Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hope from the White House
In the week since the inauguration, President Obama has begun unveiling his agenda through a series of Presidential Orders, video addresses, cabinet member press conferences, and even an official White House blog. And while there is no guarantee of long-term commitment to these promises can't help but think his decision to be different, transparent, and proactive will, in the long run, be as important as any of the actual policies issued by his administration. He is redefining what the government CAN be and setting the standards very high; I suspect that our people will reject any real attempts to return to "how things used to be" with either this President or future leaders.
I'm excited! I can't wait to see what's next and to get my hands dirty with the minutia of running our country again. I trace this enthusiasm directly back to President Obama and what he's done so far. It''s inspiring and motivating, and I believe he was right on the mark with his comments challenging us to get involved and participate in the recovery effort, It used to be that voting was sufficient; I no longer think that's true. We need to educate ourselves, motivate ourselves and our friends, and get involved in the issues we care about the most.
These first 7 days have been a wake-up call. We have 93 days left of the first 100, and 1454 days left in Obama's first term. What are YOU going to do to help America realize Her promise and steer Her back on track? Make answering THAT your one of your Goals for the upcoming weeks and months.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
There's gotta be at least a perceived threat or the opposition wouldn't be so strong. So what's the deal? I have lots of answers - some way more snarky than others; I'll limit myself to the ones that make some sense (at least logically if not to us).
I think we agree the opposition is religion based, and predominantly (but not solely) Christian based at that. So why do Christianity and the homosexual lifestyle clash so strongly? The main factors are proliferation of the religion and the desire for a nurturing environment.
Christianity, and Catholicism in particular, places a high value on family and procreation - partially because promoting "traditional family values" can foster a strong community and partially because raising new generations of Christians /Catholics protects the religions's places in societal structure. More Catholic babies mean more Catholic children mean more catholic adults mean more CATHOLICS - and all of the politician clout and economic power the higher population brings.
I don't say that to be cold hearted, as I don't believe that are the overt intentions of any but a tiny handful of the religious hierarchy; I'm sure that line of thinking must have been part of the formalization process. Keep in mind Christianity was multinational from the beginning and it's existence was tenuous in many portions of the world. Judea and much of the world was part of the burgeoning Roman Empire. Factor in Judaism and the stage gets pretty crowded pretty quickly. When your religion is new, out-numbered, and persecuted you need new members quickly. Now let's add low infant survival rates into the mix - can anyone say that a policy to maximize population growth was NOT in the best interest of the religion?
So how can we as a culture solve this dilemma? I think we should look to the examples Dr. King gave us when he lead the Civil Rights movement in the '50s and '60s. Couples denied their right to marry should march, protest, and sue to win those rights. Those of us who feel Prop 8 unjust must join in the action. We need to bombard the state and federal governments with letters, e-mails, and petitions. Ultimately, I fear this cause won't be won until the U.S. supreme court involves itself; that journey is long and those undertaking it will need as much support as we can muster.
I also feel any lasting solution will require the establishment of Civil Unions as the only legally binding domestic partnerships and the subrogation of "marriages" to the religious roles they were designed to play. It"s this extreme separation of church and state that will remove much of the religious bias and leave governing to the government once and for all. Religions do not get involved in the licensing of a contractor or in the issuance of driving credentials, so why should it involve themselves with the formation of families? Doing so subtly underscores the notion that only a church-going couple could raise a healthy, happy, and stable family. I know from both first- and second-hand experience that is not true; let's remove the propaganda generation and start from there.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
How to Run America - A Citizen's Primer
I think I might immediately cast my vote for the first candidate who succinctly answered three consecutive questions - and I mean answered the questions they were asked, some some distant relative of the question asked. Just about every political candidate in the recent past has perfected this talent, and theirs bosses don't call them on it; WE don't call them on it. We have the toughest job over the course of the next 2-3 years, as WE have to retrain ourselves while we teach our children how to expect and demand accountability and responsibility from our government. It's going to require us to become experts on political capital, but there's one resource we have that politicans need: VOTES. We need to make people EARN our votes initially and KEEP them going forward.
And make no mistake about it, WE have the power to do just that. We proved it in California when we ousted Gray Davis back in 2003; I don't want to debate whether that was the right move or if the replacement governor was any better. I'm using that as proof that we CAN make our voices heard. We have to be adamant and diligent in wielding that power; we have to hold ourselves up to the standards we want from our leaders. Because in the coming days, WE are going to need to lead ourselves. Are YOU up to the job? Here's what you need to do to accept that mantle and make sure we move forward as well as we can.
1. Register to vote. The deadline is either today or tomorrow, but if you have NOT registered, DO IT NOW!!! If you don't register to vote, then your justification to complain is limited to only the most aggregious of situations. And then you have to wait at the end of the line. It's free and it's easy, but you HAVE to do it.
