Courtesy CNN

An excerpt, though you should read the full piece.

On Saturday, the National Tea Party Federation announced it had expelled one of the movement’s most prominent figures — a California blowhard named Mark Williams — because of the outrageously racist things he had said about the NAACP. Ejected along with Williams was his whole organization, Tea Party Express, which had been a particularly active, high-profile group.

The last straw was a “satirical” letter that Williams, a former right-wing talk radio host, posted on his Web site. It was supposed to be a missive from NAACP President Ben Jealous to Abraham Lincoln, and the Tea Party Federation deemed it “clearly offensive.” With good reason.

Here is one passage:…

…”Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government ‘stop raising our taxes.’ That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide-screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society? Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.”

That’s not satire, it’s hate speech…

The way Henry Schalizki tells it, his second encounter with Bob Davis came in 1945, when his fellow serviceman arrived in Hawaii to entertain the troops with the USO.

“You can be a little more elegant about it,” Bob interjects. “I was starring in a play — not entertaining the troops! The play was ‘Room Service,’ and I had the pivotal role.”

They’d met three years before at a little restaurant in the Providence Biltmore Hotel. Boris Karloff was also there, but the two spent the evening talking to each other.

When a poster went up advertising the play’s run in Hawaii, Henry recognized the photo of Bob. During intermission, he went backstage to reintroduce himself, and invited Bob out for a drink. Bob agreed and, once the curtain fell, hurried to remove his makeup and get to the lobby.

Fifteen minutes passed, then 20. No Henry. “I was very toasted that day,” recalls Henry, now 88. “I walked out on his show.”

“And I’ve never really forgotten that,” says Bob, 89. “I was so good in the second act!”

Still, three years later, when Henry walked into a Baltimore bar where Bob was sitting alone, they quickly retraced their acquaintance. Bob had just moved to town for a job as a personality on a fledgling television station. Henry had grown up in Charm City and returned after the war to take a job with the B&O railroad administration.

When Henry learned Bob was staying at a seedy boarding house, he invited him to stay the night in his guest room, saying, “tomorrow we’ll find you something.”

But that never happened. They fell in love, and Bob “stayed and stayed” — through good times and bad, sickness and health, through Stonewall and Vietnam, through the terms of 12 U.S. presidents, starting with Harry Truman. Through the loss of more friends than they care to count. They stayed together long enough to witness what they thought was impossible: Last Sunday, they exercised their newfound right, exchanging vows on a rooftop overlooking Pennsylvania Avenue, turning their six-decade relationship into a marriage.

“Wow, what a long engagement that was!” Bob said to their guests. “Sixty-two years! Something had to give.”

“We needed each other,” Bob said recently from a wingback chair in their Chevy Chase penthouse.

Finish reading the article here.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is proposing an amendment to the budget to withhold funding for discharges based on DADT.  Some oppose this, arguing that it’s unlikely to pass and the first push shouldn’t be one that fails.  I’m kind of torn on this one.  AMERICAblog makes a good case to why this isn’t good, several of which I think make perfect sense.  I get the political obstacles of one loss and the loss of momentum/urgency from a win.  I think the critical take on Sen. Gillibrand is a bit too much, though.  We have a real ally on our side in Sen. Gillibrand, despite her lack of seniority or position on the Senate Armed Services Committee.  Neither of these have stopped her from being invited to participate in the Committee’s hearings, or from taking a strong stand on this issue.  A strong ally in the Senate is not something to scoff at, and saying we should take steps that begin to protect soldiers from being discharged because we think we’ll get action before the midterm elections makes me nervous.

While a defeat would give opponents a talking point in their argument, this would be one way to flesh out where certain Senators stand.  If this could be included in the defense budget before it goes to the full Armed Services Committees, it would seemingly be an entirely different story.  If this were introduced as part of the bill, the burden is on those who oppose this.  In real world (political) terms, this means Republicans would have to fillibuster the defense budget–or as they would put it, they’d have to “vote against supporting the troops.”  That’s a much tough pill to swallow to score points with the minority of Americans who support DADT.  I could be wrong on the political viability of including this in the defense budget, so please correct me if you disagree.  It just seems that with the people drafting the budget supporting the repeal, and the chairmen on the Senate Armed Forces Committee both on the side of repeal, it wouldn’t be nearly as tough to include.

