Is This What Politics Has Come To?

Political rhetoric can get very heated. However, the American political system has been pretty good about keeping the anger at just rhetoric, and not actual violence. Sure, we have an Aaron Burr in our history, and the canning of Charles Sumner, but by and large, American politics has avoided outright violence.

We have historically been able to avoid political events like this (from India):





Or like this (from Taiwan):





But I don't feel as secure about our ability to continue to have heated debate whithout violence entering the picture. The Ann Coulter's of the world have escalated the political rhetoric to the point where I believe we are at serious risk of seeing increases incidents of political violence.

This brings me to events that happened today in Virginia. I was not there. All I know is what I have read and seen in the video. But what I saw were staffers for Senator George Allen accoust a man who was attempting to speak to, perhaps yell at the Senator. The video clearly shows one Allen staffer trying to put the man in a headlock and another Allen staffer wrestling the man to the ground. In case you haven't seen it, here is the video.




This is completely unacceptable. Political violence must niot be accepted. No matter what words were spoken to Senator Allen, no matter how bad these staffers wanted to silence this man, using violence to achieve their political ends is not acceptable. I don't know what the end result will be, but in my mind, if we are going to prevent our political discourse from devolving into an actual shoving match, instead of the historic verbal shoving match, the people seen on this video must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It does not matter whether the assailant was a democrat or a republican. If you can not win an election without resorting to violence, than you simply don't deserve to win the election. If we don't put an end to this type of political violence now, this is our future (actual political violence from Ukraine:

Can MY Democratic Congress get elected

I am a Democrat. That should come as no surprise considering the name of my blog is www.angryyoungdem.blogspot.com. (And as a point of reference, it alludes to a Billy Joel song, and nothing else). I always have been a Democrat, and always will be a Democrat. I grew up in the 12th district of NJ where Dick Zimmer was a well thought of moderate Republican who I had the joy of voting against numerous times. The 12th eventually turned blue when Zimmer ran for Senate and lost and his replacement, Mike Pappas, sang "Twinkle Twinkle Kenneth Starr" on the floor of the house. The 12th may have been a moderate district, but the district representing Princeton University had little tolerance for such nonsense. So they elected a rocket scientist, and former Jeopardy champion, Rush Holt. Holt is an excellent Democrat, who, in my mind, always votes the right way.

I gave you that introduction as a hope of showing my Democratic credentials. If you insist, I also worked for a Democratic Congresswoman for 2 years in Washington D.C. The reason I feel I need to explain this all up front is that I understand that there is an election coming up in less than 2 weeks, and I understand that people are sensitive about any distraction from the task at hand...Winning the Election.

But winning elections is not enough for me. Politics was never intended to be a baseball game. The end result is not supposed to be winning elections for the sake of winning elections. Make no mistake about it. I will be among the celebrating, ecstatic, and relieved if the Democrats can take back the House, or the Senate, or both. But come November 8, my concerns will begin again.

When it is election season, I let it slide when I read about the West Virginia candidate who got an A rating from the NRA. I rationalize it by saying that no matter who gets elected from West Virginia they are going to be supported by the NRA, so better it be a D than an R. When I read about the Pennsylvania Senate race and the views of both candidates on a Woman's right to choose what to do with her own body, I comfort myself by reminding myself how evil Rick Santorum is. When I think about the assault on the Constitution I think of Montana where...Wait, hold it a sec, Jon Tester had the most impressive statement of the election season when he said he wanted to obliterate the Patriot Act.

When I wake up on November 8, I want to wake up to a Democratic Congress. But I want to wake up to a Democratic congress that has an pro-active and progressive agenda. Merely stemming the tide of atrocious Republican legislation is not enough for me. I want a democratic Congress that is going to get real about gun violence in America. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to proudly stand behind a Woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. I want a Democratic congress that is going to restore a sense of rationality and even compassion to out criminal justice system. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to get rid of government sanctioned murder, i.e. the death penalty. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to restore the balance between the three branches of government. I want a Democratic congress that is going to restore respect for the Judiciary. I want a Democratic Congress that is going to restore the constitution, is going to restore international human rights, is going to restore civil rights, and is going to restore our nation's commitment to racial equality.