2. Decide what is important to you. Is it same sex marriage? Abortion and women's choice? Gun control? The economy? Iraq? Take the issue(s) that resonate with you, that MEAN something visceral to you, and decide how you feel about them. Find groups that share your viewpoint and support them with your time, energy, and $$$. Get involved and stay involved - if you don't, why should anybody else? And don't sell me the load of goods that "your vote don't count". Wisconsin's electoral votes in 2004 were decided by a mere 11,384 votes. That may sound like a lot, but that's less thatn 5,600 who need to change their vote to make a dead heat. I went to high school with that many people for crying out loud; your vote DOES count and you know it does. But that sure is a convenient excuse. Guess what? The time for those has past. We can't accept them from our President, our Senators, nor our Governors; how can we accept them from one another?
3. VOTE that decision. Vote for the candidate(s) whose announced policies are in line with your priorities. If you are not sure, read their website. Look for interviews. Check out the Women's League of Voters. Read your election pamphlet (we paid for it, so you might as well). Talk with your friends to see how they see each candidate's position on these issues. But decide who YOU want leading YOUR America from Washington D.C., from Sacramento, from Downtown. Then VOTE for them.
4. LIVE your decision. Talk with folks, hear their points of view, share your passions. Cruisade for what you are passionate about. Help convince others to vote for who THEY believe in. Promote the election as if it were you bachelor/bachelorette party - remember you want EVERYONE to come to the party.
5. Hold them accountable. If someone promised something, they owe it to you to try to get that done to the best of their ability. Call them on it: send letters, e-mails, etc. Sign petitions. Speak to other representatives and let them know how you feel. Reward them with a donation, signature, vote, etc. if you like the job they are doing. Punish them by withholding your vote and giving it to another candidate, signing a recall petition to help speed their exit, share your frustration with others on websites, blogs, petitions, letters. Make the official know you do not like what (s)he is doing and that you expect them to do better.
6. Hold your friends and family to these same standards. Don't even dare allow them the apathy to not vote. Persuade, bully, cajole, threaten, whatever it takes, get them to the polls. Whom they vote for (so long as it's who they believe will do the best job) is not as important as their participation in the process. Afterwards, stay on them about how folks are doing. Engage them in debates, etc.
It's time for us to find our America, polish it off, and put it up on the mantle for the rest of the world to see. It's time we found that country so we can give it to our kids.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Sarah Palin & Sexual Assult Victims - A Brief Study
Sometime during Sarah Palin's tenure as Mayor of Wasilla (in fact, during the discussion in the Alaska Assembly of HB 270), the hospitals changed their accounting practices and began sending bills for the forensic tests used in sexual assault cases to victims or their medical insurance providers.(1)
The change in accounting practices came on the heels of a drastic 75% budget cut to the "contractual services" line item of the Wasilla Police Department's FY 2000 Budget; notes in the budget described the "contractual services" line item as "... costs for medical blood tests for intoxicated drivers & medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assaults..."(2) It's important to note that between 1994 and 1999, the budget for this line item varied from $2,500 - $4,200 with the actual costs only exceeding the budget one of those years; it's also important to note that the actual costs for those years exceeded the FY 2000 $1,000 budget EVERY YEAR.(3)
Mayor Palin was required by the Wasilla Municiple Code to "...prepare and submit an annual budget and capital improvement program for consideration by the council, and execute the budget and capital program as adopted..."(4) Therefore, she either slashed the budget line item herself or did not respond to her staffer's slashing of the budget line item.
The budget reduction came after Mayor Palin replaced founding Police Chief Irl Stambaugh with Chief Charlie Fannon. It comes as no surprise that Chief Fannon was a strong advocate of the practice of billing the victims and a noted outspoken critic of the legislation that ended the practice.(5)
Reconstructing what happened from the beginning, it's clear that Mayor Palin replaced Police Chief Stambaugh with Charlie Fannon, an advocate of billing victims for their forensic tests, then submitted a budget she either prepared or approved that contained a 75% budget cut to the line item containing funding for "medical exam/evidence collection for sexual assaults". On the heels of this budget cut, hospitals changed their accounting practices and began billing victims for these exams. Assuming the information I've drawn on is correct, there is little plausible deniability about what happened and what was intended to happen.
Notes
(1) As reported by Lauree Hugonin, then-Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault (ANDVSA).
(2) Page G-24 of the Wasilla FY '94 Budget.
(3) As detailed in Jacob Alperin-Sheriff's article on The Huffington Post (I have NOT independently verified these numbers).
(4) Item A.6 Section 2.26.020 of the Wasilla Municipal Code.
