Daylin's Blog

The Pledge

2011-06-03T08:02:00.001-07:00

Howdy!

Beginning when we are children, we all take pledges. The earliest pledge for most of us is when we pledge allegiance to the flag. Most of us earnestly do this before we know what “pledge” or “allegiance” mean. All I knew was that it involved “the Republic for which it stands” which I assumed was all one word (“Forwhichistan“) and was probably near some of the smaller, similarly named countries in Soviet Siberia.

As I grew older I learned there are other pledges people take, almost all of which are bad ideas. For example, some people take a “Pledge of Chastity,” which, if the statistics are any indication, is tantamount to a pledge to get pregnant, immediately.

Then there are the loyalty pledges we made people sign during our dark, McCarthy period (I refer to Senator Joseph McCarthy, not Charlie McCarthy, the ventriloquist’s dummy, whose view of anti-communist purges is more ambiguous). Turns out, that people who are disloyal, have absolutely no problem signing loyalty pledges. Go Figure.

I remember taking the Boy Scout pledge. I don’t remember all of it, but part of it was me swearing to be “brave, clean and reverent.” But as a 15 year old, I was a scrungy, blasphemous coward, so clearly that pledge needed some tweaking.

Then there was the “Pledge Pin” where a young man would insert his fraternity pin directly into the pectoral muscles of his best gal. At least that’s what I did. Maybe that’s why I never got second dates. And then some pledge their “troth,” and who the hell knows what a “troth” is?

The point is that most pledges are a bad idea. They usually involve promises to do things that you know won’t feel right or won’t be right in days to come. That’s why you take the pledge now. You are saying:

“No matter what happens in the future, no matter what facts change, or what circumstances change, or how I change, I am pledging to this bone-headed thing, no matter what. So help me God.”

Let me give you an example. suppose I take the “No Right Turn Pledge,” which says as follows

I ____________, am of reasonable intelligence. This means I am not as dumb as a __________, nor is my name _______W. _____. I hereby pledge, when driving on the streets of Pennsylvania, that I verily, and with utmost rectitude, will never, under any circumstances, make a “right turn,” or “right hand turn” as people who need extra help call it.

I shall refrain from turning right even if I am driving straight and my destination is on the right. Or, if I am heading towards a brick wall and my breaks fail, and there’s a huge cliff on the left. Or, lets say I see a big sign that says “Lots of Money ahead, on right!!!” Nope not even then.

By my Hand ___________________

Seems kind of silly, huh? Well, our governor has signed a pledge which makes the “No Right Turn” thing seem like pure genius. I refer to the “The Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”

This is a pledge written by a man named Grover Norquist, who has, to my knowledge, never even been to Pennsylvania (he may have taken a pledge not to), but who nonetheless appears to be running the state.

Mr. Norquist’s pledge requires the signer to never, ever vote to create a new tax or increase an existing one. It does not matter how low the existing tax rate is, what kind of tax would be raised, what it would go for, how dire the state’s fiscal situation is or how tiny the increase would be.

So even if the rapture did happen on May 21 (and I’m quite sure the guy is right about the new date) and we needed a small tax on…say…cigars to help deal with all of the unexpected rivers of molten lava and swarms of locusts, that would be unacceptable to Grover.

This pledge applies under absolutely all circumstances. If it only applied when it made sense, you wouldn’t need a pledge. That would be a no-brainer and not require the services of Mr. Norquist.

Recently, some in the legislature suggested that we charge the Marcellus Shale drilling industry a “local impact fee” to help defray the costs of the damage they do to the communities where they drill. The supporters of this proposal made it very clear that this was NOT a “tax.” It was a “fee.” You can tell because “tax” and “fee” aren’t even spelled the same. Plus, the money raised would not go to educating kids or giving medicine to sick people, or any other part of the radical, Kenyan Socialist agenda. Surely, Grover Norquist would smile on this.

But alas unicorns, it was not to be. Grover, communing with the Spirit of Jack Kemp, as well as the spirits of the Koch Brothers, who while not actually dead, are too rich to require physical bodies, issued his edict. This fee was really a tax, and would be a violation of THE PLEDGE.

So apparently, because the govenor signed this ridiculous pledge to ignore all facts forever, our hands are tied. Grover Norquist rules the day, despite the fact that this does great damage to our state, despite the fact that he was never elected to anything in Pennsylvania, and despite the fact that his name is Grover.

I have an idea for a pledge. It goes something like this…

“I, ________ hereby pledge that I will address every public policy question with an open mind, and that I will consider all the facts and do my best to do what’s right for the people of Pennsylvania, without regard to rigid ideologies, or bone-headed pledges written by dudes I’ve never met named “Grover.”

In the name of Zeus ______________

Done. Now I’m off to put my troth on EBay.

Daylin

Students First, Honestly Last

2011-05-09T07:13:00.000-07:00

Typically, if you are in politics, 6-8 weeks before an election you become reluctant to open your mailbox, and not just because you fear there may be bills, or copies of Oprah Magazine inside. You know that your political opponents (or your ex spouse) will be sending ugly negative mail about you.
Ya know how you might have voted to raise taxes in the past, or gotten arrested for DUI, or went to a football game nude? Well forget all of that. Its not nearly salacious enough. Negative mail usually kicks it up a notch.

Your DUI will morph into your shameful involvement in the OJ murders. You’re having a strange name will tranlate into you having been born in Kenya (lots of Daylins there apparently) and your going to a football game nude will become…actually, that one is pretty good on its own.

The good news is the hate-mail usually stops shortly after you’ve won the election. If you have a 4 year term, you can go commando to all the sporting events you want for at least 3 and a half years. Then, as re-election gets closer, buy a pair of Jordache Jeans just to get through the next cycle.

However, that general rule of people leaving you alone between elections did not apply to me recently. The back story is that I’ve been fighting an awful bill that would create vouchers to give to a few public school kids to go to religious schools, and pay for them by taking the money from the poorest kids in the state.

Famous bank-robber Willie Sutton once said “I rob banks because that’s where the money is”. The voucher bill is sort of a new take on that in that its going where the money isn’t. Because where the money is, they don’t want to give it up.

A pro-voucher group called Students First PAC doesn’t appreciate my efforts. I should note that this group is funded by a group of extremely rich billionaires (unlike the poor kind).
There is an old expression in the context of newspapers, that says you shouldn’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel. Apparently you also shouldn’t pick a fight with people who fill their swimming pools with molten gold, which is tough to swim in, but does make a point.

Parenthetically, I would note that extreme groups often name themselves after the opposite of what they actually stand for. So if you, for example, believe that it would be great if Celine Dion were eaten by bears, you might name your organization “Celine In Tact” or “Hungry Bear Inc.” Similarly, Students First has an agenda which would pretty much end education for millions of students, hence the catchy name.

In any event, Students First sent a mailing to my constituents which you can find HERE. As you can see, “Daylin Leach Refuses to Help Kids Trapped in Violent Schools. Why?” Well duh!! When they ask “Why” do they mean “aside from the obvious reasons”?

I would note as fair warning, I not only refuse to help kids trapped in violent schools, I also refuse to help kids trapped in burning buildings. If a kitten is trapped up a tree, you won’t find me running for the Jaws of Life, which probably wouldn’t help anyway. And when a little old lady is crossing the street, I like to point off in the distance and yell “Look, Kangaroo!!” as a truck bears down on them. I will however make sure that their assets get to their next of kin, assume their “next of kin” is me.

The mailing then speculates that I take this position because I’ve received some contributions from teachers in my political career. For unknown reasons they completely ignore the fact that I may just be utterly psychotic!

Oh, and there is one other possibility, which is that SB 1, the bill they are pushing is an awful bill which would condemn millions of poor kids who can’t get into posh private schools to a third-world level education. I think that Students First should explore both the “bad bill” thing and “me being psychotic” thing a little more deeply.

I would also mention that Students First saying that I should ignore the “big contributions” teachers have given me (if only!) shows that they have a very poorly developed sense of irony. This is the same group that has given 7 Million Dollars in campaign contributions to Pennsylvania politicians in the past year alone. Maybe, if SF really wanted politicians to ignore political contributions when making policy decisions, they’d stop using a crop-duster to shower money on politicians themselves.

(To read more about the contributors to Students First, please read Rachel Tabachnick’s Talk2Action blog article titled “Voucher Advocate Betsy DeVos, Right-Wing Think Tanks Behind Koch-Style Attack on PA Public Schools” here.)

The same group also paid for a “poll” in my district so they could say I disagreed with my constituents on this issue. This was always going to be tough in that about 80% of people in my district are against vouchers. But you see, if you have no scruples or intellectual honesty, you can word a “poll” to get whatever result you want. In this case, they worded the poll as follows:

“Would you favor saving children from violent public schools if you knew that it would not raise your taxes or affect your schools in any way”

They then issued a press release saying that 67% of the people in my district did indeed favor that. The obvious question is, who are these other 33%? I actually think they could have gotten better numbers if they just took the question a little further. For example:

“Ok, now let’s say you not only get to rescue the kids from violence, and no taxes, and no affect on your school, but you also get a 2012 Nissan Rogue!
That would have probably brought it up over 70%. If they promised a cure for baldness, it would have hit 80%.
It’s unclear why Students First sent this to my district. If it was to get me to shut up, well, clearly that didn’t work. It seems to me that they are just bullies with a lot of money, and their misleading mailing and polling suggest that they think the people of Pennsylvania are stupid. And come to think of it, if vouchers pass, they will be.

Daylin

Nothing Funny About SB 1

2011-02-22T13:14:00.000-08:00

I depart from my usual witty repartee to share with you my views on Senate Bill 1:

Recently, there has been a lot of attention paid to Senate Bill 1, which would for the first time create a system of taxpayer-funded vouchers which parents could allegedly use to "choose" what school their child can go to if their current school is inadequate. This is certainly a bold idea. It creates a very expensive, new entitlement program in the midst of an unprecedented budget crisis. Given that, as a member of the Senate Education Committee, I feel it is important to subject this legislation to the scrutiny that any proposal this far-reaching deserves.

SB 1 proposes to give each eligible student an average of $9,000 to use at any other public or private school that is willing to take them. Over the course of the first 3 years of the program, this will cost the state several hundred million dollars. The first obvious question is where all of that money is going to come from. "School-choice" advocates say it will follow the child from the old school to the new.

The problem with that is that the old school will not save $9,000 when the student leaves. Most of the costs of running a public school are fixed. If a child leaves, you still need the same teachers, you still need to heat the building, pay the nurse, hire a security guard, etc. So if more money is taken from the school than is saved by the child leaving, the old school is left worse off than before: poorer, and with fewer resources per child for those left behind. This is particularly important because the bill creates a structure where the overwhelming majority of children won't actually get to "choose" anything and will instead remain at their current school.

The bill says a student can use the voucher at either another public school or a private one. But no school is required to accept any child. Both public and private schools are not only free to set their own criteria for admission; they are free to not accept vouchers at all.

In the case of private schools, most charge far more than $9,000 per year. Supporters of SB 1 do not explain how the "low-income" people eligible for vouchers would come up with the additional thousands of dollars they would need to "choose" to go to their favorite private school. Further, it is highly unlikely that those private schools with strict academic or performance standards will alter those in order to participate in a voucher program. So even if such schools do participate, only the top students of any given school are likely to be accepted, leaving the rest of the students exactly where they were.

Similarly, public schools are also likely to accept few, if any, children with vouchers. We are facing dramatic cuts in state aid to public education. In this climate, "better" public schools are unlikely to subsidize the education of many students from outside of their districts. Who will pay the difference between the $9,000 voucher and the $20,000 or more that most of the better public schools spend per child now? Absent a source of those additional funds, most public schools will, quite reasonably, use their resources to educate the children of their own taxpayers.

The tuition at some (but certainly not all) religious schools is low enough that the proposed voucher would cover it. But putting aside the constitutionality or wisdom of using taxpayer dollars to fund specific Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or other religious education, this will also not be an option for most low-income children. Parochial schools have been closing all across Pennsylvania. There are now 35 counties without any such schools at all. It is unlikely that the remaining religious schools will actually have room to educate more than a tiny percentage of the tens of thousands of children eligible for vouchers each year.

There are many other questions raised by this voucher proposal, including whether schools accepting the vouchers would be required to comply with Federal legislation regarding children with special needs, or what level of accountability will be imposed on now unaccountable private schools who start taking state money. But for me, the key concern is that we don't end up subsidizing a few children to go to private school by depleting our public schools. If we create a system where the slogan "my-child, my choice" is an empty false promise, and results in most children being relegated to schools that we incrementally abandon, we will have failed our children utterly and robbed our future of its greatest potential.

Daylin

Our utterly stupid, vapid, idiotic and not very smart campaigns

2010-11-24T08:56:00.000-08:00

(if you would like a personal reply to a comment, please include your E-mail address)

Howdy!
Some things are better with time. Moldy cheese improves with age (although I'm told moldy meat does not). And it's not only pungent dairy products. Communications technology continues to improve. Just last night I watched 4 different reality shows about "little people". Just think: Ulysses Grant lived and died without ever seeing the daily trials and tribulations of a 3 foot tall couple making chocolate pretzels. Maybe his sadness, longing and regret are what made him die so young.

One thing that is not getting better is our political discourse. The recent campaigns on the federal level were disheartening enough. Although I did enjoy the TV ads enough to get a special application for my iPhone where the faces of my family members continuously morph into Nancy Pelosi. But I'm going to focus on the state-legislative races, which I watched much more closely.

Up until recently, our state legislative campaigns were banal, soulless, witless affairs. They basically only focused on one issue: TAXES. Every candidate was against them, everyone's opponent was not only for them, but had personally raised them, as if Harry Potter had taken his wand and said "Taxonimous Raiserosa".

There were three basic lines of attack in the tax wars.
1. Number of times:

"While on the Bird-In-Hand School Board, my opponent raised taxes 2,455 times, and then...he raised them again!
2. How high:
"My opponent introduced a bill which would have raised taxes by Infinity. That's right, INFINITY!
3. On what:
"My opponent is a bastard! He even raised taxes on Lipton's Cup-O-Soup. See! A

Bastard!!"

Of course, many of these claims were not true. I mean what kind of a bastard would raise taxes on Lipton's Cup-O-Soup?? But even to the extent they were true, no context was ever provided. Maybe taxes needed to go up. Maybe there was a deficit, or there was a need for funds to provide vital human services. These were nothing but brain-dead, empty, pandering campaigns. But again, those were the good old days.

Now, demagoging over TAXES has been replaced with with even more disheartening demagoging over PERKS. Virtually every single ad or mailing in every single state legislative race can be synopsized as follows:
"If you elect me, I will not accept any perks. I will not take a car (even if it is cheaper for the taxpayers than getting mileage) and I will not take per diems (even if they are cheaper for the taxpayers than receipt-based reimbursements). I will never vote for or accept a pay raise. In fact, I won't take any salary. I'll starve, and make damn sure my kids do too. Plus, if I get sick, I won't accept health care. In fact, I will pay the doctor NOT to treat me out of my own pocket."

"But I won't stop there. I won't take a pension. My sole plan for retirement is to wake up each morning and say "Oh Crap, I don't have any money" and then eat a bowl of moist poison. Further, if it gets cold during my term, I will not turn on the heat. Legislators do not deserve heat. And I will never accept a meal of any kind. I will eat nothing but old Skippy Super-Crunchy peanut butter. And I give you my word that I don't like crunchy stuff."

"My opponent on the other hand accepted a tax-payer funded masseuse (assuming his secretary is a masseuse). And he did it in the middle of the night! (It's always the middle of the night somewhere). He also voted to give himself a salary, claiming that his family wanted to...and I'm not making this up...EAT! That's right, he is using your hard-earned tax dollars to stuff his kid's face with formula. Has he no shame?"

