Editor’s Note:  It is the custom of this blog to write in an editorial third person.  This post, however, will be written in first person.

Rally for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The events now taking place in Iran remind me of the summer of 1989.  Attention has been paid elsewhere to the 20th anniversary of pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananman Square in China, but I am reminded of events that took place in Hungary.

Twenty years ago Hungary’s decision to relax border security allowed many East Germans into the country.  In June of 1989 thousands began arriving in Budapest, and once there, occupied the grounds of western embassies seeking an escape from communism. 

By treaty Hungary was obligated to return East Germans to their homeland, but when their numbers exceeded 20,000 by some estimates, pressure from its citizens forced the Hungarian government to open its border with Austria and allow free passage to the West.

Walls that had been erected to keep people under a system of government that had no popular support had been breached and a cascade of events culminated in the collapse of the Berlin Wall by that November.  With amazing speed 40 years of totalitarian government throughout Eastern Europe had ended and millions emerged into freedom.

I am as I have always been, a registered Republican, but in the summer of 1989 I was a democrat moved by the voices of millions demanding democracy and freedom for themselves.  I was 26 at the time, and in my youthful enthusiasm I remember thinking, “I want to help them, and encourage them.  I want them to enjoy the benefits I’ve known.”  Today, 20 years later, I am a democrat again.

Iranian woman voices support for democracy.

Millions in Iran today, like millions before them in Eastern Europe, are expressing their opposition to oppression and reminding us all that every government, whatever form it takes, derives its power from the consent of the governed.

Just one week has passed since the conclusion of what appears to be a fraudulent presidential election.  What a week ago were large campaign rallies quickly evolved first into demonstrations for justice and then protests for democracy.  What a week ago was about moderation and modernization is now about regime change.

Events are moving quickly, just as they did 20 years ago.  Whether events in Iran bring the same rebirth of freedom is unclear.  What can’t be disputed, however, is that a fatal wound to the existing regime has been opened.  Iran may not realize a western-style democracy, but it seems certain now that its theocracy will not endure.

Some Other Observations on Iran:

In his second inaugural address former President George W. Bush acknowledged others’ doubts about the global appeal of liberty, but went on to say, “Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul.”  Could the events in Iran erase those doubts any better?

Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani was seen as a pragmatist that preferred centrist politics at home, and moderation in Iran’s relationships with other nations.  He was defeated for a third term by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.  Today he chairs the Assembly of Experts, which has the authority to select, monitor and dismiss the Supreme Leader. 

This is important because, under the Iranian Constitution, it is the Supreme Leader that has the authority to command the country’s armed forces; to appoint the chief judge, chief prosecutor, and special tribunals; and to control the media.  Ahmadinejad is essentially a figurehead.

Since the election a week ago Rafsanjani has been unseen and unheard.  Now that events have exposed the extent to which the existing regime has lost support among Iranians, he more than most can decide the outcome.  If he pursuades the Assembly of Experts to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with a more moderate leader there is hope that the changes Iranians seek can be secured through more peaceful means.  His actions will be worth watching.

Mir Hossein Mousavi

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate whose election appears to have been stolen, was himself a revlotionary.  Ironically it was with the blessing of the same Ali Khamenei that his followers now so openly oppose that he was chosen Prime Minister in 1981. 

He is credited with effectively managing the Iran-Iraq War and the nation’s economy but after 1989 he withdrew from politics.  Many observers attribute this to dissatisfaction with the establishment.

In a June 20 statement (transcription available at Tehran Bureau) Mousavi said:

 ”If the vast scale of cheating and fraud that has set fire on people’s trust is interpreted as the reason for the absence of cheating [a response to Ayatollah Khamenei’s contention that the difference of 11 million votes between Mr. Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is so large that cannot be a fraud], the republican side of the political system [the Islamic Republic] will be destroyed, which will then prove the claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible. This fate will make two groups happy: One consists of those who, right from the beginning of the Revolution, were arrayed against Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] and claim that the Islamic government is the dictatorship of the honest clergy [a reference to the ultra-reactionaries led by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi], and believe that they can take people to heaven by force, while the second group is made of those who, by claiming that they want to defend people’s rights, believe that Islam is against republicanism. The Imam’s [Ayatollah Khomeini’s] great skill was to demonstrate the fallacy of what both groups say. I had decided to run because I wanted, based on the Imam’s path, to neutralize the efforts of those who advocate both thinking.”

