Ruben Diaz Sr. Says Stance Against Gay Marriage Nothing Personal; Logic Would Dictate Otherwise

Today the Gray Lady is running a front-page (digital-wise, at least) profile of Ruben Diaz Sr. and his stance against gay marriage. Diaz uses the classic, "But I have [insert group you are prejudiced against here] friends! I can't be bigoted!" defense. It didn't work for Justin Barrett, and it's not too convincing with Diaz, either. Simple logic points to the fallacy of Diaz's argument that his stance against gay marriage is nothing personal.

Let's take a look at the outrage that occurred when a justice of the peace in Louisiana would not marry an interracial couple. The justice, Keith Bardwell, ended up resigning after being excoriated in the media. But what Bardwell did is the law of the land in the majority of American states when it comes to another type of marriage. Two men or two women cannot marry because of their (unchosen) sexual orientation. Yet when justices of the peace or other civil servants refuse to marry two people of the same gender they are following the law, not shamed into resigning from a post they never should have held in the first place.

So let me float this scenario by you: I'm a relatively well-known figure in New York and I say that while I don't hate interracial couples, they just should not be allowed to marry. Don't get me wrong, I hang out with interracial couples, I even have family members involved in interracial relationships, but to say that they could get married would force me to "turn my whole value system upside down." Again, it's nothing personal, I just think that they should be barred the right to marry because it's in the Bible (Deuteronomy 7:1-4). If I were to say that as a well-known figure in New York I would be run out on a rail, rightfully so.

But replace "interracial couples" with "homosexuals" and you have Ruben Diaz's argument. So why is it wrong to discriminate against interracial couples, but not homosexual couples? And to go even further, why does voicing your opinion against one get you a prominent, not unsympathetic write-up in the New York Times and the other makes you a relic of America's errant segregationist and racist past? To say that intruding on others' lives in order to bar them from making a very personal decision (one that many people look forward to in life) is not personal is inherently contradictory and irreconcilable, kind of like saying allowing gays to marry would somehow injure American society. Peace.

Photo - Ruben Diaz Sr. (New York Times)

Election Day Hangover 2009

It's amazing what $90 million can get you these days. One of those things is the mayoralty of New York, though you'd have to fork over a little more (or a little less, perhaps) for a mandate and/or the respect of your constituency. As predicted, Michael Bloomberg defeated Democratic challenger Bill Thompson, but what was surprising was the slim margin separating the two men (51%-46%). So what does that mean for third term Bloomberg?

Some may have you believe that Bloomberg has lost some political capital because of the slim victory, but let's look at the guy for a second. He's not going to pussyfoot around just because he didn't dominate the election. This is a man who abolished term limits, which had been affirmed twice in the 1990s, just so he could stay on for an egotistical third year. Bloomberg is not exactly tactful; it may be harder to get things done because liberals can point to this election, but in reality Bloomberg tends to get what he wants (exhibit A: a third term in a two-term limit city).

Another good question being floated around: what if Anthony Weiner had run? Well we may have a Democratic mayor right now instead of an independent(ly wealthy) one. We can sit here and play the what if game all night, but suffice it to say how appropriate it would be for someone named Weiner to step up and show that the Democratic party actually has some balls.

And just a quick aside to the state of Maine: WTF? New England states have been the leaders in the fight against sexual orientation inequality and you go and pull this? I love how conservatives espouse minimal government intrusion (watch how quickly they'll cry about gun laws) but then approve the state-backed prohibition of marriage for an entire group of people. Marriage equality will happen one day, it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next year, but it will happen, and when it does history will not treat those who fought so hard against equal treatment for all that kindly. Peace.