Now, you are entitled to your views as to whether legislators actually get exorbitant perks (of course, if your view is "Yes" then you are entitled to hold incorrect views). But regardless, is this really the most, in fact, the only important issue we should be talking about??

Let me illustrate what I mean. Did you know that in Pennsylvania, 25% of our fellow citizens live in poverty. Tens of thousands of children go to bed hungry each night, and studies show that some kids are failing in school because they suffer from malnutrition. Mal-Freaking Nutrition!! Did you hear any candidate tell you what he or she (or he/she) would do about that?

How about Transportation? We have 14 billion dollars in unmet transportation needs, including bridges rated far more dangerous than the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota a couple of years ago. Did you get any mail about that? Some people can light their tap water on fire. Did we discuss that at all? Celine Dion does concerts right here in PA! Who the hell is putting a stop to that??

In one campaign this year a candidate got reimbursed for a meal, and on the receipt was a charge for a Mojito. A Mojito is a Cuban Alcoholic Beverage which was apparently invented by Fidel Castro himself in his early bar-tending days.

This candidate's opponent spent about a half a million dollars talking about the Mojito. It was really the only issue in the campaign. For a half million dollars, not only could you talk about poverty in that district, you could SOLVE poverty in that district!

When I ran for the Senate 2 years ago, a similar amount of money was spent talking about how I got a "luxury" car. I'm not sure what the definition of "luxury" is, but I'm pretty sure it involves not stalling out whenever one stops at a traffic light. But given that everything is called "luxury" now, including any apartment with an indoor toilet and any hotel where the rats are unarmed, I guess the car thing was fair. In fact, I'm typing this BLOG entry on my new luxury keyboard.

The point is that we all should be troubled by how low, baseless, and just plain stupid our politics are becoming. From my perspective, if you have some ideas on how to make sure our kids get a good education, or walk to school in safety, or get breakfast occasionally, I don't care if you spend your entire staff budget on back-waxing. Put another way, I want to talk about real issues, not these faux issues which cover up how utterly vapid some of our candidates are.

A couple of days ago was the anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy. Once he gave a speech about how much we share even with people we disagree with. He said:
"For in the final analysis, our most basic common link, is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breathe the same air, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal.

Why give a speech like this when you can talk about your opponent's Mojito?

Daylin

Sliming Lincoln

2010-11-01T13:12:00.000-07:00

(If you want a personal reply to a comment, please include an e-mail address)
Howdy!

           I don't go looking for trouble. I tend not to buy pinatas filled with angry hornets, and I rarely shout at a group of Hells Angels "Hey, you guys don't look like you could kick the crap out of anybody!" For the most part, so long as I have a comfortable chair, a good cup of chai tea and a Bengals game to watch, I'm happy. Oh, and smelts. I need some fried smelts. Plus it doesn't hurt to be getting a shiatsu massage. And a live Klezmer band is always nice. Also, a disco ball, and nunchucks, just in case. The point is, I'm usually a pretty contented guy.

            The same thing is true in my career. I don't go around looking to investigate people or point out their personal foibles. Ken Starr is not my hero (except of course for the haircut) and if I somehow ever gained subpeona power the only person I would grill would be whoever it was that gave Celine Dion a record contract.

             Last Thursday was no different. I was just sitting in my office doing what I usually do, drinking cans of red bull and wondering what it would be like to be a hamster, when one of my staffers brought to my attention the crazed rantings of one Kaukab Siddique.

             Mr. Siddique is a literature professor at Lincoln University, which is a state-related and supported school in Chester County. But unlike most literature professors, Mr. Siddique is interested in more than pretending that Beowulf is a BLAST to read. It seems Mr. Siddique enjoys mixing a little Mein Kampf in with his Shakespeare and Chaucer. Specifically, Mr Siddique has either publically said or written the following:

= ON ISRAEL - We must stand united to defeat, destroy and dismantle Israel. We must Unite against this hydra-headed monster that lives in Tel Aviv.

= ON The HOLOCAUST - The Auschwitz "gas chambers" story has been meticulously rebutted and destroyed...Don't take the Holocaust myth lightly, it is Israel's milk cow...The concentration camp photos show emaciated inmates as well as piles of bodies. These were from starvation and disease caused by allied bombing. The German's behavior was so good that Ellie Weisel left with the Germans when the Russians advanced towards the camp. He also wrote that the Nazis were really the victims of World War 2.

= On AMERICAN JEWS - We can see how you Jews operate. You kill, rape, destroy...Jews have taken over America by immoral and devious means. They control the government, the media, education, libraries, book chains, banks, Hollywood and Madison Avenue.

           As you can see, Mr. Siddique is quite the literature professor. He is also quite the conspiracy theorist. He makes Glen Beck look like Allistaire Cooke. But knowing this, what should be done?

           To begin with, it does seem legitimate to question whether we really should be spending tax-payer's money to fund the salary of the President of the local Third Reich Fan Club. At a time when we are cutting such basic programs as child-nutrition, environmental protection, and politician junketeering, can we really afford to subsidize dramatic readings of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?
        Of course, this has to be juxtaposed against the back-drop of academic freedom. Professors should generally have the right to express unpopular, off-the-wall, even bat-shit crazy opinions. I once had a professor claim that he heard voices talking to him from some big guy up in the sky. Admittedly, it was a religion professor, but still.

      But as Danger Mouse once said (I think it was him) "you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts". A professor does not have the right to purvey false factual information to their students. A geography professor cannot teach that the world is flat. A professor of "Elizabethan England" cannot adopt the perspective that Elizabeth never existed, and "there's no such stinkin' thing as England".

       Similarly, if Mr. Siddique just purveyed his own unique brand of hate to drunk guys at the local sports bar, that is very different than if he actually used his classroom for the same purpose. "OK kids, tomorrow we'll cover chapter 5 of Wuthering Heights, where Heathcliffe embraces Cathy, symbolizing the Jews' hold on the stock market". Which is closer to what is happening? We're still investigating.

       The other thing to consider is the noble historical role of Lincoln University. Lincoln was the first degree-issuing university in the world to provide a higher education to black students. The first university in the world to provide a higher education to white students was...every other university in the world!

       Lincoln can take pride in the fact that such notables as Thurgood Marshall, Langston Hughes and Cab Calloway graduated there. Also, Sarah Palin did not, which they can also take great pride in. I am personally a big fan of Lincoln and I worry in this time of extremely tight budgets and demands to cut everything, it might be harder to get legislative support for their subsidy given Professor Himmler's remarks.

      It is profoundly ironic that Siddique has chosen a university that was founded on the ideals of equality and understanding (and that inexplicably gave him a paying job) as a platform for his hate. He is not only biting the hand that feeds him, he is smearing it in slime.

Daylin

Christine O'Donnell's Evolution

2010-09-27T09:08:00.000-07:00

(If anyone would like a personal reply to a comment on this Blog, please include an E-mail address in your message.)

Howdy!

It is by now a cliche to say that Christine O'Donnell is the gift that keeps giving. I don't mean the "gift that keeps giving" part. I mean the "Christine O'Donnell is the gift that keeps giving" part. By now that whole sentence has been repeated so often that it is itself a cliche.

We all know that Christine wants to crack down on masturbation (insert your own 2,145 jokes here), and would happily tell the Nazi soldiers exactly where Anne Frank is hiding, because "lying [even to Nazis] is bad". Specifically she said that "God would find a way for her to tell the truth" in the Anne Frank scenario. And if the truth is that Anne Frank is hiding upstairs, that's just unfortunate. (My religion teaches me that in that situation God would scream "Lie to them you zombie-freak!)

I would note that God did not find a way for her to tell the truth when she said for years that she was a college graduate. You see, that was true except for the part about graduating from college. So to recap, lying to Nazis....bad. Lying on your resume...part of God's plan.

A newly released video tape shows Christine arguing that "evolution is a myth" because she sees no evidence that apes are still evolving into humans. And she has apparently really, really looked. She once spent 4 hours at the zoo watching a group of apes very closely, and not one of them turned into Ryan Seacrest. Although she did leave to get a soft pretzel and think chaste thoughts for 10 minutes and when she came there was a janitor that wasn't there before. Where did he come from? Who can say?

The real issue is that evolution conflicts with Christine's religious beliefs. And apparently when any scientific assertion (the world is older than 6,000 years, the world is not flat, etc.) conflicts with her subjective view of religion, then religion must prevail. Fair enough. I have my own subjective beliefs for which there is no evidence (me having hair like Link on the Mod-Squad for example). It's a free country. People can believe what they want.

But what troubles me is when people actually try to make scientific arguments for what they believe in contradiction to all scientific evidence. I guess they feel it makes it more credible for them to make science-y arguments for implausible things. Hence Christine's "Look at him, that monkey's not evolving" argument. Of course, carried to its logical extreme, the personal observation argument would lead one to lots of interesting conclusions. Such as:

= I've never seen milk churned, so butter must come from Dairy Fairies.

= Have you ever seen microwaves? Me either, so don't try to tell me there aren't people in the TV set.

= I never see the sun at night. They must hide it in a warehouse in Brooklyn.

= I've never witnessed someone buying a Celine Dion album, so it simply doesn't happen (oh if that were only true!)

The origins of life in particular cause people to lose perspective. The same people who find "flaws" in science of evolution, have no problem believing that one day there was an open field, and literally the next day - POOF!! There is a brand new full-grown water buffalo who has had no parents. Clearly, there are no scientific flaws in THAT theory.

The desire to imbue the patina of "science" onto a religious belief is so strong, that there are entire institutions dedicated to the endeavor. For example, there is a museum in Kentucky called "Answers in Genesis" which claims that "overwhelming evidence proves" that the earth is 6,000 years old. They admit dinosaurs existed, but claim they lived side-by-side with people. There is even an exhibit of a man putting a saddle on a T-Rex, which, if it actually happened I'm guessing led to the invention of the phrase "Holy SHIT"! and the first "things to avoid" list.

The fact is that for many people who hold religious beliefs, there is literally nothing scientific you could show them to make them abandon those beliefs. If the good Lord himself came down and said "Listen, people, evolution really happened" these people would call it a socialist plot, which becomes all the more plausible if the person claiming that is wearing tea bags on his hat. These folks are not open to evidence or being convinced. Again, more power to them (so long as it's not literal power, like in government).
But it is one thing to reject science. It is quite another to try to make up science to fit beliefs that have no relation to science. The Flat Earth Society, which still exists claims that the earth is flat and "heaven is about 4,000 miles away. The fact that you can fly east from New York and eventually land in New York from the west doesn't impress it's founder Charles K. Johnson. And from his front yard, it's hard to argue. I wonder if Christine O'Donnell is afraid of falling off of the edge.
Daylin

Anti-Defamation League Goes Pro

2010-08-11T13:31:00.000-07:00

Sometimes in life, you have to take on your own side when they are wrong. I have never been afraid to do that. I even went after the "Daylin Leach Fan Club" for the outrage of not existing. It is important to do this out of a respect for intellectual fairness. Plus, it helps keep you awake. I mean making fun of...for example....Sarah Palin is like shooting fish in a barrel. And by that I mean a whole bunch of very large fish, nailed to the bottom of a very small barrel, so they keep still.
I like to think that opposing religious discrimination is one of the things that most motivates me in politics. Of course I also like to think that I'm "Hunky", but my grip on reality will be the subject of a future Blog. So you'd think that a group like the Anti-Defamation League would be right in my wheel house. Plus, their self-professed mission statement says "ADL's ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." Plus, I'm Jewish, so I'm entitled to free Gefilte Fish at all the meetings.

So Groovy. If any religion anywhere is being discriminated against, or any injustice against any group of people anywhere is being perpetrated, or if Celine Dion starts to record a new album, the ADL will stand up against it. (They don't actually mention the Celine Dion thing on their website, but it should go without saying.) Sadly, recent history suggests that this assumption is not true. On the contrary, on two recent critical tests of their commitment to their basic principles, the ADL has actually come down on the side of religious discrimination and injustice.

The first issue was the Armenian Genocide. For those who do not know, 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks from 1915-1924 in an effort to eliminate Armenians as a race from that region of the world. Turkey, not embracing the "confess and reconcile" model of Germany, has opted instead for the less satisfying "deny and arrest those who speak the truth" model. In 2007, the US Congress was considering a resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide. Apparently they had already recognized that the sky was blue.

Be that as it may, the national ADL issued a statement OPPOSING, (no, not a really bad typo which was meant to say "supporting") the passage of that resolution. Abraham Foxman, the then head of the ADL said essentially that since Turkey and Israel get along so well, we are willing to go along with their equivalent of holocaust-denial.

I would point out that Turkey's "friendship" toward Israel has now taken the form of boycotts and bizarre anti-Israeli rantings. Turkey has been completely unreliable and in fact hostile to Israel. And with frends like that ...actually, I'm a friend like that, so I probably shouldn't say anything.

But more importantly, can you imagine Mr. Foxman tolerating the US denying the Holocaust because Germany sends a ping-pong team here? I know I would tie myself to the gate of the White House, this time in protest, and not just to meet girls like I did in high school. It seems like there should be one test when determining whether to recognize a genocide, and that should be, was there a genocide? The test should NOT be: Was the genocide perpetrated by a country we like or don't like?

More recently the ADL weighed in on another issue of religious discrimination, but sadly, again, on the side of that discrimination. It seems that a group of Moslems wish to build a Mosque within a few blocks of Ground Zero in New York. Some support the Mosque. Some have objected saying that it would be an insult to build an Islamic house of worship near where so many died on September 11th. Still others only open the newspapers to the horoscopes and believe that it matters whether or not you were born under the sign of a crab.
The ADL stood on principle here. Unfortunately, it was the principle they were founded to oppose. They said that the Mosque should not be built because "it might cause pain" to families of 9-11 victims. A church would be fine there, as would a synagogue, or an Ashram, or presumably a Dank Hell-Cave of the Dark Prince. Just not a Mosque.

Now there are many places where it would be inapropriate to build a House of Worship. The passing lane of the PA turnpike comes to mind, as does Lindsey Lohan's "Party Room". However, any place that you can build any house of worship should be open to all religions.

The Moslem religion did not kill 3,000 people on September 11th. 19 pig-poop crazy Moslems did. They no more represent their religion than the self-proclaimed Christians who burnt crosses on the lawns of black people in the south represent Christianity. Would we say that we can't build a church in Alabama because "it might cause pain" to victims of the Klan?

If the ADL objects to historically accurate recognition of religious persecution, and actually supports religious discrimination, it's hard to understand what their on-going purpose could be. It would be like the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals coming out in favor of Moose-Catipulting, and dropping live turkeys out of airplanes like sacks of wet cement. I'm done writing checks to the ADL, and the fact that I didn't in the past, and if I had the checks would not have cleared doesn't lessen the impact of my protest.
Daylin

Grand Jury: Inaccurate Information Leads to Poor Recommendations

2010-06-11T10:10:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Bonusgate Grand Jury issued a report which has
received a great deal of media attention. This report had nothing to
do with the specific criminal charges against specific individuals
they investigated. This report was an extremely rare supplemental
grand pronouncement on the state of the our government, along with
numerous recommendations for restructuring the entire legislature.
Because I believe that the methodology, the conclusions and the
recommendations of the report are, in many respects, dead wrong, I
felt compelled to comment.

First, let me concede that bashing the legislature is
effortless. Like any profession, we have our bad apples and it is lazy
but easy to generalize their conduct to everyone. Further, because
virtually every citizen is unhappy with some of our policy decisions,
it's not difficult for a candidate for Governor or other office to
glean votes by pandering to those who think that only people who are
corrupt or stupid could make the decisions we make.