His campaign promised a more moderate, less theocratic or ideological presidency, but not regime change.  Nonetheless, whether leading this movement, or being lead by it, he now appears prepared to support such change.

The sincerity or seriousness of this support should not be doubted simply because of his revolutionary roots.  After all, it was the actions of avowed communists like Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin that ushered in reform in Russia. 

It seems to have escaped the attention of the media and other observers that post-election tensions have been between pro-reform Iranians and the government, not pro-reform Iranians and the millions we are told voted to retain the existing government.  This is not yet war, but if it were it would be more revolutionary than civil.  Isn’t that an important observation? 

An injured pro-democracy Iranian.

Yes, there were large pro-government demonstrations after the election results were published, but they soon disappeared.  Why are pro-democracy protesters the only ones in the streets?  Why aren’t citizens in the streets to defend the government?

My own conclusion is that the demand for democracy is deeper and wider than we yet know, and this explains the extreme measures being taken by the Supreme Leader and his government first to disguise it through fraud, and then to crush it through force.

That leads me to my final observation.  The hesitency of President Barack Obama to be seen as meddling in Iran’s dometic affairs is diplomatically sound, but I still feel that an opportunity is being missed. 

In his Cairo address to the Muslim world the president spoke about the freedoms that democracy can bring.  He needs to restate and reinforce those ideas not for the thousands now confronting their government, but for the millions more that have not.  Reassurance from the president may be the impetus reluctant pro-democracy Iranians need to join the fight. 

President Obama should continue to encourage Iranians and others to claim their human rights to free speech, free press, and free assembly, and assure them a more peaceful and prosperous relationship with the rest of the world when they do.

Last week’s foreign trip by an American president to speak to a wary and distrustful people about America’s interest in a peaceful relationship with them brought to mind a similar speech 21 years earlier.

President Barack Obama’s June 4 speech at Cairo University, like the 1988 speech of former President Ronald Reagan at Moscow State University, was delivered before a student assembly, but was intended for a larger audience.

Both speeches were meant to seize an opportunity to establish new relationships with a significant population (i.e., citizens of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc; and Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims).  Both made extensive and sincere efforts to show respect for the culture and traditions of the audience.  Both sought to educate their audiences to America’s history and the principles upon which it’s government and policy are based. 

As guest lecturers to their respective student assemblies and millions beyond, both Reagan and Obama addressed the subjects of democracy and individual rights.  Though delivered at different times to different audiences, both men extolled the virtues of democratic government.

Reagan encouraged his audience, which was emerging from decades of totalitarianism, to continue on its course toward democracy.  He noted that “Democracy is less a system of government than it is a system to keep government limited, unintrusive: A system of constraints on power to keep politics and government secondary to the important things in life, the true sources of value found only in family and faith.” 

To a region where elections have not produced the individual rights associated with democracy, Obama stated his belief “that all people yearn for certain things:  the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just American ideas; they are human rights.  And that is why we will support them everywhere.”

America was founded on the principle that the individual is sovereign, and that government derives its authority from their consent.  From its origin America has understood that democracy is organic.  It must be chosen.  It can’t be imposed.

As a democratic nation, America benefits when any nation choses democracy or takes steps to recognize the rights of its citizens, but it must be chosen.   To that end America’s interests can be advanced by her example, and successfully educating others to democracy’s benefits. 

Reagan understood that a more democratic Russia and Eastern Europe would would have nothing to fear from America and her allies, and his encouragement produced a lasting peace.  Obama understands that more freedom in the Middle East will isolate the extremism that threatens the security of people there and here alike. 

Reagan’s speech was not the pivot point from which the successful conclusion of the Cold War can be traced.  Likewise, the Obama speech is unlikely, in itself, to produce the outcome we currently seek.  Nontheless, both speeches were important and consequential and worthy of being remembered.

When Susan Boyle, the Scotish spinster that became a soprano sensation the world over, sang ”I Dreamed A Dream” for the musical Les Miserables the irony was inescapable.

