I keep getting these action alerts from Adam Bitely, who's with something called the NitRight Nation, and Bill Wilson, of Americans for Limited Government, demanding that we call our senators to kill a piece of legislation designed to thwart domestic terrorists.
From Carter Clews of NetRight Nation:
The highly charged "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" (S. 909) would make it a federal crime to violently attack anyone you hate.
Unless, of course, the anyone you hate happens to be a white heterosexual.
Lie #1. The Act increases penalties for anyone attacked because of race or actual or perceived sexual orientation.
And if your readers are as stupid as you hope, you have to repeat it to make sure they get it:
That's right, S. 909 -- aka, the "hate crimes bill" -- being pushed through by the Obama Administration as one of its highest legislative priorities would make it a federal crime to commit a violent act against anyone based on race or gender orientation -- unless the race was Caucasian and the orientation was towards the opposite sex.
This is fairly disgusting for any rational human being.
The same screed appears at Americans for Limited Government's website. I'm not going to link -- I don't link to hate groups. But here's the meat of the comment I left:
So let me see if I'm understanding you correctly: you support violence against racial, religious, ethnic and sexual minorities, but only against minorities, and especially if it has the effect of terrorizing others in those communities. You could have said it much more concisely.
At that site, your comments must be "authorized." Want to bet this one never sees the light of day?
Gods, these people are vile.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Stick It To 'Em
A nice post from Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog about Rush Limbaugh, racism, and the Republicans. It involves an ad being run on Spanish-language television:
It's about time the Republicans took ownership owned this sort of nastiness. Add me to the list of bloggers endorsing the campaign.
And about Sotomayor: the hearings started yesterday. They're not about Sotomayor, from all reports. They're about Republican smear tactics.
Did we really expect anything different?
It's about time the Republicans took ownership owned this sort of nastiness. Add me to the list of bloggers endorsing the campaign.
And about Sotomayor: the hearings started yesterday. They're not about Sotomayor, from all reports. They're about Republican smear tactics.
Did we really expect anything different?
Monday, July 13, 2009
David Brooks' Thighs
OK -- that's not something I think about much, to be perfectly honest, but given the blogosphere lately, there doesn't seem to be room to think of much else, unless you're really in to Michael Jackson being dead. And in today's Daily Dish, we have Conor Friedersdorf defending Brooks against Hilzoy.
As a straight man, I can assure Hilzoy that we rarely if ever have that kind of experience (though we're vaguely aware that women fare worse, despite the fact that many aren't fond of talking about the matter in mixed company). That's why I think she's being entirely too hard on Mr. Brooks in her next paragraphs. . . .
In fact, Mr. Brooks made the remark that offended Hilzoy as a throwaway laugh line in an off-the-cuff television interview -- the kind of setting where it's easy to make characterizations based on your life experiences without being perfectly attuned to the fact that other people experience some aspect of the what you're describing differently. Upon reflection, I imagine David Brooks would grasp that women are touched in the way he describes, and perhaps he wouldn't cast that particular act as an example of contemporary societal decline.
Do you see something here? Somehow, making a remark like that as a "throwaway laugh line" strikes me as exactly the thing that Hilzoy is condemning. To be quite honest, an experience such as Brooks related is offensive, period.
And to be even more honest, as a gay man, I can top both Brooks and Hilzoy: I have had not only thighs but other portions of my anatomy grasped, fondled, and otherwise handled without invitation under circumstances in which there was no possibility of misunderstanding the availability of said anatomy. Contrary to what Brooks, Friedersdorf and other straight guys might think (depending on the degree of credence they bestow on the fantasies expressed by their colleagues on the right), this is not something I welcome, nor, I think, do most gay men.
Personal space is personal space, and to invade it without invitation is asking for it -- unless, I guess, the space involved belongs to David Brooks. My typical response in the situations I described above was to offer to break the offending appendage.
One question I have to ask, which I haven't seen asked anywhere else: Why the hell didn't Brooks tell the asshole to keep his effing hands to himself? Works wonders, especially if you say it loudly.
Although I suspect the answer to that one would reveal a great deal about why the relationship between the press and government officials is so fundamentally corrupt.
As a straight man, I can assure Hilzoy that we rarely if ever have that kind of experience (though we're vaguely aware that women fare worse, despite the fact that many aren't fond of talking about the matter in mixed company). That's why I think she's being entirely too hard on Mr. Brooks in her next paragraphs. . . .
In fact, Mr. Brooks made the remark that offended Hilzoy as a throwaway laugh line in an off-the-cuff television interview -- the kind of setting where it's easy to make characterizations based on your life experiences without being perfectly attuned to the fact that other people experience some aspect of the what you're describing differently. Upon reflection, I imagine David Brooks would grasp that women are touched in the way he describes, and perhaps he wouldn't cast that particular act as an example of contemporary societal decline.
Do you see something here? Somehow, making a remark like that as a "throwaway laugh line" strikes me as exactly the thing that Hilzoy is condemning. To be quite honest, an experience such as Brooks related is offensive, period.
And to be even more honest, as a gay man, I can top both Brooks and Hilzoy: I have had not only thighs but other portions of my anatomy grasped, fondled, and otherwise handled without invitation under circumstances in which there was no possibility of misunderstanding the availability of said anatomy. Contrary to what Brooks, Friedersdorf and other straight guys might think (depending on the degree of credence they bestow on the fantasies expressed by their colleagues on the right), this is not something I welcome, nor, I think, do most gay men.
Personal space is personal space, and to invade it without invitation is asking for it -- unless, I guess, the space involved belongs to David Brooks. My typical response in the situations I described above was to offer to break the offending appendage.
One question I have to ask, which I haven't seen asked anywhere else: Why the hell didn't Brooks tell the asshole to keep his effing hands to himself? Works wonders, especially if you say it loudly.
Although I suspect the answer to that one would reveal a great deal about why the relationship between the press and government officials is so fundamentally corrupt.
Civil Rights Are Civil Rights -- Aren't They
I got some flack last November for an admittedly angry post about the polls that showed 70% of African American voters voted in favor of Prop 8. Granted, the post was somewhat intemperate, and my more measured comment later pointed out that a massive outreach and education program is necessary to counter the entrenched homophobia in the black community. This interview with Benjamin Todd Jealous of the NAACP only points it up:
Contra Aravosis, I think that Jealous is being quite honest and reasonable in his response. NAACP can't exercise leadership in the area of gay rights until its membership has reached a consensus. I question whether it should be leading in that particular fight at all -- we have oiur own rights orgainzations that need to show some leadership.