That said, it is important that the following be said: The
overwhelming majority of Pennsylvania's legislators, on both sides of
the aisle, are extremely smart, hard-working, completely honest people
who are doing their level best to make Pennsylvania a better place.
The notion that legislators are, (except for rare exceptions) corrupt
in any way is plain false. And thus any "reforms" based on this notion
are ill-grounded.

The Grand Jury spent months investigating the criminal conduct
of a few legislators. It is understandable that with this as their
focus, they became cynical. They didn't spend a great deal of time
talking to the 99% of law-makers not accused of a crime about what
they do. Why would they? But because the Grand Jury's methodology was
incomplete given their self-appointed role as the re-inventors of
state government, their factual findings were often inaccurate. And
given that, the recommendations based upon those findings were, for
the most part, ill-conceived.

An example of sloppy factual assertion appears on Page 6 of
the report, which says that the "overwhelming majority" of legislators
care more about serving themselves than serving their constituents.
There is no support offered for such a mind-reading claim and after 8
years as a legislator, I know it simply isn't true. They also say
being a PA legislator did not qualify as full-time work. Wrong again.
Most legislators spend 70-80 hours per week, every week at their jobs
and still struggle to keep up.

Inaccurate information leads to poor recommendations. Sure,
some of the technical suggestions, such as consolidating House
printing offices might have merit, but their broad policy suggestions
would do great harm to our state if implemented.

For example, a part-time legislature is a terrible idea. We
make decisions affecting tens of billions of dollars in complicated
policy areas such as transportation, health care, criminal justice and
economic development. In some matters, such as abortion, the death
penalty, and access to medical care our decisions literally have life
and death consequences. Do you really want people making these
decisions who just dropped by on their way to taking a deposition or
after their shift at Macy's? Shouldn't we demand our legislators
actually take the time to read about issues, go to hearings, meet with
advocates, tour facilities and do all of things that require a
full-time commitment?

In some cases the Grand Jury's recommendations don't even make
sense on their own terms. They bemoan the fact that House members have
to run for re-election every two years and suggest expanding their
terms to 4 years. But then, "to limit the damage they can do" they
suggest allowing a recall of legislators. Which means that House
members will be running not every 2 years, but every day as those who
didn't vote for the member in the first place constantly put recall
questions on the ballot.

Similarly, the Grand Jury recommends that legislators forfeit
pay if the budget is not passed on time. This is perhaps the most
nonsensical and plain awful idea of all. The Grand Jury says it wants
law-makers to think about their constituents and not themselves, and
then suggests a scheme that will force the exact opposite. If there is
a budget that is bad for my constituents, I should feel free to vote
"NO" on that budget without worrying that I won't be able to provide
for my family. We would literally be paying legislators if they vote
Yes on a bill and not paying them if they vote No. Usually this is
called bribery, which doesn't sound like the best reform idea.

Space precludes a comprehensive reply to the Grand Jury
report. But it is worth repeating that while legislature-bashing may
be good fun, it ceases to be harmless when it results in pernicious
policies. It may not be popular to stand up for the good people doing
important work in Harrisburg. But if more of us don't do it, our
institution and the people of our Commonwealth will suffer.

Weed All Feel Better

2010-05-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

This week I introduced both my medical marijuana bill and my anti-Arizona immigration bill. My special in-box where all the mail with the terms "Communist" and "Scuzzball" in it is directed was getting depleted, and I felt the need to replenish.

I have previously blogged about immigration and how all those poor Nordic people in Arizona will be constantly beset with demands for their immigration papers. As a result, I've become a hero in Norway. They named me an "Honorary Norm" and sent me a large lute-fish. Plus, I've been told that my money is no good in Tvedestrand.

Medical Marijuana however remains unblogged. I would note at this point that those on non-medicinal marijuana might point out that if you say "unblogged" enough times, it doesn't sound like a real word. Plus, it's amazing how all five fingers can move in different directions at the same time.

First, some historical background: Marijuana was a very common and well respected medicine prior to 1937. Cannabis was the third most prescribed ingredient and was in 28 separate patented medicines that physicians routinely prescribed. Pretty impressive for a drug that causes people to name rock bands "Psychedelic Purple Castle Blob" and write songs called "Love is Mustard Frenzy".

This all changed in 1937 when a guy named Harry Anslinger, an obscure bureaucrat in the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, led a fervent drive to get Marijuana banned. He had a lot of interesting ideas. For example, he felt that Marijuana caused people to murder each other. The only thing I've seen pot cause to be murdered is a bag of sour cream and onion potato chips.

Mr. Anslinger also enjoyed injecting racial themes into his screeds. He said that pot caused "Negroes to behave disrespectfully to white people" and that black teenagers who smoked pot with white ones gained "sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result...pregnancy." I'm not an expert on what causes pregnancy, although I've seen some very moving demonstrations involving hand-puppets. But I'm pretty sure that it's not tales of racial oppression.

In any event this led to the passage of the "Marijuana Tax Act" which essentially banned all use and possession of pot. So just to be clear, the state of the law is that heroin, Oxycontin, morphine, etc. all have legally prescribed uses. But our little green plant friend is banned for all purposes.

Much of this is based on a deliberate demonization of cannabis. It started with Anslinger, but was perpetuated by movies such as "Reefer Madness" and politicians such as Spiro Agnew. People were told that Pot was addictive, made you insane and violent, and was a "gateway drug" to the harder stuff, which incidentally you could still get a prescription for.

It is obviously easy to ridicule the notion that pot makes you insane or violent. I've actually been with people who smoked pot. I did it myself, as Bill Clinton said "a time or two." I even inhaled. In fact, I never exhaled. So I think I have some credibility when I say that unless you define "insanity" as a desire to listen to Pink Floyd's "Careful with that Axe Eugene" over and over again, it simply isn't a by-product of pot.

And as for "violent,"please. It was hard enough to get people motivated enough to turn off the blaring smoke alarm or to turn over the skipping record. And the "gateway drug" argument is particularly weak. They would say that "80% of people who shoot heroin smoked pot earlier in their lives." That may be true. But probably 95% of heroin users drank milk earlier in their lives, and certainly 100% at some point heard Celine Dion sing and said "what the hell is this crap?" That does not establish a cause and effect.

For years the government and the medical establishment aggressively opposed efforts to even conduct peer reviewed tests on the safety and effectiveness of marijuana. But eventually, the political winds changed and the anecdotal stories became too pervasive. Now there are hundreds of studies and thousands of articles in medical journals saying that marijuana is demonstrably and often uniquely helpful in treating the effects of chemotherapy, glaucoma, neuromuscular diseases, auto-immune diseases, etc.

Today, the arguments against giving sick people safe and effective medicine that will help them and make them feel better are merely updated versions of the lame refer-madness wives tales of yesteryear. Lets review a couple of them.

Opponents say that if you smoke marijuana you run the risk of hurting your lungs. Again, may I just point out for a moment that cigarettes are actually legal. It's true! Also, if the powers that be were so concerned about your lungs they might consider reducing the choking toxins they spew into the air manufacturing everything from hula-hoops to those other round things that look like hula-hoops but aren't.

Also, if you have, say...terminal lung cancer, the fact that smoking pot to help you not waste away might someday lead an increased risk of contracting lung cancer is kind of an empty threat. Finally, we routinely treat people with drugs far more dangerous and toxic than pot. You can't fatally overdose on pot, you can't become physically addicted. The side effects of pot compared to narcotics are next to non-existent. In short, its pretty difficult to say that by keeping medicinal pot illegal you are doing the patient a favor.

Opponents also say that sick people might not use it to treat their illness, but to get high. Again, this is a ridiculous argument. People with horrific diseases don't want to get high, they want to feel better. Plus, the alternatives also get you "high", although with, for example, Oxycontin, it is less of a "I am at one with the world and love everybody" kind of high and more of a "I want to pull my head off of my neck and light it on fire" kind of high.

I would also note that 15 states plus DC have already legalized this. This list includes some pretty wacky states. Want an example: Arizona, which recently passed our previously mentioned "Show-me-your-papers-Jose, and-put-your-papers-away-Hamlet"; Arizona, which recently passed a Birther bill requiring presidential candidates to show their birth certificates to get on the ballot in Arizona, because do we really know where Rutherford B. Hayes was born?; Arizona, which has a law saying you get 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus (true). THAT ARIZONA, has legalized medical marijuana.

The fact is that if it was me, or you, or anyone we cared about, we'd want them to get the help they need, Spiro Agnew not withstanding. It's time for us to let patients and their physicians make these medical decisions without interference from politicians fighting some version of a culture war.

Daylin

Norwegian in Arizona

2010-05-10T10:43:00.000-07:00

Howdy

a few weeks ago, my life of glitz and glamour brought me to the Pennsylvania Turnpike. I was heading to Stroudsburg to participate in a debate early the next morning on the merits (utterly lacking) of a Constitutional Convention. I had grown tired of my book on tape. The "Unabridged Oxford Dictionary" started well. But the time we got into the L's, I felt I needed a break. So after "Lappet - The fold of a Garment," I turned on the radio.

I listened to a press conference given by the Jan Brewer, the Governor of Arizona. She had just signed an immigration bill which requires the police to question, and demand ID papers from anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally. She claimed that she didn't think this would lead to racial profiling. But I was incredulous (good thing I had already listened to the "I" chapter on my dictionary tape).

I do try not to be cynical. (I also try not to be balding, with equal success.) I'd like to believe that just because Arizona is on the Mexican border, and that Mexicans sometimes have darker skin, that all hispanics and dark skinned people won't become targets of the new law. I'm struggling to believe that the following conversations will be common in Arizona Police Stations:

Booking Sargent

What do we have tonight?

Police Officer

Brought in a bunch of guys I suspect of being illegals.

When asked, they couldn't produce their papers.

Booking Sargent

Ok, who's first?

Police Officer

Aðalbjörg Hólmfríður.

Booking Sargent

How do you spell that?

Police Officer

Just like it sounds.

Booking Sargent

2 oomlouts and 2 accent graves?

Police Officer

Exactly. He's from Iceland. Says he's flew here.
But I bet he hopped the fence.

Booking Sargent

From Iceland?

Police Officer

Yeah. We got a fence with Iceland, right?

Booking Sargent

Yeah, I think so. Who else you got?

Police Officer

Arnbjorg Fritjof

Booking Seargent

Norweigian huh? Why'd you pull him over?

Police Officer

Well, he looked so pale. Plus, he was carrying
Otter Cheese

Booking Sargent

Dead giveway.

Police Officer

And of course, no papers.

Booking Sargent

Next?

Police Officer

Jyrki Pong Pong Jaakopi

Booking Sargent

Where from?

Police Officer

Finland

Booking Sargent

What made you suspect he wasn't from
here?

Police Officer

I heard him singing the Finish National
Anthem.

Booking Sargent

How did you know it was the Finish
National Anthem?

Police Officer

Not too many songs start "Oh Hail
Majestic Finland!"

Booking Sargent

Good Point.

While I am hopeful, I must confess that I am not optimistic. The law says that being a member of any racial or ethnic group cannot be the "sole" reason to detain someone, but it can be a reason. In other words, if you see a Hispanic person, you can conclude, at least in part, that this person could be illegal.

This is very troubling. First, the overwhelming majority of people of Hispanic origin are here legally. Yet because their skin is a bit browner, they will be required, under the law, to carry ID with them wherever they go. So if a fitness-conscious young, legal Hispanic man goes for a jog, bringing nothing more than his Green Apple flavored running goo, and his I-POD loaded with Ethel Merman (a favorite among young Hispanic males I'm led to believe) then he risks being arrested.

I'm sure that everything will be straightened out after only a few hours in the local jail. Once his family is located and comes to the jail with documentation, everything will be coming up roses again. And I'm sure that Governor Brewer would have no problem with her children being detained and taken to jail because of their ethnicity. But then again, that's probably not something she's going to have to worry about, is it?

Wilkow's False Literalism

2010-04-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

Howdy!

I have discovered that one of the many collateral benefits of being mentioned on extremist right-wing talk radio is that you subsequently receive a lot of extremist right-wing blog comments and E-mails. This has several advantages. First, you know that your computer is indeed working. You also have the opportunity bask in the warm glow of the knowledge that there are many people far more insane than you. Also, I think I get USAir miles, but I'm not sure.

Because most of the people leaving messages on my blogs are anonymous, I have no way of replying to them directly. All I can do is post another blog. Either that or go to a Sarah Palin Rally and just start chatting with the all of the "Patriots" who "love America" but hate almost everyone in it. But if I want someone to wink at me and say "you betcha" a lot, I'll just hang out with "Squawkers" the plastic parrot my wife gave my for my birthday. So instead, I will reply to one point that many of my right-wing friends made in their replies to my blog.

To recap, I said that Mr. Wilkow referred to gays as "filthy sodomites". He said that he said "vile sodomites" instead (which is actually worse, if you are filthy, at least you can clean yourself up. Vile is forever) and that in any case, he wasn't referring to all gays, just one named Perez Hilton. This argument was picked up by his followers many of whom wrote a version of the following to me:

"Hey, you America hating hippie. Are you stupid, or dumb, or not very intelligent, I can't figure it out. I say stupid, but my girlfriend says dumb. My mother in law however thinks its more like an idiot...(this went on for a while). Andrew Wilkow, is absolutely right about Perez Hilton. He was not being anti-gay. Perez Hilton commits Sodomy, so he is a "sodomite", and Andrew thinks he is vile, so he is a "vile sodomite". See Andrew was technically correct. And my sister just called and said you were more of a dufus than a moron...etc.

So the argument here is that Mr. Wilkow is literally correct and therefore not being offensive at all. This is of course nonsense. But lets deconstruct it a bit.

First, before we even get into parsing the phrase, one wonders why Mr. Hilton's sexuality is even relevant. I do not know anything about Mr. Hilton. I understand he is some sort of gossip columnist. I do not read gossip columnists. Until Lindsey Lohan, or Heidi Montag or Brangelina or Bennifer start caring about my personal life, I'm not really that interested in theirs. So I have no brief for Mr. Hilton.

But whatever it is he did to piss off Mr. Wilkow (and based on Wilkow's reaction to me, it was probably saying something less than worshipful about Mr. Wilkow), it probably had nothing to do with who Mr. Hilton sleeps with. So Wilkow's choice to use any term for "gay" in connection to Hilton would be a homophobic statement. Why mention it if it isn't relevant unless you think it will cast Hilton in a negative light.

But more to the point, lets look at the term "sodomite". That is a pejorative term. Gay people do not refer to themselves as sodomites. No mainstream politician or media refers to them by that term. Only people who don't like gay people use that term.

The only other time I've heard the word is in the context of religious-right preachers talking about how gay people will all go to hell (as opposed to Pat Robertson, who swindles sick people by claiming he can heal them through their television, for whom God has prepared a special place of eternal splendor and bliss!).

It is true that when one hears the term one recognizes that it refers to gay people. I am Jewish. Historically the term "Kike" has referred to people like me. If you hear the term "Kike", you probably know the speaker is referring to a Jewish person. So if someone were to refer to a Shule-going individual as a "Vile Kike", you could argue that it is technically true. Similarly, someone could refer to Clarence Thomas as a "Vile N-Word", knowing that the N-Word is a well-known, if horrific term for black people. So you could argue that you are just being technically correct.

