Good politics

I though about my post yesterday last night. I wasn't sure that I hadn't been too cynical in my view that Obama was just being politically savvy by have Pastor Warren do the invocation for the inaguration.

Personally, I do agree with Homer's comment:

Obama fell off his pedastal with this shitty decision.

I also wondered if this was a good step for gays or was I being too glib. I have to reverse my verdict. I think Obama has been consistant in his belief that dialogue is a good thing - whether it is with those whose country prays for your destruction (Iran), has expanionistic tendencies (Russia), a wary ally (France), an enthusiastic ally (Britain), or internally those who are on the Right. Rick Warren might be the first of these complex dialogues. And (time for more cynicism) - it is the inaguration of the President of these United States, not the Democratic winner. So it should (in all fairness) involve as wide a swath of representatives from the large voting blocs in our country as possible. But I being way to optimistic that those conversations between the Obama Administration and the conservative/religious right would change any minds.

To sum up Rick Warren, I think the following excerpt from the mailer his church sent out before the 2004 election is quite telling:

1. What does each candidate believe about abortion and protecting the lives of unborn children?
   
2. What does each candidate believe about using unborn babies for stem-cell harvesting?
   
3. What does each candidate believe about homosexual marriage?
   
4. What does each candidate believe about human cloning?
   
5. What does each candidate believe about euthanasia—the killing of elderly and invalids?

Well, I for one wouldn't fit in that church. Also, another chance for the church to get involved in the election but technically not violate any laws. He did not endorse anyone in 2004 and this was just a mailer to get people to consider some very important points when going to the voting booth.

Reading his website, his Wiki entry, the Saddleback church website - everything looks very agreeable (if you answer the questions above in the "correct" manner). The web content is very uplifting and positive - and Christ is sprinkled throughout but not too heavily. There is no eternal damnation, no mention of Hell, no overt mention of donations (HRC take note), none of the old school Southern Baptist dogma. This softened version of Christianity along with some clever focus group work and marketing has generated exactly what suburbanites need. Clear direction, warm & fuzzy approach, and the ability to "belong" to something.

One important reality to keep in mind is that Obama is president of the 52% that voted Yes on 8 as much as he is president to the 48% who voted No on 8. I think I was being overly optimistic yesterday - any benefit of a long term conversation with Republicans via Rick Warren is just a pipe dream for finding a ray of light in what is essentially politics.


Some randomly sampled opinions:

Daily Kos:

Great comments, overall. I do want to clarify something: I'm not suggesting that fighting for the right to marry isn't worthwhile. Rather, it's the fight over Rick Warren's role in the inauguration that I believe is the comparatively smaller issue that threatens to derail more important matters. Some folks have suggested this one issue is worth ignoring all others. Just as the lawyer in "Ragtime" wanted to focus his energy on fighting real hardships rather than insults, so I want to suggest we do the same.

From Dave at AOL's political blog:

Oh for pete's sake. The selection of Rick Warren is one of those easy ways for Obama to appear to bridge the culture divide without actually doing anything hard. A prayer is not legislation, or anything remotely resembling such. The fact that Obama says he supports traditional marriage while opposing prop 8 should have clued you in on the fact that he really is on your side, but politically he can't afford to associate with the gay mafia too much.

Probably because of hysterical overreactions like this.

The real fun begins with don't ask, don't tell. Save your ammo for that one. Also Obama needs to keep reminding everyone that he isn't a Muslim. Rick Warren could help there.

Andrew Sullivan:

Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won't be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own.

Good politics and oddly enough, good news for gays

Interestingly, Obama decided that the press was not giving him enough attention. So he makes it unavoidable for them to cover him. He does so by picking the right-ish slanting Christiam Rick Warren to lead the invocation at the inaguration. Pretty sly piece of politics and good press to boot.


(Chris Crain has a lengthy entry regarding Rick Warren; the posting has some interesting opinions from Chris' readers as well as Chris.)

Some thoughts.


1) People can get angry about Rick Warren's positions and stances - but he is a popular minister to many Americans. He is not of the hate-monger mold of Jerry Fallwell et al. It is pretty clear from his work over the past few years, Rick Warren represents, embodies, and regurgitates a lot of the suburban views. Those who live in their little suburban cocoons don't do well with extremes - they need their religion to be doled out in tender little morsels, essentially pablum, that are vaguely Christian-esque.

2) Obama is in a bit of a bind at the moment. Bush pushed the entire auto mess onto Obama starting March 31st. At which point, some very very very hard decisions are going to have to be made. Best to keep the press off that reality this week, next two weeks are Christmas and then January will be the inaguration (and the car companies will be digesting their allowance in the first quarter). This clever press deflection is Clintonian to the Nth degree.

3) Obama's players are just about all named and there is a gap before Christmas - time to fill it with something that has the appearance of content - but is really not that meaningful.

I, for one, don't see this as anything more interesting than press manipulation. Rick Warren doesn't want to burn gays at the stake. He doesn't want to put them on trains. He's just a garden variety homophobe that preaches in that Campbell's Soup for the Soul sort of tone. Christian Republicans, like gays, are an unavoidable reality. But there are alot more of them than us. Hence our rights get repressed and not theirs.

But what Rick Warren represents is pretty interesting from the gay angle. The hard right and the previous culture wars, whipped up most recently by Darth Rove, had a very sinister element to it. There were terms like "agenda", "activist", "sanctity", etc when talking about anything gay. The hard right's views in the W era are not the same as Rick Warren's views. That is something to mull over. If the moderates/indepedents rejected all things old school Republican in 2006 and more so in 2008 (I mean John McCain effectively ran as the anti-W) - it is something of a phase shift to wonder who/what will lead them in the short term. Is it someone like Rick Warren whose moderate tone and moderate Republican stance reflect a swining of the pendulum back towards the center? It doesn't mean that the moderate right supports gay marriage - but gay marriage is no longer being promoted as one of the key signals illustrating the deterioration of our culture/heritage/tradition (whatever term the hard right likes to use).

The gay media should put this event in perspective. Rick Warren is being asked to pray - and that is about it. He is not being given a cabinet position or being asked to be an advisor. People aligned with him represent a very key demographic in this country that POLITICALLY cannot be ignored, that being the right-slanting suburbanites. People like those that I grew up with. For Obama to ignore them would be somewhat expected - but politically, no including them is pretty short-sighted.

As I stated above - this should be, to a limited extent, considered a net positive for gay rights. I know that sounds weird - but when looking at the big picture - it is encouraging to see that Rick Warren is tacking left in being a part of the new Administration's goal to bring together the secular and the religious to continue and expand an on-going dialogue. He's not pro-gays, but he is also not using gays as chum in the on-going culture wars.

My man Dallas

Dallas Clark, plays for the Colts. A Sunday afternoon highlight!

Christmas tree fun

We bought our Christmas tree last weekend from Kidman Tree Farm which is north of town up by the lake. Bubba, H.M. and I all agreed on a 7-8 foot tree that looked like it had a great shape (the branches had not yet fallen). So we ordered it up, brought it home and set it up. It drank water for a week and then we decorated it on Sunday.

Bubba had a red and white theme in mind and he wanted to keep it simple - picture below.



Unfortunately, the tree appears to have scoliosis. We have been adjusting it all week. Compounding that, the stump isn't even so it develops a lean every few days. I try to ignore it, but it drives Bubba nuts.



We even decided to let the palms in on the action.

Gay question on the census???

Mike Petrelis has an interesting post today about the need for a gay census.

His blog entry has a longish statement of support for the idea from Larry Kramer (LOVE HIM!) as well as plans for Britain to do a census that includes questions about sexual orientation/identity/preference (whatever they want to call it now).

It would be an interesting experiment to try - have an official statistic to account for how many "non-straight" people there are in the country (and by geography/state/locality). I do wonder how people would react to a question on a census form that asks about your identity?

Here are the two forms and their questions for the 2000 census:

What are the U. S. Census Questions?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are two types of forms, and only one will be mailed to your residence. The mailing is done by random computer selection. The first form is called the short form. This is mailed to 83% of all United States households. This form is very basic and has seven questions for the head of the household: name, age, date of birth, sex, race, Hispanic origin, homeowner or renter. The rest of the individuals in the house receive six questions: name, age, date of birth, sex, race, and Hispanic origin.

The second form is called the “long form.” This is the form that people could have a problem with as a more intrusive invasion of privacy since it has 53 questions. This form is mailed out to 17% of the population. The computer selection sends this to one out of every six households.

Generally, the U.S. Census long form covers the following subjects as allowed by federal law (Title 13 of the USCS):

Social characteristics of Population: marital status, place of birth, citizenship, year of entry, education-school enrollment, educational attainment, ancestry, residence 5 years ago (migration), language spoken at home, veteran status, disability, grandparents as care givers.

Economic characteristics of Population: labor force status (current), place of work and journey to work, work status last year, industry, occupation, class of worker, income (previous year).

Physical characteristics of Housing: units in structure, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, plumbing and kitchen facilities, year structure built, year moved into unit, house heating fuel, telephone, vehicles available, farm residence.

Financial characteristics of Housing: value of home, monthly rent, shelter costs, (selected monthly owner costs)

So it is pretty clear from the 2000 census template that there is easily room in the census long questionnaire under "Social Characteristics of the Population" to slide in a question about sexual oreintation/identity/preference.

I thought about the questions asked and one really stuck out in my mind - the one called "Grandparents as Care Givers". Now this must be a socially engineered question because it evokes one of two thoughts in my mind: 1) poor kids, mom and dad died in some accident and the kids had to be raised by grandma/grandpa and/or 2) poor kids, mom and dad vanished for some reason (drugs, escaping the law, abandonment, etc) and the kids had to be raised by grandma/grandpa.

Now I don't intend to be non-sympathetic, but who really cares from a census standpoint how many grandparents are primarily the child's care-giver? If that statistic is of sufficient concern to the general populace to make it onto the long form questionnaire then it seems of sufficient merit in some social engineering way to be calculated.

Given that we are seeing a pretty "active" discussion about gays and gay rights in our country and we have NO idea how many "non-straight" folks are out there, it is a pretty reasonable idea to include a question about sexual orientation. Now if this were to make it onto the census form, how many multiple choice questions are provided and in what order?

Example:

Please describe your sexual orientation/identity (Reminder: All census form information is for statistical use only and individual identities will not be revealed).
a) male homosexual
b) female homosexual
c) male bisexual
d) female bisexual
e) asexual
f) transgendered
g) intersex
h) queer

Now I have always like queer as a "non straight" bin because even the most sincere of our activists will make some joke about how unwieldy the "non-straight" acronym is and what it is. It is always like GLBTIQ, LGBTI, GLBT, etc. Its like the word scramble that doesn't make a real word. So lets say that we pick the letters G (gay), L (lesbian), B (bisexual), A (asexual), T (transgender), I (intersex), Q (queer) - best I can come up with is GLABTIQ (pronounced glab TIK') which isn't exactly charming.

Acronyms are a pretty interesting part of the whole equation - I have sat in on meetings and read about many more meetings where the question of the order of the letters in the acronym is somehow important and it seems that G or L always starts the acronym. However, if we are to believe Kinsey, wouldn't B start the acronym? And do we really know how many asexual people there are out there? Lots of men married for >10 years would claim their wives are asexual. How many men are asexual? Are there more people who are asexual than gay/lesbian?

My point, and there is one in here somewhere, is that if we don't know the basic stats of our community beyond the oft cited (and suspiciously rounded off ratio) of 1:10 are gay(-ish), then we don't have the ability to be considered (or recognized legitimately) as a minority. Liberal mayors and mayoral candidates in big cities always appear at gay pride parades, there are alot of votes there. Similarly, if we had gay numbers from the census, it might make politicians (and policy makers) think about how to approach their communities. If you have 5%-10% of your community that is "non-straight", that is a pretty decent chunk. And the converse is also true, if only 0.1% of your community is "non-straight", then there is little incentive from politicians or policy makers to consider gay rights in a voter context.

It is a pretty compelling idea to get some hard statistics on the number of "non-straights" in America.


PS: Who would play Larry Kramer in a biopic of his life??? Ben Kingsley could easily handle the older Larry.

Bubba's Tacky Christmas Tree Farm

Naseuatingly Cute Pix of Linus

Weather is going to get cold

My handy-dandy Weather Bug shows some cold weather is coming this week- Kevin's bestest Christmas present ever.

Note that in the upper left in big numbers is the current temp - that is 48 degrees on Sunday morning at 8am. Tonight's low will be 3 - with 20-30 mph winds and some mixed precipitates. Tomorrow's high will be 5. It warms up Tuesday in order to dump

And here it is at 2pm. 18 degrees. Wind is blowing at 20mph sustained now. Some snow flurries to boot.

Foiled at every turn

I had a super-duper busy week full of just tons of great things. My plans for a mental health day this past Monday were foiled at 8:30am when I was told that some equipment of mine caught on fire over the weekend. So I trudged into work to inspect the charred remains.

I was OK with working Monday because I had a backup plan. A killer blizzard was supposed to hit Des Moines Tuesday. I told everyone to stay home and planned to skip the gym and sleep late. Plus Tuesday was the day that the Iowa Supreme Court heard the gay marriage case (I wanted to watch the simulcast of the court presentation in the late morning followed by trashy daytime TV all afternoon). Well, the killer blizzard was, in fact, warm rain. Dammit! Therefore I could not avoid my only meeting of the day at 8am. And once at work - there is no way to get out before 5:30pm. It just doesn't happen.

So I seriously put my foot down. I was committed to take the day off on Wednesday (I mean, how hard can it be to get a day off?). I'd enjoy the Day without a Gay. Well, it being "one of those weeks", half my lab was sick and we have very firm deadlines to meet before X-mas. So I had to work in lab all day to help out. It was actually fun (so I did it again on Thursday and Friday). Actually, I'm pretty cute in goggles and a lab coat. So for the past 3 days, I tortured the lab with super-fierce cha-cha remixes, bumbled experiments, and tried to figure out where to put the disco ball. By Friday afternoon - they were seriously questioning how I had made it through grad school and hoping that I would go back to doing whatever it is that I do in my office.

Some good stuff happened this week though:

1. Manuscript is headed out for review - only took 9 months to write. It is always like getting a weight off of your shoulders to get a manuscript out.

2. Went to a new restaurant called Proof in Downtown - great ambiance, wonderful downtown view from huge plate glass windows, and the food was pretty good. Last night was a trip to Italy! First course: Yummy seafood salad. Second course: Ravioli in a tres tasty sauce. Third course: Duck lasagne. Fourth course: Spiced gelato and a small cakish thing (the cake did not work). 40 bucks per person for the prix fixe. Carly (the owner) came over and visited for a bit - she and Bubba swapped Africa stories.