I recognize that Rome was not built in a day. I recognize that my agenda can only happen if Democrats are elected. That is why I have supported so many Democratic candidates. That is why I have sent money to candidates with platforms I don't necessarily agree with (aka Harold Ford).

I consider myself a Bread and Butter Democrat. I support racial equality, a living constitution, a living wage, and healthy respect for disagreement. I just hope that on November 8 that is the agenda we have elected. Because if my ideals are not realized in a Democratic congress, I have nothing left to fight for.

The Polarizer vs. The Flip Flopper

I have been reading a lot lately about how Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure in American politics. Those that support her suggest that she is an intelligent, articulate, and effective voice in Washington. Those who oppose her see her as an aggressive, overbearing political opportunist. As a side note, I would just note that the primary critics of Senator Clinton are white men. I suspect that there is a feeling that the good Senator from New York threatens the white male establishment.

As a contrast to Senator Clinton, Senator John Kerry was greeted with a very different moniker. He was viewed as a flip flopper. Whether true or not (and it was not particularly true) Kerry's views on Iraq, social security, health care, and education were understood to be constantly changing. Again as an aside, I have never understood why it is a bad thing if a politician changes their mind. In some instances it should be a sign of strength. As Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfutter once said, "Wisdom too often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely because it comes late."

The attacks on Senators Kerry and Clinton suggest to me a fundamental problem with how Democrats are perceived by the public and the media. Kerry is viewed as a flip flopper because people didn't think his views were strong enough. Clinton is viewed as polarizing because her views are too strong. This despite the fact that Kerry's views tended to be pretty consistent and Hillary is seen by some as shifting her views on issues like a Woman's right to choose and the Iraq war.

Just like the ability to change ones mind should be viewed as a strength and not a weakness, in the current political climate, being polarizing might be a plus. We live in a polarized time. There is a thirst on the left for someone to stand up and just say what they think and not back down. There is a thirst on the left for someone not to back away from the Democratic or even "liberal" tag. And while Democrats would stand up and cheer at such a candidacy, I also think that the ever so important independent vote would respect it.

The 2006 midterm elections are drawing to a close. Soon the Democratic free for all will begin. Will it be Clinton, Obama, Clark, Gore, Kerry, Bayh, Feingold, I don't know. But whoever it is I say be polorizing. Make is your strength. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and dare them to come after you for it.

Republicans - For the War...Against the Vets

For as long as I can remember (say maybe the last 23 or so years) the Republicans have been the party of favor in the military. The perception was that Republicans had the best interests of America's troops in mind and Democrats always wanted to cut spending for the military. There was some grain of truth, especially during the Reagan years, to the notion that Democrats wanted to cut military spending which was, after all, enormous. Today, America is at war in the streets of Afghanistan and Iraq and the Republican party is portraying themselves as the party of national defense and homeland security.

However, the party that is all too eager to send our youth to war reacts violently when those same troops come back. In the current election cycle the Democrats have done an excellent job recruiting military veterans to run for multiple seats in Congress. The list includes Iraq war veterans Tammy Duckworth, Patrick Murphy, Joe Sestak, and Charlie Brown. Overall, there are more than 30 military veterans running for Congress as Democrats this cycle.

In response to so many military veterans running for office as Democrats, Republicans have taken to attacking the military service of these Democrat veterans. Like they did to John Kerry and Max Cleland, the Republicans have questioned the loyalty of these military veterans for the simple reason that they disagree with the Republican platform. Jean Schmidt attacked John Murtha from the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Mike Fitzpatrick, in a battle for his political life, stood by silently as his political hacks questioned the service of Patrick Murphy. Senator Jim Talent attacked disabled veteran Josh Lansdale solely because he supports Democratic Senate nominee Claire McCaskill. And perhaps most reprehensible, Republican candidate Peter Roskam accused Duckworth, who lost both her legs fighting for her country in Iraq, of wanting to "cut and run."