Along the same lines, since these folks argue that Mr. Perez does commit sodomy (I've never actually witnessed that, but I'll take their word for it) he can be appropriately referred to as a "sodomite" no matter what people think of that term. But aren't Arab-Americans insulted by people referring to them as "Camel-Jockeys". I suppose you can say that "jockeys technically ride animals" and that "camels are animals" and that some people living on the Arabian Peninsula ride camels, that using the term "Camel-Jockey" is just being literally accurate. But I wouldn't try it on a trip to Bahrain.

But could you seriously argue that you are not being offensive, hateful or bigoted? The short answer is No. Actually, the long answer is No too. So it is a bit disingenuous to say that Wilkow was just being informative when he chose to identify Mr. Hilton as gay and then use an offensive pejorative, prefaced by the term "vile". If a stupid dufus like me can put that together, surely an infallible genius, who is always right while we are always wrong could figure that out as well. And that's the end of the story.

Right Wing Radio Hate Part Deux

2010-04-20T14:49:00.000-07:00

Howdy!

OK, this is good. My fanatical followers (hi mom!) will remember that my last blog was about the hate speech that can be found at the outer fringes (or inner-fringes, or right smack in the middle...) of right-wing talk radio. I provided some examples of such vitriol from, among others, a radio host named Andrew Wilkow. I pointed out that he had referred to gay people as "filthy sodomites" and called poor people "parasites." I posted my blog and retired for my nightly Calgon bubble bath (pachysandra scented!)

This morning I leave a hearing on criminal justice in Philadelphia and lollop into my car for the 2 hour ride to Harrisburg. I turned on my Satellite radio. OK, I was listening to Dr. Phil if you must know. But about 10 minutes into my ride I get a call from someone who tells me I need to switch on Sirius Patriot, the right-wing talk channel.

I did, and the first thing I heard was someone screaming "What do you think of that Senator Daylin Leach" out of my speakers. And I thought, hey, wait a minute! How many Daylin Leaches could there be? And how many of them are Senators?? Four, five at the most? I began to think this might be about me.

It turns out that Mr. Wilkow had somehow gotten hold of my blog and was commenting on it. He then spent the next hour or so either replying to or referring to me. I must say that it made for most excellent listening for my long ride to Dauphin County.

I'd also note that for being a public figure who routinely calls other people names and attacks their patriotism, intelligence and motives, Mr. Wilkow has awfully thin skin. I mean, this may shock people, but I actually get a bit of criticism myself occasionally, on everything from my views on same-sex marriage to my wardrobe (OK, mostly my wardrobe). I don't stew about it for hours.

Even when folks called in on unrelated conspiracy theories, Wilkow would come back to me. So we heard a lot of phone calls like this:

Caller

Andrew, is it true that the Federal Reserve was

created by a satanic pact between Walter Mondale

and George Clooney?

Wilkow

Absolutely, to perpetuate Socialism. What do you think

of that, DAYLIN LEACH???

Or

Caller

Hey, Andrew. Love the show. Wasn't Nancy Pelosi

actually in the Russian Politburo from 1977-1982?

Wilkow

She sure was, to further Socialism. Do you get it,

SENATOR LEACH???

(Satire alert: If Mr. Wilkow is reading this, the above conservations were satire, and not meant to allege actual quotes. A difficult distinction to grasp, I acknowledge)

Be that as it may, lets explore the merits of what Mr. Wilkow said.

First, he took great umbrage because, as he put it, "I did not call gay people 'filthy sodomites'. I called Perez Hilton a "Vile Sodomite". Oh no. I missed up. My bad. He said "Vile Sodomites" not "Filthy Sodomites." I have wronged Mr. Wilkow. Because if he had said "Filthy Sodomites" that would have been bigoted, ugly, repulsive and sick. Whereas "Vile Sodomites" is a happy-go-lucky, not-offensive-at-all term of endearment.

And of course by saying "sodomites" I'm sure Mr. Wilkow was not referring to Mr Hilton being gay. He would never use this term as a nasty pejorative frequently used by gay-bashing bigots. He was probably referring to Hilton's hair-style or his taste in pungent cheeses.

I must hand it to Mr. Wilkow, this is a brilliant defense. I used it myself frequently when I practiced criminal law. I would just say to the jury "My client didn't shoot the victim in the head, he merely cut off the victim's head with a rotary saw." and the jury would say "Gosh, why didn't you say so sooner?" and set my man free.

Mr. Wilkow's second point was that he never said that poor people were "parasites" He actually did. I heard him. But his point remains the same. Mr. Wilkow never said poor people were "parasites." Instead, as he explained today, he merely said that poor people had a "parasitic relationship" to the rest of society. Wow.

It was quickly becoming clear to me that I was dealing with the master of distinctions without a difference ("I never said he was bald, I said he had no hair on his head!").

He went on to say that since poor people take more in programs than they pay in taxes than they rely on someone else for their survival, and that is parasitic. Anyone, he said, who relies on another is parasitic.

See that's not offensive at all. Lets think of other relationships where people rely on others, at least in part for survival. One example is a child who relies on his parents. And I know if you are like me, (and apparently Andrew) you refer to your children as your "little Parasites." Or maybe you have a cute little nick name for your tots, like "Parasitalopogus" or "my little tape-worm."

Another relationship where one relies on another for survival could be the relationship one has with aging parents, or maybe a disabled person. I suppose under Mr. Wilkow's definition, they are all parasitic (but not "parasites," lets be fair!) .

In truth, most people reliant on government help are children, the elderly, and the disabled. The overwhelming majority in fact. I know I'm talking crazy Socialistic Nazism here, but I view these people as my countrymen in need of aid, my brothers and sisters who should live of decency and dignity in the richest nation in the world, not as parasitic.

It would be nice, and more interesting radio frankly, if Mr. Wilkow would have people who actually make these points on his show. But sadly, almost all of the callers to these right-wing shows refuse to say anything more challenging to the host than "mega-dittos." And what's really tragic, is that this is how some people get all of their information. It's no wonder we have people whose taxes were cut, out on the street in three-corner colonial hats protesting "higher taxes".

Mr. Wilkow did make a promise, and I intend to hold him to it. He swore that when I run for reelection in 2012, he will come and campaign for my opponent. I did pretty well last election. I defeated a well-funded opponent by a little over 24 points. But with Mr. Wilkow's promise, I see a chance to do something that very few politicians are able to accomplish. I think that if Mr. Wilkow came to my district, I have a shot of actually winning my election unanimously.

I know that will be tough. I mean 99% would be guaranteed. But those last few votes; the lady whose gazebo I accidentally knocked over into her living room window, the guy I beat up in 5th grade, my opponent himself, I'll have to work really hard for them. But with Mr. Wilkow in my district, I just may be able to do it.

Right-Wing Talk Radio

2010-04-19T09:25:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, I treat myself to little gifts. I will see something and say to myself, "Do you deserve this and so much more Daylin? Yes Daylin, I think you do." My team of psychiatrists thinks I should put into my mind a "new tape". One that focuses more on "others" and less on "self". So I tried that. When I saw my friend had a new Satellite radio installed in his car, I played the new tape: "Do others think you deserve this and so much more Daylin? Yes Daylin, I think they do". And you know what, my psychiatrists were right. That did feel better.

So I got the Sirius Satellite Radio, which includes thousands of channels. For music there are all kinds of niche channels, including one that plays Bruce Springsteen and another that plays the Grateful Dead non-stop. My personal favorite is the Wang Chung channel where everybody gets to Wang Chung tonight and every night, all night long. But when I'm not listening to Wang Chung (or Wang and Chung individually, after the breakup) I find myself listening to a channel called "Sirius Patriot". This is the right-wing talk radio channel.

I expected to disagree with the commentary on the Patriot Channel. I'd heard Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly before. Sure, they brought the crazy with them in a big green duffel bag. But nothing prepared me for what I heard on Patriot. This was crazy unplugged. This was the unrated director's cut. This is not only your crazy uncle off of his meds, this was your crazy uncle on meth in a circus cannon. And when I start using metaphors that even I don't understand, you know things are getting out of hand.

The hosts on Patriot do not feel bound by the admittedly loose rules of broadcast television or radio. They feel no need to preface the list of people they hate with a pro-forma "I'm not saying I hate anybody". For example, there is a host named Andrew Wilkow who I sensed was possessed of some reluctance to support gay rights. My first clue was the fact that he refers to gay people as "Filthy Sodomites". At first I thought he was being ironic, like when I refer to Larry King as "an attractive youngster" (yeah, I do that a lot). But nope. He calls gay people "filthy sodomites" because, as he explains it, "they are filthy and commit sodomy". At least he's linguistically consistent.

One thing Mr. Wilkow is not is open to different perspectives. The slogan of his show, screamed at every commercial break is "We're right, they're wrong. End of Story!!, which I must say is more punchy and effective than the liberal equivalent often whispered on NPR, "We're intrepid, they're Jejune, lets start a dialogue!".

Subtlety is also elusive on shows hosted by people like Mark Levin and Mike Church, who feels that "Obama-bot-Zombies" (a great name for a ska band incidentally) are leading this country towards a "Nazi, Maoist Hellhole" with such radical proposals as marginally increasing the gas mileage of cars in a way the car companies have agreed to. I had no idea this was what Maoist Nazis were all about. I knew the Maoists liked hats, and massive, violent transfers of city-dwellers to agrarian collectives, using summary executions and planned starvation as a tool.

And as a Jew, I thought I was pretty clear on what the Nazis were all about. Who know both of these groups had, as their true agenda more accessible health care and better oversight of industrial pollution? I guess my German was just too poor to realize that "Mein Kampf translated into "My Arts Funding". Also, when you think of the jackbooted thugs of dictatorship, does Harry Reid really come to mind? Do you remember the old Romper Room game "Which of these things is not like the other"? Lets try that now. Which of these things just isn't the same:: Genghis Kahn, Caligula, Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Russ Feingold?

Of course, while hate courses through these shows, the Patriot hosts get very offended when you blame them for threats and violence. They are shocked and appalled by the suggestion that if they tell millions of people of varying degrees of sanity that Obama and the Democrats are trying to take their guns so they can round them up, steal all their money, give it to gay welfare recipients and then heard them, their families and all Christian "True Americans" into labor camps to support the Socialist Utopian Leviathan, that somebody listening might get pissed!

It's like when I was in third grade, and I'd tell the schoolyard Bully (which was his actual name) that the weakest kid in the class called him a wuss and said he could take him (I also did this in law school incidentally). The Bully would then beat up the weak kid to a pulp, and I would stomp on his glasses. I would then act SHOCKED when the teacher accused me of contributing to the violence. Then I'd cry, and the bully would beat me up, and the teacher would stomp on my glasses. Hence the team of psychiatrists we discussed earlier.

The simple fact is that the Andrew Wilkows and Glen Becks of the world are just ignorant demagogues who foreseeably, if not intentionally incite people to violence (and Sarah Palin is their less intelligent but more perky enabler) There have been others in history, but I had hoped and thought that America had matured beyond their ilk. Clearly I was wrong. But do we have an obligation to continually call these people out for what they are? Yes Daylin, I think we do.

This blog has moved

2010-04-05T09:57:00.001-07:00

This blog is now located at http://daylinl.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://daylinl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

A Primer: Why Not All Reform Is Good for PA

2010-04-05T09:26:00.001-07:00

There are, in this world, a number of things people just take for granted. The sky is blue, wheat is a plant, all of the proposed political reforms in Pennsylvania are good. The weird fact however is, that absolutely none of these pieces of conventional wisdom are at all true (except for the first two).

As a co-chair of the Senate Cost-Cutting Commission I have seen the hundreds of E-mails we solicited asking citizens to suggest ways to cut costs in state government. A percentage of E-mails are interesting, by which I mean BOTH kinds of interesting. The interesting that leads you to say "Wow, that's a really good idea", and the other kind of interesting which leads you to say "Wow, One of Xenu's Planets is missing some of its Body Thetans". But by far, the most common suggestions (about 8 out of ten) are some variation of the following:

"I have an idea on how to cut costs. How about we start by cutting legislator's pay...to ZERO!! Then, lets cut the size of the legislature, term-limit them, make them part-time, eliminate their pensions and their health care and stop reimbursing them for mileage and hotels. Then, when all that's done, lets cut the pipes on their water fountains. Who the hell are they to get water just because they are thirsty. And the heat, lets get rid of that too. Oh, and if there's a way to make their shoes too tight...etc."

I'm sure it feels good to bash legislators. We have chosen a profession where part of the job description is being called stupid, corrupt, insane, incompetent, smarmy perverts. People can even call us these things anonymously. There is something very empowering about sitting in your underwear in your mother's basement, eating Cheetos and typing your musings into a computer ("I SAID, I'll be done in a minute MOM!!"). Anyway, where was I? Oh yes...smarmy perverts. Right.

The problem with the "legislators are bad people" meme is that it is almost entirely untrue. And the "reforms" based on it are almost all really bad ideas which would do great damage to our state. I know this is not a popular position to take, but if I cared about being popular, I'd probably drop my "Apple Pie Sucks" crusade.

First, I've seen firsthand that the overwhelming majority of people you elect to represent you are very smart, extremely honest, competent, hard-working people who care a great deal about making Pennsylvania a better place. There are bad apples (which incidentally make bad pies) like there are in any profession. There are bad plumbers (see "Joe the...), bad butchers (see ...of Seville) and bad goat herders (see...uh...Harvey the Bad Goat Herder). But when the press write that the PA Legislature is corrupt, they are taking the bad exception and disingenuously making it the rhetorical rule.

Most of us have never given or received a bonus for political work and I frankly have never even been offered a bribe. Although people have offered me money to "go away and leave me alone" that pre-dates my political career and doesn't directly impact public policy. Further, the budget didn't pass late because we are lazy, or forgot about it. It passed late because we have divided government with sincere and strongly-felt disagreements about the role of government. In other words, the budget passed late because individual legislators were fighting to do what the people of their districts elected them to do, whether that be cutting taxes or fighting to save important programs.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against all reform. I believe that if we instituted 2 reforms, we would solve 90% of our political problems. Specifically, we need to end political gerrymandering (which is, incidentally, my bill) and publicly finance campaigns so elected officials don't have to ask people they represent for money. As for the rest of the reforms, here's a quick primer on why they are bad ideas:

Term Limits - It's amazing to me that people who spend so much time complaining that politicians have too much power, support this obscene power grab. I have never been to Venango County, mostly because they have an Apple Pie Festival each year and I can't be a part of such an abomination. But it seems to me that the people of Venango County should be the ones to pick their representatives, not me. If I voted for term limits, I'd be telling the Apple Pie Queen and the rest of the Venangoians that even if they like their Senator, I know better and I am going to prohibit them from choosing who they want.

Aside from being anti-democratic, term limits result in people running the legislature who have only been there for a couple of years. I prefer to have someone who has been through a few things as Speaker or President Pro Tempore of the Senate, rather than some dude who is still saying things like "uh..how do you get to the men's room?" or "uh...how do you get out of the men's room?"

Shrinking the legislature - It is important to note that we already have one of the smallest legislatures in the nation, judged by the only reasonable measure of such things, which is how many people we each represent. It's not very revealing to say that we have more legislators than Idaho. There are no people in Idaho. Literally. No people. Not one. Most people don't know that. Except for in Idaho, where everyone, which is no one, knows that. The average state Senator in America represents 160,000 people. Pennsylvania Senators represent 275,000. Making the districts bigger would only mean poorer constituent service, concentration of power in fewer hands, and districts which are easier to Gerrymander and marginalize groups of voters.

