Sell out with me...Oh-Yeah!

I want to work in politics.

I spend no less than $5 a day at Starbucks.

I drive a 2005 car.

I live in North Arlington.

I shop like crazy.

So.....I don't work in politics. I work in sales because it pays me the necessary salary to afford my lifestyle.

I am a sell-out.

But why is it like this. Where is it written that in order to be a great campaign staff person you should endure being poor. Um, hello....I have $80K in student loans....I can't work for free.

I am writing this after receiving an email about Barack Obama's PAC HopeFund America's "Yes we can" program. It is supposed to introduce young minority Americans to politics and campaign work. Which means that if I applied and got into the program, I would need to quit my job and move somewhere random to fulfill my dreams of working in politics.

But I'm a sell-out. And I'm materialistic. So that won't happen. Though it's a great opportunity.

And this strikes me as grossly unfair. Can't I be activist minded and materialistic? Why do those things have to be mutually exclusive? Because maybe I'm not a sell-out. Maybe I'm realistic. Maybe I don't see the connection between being a brilliant political strategist and living a life of abject poverty.

For those of you who like poverty - check out the program....it really does kick butt: http://hopefundamerica.com/training//

Love Matters

Today is Valentine's Day. A day when couples around the nation (world?) celebrate love and happiness and other gushy stuff that I couldn't care less about.

That said, I feel compelled to use today to post about Marriage Equality. This is the day of the year that is about love (ok, and chocolate) and the greatest manifestation of love is marriage and dedicating your life to 1 other person and building a family with him/her. However, in 49 states in the nation, 7% of the adult population (15 million) is not able to legally marry. Yes, this nation that is currently fighting for equality and an end to religious oppression in other nations denies a significant portion of its citizens this fundamental right. Why? Does their love matter less than everyone else?

No. But this isn't about love. It's about fear. It's about discrimination. And it's about hate.

Because if everyone thought about the benefits of granting equal rights of marriage regardless of gender or sex, they wouldn't have an argument against it. But thinking about the benefits - I can find several arguments for it:

Continued discrimintation is un-constitutional: Beyond the arguments about church and state, is the fact the Supreme Court has already ruled that marriage is an fundamental right that all people in the United States are entitled to. In the case of Loving v Virginia, 1967, the court held that, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren writes that

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival...To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Going out on a limb, I would not just apply the due process clause of the 14th ammendment, but I would also use the lesser regarded "privledges and immunities" clause. As a refresher, the 14th ammendment reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

By narrowly defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, you are depriving people of their lives and the priviledge afforded to all citizens to get married. Only in the circumstance of bigamy is marriage otherwise hampered. You can get married while on death row for murder - when stripped of most other rights, but you cannot marry if you will be marrying someone of your same sex.

Further, marriage discrimination is anti-competitive. States that want the edge on attracting the best and brightest workers should start recognizing all marriages soon. 211 of the Fortune 500 and 3/4 of the Fortune top 50 companies offer "spousal equivalent" or domestic partner benefits to their lesbian and gay employees. Because states currently have a patchwork of rights (or denial of rights) afforded to GLBT citizens - ranging from legalized same-sex marriages in Massachusetts to basic domestic-partner benefits in other states and an explicit denial of all rights in Virginia - companies with wide-spread offices face challenges in offering benefits and face the possibility that some of their best workers will avoid or refuse transfers and promotions to states that are hostile to their families.

I suppose first we should step back and solidify the argument that these benefits are good for business. In the most basic of terms, its a case of equal pay for equal work. Benefits can be up to 40% of total compensation. Because they are often based on marriage (although discrimination based on marital status is illegal), employees who are married technically make more than employees who do not. At the same time, because most states have not legalized gay marriage, benefits based on marriage are unattainable for gay workers. Further, Domestic partner benefits are a generally inexpensive enhancement to overall compensation packages that play a large part in recruitment and retention of employees. In fact, they are the #1 most effective recruiting incentive for executives and #3 for managers and line employeeds. Finally, one could use this arguement from the Human Rights campaign in regards to the increase in productivity for offering domestic partnership benefits.