These types of attacks on veterans are sickening and should not be tolerated. One can only imagine what would happen if a democrat who never served in the military a day in his life, were to question the military service of a Republican. The papers would go crazy, and the switchboard would light up all over rightwing radio. Imagine, for example, if someone were to question John McCain's military service, saying that he was never really a prisoner of war or that even if he was a prisoner of war he has greatly exaggerated the condition of his captivity. It would not be tolerated.

I bring up John McCain because I think it should be noted how silent John McCain has been while his fellow veterans have had their service questioned. What self respecting military veteran stands by silently while people we never served a day in their life attack a veterans military record? Veterans should be speaking out and not clamming up because "all's fair in politics." Veterans should be treated with respect regardless of what political party they are from. When I worked in Washington support for Veterans was one of the only true bipartisan issue there was. Who in their right mind doesn't support someone who sacrificed for this country? The answer, apparently, is endangered Republicans.

Charlie Brown, Joe Sestak, Patrick Murphy, Tammy Duckworth and countless other Democrats served out nation honorably. They saw people die fighting for our nation's flag. Yet when they come back home their honorable military service is questioned solely because of their political affiliation. Military veterans should be speaking loud and clear on this issue. Whether Republican or Democrat, the message must be enforced. We will not slander our nations fighting men and woman to score cheap political points.

Rebuilding the Yankees

I am not a Yankee fan. In fact, most of my friends would think of me as a Yankee hater. However, I can't help myself from adding my two cents on how to rebuild the Yankees. I am not saying that this is what will happen, but if I were GM this is what I would make happen. So, here comes my recipe for how to rebuild the decaying Yankees.

First of all, the Yankees have to get rid of the dead weight. That means not resigning Gary Sheffield, Mike Mussina and Bernie Williams. Also gone are Randy Johnson, Cory Lidle, and Jaret Wright. Miguel Cairo can come back for another year.

The Yankees don't need Jason Giambi in order to win. Andy Phillips is far better defensively and can handle the bat decently. If Jorge Posada is going to last another few years, he is going to need to get some ABs at 1b also. Another option allows Hideki Matsui to play LF, Damon CF and Cabrera in LF and get Bobby Abreu some ABs at 1b. I also like Craig Wilson and would resign him to split time with Phillips at 1b. Giambi has rehabilitated himself and his reputation. Trading him should be easier than it would have been right after the steroid scandal. However, an American league team is a better fit than a National league team. Thus, I would trade Giambi to the Cleveland Indians for Kelly Shoppach. Shoppach is an excellent defensive catcher who has nice offensive upside. Even better, he is a former Red Sox prospect so if develops into a solid major leaguer it would really piss the Red Sox off.

That brings us to the big question. What do you do with Arod. Arod has 4 years left on a contract that has the Yankees on the hook for about another 66 mil. He also has a no trade clause. However, the Yankees are going to try to move him. He represents the failures of this Yankee team and just can't get it done during crunch time. Finding a trade partner is going to prove difficult though.

I have to believe that the Yankees will want to move him to the National League if possible. The Marlins are probably the best match in terms of talent, but the problem is finding a place for Arod to play. The Marlins have Hanley Ramirez at SS and Miguel Cabrera at 3b. I imagine the Marlins could move Cabrera back to the OF, but I don't think that Arod will play 3b for the Marlins. I think if he agrees to waive his no trade clause, it is going to be for a team that he can go back to playing SS. If the Yanks were able to get Arod to agree to the trade, I think A package of Dontrelle Willis and either Scott Olson, Yusmiero Petit, or Ricky Nolasco should get the job done. The Yanks would have to pick up a chunk of Arod's salary.

Another NL team that might make sense for Arod would be the Cubs. The cubs would have no problem supplanting Ronny Cedeno and Cesar Itzuras with Arod at SS. The Cubs have some nice pitching prospects, although they are not as MLB ready as the Marlins' prospects. Would the Yankees bite at a deal for Angel Guzman and either Sean Marshall or Rich Hill?