3. Went to film viewing on Monday sponsored by OneIowa. There was a mixer at the art house cinema's lobby. The short movie that was produced by OneIowa and concerned gay marriage. It was a collage of people talking about their views of why gay marriage should be legal. Overall, it was pretty good and local media was there.
There was a request for donations which was tactfully put at the end of the presentation.

4. Tuesday night was another mixer - this one was to thank Lambda Legal for their role in arguing the case before the Iowa Supreme Court. The mixer was held at the Pappajohn Center - a poured concrete architectural disaster. Lambda Legal folks chatted with the crowd and did some quick thanks to OneIowa and Iowa in general for all the support on the case. Local media was there and overall it was a nice event. and request for donations was tactfully at the end. Proof (See item 1) did the catering - I overheard several queens chattering about how good the food was. Carly, corner the gay market and you will do quite well!

5. HRC did cover the Iowa marriage case - in their blog.

Overall - I thought that OneIowa did a great job this week of highlighting the Iowa Gay Marriage case and creating some opportunities for people to be involved.


HRC went into full crisis mode this week over Pat Boone.

Pat's quote:

"...there is a real, unbroken line between the jihadist savagery in Mumbai and the hedonistic, irresponsible, blindly selfish goals and tactics of our homegrown sexual jihadists."
- Pat Boone, December 6, 2008

I actually think that Queer Nation (does it still exist?) should change their name to Sexual Jihad. It has a certain snap to it. So HRC sends out an e-mail with a very clever donations strategy:

Boone and his buddies continue to stir up fear, even if they have to lie. It's exactly how they passed the California marriage ban.
We need your help to stop the radical right from painting a movement about love and dignity as violent and radical. We need your support to stay strong, smart, and nimble, to combat these growing attacks with the simple truth: all we want is equality.
Make a donation to HRC on behalf of Pat Boone. Your gift helps HRC combat these lies – and sends the message that our call for equality cannot be silenced.
We'll even send Mr. Boone a note with your first name and gift amount to let him know you've donated in his name.

Ummm - are you actually serious? I'm not donating ANYTHING in Pat Boone's name. And who cares about Pat Boone anyways? Why not send out an e-mail about the Iowa Supreme Court Case instead??? Whatever.


Jimbo sent me a funny e-mail about the HRC/Pat Boone drama.

'sigh'

HRC: "OMG PAT BOONE IS SO MEAN!!! BUT YOU CAN HELP!

1. DONATE TO US!
2. SIGN UP ON OUR MEMBERSHIP LIST!
3. DONATE TO US!

OMG PAT BOONE IS SO MEAN!"

Day without a gay made it onto Drudge!

Now this is what I am talking about. A relatively balanced article about "Day without a Gay" and the article even has links at the end.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress.

Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" - scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants - also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.

Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage.

The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.

"We are all for a boycott if that is what brings about a sense of community for people," said Hetherington, 30, who plans to spend Wednesday volunteering at an inner-city school. "You can take away from the economy and give back in other ways."

Hetherington said he's been getting 100 e-mails an hour from people looking for volunteer opportunities, and that his "Day Without a Gay" Web site has gotten 100,000 hits since mid-November.

Despite Hartzler and Hetherington's attempt to fashion a positive approach, some organizers of the street demonstrations that drew massive crowds in many cities last month have been reluctant to embrace the concept, saying that it could be at best impractical and at worst counterproductive to "call in gay."

"It's extra-challenging for people to think about taking off work as a form of protest, given that we are talking about people who may not be out (as gay) at work, and given the current economic situation and job market," said Jules Graves, 38, coordinator of the Colorado Queer Straight Alliance. "There is really not any assurance employers would appreciate it for what it is."

Graves' group nonetheless is arranging for interested participants to volunteer at the local African Community Center in Denver. The agency said it could find projects to keep 20 people busy, but so far only 10 have pledged to show up, said Graves.

Scott Craig, a fifth-grade teacher at Independence Charter School in Philadelphia, had no problem requesting and being granted the day off. So many of the school's 60 teachers were eager to show support for gay rights they had to make sure enough stayed behind to staff classrooms.

About 25 teachers plan to take Wednesday off and to have their work covered by substitutes while they discuss ways to introduce gay issues to their students and volunteer at the local branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, Craig said. A letter telling parents why so many teachers would be out went home Monday.

"We want to get the conversation going in the community that gay is not bad," Craig said. "For kids to hear that in a positive light can be life-changing."

Join The Impact, the online community that launched protests last month over the passage of gay marriage bans in California, Florida and Arizona, has urged people to withdraw $80 from their bank accounts Wednesday to demonstrate gays' spending power, and to devote the time they might otherwise spend watching TV or surfing the Internet to volunteer work.

Witeck-Combs Communications, a public relations firm in Washington that specializes in the gay and lesbian market, published a study this year that estimated that gay and lesbian consumers spend $700 billion annually.

Bob Witeck, the firm's chief executive officer, said it would be difficult to measure the success of Wednesday's strike since gay employees occupy so many fields. And rather than suspending all consumer spending for the day, gay rights supporters would have a bigger impact if they devoted their dollars to gay-friendly businesses year-round, Witeck said.

"Our community leaders who are running book stores, newspapers, flower shops, coffee houses, bars and many, many other things are hurting right now, so paying attention to their needs during this hard time is an effective form of activism," he said.

Hetherington said he has been careful to design A Day Without a Gay - he came up with the name after the film "A Day Without a Mexican" and liked it because it rhymed - so no one feels excluded or threatened.

He has specifically urged high school students not to walk out of their classes and assured college students they won't be disloyal to the cause if they go ahead and take their final exams. He also has listed opportunities - ranging from writing letters to members of Congress about federal gay rights legislation to spreading the word about Wednesday on social networking sites - for gay marriage backers who cannot miss work.

---

On the Net:

http://www.daywithoutagay.org/

http://jointheimpact.com/

From the Atlanta Bucks RFC Miss Ruck and Maul Benefit

Love the pic.

Vote totals on Prop 8 shows clearly that black voters are not the cause of the loss...

It is very useful to look at the totals county by county when discussion matters of race and Prop 8. The full totals are conveniently reproduced on Jim's 2.0 blog.

Note that the difference in votes was 500K out of over 11 million votes. Most interesting statistic is the counties that had the largest margin of Yes votes.

I'm not the world's expert on California - but I can tell you right now that Orange County and San Bernadino counties are the problem. And they are not demographically packed with religious black folks.

It took me <5 minutes to find this data and about 2 seconds to interpret it - what magical force has prevented the author's of the article Pam is referencing to do the same?

Oh, that is right - they need to sell paper and why not race bait? In these troubled times, with papers going out of business left and right - shouldn't the Times be a little bit concerned about producing meaningful and useful content? Is it really worthwhile for anyone to support a paper that is so obviously distorting a picture of reality (the data below is freely available with a quick Google search).

Largest Margin of Victory Yes Votes

1. San Bernardino County (185,874)


2. Orange County (168,269)


3. Riverside County (118,241)


4. Kern County (97,957)


5. Fresno County (85,820)

Largest Margin of Victory No Votes

1. San Francisco County (177,148)


2. Alameda County (111,377)


3. Sonoma County (62,568)


4. Santa Clara (62,073)


5. San Mateo (59,606)

Highest Yes Percentage

1. Tulare County (75.40%)


2. Kern County (75.30%)


3. Modoc County (74.20%)


4. Kings County (73.70%)


5. Madera County (73.40%)

Highest No Percentage

1. San Francisco County (75.20%)


2. Marin County (75.00%)



3. Santa Cruz County (71.40%)


4. Sonoma County (66.10%)


5. Mendocino County (62.20%)

Narrowest Yes Victory (<5%)

1. Los Angeles County (0.56%)


2. Nevada County (1.70%)


3. San Luis Obispo County (2.41%)

Narrowest No Victory (<5%)

1. Monterey County (3.5%)

EQCA shenanigans

Michael Petrelis highlights the typical antics of the HRC types whose "leadership" did absolutely nothing to help Prop 8.

Another item from Petrelis' posts this weekend was an article from Boston gay rag written by one Jeff Epperly (who Michael is friendly with):

Longtime San Francisco political gadfly and blogger Michael Petrelis, who hates the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) almost as reflexively as Andrew Sullivan hates the Clintons, is up in arms because he got an invitation recently for a night of "pampering and relaxation" at a local spa to benefit HRC. "What’s next?" Petrelis asks. "Get a face-lift and HRC gets 10 percent from the plastic surgeon, to fight the next ballot proposition? Purchase a Mercedes and the dealer gives a percentage of the sale to HRC?"

I like Petrelis, but his anti-HRC crusade veers off into the comical a bit too often these days. I wouldn’t go to a silly spa night to benefit any group, and I certainly don’t enjoy putting on a tux and dining on chicken with the LGBT glitterati at posh events. I point this out because of the tendency of those who’ve decided to pile onto the Human Rights Campaign vis-à-vis the California Proposition 8 loss to paint anyone who chooses not to join the anti-HRC feeding frenzy as being beholden to HRC’s glam aura as "professional" Washington insiders -- as if being professional LGBT lobbyists in a capital full of professional right-wing lobbyists is a bad thing on its face ...

The torch-and-pitchforks mob currently hounding HRC around the Prop. 8 loss either have very short memories or a shallow frame of reference for their anger. HRC gave $3.4 million to the anti-8 campaign, which is exactly the kind of role one would expect them to take in a fight in which local organizations rightfully took the lead and HRC provided support ...

Prop. 8 was a California loss that should be laid at the feet of a local campaign that had too little money too late and a disjointed message that failed to speak to the constituencies -- moderate religious voters and voters of color, in particular -- who put Prop. 8 over the top ...

For those same people to now claim to know what’s best for all of us is worse than revisionist history. It’s a recipe for disaster in a world where Prop. 8 has taught us that, as much as we might disagree, opportunistic political cannibalism only drives apart a community that should know that we need everyone to do his or her part in myriad ways that by themselves cannot possibly capture the complexity needed to move us forward.

The problem with this analogy is that cannabalism implies some sort of desire to consume another for a reason that might be nutritional (i.e. you are on a desert island) or it might be religious in nature (i.e. tribal consumption of their members in the pacific, as one example). I doubt that anyone criticizing HRC wants anything to do with the metaphorical consumption of that organization.

Jeff's point in this article is pretty clear. It is a nice thought too - why should we spend out time fighting within when the enemy is on the outside. We can handle our internal problems ourselves and no need to air our dirty laundry. We really should all get along.

But then there are these nagging problems with this column.

1) Use of the term cannabalism - If Michael's criticims gets a bit over the top then how does one describe the use of the term cannabalism? That word is over the top. And grossly inaccurate.
2)Use of the term shallow ("a shallow frame of reference for their anger") - In the vein of my post yesterday, if you are giving 3.4 million bucks - ought you not control how it is spent? I'm wondering why HRC justifies it efforts in CA with some dollar amount? It is silly for HRC to expect one organization to do all the work. If you are a big political organization (e.g. HRC) - you can give money to local organization AND run a parallel effort that overlaps but does not usurp the CA effort. Has anyone paid any attention to Karl Rove's tactics? Take a page from his book and BE AGGRESSIVE, BE BE AGGRESSIVE. Funny how Jeff's article heaps the blame on the EQCA group and absolves HRC ("Prop. 8 was a California loss that should be laid at the feet of a local campaign that had too little money too late and a disjointed message that failed to speak to the constituencies"). Isn't it HRC's role to educate local organizations for this very reason?
3. I just love that Prop 8 suddenly has become a wedge issue. Really, has it? Did Jeff just conveniently forget that 1 million people went to the streets Nov 15th. No on 8 rallies should have shown the leadership that IN SPITE of losses, the gay community is moving forward. The rallies were not about bitterness and in-fighting - by all accounts, they were mostly about hope and a time to reflect how far we have come and how far we have to go.

I would like to support the HRC -and I think many of the cranky bloggers out there would too - if they just pulled their head out of their ass and knocked off the top-down bullshit.

If one needs yet another example - 6 couples are going before the Iowa Supreme Court on Tuesday in an attempt to legalize gay marriage. Now I just went to the HRC home page and copied the lead page. Mind you that gay marriage is one of HRC's lead issues and this court case is being held in the Midwest. Kind of a big deal as this would offer a case for Minnesota and Wisconsin to do the same.

Can anyone find the Iowa case on the webpage? Oh perhaps I need to look behind the ad for the HRC store.

Q.E.D.

Chris Johnson, director of interactive communications for the HRC

Jon Aravosis linked into a Washingtonian article regarding Chris Johnson.

Mr. Johnson is a director of interactive communications for HRC. The HRC-sponsored blog that he oversees is called the HRC Back Story. It is pretty much a diluted version of very established aggregator-type blogs with varying authors, Pam's House Blend is the most interesting in this style that I happen to visit. But there are many blogs of this style out there and they are great places to check out what is hot.

In any case, Chris Johnson was interviewed for the "Interesting" persons column in the Washingtonian magazine. Below is some excepts from the Q&A.

Q: The Los Angeles Times ran an editorial pointing out some of the weaknesses of the “No on Proposition 8” movement. How is HRC working to address some of these problems?
CJ: In all honesty, I wish that HRC had been allowed to take a greater role in the day-to-day operations of the “No on Prop 8” campaign. Without question, I think there should be a full accounting of the way that campaign was waged.

OK - this answer is really really really infuriating. HRC has to ask for permission or wait for an invitation? Am I actually to believe that this organization gave its money to No on 8 and DID NOT DEMAND A ROLE IN HOW THE MONEY WAS SPENT. You have got to be kidding me. You know HRC understands the fucking concept of how money can be used and controlled - hell they just published a buyer's guide for the holidays. If they can help gay consumers use their money to effect change - should we expect the same of HRC when they are deploying their cash????

This response is so passive (particularly for the interactive communications director) when you look at what Join the Impact managed to do in 10 days. Umm, Join the Impact had no money, no established network of donors, no friendly outlets to disperse their message - and they managed to get 1 million queers and allies out on the street. But Mr. Johnson's organization, the HRC, cannot seem to place demands on how their contributions were used in No on 8.

It is just insulting.

Q: How important do you think it is for the gay community to find a leader or spokesperson to whom people from both within and outside the movement can relate to?
CJ: I’ve never really thought about that question. I feel that people’s experiences and priorities within the LGBT community are so varied that it may be nearly impossible to find a single leader to corral such an unruly cast of characters. (Mary Poppins, where are you?).

