Happy New Week! And, you know, month, and year. It's that time again when we celebrate an arbitrarily-chosen date to be in the "next" year! Yay!

Quick announcement -- on Thursday, January 22 Planned Parenthood is holding a luncheon to honor Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter. It is being held at the Capitol City Club from noon to 1:30pm, and tickets are $40. For more information contact Kate Hampton at kate.hampton@pphsinc.org or by phone at 803.256.2600 ext. 6742 (they have a very nice announcement flyer, but I can't send PDFs through this list). The announcement is also on their website:

http://www.pphsinc.org/calendar/index.html

Yes, it's a new year, but one of the things that really doesn't seem to be improving year after year is the situation with Israel and the Gaza Strip. What's happening there right now is a tragedy in humanitarian terms, in political terms, and in just about any other kind of terms you'd like to apply. The Palestinian civilians are trapped in a seemingly hopeless living situation, and they have little power to stop what is going on. The Israelis are trapped in a seemingly hopeless political situation, from which there seems to be no clean exit. And Hamas is in the middle, doing everything they can to make sure that both parties remain hopeless.

I'm not going to argue that what Israel is doing is "right" or "just" -- those words mean very little in this context. However, I do want to address what I see as a demonization of Israel. Specifically, I want to talk about the issue of proportionality. I can't count the number of times I've heard that what Israel is doing is "disproportional." I take that to mean that it is unfair that such a small number of Israelis have been killed compared to a much larger number of Palestinians. So, would it be more fair if hundreds of Israelis were killed as well? How's this for a new proverb (coined by my father, in fact): "Relative ineffectiveness in efforts to kill the other side does not confer moral superiority." The fact is, if Hamas could kill hundreds of Israelis, soldiers or civilians (although to be sure that line is blurred in Israel), they would gladly, even eagerly, do so. The fact that they have thus far failed to do so does not change that. But that is also not the point.

Although I am not a lawyer, it is my understanding that in the context of international law, "proportional" is defined as the amount of force necessary to stop or prevent an illegal action, and no more. It has nothing to do with how much force one side brings to bear compared with the other side, or how many casualties there are on one side versus the other. If it takes 50 SWAT team members to take down a single sniper lodged in a bell tower on a college campus somewhere, is that a disproportional response? I don't think so. Now, with that in mind, think about this: Hamas has fired explosive rockets in Israel at an average pace of 2 or 3 per day for years and years, despite everything that Israel has attempted. People who think Israel has never attempted negotiation are wrong -- they've been doing it for decades, at all levels of government, including bi-lateral and multi-party talks. They even made some progress with Arafat and the PLO -- not tremendous progress, but progress nonetheless. People who think Israel has not tried lesser measures to stop the rocket attacks are wrong -- they've tried sanctions, blockades, pinpoint strikes against known bombers and terrorists, etc. None of it has worked.

Israel is well within its rights, and in fact has a moral obligation, to do anything and everything it can to protect its citizens. The US has a long and bloody history of military intervention, and that's with two giant oceans protecting us from enemies. What do you think the American government would do (yes, even under an Obama administration), if a rogue state suddenly popped up on our borders and started lobbing powerful grenades at populated areas. Don't you think the army would go in there pretty quick with overwhelming force? Remember "shock and awe?" If someone were throwing grenades around Columbia, even if 98% of them didn't hurt anyone, wouldn't you want that person to be stopped? Now Imagine living under that threat every day for years and years. That's how any Israeli living within 30 or 40 kilometers of the Gaza Strip feels.

And what about the Palestinian civilian casualties, you may ask. Well, that wouldn't happen nearly as much if Hamas didn't stockpile weapons in apartment buildings on purpose, to use its inhabitants as human shields. That is when international law is violated, not when Israel destroys those weapon stockpiles. Israel has very precise weapons -- when they hit a target, odds are that they mean to. That is not disproportional when it is the only way to get Hamas to stop using those weapons.