Photo - Bloomberg wins third term (Times Online)

New Development in Daniel Talbot Case: Lodie Changes Plea

It was announced today that Derek Lodie, the teenager charged as an accessory to murder in the slaying of Revere Police Officer Daniel Talbot almost two years ago, has changed his plea to guilty of accessory to manslaughter before the fact and received 8-12 years in prison. The charges have stemmed from a September 29, 2007 incident in which Lodie allegedly was walking behind Revere High at 1:30 am when he got into a verbal altercation with Daniel Talbot. Talbot apparently was taunting Lodie about being a member of the Bloods street gang and allegedly led the suspect to believe that he and his fellow officers were members of a rival gang (Lodie's attorney suggested this, and the D.A.'s office has stated to me that "The evidence does not suggest that Lodie knew Officer Talbot and his compatriots were police officers, but nor does it suggest that anyone led Lodie to believe they were members of a rival gang."). The prosecution says that Lodie then called up Robert Iacoviello, a suspected Blood member, who then ambushed Talbot while Talbot and Lodie argued. Two other individuals have been charged - Gia Nagy and James Heang - as accessories after the fact for storing and helping to get rid of the murder weapon (which has not been found - see comment below, the alleged murder weapon has been recovered).

The story of what happened still does not make perfect sense, and the prosecution's refusal to make public tapes of the incident from Revere High's surveillance cameras (on public property, paid for with public funds) only further clouds the whole thing. One officer, Sergeant Evan Franklin, who was with Talbot at the time (five people have been confirmed as being there - Talbot, Talbot's fiancee, Franklin and two other Revere Police officers) has been fired for directing a responding unit to not respond to the scene but rather take an inebriated Franklin home. Couple that with the fact that four police officers are behind a public high school at 1:30 am drinking and a 20 year old with no formal firearms training is able to shoot one of the officers in the head while escaping from returning fire unscathed, and we have a very tragic and confusing situation.

In all, Lodie is getting off pretty easy, considering that in Massachusetts if you are an accessory before the fact in a felony you are punished in the manner of the principal (i.e. he who committed the felony). So, in essence, Lodie got 8-12 years for killing a cop, which is a pretty lenient plea deal given the alleged crime.

It's hard to say what role Lodie's plea change will play in Iacoviello's upcoming January trial. The media is not saying whether Lodie will testify for the prosecution, though I cannot think of another reason to give Lodie 8-12 years for this. Hopefully during trial the videotapes of the event (there is some fear that they have been damaged or destroyed) are made public so that we know what truly happened that fateful morning behind Revere High. Peace.

Photo - Derek Lodie following his arrest in early October, 2007 (Boston Herald)

What was that Lincoln Quote?

When Barack Obama was elected president we heard about his seeming obsession with our 16th president. He read books on Honest Abe, used his bible at his inauguration and even themed the January festivities after the top hat enthusiast's famous Gettysburg Address. Given all of this Obama must have come across one of Lincoln's most famous quotes, uttered in his famous speech named for the quote, that "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Now Lincoln was alluding to the dispicable practice of slavery in the States, but if we twist the quote a little bit and make it "A party divided against itself cannot stand," we see trouble looming for Democrats.

Yes, I'm going back into the realm of the public option. That elusive Ross and Rachel portion of the health care bill (on-again, off-again: lame Friends reference, forgive me). President Obama said back in August it wasn't essential to the bill. In September House Speaker Pelosi said it was essential while at the same time House Majority Leader Hoyer said it wasn't. In other words, there was no Democratic leadership on the issue, and that lack of leadership continues today over the public option.

It was bad enough that Schumer said a few weeks ago that an embarrassing loss in the Senate Finance Committee was really a win for the public option, but now he is saying that he and other key Democratic senators convinced the White House that the public option was the way to go.

But if Schumer and company have convinced the Obama administration to really get behind a decent public option, why are reports coming out that Obama essentially told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he is on his own for getting votes. If the Obama administration were really behind the public option, if they were "convinced" of its validity, why would they make it clear that they would turn their back on Reid in a crucial vote-getting campaign to prevent a filibuster?

Here is why, if we get a public option, it will be watered down: the Democrats are running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Are they really unable to sit down, say this is our plan, and just stick to it? It's funny that Obama will take a risk on the 2016 Olympics for Chicago (read: going to Copenhagen without knowing for sure that Chicago would win the bid) but when it comes to insuring millions of Americans he doesn't want in unless he is guaranteed a victory. Schumer is saying one thing, and reports come out indicating the opposite. Reid could emerge as a leader on this, and Obama undermines that.

I would love to be proven wrong. I would love to get a robust public option that really shakes up the insurance industry and gives a decent level of care to millions of uninsured Americans. The problem is that no clear leader is emerging in this fight and the very backroom politics that is supposed to be used to get votes and get things done is creating miscommunications within the party and leaves the public scratching their heads and opponents on the offensive. Like Lincoln (kind of) said: "A [party] divided against itself cannot stand [for anything]." The problem is they're falling on us. Peace.