You have got to be fucking joking. The director of interactive communications has never considered whether the gay community could possibly have a national leader/spokesperson? Do most queer people like being called unruly? So who is "ruly"? Straight people? Mr. Johnson is clearly being flip - but think about the underlying bias in his answer.

I, for one, do not appreciate being reduced to something that needs to be lassoed by an umbrella-toting ray of sunlight. Mary Poppins, I mean really. Seriously. You cannot say that you work for the HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN and spout this sort of gibberish. Gay rights are human rights. Trans right are human rights. etc etc etc.

I'd suggest that Chris talk with a professional about how to give a humorous answer. Jimbo could probably offer some pearls of wisdom.

Q: Comparisons between the gay-rights movement and the civil-rights movement have been drawn, both at protests and in the press. Is gay really the new black, or just how worrisome is this comparison?
CJ: I’m not really into comparing battle scars to determine who has suffered the most in our country, but I can certainly identify with the sense of a despised minority using everything it has to fight for its place and respect in our society. I think that’s what makes talking about the LGBT equality movement using the 1960s civil-rights movement imagery so appealing. For many LGBT people who have perhaps always felt oppressed or struggled with feeling inferior, I think the civil-rights language speaks to that sense of unjustified loss deep within them. They want to convey their pain in the most powerful way possible.

I personally think the political danger lies in that for many black people, referring to the civil-rights movement conjures up centuries of brutal racial struggle stemming from their ancestors being brought from Africa in chains and enslaved, followed by years of Jim Crow laws and legal racial intimidation that restricted every aspect of one’s life, etc. It makes them immediately suspicious or even opposed to your argument—especially when they consider religious teachings against homosexuality. There are some black people who promote talking about the gay-rights movement in civil rights terms, but I suspect there are even more voters who are put off by the comparison.

And yes, I know some civil-rights leaders such as Congressman John Lewis, Julian Bond, the late Coretta Scott King, and Bayard Rustin endorsed the comparison, but I just don’t think their position on the issue resonates with the majority of black people today.

Oh now we get an answer with some sort of cerebral activity. How kind. Too bad the answer is saturated in identity politics bias.

CJ reminds all of you gay folks - you don't get to use identity politics like blacks do because you belong to a minority that is too "new" in terms of its recognition. And that Mr. Johnson has just informed you what many in Prop on 8 debate were wondering - what is the view in the black community about gay marriage. Now interestingly, it turns out that black voters in California were not in any way the deciding factor - and in fact is appears that a majority of blacks appeared to favor supporting the existing law to allow gay marriage based upon polling. So are black folks in California different from the ominous silent majority he mentions?? Just a question.

NOTE: This article appeared to be published in the Washingtonian on Dec. 4th so his answer is not due to a publication date.

It actually bothers me quite a bit to see the HRC playing slice and dice with identity politics. No one wins when we do this - I mean do blacks get the trump card or Jews? Or average Russians during the Stalin years? Or average Chinese under Mao? Aborigines in Australia? Native Americans? And so on.

CJ starts with the smart answer - there is no need to compare battle scars. But then he goes and does just that. The answer, if anyone at HRC was paying attention to the supposed message they are distributing, should be thus: All minorities need protection from the majority and we stand ready to assist in this fight so all are given the respect that a human life deserves.

No need for images of chains and brutality of slave holders. But Chris couldn't stomach the idea that gay rights and black rights are human rights. He has to remind all of us not to even try that "Gay is the new black" shit. And he'll remind us of the silent black majority of the voting block that goes to church. Its a ATL sort of answer. And you can tell that CJ clearly believes that gay rights sit on a lower stratum of the civil rights totem pole than black rights. Very very sad to see this coming from a director in the HRC. Bias is bias. When CJ supports the mentality that black rights trump gay rights - how can we have equality. I'd suggest the HRC vet this kid's communications and send him to Camp Equality for a refresher course about how to stay on message.

Q: How do you respond to Andrew Sullivan's criticism accusing HRC of not taking enough of a role during the Prop 8 campaign? Do you agree with the idea that the organization is in need of reform?
I honestly don’t read or pay much attention to that guy. The only time I think about him is when his name pops up in my “Human Rights Campaign” Google alert—and that usually means he’s in a tizzy about something. I’d agree that there are always things HRC could do better, but how a group can send staff, mobilize volunteers, and give millions of dollars to a campaign and be considered “passive” just really bakes my noodle. I guess there are a few folks out there who are entertained by him grinding his axe, but I don’t think he really speaks to, or for, people like me.

Now this is rich. Just two seconds ago CJ was complaining that the HRC did not get enough input to be effective in No on 8. Now CJ is protraying HRC in some sort of dramatic light of leaving no stone unturned in the fight for No on 8.

Now many folks, including myself, have at least one beef with Andrew Sullivan. But I would NEVER think of reducing him to "entertainment" - particularly from some 30 year old kid who clearly thinks very highly of his position. I'd just throw in a reality check here - how many hits does Andrew get and how many hits does CJ get. And let's look at the resume - Andrew has published how many books? He was editor of the New Republic for how long? How often is he quoted in the mainstream media?
And CJ, where are you books, editorships, links to the mainstream (crickets chirp).

I would also suspect that the interactive communications director for HRC to look past Andrew's presentation and think about the content of what he (and many like him) are saying. Andrew's comments on HRC have alot of resonance in the blogosphere (this is not to say that he speaks for the whole community - rather that his posts often are reflections or direct contributions of ideas ripping about the gay activist/political/information aggregator blogs). I would expect for Chris Johnson to think of Andrew (and he has a really big straight liberal audience) as a bellwether.

A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.

If I were Chris, I would stop thinking of Andrew as the problem and start thinking of Andrew as part of the solution. HRC is taking tons of licks right now in the blogosphere. The actual damage really comes from the protests re: No on 8. The popular response startled everyone - but it is clear that there is something of a Stonewall 2.0 brewing out there. HRC, always the target for being monolithic and money hungry, actually appears to have become irrelevant - the relevance of the organization ended on November 15,2008. Join the Impact better win the HRC visibility award for showing why HRC when from ineffective to irrelevant in the month of November. Wouldn't that be great!

The role of interactive communications should be something more than gathering content and reposting it - no, this person's role should be to see what and where HRC can improve its role and efficacy through the collective voices on the web. It does not mean that each and every comment should be acted upon or even considered - but this person should act as an editor of the web for the HRC and provide grass-roots input. HRC had a wonderful chance to help out Join the Impact. It could have boomeranged itself back into relevancy by collaborating with Join the Impact. Instead the HRC ignored it. It would rather provide seaweed wraps at spa nights to console its members about the No on 8 loss.

Many people in the blogosphere, including Andrew Sullivan, have gone from complaining about HRC as an organiztion to basically discussing as if it were already dead. If you think of Andrew as a potential bellwether - the repeated HRC obits that happened after Nov 15 protest should scare the shit out of HRC. But as the blogosphere continually has shown - the navel gazers and Congressional asskissers at the HRC hive on Rhode Island Ave only do top-down.

Hint to HRC: The hard right did bottom up in the 80s and they dominated the Congress in the 90s with the Contract with America starting in 1994 and cornering Clinton into his "triangulation" strategy. Obama did ground up in Iowa caucuses and won decisively - remember HIllary was actually THIRD in Iowa. Howard Dean started the 50 state strategy as head of the DNC using a bottom up approach to lay the groundwork for victory in 2008. And of course Join the Impact.

Grass roots is where it is at - in terms of money, viralcy of information distribution, and ability to reach those of us out in the hinterlands.


Concluding comment:
I'm also going to use a direct quote from CJ:

I can only hope that the setback in California will inspire real, sustained efforts to earnestly understand the complex ways that race, religion, and sexuality intersect in the struggle for equal rights. We need to go back to the drawing board on how we talk about these things. There’s a lot of mutual distrust to overcome.

Does this "mutual distrust" really exist? A million people went to the streets and proteste on November 15thd. We have a renewed sense of pride as a gay community that binds us together - this is the Stonewall 2.0. Did CJ read all the blogs on Nov 15, 16th and 17th showing all the marches and protests. Gay flags everywhere. Signs promoting equality carried by gays and straights. There is a path forward like there never has been before. The gays are taking on the hate of the Mormons and Catholics and showing their hypocrisy. We are turning the corner. Talk of mutual distrust misses the entire point of Stonewall 2.0.

Boycott HRC. Until their coffers run dry - they will not change.

Perfect example of HRC at its least effective

JumptheSnark has a great entry on an HRC-sponsored inaugural-ish sort of party. I seriously hope that the drink of choice "Equaltinis" is a joke - because I can actually see those HRC boobs coming up with some 20 dollar top shelf concoction to bring some verve to the party.

The money line:

$350 or $375 for tickets -- is it a fundraiser? Or just an expensive party?

Imagine how many servers HRC could buy for Join the Impact?

Join the Impact co-founder and some interesting links

Nice posting here from JoeMyGod regarding an article about Amy Balliett.

Her entry in Wiki.

From Daily Kos on Nov 12th.

NY Times blog entry on idea of making Milk a box-office success by direct action (i.e. every gay person goes to make it a box-office smash). New Yorker review was fantastic of Milk (which helps the cause)


A pretty interesting timeline of Join the Impact evolution over two weeks in the Industry Standard.

Rex Wockner has the latest direct action activities for December and January from Join the Impact.

OMG - The Christmas decorations will soon appear (shudder).

Well it appears that winter has now descended upon Des Moines. It has snowed twice already this week and we are getting a round of light snow tonight and then another round of snow/ice Sunday night into Monday. At least it is not too cold - no below zero weather yet.

All this white stuff means only one thing - Christmas is upon us!

Bubba will be hauling out his trashy Christmas displays this weekend and we'll go buy a tree. )Note: we were just too lazy last weekend to tackle the boxes and it snowed and was windy all weekend so we vegetated on the couch). Now, I've always argued for being tasteful in one's excess regarding Christmas. A moderate sized tree, a few lights, some simple ornaments, a wreath for the door. Boring, but tasteful. Not Bubba. If it is shiny, sparkles or rotates - he will buy it. He loves the sheer vulgarity of the holidays. The house will soon be drenched in knick-knacky Christmas kitsch. I keep telling myself, "it is only one month of the year and you do love him".

I'll post pics and let them speak their 1000 words.

Detriot's game of chicken is officially on

I watch the spectacle of Detroit alternating between a spanked child and a past-his-prime quarterback with some amusement. The last installment before Congress saw the CEOs of the Big 3 sent home with their tail between their legs for demanding 25 billion when riding corporate jets with their hat not exactly in their hand begging for some cash from the Federal trough.

After regrouping, the "atmospherics" (such a great term) of the demands changed. The CEOs did a road trip in a hybrid and then demanded a total of 9 billion more bucks. Geez, what would the total have been had they ridden a bike to DC?

To bring this charade into perspective, it is interesting to parse some of the talking points.

1. GM and Chrysler are now saying that they will be insolvent by New Years Day without a cash infusion from the Federal Government. Interesting development given that they were giving timelines in Quarter 1 or 2 next year just a few weeks back. False urgency? I think we are starting to see the makings of full disclosure this time around.
2. GM and Chrysler have drawn a very clear line in the sand this week. Bankruptcy is "not an option". More succinctly, one CEO stated that Plan A is for a cash infusion and there is no plan B. Interesting how the CEOs have decided to play offense vis a vis bankruptcy. They hold, at this moment, no trump cards but are playing as if they have a full house. Bluffs only work when no one really knows what the table is holding - but in this case (point 1) everyone knows that GM and Chrysler are not viable.
3. Fun fact seen on the Lehrer Hour tonight - if any of the Big 3 go under, the recession will morph into a full on depression. This little nugget goes to the GM CEO.
4. Ford, "healthiest" of the three, is asking only for a line of credit that need not be accessed immediately. Well, I'd imagine they are still churning through the $26 billion they got for mortgaging the entire business in 2006 - right down to the inherent value of the blue oval.
5. None of the Big 3 can seem to sell a car in Quarter 3. Sales which started their descent in 2007 are nearing a fatal nadir as 2008 winds down.
6. There is lots of talk about fuel economy and hybrids and re-engineering platforms for the small chassis platform. Umm, you guys kind of missed the boat there. Gas is now $1.54 per gallon in Des Moines. People currently are not buying in response to the economy, not gas prices. You could have put fuel efficient cars on the platform years ago - but, oops, SUVs and trucks were the cash cow.

There is alot more here to divine from the tea leaves - but what it boils down to is just this. The Big 3 have no real desire to change anything. This is the metaphorical drunk wanting one more swig of hooch, and then he'll quit.

The car companies (by Ford's own admission today) have lots of fuel efficient models that sell quite well in overseas markets. And, now, they are moving quickly to adapt their platforms to build these cars. Interesting - CAFE was always blamed for the car companies woes but oddly enough, these very companies can make fuel efficient cars that people buy in the rest of the world. Just not here.

These are just theatrics before the final showdown. The game of chicken has started - but the end is many miles down the road. Are hybrids the key - not if anyone hates the car. The Prius by Toyota is hideous but they sell. Are electric cars the key? Well if you make it look like the EV1, only the most hardened of liberals can stomach that gravy boat of a car. Is ethanol the key? Well, now that they are all going under because of the precipitous drop in gas prices - don't look for domestic improvements here (let's just ignore that Brazil has a thriving car market where drivers can titrate between ethanol and gas depending upon the price - either works in their flex fuel cars).

The point of the showdown is that these companies need focus - bankruptcy can bring this. Government money will not. The most interesting thing I have read on the topic recently came from the WSJ - just slice and dice the factories up to Honda, Toyota, BMW or whomever else. We already have a domestic car market that works and those companies can use the existing facilities much more efficiently than the Detroit dinosaurs. Politically, it will never happen. But it is intersting to think about.

The politicians, and this is now outside of Obama's hands (he is breathing a temporary sigh of relief until Jan 20th, no doubt), are going to have to sort out the fate of Detroit in December. If the companies won't make it past New Year's - well, someone has to blink.

Make a wish

I got my 11,111th visit this morning!

Glad I was kicked out of bed at 3:53 am for being too congested. Bubba can't stand my congestion brought on by being allergic to just about everything in the house (i.e. cat, dog, dust mites, dust (that provides the mites their sustenance) which in turn is being exacerbated by the super dry air of the upper Midwest.

ANYWAYS, supposedly, one is to make a wish if one sees 11:11 on the clock. Well I am buying a lottery ticket today - as Mary Chapin Carpenter sang on her album Come On, Come On "I feel lucky!"