Part-time legislature - This is the dumbest idea of all. Lets say you were getting brain surgery, either medicinal or cosmetic, doesn't matter. Would you rather have a full-time Brain surgeon or a guy who sells Lazy-Boy recliners full time, but cracks open a cranium for a few days every other year? Whether you like the results or not, legislators do important work. They decide how our education system works as well as numerous complicated health care programs. They make life or death decisions involving capitol punishment or abortion, they run our state's transportation system. I prefer that the person who does that spends all of their time learning, reading, studying, talking to interested parties and experts and debating these critical issues rather than someone who pops by every few months and says "So, the state pensions need fixin', I guess I can squeeze that in before lunch. I have to show a Buick LaSabre this afternoon."

When I talk to people who favor these reforms, it really all comes down to one thing. Most of the time, people don't like the policy result on some issue. They may think abortion shouldn't be legal, or that there should be more gun control or their taxes are too high. And they are mad that the world is not as it should be. So they think that by hurting legislators they will be avenging an evil policy decision (or a series of them). But the fact is, that they will really just be punishing their state.

If you can't get enough of my views on political reform, WAMS or redistericting reform, you can read my editorials on my Senate web site: www.senatorleach.com/media/editorials

Daylin

Day of Reckonling on Marriage

2010-03-16T19:40:00.000-07:00

Today was an amazing day. No, they didn't invent a new hair-growth product. Today we in the Judiciary Committee defeated an effort to enshrine bigotry in our State Constitution. We beat, by a margin of 8-6, SB 707 which would have constitutionally prohibited same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. Since my job in the minority generally consists of voting "no" on stuff that's going to pass anyway, it was a great feeling to win one.

There are many amazing things about today's vote. First, it happened in Pennsylvania. Too often on social issues we spend our time cursing out the wild-eyed liberals of Mississippi or complaining that the Burqas favored by the Taliban are too revealing. I don't mean to overstate it, but we have signs saying "Leaving Pennsylvania, Entering Gomorrah" near the borders on all of our interstates.

The other thing that was amazing was the fact that this bill passed the very same Committee that passed a more restrictive bill just 2 years ago by a 10-4 margin. There has been only one change in personnel. This means that 3 Senators actually changed their minds! In doing so they showed great personal courage.

I love when people display courage, even though I am myself afraid of many things. I'm afraid of spiders, snakes, photos of spiders and snakes, people spelling S-P-I-D-E-R or S-N-A-K-E or even people misspelling those words. I'm afraid of clouds, most sauces, especially those with a cream base, tigers, heights, guys who want me to pay my bar tab, shirts, tissues, nuclear war and those peep chicks they sell at Easter. You get the idea.

I was also thrilled that this was a bi-partisan effort. The NO votes included 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans. We hadn't done anything truly bi-partisan since the Republican vs. Democrat Twister tournament this past Christmas. Lets just say that some of those guys from Lancaster County are really flexible.

There were some aspects of this epic journey that troubled me. In particular the E-mails I received. Most were supportive of my efforts to bring equality to Pennsylvania. But the many that were not, were truly frightening. Since this is a family BLOG (in the sense that whole families avoid reading it) I won't repeat actual language. I'll just say that there's an awful lot of hate out there. And I struggle to understand where it comes from.

I plan to write more about the origins of homophobia in the near future. But for now, my hats off to the brave, wise, and enlightened Senators who vote for equality today. They have made millions of gay people they'll never meet feel as if they just a little bit more included in the human family. That's not a bad day's work. Plus, there's no physical labor involved, which is always a plus.

REPLY: "Parting Shot" Opposing Legislation

2010-03-12T14:05:00.000-08:00

To the Editor:

In the March 12 edition of The Delaware County Daily Times there was an editorial which contained a "Parting Shot" opposing legislation I have introduced requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for non-hospital in-patient treatment for eating disorders. Currently some (although not all) insurance policies only cover acute, crisis care for eating disorders. They will pay the bills for a woman who is rushed to the hospital near death and force-fed until she is back to a survivable weight. But they will not pay to actually treat the disease.

The treatment widely considered the most, if not the only effective protocol for curing eating disorders involves weeks or months of intensive in-patient therapy at a facility that specializes in treating such disorders. Absent this treatment, a patient is overwhelmingly likely to continue starving themselves and wind up right back in the hospital. Many will die.

The editorial, which tastefully says the thought of my bill is "making some people sick" does begin compassionately enough by acknowledging that "nobody likes eating disorders". I'm certain this is a great comfort to the families of those suffering. But the editorial then goes on to make the same argument we hear every time we ask health insurance companies to actually pay for some health care. It claims that "legislation like this" presumably requiring health insurance companies to pay to treat sick people, contributes to "spiraling health insurance rate increases". (The editorial does not specify what other mandated treatments it opposes under the same logic. Mammograms? Colon Cancer Screening? Expensive Chemotherapy?)

On one level the editorial is correct. Although covering eating disorders alone won't add much if anything to the cost of health insurance, it is true that the cumulative affect of requiring health insurance companies to pay for medical care is to raise premiums. Of course another thing that contributes to the rise in premiums is the enormous profits that health insurance companies continue to report each quarter.

But putting that aside, the logic of the editorial is that the less insurance companies cover, the cheaper insurance will be. And again, that is true. In fact, if we want insurance to be really cheap, insurance companies shouldn't have to cover anything at all. If they never have to pay anything, policies will be close to free! The problem of course is that if insurance companies don't pay for treatment to make sick people better, it's difficult to see what value these companies add to our health care system (other than profits for themselves).

So if we're going to require insurance companies to pay for anything at all, it is necessary that there be some standards to determine what such coverage should be. It seems to me that requiring payment for proven treatments which have been shown to cure devastating, often fatal diseases is a reasonable standard. Under such a standard, the treatment requirement in my eating disorders bill would easily qualify.

Keep in mind, that the editorial's argument is not logically against my eating disorders bill only. It is an argument against requiring insurance companies to ever pay anything towards our health care out of the billions and billions of dollars they take in from us each year. That would indeed result in cheaper premiums, but I'm not sure it would be a comfort to any of us the next time we get sick.

Daylin

=======================================================================

Parting Shot

State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, of Upper Merion, is holding a press conference in Harrisburg Monday to unveil "landmark legislation" that would require health insurers in the state to cover non-hospital, in-patient treatment for eating disorders. On the surface, that sounds like a nice idea.

Nobody likes eating disorders. But the truth is, it's legislation like this that has contributed to spiraling health insurance rate increases that have pushed basic coverage beyond the reach of many. What is worse? Having a policy that doesn't cover non-hospital treatment for eating disorders, or not having a policy at all? Do us a favor, senator. Drop this idea. Just thinking about it is making some people sick.

Nominate Your Favorite Librarians

2010-03-12T08:23:00.000-08:00

NOMINATE YOUR FAVORITE LIBRARIANS

Two librarians will be selected —
one from a public library and one from a school library
17th Senatorial District

FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE
• Special Programs
• Knowledge of her/his facility and resources
• Commitment to helping the public

DEADLINE: MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2010
Go to my Website for a Nomination Form
http://www.senatorleach.com/events/Librarian_Award_Flyer_2010.pdf

AWARDS CEREMONY
April 16, 2010 • 8:30 a.m. — 10:00 a.m.
American Reading Company • 201 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA

Why the Supreme Court's Decision Could Be Good for Gun Control

2010-03-04T14:21:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald vs. Chicago. The issue in this case is whether or not states and local municipalities are subject to the 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun.

Of course these days, when the conservative 5 Justices "hear argument" what that really means is that they are collectively reliving that magical night they first denied a stay of execution, or whatever else it is that people who have already made up their minds and have no interest in what the dude in the suit standing before them is saying, do.

Our favorite 5 are nothing if not predictable. You don't even have to know the issue before the court to know who is going to win. All you need to know are the litigants. So for example, if it's a prosecutor vs. a criminal defendant, well then the prosecutor is going to win. If it's a civil-rights plaintiff vs. a company accused of discrimination, then the company is going to win, unless the plaintiffs are white guys, in which case the white guys are going to win. In fact, its a pretty good rule of thumb that if the case is white guys against anyone else for any reason the white guys are going to win.

So lets take a little test to see if I've made this clear. Here are three hypothetical cases. See if you can guess (without even knowing the facts of the case) who will win each one. Litigant A or Litigant B.

A) Exxon Mobile

vs.

B) An environmentalist named "Rainbow Smock" who keeps his hair in a bun

A) Dick Cheney

vs.

B) A Muslim detainee named Achmad el-Detainee

A) Walmart

vs.

B) A member of "Feminist Warrior Nation" who wears a bra made out of hemp

If you answered "A" to all 3, you are a genius. If you answered "B" to any of the above, you are what we call an un-genius. In any event, once you understand this construct, it won't be hard to figure out who is going to win McDonald vs. Chicago.

However, I do not view this as a bad thing. First, let me tell where I am coming from. Despite what Ted Nugent says, I am not in favor of taking everyone's guns away from them. Parenthetically, Nugent is also lying about me being the inspiration for "Cat Scratch Fever". I favor reasonable gun restrictions mostly designed to prevent straw purchasers from buying 100 guns at a time and selling them to young, underage, juvenile children or criminals, or people who like to eat other people's liver with fava beans and a good Chianti.

For example I support limiting the number of guns one can purchase to one per month. If you are married that means you and your lovely bride can buy 24 guns a year, enough to invade Peru. That seems sufficient, even to the Peruvians who would probably surrender without a shot being fired. I have long argued that even given the 2nd Amendment, one-gun-a-month would easily be constitutional.

I say this because of how courts interpret individual rights. No right is absolute. The classic example is the one about not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Apparently you can yell "Fire" in an empty theater, but very few people bother. In any event, there are lots of restrictions on free speech and lots of exceptions to every constitutional right. The way the courts evaluate this is that they apply a level of what they call "Scrutiny" (A technical legal word. The layman's term is "Scrutiny") to any law that allegedly impinges on a constitutional right.

If the right is a fundamental right, which we'll assume the right to keep and bear arms is, then the court applies "Strict Scrutiny" to any law that restricts the right to own a gun. In applying Strict Scrutiny the court will look at how serious or severe the impingement on the right is and balance that against how important the state interest in the law is. I talk like this a lot, which is why I'm rarely invited to parties.

In the case of one-gun-per-month, the restriction is extremely slight. Again, you and Martha...24 guns a year every year. Lots and lots of guns. If you are a licensed collector, you can buy more and take Peru back from the other couple who invaded it first!! On the other hand, the state's interest in preventing drug-addled, insane juveniles from randomly shooting people is pretty substantial. In fact, if you are being shot at, you are likely to say "Holy Crap, that state interest is REALLY substantial!!" So given the normal constitutional balancing test, one-gun-a-month is very likely to survive.

The court actually applying that test, or even articulating a new test is good news because currently, I get a ton of e-mails telling me that one-gun-a-month and other such bills are "unconstitutional." And the Supreme Court's jurisprudence so far allows them to do this. That's because in the Heller case, which for the first time in 230 years or so found an individual right to bear arms, specifically said that they were not saying what level of scrutiny should be applied to gun laws or how. (Heller dealt with DC's law. Since DC is a federal city, a second case is required to determine if the right to carry a gun applies to the states.)

So while it is inevitable that the court will rule 5-4 that Heller also applies to the States, the court will be forced to at least articulate some methodology for testing state gun laws in the future. The court says the right is absolute. But that would mean that meth addicts could carry machine-guns into elementary schools. I think that this might be a bit much even for Scalia. Thus, there must be some balancing test and almost anyone they could conjure up would make most gun control laws short of total confiscation of all guns constitutional.

This would do two good things. Those who oppose even the most reasonable gun laws could no longer say such laws are unconstitutional, and they could no longer say that our real agenda is taking away all guns from everyone because that would be unconstitutional. This would save lives and enable Ted Nugent to calmly rest his head on his pillow, which is stuffed with large, powerful guns.

Cost Cutting Life Lesson

2010-02-24T13:01:00.000-08:00

I learned a valuable lesson about the risks of complaining last week. You'd think I'd have learned that years ago when I told my high school disciplinarian that "non-corporal punishment just isn't reaching me". In this case, I wrote to my caucus asking why we were buying into the PA Senate's Cost Cutting Commission. I pointed out that this seemed to be a Republican Commission, with a guaranteed Republican Majority designed to push Republican talking points and elect its Republican Chair to Congress. Plus, the large elephant logo didn't help.

I chastised my leadership for saying this was a good idea and suggested vocally (or as "vocal" as you can be in an E-mail) that we let the public know just how bad this was. In response, my leadership appointed me to the Commission. Hence the life-lesson.

Upon reflection, which for me consists mostly of ordering Thai food and taking a nap, I decided that despite my misgivings, I should accept the offer to join. It would give me a public platform to express my concerns publicly, allow me to fight for the importance of government services to the people who receive them, and to claim my really cool "I'm on the Friggin Budget Commission!!" T-shirt and throw rug.

Our first meeting validated the importance of having someone like me, specifically, someone very, very much like me, on the Commission. Our first witness was a kindly man of 85 who served in the Thornburg administration. He suggested that the best way to save money was to not replace people when they retire or otherwise leave government. It didn't seem to matter how important the job they were doing was.

His argument was that if you just randomly cut 10% or 20% of all government employees, "government will continue to work? That is true in a sense. If you reduce government employees from 85,000 to 75,000 there won't be a huge sink hole that swallows up all of Pennsylvania. Government will continue to "work" on some level. But that/s true if you reduce the number of government employees to 3. Government will still work, but on a much lower level. For example, traffic enforcement will deteriorate to one of the 3 government employees standing on the side of the road yelling "SLOW DOWN" to passing motorists. But if that is what is expected of government, it will still work.

We will be meeting every other Monday until mid-June, or until they stop telling me where the meetings are. I will use that time to ensure that both sides of the story are told, and of course I will also use that time to reflect on how I should always resist the urge to complain.

Reply: Who Will Champion the Sensible Center of PA Politics?

2010-02-12T11:31:00.000-08:00

Reply: Who Will Champion the Sensible Center of PA Politics?

Recently, Tim Potts posted a column he’d written in support of a Constitutional Convention in PA. I think he’s misguided. But hey, its America. Tim’s been pushing his “all-legislators-are-evil-and-corrupt” nonsense for years (it’s just tragic that Tim isn’t running the state. We’d definitely be a utopia by now!) and nobody pays all that much attention. However, a Google Alert notified me that I was mentioned in the column so I read it and after doing so felt compelled to respond.

Tim and I had debated this issue a week or so earlier. I don’t mind Tim disagreeing with me and he was certainly nice enough during the debate. But his column so thoroughly misrepresents and distorts my position that it is unrecognizable. I’ve always been taught that when someone resorts to distorting your argument, it's because they don’t have a good rebuttal to your actual one. This appears to be the case here.

I oppose a Constitutional Convention. Tim claims that in articulating my opposition, I stated in effect that we should be “terrified and mistrustful of each other.” He then claims that I said (using quotation marks) “Just look at your neighbors. We may be crooks, but at least we dress a lot better than you do.”

Let me first set the record straight and then tell you what I actually did argue. First, with the exception of the pronouns, I never actually said any of those words. Further, I never said, nor do I believe, that we should be terrified or mistrustful of our neighbors. I never would say that we (legislators) are all crooks because I know for a fact that 95% of us are not crooks and I consider it offensive for someone to call a whole class of hardworking honest people crooks. And anybody who knows me even slightly knows that I don’t dress better than anybody. I have no idea what Tim is talking about in any of his representations of my position. And again, the fact that he won’t tell you what I really said suggests that he doesn’t have a compelling reply.

Here’s what I do believe: A Constitutional Convention is a bad idea for several reasons. First, it is not clear that it could be legally limited in scope. If it is not, we could have 40 or more issues decided in a few days in an almost unchangeable way. We could have a new Constitution that permanently enshrines public policy on everything from abortion to gay marriage, to caps on malpractice damages, to guns to legislative pay. We could require unattainable super-majorities to pass legislation that this or that interest group doesn’t want to see passed. And we could have it all come to the voters for approval in one up-or-down vote.

