If you haven't heard about Brave New Films' project chronicling the "Straight Talk Express" aka McCain's flip flopping. They have done an excellent job compiling video of various speaking engagements of McCain contradicting himself. Here is the link to check it out yourself.
http://therealmccain.com/
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Marriage Equality...Finally
On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of equally and made same-sex marriage legal in our state. Effective 30 days from the decision (June 16, 2008) couples who have been together longer than I’ve been alive (I’m still in my twenties, at least for a few more months) will be able to have their relationship defined as married. That is after they file the marriage petition. There are still some questions and concerns not fully addressed by the Court’s decision, and Equality California (www.eqca.org/marriage/faq) is a great resource.
The full impact of the decision didn’t truly hit me until I ran into some friends who’ve been together a long time, and they shared with me their plans to get married on June 16th. Tears rushed to my eyes, as they are doing right now as I type this. I was and am overwhelmed that so many couples I know will finally have the chance to marry the person s/he loves.
Not all of my friends in this situation are planning weddings yet. This has actually caused a disagreement among one couple I know. Several years ago they had a commitment ceremony with family and friends. Now that they can get married one wants a big ceremony the other just wants to go down to the courthouse. I’m just thankful they now have the choice.
Unfortunately, opponents of marriage equality were prepared for the CA Supreme Court’s decision by putting a proposition on the November ballot that would overturn this ruling. Governor Swarzenegger has stated he will not support the proposition. And, a poll released today shows that 51-42 percent of registered voters believed same-sex marriage should be legal in California. That is a significant change in ideology.
Thank you to all the LBTGQ people and friends (like PFLAG) for speaking out and making this issue personal. Although the scenes from 2004 of the San Francisco weddings were deemed a reason why Republicans retained control, I believe it paved the way in people’s hearts to be more accepting of others. The numerous pictures of couples expressing their love for each other after years together made it personal.
How much more personal can you get then from a statement from one of our members included in the California Young Democrats’ press release.
"We thank and congratulate the Supreme Court for their monumental and historic decision, and look forward to the fight that is still ahead," said Rachel Kau-Taylor (Sonoma County), Chair of the YDA GLBT Caucus. "A Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage (1298. (07-0068) is pending signature counting and stands ready to qualify for the November ballot in California. This would embed discrimination in the California State Constitution, and great leaps forward still remain in making one marriage available to all in our state laws and at the national level."
I can’t wait until June 16th! I’ll be heading to the courthouse to witness the barriers of segregation crumble under love.
The full impact of the decision didn’t truly hit me until I ran into some friends who’ve been together a long time, and they shared with me their plans to get married on June 16th. Tears rushed to my eyes, as they are doing right now as I type this. I was and am overwhelmed that so many couples I know will finally have the chance to marry the person s/he loves.
Not all of my friends in this situation are planning weddings yet. This has actually caused a disagreement among one couple I know. Several years ago they had a commitment ceremony with family and friends. Now that they can get married one wants a big ceremony the other just wants to go down to the courthouse. I’m just thankful they now have the choice.
Unfortunately, opponents of marriage equality were prepared for the CA Supreme Court’s decision by putting a proposition on the November ballot that would overturn this ruling. Governor Swarzenegger has stated he will not support the proposition. And, a poll released today shows that 51-42 percent of registered voters believed same-sex marriage should be legal in California. That is a significant change in ideology.
Thank you to all the LBTGQ people and friends (like PFLAG) for speaking out and making this issue personal. Although the scenes from 2004 of the San Francisco weddings were deemed a reason why Republicans retained control, I believe it paved the way in people’s hearts to be more accepting of others. The numerous pictures of couples expressing their love for each other after years together made it personal.
How much more personal can you get then from a statement from one of our members included in the California Young Democrats’ press release.
"We thank and congratulate the Supreme Court for their monumental and historic decision, and look forward to the fight that is still ahead," said Rachel Kau-Taylor (Sonoma County), Chair of the YDA GLBT Caucus. "A Constitutional Amendment to limit marriage (1298. (07-0068) is pending signature counting and stands ready to qualify for the November ballot in California. This would embed discrimination in the California State Constitution, and great leaps forward still remain in making one marriage available to all in our state laws and at the national level."