Gay marriage goes before the Iowa Supreme Court Dec 9th!

Iowa may be the next state to grant full marriage rights to all couples! Dec 8th and 9th have several festivities associated with this historic event. Brought to you via OneIowa.




One week from today, Iowa will take the national spotlight as the case for marriage equality goes before the Iowa Supreme Court. Join One Iowa across the state to celebrate and learn more about this historic opportunity for equality.


Oral Argument Watch Parties!

Given the interest in the case and limited capacity, we anticipate that there will not be enough seating for everyone in the Supreme Court chamber. To accommodate growing interest from our supporters, One Iowa has planned several “watch parties” across the state!

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 9:45 – 11:30 AM
Des Moines Watch Party - Des Moines Public Library, 1000 Grand Avenue
Ames Watch Party - ISU Memorial Union, Gallery Room (3rd Floor), 2229 Lincoln Way
Iowa City Watch Party - Iowa City Public Library, 123 South Linn

We are making every effort to ensure a live-feed at each of these locations; but due to technology limitations and previous experiences in other states, we cannot make any guarantees on the quality of the live-feed. Regardless, this will be a great way for our supporters to gather for a truly historic event!

Due to extremely limited seating we strongly encourage you to join your closest watch party, but if you prefer to attend oral arguments in person, click here for more information from the Iowa Supreme Court.



"Our Story" Movie Premiere -- RSVP

Monday, December 8, 2008 - 6:30-8:00 PM
Fleur Cinema and Cafe, 4545 Fleur Dr., Des Moines

Join us for the public premiere of "Our Story", One Iowa's short film featuring Iowans speaking out in favor of marriage for gays and lesbians. Come celebrate with us and don't miss your chance to mingle with the stars! Light appetizers will be provided with a cash bar.
Remarks by Senator Matt McCoy and Des Moines Register Columnist Rekha Basu.



"Making the Case" Des Moines Reception -- RSVP

Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 6:30-8:00 PM
Pappajohn Center, 1200 Grand Ave., Des Moines

Oral arguments in the landmark Varnum v. Brien case take place before the Iowa Supreme Court on the morning of December 9. Join us in the evening for a reception to discuss this historic event with remarks by Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal's senior attorney on the case. If the district court ruling is upheld, it will provide gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry; full marriage equality in Iowa. Wine and hors d'oeuvres provided.

Day without a gay

Join the Impact - fresh off a great debut on November 15th, now has a new initiative.

Day without a Gay.

The effort encourages you to call into work as "gay" and then take that day (i.e. Dec 10, 2008) to volunteer or do service for your community. I feel a mean case of "gay" coming on!

HRC Buyer's Guide

Wow, something tangible and useful from the HRC! And I am not being sarcastic.

The buying guide is pretty useful for those of us who want to support gay rights/human rights when shopping (the ultimate vote in this country really is with your pocketbook).




Download the buyer's guide.

Quick note: The guide will pop up pretty large (reduce the zoom to <100%).

Snowy days in Des Moines

The weather guys kind of screwed up this forecast. All week we were supposed to have a little precip, nothing big. However, some energy came together and the system slowed down and voila, we have snow!

Wet flakes and relatively warm temps make for that fluffy, fairytale-like snow that sticks to everything. The picture is of our humble little abode on a snowy Sunday morning.





Linus and kitty are getting quite cozy now that it is cooling down. Cute pic of them snuggling.

Leadership failure?

Michael Petrelis has a very interesting link today to SF Bay Times.

Ridiculous

From Bloomberg:

Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., criticized by U.S. lawmakers for its use of corporate jets, asked aviation regulators to block the public’s ability to track a plane it uses.

“We availed ourselves of the option as others do to have the aircraft removed” from a Federal Aviation Administration tracking service, a GM spokesman, Greg Martin, said yesterday in an interview. He declined to discuss why GM made the request.

Flight data show that the leased Gulfstream Aerospace G-IV jet flew Nov. 18 from Detroit to Washington, where Chief Executive Officer Richard Wagoner Jr. spoke to a Senate committee that day and a House panel the next day on behalf of a $25 billion auto-industry rescue plan.

Representatives at the Nov. 19 House hearing including Democrat Gary Ackerman of New York faulted Wagoner, Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally and Chrysler LLC CEO Robert Nardelli for taking private jets to Washington to plead their case.

“Couldn’t you all have downgraded to first class?” Ackerman said.

Thanksgiving

We had a delightful Thanksgiving at home with H.M as our guest.

How could one give thanks without Champers and bacon?

A Thanksgiving still life by morning's light - Mimosas with orange and grapefruit juices.

H.M. was here for Thanksgiving and she made biscuits - her first time ever. They turned out great!

I made an apple pie (and crust). Turned out pretty good - I have not made crust in awhile so the dough ended being a bit overworked - but the pie looks good and tastes super yummy! I think Rome apples make the best pie but I could not find any - so I used another old reliable - Macintosh.

The relish tray - pre-dinner.

I cook my turkey in an oiled brown paper bag. It is a bit unusual - but it works beautifully. The bag keeps the turkey juicy and moist and the skin still browns up nice. It is a bit messy - but worth all the bother. Dry turkey breast sux.

Dinner! We had turkey, stuffing (in the turkey), mashed potatoes, candied yams, pan fried corn, green bean casserole, broccolini, muffins, cranberry, and butternut squash soup.

Morality vs Equal Protection under the law

Oh dear. William McGurn had a textbook case of shortsightedness today in the WSJ in his entry on the Opinion page entitled" "Gay Marriage and the California Courts".

I shan't go into great detail about the article - it is pretty vapid stuff about how the majority is welcome to impose its will and usurp the courts' protection of the minority.

I will, however, pick out one interesting quote:

..gay-rights activists see no moral difference between two men who want to get married and the traditional male-female couple making their walk to the altar."

Ummm, given that marriage is a civil ceremony in all 50 states (not a moral ceremony in the view of the state) - one does have to wonder where equal protection under the law stands. Marriage is a state issue, by and large. States can define when a couple can get married (i.e. restrictions on bigamy, age, mental condition, etc). But marriage itself is the union of two willing participants (most of the time) that requires the blessing of the state through a license. That means it is a contract. The Federal Government ensures that the rough parameters of marriage in the states are (for males and females) rather fair. To wit - no marriage between people of differing races can be denied in our country despite what the majority of the population, in any given state, might inherently believe, be it moral or otherwise.

Ergo, morality and marriage might be very fervently tied together by many people but "morality" is not allowed to prevent marriage in obvious cases of discrimination. I mean did anyone actually protest that Tiger Woods (mixed racial composition) married a white woman? 100 years ago, in many states of this great Union, mixed marriage would not be allowed. But in the 1950s and 1960s, the courts actually started to impose the real meaning of the Constitution where bias (read: morality) is not allowed under the Constitution with regard to mixed race marriages.

So I just finished reading the article and was incensed.

I don't want to get married, period. Bubba and I have been together for 7 years and our interest in marriage has nothing to do with commitment or existing Federal Law - we just don't talk about marriage as part of our path. I don't think it is a good idea for many gays to get married - 50%+ of straights cannot seem to get it right and we should learn from their mistakes.

But I want to ensure that people who want to make that choice to allow government intrusion into their lives are given every chance - hell, it might work for them and think of all the benefits. Marriage between two willing people is standard in our country - and the recent paradigm is that so long as one person has a vagina and one person has a penis then that is their right (given certain constraints). Thus, is morality now reduced to an innie-outie paradigm? Two penises, no marriage for you. Two vaginas, no marriage for you either. We've reduced marriage restrictions to something as silly as what people were born with between their legs (or more specifically, that one must have two X chromosomes and the other must have one X and one Y chromosome). The sex chromosomes are the same as the color of ones skin - it is just some DNA after all.

Opposition to gay marriage - or more specifically, subscribing to arbitrarily imposed rules by the majority - is what is at play. People who don't even believe (much less think about Christ) can get married and this is sanctioned by the state. Thus what role is "morality" actually playing here? A Hindu couple from Asia who has no meaningful interest in Christ or Christian principles has their marriage validated upon entry into this country. Is that "moral"? What rational thought can be given by the majority in this country to support a marriage of two people who the Christians implicitly believe are going to Hell? If we are going to split hairs - why would any Christian support a "pagan" or "non-believer" marriage? Oh I forgot - the penis and vagina matter here - not their "moral" beliefs (note: I picked Hindu arbitrarily).

If we are going to be "moral" (read: Christian) then let's get fucking moral. Make baptism in Christian faith required. How about weekly attendance at Sunday School.

You see how silly this can become if you sit and ponder it.

A moral marriage is just some idiotic construct that is sufficiently plastic to adapt to the times. The reason that Hindu marriages are recognized by the state is that the majority has said that some sinners can get married and others cannot. Completely arbitrary in my opinion. The majority in this country will let a sinning couple doomed to Hell get married and have it recognized if they have a penis/vagina dichotomy. However, a Christian penis/penis couple is forbidden.

Silly games, I know. But that is where gay marriage is now. Silly rules decided by the majority in complete defiance of the Equal Protection Clause. Can any strict constructionist please point to the Constitution and find the statement that only that couple with a one to one ratio of penis and vagina are allowed to get married.

(Crickets chirping loudly).

The courts are in place for this very reason. Silly and arbitrary rules imposed by the majority need to be revised in accordance with the law of the land. If marriage is a contract that some decide is legal and others decide is moral and yet others decide is both - the courts have to step in and clarify.

I agree that California ought to be able, in a free world, to ban gay marriage. However, California is not free, it is beholden to the powers of the Federal Government which derives is authority from the written law, of which the Constitution is a primary guiding force. If marriage is viewed by the Federal Government and the Constitution as a legal contract - then the matter is closed. Federal rights trump states rights every day of the week. Thus the states may refine their rules for marriage in an arbitrary fashion but is must comply with the spirit of the Constitution.

Morality is just a pretty term for bigotry. Ask any black person who is 70 and lived in the south about "Christian morality" and they will probably give you a pretty good case for why the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause is not something to be taken lightly. I just offer these thoughts to suggest that the Federal Government and the courts have a right and respobnsibilty to protect the minority.

Detroit gets the cold shoulder

Regarding my earlier post about Detroit and Obama - it is quite interesting to me to see the new administration (and Congress) standing up to Detroit and the unions.

Some interesting developments:
1. GM admitted this week that bankruptcy could be a possibility which is, in and of itself, shocking.
2. Chrysler and GM will be in a race to see who will run out of operating capital first - GM has a publicly known burn rate which places it somewhere between Christmas and St Patrick's Day to fail to have enough cash on hand to do day-to-day business. Chrysler is privately held and Cerebrus will be riding that ship down to the bottom of the ocean. Cerebrus picked up an 80.1% share in Chrysler for a cool 7.4 billion - a fraction of what Daimler picked it up for in the late 90s. Cerebrus figured that a focus enforced by private capital could whip the auto maker into shape.
3. The government, at this moment, has not taken up a bailout in any meaningful shape for the automakers. Meanwhile, Citi just got an astounding 20 billion of direct money (from the President's allocation of the bailout package - he has discretion to allocate 100 billion) and is now on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions of toxic loans should Citi not be able to cover them.
4. The press made some hay about the fact that the CEOs of the automakers (GM in particular) had rather plush travel arrangements to Washington to ask for a multi-billion dollar bailout. GM sold released, note not all, of their corporate fleet.
5. Obama has made noises about helping out Detroit but the package would require a quid pro quo - Detriot gets money and then has to make fuel efficient cars.

This last point is actually pretty interesting - I was listening to Rush Limbaugh the other day for a bit while riding around at lunch doing some errands - and he hit the nail on the head. Why should we give Detroit money without a coherent plan? Why should we give Detroit money for paying workers who don't work through their Jobs Banks programs? Why should the unions not concede horrendously expensive compensation for their hourly workers and ease their blockages of factory closings? And, most interstingly, how will Detroit make fuel efficient cars that anyone wants to buy given their current small chassis platform?

Detroit has buoyed an idea that bankruptcy is bad primarily because it discourages potential buyers from purchasing a car from a company that could go under, thus threaten the implicit warranties on a car.

This is clearly bogus - no one wants to buy a small car from Detroit because they are garbage. Detroit can't make a small car to save its life - it, however, can make a big SUV or truck. So, Rush asked quite cogently, how will Detroit suddenly pull out this miracle and rapidly convert their product development pipeline to small car design that is interesting and marketable?

Short answer to Rush's questin is the response of Washington - the government knows that Detroit cannot and, more pointedly, will not. Hence the game of chicken has commenced. The politicians are looking askance of Detroit's childish tantrums, and rightfully so, until there is some tangible measure of a plan.

Praise for politicians is not often heard here, but bravo for DC for at least showing some spine and not caving reflexively to the unions or big industry. The banks, however poorly behaved, still hold things of value (i.e. mortgages) which can be leveraged into a long term position (once the default swaps are unwound). Detroit, by comparison, has very little of value beyond their potential to unload tens of thousands onto the welfare rolls. The employees are going to land there anyways - so why not take the bitter pill now and get it over with rather than prolonging the agony?

And they only have to look at Honda and Toyota - both with large manufacturing operations inside the United States - to validate that the wounds are clearly self inflicted. The day of reckoning for Detroit has, at long last, arrived.

You Go Girl

Michael Petrelis calls it out.

A must read regarding Elizabeth Birch and Larry Kramer (Love Larry Kramer - my most top favorite gay in the whole world! His poster is fabulous!)

DC trip

I went out to see my peeps in DC over the weekend. A very nice visit. DF fetched me from the airport for a quick jaunt out to Annapolis to see another peep who moved into a super cute neighborhood near the capitol. Drinks were had and chat, chat, chat. Then out to visit the bars.

Saturday, we did a quick tour of downtown Annapolis and the Naval Academy - pics below.

Then DF and I jetted back to the city. I met up with Jimbo for some drinks at Nellie's. We caught up - had not seen each other in a over year. Lots of good chat!

Then a festive Saturday night with the neighbors up in Takoma and visit with my darling new fairy god-niece, Peanut. Nice dinner and drinks.

Sunday was a trip over to the co-op and Takoma Farmer's Market with football and beer in the afternoon. I was sick all day Sunday (sinus drama) so the ride home on the plane was not fun.

The Castro means something

Jimbo had an interesting entry about how gay people fare as they progress through their days. He was writing it after a very thoughtful entry from Dogpoet which is considering how gays should react when provoked - in this case the protesters coming into the Castro and being chased out.