There are changes I’d like to see in the Constitution. I’ve actually introduced the bill to amend the Constitution to change how we do redistricting. However, I think the difficulty of the amendment process which makes every change in the Constitution semi-permanent, requires us to be thoughtful before making such changes. The idea of making hundreds of changes all at once is risky, and our current constitution is not so broken as to justify that risk.

Even if a Convention could be limited, I look at the bills that have been introduced to authorize and limit a Convention and I’m troubled by the limits they purport to set. They allow discussion of issues that the right in Pennsylvania politics supports, like caps on damages and limits on the ability of the legislature to raise taxes, but they are not only silent on, but actually explicitly say that things liberals might be interested in talking about, like creating a graduated income tax, are forbidden to even be raised. In other words, a lot of this movement seems to be an effort to make conservative policies the permanent status quo, regardless of who may win a given election.

These are my concerns as expressed in my debate with Mr. Potts. Reasonable minds can differ on the merits of what I’ve said. But you’ll notice I never expressed terror at my neighbors or anybody else. And I certainly never played the Wardrobe Card. When I was a lawyer trying cases, the judge used to instruct the jury that if someone misleads you on one fact, it is reasonable that he or she may mislead you on other things as well.

If Mr. Potts is so willing to mislead you about my arguments, what else is he misleading you about?

Daylin

____________________________________________________________________________

Who Will Champion the Sensible Center of PA Politics?

By: Tim Potts

It’s been more than four and a half years since the Pay Raise of 2005, three years since the beginning of the Bonus Scandal investigation, and a year since the beginning of one of the most grotesque displays of lousy priorities that any budget process has ever seen.

In a land where common sense and political sense were congruent we would see by now a much different political landscape in PA than we have. We would see a new method to ensure that pay raises are determined and awarded through a public process. We would see an Integrity Caucus of lawmakers determined to ensure that taxpayers aren’t bilked for millions of dollars to rig elections and reward the riggers. We would see lawmakers, who get an extra tax-free $163 per day just for showing up and who are sitting on a surplus of $180 million, refuse to cut $12 million from the elderly and disabled who must rely on SSI.

So where is the new law to rationalize compensation for public officials? Where are the laws with clear lines between right and wrong that can be easily enforced and that carry penalties harsh enough to prevent wrongdoing? Where is the mandate to adopt, on time, priorities that meet the needs of citizens?

Nowhere. The response has been, “We’re sorry, sort of. You can trust us now, sort of. We won’t do that again, at least not while you’re looking.”

Citizens sometimes can count on the minority in the House to make a little noise, but no one – no one – has been as aggressive about integrity as they are about unconstitutional WAMs for sidewalk beautification, Little League fields, minor league hockey rinks and anything else that will make them look good even as they continue to do bad.

Senate Republicans lately are putting on a happy face with their proposed new “ethics” rules. Forget that they haven’t enforced the rules they already have. Forget that these and much tougher rules should have been in place for the last, oh, 200 years.

The great leap forward for which they want lavish credit is just marking time. If their rules are tougher than current law, where is their plan to enact a tougher law? If their rules are weaker than current law, what the hell good are they? Rules are the junk food of governance, and they know it.

Our political leaders can’t even say “integrity” much less enact it. The best they can do is talk about “reform,” a word so meaningless that it ought to be banned from the political lexicon. If they mean “improvement,” they should say it and prove it. And if it’s a fig leaf for more hidden nasty bits, there’s a better word than “reform” for that, too.

Instead of leading PA to a less corrupt and more honest future, they’re simply waiting for citizens to get even more discouraged than we already are.

At the end of January, the disconnect between government and governed was stark in a Franklin & Marshall College Poll. Among voters, 69-72% percent don’t know who they want for governor, but 72% know what they want from government. They want a Constitution convention where they can repair a government that doesn’t give a damn about ordinary citizens if it gets in the way of politicians’ egos, ambitions and tax-funded venality.

Last weekend’s PA Progressive Summit brought all of this home to me anew. At the Friday night presentation of Democratic candidates for governor, no one tried to narrow the divide between the 72% who don’t care about any of them and the 72% who do care about integrity in government.

Then in my Saturday afternoon “debate” with Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, more of problem became clear. His chief argument against a Constitution convention was that we should be more terrified and mistrustful of each other and how we might change our government than we are of our lawmakers and how they already have dismantled democracy.

Instead of accepting the challenge to ensure that the sensible center of our citizenry has the chance to repair the manifest wrongs of the most criminally prosecuted legislature in America today, opponents of a convention like Leach say, in essence, “You think we’re bad? Just look at your neighbors. We may be crooks, but at least we dress a lot better than you do.”

With leadership like this, the best we can expect is a new economic development and tourism campaign: “Welcome to PA, where no one can trust anyone, so please just empty your wallets and go away quietly.”

To the best of their ability, our political parties and leadership seek to ensure that the voices of most citizens are never heard. Whether through excessive partisanship, gerrymandered legislative districts, onerous restrictions on voting and running for office, and other insults to representative democracy, what passes for political leadership in PA is doing its best to make elections contests that produce nothing but bragging rights for themselves.

There is a sensible center in our citizenry. Who among the politically ambitious will have the guts to champion their agenda?

The first step is to sign the petition for a referendum this fall where citizens can decide whether to have a Constitution convention. Go to www.democracyrisingpa.com.

Lawmakers who don’t want one can say so. But we all deserve the chance to vote on it.

The writer is the President of Democracy Rising PA

TOWN HALL MEETING - Thursday, January 28th at 7:00 p.m.

2009-12-30T10:51:00.000-08:00

Senator Daylin Leach invites you to participate in our democracy at his Town Hall Meeting. The event is free and open to the public. No RSVP necessary. Please join in the discussion on Thursday, January 28th at 7:00 p.m. at the Upper Merion Township Building – Freedom Hall - located at 175 W. Valley Forge Rd., King of Prussia, PA. For more information call 610-768-4200 or email scharles@pasenate.com

Letter to the Editor

2009-12-09T06:08:00.001-08:00

To the Editor:

On November 24th I saw in the Times Herald an editorial by a Star Parker entitled "Sodom in the Nation's Capital". Intrigued by the unabashed offensiveness of the title, I read on. The article castigated the Washington DC City Council for its imminent decision to join the states that have legalized same-sex marriage. While I usually refrain from responding to this sort of diatribe, this is an issue I've been very involved in and I found the editorial so misguided that I felt compelled to respond

As best I can tell, Ms. Parker's argument is essentially that the problems in DC related to poverty, poor public schools and the spread of AIDS will somehow be worsened by the advent of marriage-equality. For this proposition she sites no actual evidence, and the logic of this strange assertion is not obvious. Ms. Parker just claims that religion is important, even George Washington thought so and that somehow adhering to religious values and the admonitions of George Washington will solve people's problems, and that these things are inconsistent with gay people getting married. Hence "Sodom".

The biggest problem I have with Ms. Parker's argument is that she feels entitled to claim both George Washington and God as supporters of her homophobic opinions. As a supporter of full civil and human rights for gay people I am not willing to cede to people like Star Parker. The God I pray to has absolutely no problem with gay people or gay marriage. He wants everyone, including those who he has created as gay, to be happy, and find loving partners with which they can raise stable families.

Ms. Parker may pray to a different God. But we do not live in a theocracy. Neither of us has the right to use the power of the state to force our religion on those who do not share it. I have no desire to make anyone live under my religious beliefs. If Ms. Parker doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, she shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. I have no problem with that. But Ms. Parker has no right to deny others who disagree with her the right to live their lives as they see fit, whether she approves or not.

Ms. Parker also offers no evidence that George Washington would adopt her views towards gay people. All she cites is her assertion that our first President would want us to "rise above our baser instincts" (her quote, not his). By "baser instincts" I can only assume that Ms. Parker means sex, specifically gay sex. But there is nothing "base" about wanting to commit to a monogamous, life-time relationship with one partner for the purpose of raising a family. That is a noble instinct, and one we should encourage and enable. If Ms. Parker is truly concerned about poverty and AIDS, marriage is her answer. Married people are far less likely to be impoverished or to be spreading disease. That is why the brave officials in DC are to be commended, not condemned by people who allow their bigotry to overcome their humanity, or their logic.

Senator Daylin Leach

On Voting by Referendum in Maine

2009-11-10T12:36:00.000-08:00

When you follow politics closely, every election night comes with its exhilarating wins and heartbreaking losses. Some years there are more of one than the other, but every year is, to some extent, a mixed bag. This year, the toughest loss for me to watch was the decision by the voters of Maine to (albeit narrowly) overturn by referendum the legislature’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

As a strong supporter of same sex marriage, I was naturally disappointed with the outcome of the election. As I watched the final results came in, however I found myself feeling disquiet beyond that usually elicited by being on the short end of a vote. Something seemed fundamentally wrong to me about the process itself.

At first I thought that my unease was caused by my general antipathy towards government by referendum. I believe we should elect people whose judgment we trust and assign to them the full-time task of studying issues, going to hearings, meeting with stakeholders, participating in debates and coming to the best solution. This seems to me far preferable to distilling complex issues down to one line on a ballot, to be decided in a moment, with no study, by people who often came to vote for things completely unrelated to that issue.

Referendum also makes one of the most important legislative functions, compromise, impossible. If I see a ballot initiative asking if I want to spend $10 million on education, I may think that’s too high. But I could support an additional $5 million. In the legislative process, that lower, more reasonable figure might actually be the final product. In a referendum, it’s all or nothing, guaranteeing extreme results that up to 49% of the population never buy into.

Finally, voters don’t have to square the circle. For example, in states with referendum provisions, voters routinely vote to both cut their taxes and increase spending on services they like on the same day. Unlike the legislature, voters don’t have to make it all add up, which can lead to budgetary disaster.

Yet, as I thought it through, I found my concerns went deeper. There is something profoundly wrong about putting the basic human rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority. Rights are rights, whether or not the majority agrees with them. And while there may be an argument (a weak one, as I’ve explained) for voting on a given tax, or whether to build a highway, individual rights belong to the individual, not 51% of the community.

For instance, should we put what God you can pray to up to a vote? How about whether or not a person has the right to advocate a certain position on an issue, or whether or not they have a right to remain silent if arrested? Maybe we could vote on what books can be read, or whether married couples can use contraception? Obviously, most of us would recoil from such suggestions.

We can examine recent history to see how such votes might go: fifty years ago, if we had put desegregating public schools up to a vote in the South – or much of the North for that matter – would it have passed? How about allowing African Americans to drink out of Whites-Only water-fountains? Even in the context of marriage, at one time, a vote on whether one could marry outside their race would have lost overwhelmingly in much of the country. In some places, it might still lose today.

So what troubles me is that it seems incongruent, and frankly, a little icky to have majorities decide whether a minority is entitled to their human rights. It would, in concept, be like having white people vote on whether black people could sit in the front of the bus, or having Christians vote on whether Muslims can pray publicly. I’d like to think that – in this day and age – those votes would go well.. Even so, it still wouldn’t feel like the right thing to do.

It is estimated that 3% of Mainers are gay. Therefore, 97% of the people, whose own lives are utterly unaffected by the status of same-sex marriage, got to give thumbs up or thumbs down on someone else's marriage. Marriage was called by the United States Supreme Court “fundamental to our very existence." Yet gay people are denied the right to marry because a slim majority of straight people don't feel like giving it to them. That process, more than the result, should make all of us, and our spouses, lose some sleep tonight.

REPLY to Patrick Gleason

2009-10-15T09:06:00.000-07:00

REPLY to Patrick Gleason
From: Senator Daylin Leach

I'm not certain who my "buddies in Harrisburg" are. But I'll do my best to respond to what I can understand of Mr. Gleason’s argument.

Mr. Gleason objects to my assertion that people shouldn't sign a pledge to NEVER increase taxes because such a pledge is inevitably made without knowing what spending cuts honoring such a pledge would require. He says two things in this regard.

First, he claims that there are "barriers" to knowing this information, which is my point exactly. If you don't now know all the information you will need to know in the future, why take some silly pledge that ties your hands when the facts become available? In essence you are pledging to do something in the future regardless of what the facts may be at the time. Maybe that's how Mr. Gleason’s "buddies" do business, but it doesn't seem very prudent.

Second, he suggests I should instead ask what families and business who are "struggling" (presumably I don't have to ask those not struggling) will have to sacrifice in order to pay higher taxes. That is a legitimate question. It should be asked. And the answer to that question will dictate what spending and taxes should occur. That is why I have not taken a pledge to ALWAYS raise taxes. So Mr. Gleason suggests a question, but is then indifferent to the answer.

I would note that when asked, the people who Mr. Gleason refers to often do support paying more in taxes. Here's a small example. In Montgomery County a few years ago there was a referendum where people were asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to preserve open space. Almost 80% said yes. A Quinnipiac Poll taken just a couple of months ago found that a strong majority of Pennsylvanians support paying more taxes to avoid cuts in education and health care.

Finally, Mr. Gleason makes an argument that I do struggle to understand. I had said that the analogy frequently used by those on the right about running government like a family is misapplied. When a family is trying to make ends meet, it of course cuts out discretionary spending on things like movies and vacations. But before it cuts out core expenditures, like say…feeding the kids, it looks into finding new sources of revenue.

Similarly, while the government must, and should, and did make cuts, there are certain core functions like say…feeding the kids, that it must avoid cutting for the good of society. So before such core functions are cut, government must look for new sources of revenue.

Mr. Gleason then somehow claims that in making this argument I am calling for “burglarizing” and “robbing”. I think a reasonable response to this would be HUH????. But I’ll try to do better.

If Mr. Gleason is claiming that taxation is stealing, he is, with all due respect, truly veering off into serious wack-job territory. Even those furthest on the right support SOME taxes, if only to enforce laws against abortion and provide police protection to Tea-Partiers. Even Glenn Beck hasn’t called for the complete elimination of all government and the institution of full-on anarchy. And once you support ANY taxes, you, as one of the thieves, can no longer sanctimoniously claim that taxes are stealing.

All of this goes to say what I said in my original post. There are times when it is appropriate to cut taxes and times when it is appropriate to raise them, depending on the circumstances. So taking some silly pledge that you will never raise taxes no matter what the circumstances is irresponsible.

Daylin

__________________________________________________________________

A Response for Senator Daylin Leach

From Patrick Gleason

Yesterday PA Senator Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) added a new entry to his blog in which he explains why he believes Senator Jane Orie (R-Allegheny) was “foolish and irresponsible” for ever signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that she broke last week with her vote for the budget.
Leach laments that the Pledge “does not mention which services the signer is willing to cut in tough times.” Here Leach is simply regurgitating the same tired line repeated by tax hike proponents who like to ask, “what would you cut from the state budget?” Never mind the barriers to getting all of the information necessary to best answer that query, I have a better question for Leach – what should the families and businesses already struggling to pay the bills cut from their budgets or sacrifice in order to pay higher taxes?

Leach opines that “it makes as much sense for a state legislator to pledge never to raise a tax as it does for a family breadwinner to pledge never to seek additional income.”

Let’s ignore the fact that this analogy doesn’t really work unless you believe that the proper role of government is to be the provider or “breadwinner” for all. Maybe Leach does. However, sticking with Leach’s family budget theme, let’s consider a better analogy for the state budget process. Here we have the equivalent of a family spending as much as it wants, with no regard for their income, savings, or the job stability of the bread winner(s). Once means have been exhausted the family, rather than stop spending, they proceed to burglarize area businesses and steal from neighbors to cover the bills. That’s how Leach and his buddies do budgeting in Harrisburg.

