Nonsense from MoCo Republican Adol Owen-Williams

Please see my November 23 post on Maryland Politics Watch, which focuses on one of the more ridiculous reasons Montgomery County Republicans have given for opposing legal protections for transgender Marylanders.

Check Out "Maryland Politics Watch"

In addition to launching the more nationally oriented Nation in Crisis, I also became a contributor to David Lublin’s Maryland Politics Watch at the end of October (on Halloween - make of that what you will). If you’re interested, my posts there so far are:

Slots and the Art of Compromise (Nov. 12, 2007)

Transgender Bill: The “Religious Liberty” Feint (Nov. 11, 2007)

Bathrooms, Always Bathrooms (Nov. 11, 2007)

Too Close For Mike Miller’s Comfort? (Nov. 10, 2007)

The Monsters Among Us

Although I disagree with their beliefs about abortion completely, I’ve generally respected the “abortion is murder, no exceptions” group far more than the right-wingers who would make exceptions for rape or incest. After all, if you don’t distinguish between the supposed murder of a “pre-born baby” and a newborn, then how could you possibly allow abortion exceptions for rape or incest? Would you not have to allow the murder of a newborn, or a six week-old, or anyone whose conception was brought about by either incest or rape?

Under the principles they espouse to justify eliminating abortion rights, what’s the difference? Whatever difference they come up with certainly devastates the premise of the “pro-life” position.

But what if they can’t articulate a difference between an abortion in the case of rape or incest (which they would allow) and a mother’s murdering her three year-old son because he was the product of rape or incest?

Then what kind of monsters are they?

I’ve been asking myself this question for quite awhile now. For instance, way back in 2001, when John Ashcroft was nominated to be attorney general, his “pro-life” supporters lauded him for his integrity. Why? Because he said that even though he personally opposed abortion, he would enforce federal laws protecting abortion rights.

But would a man of integrity really be willing to enforce laws that allow what he considers to be mass murder on an unspeakable scale, just so that he could have the job of attorney general? And if he really weren't willing to enforce such laws, then would a man of integrity lie about it during his confirmation hearing?

That’s some set of values these people are showing.

And now the question has come to the fore again, this time via the candidacy of purportedly pro-choice Rudy Giuliani. He’s not only still standing, but he’s the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination.

Although the Christian Right is divided, some are supporting Giuliani, and significantly more are seriously considering it. Polls consistently show that many anti-abortion Republicans who know Giuliani’s pro-choice record nonetheless support him.

And that terrifies me. Not because of what it says about Giuliani’s viability, but because of what it says about the Christian Right.

These are people who argue that abortion is murder, and that Roe v. Wade has allowed the wholesale slaughter of innocent babies. When it comes to the right to life, they tell us, a clump of cells and even a fertilized egg are indistinguishable from a newborn baby – or from a full-grown adult, for that matter.

So it’s not at all surprising that they sometimes use the term “holocaust” to describe abortion in America. If you really believe that abortion is murder, then what term would be more appropriate?

What kind of monster would support a candidate who advocates what they consider to be the right to slaughter innocent people?

Well, Pat Robertson, for one. And, according to the polls, a sizeable number of “pro-life” Republican voters.

The moral surrender these people are willing to make is breathtaking - and monstrous.

This is perhaps the most important moment in the history of the Christian Right. That they would even consider supporting Giuliani either in the primaries or in the general election demonstrates quite starkly just how utterly devoid of genuine morals the movement is.

And they have the audacity to wear the mantle of “values.”

It’s time to stop ceding the moral high ground to these people. We truly have monsters walking among us. We need to expose them for what they are.

Intro to the MD Special Session: The Right Approach to Taxes vs. The Right's Approach

This evening marks the beginning of the special session of the Maryland General Assembly. Since tax increases are a vital part of Governor O'Malley's budget proposal, we're hearing all the predictable anti-tax grumbling that comes whenever our society talks taxes.

Ever since the political ascendancy of Ronald Reagan and his anti-tax philosophy, our nation has been on a collision course with disaster. For a generation now, the GOP has framed taxes not as the cost of getting things done, but as part of a war by the government against the people: Their refrain: "The government wants to take your hard-earned money and spend it themselves. But the American people know how to spend their money better than the government does."

But the government is the American people. Once we jettison that idea, we abandon the fundamental premise of representational democracy and label our federal, state, and local elected governments as illegitimate.

Over the next weeks, we in Maryland need to take a hard look at our state and local needs. There are a few million too many of us in Maryland to fit into a meeting place and efficiently do this ourselves, so we ask our elected delegates and senators act on our behalf.

And we ask them to approach the issue rationally. This requires answering two questions:

First: What do we, as a society, have as our priorities?
Only then can we ask the next question: How do we go about raising the funds to effect those priorities?

Notice that Republicans tend to switch the questions around. They ask first what we feel like paying, independent of what our actual needs and priorities are. After answering that question, they turn around and say we can't afford to fix Social Security, rescue Medicare, or provide health insurance to kids.

Whenever the issue of taxes comes up, Republicans reflexively complain that our taxes are too high. But they don't say how they've reached that conclusion. How can we determine that our taxes are too high if we haven't first determined what our needs are?

Do we want to fix our system public education system? Do we want to prevent our bridges and roads from decaying? Do we want to help older Marylanders get access to necessary medical care? Do we want to keep toxins out of the environment?

We must first answer these questions before we can decide whether our taxes are at the appropriate level.

Over the past few months, the employees of the Department of Legislative Services in Annapolis have worked incredibly hard to come up with the costs and benefits associated with various state policies and programs. Before deciding how much I want to pay in taxes, I'm going to take a hard look at the numbers. And I'll be asking my senator and three delegates to do the same.