Backing into the Lieberman

One commonly loved sport among the Jews is to play the "Who's a Jew" game. At least one round of "Who's a Jew" is played at each of my family gatherings. We don't plan for it. It just happens.


For whatever reason, the Jews get off on identifying the lone chosen one who makes a living doing something that is largely reserved for the gentiles - like NASCAR racing, or running a state fair (or enjoying/attending either one).

Laker point guard Jordan Farmar is a favorite among my family, especially since my mom dated his grandpa, whom she met on J-Date.

Each round usually includes the following interaction: "Did you know XX is Jewish?" "He's Jewish? I didn't know that." (Mini moment of silence while we all take comfort in knowing that XX enjoys talking about his bowel movements with friends and family.) "Can you pass the kugel? It's delicious." "Everything's delicious."


So in the 2000 presidential election, you could imagine how surprised we were when Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Sure, the few conservatives in my family who mistakenly believe Democrats don't give a damn about Israel didn't support the Gore-Lieberman ticket, but there was a mutual sense of familiarity and pride. (Great, now I'm imagining Joe talking about his bowel movements. Sorry about that.)


I was a huge Gore supporter and, although Lieberman was too conservative for my liking and his voice made me wish I was a deaf democrat, I was on board. He added a reasonable balance to the ticket. And it was pretty cool to witness the first Jewish-American ever to be chosen for this position in a major party. I'll "challah" to that.


Speaking of Joe Lieberman... and please pardon my long and drawn-out anecdotal style of "backing into the lead," as my journalism professors would call it... but I write all of this tangential rhetoric to say that I am sickened by and furious with Sen. Joe Lieberman. He is the political carnation of a cock block.


I don't care that he is a Democrat-turned-Independent, but it kills me that he still gets to caucus with the Democratic party as he shits all over them - and probably loves talking about it at the dinner table, too.


He endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket, he was one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war and President Bush's policies in Iraq, and he was the lone Democrat to criticize Bill Clinton on the Senate floor for BJ-gate.


Now Lieberman is threatening to withhold his vote on health care reform if it includes any form of a public option. I don't completely understand the intricacies of the health care bill because it's so fucking complicated and it's changing every day, but from what I do understand, it doesn't go nearly far enough. (Full disclosure, I am pretty much a socialist when it comes to health care - I believe it's a right, not a privilege.)


Democrats need Lieberman's 60th vote to overcome a Republican filibuster and proceed to a final vote in the Senate. Consequently, Democrats are watering down the bill even more with compromise proposals, like supplementing the public option with something else Lieberman won't like, particularly if it involves health insurance regulation. (Sen. Lieberman has received close to 500k in contributions from the health insurance industry and his state of Connecticut is home to some of the largest insurance companies. He also may be endearing himself to Republicans for 2012).


No wonder Lieberman cannot clearly articulate why he won't support it - not only because his voice sounds like a dying donkey caught in a well, but because his reasons are underhanded. He has been quoted as saying it’s the “wrong time” to create a government insurance program, claiming it would increase the national debt, probably raise taxes and increase premiums for insurance holders. I'm sorry, but what about the huge financial burden of the uninsured and wasteful health care costs?


Leading Democrats are now proposing to eliminate a public option from the bill in exchange for lowering the Medicare age limit from 65 to 55 and extending a Medicare "buy-in" program to those between 55 and 65. I'm sorry, but that is hardly a fair trade.


I resent the fact that Obama's campaign promise to overhaul health care has disintegrated into this sorry version of more-of-the-same. I don't want the bill to pass in its current form. It's a lose-lose situation, largely thanks to Joe.


What does this have to do with playing the "Who's a Jew" game?  Not much, ultimately.  Lieberman's religious beliefs don't matter.  I don't expect all answers to the "Who's a Jew" game to live up to my expectations.  Hey, Farmar has struggled and underperformed as a point guard.  I suppose I am merely disappointed that I voted for a Vice Presidential candidate who has fallen so far.  I feel betrayed and frustrated that our health care system is in such disarray with no end in sight.  


Some form of a health care bill is supposed to pass before Christmas. But Joe, you have the power to make it happen before Hannukah. Please don't make us wait until Passover. The Jews need health insurance coverage - we have sensitive stomachs.

Long shot to block Sotomayor

Critics have raised questions about President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor stemming from her (unscripted yet videotaped) statement that “Court of Appeals is where policy is made” and a 2001 speech in which she stated “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

Even with those and other critiques, blocking her confirmation will be a long shot.