Now that I have adopted Iowa as home (for a little bit at least), I've seen the bizarre counterpoint to the DC, ATL, SF gay ghettos where I spent the last 10 years. Out here, gay people come out at 20 and move to Chicago (never to return) or they get married at 20, have a bunch of kids and then come out at 40. Its the Iowa Midlife Crisis. And I'm not exaggerating for effect - if you go to the bar and meet someone over 40, odds are that they were married to a woman at some point.

Since I always knew I was a screaming homo and never made any serious attempts to use chicks as cover growing up or in my 20s, this is why I find the Iowa Midlife Crisis bizarre. Did they know they were gay? Did they get married out of love or because it is expected? Why spend your 20s in a domestic trap?

For me, the most powerful aspect of Brokeback Mountain was the concept of looking at a gay couple before the concept of gay existed. The most searing quote in the whole movie is when Enis exclaims "Its because of you that I am like this." Thus I suspect that many people growing up in small towns in the Midwest lack any concept of gay - particularly before mainstream media turned gay into the 'new black'. I grew up in Raleigh (not terribly progressive in the 80s, but not a complete backwater either) and so natural variation among the folks in town was fairly normal to me. However if you come out to the Midwest and go to a small town, you will see little to no variation at all in terms of color and appearance. Jack McCafferty said the night of Obama's win in the Iowa Caucuses that Iowa is the whitest place outside of the North Pole (It is pretty much true).

I'm meandering towards a point here - the Castro was the place in the 70s where those who "knew" what they were could go. It represents more than just a place where the gays live. It was a place tenderly portrayed by Armisted Maupin in the early parts of Tales from the City. It was a refuge for gays of all ages and a promised land for those who could get there from the oppressive hinterlands.

The Castro, to me at least growing up, was the place that people from Raleigh went and everyone knew why. You not only went there to come out, you essentially told everyone you were gay when you went there. It was the west coast oasis for gays and, being one of the first gay ghettos, allowed people to figure out what gay meant to them. So for those who were bold enough to make the move in the 70s, the Castro became one of the first little incubators for defining what being gay, and more specifically an urban gay, was. In short, it is hallowed ground.

The Castro is full of memories of our past - the clone as the look, the brutal crackdowns by the police in the bars, Harvey Milk's rise and his assassination, the sex clubs and sexual freedom, AIDS, the active genocide of the gays by the Federal government via their indifference, the subsequent loss of an entire generation of gay men (that gaping hole remained, rather obviously, when I was there in the 90s), and the reblossoming of the culture once condoms became part of the wardrobe and retrovirals hit the scene.


So I agree with Dogpoet, I wish I was there. I'd chase people out - it wouldn't even require a second thought. As I was telling Bubba the other day - straights have 99.999% of the country as theirs. Let us have our 0.001% of the country as our space.

Particularly a place as special to American gay culture as the Castro.

Politics at its finest

From Breitbart via Drudge

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democratic Congress, unwilling or unable to approve a $25 billion bailout for Detroit's Big Three, appears ready to punt the automakers' fate to a lame-duck Republican president. Caught in the middle of a who-blinks-first standoff are legions of manufacturing firms and auto dealers—and millions of Americans' jobs—after Senate Democrats canceled a showdown vote that had been expected Thursday. President George W. Bush has "no appetite" to act on his own.

U.S. auto companies employ nearly a quarter-million workers, and more than 730,000 other people have jobs producing the materials and parts that go into cars. About 1 million on top of that work in dealerships nationwide. If just one of the auto giants were to go belly up, some estimates put U.S. job losses next year as high as 2.5 million.

"If GM is telling us the truth, they go into bankruptcy and you see a cascade like you have never seen," said Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, who was working on one rescue plan Wednesday. "If people want to go home and not do anything, I think that they're going to have that on their hands."

The automakers—hobbled by lackluster sales and choked credit—are burning through money at an alarming and accelerating rate: about $18 billion in the last quarter alone. General Motors Corp. has said it could collapse within weeks, and there are indications that Chrysler LLC might not be far behind. Ford Motor Co. has said it could get through the end of 2008, but it's unclear how much longer.

For now, however, with the federal emergency loan plan stalled in the Senate, lawmakers in both parties are engaged in a high-stakes game of chicken, positioning themselves to blame each other for the failure.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., scrapped plans Wednesday for a vote on a bill to carve $25 billion in new auto industry loans out of the $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund.

It's really up to Bush's team to act, he said.

"I don't believe we need the legislation," Reid said. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson can tap the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies, Reid said, but "he just doesn't want to do it."

Not our responsibility, countered the White House.

"If Congress leaves for a two-month vacation without having addressed this important issue ... then the Congress will bear responsibility for anything that happens in the next couple of months during their long vacation," said Dana Perino, the White House press secretary.

She said there was "no appetite" in the administration for using the financial industry bailout money to help auto companies.

The White House and congressional Republicans instead called on Democrats to sign on to a GOP plan to divert a $25 billion loan program created by Congress in September—designed to help the companies develop more fuel-efficient vehicles—to meet the auto giants' immediate financial needs.

Voinovich and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., along with Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, were at work on that measure Wednesday, trying to placate skeptical Democrats by including a guarantee that the fuel-efficiency loan fund would ultimately be replenished.

"It is the only proposal now being considered that has a chance of actually becoming law," said Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

If an acceptable deal emerges, Reid said it could be passed as part of a measure to extend jobless aid to unemployed workers whose benefits have run out. A vote on that bill is likely on Thursday. Negotiators were discussing a scaled-down aid package of $5 billion to $8 billion to help the automakers survive through year's end.

But there was little sign that Democratic leaders would go along.

"We have to face reality," Reid said.

They are vehemently opposed to letting the car companies tap the fuel-efficiency money—set aside to help switch to vehicles that burn less gasoline—for short-term cash-flow needs.

All of which leaves the Big Three bracing for a bleak winter without government help.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner told a House committee Wednesday that the downfall of his industry would ripple through communities around the nation. Pressed by lawmakers, Wagoner wouldn't say precisely when GM would run out of money without a government lifeline, but he disclosed that the company now was burning through $5 billion a month.

Still, with the $25 billion emergency package, "we think we have a good shot to make it through this," Wagoner said.

Many lawmakers in both parties are now openly discussing whether bankruptcy might be a better option for auto firms they regard as lumbering industrial dinosaurs that have done too little to adjust their products and work forces for the 21st century.

The carmakers argue that bankruptcy would devastate their companies, but proponents say it would give them a chance to reorganize and emerge stronger and more competitive.

It's unclear, though, whether Democrats controlling Congress are willing to risk being blamed for letting one of the Big Three—symbols of the nation's once-mighty manufacturing sector—go under.

Bailout-shy lawmakers got an earful from jittery constituents last month when the House let an early version of the Wall Street rescue fail, sending the Dow Jones industrials tumbling and erasing more than a trillion dollars in retirement savings and other investments. Congress took a deep breath and reconsidered, passing the plan a few days later.

Faced with a similar collapse in the auto industry, the Bush administration might yet decide to step in to help the auto companies, or the Federal Reserve could step in—though both have steadfastly refused to do so.

If not, lawmakers have left themselves a contingency plan: Come back to Washington in December for yet another postelection session where they might be able to strike the deal that now seems beyond reach.

Democratic leaders are planning to gather for an economic conference the week of Dec. 8, noted House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md.

"That is available," Hoyer said this week. "The year has not ended."

Will the Dems cave on Detroit's latest "dire warning"

Obama's first major task in office won't be related to terrorism or abortion or education - it is going to be what to do with Detroit.

With Wall Street busy digesting its $250 billion dollars in direct payments from the bailout package (on top of the hundreds of billions floated by the Treasury and the Fed before the bailout package was raced through Congress) - that leaves the rest of the country to start picking about the carcass so see what is in it for them.

Treasury Secretary Paulson has said this:

`The rescue package was not intended to be an economic stimulus or an economic recovery package,'' Paulson said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee in Washington. The $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was designed to stabilize financial markets and the flow of credit and ``is not a panacea for all our economic difficulties.''

Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve was quoted as saying this:

He [Bernanke] told lawmakers at the hearing that using the TARP for buying stakes in banks is ``critical for restoring confidence and promoting the return of credit markets to more normal functioning.'' He warned that lending in the U.S. is ``still far from normal.''

Barney Frank, one of those lawmakers and Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, said this:

Frank, who heads the House panel, took issue with Paulson, urging the Bush administration to step up efforts to stem record foreclosures. Democrats are also pursuing legislation to deploy part of TARP to prevent General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC from collapsing due to lack of cash.

All quotes from Bloomberg.

The interesting aspect of this is: What was the $700 billion TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) originally intended to do?

1. Help banks and banking specifically?
   
2. Help companies in distress because of the financial crisis precipitated by the banking industry?
   
3. Facilitate the revision of mortgages for homebuyers to more favorable terms (because the banking industry couldn't restrain themselves from engaging in an orgy of exotic loan originations)?
   
4. Some combination of the three options?
   

So I cruised over to Wiki and here is the lead blurb of the entry:

The authority of the United States Department of the Treasury to establish and manage a Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) managed by a newly created Office of Financial Stability became law October 3, 2008, the result of an initial proposal that ultimately was passed by Congress as H.R. 1424, enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and several other acts.[1][2] The law which created the fund authorized the Treasury to draw up to $250 billion for immediate use, then requires the President to certify that an additional $100 billion in funds are needed; a final $350 billion are subject to Congressional approval.[3] As of November 12, 2008, $290 billion of the first $350 billion allotment funding TARP has been allocated: $250 billion for bank equity infusions, and $40 billion for an equity infusion into insurer American International Group.[4] Secretary of the Treasury Paulson indicated that reviving the securitization market for consumer credit would be a new priority in the second allotment[5], while legislators proposed loans to the struggling automobile industry.[6]

So Henry and Ben got their $350 billion and shot their wad. But now they want the next $100 billion to continue their "rescue/bailout" (someone needs to come up with a new word for this - like "rezbail" or "bailscue" - defined as floating a plan to save something or someone when actually it is just providing them resources to continue behaving badly).

But the next $100 billion is up to the president to decide when and how to use them. Since W is firmly against helping Detroit - he is going to need to come up with a way to spend that money before Jan 20th. He probably will (more to Wall Street would be my armchair QB bet - housing prices continue to tumble in many of the worst affected areas) and the price of oil is headed down to $40 shortly (all those speculators are almost shaken out of their speculative positions). Commodities (i.e copper, nickel, zinc, iron ore etc) have, like oil, plummeted rapidly over the past 3 months - too quickly in fact (more speculative money has been flowing out to cover stock positions thus bringing prices back into line with demand). Thus banks are taking steep hits on the mortgage debts and also their long term commodity puts/bets which they have had to quickly sell for cash to cover margin calls.

So then things get interesting - the final $350 billion will be decided by Congress (ostensibly with the President's approval in some form). Thus it was not lost on a lot of people that not even 2 days after the election, all of Detroit descended upon Congress to start the drumbeat for money. Obama has stayed above the fray (his true gift) but at some point he will have to make a stand on this position. So far what I have heard him say is that Detroit will have to make more fuel efficient cars as a condition for money.

That is a nice thought - I'm really warm and fuzzy thinking that all Detroit needs is to start making fuel efficient cars and they get their check and we all live happily ever after.

One problem is that Toyota and Honda have already cornered the market on fuel efficient sedans - finding a new Prius is harder than finding a new Wii. Another problem is why would anyone actually want to buy a sedan from Detroit, much less one that runs on a new platform (i.e. either batteries/hybrid or electric)? A further problem is how are you going to retool your factories to do this?

Obama cannot punt on this and push the choice onto Congress - that is not "Change we can believe in" - Congress will cave (if left to its own devices) and slice and dice the money to every "worthy" constituent group with a lobbyist. Obama will need to lead this discussion and use his mandate for change to start fixing Detroit. And that is a political minefield.

The simplest solution is to let the companies go under - it sounds more dire than it is. Some clarity that bankruptcy will bring:

1. Get rid of middle management - Detroit suffers from excessive bureaucracy - how else would you get the Cavalier from GM or the Five Hundred from Ford? They look and feel like BAD rental cars.
   
2. Break the lock unions have on plant closings. Unions are not exclusively at fault here - there is plenty of blame to go around - but unions are hamstringing the companies in the prevention of capacity reduction and efficiency gains. This unfortunate situation was brought on by management continually caving to the unions year after year until the tail now wags the dog.
   
3. Get rid of upper management. Everyone knew this day was coming and upper management at these companies have done their best to stick their heads in the sand. I mean, if we are going to talk tough that Wall St shouldn't pay for failure - that should translate to Detroit.
   
4. Get rid of the Jobs Bank program - Detroit continues to pay people who were displaced to sit around and respire.
   
5. Pensions will have to go too - this is the most reasonable bailoujt out there. If the Feds take on the legacy costs of pensions in bankruptcy and the unions are busted - there should be no reason that these companies can not come out of bankruptcy slim, trim and efficient.
   

Note that all of the problems that Detroit is having are, as Chris Dodd put it, self-inflicted. Why on earth should we give one dime to these companies in their current state? I say the rescue/bailout money should be dangled like a carrot to the Boards of the companies - i.e. Washington will come to the rescue of the Board if the Board cleans house and pushes the companies into Chapter 11. The promise would be that the Board would get some money to help out with the reorganization and a stock option in the refloated shares (note that in bankruptcy, the common shares would have a value of $0.00) and that it would be incumbent upon the Board to reshape the companies with new blood and new ideas without the distractions of the legacy issues. There is no one else in the company outside the board that will willingly take the companies into Chapter 11 until it is far too late. Thus management is now playing a game of chicken with Washington to prop them up a little longer - sounds like the drunk to me (This bailout is the last one, I mean it this time, I will become a good company, I swear to you, but I just need the $25 billion this one last time).

If the Boards of the companies take the bitter dose of medicine now, they might actually come out very competitive in a few years (albeit with a massive additon to the Treasury's responsbilites to cover penions and unemployment) - however, we are going to have to pay for it anyways so that is just a question of when, not if.

Obama will have a tough decision because the last thing that anyone in Detroit wants is meaningful change. Not the unions, not the mayors, not the elected leadership in the state, and certainly not the company white collar leadership. Those are some mighty big chips stacked against Change and Obama will not be able to duck this issue for much longer.

HRC cannot get with the program

I cruised over to HRC just to see what they had about the weekend rallies:
This was the nationwide coverage.
DC coverage

Compared with these two stories, I had more pictures on my blog from DES MOINES FUCKING IOWA.

