Dear CNN,

I didn’t want to do this over the internet, in my blog of all places, but I don’t know how else to talk to you. We don’t seem to see each other much anymore and I can’t even remember the last time we had a civil conversation. I feel like I’ve made an effort here but that you have just left me out in the cold. It’s time to tell you how I feel and maybe it’s better for both of us that the world knows it. It’s taken me a while to work up to courage to say this to you and if I had to do it in person I might not be able to follow through so it’s good that once I hit the “Post” button there’s no taking this back: I’m leaving you.

You and I both know we’ve had problems for some time now. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been in denial about it for a long time now. I don’t know when I first started to notice it – maybe it was during the OJ trial or the Elian Gonzales incident – but I know that we started to drift apart sometime in the late 1990’s. Sure, we were still having good times back then, and you treated me better than anyone else ever did. You were always there for me – 24 hours a day, seven days a week, whenever I needed you. I’ll also never forget how generous you were. You gave me Headline News, CNN International, and of course, I’ll never forget the web site. Remember that night you gave me cnn.com? That was an amazing night.

Yet none of those things can make up for the growing distance between us. Somewhere along the line the bad times started to outnumber the good. I started to see pieces on your web site that made no sense to me. When I saw “Dog with amputated leg saves diabetic mom” I thought it was a mistake and that there had to be some other explanation. I guess when you love something you try to not see flaws and make excuses. But then there was the Morning Show. I didn’t even know what to think after that. I know I said some things that I regret, like calling you a network news rip-off and a “Charlie Gibson Lover”, and I apologized for that, but deep down I was telling you the truth. You blamed it on Fox News and the internet and said you’d try harder to change and be a better source of journalism for me, and I believed you.

Then came 2000 and the election. I came home to find hanging chads all over the place. You didn’t even try to hide it anymore! We fought for hours and decided to take a break from “us” for a few months. I thought that if I tried newspapers and other websites for a while I’d start to remember all those things I loved about you again. It seemed to work, and when we got back together things seemed better for a little while. You were great with September 11^th, and I started to see the same CNN I fell in love with all those years ago. Sadly, though, I know now that nothing had changed. As soon you started to say the words “shock and awe”, I knew our problems had returned. Your morning show got worse with commentary and animal fluff pieces. You let Lou Dobbs start ranting about immigration on his show that was supposed to be about money. I knew our relationship was falling apart.

I told myself that as soon as you got through Katrina coverage that I would end things with you. You made it hard – Anderson Cooper helped me mask the pain with his persistent questions and pretty face. It seemed like you were making a real effort to win me back with actual journalism. I was also weak, forgot about our problems, and stayed with you for a few more years because it was just too easy. Then came Anna Nicole Smith. The night she died your eyes lit up like they did the night OJ was in his Bronco. Then you kept saying “baby daddy” over and over again and it seemed like it would never stop. You told me it was just a temporary thing, but in the same breath you reported on the Virginia Tech massacre in a way that made me want to vomit.

As hard as this is, we both know that “we” can’t work. I’ve been with you for twenty years now, and I’m having a hard time remembering why I fell in love with you. That first night we hung out during the invasion of Kuwait seems fresh in my mind but the emotions of the moment are gone now. I find myself longing for those days knowing that we can never get them back. I need some space from you for a while. I changed my browser homepage to MSNBC – I didn’t want to throw that in your face but I didn’t want you to hear it from someone else. I hope you take care of yourself and that someday you can recapture the good days. I’ll never hate you, but I don’t think that I can ever love you again. I hope that someday we can be friends, but that can only happen with time.

Good-bye,

Marty

Even The Weirdos Realize O'Reilly is Full of Shit

I NEVER thought I would ever utter these words, but tonight I am PROUD of Geraldo Rivera.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/05/bill-oreillys-head-practically-explodes-as-he-screams-at-geraldo/

Get 'em...

What's a District to Do?

So now that I've complained about our current situation and and highlighted how inane the arguments against DC voting rights are, it's time to propose a few solutions. In starting off, I'd like to say that I agree with some points from my opposition. First, DC is not a state, nor should it ever be. As vehement as I have been in my assertion that voting rights are inborn for all Americans, statehood is not. As the seat of our Federal government, DC would be an illogical state. Ignoring for a second that a state government would be totally size inappropriate for DC, our Federal government does need an area in which to operate itself effectively without potential state/federal conflicts.

I also don't believe that DC should have the same representation that States have in the US Congress. I may have eluded to such a thing in my previous installments, but Bill Cash makes an excellent point in that DC is inherently represented in the Federal government because it IS the Federal government. The legislators who's vote in Congress we so covet do have to drive through our neighborhoods, drink in our bars, and pass our homeless people every day while they're in town.

Having said all that, we still need representation for all the reasons I cited in my previous posts. We need it not just because we pay the same federal taxes that the rest of the country pays, but because we need a stake in our Federal government and some say in the actions that it takes. Several member of the DC National Guard have lost their lives in Iraq, yet none of those who died or who are actively serving in that quagmire have any representatives in Congress with which to voice their support or opposition to the war. In the next 20 years, when our national realizes the mess we've gotten into with Social Security, our retiring population (albeit much lower than that of Florida) will have no say in how our Congress proposes fixes to the current system. And god forbid we have any say in environmental legislation, drafted up by the rest of the states and imposed here without anyone from DC lending a voice.