I can’t wait until June 16th! I’ll be heading to the courthouse to witness the barriers of segregation crumble under love.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
No on 98, Yes on 99
Or if you prefer: We hate 98!
Proposition 98 goes too far. It was placed on the ballot by wealthy landlords who spent millions to put it on the ballot. It would rollback laws protecting renters and the environment. Proposition 99, on the other hand, provides protections to landowners from eminent domain (for private development purposes) while also protecting renters' rights and the environment.
The authors of Prop 98 think people should be able to do anything they want on their own land. Hmm…I wonder if the language would allow them to bypass other laws and regulations like land-use that neighbors rely on to keep their neighborhoods respectable (and with no monstrosity eye-sores).
Prop 98 guts environmental protections. Just when we are beginning to take serious action on global climate change, the laws we’ve passed to protect our land, air, water and coasts would be overruled. Our drinking water all comes from the same supplies. This puts us all at risk.
Hate frivolous lawsuits? Then vote no on 98. If this passes it opens the door to a lot of those lawsuits. The end results higher taxpayer costs and an economy hurting even more than it already is.
Who opposes Prop 98? That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of others. Governor Schwarzenegger, Senators Boxer and Feinstein and nearly every other state-wide elected official also are urging a NO vote on Prop 98. Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot. Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords' Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS. Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd.
Proposition 98 goes too far. It was placed on the ballot by wealthy landlords who spent millions to put it on the ballot. It would rollback laws protecting renters and the environment. Proposition 99, on the other hand, provides protections to landowners from eminent domain (for private development purposes) while also protecting renters' rights and the environment.
The authors of Prop 98 think people should be able to do anything they want on their own land. Hmm…I wonder if the language would allow them to bypass other laws and regulations like land-use that neighbors rely on to keep their neighborhoods respectable (and with no monstrosity eye-sores).
Prop 98 guts environmental protections. Just when we are beginning to take serious action on global climate change, the laws we’ve passed to protect our land, air, water and coasts would be overruled. Our drinking water all comes from the same supplies. This puts us all at risk.
Hate frivolous lawsuits? Then vote no on 98. If this passes it opens the door to a lot of those lawsuits. The end results higher taxpayer costs and an economy hurting even more than it already is.
Who opposes Prop 98? That's why a broad coalition including AARP, League of Women Voters of California, the Coalition to Protect California Renters, California Professional Firefighters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Teachers Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Chamber of Commerce, and dozens of others. Governor Schwarzenegger, Senators Boxer and Feinstein and nearly every other state-wide elected official also are urging a NO vote on Prop 98. Many of these same groups are also supporting a real eminent domain reform on the June 3rd ballot. Proposition 99 is the straightforward solution we need to protect against eminent domain abuse. Prop. 99 prohibits government from using eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Unlike the landlords' Prop. 98, Prop. 99 is eminent domain reform with NO HIDDEN AGENDAS. Please be sure you have the facts and vote NO on 98 and Yes on 99 on June 3rd.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Superdelegate Dilemma
There are so many people up in arms about the structuring within the Democratic Party that gives superdelegates a vote for the next President. Let’s be frank, it wouldn’t really be an issue if there was an obvious nominee, but since we are stuck with a very questionable outcome… poof…we have controversy.
We cannot do away with superdelegates, at least this go round, because the structure was pre-arranged. This has worked no problem for how many years? (Hint: since before I was born) So now we are faced with two questions: How should the Democratic National Committee resolve this dilemma?, and, Do we want to continue with a convention structure that gives superdelegates a vote for a Presidential nominee?
Addressing the question of how the DNC should resolve the current dilemma, keeping in mind that superdelegates will still have a vote, there are many options and theories out there. Personally, I would like to see the DNC offer Florida and Wisconsin an opportunity to recast their votes in caucus and thus recognizing their delegates at the Convention. FL and WI should not have their previous election count, because they knew they scheduled the election dates in opposition of the DNC rules there would be repercussions and they would lose their delegates. To allow those votes to count now would be unfair and set a terrible precedent for the next Presidential election.