The lyrics shown below speak of a dream lost; of promise unfulfilled.  It was an ironic choice given that it was her performance of that song that propelled her to instant international internet fame.  A song about broken dreams seemed then to help her realize a dream. 

As good as her performance was, the world fell in love with the image of Susan Boyle.  A shy, single, never-been-kissed middle-aged woman living alone with her cat Pebbles in some pastoral Scotish village who simply wanted to entertain.  She was so completely herself on stage when we first met her that everyone watching could instantly associate with her. 

However, she was ill-equipped to deal with the scale of the fame her performance won her.  In the weeks preceeding the finals of Britain’s Got Talent tabloids were full of reports of her crying, raging, swearing, and fighting fits.  Those reports did not conform to the world’s image and so support receded.

Despite the stress and strain the world’s expectations must have placed on her she soldiered on and delivered another fine performance of the song we all so loved. 

This time, however, all irony was washed away.  Sadly, this time the lyrics of this song perfectly conveyed the circumstances Susan was living. 

I’m not sure she was ever truly concerned with winning the competition.  Her stated goal was to be a professional singer, and that can still be achieved, but her expected loss must still have come as a soul-crushing surprise.  So much so she voluntarily entered a treatment center for much needed rest after a tumultuous month. 

Here’s hoping she finds the peace she needs, and that her dream to entertain was not lost with the show. 

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor who, if confirmed, would be the first Hispanic to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, represents a teaching moment for the Republican Party.

This is an opportunity for the Grand Old Party to teach its conservative principles of constitutional law to a much broader audience than its own base, and to teach its individual rights philosophy to an audience sure to include the nation’s growing Hispanic population.

First, there are some facts to face.  The present ideological balance in the Supreme Court is not likely to change as a consequence of this appointment.  Republicans do not have the capacity to stop this appointment.  And finally, any effort to diminish or discredit this nominee risks the alienation of a constituency important to any future electoral success.

The present configuration of the Court has four reliably conservative justices (i.e., Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito), four reliably liberal justices (i.e., Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer) and one right-leaning swing justice (Kennedy).  Swapping Sonia Sotomayor for David Souter does not change that.

At present the GOP holds just 40 seats in the Senate.  It takes at least 41 votes to prevent the Senate from giving its advice and consent to this nomination, and it’s improbable, if not entirely impossible, for the Republicans to get them. 

Finally, while politics is the least consideration, it is an important one.  Consider the Electoral College map: California and Texas are already majority-minority states, and New York and Georgia may be as early as 2012.  Another generation will see the U.S. become a majority-minority nation.  This is being driven primarily by growth in the Hispanic population.  Republicans should be careful not to be seen as attacking Sotomayor.

In 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain garnered 31 percent of the Hispanic votes, but in 2004 George W. Bush got 44 percent.  While some of that erosion can be attributed to the presence of another minority on the ballot, battles over illegal immigration clearly alienated them, as well.  A full-throated opposition to Sotomayor would further alienate, perhaps permanently,  this growing and critically important demographic.

So, if you’re a conservative Republican and you can’t make the court more conservative, you can’t stop the appointment of a liberal nominee, and you can’t risk scaring away Hispanic voters, what can you do?  Here are some humble suggestions:

1. Make “states rights” and “strict constructionist” and “judicial activism” more than buzzwords, and  
2. Reassure Hispanics that, even if they must oppose the nomination of the first Hispanic nominee for the Supreme Court, Republicans are respectful of their real concerns.

The confirmation hearings provide Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee opportunities to ask questions that could serve to draw out the nominee’s liberal judicial philosophy and ethnocentric thinking.

It is important to remind all voters that the states created the federal government, not the other way around.  That the Constitution is not an evolving document.  It must be read as it is, and not as some may wish it to be.  Finally, when it may be necessary to judge something unconstitutional, judges should not take the additional step of prescribing certain actions in order to achieve constitutionality.  If the Court rules something unconstitutional, it is for Congress to decided a remedy.  Republican questioning during her confirmation hearings should focus on these issues.

The 15 percent of the population that is Hispanic will take justifiable pride in this nomination, and they will be watching.  It is a difficult and inadvisable thing to stand in the way of history.  Nonetheless, all those eyes give the Republicans an opportunity to show this important constituency how its conservative principles address their needs and concerns. 