A domestic partner benefits program will also improve employees' productivity by alleviating personal stress that may keep them from focusing fully on work. At least one workplace advocate has employed a simple formula to measure the dollar amount of increased productivity created by a fair and inclusive work environment for GLBT workers. The formula conservatively assumes the number of
GLBT employees in any workplace to be 5 percent and the amount of productivity associated with a safe and equitable workplace to be 10 percent. Using these figures, you can illustrate how much money a company might lose by not providing a safe and equitable workplace. (For example: A company with a workforce of 1,000 employees would have 50 GLBT employees [1,000 x 0.05=50]. If the average salary is $40,000, the average loss in productivity per GLBT worker per year is $4,000 [$40,000 x 0.10=$4,000]. Thus, the total annual loss to the company in productivity would be $200,000 [50 x$4,000=$200,000].)

Jumping back to the original argument of the anti-competitive nature of marriage discrimination, companies that make the smart business decision to offer such benefits should - and will - choose to not do business in a state that, based on descrimination, causes the financial and logistical nightmare described above.

Finally, love matters. In a time when 50% of marriages end in divorce, it doesn't make sense to punish anyone who wants to be in a loving relationship. The Human Rights Campaign has a beautiful homepage up today that shows the relationships that our GLBT friends, loved ones and neighbors are in - in spite of discrimination. How many of us can say that we have found the person with whom we want to spend the rest of our lives? And how many of us would accept that we cannot marry that person because a few people are uncomfortable or find a moral objection to our relationship? I think most of us would be pretty flipping mad.

It's time to support marriage equality. GLBT couples in 8 states are currently in legal battles to fight for their rights. Show the courts and the legislatures that love matters - not discrimination. Visit www.hrc.org or www.lambdalegal.org to learn how to make a difference.

Happy Valentine's Day!

What I mean is...

Re-reading my last post about the public policy ministry at my church, I realized that it was a bit rambly, and I didn't quite get to the point I had hoped to make. So let's try it again...

What I meant to say is how excited I am to be part of a congregation that values the impact that the church can make in the community...without resorting to politics in the pulpit.

There is so much that churches can do without making huge policy statements. They can be involved in their local communities through providing educational opportunities, health care, and other services. They can serve as communication channels that funnel information to their congregations that may not be reached otherwise. They can promote social equality and justice that are in accordance to their spiritual beliefs.

For example, the public policy ministry that I have joined has this vision and mission:

Vision Statement--To edify and lead the members of our church and community in learning, affirming and strategically advocating public policies, practices and systems that can improve our quality of life, promote social justice and undergird our church’s commitment in “becoming the Kingdom of God on earth."

Mission Statement--To serve our church and community as a change agent which conducts research, produces timely relevant information and maintains linkages with other entities so together, we can initiate strategic actions that foster improvements in those secular systems on which we rely.

No where does it say that the church will endorse specific candidates or positions. Or that the pastor will be politicking in the pulpit. Rather the focus is on taking advantage of the opportunity to lead the congregation in being informed and active citizens and in taking the steps to make improvements in the community. Think of the impact that the spiritual community can have if the focus shifted from issues that don't affect them (gay marriage, abortion rights, stem cell research) to those that do (education, health care, civil rights). As Ghandi said: "The difference between what we are doing and what we are capable of doing would solve most of the world's problems". If churches made up the difference of their fruitless actions in moral policing and invested that in actual change - my what a world we would have.

It's a shame that it's too "progressive" for a church to care and to make a difference, rather than just making noise.

Diving in....

I attend one of those progressive churches that is active in the community. I think it's great. Anyway, I recently joined the "Public Policy Ministry" that serves to educate the congregation on the issues that affect the members and the church.

I am pretty excited about it so far (after one meeting). After discussing an upcoming workshop on the new Medicare prescription drug program, we moved to other topics that we want to discuss in the next few months. The biggest one was identifying an Urban Agenda for 2008 and beyond.