Photo - Obama and Reid (Politico)

The Party's Alive and Well: Goldman and JP Morgan Living it Up

Before we start reveling in the fact that firms like Citigroup and AIG are going to see executive pay regulation from the Obama administration, the two firms conspicuously missing from the list of firms being watched are going to hand out near-record payouts to their executives a year after they themselves caused the financial mess that has led to rampant un- and underemployment, and a lowering in the average American's salary.

And before you say "Well, Goldman only got $10 billion in TARP funds and paid it back." What we seem to forget is that Goldman underwrote a lot of AIG debt, meaning if AIG defaults without government assistance, Goldman's $3 billion+ earnings this year turns into a multibillion dollar loss. Additionally, Goldman still has to buy back its warrants from the government, which it is shrewdly trying to do below market prices. Talk about appreciation for bailing them out.

Additionally, before we kid ourselves, Wall Street is back to its old ways, only this time it's not with people's mortgages; it's with their lives. They are packaging life insurance policies the same way they did with mortgages, and then hoping that the people they bought the policies from (the elderly and sick, to name two categories they are targeting) die quickly so they get a bigger return on the payout.

When I called Congressman Barney Frank's office and began asking questions about Mr. Frank's willingness to enter legislation to rein in firms that received TARP money but technically paid it back (again, the issue of warrants and AIG underwriting emerges here in terms of Goldman, at least), I was transferred to the House Finance Committee. The nice woman who picked up the phone explained to me that while the House has been working on shareholders' rights issues and corporate governance (where this executive pay cut seems to be stemming from), for firms like Goldman there is no recourse because of the TARP fund issue. When I asked if she knew if the Committee would be introducing legislation to rein in executive pay at firms like Goldman, she said she did no believe so. When I asked if it was even on their docket, she referred me back to the whole shareholder's rights issue and that they have done what they could. When I characterized it as a "Do what you can now, deal with others later"-type situation, she agreed. Going after a firm like Goldman would require a) a serious backbone (they have a lot of money, and C.R.E.A.M. is not just a Wu-Tang song) and b) hard work. Both seem to be in short supply right now in Washington.

I guess when you have Geithner's ear whenever you want it, you can get a lot done. So while most Americans toil and grind each day out at work for less than they used to get (granted they still have a job), the fat cats on Wall Street, who would have lost their McMansions had we, the taxpayer, not bailed them out of a problem that they created themselves, are living it up and will see massive profits and massive paychecks. I guess what's good for Wall Street is not necessarily good for Main Street.

Photo - Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO (NY Mag)

If The Shoe Fits...

I found myself scratching my head at two recent stories about terrorism here in the United States. One being the recently announced plot to attack malls and kill civilians and first responders, the other being a little-known arrest in Orange County, New York, of a teenager who had planned to resurrect the horror felt during the Columbine massacre by attacking his school in the manner that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did. Both are clear-cut cases of mass murder meant to cause fear and kill innocents. Yet the teenager gets arrested and goes to a psych facility and the mall killers are thrown into federal custody. Why the disparity?

It reminded me of another terrorism double-header from a few weeks ago. We all know the plot of Najibullah Zazi - the Afghan immigrant with ties to New York and Colorado who allegedly planned to set bombs off at large transit centers in the United States. Another arrest occurred a couple of weeks later involving possible plots of mass murder and bombs: that of Vincent Pizzonia in Suffolk County on Long Island. He accidentally detonated a bomb he was making and was found with more bomb-making materials and pictures of the interior of Columbine high School, as well as pictures of Harris and Klebold. Pizzonia was not even arrested and school administrators were mulling over whether they should allow him back to school. If those pictures had been of a major transit hub and Osama bin Laden rather than Columbine and Harris and Klebold, would we be in the same situation?

I'm not saying what we should do with folks like Zazi or Pizzonia, though a uniform way of dealing with terrorism situations would be helpful. We just need to recognize that terrorism is terrorism, whether done by a follower of Islam or a pissed-off white kid. If you have plans to harm innocents with weapons like assault rifles or explosives because you disagree with people, that would make you a terrorist. Whether you plan to do it at a school or at a train station, in the name of some twisted form of Islam or because you feel left out, it is terrorism.