We need votes, but how do we get them? The most obvious, and for some reason inflammatory, solution is to draft up and pass a Constitutional amendment granting DC representation in both the House and Senate. Yes, you heard me say it... we want a SENATE seat too. Why not? Why would this be an unthinkable resolution to our problem? Again, as I said before, we do have some inherent representation in the government. Perhaps a single US Senator, instead of the same two that States have, would be appropriate. I do, however, believe we need an appropriate number of House represntatives that reflects the population of our city. Currently we'd probably have to be content with a single House rep., but if our city continues to grow, we may get a whole TWO! Take that, California!

In the interim, I would like to have some legislation passed that gives DC at least a vote in the House, until we get our Constitutional amendment up and running. We haven't really made a change to the Reapportionment Act of 1929 since... well... 1929, so I think we're due for a look-sie. Sure, Elenor Holmes Norton would be bat-shit crazy and would propose crazy legislation, but that's what the House is for, right?

So now... your thoughts?

I Don't Think We Make Tea in DC...

So you say DC residents shouldn’t have a voice in Congress? You say the principles of a representative democracy upon which our nation was founded don’t apply to the residents of our capital city? Let’s take these arguments one at a time…





Flawed Argument #1: "DC is a special part of the United States. It is not a state for a reason. DC gets special treatment in the form of billions of dollars every year that other municipal regions do not receive. You guys might not get votes in Congress, but you don’t need them. The rest of us states take care of you guys. Just sit back and enjoy the federal dollars."

Sure, we’re special. We have a lot of federal money focused on a very small area, but this area has been set aside specifically for housing our federal government and the related industries. Yet, for most DC residents, the money from the federal government makes little difference in our lives. We still pay outrageous taxes here as residents of the city (higher than most municipal and state income taxes combined), on top of the federal taxes we pay that are equal to those of the rest of the country. I take issue with the suggestion that we are better off than most of our counterparts in American States. While we do receive a lot of federal government funding, so do all of you! Farm subsidies? Transportation subsidies? Energy subsidies? And what about that bridge to nowhere in Alaska? The only difference is… you all get a say in how that happens. The federal dollars spent in the rest of the nation are meant to benefit those in the receiving states, including the amazing amount of “pork” in federal budgets fried up for the states by their congressional representatives. In most cases here in DC, the federal dollars received are meant to maintain and protect the federal government and to benefit the visitors to this city – not it’s residents. The most we can do is send Eleanor Holmes Norton in to complain about the how often our city is abused by the Captiol Police and the Secret Service. I guarantee they have all built up a tolerance to her voice, and without a real vote in the House, her voice is all we have to represent us there.

It's insulting to suggest that because Congressmen and Congresswomen spend a good bulk of their time in our city that we should be happy with that as our representation. These people do not spend time in our "less popular" areas or have to think about the future of the city as they may not even be here in a few years. They are also beholden to their own constituents, so the needs of their home states will always come before the needs of DC in their minds. We need to have voices in Congress that reflect the attitudes, beliefs, and needs of our District. That's what a Republic is all about.

Flawed Argument #2: "DC would never be able to elect a competent set of representitives. They elected Marion Barry, for god's sake!"

I only four words to counter this argument - Tom Delay and Cynthia McKinney.

Flawed Argument #3: "The Constitution doesn't allow DC to have Congressional representation."

Constitutionally, the argument against DC voting rights in Congress is lazy. Specifically, opponents site the up-front language in the Constitution that limits representation with Article 1, Sections 2 and 3 of the US Constitution…

• “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
• “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...”

There’s no mention of DC getting a vote, and some would argue that because the concept of a federal District was alive and kicking at the time the document was signed that the wording of these Articles was deliberate. Think about it – a 100 square mile area in which only the Federal government had jurisdiction. There would be no triple-layer bureaucracy that haunts the development of most urban areas. The only problem was – few Federal employees in 1801 wanted to take a horse and buggy from Virginia or Maryland every day to get to work – a commute that plagues us still today. So it was logical to take up residence next to the office. Hence, DC grew as our Federal government grew. We then needed schools, libraries, hospitals, and grocery stores, which all required employees… who all needed to live close to work.

I think the best part about our Constitution is that when we all get together and decide something is wrong, we can change it! OK, so that Prohibition thing didn't really work out too well, but here are a few great examples of how this worked well for us…

• We got rid of slavery. Yes, slavery WAS in the Constitution… or rather the fact that slaves were worth 3/5 of what a free man was worth.
• We let women vote. I think it was a good idea.
• We let states elect Senators instead of letting the state governments pick them.
• We decided that we needed an income tax. Corn taxes just weren’t cutting it.

The list goes on. My point is – the Constitution is great, but sometimes we have to tweak it. The challenge is working up enough courage to challenge the national inertia - something our wise founders counted on to make sure that amendments really were necessary. Is this a good way to get DC representation in Congress? I'll address that in the third installment.