(5) As disclosed in a USA Today article quoting an interview with Chief Fannon appearing in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Marriage - Legal Partnership and Religious Covenant
The problems regarding marriage stem from the duality of that event; it is both legally binding contract AND religious ceremony. Both pro and con same-sex marriage arguments hold logical consistency from the appropriate perspective. Viewing marriage as a religious act of faith and devotion, why on earth should I accept the judge telling me that something I am taught is sinful has to be allowed? Conversely, I will let NO ONE tell me I am a second-class citizen and do not deserve the same rights as others based on who I love. Who is right? Both and neither.
The dilemma can be solved by breaking marriage into it's constituent parts: civil contract and religious ceremony. The State should only be allowed to perform civil unions, but these are the ONLY partnerships that carry ANY legal standing and should be allowed so long as both parties are consenting adults. The Church should only be allowed to perform marriage and "marriage" should have no civil meaning. In this fashion, religions may dictate who their church recognizes as couples and families however they choose while EVERY couples' rights remain preserved and protected.
Having two different levels of civil recognition will not work; that was thrown out in Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka by it's sublet overthrow of the "separate but equal" doctrine. However, having government dictate the policies of religion or visa-versa flies in the face of our government which strives for religious acceptance. Let religions deal with marriage and leave the states to manage legal partnerships. It's a fair solution that removes much of the muddling surrounding the debate.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
California Budget Flap
In case you are wondering what the latest from Sacramento is, our Governor has signed an executive order reducing all state employees' salaries to the Federal Minimum Wage of $6.55 or $13,624 annually, pre-tax. Obviously this won't work, as that is such a drastic cut it invalidates any budgeting these employees might do for their home finances. However, the concept might just work if applied to a different type of state employee...
There are 40 state senators for California; collectively they make $2,259 per hour. If we reduce THEIR hour pay to $6.55, we save almost $1,997 each hour (assuming 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, and 52 weeks a year). So a week would save us $79,880. Some savings during the lean period, and I suspect the Senators would be motivated to provide quick resolution.
Tongue-in-cheek aside, why can our state government not produce a balanced budget on time? That is the highest priority for any government: raise and spend money. Our fiscal year started July 1, and the budget was under discussion since February. Assuming that the Senate set aside half of their time to discuss the budget, 350 hours of discussion failed to produce a budget? I don't see how that's possible. More likely, the amount of time working on the numbers was significantly less AND more effort was spent posturing than negotiating. So we're stuck with this mess.
HALF of the State Senate is up for re-election in 2008. I say we find the ones who did not put in the time and effort to get this problem solved and reward them with an enforced job shift. I'm TIRED of "leaders" who don't lead, a governor who doesn't govern, and a state government with no real handle on much of anything. They work for US; we can and should fire them.
Friday, May 16, 2008
This Advice, Mr. President: SHUT THE HELL UP!
Keith Olbermann, who reported the locals sports news here is LA when I first recall him, has become a hero of mine over the course of the Bush "presidency" due to his infrequent yet scathing comments about the state of our Nation and the (hopefully repairable) damage done to our fundamental beliefs and our repuration.
The special comment he made this past Wednesday, however, might take the cake for policial writing and for emotional reporting (which seems like a insurmountable contradiction but is just a true editorial). When I think of loathing, I always harken back to the first scene of Amadeus, where Salieri is forced to understand that his music is extinct while that of Mozart has already taken on a life of its own. Now, looking at the face of Keith reading the latest litany of villany perpitrated by own leader, I have a new mental image. And it's not of Salieri.
I've copied the transcript below, and tried to format it as was done on the MSNBC site.
***********************
Finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment on two topics a lot of us had foolishly thought, had naively hoped, we would not again have to address… and a third topic nobody thought a president would ever seriously mention in public unless perhaps he’d just been hit in the head with something and was not in full possession of his faculties — how he expressed his “empathy” to the families of the dead in Iraq — by giving up golf.
The President has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration — of a public life — dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations.
And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and Mr. McCain lurk.
Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could, “eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”
This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came yesterday during an interview with Politico-dot-com and on-line users of Yahoo.
The question was phrased as follows:
“If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what’s the worst that could happen, what’s the doomsday scenario?”
The President replied: “Doomsday scenario, of course, is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is — it’s bigger than Iraq — it’s this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives.”
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes ‘cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives’?’
They are those in, or formerly in, your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.
Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives?
‘This ideological struggle,’ Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.
It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom — ours and everybody else’s — and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like “Patriot Act” is a brand name or “Protect America” is a brand name.
But wait, there’s more.
You also said “Iraq is the place where al Qaeda and other extremists have made their stand — and they will be defeated.”