The one thing that bothers me is his comment that the civil rights struggles are not the same, and I wish the interviewer had followed up on that one. Yes, they differ in detail -- blacks haven't had to fight for the right to have their families recognized by the State, at least not since Emancipation -- but they come from the same basis: a pattern of legal discrimination that has no rational basis. I'd like to know more of what his thinking is that led to that statement.
It's quite obvious to me, at least, that there is still a lot of learning to be done in the black community, and an automatic charge of racism against white gays isn't going to convince me of much: that seems to be as much a reaction from the autonomic nervous system in some quarters as anything else, and I've not seen any solid evidence that such is the case. In my own experience, just let me note that for years my favorite hangout was a small, "neighborhood" type bar on the North Side that was very diverse -- white, black, latino, the occasional asian, transgender, female impersonators, even the occasional straight Cubs fans who wandered in after a game. I've also heard the charges against other gay bars on the North Side, but never witnessed anything that would cause me to give them credence. I really need to see some evidence: yelling "racist" as a first response just doesn't cut it. (I might add that my remarks in the post I mentioned above were characterized that way, and I am probably one of the least prejudiced people you are going to find. That's the way my parents raised me, and it stuck. Skin color is simply not a criterion by which I evaluate people.)
I got some flack last November for an admittedly angry post about the polls that showed 70% of African American voters voted in favor of Prop 8. Granted, the post was somewhat intemperate, and my more measured comment later pointed out that a massive outreach and education program is necessary to counter the entrenched homophobia in the black community. This interview with Benjamin Todd Jealous of the NAACP only points it up:
Contra Aravosis, I think that Jealous is being quite honest and reasonable in his response. NAACP can't exercise leadership in the area of gay rights until its membership has reached a consensus. I question whether it should be leading in that particular fight at all -- we have oiur own rights orgainzations that need to show some leadership.
The one thing that bothers me is his comment that the civil rights struggles are not the same, and I wish the interviewer had followed up on that one. Yes, they differ in detail -- blacks haven't had to fight for the right to have their families recognized by the State, at least not since Emancipation -- but they come from the same basis: a pattern of legal discrimination that has no rational basis. I'd like to know more of what his thinking is that led to that statement.
It's quite obvious to me, at least, that there is still a lot of learning to be done in the black community, and an automatic charge of racism against white gays isn't going to convince me of much: that seems to be as much a reaction from the autonomic nervous system in some quarters as anything else, and I've not seen any solid evidence that such is the case. In my own experience, just let me note that for years my favorite hangout was a small, "neighborhood" type bar on the North Side that was very diverse -- white, black, latino, the occasional asian, transgender, female impersonators, even the occasional straight Cubs fans who wandered in after a game. I've also heard the charges against other gay bars on the North Side, but never witnessed anything that would cause me to give them credence. I really need to see some evidence: yelling "racist" as a first response just doesn't cut it. (I might add that my remarks in the post I mentioned above were characterized that way, and I am probably one of the least prejudiced people you are going to find. That's the way my parents raised me, and it stuck. Skin color is simply not a criterion by which I evaluate people.)
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Reviews in Brief: Maki Naruto's Seikimatsu Darling, Anime
One commentator said that Seikimatsu Darling is the funniest BL anime ever, and I think he might be right. It's certainly a delight, and take it from me -- as someone who sits through comedies, dramas, what-have-you pretty much stone-faced -- you can't avoid at least cracking a smile -- and maybe even cracking up.
Ogata is in love with Takasugi, and finally goes to his friend Shikibu for advice -- Shikibu has a male lover, Tsutsumi, and so should be in a position to help Ogata out. The course of action is simple: Ogata invites Takasugi out on dates -- and Takasugi always accepts. Finally, on the way home one night, Ogata confesses. It turns out that Takasugi feels the same way toward him, but is afraid their feelings are too similar. Ogata's not quite sure what this means until Takasugi explains: who's gong to be the seme and who the uke? He then invites Ogata to spend a long weekend at an onsen (hot springs resort) owned by a friend: the gauntlet is down. Ogata talks Shikibu and Tsutsumi into "coincidentally" meeting them on the train, and off they go.
The comedy is a distinct and very funny satire on masculinity and the often ridiculous patterns of behavior it encourages: neither man is willing to give in and be the uke in this relationship, but they love each other so much that each just keeps trying to show off his good points and not admit to any weaknesses. And of course, the weaknesses eventually come out, but they don't seem to change anyone's feelings. Both protagonists are completely appealing, and Shikibu and Tsutsumi are perfect comic accompaniment.
The visual style is wonderful, although there are many chibi passages (I must be getting used to them -- they didn't bother me all that much). The character designs are wonderful -- all these big, hunky, adorable men running around, with lots of pecs and delts and biceps. Don't believe anyone who tells you that gorgeous guys can't be funny.
There's a short at the end of the episode, "End of the Century Rangers," with the five characters from the main story (Takagi is Ogata's coworker) as superheroes -- the "Darling 5" -- out to defeat a super-villain whose main weapon seems to be naruto, a kind of fish cake, used as a take-off on "Transformers." It's markedly more silly than the main story, and just as funny.
It's a short one -- one episode, at just under half an hour -- and doesn't seem to have been released in the U.S.