Anyway, we found this biographical sketch of Judge Sotomayor produced by the Law School Admission Council. Check it out.

The White House's First Poetry Jam

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Tonight, the Obamas hosted a poetry jam at the White House. It was a small event, but carries a lot of weight considering the unprecedentedly diverse group of artists and performers. The event included Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, Jewish and African American writers.

“We’re here to celebrate the power of words and music to help us appreciate beauty and also to understand pain,’’ the president told the crowd.

Mayda del Valle, a 30-year-old poet from Chicago who performed, told the New York Times:

“To be able to go in the White House and to represent my grandmother and my ancestors, it really means a lot. It’s a generation of women that don’t often get heard, you know, these old Puerto Rican women that no one ever really thinks about. To be able to use my voice to represent them on this kind of platform is really powerful.”

Another favorite quote from the article: Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary (and fellow Wellesley alum, I might ad):

“Our goal really is to bring the house alive,’’ said Rogers. “We’re all American, but all of us come from different backgrounds. We want to expose Americans to other Americans that are doing brilliant work.’’

So simple, but so refreshing.

Mama gets no paid leave

The Economic Policy Institute says that compared to countries with similar per capita income, the United States provides the fewest mandated maternity leave benefits in both length of leave and amount of paid time off.

What is wrong with us?

Anyway, have a Happy Mother’s Day.

Red, white & blue is so black or white

Welcome to the party Arlen Specter. Grab a beer. I am thrilled that you have the chutzpah and common sense to part with the Repulican't Party. This is truly a wake up call ... in more ways than one. 

Can we, for just a moment, stop and think about why this news is causing such a stir? It's on the front page of almost every major newspaper.  To me, this is an extreme indication that a multi-party system is a dire necessity.   And by multi-party, I mean more than 2 and 1/5th.  Party loyalty in this country runs deep. Scary deep.  Arlen Specter could no longer be effective because of the R after his name?  This shouldn't be.

Americans like to treat their politics like they treat their sports.  It's about colors, mascots, states, cities - which is fine when it comes to the Super Bowl, but asinine when it comes to public policy and the well-being of our planet.  Diverse opinions are healthy.  Debate is healthy.  One size does not fit all.

President Obama graciously welcomed Arlen Specter to the Democratic fold.  I know he has to do this, but the gesture makes me uncomfortable.  This isn't the NFL draft.  Specter does not need to get sized for the uniform or sign a multi-million dollar contract.  Or maybe he does in cryptic, political ways.

We U.S Americans suffer from a severe case of black-or-white-titus. All or nothing thinking. You are with us or against us, Democrat or Republican, male or female, straight or perverted, white or ethnic.  

We seem to have no tolerance for nuances or shades of gray, yet it is the ambiguities in life that lead to real progress.  So Arlen, make yourself comfortable. But if you feel the need to pet an elephant once in a while, the donkey doesn't need to kick you in the ass.

Considering the cost of military life

I looked at the recently published military death tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan and considered the ongoing cost of military life.

We salute our military men and women for the hard work and sacrifice that go along with protecting our country. The sacrifice is great. The hours are long. They move from place to place, are sent to war at a moment's notice, leave behind a spouse and children for long periods of time and hope that things will be okay. The phone calls and e-mails are brief if they come at all.

And the men and women know they can't return home for birthdays, school plays, runny noses or high fevers. They leave behind spouses, children, mothers and fathers. Only a completed tour or the death of an immediate family member will allow them to return home.

I am one of the many military spouses who has shed tears on deployments, praised God on returns, prayed at night that God would keep my spouse safe. I am one of the many, assuring my children that God will protect. I support my spouse, yet I don't like war. We have lost a lot, but we still have our freedom, right?

Prop. 8 Watch

There are several legal challenges to California's Proposition 8, and tomorrow (March 5th) the state supreme court will hear oral arguments.

Read the background here.

Watch the oral arguments on The California Channel beginning at 9 a.m. PT tomorrow.

Watch Equality California's new video about the court challenge.

California's Prop. 8 fight continues

On March 5th the California Supreme Court will hear arguments about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and whether the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married before the November election will remain married.

In the meantime, the Prop. 8 actions and protests continue. California activists are using Freedom to Marry Day and Valentine's Day to voice their ongoing concerns, and the Courage Campaign created a video called "Fidelity."

Let me get this straight ...

