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