I am beyond psyched about this topic and the direction that programming around it can go. Basically our focus would be on working with other churches and civic groups to create talking points and issue pages for the 2008 election. This is key because:

The urban population historically does not vote. Maybe it's because they don't feel their issues are addressed. Or maybe because they don't know the issues. If it's the former, we are seeking to force politicans to address these topics. For fear of being forced to a particular policy statement, candidates will avoid a topic if its not brought up. The needs of urban communities should not be ignored. Whether its education, transportation, gentrification, housing, healthcare - or anything else - a set of needs and issues must be created as a starting point for dialogue with candidates. Second, if the lack of voting is occuring because voters do not know the issues, by identifying target areas, we will be able to educate them on how voting affects their lives and how a particular candidate (of either party - this is a church) can help or harm them

Politicians don't make policy statements to this community. Candidates so often just use "gimmicks" (for lack of a better term) when reaching out to urban (black, white, hispanic, asian or otherwise) communities. So often, they take the easy route of speaking in generalities and in statements about how the the voters are being wronged - without any commitment towards improving the situation. A classic example would be Sen. Hilary Clinton's MLK Day comments at a black church in Harlem, where she said:

"[Capitol Hill] has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard...We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence...I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country...[apologizing to the victims of Hurricane Katrina] on behalf of a government that left you behind, that turned its back on you"

So what are you going to do about it Hilary? While I haven't read the full body of her speech, there has been little commentary on if she had anything constructive to say. Where is the policy? She is a powerful senator and a leader in her party, but did not take that opportunity (in an election year) to show how she wants to improve the culture of Washington to be more inclusive. Turning back to addressing the needs of the urban population, our goals with this project will be to force candidates to make policy statements - that they will be held to after the election.

Everyone talks about Urban issues. In cities - everyone has a voice about urban issues. There are tons of talking heads with opinions on improving things for citizens of America's cities. But no one does anything. There are the churches like mine and the civic groups, but for the most part, it's talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. Foum after forum after forum. Or there are these big pushes to do something that barely scratches the surface. Our hope is that we won't just talk - but also be able to develop some prescriptive plans for the policy and action needs that we discover.

So - that's my new focus. If anyone has advice or pointers on where to find some solid research to get us started. Or advice on moving forward with this project.

I'm so glad on having a place to channel my energy besides complaining like the rest of the blogosphere. Yay!

Aren't you cold?

It's winter time. It may be 50 degrees outside. But it's winter time. The sun sets at 6 and rises pretty late. It's winter. Cold. Winter. Winter. Winter

So why the hoo-ha-hey are there so many people wearing summer clothes. And I mean Summer clothes. Like linen. And sandals.

Here's the deal people. Summer is summer. Spring is spring. Yes some stores - including the one where I work - are carrying a "prespring"/resort line. Yeah - DC is not a resort. So don't wear it. It's for spring/summer which is still 50-60 days out. You look stupid and cold. So stop wearing it. You're driving me crazy.

My issue with One issue voters

I am extremely active in a certain magazine's message boards. Theoretically we talk about healthy eating and fitness, but sometimes the conversation evolves into politics. Today, we've been talking about the Budget cuts that recently passed, which morphed into other stuff. Anyway - we got to voting styles.

I have serious issues with one issue voters. Especially those who vote on issues that don't affect their lives. Right now - my new home state, Maryland (yeah - I just moved to VA, but I'm kinda lazy about getting everything turned around) is dealing with the possibility of an anti-gay marriage ammendment. This is so counter everything good....it's bad for business, it doesn't make sense, it hurts 20% of the population, grrr.

Not that my voting decisions are based on anything brilliant - but I have a matrix of things: abortion rights, health care, etc. Sometimes I vote Dem (ok, almost always except in the case of Dick Lugar) and sometimes (mostly for local positions) I don't.

Anyway - I needed to remain respectful on the message board and not point out that I think only ignoramouses vote on one issue - so this became the venue.

Say it like you mean it

I'm so glad the Dems came out swinging last night. With class, polish and distinction, Gov. Kaine and Mayor Vallaraigosa delivered some great blows at the Republicans and the President without seeming confrontational.

Both stuck to 1 word - better. Vallaraigosa focused on "America Can do Better". Kaine focused on finding "A Better Way".