Since 2004, the United States has supplied the Israeli military with more than $1 billion for 500 million gallons of refined fuel. Israel and Hamas duke it out in Gaza. 1,300 Palestinians die. There’s $2 billion in damage. The United Nations makes an appeal for $613 million in relief funds for the Palestinian people. The United States offers $20 million.

$1 billion for fuel. $20 million for relief. What does that say to you?

A Voice for the Voiceless

There is one thing all leaders have in common. They’ve all stood in a room and were mocked for what they believed in. More importantly, they left that room and continued to believe.

In October, I attended a CNN roundtable discussion on the 2008 election. Naturally, the conversation led to the economy and its downturn. Toward the end, I mustered up the nerve to ask the respected panel full of news executives and respected journalists a question about over-reporting. My question, perhaps poorly phrased, was how to keep the audience interested in a story that was so over-reported. How do you get people to care?

And the laughter came. “I think people do care, you may be the only who doesn’t.”
“You can’t force someone to care, you can only tell them the story,” said the president of a popular political blog.

I wanted to scream at him, but the mic had already been passed back to the host. The panel full of privileged individuals from generations of wealthy families all agreed that you can’t force the audience to care about issues. I wanted to tell them that they were wrong. I wanted to lecture them on the responsibility of journalists to draw the viewers in and make them care. But I knew they would think I was naïve and perhaps blinded by foolish optimism.

After that morning, I believed that true change started with anger. I was so angry at myself, at that room, at that CNN president. I was angry at the ignorance and the audacity to just brush away my ideas as if they meant nothing. But only a few weeks later when I saw Barack Obama win the presidency, the anger faded and hope was reborn.

In my work as a journalist, I’ve met people who have tuned out politics and journalism completely. The two fields are remarkably similar in how they treat the average individual. In the words of Edward R. Murrow, "The American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe." If you treat the audience as if they have a valuable opinion, they will express it. Some may go overboard, but others will most likely appreciate being treated as thinking individuals. President-elect Obama certainly appealed to the average person. New voters turned up at the polls in record numbers. Citizens who couldn’t care less about politics were all of a sudden joined together in believing they could unite and change the norms that have been accepted for centuries.

I pray each day that the same thing will happen in journalism. Today, when we turn on the news, you don't see diversity. The reporters may be diverse, but the stories are not. As an Asian woman, I really can’t see this country with an Asian president. I can’t even see an Asian senator. Asians are the fastest growing minority next to Hispanics. Many go to college and make great lives for themselves. But many live in poverty. With lack of money comes lack of opportunity. That is why I chose to be a journalist. Giving a voice to the voiceless is how change comes about. I’ve done stories on Hispanic families whose lives are in such despair that they can never imagine what it’s like to own a home much less lose one in a bad economy. I met a black mother who lost her son in a gang-related drive-by shooting. When I pitched that story to a news station, they brushed it off as old news not worth reporting.

When everyone around you is telling you to give up, you hear a voice that faintly tells you to go on. There has to be a constant push to force the voice inside you to grow louder. The time has come for change in Washington. I believe the time has come for change in news.

Well, that's just silly

Was it really necessary for President Obama to take the oath of office again?

As I mentioned yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the whole swearing-in thing. It made everyone uncomfortable. But we got the point.

And, according to the U.S. Constitution, Obama became President at Noon yesterday, regardless. So, was the re- swearing-in really necessary?

Well, if you want to be picky, the Constitution also states:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So since Roberts took Obama down some winding road around the "faithfully execute" part, rearranged some words and replaced one preposition with another preposition of his own choosing, the Obama Administration felt it was necessary to bring the two men together to do the whole thing again.

Like I said ... silly.

Renewal and Reconciliation

President Barack Obama's first official act:

NATIONAL DAY OF RENEWAL AND RECONCILIATION, 2009

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

As I take the sacred oath of the highest office in the land, I am humbled by the responsibility placed upon my shoulders, renewed by the courage and decency of the American people, and fortified by my faith in an awesome God.

We are in the midst of a season of trial. Our Nation is being tested, and our people know great uncertainty. Yet the story of America is one of renewal in the face of adversity, reconciliation in a time of discord, and we know that there is a purpose for everything under heaven.

On this Inauguration Day, we are reminded that we are heirs to over two centuries of American democracy, and that this legacy is not simply a birthright -- it is a glorious burden. Now it falls to us to come together as a people to carry it forward once more.

So in the words of President Abraham Lincoln, let us remember that: "The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2009, a National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the common purpose of remaking this Nation for our new century.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

It was a little messy, but he took the oath

Slow down, John Roberts! Get it right! Goodness!