Staff:
Screenplay: Shino Taira
Storyboard: Kenichi Maejima
Music: Harukichi Yamamoto
Original Manga: Maki Naruto
Character Design: Kazunori Iwakura
Animation director: Kazunori Iwakura
Supervising Director: Kenichi Maejima
Sound director: Fusanobu Fujiyama
Producer: Ken Mochizuki
Animation: Akihide Saitō, Eiji Ishimoto, Hidetoshi Namura, Hisashi Ishii, Kiyotaka Nakahara, Koji Moriyama, Michiko Yamamoto, Shino Takada, Syuji Sakamoto, Takashi Hyoudo
Art Coordinator: Hiroko Ito
Assistant producer: Shigeharu Sekiguchi
Background Art: Atsuki Betsumiya, Ayari Yake, Junichi Kuroda, Miyoko Kohama, Shoichi Shimomura, Takumi Honma, Yoshinori Hishinuma, Yukari Yasuda
Background Supervision: Takashi Waki
Color Key: Hiroko Ito
Cooperation: Aki Arakawa, Akiko Kusunose, Katsumi Satoh, Seiji Biblos
Editing: Harutoshi Ogata, Satoshi Terauchi, Yukiko Itou
In-Between Animation: Akihiro Fukui, Masaki Sekine, Rie Kaneko, Ryoko Yoshimura, Satoshi Nishimura, Yukako Tsuzuki
In-Between Check: Fusae Sato
Ink & Paint Checker: Hitomi Morishima, Naoyuki Sawada, Takashi Tomihata
Photography: Masaki Nakamura, Mitsue Motomiya, Motomitsu Hishino, Shigenari Nishi, Tatsuya Masuzawa
Photography Supervision: Hideo Okazaki
Production Assistant: Tomoharu Komiyama
Production Coodinator: Shinobu Tsunaki
Production Desk: Tetsuo Mikami
Production Manager: Yoshiyuki Matsuzaki
Recording engineer: Akiyoshi Yoda
Sound Effects: Mitsuru Kageyama
Sound Manager: Kouichi Iizuka
Special Effects: Takashi Maekawa
Theme Song Arrangement: Yasunori Tsuchida
Theme Song Composition: Yasuhiro Mizushima
Theme Song Lyrics: Arisu Satô
Video Editing: Ayumi Tabira
Cast:
Kazuhiko Inoue as Yoichuroh Takasugi
Yasunori Matsumoto as Kohsaku Ogata
Hideyuki Hori as Yukari Shikibu
Juurouta Kosugi as Naoyuki Takagi
Tetsuya Iwanaga as Masayuki Tsutsumi
Health Care Link Dump
It's too multifaceted for me to get into today, but there are a number of good posts out there on health care. Don't worry, though -- it's a very small link dump.
To lead off, here's Digby the medical/insurance industry as an arm of Wall Street. From a Bill Moyers interview with Wendell Potter:
Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."
Here's Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog on treatments that work versus treatments that cost a lot. She's focusing on a new treatment for prostate cancer costing billions to develop that is probably no more effective than what we already have.
There are a number of treatments for early-stage, slow-growth prostate cancer. These treatments range from “watchful waiting” — not treating the cancer at all, but just keeping an eye on it — to surgical removal of the prostate gland, to high-tech proton radiation therapy using a proton accelerator. The costs for the various treatments range from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However, there is little evidence that the more expensive treatments are any more effective than the cheap ones, including watchful waiting. Indeed, for an older patient, watchful waiting makes sense, as there is a high probability he will die of other natural causes before the prostate cancer becomes a problem for him. On the other hand, younger patients, meaning men under the age of 65, might benefit from more aggressive treatment. But which more aggressive treatment?
Having just been through three months of having my whizzer nuked five days a week, I feel qualified to comment on this one. The results were positive, but not definitive. I would have preferred another treatment that is cheaper and just as effective, but the hospital I was at doesn't do that one. One thing that O'Brien doesn't mention is side effects, which are a consideration when making a decision on therapy. I was intent on avoiding surgery at all costs, because the side effects are unacceptable and largely permanent, and it's only slightly less expensive than the radiation therapy I was undergoing. So now I'm back to the baseline -- watchful waiting. And, me being me, you'd better believe my doctors got grilled on effectiveness of the various treatments proposed. I live by one rule when dealing with professionals: they are professionals, they know the field, and their advice should be listened to. But how to proceed is my decision.
OK -- those two are required reading.
To lead off, here's Digby the medical/insurance industry as an arm of Wall Street. From a Bill Moyers interview with Wendell Potter:
Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."
Here's Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog on treatments that work versus treatments that cost a lot. She's focusing on a new treatment for prostate cancer costing billions to develop that is probably no more effective than what we already have.
There are a number of treatments for early-stage, slow-growth prostate cancer. These treatments range from “watchful waiting” — not treating the cancer at all, but just keeping an eye on it — to surgical removal of the prostate gland, to high-tech proton radiation therapy using a proton accelerator. The costs for the various treatments range from a few thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However, there is little evidence that the more expensive treatments are any more effective than the cheap ones, including watchful waiting. Indeed, for an older patient, watchful waiting makes sense, as there is a high probability he will die of other natural causes before the prostate cancer becomes a problem for him. On the other hand, younger patients, meaning men under the age of 65, might benefit from more aggressive treatment. But which more aggressive treatment?
Having just been through three months of having my whizzer nuked five days a week, I feel qualified to comment on this one. The results were positive, but not definitive. I would have preferred another treatment that is cheaper and just as effective, but the hospital I was at doesn't do that one. One thing that O'Brien doesn't mention is side effects, which are a consideration when making a decision on therapy. I was intent on avoiding surgery at all costs, because the side effects are unacceptable and largely permanent, and it's only slightly less expensive than the radiation therapy I was undergoing. So now I'm back to the baseline -- watchful waiting. And, me being me, you'd better believe my doctors got grilled on effectiveness of the various treatments proposed. I live by one rule when dealing with professionals: they are professionals, they know the field, and their advice should be listened to. But how to proceed is my decision.
OK -- those two are required reading.
Morality
The nativist "Americans" who are against immigration, illegal or otherwise (all of whose ancestors were immigrants), seem to share a certain world view with their fellow travelers in the Republican party. (I don't think any of these people are Democrats, although perhaps the day is coming.) They share with the anti-gay religious nuts and the forced-birth "right to life" contingent a casual disregard for human life that I find chilling.
Here's an example, via Dave Neiwert at Crooks and Liars. You can watch the video if you've the stomach for it. Here's a bit of the commentary by the first "interviewee":
Baron: I say, give orders to shoot to kill, and kill any man, woman or child who comes across the border illegally. I'll bet you, you kill enough of them, right off the bat, people will stop coming over that way.
[Questioner]
That's what I just said. Personally, I think a minefield would be good. Why build a fence when you can plant some mines?
Q: You just said that you would kill kids.
Baron: If they're being drug across the border, hell yes. The difference between those people and us -- Our country is No. 1. Theirs? Pffft!
These are the people Sarah Palin appeals to. This is the Republican base.
Is it any wonder that I no longer can in good conscience support Republican candidates for office?
Here's an example, via Dave Neiwert at Crooks and Liars. You can watch the video if you've the stomach for it. Here's a bit of the commentary by the first "interviewee":
Baron: I say, give orders to shoot to kill, and kill any man, woman or child who comes across the border illegally. I'll bet you, you kill enough of them, right off the bat, people will stop coming over that way.
[Questioner]
That's what I just said. Personally, I think a minefield would be good. Why build a fence when you can plant some mines?
Q: You just said that you would kill kids.
Baron: If they're being drug across the border, hell yes. The difference between those people and us -- Our country is No. 1. Theirs? Pffft!
These are the people Sarah Palin appeals to. This is the Republican base.