There is no doubt in my mind that the LA Angels would love to get their hands on Arod. I question whether the Yanks would trade Arod to an AL competitor, but if they were to do so, trading him to the opposite coast would make sense. Before Yankee fans get too excited, there is no chance the Angels would trade Jered Weaver. But would the Yankees do a deal for Ervin Santana and Joe Saunders? Another option would be Ervin Santana and the oft-injured but highly regarded Dallas MacPherson.

At the end of the day, I think the Yankees pick up enough salary and Arod is convinced to return home to Miami and play 3b. The Yankees get Dontrelle Willis and Yusmeiro Petit. Just like with Shoppach, if Petit becomes a star it will drive Mets fans crazy.

With Arod gone, the Yankees are going to need someone to play 3B. Fortunately, there are some nice ones available in free agency. Aaron Boone could make his return to NYC. I am a big fan of Pedro Feliz, even though I am not sure he can get the job done defensively. I am not sure how much Aubrey Huff has left in the tank. I always like Scott Brosius. Joe Randa could be exactly that type of player. However, with Giambi, Sheffield and Arod all departing, the Yankees might need a little more power in their lineup. Aramis Ramirez has a clause in his contract allowing him to become a free agent. Ladies and gentleman, meet the Yankees new 3Bman. Aramis Ramirez.

Ramirez isn't the only big ticket free agent to come to NY this summer. Japanese Fireballer Daisuke Matsuzaka is exactly the type of players the Yankees love to go after. They don't have to give up anyone from their depleted minor league system and all they have to do is what they typically do, throw more money at him than anyone else.

I know that these moves seem drastic. Getting rid of Sheffield, Giambi and Arod gets rid of over 300 RBIs and about 110 HRs. However, if any offense can survive that it is the Yankees. Most importantly, the end result is a much better team. They'd still have one of the best offenses in the league with a younger and more talented pitching staff.

The lineup would look like this:
Damon - CF
Jeter - SS
Abreu - RF
Matsui - DH
Ramirez - 3B
Posada - C
Cano - 2B
Cabrera - LF
Phillips/Wilson - 1B

The vastly improved rotation would be
Willis
Wang
Matsuzaka
Petit
Carl Pavano (until he hurts his ass again or Hughes is ready, whichever comes first)

Snooker Shame

The International Billiards and Snooker Federation became the most recent in a disturbing trend of international sporting bodies biased against the State of Israel. FIFA, the world's governing football (or "soccer") association has long been biased against Israel. Israel is forced to play outside of their geographical region because FIFA succumbs to pressure from the Arab states, and Israel is often forced to play its home games outside the country for the same reasons. The same has been true with FIBA, FIFA'a basketball equivalent.

As reported in the Jerusalem Post, the Snooker Federation has informed Israeli champion Roei Fernandez that he is not invited to play alongside the other national champions at the IBSF World Snooker Championship in Annan, Jordan. Officially, the Snooker Federation said it could not guarantee the safety of the Israeli athlete, stating, "I personally believe that due to the local precarious situation and the present serious unrest that still exists between your country and Lebanon, the country of Jordan is certainly not the right place to guarantee the security of your players." Of course Jordan and Israel have been officially at peace for a decade and have enjoyed peaceful relations since the 1970s.

No other athlete, form any other country, was similarly blackballed. It is unclear whether a Lebanese Snooker player was invited to play or not. What is clear is that the Snooker Federation's decision reeks of politics and anti-Israel bias. Shame on you Snooker. Shame on you.

Pedophilia

A grown man who hits on 16 year old boys is not "gay." He is a pedophile. Stopping his illegal behavior is not "gay-bashing" it is complying with the law.

A grown man hitting on a 16 year old girl is not "straight." He is a pedophile who has attempted to commit statutory rape.

The issue is not the gender of the victim, but the age of the victim.