Earlier I wrote that Palestinian civilians had "little" power, but that is not to say that they have "no" power. After all, it was the Palestinians themselves who elected Hamas in the first place. This short-sightedness on their part is a tragedy, to be sure, but it is one that they can correct the next time elections roll around. Partly due to the lack of economic opportunities (ie., jobs), the Palestinian territories have one of the highest concentrations of PhDs in the entire world. Those are the people who should be in charge! Unfortunately, those are the people who lost the election. And, it should be pointed out, they don't have the guns that Hamas has. It will be very difficult to dislodge Hamas at this point. When you elect thugs and terrorists, they don't all of a sudden stop being thugs and terrorists, and they are very unhappy if you try to un-elect them.

This is, as I said before, truly a tragedy on every level. My liberal heart bleeds with every death, on both sides. It is not, however, a case of a big bad bully trampling on the rights of a simple people just trying to live their lives. It is the case of a sovereign nation stepping in to stop deadly attacks on its citizens, in a region where the elected government not only refuses to stop the attacks, but in fact is the party carrying out those attacks. Keep in mind, too, that it is very much in Hamas's interests for the violence to continue indefinitely, because as long as Israel uses military force, Hamas continues to get money and guns and rockets from Iran, Syria, and much of the rest of the Arab world. As soon as there is a legitimate peace process, Hamas has no relevance, and those countries will simply start funding the next most radical group in the region (see: the PLO -- when's the last time you heard from them?).

I am not arguing that Israel has done nothing wrong -- I strongly disagree with many of their policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians, going all the way back from the founding of Israel in the 1940s to the disaster in Lebanon last year and their continuing to treat Israeli Arabs like second-class citizens. Nor am I even trying to take all of the blame away from Israel for the current situation in the Gaza Strip. My point is simply that there is plenty of blame to go around -- Israel gets some, to be sure, along with the Palestinians who voted Hamas into control of the Gaza Strip. However, it is Hamas who is most at fault for the continuing, escalating, horrifying violence, and they will continue to be at fault until they start governing for the good of the Palestinian people, rather than for the good of their own agenda. The Palestinian civilians and the Israelis are victims of Hamas, and both deserve our compassion and our support.

What: Drinking Liberally
When: Tuesday, January 6, 7:15ish
Where: Publick House
2307 Devine Street
Columbia, SC 29205
(803)256-2207 for directions

--Rafi

Happy New Year!

I'm running short on time tonight, but I wanted to send out two quick links.

First, as a follow-up piece on the whole Rick Warren choice for Obama's inauguration (http://livingliberally.org/drinking/chapters/SC/columbia if you missed it), Frank Rich has a thoughtful and well-researched piece in the New York Times. Bottom line: Rick Warren really isn't all that bad, compared to some, but he is still anti-gay rights, and Obama's defense of the choice is too glib (America is "diverse and noisy and opinionated" so that makes it OK), and he should be more careful spending the political capital that we won in the election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/opinion/28rich.html

Second, Paul Krugman wrote the best and most straightforward defense of the economic stimulus I've seen. Bottom line: in 1932 Herbert Hoover slashed the federal budget in response to the Great Depression, most likely lengthening the GD by years. Now governors in nearly every state are doing the same thing. SC's own Mark Sanford is particularly guilty of this extremely short-sighted response to the current budget crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html

OK! So, get your readin' on, and then come out and join us at DL for the LAST TIME EVER (in 2008). We've all been enjoying the new beer line-up at the Publick House (Corsendonk brown ale on tap!), so if you haven't had a chance yet you should come explore the new choices!

What: Drinking Liberally
When: Tuesday, December 30, 7:15ish
Where: Publick House
2307 Devine Street
Columbia, SC 29205
(803)256-2207 for directions

Remember that you can always view current and past DL emails at: http://livingliberally.org/drinking/chapters/SC/columbia

--Rafi

Well, how do you like this: it snuck up on me, but this week is the third anniversary of Columbia DL moving to the Publick House (we were at Flying Saucer before that, and the Salty Nut before that, and I think Yesterday's before that, but that was before I joined). It's the holiday season, so those of you not doing last-minute shopping on Tuesday night should definitely come on out and join us for a festive edition of Drinking Liberally!

