. It took the intervention of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to secure an exception. Now, whether or not you agree that members of Congress should be allowed to bring spouses along on these trips, the fact remains that Baldwin's spouse was specifically disallowed because the Pentagon/military doesn't recognize same-sex partnerships.

This is ridiculous. Just as ridiculous as our military continuing to use the "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" rule.

Then, I read about further investigations into the US Attorney firings at the Justice Department, and how in at least one case, it looks very much like a highly qualified attorney was fired specifically because of rumors that she was gay. This part is especially telling:

The Justice Department's inspector general is looking into whether Hagen was dismissed after a rumor reached Goodling that Hagen is a lesbian.

As one Republican source put it, "To some people, that's even worse than being a Democrat."

Worse than being a Democrat. Is that how we want to run our country? By firing highly skilled professionals based on personal prejudices and then replacing them with less qualified partisan sycophants? I wouldn't want that to happen regardless of the political party that was doing it, period.

Gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in all levels and branches of the government and military, no exceptions. They're already there (and have always been), doing what they believe is their duty to their country, regardless of what the rules say. They should be judged for the positions applied for in the same manner as anyone: by their actual skills, records of service, etc--you know, qualifications for the job. Anything less is not only mean-spirited, it's short-sighted and detrimental to the improvement and safety of our country.

This sort of institutionalized discrimination should never be tolerated, especially so in a country founded on the idea that everyone should get a fair shake in life.

Tammy can you hear me?

Everyone's talking about superdelegates these days, so I really hate to add to the cacophony, but this particular story hits rather close to home.

Wisconsin Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, a politician for whom I have given my full support since I moved here in 2000, has the interesting and tricky honor of being one of those much talked about superdelegates. That means that, come the Democratic National Convention in August, she gets to vote for whoever she so chooses. It's a strange little bylaw, to be sure. Here's how it all works for Wisconsin:

Forty-eight [of 74] of the Wisconsin delegates are awarded based on vote totals in the state's eight congressional districts. In the second congressional district, which includes Dane County, Obama will take five delegates to Clinton's three, the most lopsided total of any district in the state.

Besides the 74 pledged delegates, there are 18 unpledged so-called "superdelegates" in the state who are not required to vote for any candidate and who can support anyone they want. One of those, U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, has endorsed Clinton. Her campaign released a statement Wednesday saying that she remained committed to Clinton.

"Congresswoman Baldwin announced her endorsement of Senator Clinton many months ago," the statement read. "She supports Senator Clinton because she is the only candidate fully committed to health care for all Americans."

Tammy has every right, during the primaries, to support and campaign for any candidate she wants. That's not up for debate here. What I and a number of other folks find irksome, however, is the fact that Baldwin is still promising to vote for Clinton come convention time, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of Baldwin's constituents supported Obama in the primary.

Ben Brothers over at Badger Blues lays it out nicely:

Unfortunately, unless things change, [Obama's] actual advantage at the convention will be only a single delegate, since Tammy Baldwin is a superdelegate who plans to vote for Senator Clinton.

Thanks to arcane bylaws written decades ago, Tammy Baldwin has the ability to trump the expressed wishes of her constituents (251,627 people voted for Baldwin in 2004...If we take that to be a fair estimate of the district’s Democratic voting population, we find out that Tammy Baldwin’s vote in the Democratic primary is roughly 31,000 times more important than anyone else’s), and singlehandedly cut Obama’s delegate advantage in half. Today she stated that she plans to do just that. This hardly seems fair to the thousands of Democrats in Madison and the surrounding communities who went to the polls yesterday and voted for Barack Obama.

Never before have superdelegates played such a crucial role in the nomination of a candidate for the presidency. In years past, the contest for the nomination hasn't dragged on for so long and been so close. I love that the race this year is so hotly contested because it means that more people in more states get to vote when it still matters, instead of having the first three or four states to hold primaries/caucuses decide their candidate for them.

Since things are so close, however, everyone is paying close attention to these superdelegates, chasing even the lowliest of the them down for interviews and a clue as to where their loyalties might lie.

Shouldn't these elected officials be beholden to their constituents, though? If the majority of people in your district vote for one person, shouldn't you be obligated to support their decision at the national convention? Isn't that how our republi-mocracy is supposed to work?

Clinton failed to win a single district in Wisconsin. Her defeat was most resounding in the second district--Baldwin's--with student voters (who make up a large chunk of Baldwin's support base) going 10 to 1 in favor of Obama. If, in the end, she ignores that loud and clear message, Baldwin risks losing a great deal of face with the very people who put her in office.

I like Tammy, I like what she stands for and what she's done while in office. It's not as though I would vote for her opponent come the next election (sorry, Dave "Vote for Me Because My Wife Died" Magnum doesn't really do it for me), but my disappointment would be deep. I imagine it would be the same with a lot of her constituents.

Again, Ben Brothers sums up my feelings on the subject well when he notes that "In exactly the same way that Sandra Day O’Connor’s vote for George Bush was worth more than the votes of 51 million Americans, this sucks."

We've suffered through one too many rigged and flawed elections in the past eight years. I'm pleading with Tammy and all the other superdelegates when I say, please don't put us through another one.

Do you love mountains?

When I was living in Illinois, many years ago, the highest topographical feature in my entire county was a landfill. It wasn't particularly majestic, and after a hard rain, if the sun came out, it made the whole town smell pretty rank. I wouldn't have been opposed to someone blowing it up and removing it altogether.

I can't say the same thing for actual mountains, though. They're supposed to be there. They serve many important purposes and blowing them up leads to all manner of nasty consequences and repercussions. That's why you should head right on over to ilovemountains.org and check out their "Virtual Memorial" feature. Then you should look to see whether or not your congressional representative has signed on as a co-sponsor of HR 2169, the Clean Water Protection Act. If they have, be sure to send them a thank-you note. If they haven't, be sure to send them a note urging them to change that and sign on right away.

As of my writing this, the only Wisconsin representative signed on as a co-sponsor is the dependably awesome Tammy Baldwin. But that means that the other, 7 state reps need a good solid nudge from their constituents to get their butt's into gear.

That'd be:

Paul Ryan, 1st district
Ron Kind, 3rd district
Gwen Moore, 4th district
James Sensenbrenner, 5th district
Thomas Petri, 6th district
David Obey, 7th district
Steve Kagen, 8th district

So get on the horn, the wire, or the pen and let these folks know how important the Clean Water Protection Act is, and that we need to go back to enforcing the original intent of the bill:

In 1977, The Clean Water Act was enacted by Congress to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters,” and prohibited the dumping of material into waterways for the purpose of waste disposal. In 2002, the current Administration made a rule change which redefined “fill material” in order to include mining waste. Since debris from mountaintop removal is now acceptable “fill material”, coal companies are dumping millions of tons of mine waste into nearby streams using a streamlined permitting process. As its designers intended, this has greatly facilitated the practice of mountaintop removal.

Representatives Frank Pallone and Christopher Shays introduced a bill that reestablishes the original intent of the Clean Water Act: to protect our waterways, not give industry permission to pollute and bury them.

I've never lived near anything taller than a bluff, but I have visited the mountains many times. The Appalachians, when they're not being sawed off at the top, blown up, and dug through, are an absolutely stunning sight. The people who live with them deserve so much better than they're currently being given by the mining companies, and by an administration that allowed for the "fill material" loophole that's polluting the crap out of the land and water.

Let's get out there and do our part to stop it!