Is it any wonder that I no longer can in good conscience support Republican candidates for office?
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Friday Gay Blogging, Saturday Edition
From Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin come these reports (here and here) on the latest wrinkle in what I've been calling the Boies/Olson challenge to Prop 8.
I have to wonder what’s going on with three pro-gay groups who have petitioned the court to be admitted as parties to the case. The three groups — American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights — have asked the judge to allow them represent three gay community groups in the lawsuit seeking to overturn Proposition 8.
These same groups were among the eight who immediately opposed the lawsuit when it was first announced. Last week, they reversed their position and filed amicus briefs in support of the plaintiffs, which is, I think, a very positive move. . . .
But now all of the sudden they want to become parties of the lawsuit itself, even though they wanted nothing to do with the move in the beginning.
The response of the Boies/Olson team has been cool, to say the least. From the letter from AFER to the three groups:
Even after you filed an amicus curiae brief urging the district court to grant our motion for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Prop. 8, you refused to characterize your position as one of “support.” Indeed, Jennifer Pizer of Lambda Legal went so far as to insist that we alter a press release that described your amicus curiae brief as “supporting” our suit. In response, we issued a second release addressing her concerns.
Pam Spaulding has also been covering this:
If these groups' direct involvement cause a delay in the courts because they failed to act earlier, then they shouldn't have direct involvement. But AFER is open to their consultation and assistance, and if that's the best resolve for a united front, then these groups need to accept their position and assist in fighting to the end for the common goal of full equality under federal law.
Read the comments on this post.
I think that we need to remember, as some of the commenters don't seem to have done, that Lambda Legal, ACLU, and NCLR are not HRC and GLAAD, etc. The former three organizations have been effective where the "national leadership" has not. However, I think that AFER is correct in accepting their expertise and support, and in insisting that they otherwise stay out of it. The case is in process, why in the hell do they want to be butting in now -- except that it looks as though the case might be successful and they screwed up by criticizing AFER to begin with.
Here's a comment by Chris Geidner with a slightly different take on the issue. However, looking at the text of the letter, it appears that Geidner is doing some editing here. I think I detect an agenda in his post.
The other big marriage case news this week is the Massachusetts case. Dale Carpenter has a good preliminary analysis:
The federal complaint in Commonwealth v. HHS was filed yesterday by Massachusetts, which is asking for federal recognition of its same-sex marriages, not for the invalidation of all state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Massachusetts makes two federalism-based constitutional claims against Section 3 of DOMA, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for purposes of federal law.
The first claim is that Section 3 "violates the Tenth Amendment, exceeds Congress’s Article I powers, and runs afoul of the Constitution’s principles of federalism" by creating an extensive federal regulatory scheme in a field ("domestic relations") reserved exclusively to the states. Complaint at 22. That, says Massachusetts, interferes with a state's traditional authority to define marriage as it sees fit.
The second claim is that Section 3 "violates the Spending Clause" because it (a) induces the state to violate the Equal Protection Clause and because (b) "there is no nexus between discriminating against individuals in same-sex marriages and the purposes advanced by" specified federal programs. Complaint at 23-24.
The lawsuit is different from other pending challenges to Section 3, see here and here, because it's brought by a state, not gay couples, and because the core issue is federalism, not individual rights.
And, just to leave things on a light note, this story from Box Turtle Bulletin about Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz. I'm not going to quote from it because I don't want to spoil it for you, but it's nice to see the intellectual resources of the anti-gay right have not changed much.
And for dessert, I've decided I like the idea of BL anime, so here's another one:
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Big Question
Is Bill Wilson stupid, or does he think I am?
Bill Wilson is president of American For Limited Government, and I get periodic e-mails from him and a few other wild-eyed sorts on the right that I even occasionally read, if I need something to lighten my mood. This one is about his organization supporting Sen. David "Diapers" Vitter's demand that Obama confirm in writing that ACORN (a periodic whipping boy for the right) will not be involved in the census.
Americans for Limited Government today called upon its 400,000 members nationwide to support Senator David Vitter's (R-LA) moves to block the nomination of Robert Groves as Census Bureau Director until Barack Obama responds to the Senator's request to confirm "in writing that ACORN will in no fashion be involved in gathering data for the 2010 census."
Vitter's request to the White House came in a June 25th email. The email also asked that the President confirm "in writing that he will not direct the Census Bureau to use 'statistical adjustment,' also called sampling, to determine the numbers for the 2010 census." To date, Obama has not responded to Vitter's email. Nor has Groves responded to similar requests from the Senator.
"This President has a long and tawdry track record as 'ACORN's Senator,' to quote Investor's Business Journal," said Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. "Now, with rumors rife that he intends to hand over census-taking to his former cronies at ACORN, Senator Vitter's questions are not only legitimate, they are vital to the sanctity of the census process."
This is only the first three paragraphs, and if you've been following this at all, you can see how full of lies and distortions it is. All it says is a rehash of the babblings of such perspicacious -- and undeniably truthful, just ask them -- wingnut mouthpieces as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, World Net Daily, and a few more whose names I have mercifully forgotten. In fact, the only kernel of truth I can find here is that Sen. Vitter sent an e-mail to the president, and that hasn't been independently confirmed.
You may wonder how I got on this e-mail list. So do I.
(It's worth noting here that I wasn't getting outraged e-mails from Wilson when Bush II was trampling the Constitution or doling out welfare to various well-connected corporations. Wonder why?)
Bill Wilson is president of American For Limited Government, and I get periodic e-mails from him and a few other wild-eyed sorts on the right that I even occasionally read, if I need something to lighten my mood. This one is about his organization supporting Sen. David "Diapers" Vitter's demand that Obama confirm in writing that ACORN (a periodic whipping boy for the right) will not be involved in the census.
Americans for Limited Government today called upon its 400,000 members nationwide to support Senator David Vitter's (R-LA) moves to block the nomination of Robert Groves as Census Bureau Director until Barack Obama responds to the Senator's request to confirm "in writing that ACORN will in no fashion be involved in gathering data for the 2010 census."
Vitter's request to the White House came in a June 25th email. The email also asked that the President confirm "in writing that he will not direct the Census Bureau to use 'statistical adjustment,' also called sampling, to determine the numbers for the 2010 census." To date, Obama has not responded to Vitter's email. Nor has Groves responded to similar requests from the Senator.
"This President has a long and tawdry track record as 'ACORN's Senator,' to quote Investor's Business Journal," said Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government. "Now, with rumors rife that he intends to hand over census-taking to his former cronies at ACORN, Senator Vitter's questions are not only legitimate, they are vital to the sanctity of the census process."