There has been so much happening the past weeks and months that it is almost impossible to choose a topic for these weekly emails. This week was particularly hard, because I know what I want to write about, but it may not be popular. But heck -- the purpose of being a liberal isn't to be popular, it's to make people think. So, with that in mind, I'm going to discuss Obama choosing Rev. Rick Warren to give the Invocation at the presidential inauguration on January 20th (just 4 weeks away!).

Now, first, some facts: the inaugural Invocation typically lasts less than 3 minutes out of an inauguration event that will take up most of the day. It is not a position that allows a great deal of time to speak about many, or indeed any, issues. Also, it is not the only place in the ceremony that involves theologians or clergy -- there is also a Benediction, which is being given by Rev. Joseph Lowery. I'll get to that in a minute.

There has been great hue and cry from many Obama supporters that his choice of Warren for the Invocation is a betrayal of the causes they support, and the reasons they chose Obama, and even Obama's own principles. Rev. Warren, after all, is the head of a conservative mega-church, and is closely aligned with the conservative evangelical movement in this country. He does not support gay rights, and he is pro-life.

But here's the thing: those aren't very important issues for Warren. He doesn't spend his time lobbying for an anti-abortion constitutional amendment, as other evangelicals do. He doesn't oppose gay rights very vocally, given the platform he commands. Yes, he came out for California's Proposition 8, but only days before the election, and he neither donated nor helped raise money for it (unlike, for example, nearly the entire state of Utah). In fact, many conservative evangelicals have complained, loudly, that he doesn't help them nearly enough with this and other causes (rhymes with shmabortion). They've also complained that he spends so much of his time and money helping people who have AIDS -- something seemingly out of character for someone in the evangelical community.

Well, I don't need to go too far down this path, because it isn't my main point, and you can read about it in this AP news article:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i4plsiLN50xKMpHQiB5oxc...

So let's stop there. On January 20th, it won't matter how conservative Rick Warren is or is not. We, or at least I, elected Obama because I truly believe he can unite this country in important ways. He is not a polarizer, as Bush has been, and as even Clinton turned out to be after a fashion. His whole approach has been inclusive, not the least example of which has been selecting two Republicans to be in his Cabinet. How can we complain when he chooses to include a person who represents tens of millions of Americans in an event that will echo through the ages as a turning point in American history? I know many people who didn't vote for Obama but are proud -- yes, PROUD! -- that _America_ elected Obama. This is not Obama's inauguration as head of the Democratic party, or as King of the Liberals; it is his inauguration as the leader of the entire country. This is an event that everyone should participate in, or it will truly violate Obama's principles.

So, yeah, I don't agree with Rev. Warren on a lot of things. But here's the thing -- I disagree with Obama on some things, too. And that's OK -- he still will be MY president. Wouldn't it be fantastic if, for the first time in at least a generation, everyone in America said "He is MY president" -- no "Don't blame me..." bumper stickers, no "he stole the election" headline-stealing scandal-mongering -- just a staggeringly significant civic event that we will tell our children and grandchildren about. I was there! (in spirit if not in body) And so were you! And so were you! And so was Rick Warren and a host of other people that I oppose in many ways, but they were there, and we celebrated this event together.

One last thing about Rick Warren -- don't think for one second that he is doing this for personal gain, because the same people who have been complaining about him already within his own community have taken him to task for agreeing to be there, since they say it lends tacit support to Obama's policies. Not to mention this: do you think that Warren is unaware that he won't be the most popular guy in DC that day? I think it took a whole lot of guts for Obama to make the choice, and probably even more guts for Warren to accept the offer.

Finally, I want to get back to Rev. Joseph Lowery, who will be giving the Benediction at Obama's inauguration. Rev. Lowery is an 87-year old black minister in the United Methodist Church and a noted civil rights worker. How noted? He helped lead the Montgomery bus boycott in 1955. Along with Dr. King, he founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and was its president from 1977 until 1997. He led the march from Selma to Montgomery in 1965 -- you may have heard of the event. At Coretta Scott King's funeral he received a standing ovation for delivering these words in front of four US presidents (including Bush): "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor!"

Oh, and by the way, while Lowery is a supporter of rights for gay couples, he (like many religious leaders) does not openly support same-sex marriage. Yet no one is suggesting that he not participate in the inauguration based on that issue. Rev. Joseph Lowery is a big reason we are able to celebrate President Barack Obama in four weeks. He was a pioneer, and is one of the pillars upon whom Obama stands.