In questioning the liberalism of the nominee, Republicans should communicate to the Hispanic audience that they prefer to empower the individual — including the Hispanic individual – to elevate his own place in society, rather than mandate it from the legislature, or dictate it from the judiciary. 

In exposing the nominee’s belief that her ethnicity should influence her decisions, Republicans should demonstrate that while it is respectful of her background, the nation is better served by justices that judge law without regard to the consequences.  When judges concern themselves with outcomes they construe the law to achieve them, and all citizens — including Hispanic citizens — are not well served by that.

In the end expect Sotomayor to be seated as the first Hispanic member on the Supreme Court, and hope that Republicans, who might be justified in opposing this nominee on judicial and philosophical grounds, do not express that opposition in a way that further alienates an important and growing constituency.  Otherwise, it may be they who learn a hard lesson.

The American Idolatry post addressed those who believe that Adam Lambert’s loss to Kris Allen on American Idol was due to viewer bigotry and rejected it.

New polls every day suggest that Americans’ attitudes toward their gay neighbors are less hostile.  During a post-victory press tour, Kris Allen discussed this with Access Hollywood host Billy Bush.  In this interview (seen here) Kris addresses the question and puts it in a proper and positive perspective.

Hopefully this will give some measure of comfort to those fans of Adam Lambert that claim conservatives were motivated by bigotry to make Kris the new American Idol.

Finally, there was some news made in this interview when Bush revealed that the margin between the two finalists wasn’t close.  If true, it’s hard to make the claim that the vast majority of those 100 million voters were motivated by hate.

This country is more accepting than that.

The intense and sometimes blind worship some have had for Adam Lambert left them completely unprepared for the final results of American Idol 2009. 

After all, the show’s judges including Simon Cowell, Katy Perry’s cape, and Entertainment Weekly had all told them his winning was a foregone conclusion.  So they all tuned in expecting to see a coronation, and saw a coup instead.

Adam Lambert and Kris Allen

In an outcome as shocking as Truman defeating Dewey in 1948, or Foreman taking down Frazier in 1973, Kris Allen won the title over the Idol-in-All-But-Name. 

Immediately thereafter message boards like this one at CNN filled up with anger and hate.  When the scale of an unexpected result is as big as this one seemed, people assume there must be some equally big conspiracy behind it.  They might argue Adam was denied his rightful claim to the title by dewy-eyed pre-teen girls with redial, or tone-deaf cougars, but many seem to focus on perceived anti-gay bias.  As with most conspiracies, the truth is probably much simpler. 

As viewers of the show know, each week fans vote to keep their favorites in contention and the contestant with the fewest votes is eliminated.  All season both Kris and Adam avoided being at risk of elimination;  each week but one.  Three weeks earlier Kris was in the Bottom 3, but Adam was in the Bottom 2.  That was the first indication that Kris’ voters were stronger than Adam’s. 

Last week, when 80 million votes were cast and Danny Gokey was eliminated to make Kris and Adam the finalists, viewers were told that fewer than 1 million votes separated them.  Although we don’t know who was ahead of whom, it was the second indication that Kris had a strong voting bloc.

This week there were 20 million more votes cast and one fewer contestants.  Those votes had to go somewhere.  It appears that Kris was the beneficiary, but why?

It’s clear from the posts on message boards that Adam’s fans confused passion for popularity.  That’s a distinction worth remembering on a show designed to identify a pop star. 

Adam’s stage presence, vocal range, uniqueness, and to be honest, openness about his sexuality, won him many fans.  Some might dare call it idolatry.  So passionate were they that they could barely countenance the idea that anyone else saw it differently.

Popular music is popular precisely because it has the broadest appeal.  Perhaps Adam’s stage presence was seen as theatrics.  Perhaps his glam rock was just too narrow and specific a genre to find wider appeal. 

Adam’s Army dismissed Kris as bland and ordinary, but perhaps his more restrained presence made him more relatable to more of the audience.  Perhaps they credited him with singing while also playing piano and guitar.  In the Olympics they call that “degree of difficulty” and score accordingly.