Kaine - though showing his nerves in the beginning - hammered home the point that America needs to return to a nation of service. If the Dems can follow up on this point. If Chairman Dean had a great plan coming out of Kaine's speech, that would help. Because we are a nation founded on service, the service industry is taking over, and politicians are public servants.
Nevertheless, Kaine zeroed in on where and how Americans are frustrated with the government. Saying:

Our faith and values teach us that there's no higher calling than serving others.
Our federal government should serve the American people. But that mission is frustrated by this administration's poor choices and bad management.

Kaine focused on specific points where "poor" management and "bad" decisions were hurting the U.S. He repeated the phrase "There is a better way" 7 times and said best 5 times. That is how a speech should be.

Vallaraigosa was a little more forceful. Maybe because he is official nonpartisan. Maybe because the mainstream would not hear the full speech. Maybe because he knew specifically the issues facing the target of his speech - not forcing him to speak in generalities. Regardless - the mayor did not mince words. He gave - as he put it - a real state of the union. Stating these facts:

Next month, because of the reckless policies of this administration, America's national debt will rise to nearly $8.2 trillion dollars. I am here tonight to say: we are mortgaging our children's futures, and it is morally wrong.

Today, 46 million Americans and 39 percent of Latinos, many of whom work full-time at the hardest jobs, don't have access to health insurance. We can't be a healthy nation if we don't face this challenge once and for all.

Today, 6 million children are on the verge of failing out of school; and eleven million Americans can't read a bus schedule or fill out a job application. It is time to put the issue of fixing our public schools to the front and center of the national debate.

Under this administration, 4 million people have fallen from the working class into the ranks of the poor.

And the new jobs that are being created pay less than the ones we've lost. We need an aggressive national strategy to build the skills of our workforce and to promote America's competitiveness in the global economy.

Our troops are serving bravely in the Middle East, but Americans are increasingly divided and doubtful about the objectives of this mission.

While we did have some Kerry-esque flashbacks with the whole "America can do better" theme. But what I liked most was his specific statement of what Democrats stand for and will be doing this year and in the future.

All in all - I think the responses far outshined the official SOTU speech. And I am disappointed that the Dems don't seem to be steamrolling ahead to build on the momentum we should have from this speech. This is an election year for crying out loud. We gotta get our issues out there and make our voices heard. For too long we've allowed the GOP to frame the debate when we have valid points to make. Bush is going to the Midwest to shore up support in the Red states - where the hell are we? Kaine and Vallaraigosa turned in exemplary performances, but did we mean it? Are the Dems standing behind what was said or was that just for show? I guess what I'm asking is - are we going to get off our butts and take back the House and Senate?

State of Dis-Union

So Shrub's State of the Union Address was last night. I caught parts of it while cooking dinner.

More and more, I'm becoming numb to my contempt of our president. A woman can only be frustrated for so long before she just resigns herself to the situation. Nevertheless, what I have to say about his speech is that it was well written considering everything that is going on inside the GOP and the White House. His speechwriters did a nice job of avoiding most specifics - whether in relation to the war in Iraq, the war on Terror, or anything domestic. As Marc said, it was largely a repeat of the concepts, themes, and statements he's made before. Not only that, but he also repeated some of the same tactics and tools in the speech - quoting a dying soldier's letter, etc. Largely it was an unmemorable and unremarkable speech.

Maybe instead of wasting our time last night (and pre-empting Boston Legal), Bush should have returned to the Jeffersonian tradition of writing a letter to Congress. This would avoid him having to try to talk (good Lord, that man is a poor speaker and has 0 ability to read a teleprompter) and would save the taxpayers all the money that securing the Capitol requires. Just a thought

Howdy!

So what I miss most about college is discussion. I miss talking to people about stuff. Which is the most inarticulate thing I have ever said - and serves as an example of why I miss discussion. Most people would think that I would be talked out by the time I leave the office everyday. I spend 8 hours a day in a cube talking to people about shipping. Yeah - that's a great example of how to spend a $120,000 education.

Anyway - I'm starting this blog to facilitate discussion. To post political, fashion-related and other musings. Because sometimes I'm amazed (for good and bad reasons) by the world around me and I need to comment on it. And discuss.