Why is it unfair? For one, not all the candidates listed themselves on the ballot (campaign-wise a stupid move) because all the candidates pledged not to campaign in those states. To count those votes is unfair to all the candidates including those who have already withdrawn from the race. It is also unfair to the voters in the States that followed the rules. Our state governments or state Democratic Party followed the rules for fear of penalty. Why should FL and WI get everything they wanted after breaking the rules just because there happens to a questions of whom the nominee will be? I say if they want a say give them the option to caucus. That still penalizes them while giving them delegates and prevents future problems with the primary lineup. Personally, I feel it is important to give the voters in those states a chance to be heard because no one’s vote should be silenced (but it happens when you break the rules or fill your ballot wrong).
Will that direction fix the problem concerning superdelegates? Unlikely. The DNC and the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will have to sit down and negotiate. A floor vote at the August convention will only fracture the party. Many voters will feel disillusioned with the party and we will likely lose some as voters for a very long time. We cannot afford that! The best for the future of our party would be for the candidates to come to an agreement.
As for the continuation of the superdelegates within the Democratic Party process, I have a question for you: Are you involved with the Democratic Party? This does not mean donating money or casting your vote on election day. This means donating time and energy to building the party including elected positions on local central committees, attending state conventions, walking precincts, organizing community events, phonebanking, etc. If you have never done any of the above for the party, not a candidate, then you probably have not been involved with the Democratic Party. Regularly I hear someone complaining about the government etc. Immediately I ask that person if s/he voted. If not, then my response is “you chose not to vote and silence your voice in so doing you gave up your legitimate right to complain”. So now I say to those who are complaining about superdelegates, if you are not involved with the Democratic Party then you are choosing to stay silent so stop you’re whining and do something about it. I know the Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee is always looking for members and alternates. There is a link to their website from our site under links.
We cannot do away with superdelegates, at least this go round, because the structure was pre-arranged. This has worked no problem for how many years? (Hint: since before I was born) So now we are faced with two questions: How should the Democratic National Committee resolve this dilemma?, and, Do we want to continue with a convention structure that gives superdelegates a vote for a Presidential nominee?
Addressing the question of how the DNC should resolve the current dilemma, keeping in mind that superdelegates will still have a vote, there are many options and theories out there. Personally, I would like to see the DNC offer Florida and Wisconsin an opportunity to recast their votes in caucus and thus recognizing their delegates at the Convention. FL and WI should not have their previous election count, because they knew they scheduled the election dates in opposition of the DNC rules there would be repercussions and they would lose their delegates. To allow those votes to count now would be unfair and set a terrible precedent for the next Presidential election.
Why is it unfair? For one, not all the candidates listed themselves on the ballot (campaign-wise a stupid move) because all the candidates pledged not to campaign in those states. To count those votes is unfair to all the candidates including those who have already withdrawn from the race. It is also unfair to the voters in the States that followed the rules. Our state governments or state Democratic Party followed the rules for fear of penalty. Why should FL and WI get everything they wanted after breaking the rules just because there happens to a questions of whom the nominee will be? I say if they want a say give them the option to caucus. That still penalizes them while giving them delegates and prevents future problems with the primary lineup. Personally, I feel it is important to give the voters in those states a chance to be heard because no one’s vote should be silenced (but it happens when you break the rules or fill your ballot wrong).
Will that direction fix the problem concerning superdelegates? Unlikely. The DNC and the two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will have to sit down and negotiate. A floor vote at the August convention will only fracture the party. Many voters will feel disillusioned with the party and we will likely lose some as voters for a very long time. We cannot afford that! The best for the future of our party would be for the candidates to come to an agreement.
As for the continuation of the superdelegates within the Democratic Party process, I have a question for you: Are you involved with the Democratic Party? This does not mean donating money or casting your vote on election day. This means donating time and energy to building the party including elected positions on local central committees, attending state conventions, walking precincts, organizing community events, phonebanking, etc. If you have never done any of the above for the party, not a candidate, then you probably have not been involved with the Democratic Party. Regularly I hear someone complaining about the government etc. Immediately I ask that person if s/he voted. If not, then my response is “you chose not to vote and silence your voice in so doing you gave up your legitimate right to complain”. So now I say to those who are complaining about superdelegates, if you are not involved with the Democratic Party then you are choosing to stay silent so stop you’re whining and do something about it. I know the Sonoma County Democratic Central Committee is always looking for members and alternates. There is a link to their website from our site under links.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why do all middle-aged white women support Hillary Clinton for President?