This is only the first three paragraphs, and if you've been following this at all, you can see how full of lies and distortions it is. All it says is a rehash of the babblings of such perspicacious -- and undeniably truthful, just ask them -- wingnut mouthpieces as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, World Net Daily, and a few more whose names I have mercifully forgotten. In fact, the only kernel of truth I can find here is that Sen. Vitter sent an e-mail to the president, and that hasn't been independently confirmed.
You may wonder how I got on this e-mail list. So do I.
(It's worth noting here that I wasn't getting outraged e-mails from Wilson when Bush II was trampling the Constitution or doling out welfare to various well-connected corporations. Wonder why?)
Friday Gay Blogging, Stopgap Edition
There's lots to comment on this week, and of course I ran out of time this morning. This should tide you over:
The song is "You Should Be Mine" by 98 Degrees, which I've totally fallen in love with. The AMV is clips from Saiyuki, which is not a BL anime, but the subtext is veeery interesting.
So enjoy. (Gods, is this gay, or what?)
The song is "You Should Be Mine" by 98 Degrees, which I've totally fallen in love with. The AMV is clips from Saiyuki, which is not a BL anime, but the subtext is veeery interesting.
So enjoy. (Gods, is this gay, or what?)
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Another One of Those
I had a nice post almost complete about the essential corruption of the Washington establishment -- you know, how they're all about staying in office and not about governing. Well, between Earthlink and my antique computer and one of those websites that's overloaded with ads and other frou-fou, it's gone.
However, Hullabaloo has a wonderful series of posts on the politics of it all that should be required reading. In fact, they are. So go do it.
I may be back later, but I have an article to write that is fighting me tooth and nail. Slippery little devil. Fortunately (for a change), I'm not staring a big, mean Deadline in the face.
However, Hullabaloo has a wonderful series of posts on the politics of it all that should be required reading. In fact, they are. So go do it.
I may be back later, but I have an article to write that is fighting me tooth and nail. Slippery little devil. Fortunately (for a change), I'm not staring a big, mean Deadline in the face.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Selective Memory
Here's an interesting bit by Chris Geidner at Law Dork, about Obama's long-range strategy for gay rights, applying some observations by Andrew Sullivan to the issue, which Sullivan does not address:
Although Andrew wasn’t writing about “gay issues” in his column, his analysis of Obama is proven all the wiser when applied to the LGBT concerns and issues that I’ve been focused on these past few weeks. Andrew’s conclusion, as well, might serve as a statement to LGBT activists, specifically:
[Obama] wants deep structural change, not swift superficial grandstanding and conflict. He is taking his time and keeping his cool. The question is whether a volatile [constituency] will be patient enough to wait.
Isn’t deep structural change what we want? Aren’t political grandstanding and culture-war conflicts the very problems that we, as LGBT activists, want to work to end?
Many people would say that we shouldn’t need to “wait” for equality, and they would be right. But let’s be clear that having the patience to take careful, intentional steps that will best accomplish our goals, which is Andrew’s point, is not the same thing as being told that our issues don’t matter and that we’ll just need to wait on our changes. This isn’t waiting for waiting’s sake; this is waiting so that solutions are real and permanent.
People want change and we want it now, but that’s not going to make it reality. Maybe, just maybe, if we give this President a chance, he could actually come through for us — with real, lasting equality advancements.
I have one question: how do you fit the notorious DoJ brief in Smelt into this "deep structural change"? Hmm? (Sorry, but that brief -- the administration's whole defense of DOMA -- could have been stopped anywhere in the process if anyone wanted to do it.) And how about the continuing discharges under DADT? While Gates explores "more humane" ways of applying the law? Strange that we got stop-loss orders under Bush, but not under Obama.
I think it's called "cherry-picking."
I need convincing, because this looks like more of the "just behave yourselves and wait until someone feels like giving you what everyone else already has" school of activism.
Although Andrew wasn’t writing about “gay issues” in his column, his analysis of Obama is proven all the wiser when applied to the LGBT concerns and issues that I’ve been focused on these past few weeks. Andrew’s conclusion, as well, might serve as a statement to LGBT activists, specifically:
[Obama] wants deep structural change, not swift superficial grandstanding and conflict. He is taking his time and keeping his cool. The question is whether a volatile [constituency] will be patient enough to wait.
Isn’t deep structural change what we want? Aren’t political grandstanding and culture-war conflicts the very problems that we, as LGBT activists, want to work to end?
Many people would say that we shouldn’t need to “wait” for equality, and they would be right. But let’s be clear that having the patience to take careful, intentional steps that will best accomplish our goals, which is Andrew’s point, is not the same thing as being told that our issues don’t matter and that we’ll just need to wait on our changes. This isn’t waiting for waiting’s sake; this is waiting so that solutions are real and permanent.
People want change and we want it now, but that’s not going to make it reality. Maybe, just maybe, if we give this President a chance, he could actually come through for us — with real, lasting equality advancements.
I have one question: how do you fit the notorious DoJ brief in Smelt into this "deep structural change"? Hmm? (Sorry, but that brief -- the administration's whole defense of DOMA -- could have been stopped anywhere in the process if anyone wanted to do it.) And how about the continuing discharges under DADT? While Gates explores "more humane" ways of applying the law? Strange that we got stop-loss orders under Bush, but not under Obama.
I think it's called "cherry-picking."
I need convincing, because this looks like more of the "just behave yourselves and wait until someone feels like giving you what everyone else already has" school of activism.
Health Care
"Reform" has come to mean "nightmare." Or "sellout." "Bipartisan" means "We're still afraid of the Republicans."
Susie Madrak notes this about the Massachusetts model, one of the favorites of the Republicans and DINOs in Congress:
The Massachusetts plan is struggling because it's nothing more than an insurance co-op - something that keeps paying the middleman:
And they won't, because they don't have any.
Here's part of the problem. Watch the dodge and weave here:
And get this, from BarbinMD at Kos:
But if you have more than a million dollars a day to spend, have a vested interest in stopping real health care reform, and better yet, if you have a past, personal relationship with key lawmakers, pull up a chair:
That goes a long way in explaining why Baucus, one of 60 Democratic Senators, has been fighting so hard against a public option. You know, the one that more than 70% of all Americans support. But Baucus aides "bristle" at the idea that lobbyists are getting any special access or treatment.
It becomes more and more obvious that Washington is intrinsically corrupt. Maybe we need term limits for every elective office.
And Krugman gets it:
Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable.