So I looked to make sure I wasn't missing something about the HRC lack of coverage. JoeMyGod, Chris Crain, Pam's House Blend, Andrew Sullivan etc had lots of great content about the weekend rallies all over America and their view about HRC's role in gay advocacy. The summation of my small sample - HRC is largely ineffective.


The summation of the few gay blogs that I cruise by is clear - Stonewall 2.0 is about the viralcy of the web to tap into the discontent of the gay community looking to enter the next phase of advocacy for equality.

From Jimbo:

Wow, looks like somebody sent out press releases to the media and politicans. With the speed and viralcy of the event, I was worried if some of us may have forgotten to tell anyone else we were protesting.

I find it hard to believe that the rallies all across America could be arranged and executed so quickly. But then again - that is the web for you. It is a disruptive technology that is being used to tear down the old facades of power (i.e. control and distribution of content).

I think the web should be used to coordinate a March on Washington - no need for messy platform meetings and fashioning a message. Just get the gays together in one spot and on one day and let them tell America and the leadership what they need.

HRC continually tells us (the gays) that they are working for us. Really? If the content of their website three days after the rallies is any indication, then donations rank higher on the website than direct action.

Not that I am surprised. Their role appears to be how to use our money to cozy up to Congress. While I'd like to believe that might impact our movement somehow - let's look at what Congress has managed to do in the past two years of Democratic control.

1) Increase minimum wage
2) Pass the Farm Bill (Pork, pork and more pork)
3) Pass the bailout package for the investment banks (Tax hike for everyone!)

Don't see anything in there about GAYS! ENDA (crickets chirp). Civil unions (the crickets are still chirping). Protection for discrimination of gays in the workplace (damn crickets).

The effect of Stonewall 2.0 is to show that there are a lot of gays out there who want and desire change. If we can have rallies for No on 8 in Memphis, Tucson, Des Moines, Raleigh, and many other medium sized cities in addition to very high profile rallies in the big urban centers - it is clear that there is a nationwide need for leadership and change. Is HRC interested? Not based upon their website.

There is popular discontent that extends beyond the political games inside the Beltway - and it needs to be harnessed and focused for positive change. Don't plan on the HRC leading the charge - it is MURDER on your pumps to stand outside and actually PROTEST. It is just so retro to stand and shiver in the cold - when it is so warm in the halls of Rhode Island Ave busily collecting donations for the next HRC dinner.

Boycott HRC and participate in direct action on the streets. The rallies this weekend got coverage from all angles - much more than I have ever seen HRC get.

Posterboard: $2.50
Markers: $4.00
Visibility: Priceless

Marriage Equality Public Forum in Ames TONIGHT

Calling all Central Iowans - tonight there is a forum up in Ames to discuss marriage rights. There is a similar event in Iowa City tomorrow night.

Note the small newspaper item below the flyer is from the local gay newspaper ACCESSline - oral arguments will be heard before the Iowa Supreme Court (i.e. last stop!!) on December 9th. If the courts rule in the gays' favor could be the only state in the heartland to have legal gay marriage.

Rally for Gay Equality in Des Moines!

I found out about the Gay Equality Rally today headed by OneIowa at City Hall in downtown Des Moines on the east side of the Des Moines River.

Jimbo, in letting me know about Join the Impact, was responsible for me finding out about a rally coordinated through this direct action initiative.
Thanks JIMBO!

It was a cold and blustery day - temps held in the mid 30s with snow flurries and a stiff northwest wind at 15-25 mphs.

~250 people showed up (Bubba's estimation) for a rally at 12:30pm which was coordinated with other rallies described here:
Chris Crain
JoeMyGod
Pam's House Blend
"Homer's blog

The one in Des Moines was very simple and straightforward - notes below the pics to describe some of the highlights! Enjoy and GREAT showing from the Heartland. We have heard practically NOTHING about Prop 8 here in the Heartland. So it is good to see the power of direct action to bring together people.

I signed up for OneIowa as a volunteer and hope to get really involved in gay politics here.

Could HRC have gotten this crowd out on such a raw day?
I JUST WENT TO THEIR WEB PAGE AND NOTHING WAS PRESENTED ABOUT THE COORDINATED RALLIES ON THE FRONT PAGE- THIS IS INEXCUSABLE.

---

---

The venue in Des Moines - the East Face of City Hall - a quite nice building.

---

Turn around and you will see the Iowa State Capitol.

---

The West Face of City Hall where the rally occured.

---

The crowd out front of City Hall.

---

Some signs from the rally.

---

The flags were fluttering beautifully!

---

State Senator Matt McCoy spoke quickly (it was really fucking cold).

His point was that this is a long journey to equality. 48% of CA voted to support the courts and support gay marriage!

He was also clear in his closing words in a paraphrase below:

"We cannot wait on the majority to issue us full equality, we must be active in protecting and advancing the rights of the minority!"

---

Rev. Mark Stringer from the 1st Unitarian Church spoke at some length about his role in being an advocate for his gay brethern. His main concern was that most people who have contacted him to oppose gay marriage (he officiated the first and only legally recognized gay marriage ceremony last year) were religious. This deeply troubled him as a pastor. It fundamentally offends him that beautiful weddings and unions occur, blessed by him, and all that is missing is one little piece of paper from the government.

Money quote:
"Civil marriage is a civil right"

---

OneIowa volunteers signing up people!

---

KCCI8 - the local news station showed up and did a quick blurb on the news tonight!

Urlacher

Direct Action Today! 12:30 at City Hall

Well - I gotta get Photoshop on my new laptop. The point of the image below is that there is a direct action protest in Des Moines coordinated by Join the Impact.

I'm going and calling some peeps to see if they want to go. The nature of direct action is viral - I prefer fractal but I am a geek.

Where: Des Moines City Hall
Address: Between Locust and Grand on the first block east of the river (just west of the East Village)
What time: 12:30pm

Attire: Festive but warm - blustery with snow flurries (temps holding in the low 30s and dropping into the upper 20s this afternoon)

Important event on Tuesday in Ames!!!

Join the Impact

Check links to Jimbo and dogpoet for some thoughts. Something more fundamental is stirring - perhaps the gay populace will start thinking about direct action outside the calcified and indifferent national organizations??
Jockohomo has a nice post on the Mormon church vis a vis Prop 8.
Chris Crain has a great entry about how to focus the anger - a la Stonewall 2.0.

Join the Impact.

Rugby Beef

50%+1

Chris Crain has had a nice discourse on the reverberations of Prop 8.

Honey - I call it the train effect (my old roommate Don was absolutely fervent on this point). Morbid as the trains sound, any minority in this republic is at the will of the majority - particularly if the Courts are directly or indirectly beholden to the electorate. The trains are an obvious reference to the Nazi regime (never a republic) but the effect can result in the same outcome. The tyranny of the majority over the minority is always real.
1)Ask anyone Black and over 50. They lived in the times of majority rule when young (and with no effective controverting argument, they still suffer broadly from this effect).
2) Ask any dead woman (seance needed) who wanted to vote and could not; they lived in a majority rule republic.
3) Ask a Native American (seance optional or just drive through a reservation for a more current view) and they lived/live in a majority rule (after they were either shot or driven West with the threat of being shot)
4) Ask a Jew in the 1950s trying to get into an Ivy League school.
5) Ask a gay guy suffering from GRID/AIDS in the 1980s when Reagan could not even say the acronym, much less bring the government to solve a major health crisis (read: gay genocide) in the gay community.

The list goes on. Our, that is the gay collective, existence is allowed by varying degrees to continue (and compared to earlier times thrive) by the will of the majority. In actuality, we gays, as the minority, rely upon the courts to protect us from the whim of the majority. Prop 8 is the reality - we are allowed to exist but NOT to be equal in the largest and most progressive state in these United States. And the will of the majority rebuked the courts. The will of the majority can always trump courts via direct action at the voting booth.

This is a bleak view compared with Chris Crain and his comment trail - they rage. I offer the words in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence to put this rage into context.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I hate to say it - but Prop 8 could substitute marriage for trains. As my roommate Don used to say - "I won't go without a fight".

If Jefferson, in writing the Declaration (and holding slaves at the same time) could posit so obvious a lie in the political sense, then why should we expect to be treated as equals? We expect the foundations of our country to protect us based upon their written word. But is the minority protected?

Just a quick dig: HRC is sponsoring facials as a tonic to our loss. That is the response. As a minority subjected to the tyranny of the majority - a seaweed wrap is not going to work when the majority rolls back the court protections of gays.

OMG - you've got to be joking

HRC Spa Night - Excerpt below from Mike Petrelis.

HRC Action Tonight in SF Over Prop 8 Loss

After all the hard work HRC did shoving gays back into the closet during the No on 8 campaign, and the other valuable things they did recently to get us out on the streets demanding gay equality, HRC is now giving the San Francisco community what it truly needs at this point as we pick ourselves after being knocked down by the voters.

It's HRC Spa Night! I tell you, just between us girls, there is nothing more to think about after one loses a gay marriage equality fight with CA voters than hitting an expensive spa, getting rejuvenated for the next HRC dinner and making a contribution to this fabulous group.

$1.77

That is the price of gas at this moment in Des Moines IA.

We paid $4.03 a gallon in Chicago a month ago when we saw Tina Turner in concert (fabu).

Oil went from trading at $148/barrel in July to yesterday's close of $62/barrel.

Remember all summer when the marketplace said that oil was set to trade at $100/barrel forever? This was due to supply and demand issues and that this was not a speculative event, rather that the paradigm had shifted and we were past the halfway point (hence the amount of oil left for extraction was less than that that had already been extracted). The WSJ had a practical tantrum about speculation - it was almost insulted that anyone dare suggest the marketplace was not showing the true price of oil.

Speculation - Never!


Well the housing market starts it's slide this summer and then the defaults begin to unwind in the banking sector. Stocks immediately start to tank and the margin calls start - and magically, the price of oil drops precipitously. To the tune of almost 90 dollars in a quarter.

Interstingly - the WSJ had a series of stories a few weeks back outlining how stock traders were selling their oil futures (lucratively) to get cash to shore up their stock positions. They asked experts to predict where oil would bottom out at and it was somewhere between 50 and 60 bucks. If you look at the price of oil lately, it has indeed been bouncing just above the 60 dollar mark. And the authors included in their articles that it was a combination of speculation and supply/demand that drove the price of oil to stratospheric heights. Also interesting was that Goldman Sachs had projected (in Spring) the price of oil would be around $150/barrel. Being prescient is not the same as rigging the market.

So it looks like now that speculation has been removed from the oil trading pits - prices will bounce around for a bit and then drift upwards as the economy stabilizes. What I've been reading is that prices will stabilize somewhere around half of their July highs, or $75. This translates into $2.00-$2.50 (depending upon taxes in your state) for a gallon of gas.

The massive tax break the Americans need now - keep gas prices out of the hands of speculators.

Detroit wants their bailout

Interesting developments for Obama this past week well beyond his election. Detroit is busy trying to get their bailout and stepped it into high gear in the post-election euphoria. The CEOs of the big 3 popped down for a call on the Democratic Congressional leadership to get some cash for their abysmal companies. GM will be out of cash by June at the latest (some are speculating by Spring) and Ford is only slightly better (in part because they put their entire corporation up as collateral for a 26 billion dollar loan earlier this year). Chrysler is held by venture capital so it does not report - but Cerebrus (who bought Chrysler for a song from Daimler) was pushing GM for a buyout in late summer (not a good sign).

These three companies are the embodiment of the old paradigm - big unions, bloated middle management, and largely unsalable products. Market share losses have really accelerated in the past 12 months but were already in rapid decline last year. The economic meltdown doesn't help them but it is not the cause of their failure. Thus it strains credibility to think that they should get a government bailout without significant restructuring.

However, Henry Paulson threw a wrench into the whole deal with an upgraded bailout package for AIG - after crafting an intial 80 billion bailout that ballooned to 130 billion a few weeks after and then this past weekend scrapping that original deal in favor of a new 150 billion package that is much more favorable to AIG. The problem is that AIG, much like the big 3, created their own mess. Thus, the specter of moral hazard (rewarding bad behavior will only beget more bad behavior - hence the hazard) has now been formalized by the government. If AIG can play a game of chicken with the government and win - well surely the big 3 can do the same.

The problem Obama will quickly confront is this - yes we can doesn't equate to yes we will. Unions need a bailout, CEOs need a bailout, and middle management needs a bailout - this will keep the cake walk going and everyone employed. This kicking of the can down the road has been going on for 35 years (at least) and if the government caves and gives the big 3 a bailout, it only prolongs the agony.

The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers- the market should handle that - but the government is now assuming that position and everyone is busy feeding at the trough. When the government refused to support Lehman's toxic loans, no one wanted to buy and they vanished almost overnight. Lehman was sliced and diced among suitors for the more interesting parts of the business and the remainder was left for auction. What is the real result of letting the big 3 go into bankruptcy? I mean, we the taxpayers already know that we will eventually foot the bill on the pensions (airlines already unloaded theirs after 9/11) so that point is moot - and the shareholders have dogs for stocks now so the intrinsic value can only drop from 2 bucks a share to zero. The benefit of going into bankruptcy is that the union contracts can be shredded which saves the companies money, management has to make a plan that focuses on getting out of bankruptcy (i.e. making a product that someone wants) and the company must shed lost of dead weight (factories, dealerships, etc). In essence, bankruptcy forces clarity.

The government should step in to help the big 3 but with very strict conditions - unions have to cave, white collar jobs have to go at a faster clip, and the product lines have to be of utility. Obama has made some murmurings that the big 3 should focus on making more fuel efficient cars in the future (ummm, we've all been saying that since the 1979 oil crisis and the early 80s recession gave the Japanese companies a crack at our market with spectacular success). Oh - and GM and Ford do make lots of very successful fuel efficient cars, just not in America where it is not "profitable". Note they can make cars in Europe and Brazil that consumers want and buy which are compact and fuel efficient - but something mysterious prevents that from occuring in America.

We all know that the government will not take a hard line with the big 3 - lobbyists and unions will keep the status quo going until the companies fall in on themselves - problem is that that prospect is scarily close now and no one is blinking. To wit - AIG threw a tantrum wanting more and they got it, so shall the big 3.

So Obama confronts the mess of having to throw more good money at these companies to keep them on life support rather than possibly implementing "change". Will he effect "change" by taking a hard stance on unions and lobbyists to drive a turnaround at the big 3? Not when the bitter pill puts tens of thousands of union jobs out of work to save the company. Not when you are trying to force companies to make fuel efficient and desirable cars and those companies resist at every turn.