Other highlights:

• A phenomenal op-ed from the Sunday Washington Post.  It highlights the fact that straight soldiers don’t mind serving with gay soldiers, and by discharging them, soldiers are STILL serving with these men and women through private contractors which also happen to cost the US government at least twice as much.
• The Palm Center is convening a spring summit with leaders from NATO and the Israeli military, both of which allow openly gay soldiers to serve, to discuss implementation strategies and experiences.
• Frank Rich points out the lack of vocal opponents from the right. Even Sarah Palin punted this down the road rather than objecting on a “moral” basis (below the jump).
• And a great supporter and member of Congress who deserves our support–Representative Chellie Pingree.  Again, the faults of Rep. Duncan Hunter’s thinking are that he ignores the fact that there ARE gays and lesbians in the military and he argues that soldiers are dying while he supports discharging soldiers with mission critical skills.  You know what saves the lives of soldiers?  Having troops who can speak Arabic–a service that was provided by gay soldiers like Dan Choi who were discharged:

The real question is what message politicians and pundits will take out of the Massachusetts surprise. (As of this writing, we do not know whether that surprise will be a near-loss for Democrats or a GOP triumph.) Many argue it means Democrats should run from reform. But that would not just be disastrous for American health care. It would misread the results and ignore the lessons of history. Not passing health reform would guarantee that dire predictions about the Democrats’ fate will come true.

I think they’re right. Once the process is in the rearview mirror and the elements that the public supports are enacted, the important thing will be that the Democrats did something and it improved lives. Scale isn’t nearly as important politically as success or failure.

If there is a lesson in the Massachusetts vote, it is this: pass a bill. The nation needs reform. Democrats need an accomplishment. And Democratic activists and voters need a new cause: fixing reform, not abandoning it.

THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY Bill of 2009 is an ugly and ignorant piece of legislation being considered in Uganda. If it is approved, the gay people of that nation would be subject to life in prison. This retreat from the death sentence originally proposed should neither be celebrated nor considered a concession by the government in response to pressure from the United States and other nations. The proposal is barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations…

…The legislation talks about the “cherished culture” of Uganda and its “legal, religious, and traditional family values.” We respect a nation’s right to defend its culture and values. But sentencing men and women to life imprisonment because of their sexual orientation is an atrocity. Gays and lesbians would be punished by their own government for who they are. Contrary to the backward thinking of the Ugandan government, being gay is not a choice. But pushing homophobic laws that foment hate is…

Unfortunately, the role that a few Americans played in this is was not highlighted (though, the New York Times did report on the American advocates for this bill).  The full piece is below the jump.

THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY Bill of 2009 is an ugly and ignorant piece of legislation being considered in Uganda. If it is approved, the gay people of that nation would be subject to life in prison. This retreat from the death sentence originally proposed should neither be celebrated nor considered a concession by the government in response to pressure from the United States and other nations. The proposal is barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations.

The nine-page bill, which says that “homosexual behavior and related practices” are a “threat to the traditional family,” is an offense from beginning to end. The framers say it is needed to “protect” the country from those “seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on the people of Uganda.” They say the bill is also needed because children and youth “are made vulnerable to sexual abuse and deviation. . . .” Among the corrupting influences are “uncensored technologies” and “increasing attempts by homosexuals to raise children. . . .”

The law would apply to citizens or permanent residents of Uganda, and would cover behavior both in and outside that country. The measure would turn neighbor against neighbor by requiring those with knowledge of a gay person to report them to police within 24 hours or risk three years in prison. A seven-year jail term awaits the Ugandan who “aids, abets, [or] counsels” homosexuals. And anyone convicted of “aggravated homosexuality,” which could mean someone who is HIV-positive and is intimate with another person of the same sex, could “suffer death.”

The legislation talks about the “cherished culture” of Uganda and its “legal, religious, and traditional family values.” We respect a nation’s right to defend its culture and values. But sentencing men and women to life imprisonment because of their sexual orientation is an atrocity. Gays and lesbians would be punished by their own government for who they are. Contrary to the backward thinking of the Ugandan government, being gay is not a choice. But pushing homophobic laws that foment hate is.