After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.
Y'know, it's not like we have to come up with something entirely new. There are all sorts of models out there, because most developed countries' governments care more about their citizens' welfare than ours does. I mean, I'm not a health-care guru, by any means, but I've been in discussions with Canadians and Brits -- which, by the way, do not have the best systems in place, although those seem to be the ones most often cited by opponents of reform (how strange! but then, that's probably why) -- and noted the commentaries by Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog -- first-hand accounts of how the French system works -- and I can see quite plainly that apologists for the status quo have been doing the usual number -- cooked numbers, ignored facts, and focus on horror stories. (I remember one beef about the waiting time in Canada as it applied to critical procedures, and was told by a Canadian that they can come to the States if a procedure is time-critical, and the Canadian plan will pay for it -- as well as housing for the family members. You didn't hear that from the insurance lobby.)
The problem? I have no confidence in Obama or Congress on this. They're going to listen to the money, not the voters.
I may come back to this. Depends on how pissed off I get.
Susie Madrak notes this about the Massachusetts model, one of the favorites of the Republicans and DINOs in Congress:
The Massachusetts plan is struggling because it's nothing more than an insurance co-op - something that keeps paying the middleman:
Tens of thousands of Massachusetts patients who grapple with some of the most intractable mental health problems - eating disorders, addictions, autism, and post-traumatic stress - should face fewer barriers to treatment under a state law that went into effect July 1. But the cost of the state’s latest healthcare expansion remains an open question. . . .
Insurers’ overall spending in Massachusetts, estimated at about $13 billion a year, will increase by $13 million to $39 million a year because of the new law, according to regulators’ calculations.
But a coalition of employer and insurance groups contends that the costs are likely to be significantly higher. Insurers said that the state’s calculations substantially underestimate the costs. They have not, however, come up with their own estimates.
And they won't, because they don't have any.
Here's part of the problem. Watch the dodge and weave here:
And get this, from BarbinMD at Kos:
But if you have more than a million dollars a day to spend, have a vested interest in stopping real health care reform, and better yet, if you have a past, personal relationship with key lawmakers, pull up a chair:
The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.
Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups ...
A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.
That goes a long way in explaining why Baucus, one of 60 Democratic Senators, has been fighting so hard against a public option. You know, the one that more than 70% of all Americans support. But Baucus aides "bristle" at the idea that lobbyists are getting any special access or treatment.
It becomes more and more obvious that Washington is intrinsically corrupt. Maybe we need term limits for every elective office.
And Krugman gets it:
Let me start by pointing out something serious health economists have known all along: on general principles, universal health insurance should be eminently affordable.
After all, every other advanced country offers universal coverage, while spending much less on health care than we do. For example, the French health care system covers everyone, offers excellent care and costs barely more than half as much per person as our system.
Y'know, it's not like we have to come up with something entirely new. There are all sorts of models out there, because most developed countries' governments care more about their citizens' welfare than ours does. I mean, I'm not a health-care guru, by any means, but I've been in discussions with Canadians and Brits -- which, by the way, do not have the best systems in place, although those seem to be the ones most often cited by opponents of reform (how strange! but then, that's probably why) -- and noted the commentaries by Chris in Paris at AmericaBlog -- first-hand accounts of how the French system works -- and I can see quite plainly that apologists for the status quo have been doing the usual number -- cooked numbers, ignored facts, and focus on horror stories. (I remember one beef about the waiting time in Canada as it applied to critical procedures, and was told by a Canadian that they can come to the States if a procedure is time-critical, and the Canadian plan will pay for it -- as well as housing for the family members. You didn't hear that from the insurance lobby.)
The problem? I have no confidence in Obama or Congress on this. They're going to listen to the money, not the voters.
I may come back to this. Depends on how pissed off I get.
It's taken them this long. . .
. . . to get it:
These are disparate areas of study and disparate conclusions. One thing they all have in common: an environment-degrading practice often defended as necessary to economic health is revealed, upon closer inspection, to be uneconomic. I wonder how many other allegedly economic environment-degrading practices would also be revealed uneconomic if examined with a fresh eye?
It’s almost like the economy is embedded in an environment, and degrading the latter ultimately degrades the former.
Duh.
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.
These are disparate areas of study and disparate conclusions. One thing they all have in common: an environment-degrading practice often defended as necessary to economic health is revealed, upon closer inspection, to be uneconomic. I wonder how many other allegedly economic environment-degrading practices would also be revealed uneconomic if examined with a fresh eye?
It’s almost like the economy is embedded in an environment, and degrading the latter ultimately degrades the former.
Duh.
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Unacceptable
In case you've forgotten, Adm. Mike Mullen is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I think we can see where the resistance to repeal of DADT is coming from:
"I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.
"Measured"? How so? What exactly does that mean?
And this is totally nonsensical:
"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said.
Impact on "our people and their families"? What impact is that, exactly? And just who are "our people"?
More bullshit from the Obama administration.
This is another case in which I'm sorry to have been right -- I had thought that the resistance to repeal of DADT was coming from the top brass (and I've probably mentioned it here), and this seems to indicate that's so. It's not even that the rank and file are opposed -- we know they're not (Elaine Donnelley's cooked statistics notwithstanding). It's the very conservative, mostly Republican, largely Christianist brass. (It's sort of interesting to see how former military leaders, once they leave the Pentagon and get out in the real world, realize how awful DADT is.)
Update:
I take it back. Look what Colin Powell just came out with: more nonsense:
"I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added. "It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated."
What exactly are these "complicated issues"? I join with Jim Burroway on this one:
Does anyone have any idea what those “complicated issues” might be? Does anyone think that having gays and lesbians serve in the military is at all complicated? I mean, after all, they exist everywhere else in civilian life, and they are increasingly serving in the military with the full knowledge of their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen. So what are they afraid of?
Keep pushing.
"I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.
"Measured"? How so? What exactly does that mean?
And this is totally nonsensical:
"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said.
Impact on "our people and their families"? What impact is that, exactly? And just who are "our people"?
More bullshit from the Obama administration.
This is another case in which I'm sorry to have been right -- I had thought that the resistance to repeal of DADT was coming from the top brass (and I've probably mentioned it here), and this seems to indicate that's so. It's not even that the rank and file are opposed -- we know they're not (Elaine Donnelley's cooked statistics notwithstanding). It's the very conservative, mostly Republican, largely Christianist brass. (It's sort of interesting to see how former military leaders, once they leave the Pentagon and get out in the real world, realize how awful DADT is.)