Why do all middle-aged white women support Hillary Clinton for President?
Offended by that question? How do you think I feel when I’m repeatedly asked “why do all Young Democrats support Barack Obama for President?” Just as not all middle-aged white women don’t support Hillary, not all YD’s support Barack. As soon as people learn to get past their categorizations (ie “isms”) maybe this country will begin to move forward.
Look at us Democrats now debating whether sexism or racism is the bigger issue in this Presidential race. Who will be the one to win it in November? I’m just elated that our two top candidates are a woman and an African American. We have come so damn far from the old rich white guy group in 2004. Not that all old rich white guys are bad – remember to donate to Democrats J - because I’ve been supporting the Democrats for years now and that’s all we’ve been putting up for Presidential candidates. Not that others minorities, read non-white and/or male, to be a serious contending but they never made a scratch in national polling.
You may be wondering what got me started on this rant. Basically, I got tired of repeating not all YD’s support Obama. The most recent happened at the annual Sonoma County Democratic Parties Crab Feed. A middle-aged white woman introduces herself to me, btw I was wearing a SCYD nametag, and begins lecturing me on why YDs should be supporting Hillary instead of Barack. Excuse me! She never once asked whom I support(ed) and besides CA has already voted and those delegates are assigned. Personally, I see pros and cons to both candidates.
So old people listen up – don’t start lecturing a YD about who they should or should not support. Did it work with your kids? We are going to decide in any way, shape, or form we choose to whether based on charisma, policy, or flip of the coin. If you want to DISCUSS candidates then start a conversation NOT a lecture. You’d be surprised – some of us may know more than you do…
Offended by that question? How do you think I feel when I’m repeatedly asked “why do all Young Democrats support Barack Obama for President?” Just as not all middle-aged white women don’t support Hillary, not all YD’s support Barack. As soon as people learn to get past their categorizations (ie “isms”) maybe this country will begin to move forward.
Look at us Democrats now debating whether sexism or racism is the bigger issue in this Presidential race. Who will be the one to win it in November? I’m just elated that our two top candidates are a woman and an African American. We have come so damn far from the old rich white guy group in 2004. Not that all old rich white guys are bad – remember to donate to Democrats J - because I’ve been supporting the Democrats for years now and that’s all we’ve been putting up for Presidential candidates. Not that others minorities, read non-white and/or male, to be a serious contending but they never made a scratch in national polling.
You may be wondering what got me started on this rant. Basically, I got tired of repeating not all YD’s support Obama. The most recent happened at the annual Sonoma County Democratic Parties Crab Feed. A middle-aged white woman introduces herself to me, btw I was wearing a SCYD nametag, and begins lecturing me on why YDs should be supporting Hillary instead of Barack. Excuse me! She never once asked whom I support(ed) and besides CA has already voted and those delegates are assigned. Personally, I see pros and cons to both candidates.
So old people listen up – don’t start lecturing a YD about who they should or should not support. Did it work with your kids? We are going to decide in any way, shape, or form we choose to whether based on charisma, policy, or flip of the coin. If you want to DISCUSS candidates then start a conversation NOT a lecture. You’d be surprised – some of us may know more than you do…
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Young Democrats Endorse Assemblymember Mark Leno
Young Democrats Endorse Assemblymember Mark Leno in Bid for State Senate (Rohnert Park, CA) The Sonoma County Young Democrats, on August 22, 2007 unanimously endorsed Assemblymember Mark Leno in his bid to unseat incumbent Senator Carole Migden. “Mark is a proven leader who has always actively supported young democrats throughout the state” said SCYD Chair Jennifer Dawes. “He will bolster the credibility and integrity of the 3 rd District and the Democratic Party.” “I am thrilled that young Democrats in the 3 rd Senate District are united in their support for Assemblymember Leno.” said Luke Klipp, President of the San Francisco Young Democrats whose organization endorsed Assemblymember Leno earlier this year. Leno has a long history with the California Young Democrats supporting and collaborating with young leaders on a regular basis. In recognition of his leadership in youth development, he was awarded the 2006 Mentor of the Year award by the CYD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)