This matter will have to come to a head shortly after the Inaguration - Bush has said no deal beyond 25 billion and has given no indication that this will change in the lame duck period. Meanwhile the companies will be hemorrhaging cash as the economy continues downward and will be unable in the Spring to fund their basic needs as the cash on hand dwindles.

The bailout will be big, the long term effects negligible and the political costs very high. Tax cut for the middle class? With two wars, Wall Street getting close to a TRILLION dollars, a broad economic slowdown, and house sales largely moribund, the cash cannot be printed forever. At some point, revenue that has flowed out will need to be replaced in the form of payments to the government. Taxes will have to go up for ALL, and pretty significantly. How will Obama spin that one? We'll wait and see.

Take away that tax exempt status - stat!

The real travesty lies beyond the voters in the California who weighed in on No on 8 (removing the ability for legal marriages in California to continue being legal). Joe My God had a little blurb on his blog about protests in NYC against the Mormon Church.

There is clearly a ground-swelling expression of rage, disappointment, and relegation to 2nd class status in the gay community. However, protest marches such as this are not directed in a politically astute manner - the current protests are just the collective anger burbling up. However, what if we took this raw anger and refocused it into an all out economic war against one of the larger agents of intolerance in these United States - that being the Mormon "Church".

I put church in quotes to reflect that everyone knows this is a corporation. The Mormon church pays no meaningful tax like a corporation. As a religious organization - they are technically tax exempt if they follow certain rules - the most relevant here is that they must not engage in meaningful political advocacy. However, with such an ENORMOUS footprint in the No on 8 debacle in California - is there any doubt that the Mormon Church engaged in political activity. See this link: http://www.mormonsstoleourrights.com/ for an interesting discussion.

Any church must not engage in meaningful political advocacy in order to maintain its tax exempt status. Well, I think that the Mormons subsidizing the Yes on 8 efforts not only crosses the line but it amounts to a Carl Lewis type long jump over the line. And because the advocacy is so transparent, documented, and coordinated - time for Joe S and the HRC elites to go to the new Congress and start an all out war on the Mormon Church. Mormons, in political terms, are not really recognized by or easily grouped with the more established Christian denominations (and the Mormon Church is viewed rather suspicously by those who are more secular in nature).

This is the perfect storm - Joe could get oodles of free press by announcing an effort by all gays everywhere to force the Congress to revoke the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church. Other Protestant and Catholic denominations are explicitly not to be targeted and this would actually work in the gays favor(and oddly enough would probably develop into an odd-bedfellows situation). The evidence is simple and transparent - so Congress should be easily placed into a situation where they will have to take a stance against the Mormons or the gays. Wouldn't that be delicious?

The Mormon Church is impervious to shame - so a generalized protest by gays against the church is pretty moot - but economically the gays can threaten to hit the church where it would have maximum damage, their tax exempt status. Just the thought of having the Church finances drug out in Congressional hearings for violation of political advocacy brings a smile to my face.

Joe - go get to work on this one. People are already mad and spontaneously protesting - channel it and make it work toward some productive end. While it won't get us married - it will allow us as gays to see what our political status is. As a group, can we force the Mormon Church into a very awkward and politically precarious position? I say it is worth burning some political capital and would be a very useful exercise to focus gay activism in a post-activist landscape.

Petrelis on the rich white gays and the boobs in the HRC leadership

I am going to excerpt a blog entry below from Mike Petrelis from this weekend.

The full blog link: Rich White Gays Killed
Straight Black No on 8 Vote

Also a very typical, and thus sad, explanation of how our HRC leaders are completely ineffective by Mike Pertelis: HRC on Prop 8:
Solmonese = Idiot, Birch Kisses Rosie's Butt

Rich White Gays Killed
Straight Black No on 8 Vote

All the blogosphere chatter about assigning some blame for the passage of Prop 8 to straight black voters is getting on my last nerve, because full blame for the loss rests squarely with the rich white gays who ran our side's operation.

Time for a history lesson, including for myself. I'm not a Democratic Party voter and don't follow the gay clubs in town, so I boned up on the letter Barack Obama sent to the Alice B. Toklas Club back on June 29, in a letter proclaiming Gay Pride month.

The money quote:


"I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

"For too long, issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect ...
"Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks."


I recall the headlines about Obama's letter and thought responsible gay leaders would use his words to make in-roads to undecided or independent voters, and straight black voters, to oppose Prop 8.

However, the No on 8 campaign, which never lacked for money, didn't spend a dime creating any press materials using Obama's visage or words opposing the proposition in June, July, August, September and October. Five freaking longs months went by without No on 8 exploiting the Illinois Senator's position on the measure, and his declaration of respect for our love. What a wasted opportunity.

Fast forward to October 31, when I received the Yes on 8 mailer with Obama and his words opposing gay marriage, and persuaded Cynthia Laird at the BAR to write a story about the direct mail piece, the gay community and the shocked No on 8 campaign saw how to effectively use Obama on a gay marriage amendment.

On November 1, five long months after Obama wrote to the Alice Club, three weeks after absentee voting began across the state, and three short days before the election, the rich white gays finally used some of their oodles and oodles of big bucks on an ad featuring the candidate and his opposition. That act of extreme tardiness was probably dumb No on 8 decision number 269.

I cringe when thinking of how many Obama voters who voted Yes, might have voted no on 8, if our side had been informing the entire CA electorate about his opposition.

Halloween

My carved pumpkin for Halloween! Cigarette was a nice touch - Bubba's idea.



Our porch with a nice collection of pumpkins we got at a pumpkin patch out in the country. Halloween night was beautiful here - mid 60s with a light breeze - we sat on the porch in shorts to hand out candy.

Linus - Being cute

Our dog Linus - he is a Foxhound mixed with a touch of Lab.
Very sweet dog - and fairly unusual to see outside of the country in the Deep South. I copied some information about the breed after the pix.








Appearance

While standards call for the American Foxhound to be about 21-25 inches (530-640 mm) tall to the withers, and weigh anywhere between 65-75 pounds (29-34 kg), many of them are larger in structure (especially the show strains), with males standing 26-29 inches (660-740 mm) and females 25-28 inches (640-710 mm) and smaller in weight, typically between 40-65 pounds (20-29 kg). Some breeders have theorized that this is due to the considerably improved diet the dogs receive. For years it was traditional to feed Foxhounds on a diet of "dog bread", a variation on cornbread. The legs of a Foxhound are very long and straight-boned. The foxhound’s chest is rather narrow. It has a long muzzle, and a large, domed skull. The ears are wide and low-set. The eyes are hazel or brown, and are large and wide-set. The coat is short and harsh. Overall, they are very similar to the Beagle, only standing higher and being larger. Their coats come in four colors: red, tri, black and tan, and blue.
An American Foxhound.

Temperament

The American Foxhound is sweet, kind, loyal, and very loving at a home. As with all hounds they need careful training, constant socialization, and owners who are willing to give them ample exercise: a bored foxhound will find ways to keep themselves entertained and can be very destructive, some examples of destruction include everything from scratching at doors to tearing apart objects and, being rather long, they have the ability to take things from counter-tops. If routine walks are not an option, access to a secure yard is a good alternative; however the best option would be constant access via a dog door and a secure yard.

Intelligent creatures as they are, many foxhounds quickly learn to open gates or scale small fences to go wandering. While on the hunt the foxhound is a warrior, once a scent is picked up he or she will follow it neglecting any commands. Because their hunting instinct is strong they should never be trusted off-lead. Foxhounds are rarely street savvy and will follow a scent trail into the street where they could get hit by a car.

Foxhounds are easy to live with and thrive as members of a family; however, they are not ideal apartment dogs and shouldn't be left alone indoors for extended periods of time. They do however, get along very well with children, especially small children; although one must always keep an eye when children and animals are interacting as it is not beyond any animal to bite or claw when they feel they are threatened.

Foxhounds do not make good watchdogs; while more skittish hounds may howl when they see a newcomer, more often than not they will greet the newcomer affectionately hoping for treats or scratches behind the ears. This is due to centuries of breeding; any hound that growled or bared its teeth at its master would not be bred or in some cases put down.

Most scent hounds are bred to give "voice". Foxhounds are not nuisance barkers but they do have loud, deep voices that carry a great distance. Although most people love the sound, many urban or suburban neighbors do not appreciate the deep barks or melodious howling of a foxhound.

They cannot be expected to act like retrievers because, though affectionate, they are independent by nature. Although a few foxhounds have been trained in obedience, most will not follow commands unless it suits them. Training a foxhound can be a trying experience, training a retired foxhound that grew up in a Fox Hunt can be even worse, they can be stubborn and don’t respond to negative reinforcement well.

JFK - not really

I've be reading some trash lately in terms of books - a breezy Elizabeth II biography, The Dark Side of Camelot by Seymour Hersch, Rewriting HIstory by Dick Morris, and so on.

The Dark Side of Camelot was an excellent example of Tina Brown/Vanity Fair sort of journalism - well written, well edited, and focused on the salacious or rapacious details of the rich and famous. This tome focused on JFK and RFK and their bad behavior. It was interesting in a revisionist sort of way. I mean does anyone actually believe that Camelot is real? Of course not - it is a nice concept used to whitewash some seedy details from a very optomistic period of time.

The one tidbit that was actually eyebrow raising was the sums of money fronted to JFK to get him into the W.H. And it came primarily from dear ol' Joe Kennedy. Thus the first real example of mass marketing of a candidate by a shadowy PAC was the 1960 election.

I'd posit that Obama really transcends the comparisons with JFK primarily based upon his up-by-the-bootstraps biography. Obama had no priveledge in his upbringing, he lacked the strong male role model in the house (if you want to think of Joe K in that way) that JFK had, Obama's wife Michelle is not aristocratic in her background, the family that Obama has now is upper middle class (but they DO have to work), and the main fear that Americans now have to face is their fading status as an economic superpower (JFK was rather more concerned with our military superpower status).

I think that to compare Obama with JFK is to diminish the former on multiple levels. In fact, I'd say that Obama represents more of a post-modern version of JFK - in essence that old paradigm is useful as a historical guide but JFK is actually quite stale in terms of how we look at electoral politics (particularly with the internet).

As one very good case in point: Look at the deftness with which Obama handled Jeremiah Wright and the issues of race and religion in his more perfect union speech" versus JFK's <I'm a Catholic speech.

My point, meandering as it might be, is that Obama has approached his candidacy with considerable more deliberateness and a full attempt to share his vision for how this country can confront its most pressing challenges while also elevating our discussions about those areas of difference. To be sure - I've never been a big Kennedy family fan (they are very vulgar in the truest sense of the word) - but it is not a bias against the family rather a reflection of their values that gave JFK a much more superficial (assuredly far less cerebral) approach to how the president unites the nation.

Perhaps a much more interesting comparison of the paradigm shift that Obama embodies might be with Alexander Hamilton or even Andrew Jackson. Hamilton gave very clear direction to the Federalist party about the centrality and importance of the Federal authority over the states as well as establishing the foundations of the Treasury for the new nation. Jackson of course was a man of the people and his focus on widening the participation of the country in politics and this had the interesting direct effect of causing the collapse of Hamilton's creation. I throw out those names for more suitable comparisons to Obama than JFK simply because both of their roles in the Federal Government had substantial and lasting effects. JFK's legacy? The Peace Corps? The Berlin Wall? Bay of Pigs? Cuban Missle Crisis? Jackie? Containment? None of these seems to line up neatly or cleanly with a vision that Obama has shared with the country - I think that the similarity is only that 2008, much like 1960, offered the chance for a paradigm shift. Beyond that fact and a shared gift for oratory - not much else lines up with JFK.

Of course it is easy to make distictions now - nothing has happened yet beyond naming Rahm Emmanuel chief of staff. So it will be interesting to see how Obama defines this opportunity of a generation for transformative change. Bill Clinton screwed it up horribly and lead to the 1994 rout in the mid-term elections, Ronald Reagan needed two years of partisan battles to get his tax cuts through the Congress before his destiny was clear, no one even remembers W's transition.

It will be interesting to see where it all goes during the next few years.

Gabe Kapler

Gabe Kapler who has played for the BoSox and Brewers. Enjoy - should be a Jimbo caveman favorite.

Gordon's alive!

Flash Gordon

Surf fishing as a means of relaxing

I spent a week at the beach doing as much surf fishing in the morning and evening as I could. Caught lots of Bluefish (first picture is an example) and I am trying to pull out the hook from the mouth of one down below. Surf fishing is wonderful - just hang out on the beach and watch the waves.

Beachy days

Bubba and I spent a week at the beach in late September. We had an ocean front house on Holden Beach, NC. Some pretty pix from our stretch of the beach and from the deck looking in both directions from our rental house.

HRC's trite e-mail to me.

First up: A very very good idea from Joe My God .

Below is a personal message in my Inbox from Dear Joe S - my favorite person to dislike. Joe's e-mail is a perfect reflection of how stale and unimaginative our leading gay rights organization is. I want to bathe after reading saccharine bromides and touchy-feely stance on keeping the gay marriage dream alive. It is still baffling to me that HRC thinks that gay marriage is now, as it has been for some time, ahead of the efforts to give BASIC human rights to everyone in the US. The top priority of marriage (notably a choice which many appear to regret since the divorce rate is 50%) - but protection from being fired because you are gay is down the list of priorities at HRC.

Joe's personal message to me:



Human Rights Campaign



Dear Matthew,

Unfortunate news has dimmed the exhilaration of this historic, life-changing election.

I am deeply disappointed to report anti-LGBT marriage bans passed in Florida and Arizona, and in Arkansas voters voted to bar all unmarried people, LGBT or straight, from adopting children or serving as foster parents.

Meanwhile media outlets have begun to report bad news for marriage equality in California. However, the Human Rights Campaign just participated in a conference call with our coalition partners and we firmly believe that all votes should be counted before calling the race. Several million votes in California have yet to be counted. Now is not the time to speculate on somebody’s fundamental rights. So we are waiting to see the final results from those ballots and will be issuing a statement after the race has been called. Please stay tuned.

While this news certainly put a damper on such a historic election, we should celebrate the fact that our movement came together in an unprecedented way, and worked tirelessly to defeat these amendments, and millions voted with us yesterday.

It is indeed a bitter pill to swallow. But we cannot allow distorted facts or shallow tactics – the foundation on which our opponents built their campaigns – to break our spirits. We are on the right side of history – and we will continue this journey.