Update:
I take it back. Look what Colin Powell just came out with: more nonsense:
"I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added. "It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated."
What exactly are these "complicated issues"? I join with Jim Burroway on this one:
Does anyone have any idea what those “complicated issues” might be? Does anyone think that having gays and lesbians serve in the military is at all complicated? I mean, after all, they exist everywhere else in civilian life, and they are increasingly serving in the military with the full knowledge of their fellow soldiers, sailors and airmen. So what are they afraid of?
Keep pushing.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
The Problem
This story is popping up around the blogosphere:
President Obama, strategizing yesterday with congressional leaders about health-care reform, complained that liberal advocacy groups ought to drop their attacks on Democratic lawmakers and devote their energy to promoting passage of comprehensive legislation.
In a pre-holiday call with half a dozen top House and Senate Democrats, Obama expressed his concern over advertisements and online campaigns targeting moderate Democrats, whom they criticize for not being fully devoted to "true" health-care reform.
"We shouldn't be focusing resources on each other," Obama opined in the call, according to three sources who participated in or listened to the conversation. "We ought to be focused on winning this debate."
Specifically, Obama said he is hoping left-leaning organizations that worked on his behalf in the presidential campaign will now rally support for "advancing legislation" that fulfills his goal of expanding coverage, controlling rising costs and modernizing the health system.
See, things like this should just be considered "business as usual":
During a townhall in Waukon, IA Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) was asked by a constituent of his: “Why is your insurance so much cheaper than my insurance and so better than my insurance?” When Grassley struggled to explain the details of his own health care plan, the elderly man followed up, “Okay, so how come I can’t have the same thing you have?” Grassley said, “You can. Just go work for the federal government.”
These people should realize that they're in the age of YouTube, and they can't get away with stuff any more.
Maybe if the president and "moderate" Democrats would pay attention and actually address some of the concerns being expressed, the attacks would stop. Just a maybe, you understand, and in "Maybe they should listen to their constituents -- the people who actually voted for them -- rather than the insurance lobby?"
Is this supposed to be what Obama means by "leadership"?
Digby has something to say about it:
All you have to do is read the paper to know that the people standing in the way of any workable health care reform are mushy, centrist robots and insurance company whores in the Democratic Party. We have the majority, the Republicans are imploding, there is no debate at the moment among anyone but Democrats. In the middle of this hot negotiation, putting ads on the air that say "let's get some health care!" is a joke.
I suspect that the truth is that he thinks he's clumsily triangulating. But the groups that he's criticizing are actually trying to support his position on the public plan and attacking them undermines the public plan as well. (Of course, it's always possible that's the intention, but I hope not.)
Read her whole post. Read this one, too. I <3 Digby.
Reviews in Brief: Brahms: The Complete Symphonies, Herbert von Karajan, Berliner Philharmoniker
This one will be brief: you either take Brahms or leave him, although if you leave him, you're not doing yourself any favors.
Full disclosure: Brahms was my first love in classical music. It all started with a set of 78s that my dad brought home, surplus from the school's music department. It was the Piano Concerto in D Minor and I, all of eight or nine years old, was entranced. No -- make that swept away. I just loved it. Of course, as time went on I accumulated the symphonies, the chamber music, and made a good start on other works.
Brahms is one of those nineteenth-century masters who, in the wrong hands, becomes ponderous and way too serious. Not that his music is not serious, but there is always an undercurrent of lyricism, not to mention flashes of wickedly irreverent humor. Von Karajan manages the symphonies with a touch of lightness -- I almost want to say "vivacity," but that's not quite right. There's an energy here that's all too rare in interpretations of Brahms, and the result is illuminating. The majestic opening of the First Symphony loses none of its majesty, but it gains momentum that drives the music.
Nor does von Karajan miss the drama. It's there in full measure. And the lyricism. And something that I can only call "edge" -- that quality that tells you you're close to the limit, if not at it, and it won't take much at all to push you over. There's a fine-drawn tension in these renderings that is probably partly Brahms, partly von Karajan, and it's only listening to these discs that I realized what had been missing before. Somehow, though, that push never comes, and you stay right on that edge. It's exhilarating. And then the music slips into one of those sweetly lyrical passages that Brahms could do so well (without saccharinity, mind you), and you melt. (When I think how many times I've just blipped on Brahms' slow movements, and then see how they come alive here, it's truly a wonder.)
Von Karajan has to be ranked as one of the twentieth century's great conductors. I like what he did with Beethoven, I am impressed with what he did with Wagner, and I love what he does with Brahms in these recordings. Yes, I'm predisposed to like the music, but I'm also predisposed to be fairly critical. I know this stuff, after all: I've been listening to it since I was nine.
This one is an absolute winner. If you don't have the Brahms symphonies in your collection, find this recording. Hmm -- find it even if you already have them by someone else.
From Deutsche Grammophon, it's a two-disc set priced as a single disc. You can't go wrong.
Friday Gay Blogging, Sunday Edition
There, see? I told you I was working on it.Obama's Strategy:
Steve Hildebrand was Obama's deputy campaign manager and is still an adviser to the president. Maybe that explains some of the inaction on Obama's campaign promises to the gay community. This is highly instructive:
There are three critically important pieces of legislation that should pass Congress and move to the president's desk immediately. You were elected on a promise to help people -- to make a difference in people's lives. Because discrimination is unacceptable, you should move forward now to pass the Safe Schools Improvement Act, the National Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
Sounds good, doesn't it? Read the article and ask yourself, "What missing here?"
Perhaps this story will help clear away the confusion:
A possible hate crime killing of a gay US sailor on Obama's watch. Navy Seaman August Provost III was gagged, bound by the hands and feet, shot in the head three times, and then his body burned. His relatives say he was repeatedly harassed for being gay, but couldn't seek help from the Defense Department because of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Now he's dead.
Obama administration investigators say it was just a random act of violence.
"Random act of violence" -- bound and gagged, and the body burned? Something smells here. And the family has some ideas about what's to blame:
Rose Roy of Beaumont said her nephew, Navy Seaman August Provost III, had complained a year before about being harassed for being gay.
Roy said she advised Provost to report and document the incidents, but she said the military did little to help.
“He went to the Navy to serve and protect,” she said in an interview with Beaumont’s KFDM News, “he didn’t get protected at all.”
Roy told The Associated Press that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy discouraged her nephew from asking for help.
“That phrase is just stupid because it tells them they have no one to speak to,” she said.
Repeal of DADT should be a no-brainer at this point. Even Republicans, even Republicans who go to church regularly, favor repeal. So what's the problem?