This inauguration is not about any single issue, no matter how important and close to our hearts that issue may be. It is not even about just one man. January 20th will be a chance to celebrate everything that this country can do right, and I believe it will do that. One thing we continue to do as a country is surprise the rest of the world, and sometimes even ourselves. I believe that is part of Obama's reason for choosing Rev. Warren -- surprise. I doubt it surprised anyone more than Warren himself. Rev. Lowery put it this way: "The president-elect promised he would reach across the divide and that is what he’s doing." Would we want him to do any less?

http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=23130

Whew! Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I can sit and enjoy a tasty holiday beverage. Come join me!

What: Drinking Liberally
When: Tuesday, December 23, 7:15ish
Where: Publick House
2307 Devine Street
Columbia, SC 29205
(803)256-2207 for directions

--Rafi

Hi, everyone! As you may have heard, we here at DL are mixing it up a bit, trying new things and such. One of the changes is co-hosting, so now you get multiple e-mail writers for your entertainment. I'm Mike, and this is my first e-mail out to everyone, so whatever you do don't blame Rafi for the quality :) Please drop by http://livingliberally.org/drinking/chapters/SC/columbia and leave a message in the comments. We would love to hear what you think.

Well, it's that busy time of the year again. Hope everyone's finals, holidays, shopping and the like are going well. It's also gotten to be busy season in the news, what with an economic panic, incredible thievery of money http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/248051.php and jewels http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/fashion/14heist.html?partner=permalink... and other fun things. My favorite of the last week, however has to be the saga of George and The Loafers (video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE ). A few reactions:

- Who knew old W. had those kind of reflexes? That first shoe came at him awful quick, and he made it look easy. I really am impressed. Is it the mountain biking? I mean, the man fell off a Segway, for heaven's sakes.

- I don't think George is too popular over in Iraq right now. His approval ratings over there must be matching his here in the U.S. Does anyone think we would have seen Obama having to dodge flying foot coverings?

-I guess the Cheney Administration only screens the crowds at public U.S. events. I mean, they had people getting locked up for wearing t-shirts with anti-Bush slogans for crying out loud. I don't think any would-be shoe throwers would have had a chance.

That's my two cents for the evening. I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow night. Just look for the baldheaded guy!

What: Drinking Liberally
When: Tuesday, December 16, 7:15ish
Where: Publick House
2307 Devine Street
Columbia, SC 29205
(803)256-2207 for directions

--Mike

Hi, everyone! As you may have heard, we here at DL are mixing it up a bit, trying new things and such. One of the changes is co-hosting, so now you get multiple e-mail writers for your entertainment. I'm Mike, and this is my first e-mail out to everyone, so whatever you do don't blame Rafi for the quality :) Please drop by http://livingliberally.org/drinking/chapters/SC/columbia and leave a message in the comments. We would love to hear what you think.

Well, it's that busy time of the year again. Hope everyone's finals, holidays, shopping and the like are going well. It's also gotten to be busy season in the news, what with an economic panic, incredible thievery of money http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/248051.php and jewels http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/fashion/14heist.html?partner=permalink... and other fun things. My favorite of the last week, however has to be the saga of George and The Loafers (video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uIj0YvDBKE ). A few reactions:

- Who knew old W. had those kind of reflexes? That first shoe came at him awful quick, and he made it look easy. I really am impressed. Is it the mountain biking? I mean, the man fell off a Segway, for heaven's sakes.

- I don't think George is too popular over in Iraq right now. His approval ratings over there must be matching his here in the U.S. Does anyone think we would have seen Obama having to dodge flying foot coverings?

-I guess the Cheney Administration only screens the crowds at public U.S. events. I mean, they had people getting locked up for wearing t-shirts with anti-Bush slogans for crying out loud. I don't think any would-be shoe throwers would have had a chance.

That's my two cents for the evening. I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow night. Just look for the baldheaded guy!

What: Drinking Liberally
When: Tuesday, December 16, 7:15ish
Where: Publick House
2307 Devine Street
Columbia, SC 29205
(803)256-2207 for directions

--Mike