The United States and other nations have urged officials to shelve the bill. So far, their entreaties have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps at the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit opening Friday in Trinidad and Tobago, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who will chair the gathering, can be persuaded to listen to the growing international outrage. If Uganda approves the anti-homosexuality bill, it risks making itself a pariah among nations.

The Washington Post confirms today what I’ve started to notice–few people outside of Maine or the blogosphere seems to be really aware of Question 1 in Maine.

Even as President Obama delivers a high-profile speech about gay rights on Saturday — the eve of a national march for equality on the Mall — Maine’s landmark gay marriage legislation remains practically a secret. With low-volume murmurs of support from the institutional advocates and opponents of gay marriage, Maine’s operatives, on both sides of the issue, are curious to find themselves nearly alone as they contest an election that will determine the national gay-rights agenda…

…The state’s failure to get noticed is due to the simple fact that the vote will not take place in, say, California, where an expensive and bruising win for gay marriage opponents last year shook the national body politic for weeks.

Since then, many dependable gay Democratic fundraisers have felt burned — and decidedly less generous. Plus, progressive lawmakers, worried about the 2010 midterm elections, have shied from the issue. And within the gay leadership in Washington, established politicians and a freshman class of bolder legislators disagree as to whether the Maine campaign should be central to a larger federal push for equality. Those frustrated voices are lobbying Obama to include a reference to the Maine referendum in his speech. Any failure to do so would be the last straw for many gay activists fed up with the small-bore approach of the Obama White House, the Washington-based gay lobby and the Democratic Party’s gay elders.

The Post then goes on to talk about the generational divide in the gay rights movement, exemplifying it by contrasting Barney Frank with Jared Polis.  A fascinating piece, and something that I’m finding increasingly interesting as I read “And the Band Played On.”  More to come on that, I’m sure.

Definitely worth reading the full article.

James von Brunn, who is alleged to have opened fire and killed a guard at the Holocaust Memorial Museum, is apparently a consummate bigot. His former wife said that his hatred of blacks and Jews “ate him alive like a cancer,” so it might seem appropriate that in addition to having been indicted last week for murder and gun-law violations, he was also charged with hate crimes. At age 89, he proves that you are never too old to hate.

He also proves the stupidity of hate-crime laws. A prime justification for such laws is that some crimes really affect a class of people. The hate-crimes bill recently passed by the Senate puts it this way: “A prominent characteristic of a violent crime motivated by bias is that it devastates not just the actual victim . . . but frequently savages the community sharing the traits that caused the victim to be selected.” No doubt. But how is this crime different from most other crimes?

First, let us consider the question of which “community” von Brunn was allegedly attempting to devastate. He rushed the Holocaust museum, which memorializes the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis and their enablers. There could be no more poignant symbol for the Jewish community. Yet von Brunn killed not a Jew but an African American — security guard Stephen Tyrone Johns.

So which community was affected by this weird, virtually suicidal act? Was it the Jewish community or the black community? Since von Brunn hated both, you could argue that it does not matter. But since I would guess that neither community now gives the incident much thought, the answer might well be “neither one.” So what is the point of piling on hate crimes to what von Brunn has allegedly done? Beats me. He already faces — at age 89, remember — a life sentence and, possibly, the death penalty.

Obviously it is the Jewish community–he attacked at the Holocaust Museum.  Trying to say that it wasn’t an attack motivated against Jewish community because the person who stood in his way happened to be a member of another minority he hated is absurd and disingenuous.  I’m also shocked that he would say that the Jewish community doesn’t give this incident much thought.  It’s a reminder that there are people out there who hate and would harm them simply because of their faith and ethnicity.  Tell the Jewish child who has never personally felt the sting of antisemitism and now sees what this hatred can lead to that he or she shouldn’t give this much thought.  Can Mr. Cohen not imagine the impact this has on those who, for the first time, see what bigotry can drive people to?

Is Cohen’s argument different if the shooter were 19 and had a long life ahead of him?