When we focus on certain groups involved with terrorism (radical Muslims) and brush aside other groups (isolated suburban white kids) we lose sight of the simple fact that terrorism knows no color or ethnic boundary; it is not isolated in one particular demographic. Why do we reserve the word for some, but not others? Why do we torture some, but counsel others? Attacks on innocents are never called for, no matter who perpetrates them. Peace.

Photo - Uncle Sam (Son of the South)

Open Letter to WSJ

Dear Mr. Editor:

I recently had the trying experience of reading former Attorney General Michael Mukasey's op-ed in your publication on Monday October 19, 2009. To be honest, I expect better from both Mr. Mukasey and your newspaper.

Mr. Mukasey's overall thesis seems to be that we should not try terrorists, specifically those held at Guantanamo, in United States civilian courts because it's hard and we did it in the 1990s and that led to 9/11. Mr. Mukasey uses flimsy examples to back this thesis and leaves the reader wondering how any connection between civilian trials for terrorists led, in any minute way, to the horror this country experienced on September 11, 2001.

One danger Mr. Mukasey points out is the proselytization of individuals behind bars, insinuating that if we do not try terrorists apprehended overseas in civilian courts, the problem will somehow be diminished. As a former Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey should be very familiar with the prison system. To suggest that the type of radical proselytizing he so fears is not occurring currently and will somehow be managed if we do not try terrorists in our own courts is ludicrous. A periphery look at the prison gang system alone tells us that proselytization behind bars is an established institution that will not be effected by the current administration's policy on where to try suspected terrorists.

Then comes Mr. Mukasey's most outrageous statement. He infers that Osama bin Laden did not know that the American government was "aware" of him until he was in possession of the indictment - which listed him as a co-conspirator - stemming from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He additionally calls Mr. bin Laden "relatively obscure." Anyone who is familiar with a man named Ronald Reagan should know about the mujahideen, who Reagan called "freedom fighters." One of these "freedom fighters" was Osama bin Laden, who played a major role in the war (during which he founded Al-Qaeda) and returned to his native Saudi Arabia in 1990 as a hero of jihad. To state that Mr. bin Laden must have believed that he was flying under America's radar until he received that indictment, even as he was publicly criticizing Saudi Arabia for its supposed dependence on our nation's military, involves dishonesty, ignorance, or both.

Mr. Mukasey also points to prison violence as a reason to keep suspected terrorists in off-shore custody and to try them in non-civilian courts. He points to the case of a co-conspirator of the Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings who committed an egregious act of violence against a Bureau of Prisons guard. Prisons are violent places; people are held against their will for running afoul of the law. To suggest that the act of violence Mr. Mukasey portrayed would not have occurred if the prisoner was held elsewhere seems to be off the mark. These are, after all, people accused of killing innocent people for no good reason; if they did, in fact, commit these heinous acts, what is to stop them from being violent behind bars - whether it is here or abroad?

Finally, Mr. Mukasey seems to take exception to the fact that the death penalty was not utilized in the embassy bombings case and that current Attorney General Eric Holder has taken the death penalty off the table for a sixth embassy bombings suspect. Mr. Mukasey looks past the fact the death penalty may not be a very effective deterrent to a group of individuals whose tactics include blowing themselves up to hurt others. Being held in a prison run by the very government you despise and have vowed to destroy, within the same borders of a country you have detested might be a little more ominous than becoming a martyr by being killed by that very same country to hasten your arrival in whatever twisted afterlife scheme you have been made to believe.

Mr. Mukasey says that in return for trying terrorists in civilian courts in the 1990s, our country got the 9/11 attacks. He does not delve into Middle East instability, the United States' covert war in Afghanistan and the proliferation of weapons in the area, or the lack of addressing the power vacuum instigated by the Afghan Civil War as possible precursors to global terrorist activity. Instead he points to trying terrorists in civilian courts in the U.S. during the 1990s as THE reason for 9/11. His op-ed was insulting to its readers who possess a cursory understanding of global history and should have been vetted better by the editorial board. Thank you for your time.

This letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal Opinion Editors on Monday October 19, 2009, the same day that the Mukasey editorial ran