Rather than acknowledge that an audience of millions had perfectly valid musical reasons for choosing Kris over Adam, some simply chalk it up to bigotry.  One comment poster seemed to hit all the talking points when writing, “I guess we can thank those hatefilled (sic), intolerant, homophobic Christians for this injustice.”

The justifiably disappointed glass-half-empty crowd should remember that the first openly gay American Idol contestant was  consistently rewarded with millions of votes week after week.  If his loss in the final week could be attributed to bigotry, what explains his surviving the previous 10 weeks when 11 others were eliminated? 

Whether because of his sexuality or in spite of it, Adam was accepted by millions of viewers as talented and worthy.  His losing in the final does nothing to diminish that. 

With Season 8 concluded, one hopes reason replaces passion, and that those that resort to such arguments will temper their disappointment.

Since the first of the year rarely a week passes without news that another newspaper is folding.  This is not an altogether surprising development.  The business model newspapers used for years (subscriptions and advertising) has steadily declined since the advent of the Internet.

The most desirable readers (read consumers) are the 18-49 set, and by and large these are Internet users.  When you can read web-based news content for free why subscribe?  Many don’t.  With the loss of readers followed a loss of advertizers.  Even the old standby — classified ads — suffer from the presence of craigslist.org. 

Still, the loss of a newspaper is lamentable.  One can experience a newspaper in a way not (yet) possible with online news.  Breakfast tables, coffee shops, and airport terminals are populated with people hiding behind newspapers.   While reading about the world readers can create their own world behind their papers.  It’s hard to do that with a Blackberry or iPhone.

One of the greatest pleasures is sitting down with a crossword puzzle and challenging oneself to complete it in ink.  No online game can duplicate the satisfaction of educating yourself in so fun a fashion.

Furthermore, whose baby books or scrapbooks or yearbooks or Bibles don’t have a few newspaper articles tucked into them.  It used to be an indication that someone had arrived when something they did merited the attention of the newspaper.  These days every 12-year-old has a MySpace page.  What will they have to look back on in their retirements if there are no newspapers to clip and save?

Unfortunately, it’s not much better in the other news media either.  Network news has shuttered news bureaus in the name of corporate profitability.  More and more cable news networks are about ideological commentary than investigative journalism.  Traditional wire services like United Press International are ghosts of what they used to be. 

What’s needed is a new business model.  Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) has proposed allowing newspapers to operate as non-profit entities, but if its aim is to keep newspapers in print its of limited merit because it doesn’t address the declining readership.  Even non-profit newspapers need readers.

Here’s a humble suggestion:

The traditional relationship between newspapers and wire services should be reversed.  Rather than pay wire services for national, international or industry content that newspapers retain the rights to publish locally, wire services should pay newspapers for the rights to distribute their content to online outlets.  This frees wire services of the need to employ their own reporters and essentially turns every newsroom in the country into a news bureau.  It provides newspapers a revenue stream that doesn’t depend on subscriptions or advertisers. 

The technology exists today to produce written and video content inexpensively and almost immediately, and websites can be maintained much more affordably than composing, printing and distributing newspapers.

For their part local newspapers should cease publication on everything but a weekly basis and go online.  They should acknowledge that readers long ago turned to television (and to a lesser extent radio) for their national, international and industry news.  They should limit their content to local news only. 

A Sunday-only edition would allow them to cover the week just ended, anticipate important newsworthy events of the week ahead, publish the legal notices they still have a statutory obligation to publish, and distribute the retail fliers they currently include in these editions.

And coffeehouses everywhere can still give readers a place to enjoy a drink and complete the crossword puzzle in ink at a leisurely pace.

It’s hard to imagine that the voters of Ohio’s 64th House District sent State Representative Tom Letson (D) to Columbus to tinker with our marriage law, but that hasn’t stopped him from introducing perhaps the least necessary marriage law in memory.

House Bill 63, if adopted, would authorize the 132 members of the Ohio General Assembly to perform civil marriages.  Exactly what need does this address?

Certainly it isn’t hard to get married.  Presently civil marriages can be performed by a judge of any county, municipal or probate court in the state, as well as the mayor of any municipal corporation.  Hell, even the superintendent of the state school for the deaf can perform civil marriages. 