Let us not forget that we saw many glimmers of hope for LGBT equality across the country last night. We increased the ranks of pro-equality lawmakers in both the House and the Senate. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO), ringleader of the campaign to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution, was soundly defeated. Jared Polis (D-CO) became the first openly gay man ever to be elected to Congress as a non-incumbent. Democrats took the New York State Senate, giving us our best chance ever to pass a same-sex marriage law in a legislature. We beat back a ballot question in Connecticut that could have threatened our recent victory there. In fact, marriages begin next week. And we elected Barack Obama as our next President, ending eight years of anti-LGBT policies. I truly believe that despite these setbacks, our nation is moving in the right direction.

After fighting for years, so many victories are now within reach. And thanks to yesterday’s victories, we can now pass critical LGBT equality measures like the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act and begin unraveling the damage of the last eight years.

I vow to you today that HRC will not give up, nor will we retreat. Moving forward, HRC will:

* Continue our efforts to win incremental victories for relationship recognition, so that legally married lesbian and gay couples in Massachusetts and Connecticut have full standing under federal law; the same holds true for civil unions and domestic partnerships in places like New Hampshire, Vermont and Oregon.
* Use amendments and other legislative vehicles in Congress to establish growing equality for LGBT Americans under federal tax, Social Security, pension, insurance and other laws – piecing together as many of the rights of marriage as we can until the full victory is achieved in years to come.
* Work with our allies in New York to make good on the extraordinary opportunity presented by the election of a new fair-minded majority in the State Senate, which paves the way for the nation's first-ever legislatively achieved marriage equality victory. We are also simultaneously working on marriage equality in New Jersey.

Together, like we have done some many times before, we fought the good fight until the bitter end.

In Florida, HRC contributed $120,000 to Florida Red & Blue (backers of the SayNo2 campaign), including $50,000 of early seed money that allowed the campaign to raise significant additional funds and provided high-level fundraising consulting for the campaign. We started building an early base for campaign operations by sending staff to Florida and conducting volunteer trainings during the January Presidential Primary. We held a Camp Equality election skills training in Fort Lauderdale and mobilized hundreds of volunteers. And in the final weeks, four additional HRC staffers and a Campaign College participant were sent to work on the ground in Florida.

In Arizona, HRC contributed $50,000 to Arizona Together for media production and air time. We had three HRC staffers and one Campaign College participant on the ground. We also held a Camp Equality election skills training in Phoenix and mobilized the participants to work on this issue.

In Arkansas, HRC provided half of the funding necessary for the Arkansas Families First campaign to hire a campaign manager. We deployed a Campaign College participant to work on the campaign for 12 weeks, and an HRC staffer to work on the campaign during the final push.

And in California, HRC participated fully as a member of the marriage coalition executive committee, with unprecedented on-the-ground support, and extensive voter mobilization efforts. I am proud that HRC was the second largest funder of No on Prop. 8, behind Equality California, in what ended up being the most expensive campaign in the nation next to the presidential race. When all was said and done, HRC and our members invested nearly $3.5 million directly to the efforts in California. But our messages of fairness and reason were met with appalling messages of fear, distortion and downright hate that our opponents put forth on television, on radio, across the Internet, and in Sunday sermons.

In 2000, a similar marriage ban in California was passed by a margin of 61% to 39%. So the closeness of this race and the positive shift in public opinion underscores that it is only a matter of time before we add more states to the march for marriage equality. As Obama said last night, “That's the true genius of America – that America can change.”

Yesterday, an unfortunate majority of voters stood with the most extreme and negative elements of society to deny the rights of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. But it’s not the first time that has happened to us, and it won’t be the last. It doesn’t change the fact that we are married. It doesn’t change the fact that we have families. Make no mistake. We are bowed, but not discouraged. We are sad, but not disheartened. We grieve, but not as those who are without hope.

Today we will mourn the losses in Florida, Arizona and Arkansas, but tomorrow let's resolve to lift one another up, and continue our march forward.

Remember, our marriages didn’t begin with a decision of the court, and they will not end with a vote of the people.

Warmly,

Joe Solmonese

President

Halloween fun

I did got get a chance to blog about Halloween this year - mainly cause I don't remember much of it. I went as a marine and Hot Mama went as Amy Winehouse. Kevin went as the person who bought us drinks all night.

Since I am getting back into the digital world and seeing who is still blogging - I ran across a creature that I had forgotten about. Halloween in 2006 - Jimbo went as Charlene - she looked SUPER-FIERCE. I was Lurleen Ritchie (it was back in the days of the Simple Life). Those were some good times!

Utley

In honor of the Phillies World Series win this year - the offering of beef is Chase Utley.

Weather fun

First snow of the year yesterday! Snow started in the morning and continued through evening. Temps were too warm for it to stick - but it was pretty to watch all day.

JP Morgan starts to tackle the problem?? Not really.

Well - I have missed alot over the past few months of being in slumberland (from the blogging perspective) - but now that winter is coming and I have done what I can do outside to my new pad (Bubba and I bought a house in the Spring) and golf is done - time to get focused on more indoor activities.

So I will start off my new blogging season with the topic du jour - who is actually going to rewrite the mortgages for those who took ARMs in the housing boom.

Interestingly - it is JP Morgan. Odd choice in my mind as they are not usually so visible in the consumer (read: middle class) sector directly. However they snapped up some troubled lenders/banks and got 25 billion from the government last week - and, SHOCK , they are now going to start rewriting the problematic loans. The revisions will take the following form: The ARMs, with the messy interest only teaser and balloon payment later, were a favorite of the speculators and those who, in many (but not all cases) ought not have bought a house in a speculative boom, will get rewritten into conventional type loans.

Bubba and I did not get on board this housing boom when in DC and Jimbo has blogged about in great detail. Maybe we could have bought a house - but the fundamentals were not right. Prudent (or stupid - you can take your pick) - Bubba and I sat out the DC boom and paid exorbitant rent. Now with the expected downfall of what EVERYONE saw as a boom - the messy mortgages have to be dealt with. The spike in foreclosures that started the entire mess, has yet to actually be addressed.

I'll say that again - the initial cause of the recession has yet to be addressed. The Feds have picked winners in the bailout (Bear Stearns, Wachovia, WaMu, AIG, Merrill Lynch) and one particularly notable loser (Lehman Bros. - could not find a buyer to take it intact and got sliced and diced). However the bigger solvent banks (Wells Fargo, B of A, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) that absorbed the distressed winners in the bailout - had to take on the debt of the companies that they absorbed - of course that was guaranteed by you and I via tax dollars. Also the big banks got direct loans from 2-25 billion on top of the other guarantees. Also they got a big gift from the SEC to halt short selling of stock (in a very delayed measure to prevent the market from trashing their stock prices). And they got Freddie and Fannie out of the private sector (they were both taken over directly by the Federal Government).

So we have had, since Bear Stearns was absorbed in March for $10/share which was bumped up from the original deal of $2/share) - nothing tangible done to rewrite all the messy loans. That was up until this past week (it is November now)- instead the Feds wanted to keep at least some of the banks solvent first and keep the stock market from completely shutting down.

So now that the Feds have ALSO added money into the system to allow banks to loan to each other (another gift from us to them which is added upon the costs of direct payments to banks) and now banks are loaning again to one another - then we can start to deal with individuals.

Odd how the system that made so much money off of the boom got their needs taken care of first while the consumers were put to the back of the line. NOw I agree that many consumers were trying to speculate and flip houses - but those of us who lived in white hot real estate markets also know that houses in Logan Circle cannot go from 100K to 800K in one year without some assistance to buy a house from the flow of cheap and easy dollars.

Interestingly, the onus of this appears in the economic press to have fallen on Freddie and Fannie - which is odd when you consider that many large banks say that the Feds made the banks (i.e. Freddie and Fannie) loan money cheaply and without any sort of background check. I find this twist very odd - that the blame game (while taking hundred of billions of dollars from us over the past six months) from the private companies is due to Fannie and Freddie. Now remember when you mother said - "just because someone else is doing it why should you, if they jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" If Fannie and Freddie were being speculative - why should the private banks follow suit? After all Freddie and Fannie are backed (well, it is understood this backing to be implicit) by the Federal Government while the private companies are beholden to their shareholders.

An additional twist comes when you think about what the private banks really did - they would originate a loan (and accumulate the points and fees as real time earnings) and then slice and dice off the loan into complex deriatives priced based upon the quality of the loans. So banks get to collect up front fees, then move the loans off their balance sheet, and repeat. This is what is called leverage - that means that banks had originated far more loans than their balance sheet could handle (but collected fees for that, i.e. good revenue for Wall Street and helps their share price). So then comes the default crisis - and guess what happens? The derivatives are structured such that if a defined default rate is reached, the debt gets returned to the bank. Oops - you can see how the spiral starts.

Now the real fun begins - the banks then are returned the debt (they originated of their own free will) onto their balance sheet. PLus they are now required by accounting rules to price the property on their balance sheet at the current market price (mark to market is the catch phrase). Double oops - how do you value something that is in default and no one wants to buy it. Yup, the balance sheets start to look really really ugly because the banks are on the hook for the sold price of the house but now have a real value on their balance sheet that is much less (and in many cases unknown since the market has no idea how to handle the derivatives in real dollars).

In the old days, banks had to loan out only what they could reasonably expect to cover with their own balance sheets. But Freddie and Fannie then got a pass from the Federal Government to start loaning out money to minorities and poor folk to increase the rate of home ownership (remember that "ownership" society nonsense years back). Well Fannie and Freddie started over-leveraging but using the Feds as their backstop. The private banks then got bitter - Fannie and Freddie get to generate all this revenue in real time and the private banks are losing out on a new market segment. So the private banks decide to use complex derivatives as a method to mimic the Federal backing - but then pat themselves on the back for having a "market based solution". And they start earning lots more money from origination without the costs on their balance sheet.

Well with the default crisis at hand (and totally predicable) the heaping pile of shit loans are back where they started; the banks are now insolvent by their own volition. Do they go under? Mostly not - they just get consolidated into the stronger banks with heavy investment of taxpayer dollars. The banking system is just "too big to fail". Perhaps - but did anyone think of this 2 year ago? Did anyone actually force the banks to do the thought experiment of "what if". Nope - the loaning went up to the end, and then froze. The music had stopped and where were the chairs? So the taxpayers now get to absorb the costs of the bad behavior and for what benefit? Consumers bought what the banks offered - probably not a good idea - but the banks always say it is the responsibility of the consumer to take a loan responsibly. But how do you buy a house in DC without being somewhat irresponsible?

The banking sector made the housing boom and now they are being trashed for their excess on Wall Street - sad part is that converting the ARMs to conventional loans was not part of the medicine - until now. And ONLY with a healthy bribe from the taxpayers. Oh well, yet another fleecing of the taxpayers for the private companies' excess - not the first and not the last. But let's remember who is coming last in the bailout - the whole source of the problem. The banks used their "too big to fail" threat to get their servings from the Federal trough first - and then, and ONLY then, would they convert the exotic loans to conventional products.

The real problem is that we have had a real concentration of wealth in a few banks - the biggest surviving banks can and now will act as a cartel when things get sorted out. Cartels never work in the public interest and NEVER expect this concentration of wealth to thank the taxpayers for bailing them out when in dire straits. Nope we'll pay once now for their excess and then pay very dearly later when the survivors act in a concerted effort to corner the market.

A tax funded bailout of irresponsible companies will end up becoming the taxpayer-based noose around the consumers neck. Some relief will come via JP Morgan's lead to refinance but that is short lived and will only benefit the healthiest of the speculators. Expect in 2010 when things start to revive that the pool of companies that survived (and sucked up the competition) is shockingly small in number - the cartel will be at hand and their existance to fuck you and I will have been paid for by, you guessed it, you and I.

Yo Tebow!

Tim Tebow - U of Florida's dynamite QB.
WOOF!

Long pause

Well it has been awhile.

I was swamped with life - but it kept nagging at me to get back to bitching and moaning. So I'll be back at it.

Friday beef

Well - I was going to start up a favorite item of the blog - as an aggregator of beef. While meaningful ideas are nice to ponder, even vegetarians like hot mama like to gaze upon the superficial beauty of beef.

So today I was thinking about water polo - so I typed into google "beefy water polo men" - just to see what I would get. On the second page, this picture of "peacock men" popped up.




umm - yeah. Google might want to work on that filter. Anyways - here is some beef for all to enjoy. Today's theme is water polo and it is inspired by Outsports.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Clintonian legacy

This is from ABC News on-line today. I found it via Drudge. I have copied it in so that it will hang around after the link dies.

This is an interesting take on how things get done behind the scenes. Do we REALLY want Bill involved to this degree in American politics. It would be nice if she could win the election on her merits and hers alone. Sadly, Bill cannot keep himself out of this election. Republicans only need a few more examples like this to basically run the campaign as follows:

"Hillary couldn't beat Obama alone - so she brought in Bill to seal the deal. Whom do you think will run the White House in 2009 if Hillary wins? Forget Billary, it is now Bill's Third Term".

If Hillary doesn't think Obama can win in the general election, so be it. But combine her AND Bill as the defacto lead of the Democratic ticket - every Republican from East to West will vote for ANYONE - my dog included - to keep those two out of the White House. Cleverly the Republicans are sitting by and watching Hillary and Obama sling mud at each other - and now Hillary is making Bill every more present in her campaign. Somehow he always pops up in times of need and who says that he won't stop just because she won he election?

Dems are in trouble and they basically have the Clintons to blame. The vast right wing conspiracy is the least of the Dems worries now.

Candidate Clinton to Richardson: 'Barack Obama Can't Win'

Share April 02, 2008 7:39 PM

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and former President Bill Clinton are making very direct arguments to Democratic superdelegates, starkly insisting Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., cannot win a general election against presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sources with direct knowledge of the conversation between Sen. Clinton and Gov. Bill Richardson, D-N.M., prior to the Governor's endorsement of Obama say she told him flatly, "He cannot win, Bill. He cannot win."

Richardson, who served in President Clinton's cabinet, disagreed.

At a rally in Oregon, standing next to Obama, Richardson insisted, "My great affection and admiration for Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton will never waver." But he added, "It is time, however, for Democrats to stop fighting among ourselves and to prepare for the tough fight we will face against John McCain in the fall."

A report in the San Francisco Chronicle detailed another explosive exchange in which the former president angrily objected to Richardson's endorsement.

"Five times to my face [Richardson] said that he would never do that," Clinton said, according to the Chronicle -- before, the newspaper reports, he "went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out."

Another, neutral superdelegate who was in the room for that meeting called the Chronicle's take "a bit exaggerated." But there is no question the Clintons are passionately arguing their case against Obama in what is fast becoming an intense race not just for the votes of the public but of the Democratic elite known as superdelegates.