They made no “stand” in Iraq, sir. You allowed them to assemble there!
As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government’s farcical post-invasion strategy of ‘they’ll greet us as liberators.’
And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government’s farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American Vice-Royalty enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country, by hiding behind your skirts, sir.
Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!
It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.
“Do you feel,” asked an ordinary American, “that you were mis-led on Iraq?”
“I feel like — I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction. You know, “mislead” is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional — I don’t think so, I think there was a — not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.”
Flawed.
You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons.
You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, fast.
You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how “intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment.”
You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished anybody who didn’t agree it was really chicken salad.
And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country’s policy — in lieu of, say, common sense.
The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.
You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as claim was built from Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Of course if there is one over-riding theme to this president’s administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind.
And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.
“And so you feel that you didn’t have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?”
“No, no,” replied the President. “I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction…”
People?
What people?
The insane informant “Curveball?”
The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi?
The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?
“I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes.”
Mr. Bush — you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress’s throat, the way you jammed it down the nation’s throat.
When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply re-submitted it, with phrases amounting to “See, I done proved it,” virtually written in the margins in crayon.
You defied patriotic Americans to say “The Emperor has no clothes” — only with the stakes (as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it) being a “mushroom cloud over an American city.”
And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and — last night — Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that for members of Congress “the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes” - while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency — and your legacy — 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect, dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, “I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction.”
Then came Mr. Bush’s final blow to our nation’s solar plexus, his last re-opening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.
“Mr. President,” he was asked, “you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?
“Yes,” began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans — on our history.
“It really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”
Golf, sir?
Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq?
Do you think these families, Mr. Bush — their lives blighted forever — care about you playing golf?
Do you think, sir, they care about you?
You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed.
Sir, to show your solidarity with them - you gave up golf?
Sir, to show your solidarity with them — you didn’t give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.
Sir, to show your solidarity with them — you didn’t even give up talking about Iraq — a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world?
Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn’t give up your presidency?
In your own words — “solidarity as best as I can” — is to stop a game? That is the “best” you can?
4,000 Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf!
Golf.
Not “gulf” — golf.
And still it gets worse.
Because it proves that the President’s unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick with a ball, was not even his own damned idea.
“Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?”
“I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf — I think I was in central Texas — and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it any more to do.”
Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn’t even think of it yourself?
The great Bushian sacrifice — an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, four thousand of their brothers and sisters lose their lives, you lose golf… and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?
If it’s even true…
Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time — coincidence, no doubt — the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U-N… and interrupted your round of golf, was on August 19th, 2003.
Yet there is an Associated Press account of you playing golf as late as Columbus Day of that year — October 13th — nearly two months later.
Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you, six-and-a-half years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people but the war in Iraq is Not. About. You.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain succeeds you.
The war in Iraq — your war, Mr. Bush — is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths — for nothing.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game!
And, sir, if you have any hopes that next January 20th will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt Thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:
When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at…
When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation…
When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abnegating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead…
This advice, Mr. Bush…
Shut the hell up!
Friday, December 21, 2007
When Did It Become Too Hard To Be America (repost)
When did it become too hard to be America? Our nation was built on the promise of a new life for those willing to make the sacrifice and work hard - now that cornerstone of our national identity is threatened (like so many other aspects of who we are as a nation and a people) because our "leaders" lack the vision and the desire to find a solution that works.
Of course all resources have a limit to what size population they can support, and no one will argue that public education, health care, housing, and employment are ALL issues important to everyone. However, to point the finger at illegal immigrants and lay all blame for failings of our socioeconomic infrastructure is at best ignorant and scapegoating and at worst xenophobic racism.
The difficulty in obtaining legal immigration status (the fabled Green Card) lies at the root of the problem; this process is expensive, time consuming, confusing, inconsistant, and in many cases pointless. I suggest that fixing the immigration system will do as much, if not more, to reduce illegal immigration than any border fence or Minuteman Patrol ever will.
If you dangle the promise of a better life in front of someone, then make it impossible to attain, you are no better than that guy at the zoo teasing the animals on the other side of the glass enclosures. SINCE WE FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY, we have shouted from the tallest mountains that the American Dream is for everyone who wants it to achieve. And now we make it impossible to come here to work towards that goal.
Let's make a system where an individual can apply and, within six (6) months, have a definitve answer for a reasonable fee. Currently, this process can take upwards of one year and often ends with incomplete or inaccurate results. Neither you nor I would accept this in our own lives, so why should we expect folks fleeing persecution or abject poverty, seeking to make their lives and the lives of their families better, to accept this? It makes no sense.
We can NEVER lose sight of what makes our country what it is, and we need to embrace the fundamental principles that founded the US and help make those dreams come true:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"