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups — blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. — that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That’s nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what’s being punished is thought or speech. Johns is dead no matter what von Brunn believes. The penalty for murder is severe, so it’s not as if the crime is not being punished. The added “late hit” of a hate crime is without any real consequence, except as a precedent for the punishment of belief or speech. Slippery slopes are supposedly all around us, I know, but this one is the real McCoy.

Von Brunn is not being punished for his thoughts or speech, he is being punished for killing a man and the broader impact he was trying to have on countless others through the brutal execution of these thoughts and words.  In fact, the Matthew Shepard Act specifically protects preaching or speaking hate as long as one doesn’t incite violence.

I sincerely doubt that Cohen would argue that the hijackers on 9/11 were 19 people who simply murdered 2,974 people.  They attacked America and the profound effect that had on America should remind people of the power that actions against a few can have on the entire community (in that case, America).

Let us assume that the “community” is really affected by what we call a hate crime. I am Jewish. But even with von Brunn’s attack, I am more affected by a mugging in my neighborhood that might keep me from taking a walk at night than I am by a shooting at the Holocaust museum. If there’s a murder in a park, I’ll stay out of it for months. If there’s a rape, women will stay out of the park. If there’s another and another, women will know that a real hater is loose. Rape, though, is not a hate crime. Why not?

First, I don’t think rapist rape out of hatred, it’s about control and a whole host of other issues.  That view is debatable, so let’s move on.  A mugging in your neighborhood is a crime based on timing and proximity.  A hate crime is perpetrated for an entirely different purpose–to invoke fear in a group and to change the way the members of that group lead their lives.  I recently read (and I can’t remember where) an argument along these lines:  If you woke up and found a pile of wood burning in your yard, you’d react very differently than if you wake up to two pieces of wood burning in your yard nailed in the shape of a cross. Crimes motivated by hate and intended to scare because of one characteristic are simply different than a random crime.

I vehmently disagree that a mugging is an attack on a community.

I doubt that any group of drunken toughs is going to hesitate in their pummeling of a gay individual or an African American or a Jew on account of it being a hate crime. If they are not already deterred by the conventional penalties — prison, etc. — then why would additional penalties deter them? And if, in fact, they kept their mouths shut, refrained from the N-word or the F-word or the K-word, and simply made the beating or the killing seem one triggered by dissing or some other reason, then they would not be accused of hate — merely of murder or some such trifle. If, though, they gave vent to their thoughts, they would be in for real trouble.

This is the fundamental difference Cohen can’t seem to grasp.  The idea isn’t to protect these groups (including religious groups who frequently oppose hate crimes protections for other groups) from any crime; it’s to protect them from being victimized for some individual characteristic.  If a person is targeted because of proximity, that is simply not the same as a crime intended to send a larger message.

For the most part, hate-crime legislation is just a sop for politically influential interest groups — yet another area in which liberals, traditionally sensitive to civil liberties issues, have chosen to mollify an entire population at the expense of the individual and endorse discredited reasoning about deterrence.

Hate crimes legislation isn’t simply about deterrence.  Hate crimes legislation gives local police the resources to investigate these crimes and protect all citizens.  Further, it gives the federal government the authority to investigate these crimes if local officials refuse.  If anything, Hate Crimes Legislation is about ensuring that the people who are victimized in Akron, Ohio or Calais, Maine receive the same protection as those in New York City or Los Angeles.

In von Brunn’s case, the hate-crime counts are an obscenity. To suggest that the effects of this attack were felt only by the Jewish or the black communities — and not, for instance, by your average Washington tourist — ghettoizes both its real and purported victims. It’s a consequence that von Brunn himself might applaud.

The difference is when the DC tourist gets on their plane or train, they are no longer part of the victimized group.  Cohen’s three children, however, can’t get on a train and escape being Jewish.

*I put this note down here so as not to distract from my critique of his argument on an intellectual basis by commenting on his theories on sexuality and personal life.  However, it’s worth noting that after he went from gay to straight, married a woman and had 2 of his 3 children, he had a 3 year affair with a man.  I only raise this to point out to questionable nature of his claim to have been turned straight.  If he wants to say he’s a bisexual, fine.  However, claiming to have been “turned straight” and then to carry on a relationship with a man only does harm to those in the gay community who hear that they can choose to be straight.  Just a personal note I couldn’t not make.