Fun work if you can get it

Pledge Does Nothing for Process

2009-10-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Americans For Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax advocacy group, is blasting my colleague, state Senator Jane Orie (R–Allegheny), for breaking their Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose any and all tax increases based on her vote last week in favor of the state budget.

In case you’re unfamiliar, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) was founded in 1986 to help promote the Reagan administration’s efforts to change the tax code. It is run by Grover Norquist, who also holds leadership positions with the National Rifle Association, the American Conservative Union, and – interestingly – the Islamic Free Market Institute (his wife is a former director). The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is meant to be an agreement between a candidate and the voters. Signers agree they will “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.” Over two hundred members of Congress and over a thousand state legislators have taken the pledge. Norquist's stated purpose in circulating this pledge is to shrink government to the size where you can "drown it in a bathtub".

I am a freshman senator, and while I like and have worked with Senator Orie, I can't pretend to know her well enough to understand why she signed this pledge. I imagine it was a campaign decision. It's not hard to score points with voters by promising them you'll never raise their taxes. Conveniently the pledge does not mention which services the signer is willing to cut in tough times. In any event, Senator Orie was right to disregard the pledge when faced with a budget crisis that mandated increasing state revenue to continue core government functions.

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is foolish and irresponsible. From a governing standpoint, it makes as much sense for a state legislator to pledge never to raise a tax as it does for a family breadwinner to pledge never to seek additional income. No one can predict the future or divine what policies will be called for in a changing world. The pledge only serves to appeal the most dedicated anti-tax proponents on the right side of the political spectrum. There could be similar pledges on the left. I could, for instance, pledge to oppose, under any circumstances, any cuts to services which would hurt children or the elderly. This would be equally foolhardy.

When common sense dictates that candidates win by appealing to centrist voters, why make such a pledge? The answer is that common sense has gone out the window in many of our legislative elections. The broken process by which we draw the boundaries of legislative districts – commonly called Gerrymandering – has created a system where the party membership of the winning candidate is predetermined in nearly every race. In such a system, an incumbent legislator worries less about losing in November than they worry about losing in April – to a member of their own party in a primary election. Because the most conservative Republicans and the most progressive Democrats are most likely to vote in primaries, what you’d think would happen has happened: the center has all but ceased to exist in legislative bodies.

Which brings us back to Senator Orie and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The day after she voted for the Senate’s revenue package, conservatives in Pennsylvania hammered her for breaking the pledge. Grover Norquist himself called her a “tax hiker” and said Pennsylvanians “should know who went against their promise to voters.” Anyone thinking about running further to the right of Orie in the next primary has been handed an enormous gift. All because of a silly pledge, written decades ago, by somebody who may never have even been to Pennsylvania, and certainly didn’t understand our budget process and the challenges we would face in 2009.

Legislators need to be flexible to be responsible. We must be prepared to made decisions in the best interests of our constituents that reflect the realities of our times – even if it means casting tough votes. Senator Orie had the guts to do this, and she should be applauded.

But the next time someone, in the process of asking for your vote, makes a pledge to do or never do something – no matter what – ask them if they can see the future. Because if they can't, they have no business signing a pledge designed to appease ideologues who have the luxury of never having to govern themselves.

Daylin

Are WAMs Really Bad?

2009-09-29T13:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, as the Pennsylvania budget crisis has droned on, there has been a good deal of attention paid to how we, as a state, spend money. One of the programs which is most frequently attacked and ridiculed in the media and blogosphere is what are called WAMs. There has been a great deal of self-righteous and sanctimonious denigrating of the WAM as a useless vestige of some undefined form of corruption. But is that really true? Well, like most things which are oversimplified on the internet, the reality is a bit more complicated.

First, the term "WAM" doesn't actually exist in law. That epithet is actually a press invented acronym for "Walking Around Money". This deliberately conjures up images of unscrupulous politicians in dark suits, with cash falling out of their pockets, walking around handing out gifts to their buddies, or keeping the money for themselves. None of this is true. Actually, the legal term is "Legislative Initiative Grants" administered under "The Department for Community and Economic Development" (DCED) and there is no cash.

The way DCED Grants work is that a certain amount is passed as part of the budget in open session. Each caucus then gets access to a percentage of the total, and legislative leaders then divide that amount up among their members. Organizations can apply to receive grants. Members can then decide which projects in their district get funded within the constraints of the total amount of money available and the legal parameters of allowable grants. The legislators do not have unbridled discretion. The recipients must be non-profits and non-sectarian. Further, they must provide proof that they spent the money as they represented they would. The names of all grant recipients are public information.

The theory behind making legislators choose the recipients is that they are the ones who actually know their districts. They know what projects are worthy and where the greatest need is. They know which grant applicants are responsible and trustworthy and who are not. Further, we as legislators are politically accountable for the grants we recommend. Placing the decision in the hands of some committee in Harrisburg, composed of people who have never been to my district would probably not lead to a better result.

I can't speak for other legislators and I can't promise there has never been an abuse of the system in some way. But I am very proud of the grants I have brought to my district. They have included defibrillators for police departments and Thermal Imaging Cameras that will save the lives of our First Responders. They have helped support Meals-on-Wheels and Eldernet and our senior centers, which provide valuable services to our senior citizens. They have supported ambulance services and bought uniforms for local little-leagues. They have beautified our side-walks and helped drain our storm-water.

Further, these were not a way to reward political or personal friends. Almost none of my grant recipients were either social friends of political contributors. Further, I have specifically recommended grants requested by organizations headed by people who affirmatively opposed me in my various elections.

The press likes to portray these grants as a re-election tool. Do they help us get re-elected? Marginally I suppose, in the way anytime a legislator does something to benefit their district, it helps them. But most incumbents are in such gerrymandered districts, and incumbency is such a powerful advantage in terms of fund-raising, that grants are a tiny factor. So eliminating them might make some people feel good. But we should acknowledge that many critical, non-profit entities that serve our communities will be hurt or themselves eliminated. If this happens, will we all really be better off?

Daylin

Town Hall Meeting - October 1st at 7:00 p.m.

2009-09-29T12:29:00.000-07:00

Senator Daylin Leach invites you to participate in our democracy at his Town Hall Meeting. The event is free and open to the public. No RSVP necessary. Please join in the discussion on Thursday, October 1st at 7:00 p.m. at the Haverford Township Free Library located at 1601 Darby Road in Havertown PA. For more information call 610-768-4200.

American Town Hall Meetings

As originally understood, an American Town Hall Meeting was a time when people would come together in a public building to legislate policy and budgets for their community - a practice still used in the United States, notably in New England. More recently, the term has been co-opted by the political process to describe a campaign event where voters have a chance to ask questions of a candidate, and where the candidate has a chance to show the voters that he or she is just like them - a real person - often going so far as to make their point by loosening their tie, rolling up their sleeves, or even wearing jeans!

Town Hall Meetings were in the news this past summer, when members of Congress held gatherings in their districts to discuss the debate over Health Care Reform with remarkable results. Wide-eyed radicals on both sides of the issue took to the microphones, making caffeine-laced diatribes against their representatives and the President. Angry crowds - often organized by special interest groups with stakes in the outcome of the health care reform debate - shouted down members of Congress when they tried to respond. American citizens on both sides of the issue accused other citizens of being Un-American and subscribing to every -ism under the sun, and of generally trying to destroy the Republic.

Town Hall Meetings are an opportunity for people to come together and solve problems, not a chance for individuals to grandstand or highlight the issues that divide us. We are living in serious times, and serious times call for serious people to confront our shared problems head on - not by reciting canned speeches or chanting shallow slogans - but by having a real discussion about what kind of country and Commonwealth we want to leave to the next generation of leaders.

Now, I'm not expecting that we'll solve all the problems of the world at my upcoming Town Hall Meeting. For one, it isn't even in a Town Hall - it's at the Haverford Free Library. Nevertheless, I look forward to a candid dialog about the important issues that face Pennsylvania, including the ongoing budget impasse, the looming pension crisis, our achievements in progressive environmental policy, education funding, and problems in our political process. I hope you will be able to join me!

Daylin

Pennsylvanians Oppose new Taxes?? Not so fast.

2009-07-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

In my 7 years in the Pennsylvania legislature, I think I've learned a few basic truisms, one of which is: If you want to make a constituent mad, raise their taxes, but if you want to make a constituent furious, cut their services.

If constituents notice an extra $5 a week coming out of their paychecks, I may receive an angry e-mail. But if the pothole on their street is not fixed or they receive a letter telling them their mother-in-law can no longer stay in the county nursing home and must instead come live with them, I am likely to receive a very insistent personal visit.

This adage is particularly germane to the current budget impasse. We have a $3.3 billion budget deficit and unlike the federal government, we can't print or borrow money. We have to actually balance the budget, and the only two ways to do that are to cut expenditures and/or increase revenues. The governor has proposed some deep and painful cuts, but has also suggested increasing taxes as part of the mix. The Republicans who control the Senate have taken an absolutist position that they will not support any increased taxes, for any purpose. Their unwillingness to compromise is the reason we continue to be deadlocked.

In floor debate, and during press conferences, my Republican colleagues continue to cite polls to support their assertion that "the people of Pennsylvania don't want to pay any more taxes." The problem with that statement is that it is both technically true and extremely misleading because it is an inaccurate reflection of where the people actually stand.

Certainly, if you ask people, "Do you want to pay more taxes?" the majority will say no. But that question doesn't tie lower taxes to the loss of services which will surely follow. It presumes a consequence-free world where we don't actually have to pay for the services we want. Of course, if you ask the opposite question, "Do you want government services improved?" the result will be lopsidedly affirmative. Asking either question in a vacuum will fail to give you a true picture of how people feel.

Even generically linking lower taxes to service cuts will paint a misleading picture. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, by a margin of 55% to 35%, people said they oppose raising taxes even if it means a cut in state services. But this is an unrevealing question because when you ask if people want services cut without identifying those services, they tend to imagine someone else's services. Everyone has, in their mind, a group of services they don't think are worthy; but those are rarely the services they, or people they care about, receive.

It is only by linking taxes to a specific service that you can learn where the public really stands. And when that is done, it becomes clear that people want government services and are willing to pay for them. That same Quinnipiac Poll found that by a margin of 53% to 43%, Pennsylvanians would be willing to pay higher taxes to "avoid cuts in state spending on such things as health care and public schools."

Of course, if the Republican budget proposals pass, there will be dramatic cuts in both of those categories, and this is clearly not what Pennsylvanians want. Quinnipiac did not ask if people would pay higher taxes to preserve public safety, or ensure a clean environment, or invest in infrastructure, or job creation, but other pollsters in other states have. People who overwhelmingly oppose higher taxes initially become very supportive of them when faced with the real-life consequences of the cuts they face.

Further proof that people want, in the words of Mario Cuomo, “only the government we need, but all the government we need” can be found in the various referenda placed on ballots around the state. In my own county and municipality, people recently voted overwhelmingly to tax themselves more to pay for open-space preservation. Again, many of these people would tell a pollster that they oppose tax increases for unspecified purposes.

I think that while the Republican position on the budget is certainly sincere, it is also wrong. Failing to raise the revenues to invest in basic services will hurt real people and do great damage to Pennsylvania's future. And while we can have legitimate philosophical differences, the one thing I do not believe the Republicans can fairly claim is that theirs is a future the people of Pennsylvania want.

Same-Sex Marriage in Pennsylvania

2009-06-24T13:29:00.000-07:00

I have recently introduced SB 935, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

I do so now for several reasons. First, because many other states are moving to consider this issue, including Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa and Washington D.C. which have recently passed legislation. New York and New Jersey soon will. Further, a bill banning same-sex marriage was recently introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate and it is important to provide the legislature with a timely pro-civil-rights, pro-family alternative. But mostly, each day in which gay Pennsylvanians are denied their fundamental human rights is a profound injustice.

The case for same-sex or gay marriage is simple. The state and federal government confer hundreds of benefits upon married couples that are unavailable to single people. This is done to facilitate and encourage marriage, which benefits our entire society. We should be doing with gay couples what we do with straight couples; encouraging them to enter permanent, monogamous, stable and legally recognized unions.

The arguments against gay marriage are much more complicated.

First, we are told that we need to “protect traditional marriage”. But from what? What bad thing has happened to straight couples in states where gay couples can marry? Studies show straight-marriage rates remain the same in those states. So do divorce rates, birth rates, and rates of domestic violence. There is no change whatsoever in the status, behavior or happiness of married heterosexual couples when a married gay couple moves in down the street.

We hear that some organizations that disapprove of gay marriage might act out if such marriages are allowed. For example, in Massachusetts a Catholic adoption agency didn’t want to adopt to gay couples and closed down. This argument is akin to the “Heckler’s Veto” concept. In First Amendment law some have tried to ban certain speech by saying it would upset the listener who would then “Heckle” or otherwise cause a disturbance. For example, if civil-rights workers were allowed to march in the South, that would upset local racists and they might throw rocks. The Courts have consistently rejected the argument that threats based on disapproval were a justification to ban speech. Similarly, there is not a justification to stop people from marrying the person they love either.

We also hear the frankly strange argument that if we legalize gay marriage we will somehow have no choice but to legalize polygamy, incest and inter-species marriage. Not so. We draw reasonable lines all the time in all areas of the law. You can drive 65, but not 95. You can keep a gun, but not a truck bomb. Similarly, you can marry one partner, but not an Aardvark. Any law involves line drawing. It seems reasonable that the line should be drawn where it allows each person the opportunity to have a life partner.

The fact is that there is no reasonable alternative to recognized same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples exist and always will. Many of them are raising children. Many opponents of gay marriage preach that children should not be raised out of wedlock, but the one sure way to raise the number of children being raised out of wedlock is to deny their parents the chance to marry. They also urge young people to delay sexual relationships until marriage. But if gay people can’t marry, what would they tell a gay teen about when it is appropriate for them to have a sexual relationship?

Gay couples are denied many of the basic rights and services straight couples take for granted. This includes everything from Social Security Survivor Benefits to mandatory leave to care for a sick partner. Further, they and their children are forced to live under a legal framework that treats their families as somehow not legitimate. There are literally thousands of such unjust burdens placed upon people who want nothing more than to start a family. Simple decency demands an end to this.

I am under no illusions that this bill will become law in the short term. However, I also have no doubt that 15 years from now same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, and people will be as ashamed that we ever banned it as they are now that we ever banned inter-racial marriage. My hope is that by introducing this bill now, we will start the discussion we need to have and bring the day of equality a little closer.

Skating Away...

2009-01-21T14:20:00.001-08:00

Howdy -

I had originally intended to write at least two, maybe three separate blogs about what it was like to be in DC for the inaugural. But as I was swept in the vortex of all of it, I found I had no time to even collect my thoughts, let alone write them down, accidentally delete them, curse at my computer, and then write them down again, which is my usual writing process.

Thus, as I lie on my hotel bed with my laptop, freshly returned from my 10 hour Inaugural ordeal, I can do nothing but offer one grand, sweeping first-hand account of history. It will be epic, like "Gone with the Wind" except things turn out better for Atlanta, or like "Moby Dick" except that calling me "Ishmael" is likely to just confuse me. It will be like the Torah, except with very little religion and much less begetting. It will be grand poetry, like the stuff that doesn't rhyme, a trilogy in two parts, a haiku with infinite syllables, a legend, a myth and a self-help book. And it all starts with my car getting towed.