How does it improve the institution of marriage to add legislators to the long list of officiants already on the books?  It doesn’t.  It does have the potential, however, to further politicize an institution already loaded with it by the continuing debate over whether civil marriages ought to be available to same-sex couples.

Since the law only authorizes but does not obligate legislators to perform these marriages, they retain the right to refuse.  This permits legislators to apply their own religious, social or cultural limitations on the marriages they will perform.  Non-Christian?  No.  Pregnant teen?  No.  Foreign-born?  No.  Of non-childbearing age?  No.  Of the other political party?  No.  Racially mixed couple?  No.  Of the same sex?  Hell no.

Can you imagine the lawsuits or public relations nightmares that might result from a refusal?

Of course a legislator who applies no filter to the marriages he will perform runs the risk of acting in a way his or her constituents would not approve.  This just becomes another of the criteria voters will use to assess the performance of their legislator. 

It’s possible that, properly organized in the right district, voters could elect a legislator that is prepared to make a political issue of some minority opinion regarding marriage.  A legislator might perform such marriages in order to legitimize this minority view as did the mayor of New Paltz, New York in 2004.

What if some rogue legislator chooses to perform marriages of same-sex couples?  What if he or she opts to wed young girls to middle-aged husbands ala Warren Jeffs?  What if some maverick legislator comfortable with polygamy marries one man to many wives?  How can the legitimacy of such marriages be challenged if they bear the endorsement of someone who is addressed as ”The Honorable?”

The legal knots into which marriage would be tied would certainly not be good for this institution.

The politicization of marriage has already produced troublesome outcomes that are no good for the government, the church or the community they serve.  This legislation would only make a bad situation worse.

Spring weather has once again caused a population explosion among the bicycle set.  About the time the cherry blossoms pop in the District I am reminded why this aspect of city living drives me to contemplate doing evil to these peddling pests.

First, sidewalks are for walking.  No one beyond the age of 10 — 12 tops — has any business riding a bike on the sidewalks.  Put it in the street where it belongs.

Second, traffic laws are applicable to all vehicles, not just motorized vehicles.  If you’re in the street your bikes have the same obligation my Saturn has to stop at stop signs and red lights, to yield to on-coming traffic, and to not go the wrong way on one-way streets. 

Third, what happened to the hand signals that I was taught to use when I was like, what, five?  If you want to make a left or right turn signal it.  More importantly, wait your turn!

Finally, if I’m attempting to make a right-hand turn then passing me on my right is inadvisable, even though many of you insist on doing it.  One day one of you is going to make yourself a candidate for a Darwin Award.

I find much of the governance of this city incredibly incompetent.  While I have thought that jaywalking was the least enforced law on DC’s books, I am reconsidering it.  These bicyclists think they own the road, which judging by the enforcement of traffic laws is apparently true.

One day, while circling the block on my twice-weekly parking excursions, I’d love to see a police cruiser come up on one of these arrogant bicyclists with lights flashing and siren screaming and issue them one whopper of a moving violation.  Better yet privitize this practice as so much other city business has been and let me do it.  You won’t find anyone more motivated than me to fill the city’s coffers with ticket revenue.

The congressional bill that would grant DC a vote in the House of Representatives has taken a step backwards. Although it passed the Senate, it was pulled from a final vote in the House of Representatives until next week.

The debate on the bill has brought to light additional information that has this blog taking a step back from its earlier post (This Far and No Further) expressing support for the bill. 

At the time it was argued that since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress authority over the District, it could choose to grant it a seat in the House.  In the course of the debate attention was drawn to Article I, Section 2, which gives the Congress the authority to set the total membership of the House.

If Congress can decide the total membership of the House, and governs the District, it can choose to grant one of those members to the District, right?  Well, not really.

The first paragraph of Article I, Section 2 begins, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members  chosen every second year by the people of the several states.”  However you slice it, the District is not a state.

This blog remains opposed to statehood for the District, and reaffirms its position that full congressional representation  can only occur when the federal government retrocedes the District to the state of Maryland, from which it was separated when it was designated the seat of government.  This blog reaffirms the view that as the body that represents the people, the House of Representatives should be as inclusively representative as possible.

However, this blog withdraws its support for the DC voting rights bill.  Unfortunately, unless or until the Constitution is amended, it will not accomodate the compromise it had previously supported.