He Won; There, I Said It

Okay. Scott Brown won. He won fair and square. He has taken the seat that was once held by John F. Kennedy and Edward Kennedy will be taken up by a Republican.

On November 4, 2008, I saw friends writing "America is doomed" and "I'm moving to <fill in country>." I really cannot stand sore winners or sore losers. In regards to this, I wrote a Facebook note, calling their bluff. They thought the country would die under Obama and wanted to leave; I told them "bye-bye." I knew they wouldn't leave. Eight years prior, Democrats said the same thing about a Bush-Cheney win; and, yet, the country has survived.

This evening, I have seen tweets showing the other side of the coin that I hate: sore winners. I have seen people saying "Obama fail" "Suck it <fill in Democratic politician>." Some tweets have actually been directed at yours truly.

He won. For all of my efforts (and those of countless others), Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley. He did it, I admit.

However, I am reminded of the closing scene of Hillary Rodham Clinton's memoir Loving History. She went through Inauguration Day 2001 and how, one of the things she admired most about this nation. I do too. Over a year ago, Americans wanted a change in direction, so they elected Obama; now, they didn't like what has happened and wanted a reform. The voice of the American public is a voice to be rekoned with. If they don't like the direction of the nation, they make a change in however they can. They change mayors. They change state legislators. They change congressmen. They change presidents. They make a change. And that was what they did.

To my friends who supported Scott Brown, I commend you. You guys ran a fantastic campaign. You went from 20 points below to winning by 6-7 points.

One election, though, does not cause a 180-degree shift in policy in the nation. Look at what happened in President Obama's first 100 days (when he did NOT have 60 votes in the Senate): we have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, re-authorization of SCHIP (paid for by an increased tax on cigarettes), hate crimes now include sexual orientation/gender/gender identity/disability, HIV/AIDS is no longer a reason to exclude immigrants, and expanded AmeriCorps.

Yet, to those Brown-supporting friends, please do not say that all of the changes that were requested in 2008 are over. Yes, the Democrats no longer have a filibuster-proof majority, but are those 8 senators suddenly chopped liver? No. There is still plenty of bipartisan legislation that can be passed. And, if anyone has been following my tweets, according to Massachusetts election law, they cannot certify an election until at least 10 (if not 15) days after an election (see http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=why_massachusetts_doesnt_matter. So, there are 1-2 weeks for health care reform to be passed.

As I type, I am watching one of my favorite West Wing episodes, "2162 Votes." The final line of the episode is said by Republican Presidential Nominee Sen. Arnold Vinick (CA), after the end of the Democratic National Convention, "Okay, let's go win this thing."

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has said that the 'conference committee' was "95% done" with hashing out the House and Senate bills on health care reform. We have a maximum of 15 days to pass this thing without any political controversy. Therefore, Okay, let's go pass this thing.

But, after Sen.-elect Brown is sworn in, I pray that he will be there, putting in his 2 cents, and assisting in making strong, bipartisan legislation for which his predecessor was infamous.

I'm Not Complaining, Why Are You?

Right now, I am watching what may be my all-time favorite West Wing episode: Isaac and Ishmael. The story is simple: the White House is on lock-down and a group of high school students are taught about the origins of fundamental Islam by the various characters. The episode was made in response to anti-Muslim sentiments following 9/11.

One of the first stories I heard on the news this morning that Attorney General Holder is thinking of holding some of the Al Quaeda terrorists on trial in Brooklyn. The court house for United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is mere blocks from my apartment. If you exited my building on the Cadman Plaza West side, crossed the street, and walked through Cadman Plaza Park (which is roughly the width of Eddie's) and you would be at the court house. Heck, I can see the court house from my bedroom (I would have a better view if the trees were chopped down, but whatever).

My mother works mere blocks from the Southern District court house, where Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks- will be tried.

Protectors across the country are protesting these people being put on trial in American courts. One of their fears is that the people in the area will be put in harm's way. Guess what? Me and my family will be in harms way. And I have no problem with it. From the get-go, I have been for putting these terrorists on trial.

A few weeks ago, I asked my conservative Republican father what his thoughts were about the trials. He responded, "we are Americans. That's what we do." I tweeted this line and it was retweeted by the University of New Mexico's College Democrats chapter.

The night of the 9/11 Attacks, President Bush said "America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining." How can we keep that light aglow if we don't give even our enemies due process? Hell, we did so for the Nuremberg Trials.

What makes the Holocaust truly different from what happened on that summer day in September 2001? Both were systematic. The only difference were the races/religions of the majority of the victims and their nationality. Suddenly, are we saying "if you kill millions of Jews, you get a trial; but, if you kill thousands of our people, you get a military tribunal"?

What are these protectors truly protesting? I will be in harm's way, but I'm not complaining. There goes public safety. They don't deserve a trial? Denounce the Nuremberg Trials and then we'll talk. They could get off? A jury of New Yorkers, really?

I know this card has been played once too many, but I think it is just another reason to oppose the Obama Administration.

I want to leave you all with this: (warning: if you are not a Star Wars fan, just stop here) Negelecting any love stories, Anakin Skywalker learns that Emperor Palpatine is the Sith Lord. Anakin says that Palpatine deserves a trial for his betrayal of the Republic. Mace Windu says that Palpatine is too dangerous to be left alive. Would you kill Palpatine because he betrayed the public and openly admits it or would you let him stand trial?





Here's another one: from Thank You For Smoking




I have yet to have heard a philosophical argument about 9/11 (minus Acts of War versus Crimes), but I think this explains the true underlying argument within our hearts.

Flag Burning

I'll begin by telling you all that, honestly, I do not know how I stand on the issue. I find that burning the American Flag is disrespectful to all for which the United States stands. On the other hand, I also find it to be a legitimate form of protest. My interest in this issue started when the other night, I was watching DVR-ed reruns of The West Wing and the episode began with this clip:

The text of the proposed "Flag Burning Amendment" is

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

But what does that mean. Researching this issue, I read that some constitutional scholars think that that broad a text could go so far as to preventing tattoos of the flag, flying it upside down, keeping it in the rain, or even virtue images. Yes, the text does say "physical desecration," but according to a report by the 108th Congress said "'desecrate' means deface, damage, or otherwise physically mistreat in a way that the actor knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action." Also, do our American Values fall into the confinds of a piece of cloth? But, say, as a bad example (but the first that came to mind), we write a letter of protest of the government and we have a copy of the flag printed on the letter, is that defamatory to the flag? Don't we have a duty to protest our government?

Like I said, I don't know how to stand on flag burning.