My wife Jen, our friend Dina and I drove to DC at about midnight on Sunday night. This was my idea, the theory being that there would be no traffic at that time. The theory was correct, but apparently so was the theory that there would be no traffic on Monday morning. THAT theory would have allowed us to sleep at home, drive at a reasonable hour, and not park my car in the private garage of my friend Adam.

Be that as it may, we slept at Adam's place for a few hours Sunday night. When we awoke Monday morning we had a difficult time finding our car in his lot. That's because it wasn't there. It had been towed by a man who called himself "Turtle" and for the low, low price of $205 I could have my very own car back. When I went to pick up the car I tried to show Turtle my disapprobation by giving him the cold shoulder. I discovered however that Turtle was remarkably taciturn and refused to demonstrate any noticeable interest in the health of our relationship. To demonstrate, allow me to recount a portion of our conversation

What do I owe you?

TURTLE

Give me 205 dollars

Do you find that you are self-actualized in this job?

TURTLE

(scratches his arm)

Pause

(blows his nose)

Where'd you get the name Turtle?

TURTLE

Give me 205 Dollars

After I got my car back, we checked into our hotel. It was the hotel hosting most of the Pennsylvania contingent. The decor was really nice...in 1956. Now, not so much. The first thing we did was watch some news. One of the interesting phenomena that occur when you go to one of these huge historic events is that you are right in the middle of things, yet since your perspective is limited, you have no idea what is going on. This was the case at the Democratic National Convention in Denver and I was committed to trying to keep up with what was happening as I witnessed it.

After that we had to go to a restaurant near Union Station for a dinner I threw for about 25 people. We got in a cab and quickly realized that the carefree-no traffic morning was gone. The roads were packed. After paying $21 to go three blocks in 45 minutes we got out and walked. It was then we first recognized that Washington had become Obama-city. Each street corner had bling-stands selling everything from Obama buttons and T-shirts to towels, jewelry and "Obama Cologne". That's right. Apparently, for $15 you can smell like Barack Obama.

As we walked further (there was a lot of walking this week) we noticed that almost every store had some Obama sign or painting in the window. Delis had ads for various Obama sandwiches or salads. Thousands of people were scurrying on each crowded street with the word "Obama" on them somewhere. I was here in 1993 and 97 for the Clinton inaugurals and they were nothing like this. Now, I am a huge Obama fan. I was an early supporter, a delegate at the convention and a Barack vote in the Electoral College. Sure, I've shaved Barack's visage into my hair and have the permanent "Yes We Can" facial tattoo. But the hero worship I saw in DC this week was a bit much even for me.

Later Monday night we went to the Pennsylvania "Yes We Did" party at the hotel. It was seemingly packed with everyone who had ever been to Pennsylvania. The featured band was "Sister Sledge", whose last hit "We Are Family" came out slightly before "Billy Don't be a Hero" and was first played at the Eisenhower Inaugural. But some things are timeless. Not that, but some things. At one point, Midge Rendell, our First Lady, elegant, and surprisingly rhythmic took the stage and danced with the band and for a brief moment, all 248 candidates for Governor in 2010 seemed to embrace Barack's call to unity. We went to bed feeling like we were about to witness a new era being born.

On Tuesday, Inauguration Day, the alarm went off at 6:30 a.m., interrupting the recurring dream I have involving me repeatedly hitting Celine Dion with a goose. I'm not sure what the dream means, but I find it very relaxing. Our entire posse than gathered in our room and prepared as if going into battle. The forecast called for wind chills in the low teens, so each of us had a detailed layering plan.

We also gathered our tickets and maps. Each ticket had a color which determined how close you were going to be to Barack at the magic moment. Jen and I had highly coveted orange tickets because I was an elector (although I told my friends that the orange tickets were for "smart people"). People with orange tickets had seats, as did some of the people in the purple section. There was also a green section and a silver section which involved standing and started a full half mile away from the stage. All of us had some color but no more than a few of the same color, so we all had to split up.

As we left the hotel at 8:15, we began the two mile walk to the Capitol. At first, the crowd was thin, but thickened with every block. It was frigid, but there was a palpable purpose in our collective strides. We all really felt that we were walking into history and everyone knew that everyone else felt the same. There was, however, a problem.

All of the streets were blocked. We asked a police officer where we should go to get in and were told to go to First Avenue. When we got there we found we were joining 10,000 people or more already packed into a narrow street. After about an hour the crowd had ballooned to over 20,000 and they were not letting anyone in. As the crowd compressed, the risk of someone being tramped to death became dangerously high. Fearing that "someone" might be me, I became panicked and used my brute force and my talent for irony to force my way (along with Jen) out of the pack an onto another street which was much better organized. Of everything I experienced this week, the (what I am calling) "Purple Ticket Apocalypse" was by far the biggest and potentially most consequential glitch.

Finally, we made it into our seats about 80 yards away from the podium and dead center. The seats couldn't have been better and by now the weather was sunny and brisk. I stood on my seat and looked backwards and saw a sea of people stretching back past the Washington Monument. It was breathtaking. I felt at last that all of my effort; the long drive, the cold, the endless walking, the near-death by crushing, dealing with Turtle, it had all been worth it. Now, all I had to do was sit back, on the same ground where Martin Luther King said "I have a dream", and face the same Capitol dome Martin faced while I watched that dream come true.

The ceremony was started by a man with a deep voice announcing each dignitary as they came out. When the man announced "The President of the United States, George W. Bush," 2 million people spontaneously started singing "Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye". I thought this was uncalled for. I'm certainly no fan of President Bush, but insulting him as he departed seemed gratuitous. I tried to distract the crowd by starting another song, "Don't sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else but Me", but it never really caught on.

Finally, Barack approached the podium to take the oath. Dozens of people around me broke out in tears even before he said a word. Almost all of them did so from the sheer historical heft of the moment, (the one notable exception was the woman whose tears were the result of me crushing her foot with my chair leg).

Then something amazing happened, Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office. Keep in mind, this is a 39 word oath that every second-grader has memorized. The Chief Justice knew for the past 4 years that this moment would come. You'd think he'd have nailed this. Him messing it up is like the Pope mis-stating the Lord's Prayer, or a groom completely getting tangled up during "I DO".

After the Inaugural address, there was a great moment. The tradition is that the incoming and outgoing Presidents and Vice-Presidents go to the back of the Capitol where there is a farewell ceremony. There are handshakes all around and then the Vice President gets in a limo and the now ex-President gets on a helicopter and flies back to Crawford, Texas (I think that's where they all go, at least since Milliard Fillmore, but I'll have to check on that).

Dick Cheney apparently sprained a back muscle and thus was in a wheelchair. It was a fitting end to his tenure as the Torquemada of the administration to see him wheeled into his car, whacking small children with his cane to get them out of his way. Sometimes, when they weren't in his way, he'd swoop his chair over to whack them anyway.

Then, President Obama hugged President Bush and walked him to the Helicopter. The crowd in front of the capitol was slowly dispersing to the exits. But many of us stopped to watch the ceremony on the giant TV screens dotting the nation's mall. It seemed like an eternity but eventually the helicopter blades started rotating, and hundreds of thousands of people started chanting "LIFT, LIFT!!" Finally, it did, to tumultuous applause.

But then the helicopter went off of the TV screens and emerged over the dome of the Capitol directly above us. The crowd went crazy and started jumping up and down and waving wildly. To George W. Bush it probably looked like the crowd was waving "Good-bye". But on the ground, it was clear the crowd was waiving "good riddance". Then, the copter gone, we walked out onto the familiar sidewalks of First Avenue. And although the streets of DC looked the same, the world felt completely different.

I'm a big fan of the prog rock group Jethro Tull (the one thing I share with Dick Cheney). One of my favorite Tull songs is entitled "Skating Away on the Thin Ice of a New Day". As I walked down Mass. Ave, looking for the Obama Lava Lamp I promised to buy my daughter, I thought of a line from that song. "Do you ever get to feeling that...everybody's on the stage and it seems like you're the only person sitting in the audience?" Well today, even though I wasn't literally on the stage (thanks to some particularly aggressive and well-armed secret service agents), I felt that I joined the entire nation (even Turtle) on the stage, standing with our new President. As we skate away on the thin ice of this new administration, I know that I wouldn't have missed this day for the world.

-Daylin

This message and any attachment may contain privileged or confidential information intended solely for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader is not the intended recipient then be advised that forwarding, communicating, disseminating, copying or using this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the information without saving any copies.

2009-01-21T11:33:00.000-08:00

2009-01-18T07:34:00.000-08:00

As I prepare to go to DC for the Inauguration of Barack Obama, I feel like I'm about to embark on an epic journey. Like preparing to board the Orient Express, or the Schuylkill during rush hour. I am at the base of Everest, packing my rucksack and telling the Sherpas one more time that they shouldn't expect a tip. I am on the coast of Antarctica, about to speed to the South Pole with a hearty "MUSH" to my sled-poodles. I am on the Nina, pushing off of the shore to the new world, waving to the Pinta, and all the Pintonians.

I deliberately chose not to employ the "Enterprise" as a metaphor because I am clearly not going to where no man has gone before. In fact, as I write this, I am told that there are already a million people in DC, camping out, lighting fires, eating the freshly-killed moose culled from the wild plains of Adams Morgan (the National Zoo is most upset). Stated another, less weird way, this is going to get crowded.

Here, some perspective is in order: If you know the Mall in DC, visualize the area from the Capitol steps, where Obama will be sworn in, to the Washington Monument , (which incidentally, I don't think looks like him at all). That 3/4 mile space holds about one million people. Keep going back all the way to the Lincoln Memorial. Now you can accommodate about 2.5 million people. Some estimates say that as many as 4 million people plan to come. All of this is to say that I am becoming pessimistic about my chances of getting a primo parking space.

Not only is it going to be crowded, it's also apparently going to be cold. The weather forecasts all say that the temperature will be in the teens. Many say there will be bitter winds. Some are even calling for locusts. Of course, we've all heard that the secret to staying warm is "layering". So I plan to wear all the sweat-shirts I have in my closet,. That is unless the Eagles make it to the Super-Bowl, in which case I'll just be wearing gym shorts and painting my chest green.

Even though we have tickets, we were told to get there no later than 7:00 AM for the noon festivities. Walking for miles at dawn and standing in the bitter cold for 6 hours next to complete strangers has the potential to be occasionally unpleasant. I'll try to pass the time by striking up conversations with those lucky enough to stand near me. I've even been thinking of conversation starters I could use, like "Yo, you gonna eat that Granola Bar?", or "Can I borrow your coat?" or "Tell me again why I can't borrow your coat.". Hey, at least I'll make some friends.

Even with all of this effort, and despite having tickets as a member of the Electoral College, I'm still likely to be about as close to Barack as I would be if I just went to a pub in Ardmore. The Capitol itself will be a small dot in the distance and Barack's inaugural address will probably sound like someone confirming my filet-o-fish order at a drive-through window. The majestic "Hail to the Chief" will probably be drowned out by the sounds of Sarah Palin drilling Ice-fishing holes on the Potomac.

Some folks have asked why I'm willing to brave all of this when I have a perfectly fine television set in my warm living room. But those people are missing something. I haven't paid my cable bill, so there is no TV. But they are also missing something else. The fact is that all of the inconvenience and the pain will actually help punctuate the experience in my memory. This is first degree history. I'm not looking to just see it, I'm looking for a story, an experience. Someday I want to tell my great-great grandchildren (fish oil - you live forever) what it was like. What it felt like, what it tasted like. I don't want to just say that I watched it on the TV of a neighbor who pays their bills and hopefully stocks their fridge.

So I'm down for the discomfort. If you see a guy in a traffic jam smiling and clapping his hands, that will be me. If you see someone whose lost a finger to frostbite, but is still dancing the Macarena, that's me again. If you notice a person who is gone into cardiac arrest due to severe hypothermia, and is being given CPR. and is still singing "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina and the Waves between chest compressions, you can bet that's your new State Senator, witnessing history, and walking towards the light.

The next installment of this blog will be on Sunday night from DC. Wish me luck!

2009-01-08T12:21:00.000-08:00

I believe it is important, whenever possible, to witness historical events first-hand. This can be somewhat tricky, in that we often don't contemporaneously know when history will be made, and we've missed a lot of the best history, not having been alive in the past and all. That explains the relatively few eyewitness reports I've written about Charlemagne, although you can bet that if I were alive in 768 I would have hopped on a bus to see his father, "Peppin the Short" bequeath Charlemagne his lands!

In my lifetime, when I sensed history was proximate, I've done all I can to be there. I was at the past 6 Democratic National Conventions. I was at both Bill Clinton Inaugurals, and once spent a weekend drinking with George McGovern (true story).

Sometimes I've guessed wrong about when history will be made. In retrospect getting that "I voted for President Morris Udall" tattoo across my chest was probably a mistake. And when my buddy "Stimps" wrote asking the Beatles to reunite for his high school prom in 1979, I thought it was unlikely they would, but I showed up just in case. The reunion never happened, but I did wind up getting his date to help me wash my car, and we got to listen to a lot of Styx that night.

This past year has seemed to simply crackle with history. We had both the first woman and the first African-American with a serious chance to be elected President. I wanted to be there for as much of it as I could. The first thing I thought was important to do was to back the right candidate (aka: the eventual winner). In an election, backing the winner means access and reflected glory. Backing a loser can mean spending the key moments of the election eating Cheeze-its and flipping channels between CNN and Rachel Ray making tuna-nachos.

The problem is that I almost never back the winner. In fact, my support for a candidate usually guarantees that they are indicted and/or eaten by crocodiles (or both) within days. I've had grown men weeping at my feet begging me to endorse their political opponents. You may have noticed that George McGovern was never President. My guy! You won't be reading many books about Gary Hart's first term. While he was in Biminy on the "Monkey Business," I was at my kitchen table hand-lettering "Go Gary!" yard signs. Tom Harkin? All mine! Ted Kennedy? Quit my work-study job to work for him. Fred Harris, Paul Simon, John Edwards? Me, me, me!

With this history, I was not particularly optimistic as the 2008 cycle got started. There were times when I thought I'd just start the "I [heart] Mike Gravel Fan Club" and be done with it. But then, a miracle happened (no, not Celine Dion's record contract being cancelled, but that would be good too!): I decided to back Barack Obama, and he actually won.

When I came out for Barack, I was one of only a small handful of Democratic elected officials who supported him. Most of the Pennsylvania political establishment was for Hillary. As a result, I had incredible access, and the chance to participate in amazing events. I was asked to speak at rallies and introduce Barack. I got to go to lots of events with famous surrogates. The highlight for me was introducing actress Jessica Lange at a coffee in Bryn Mawr. We really hit it off, although she did give me a funny look when I claimed to be her body-double in all of her action films. I was a delegate at the National Convention, and a member of the Electoral College. Now, I am completing the circle and heading down to DC for the Inauguration of the first man I ever backed from day one as the next President of the United States.

Some of you (Hi Mom!) will remember that I blogged from the Convention in Denver. I will be doing the same from DC. I will try to impart to you some small sense of what it is like from the first hand perspective of someone who loves history, and who thinks they're really funny after their second virgin egg-nog. I hope you enjoy the eyewitness account of Barack Obama's swearing-in.

As I pack for the trip (lots of warm clothes, granola bars, and Dr. Phil tapes) I am mindful of the unique opportunity I have. Even though I will be a small speck in a sea of people, and Barack will probably just be a distant voice on a distorted amplification system, I will be there. I will be there, like the folks in Gettysburg when Lincoln spoke were there. I'll be there like the people at Carpenter Hall or the moon launch or Woodstock were there. I'll have the chance to taste history in a way that watching TV or reading a book can't touch. I hope I can do it all justice.

I also hope that Barack gives me a shout-out during the Inaugural address. I'll keep you all posted!

Daylin