Maybe it has something to do with reports on The Democrats' "gay strategy":
Q: What is the mood or tone within the DNC regarding gay rights issues?
The only thing I hear about LGBT action is in reference to not rocking the boat until after the next election.
Q: Is that 2010 or 2012?
Both.
Q: So the DNC's official stance is to keep LGBT causes under wraps?
Not the official position, but it is clear to me that that is the unofficial position.
TPM has a more detailed analysis that comes to the same conclusion that I've come to:
Through the Clinton years and since the Democrats have taken over in 2007, it has been made painstakingly clear to gay and lesbian Americans that they are not going to be entitled to anything politically, no matter what the constitution says.
I did run across a report while surfing last week that there is actually an agreement between Obama, Reid and Pelosi to back-burner DADT, ENDA, and DOMA -- they are "avoiding divisive social issues," which is just another way of saying that they're still running scared of the Republicans.
In light of that, a story like this, while reassuring, leaves me ambivalent:
At the July 1st commission meeting, the Oakland Park City Commission, working with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), American Veterans for Equal Rights (AVER), Fight OUT Loud, and many other organizations, brought forward a city resolution calling for the President and the United States Congress to adopt the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009 (House Resolution 1283), which eliminates the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (DADT) policy, which bans brave and dedicated Gay and Lesbian Servicemembers from serving openly in the Military.
The resolution passed unanimously.
I'm afraid my reaction at this point is "Do you honestly think they're listening?"
As usual, action is going to come from the courts:
The plaintiffs, represented by Olson and Boies were seeking an injunction on Proposition 8– which would, in effect, allow same-sex marriages to begin again immediately in California– but Judge Walker instead ordered that all parties move forward as quickly as possible toward primary resolution, rather than proceeding with arguments on injunction. “Given that serious questions are raised in these proceedings…” the Judge said, “the court is inclined to proceed directly and expeditiously to the merits of plaintiffs’ claims.”
While it is encouraging that Judge Walker intends to move quickly on this issue, it is important to remember that even a positive verdict from the District Court is not the final say on the issue. Any decision could, and likely would, be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
That last assumption is dubious, to be quite honest: Neither Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nor AG Jerry Brown support Prop 8, and Brown's office has already filed a brief in another case calling it a violation of civil rights. So, assuming a favorable verdict for the plaintiffs, appeal to the Ninth Circuit is up in the air.
"Unnatural Acts":
I thought this was a fitting finish, given the assumptions of not only the anti-gay right, but the DNC and the Obama administration. Mark Morford pulls together current research:
Are you thinking, why sure, everyone knows about those sex-crazed dolphins and those superslut bonobo monkeys and the few other godless creatures like them, the sea turtles and the weird sheep and such, creatures who obviously haven't read Leviticus. But that's about it, right? Most animals are devoutly hetero and straight and damn happy about it, right?
Wrong.
New research is revealing so many creatures and species that exhibit homosexual/bisexual behavior of some kind, scientists are now saying there are actually very few, if any, species in existence that don't exhibit it in some way. It's everywhere: Bison. Giraffes. Ducks. Hyenas. Lions and lambs, lizards and dragonflies, polecats and elephants. Hetero sex. Anal sex. Partner swapping. The works.
Once again, can someone explain the doctrine of "Natural Law" to me? In terms that have something to do with nature?
And for today's dessert, something a little different:
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Very Short Hiatus
I had intended to do a Friday Gay Blogging post today, but I'm just too unfocused right now. Maybe tomorrow, along with a Review in Brief of something that you're not expecting.
As a consolation prize, here's a picture:
As a consolation prize, here's a picture:
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Must Read
A very well-done article from Unite the Fight at Pam's House Blend on the Olson/Boies challenge to Prop 8. Essential reading if you're going to understand what's going on here, from the looks of it.
Effing Liar
Jeff Halstead, Fort Worth Chief of Police. From WFAA, via Dan Savage:
Monday, police chief Jeff Halstead said the officers' actions are being investigated. However, he also said that officers that entered the bar during the scheduled inspection were touched inappropriately.
"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."
He has no objective evidence to support his statement, and the accounts of eyewitnesses -- including video recordings -- directly dispute everything he's claiming.
This man needs to be fired. That's for starters.
Savage has contact information for the Mayor and city council members in Fort Worth.
Jim Burroway has an update on the condition of Chad Gibson, the 160 pound man who is accused of "groping" Fort Worth Police officers --he's also the one who has been in the hospital in serious condition, which classification has now been revised to "fair."
Burroway also has a post detailing Gibson's treatment during his arrest, with an update that establishes that Gibson was drunk but nowhere near "alcohol poisoning."
Here's a TV news report on the incident:
Y'kow, it occurs to me that if it takes five Fort Worth police officers to subdue a 160 pound faggot who's offering no resistance, maybe they're right to be afraid of us.
Monday, police chief Jeff Halstead said the officers' actions are being investigated. However, he also said that officers that entered the bar during the scheduled inspection were touched inappropriately.
"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."
He has no objective evidence to support his statement, and the accounts of eyewitnesses -- including video recordings -- directly dispute everything he's claiming.
This man needs to be fired. That's for starters.
Savage has contact information for the Mayor and city council members in Fort Worth.
Jim Burroway has an update on the condition of Chad Gibson, the 160 pound man who is accused of "groping" Fort Worth Police officers --he's also the one who has been in the hospital in serious condition, which classification has now been revised to "fair."
Burroway also has a post detailing Gibson's treatment during his arrest, with an update that establishes that Gibson was drunk but nowhere near "alcohol poisoning."
Here's a TV news report on the incident:
Y'kow, it occurs to me that if it takes five Fort Worth police officers to subdue a 160 pound faggot who's offering no resistance, maybe they're right to be afraid of us.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Gay Boy Makes Good
Remember Jim McGreevey? He's not only turned his life around, he's helping others do the same:
He is in a healthy, happy relationship with Mark as he studies to become an Episcopal priest. He is giving back to others who have made mistakes, often because they were caught up in the circumstances of their lives.
Gay people mostly forgave McGreevey for his affair when it came to light five years ago. We are well aware of the many ludicrous situations that occur because men, particularly in McGreevey’s generation, have been forced to live their lives in the closet. That he is living such an honorable and giving life freed from the shame of the closet is testament to the real Jim McGreevey.
McGreevey volunteers at Exodus Transitional Community at the Church of Living Hope in East Harlem, New York, which tries to help newly-released prisoners learn life skills and handle the significant challenges that ex-convicts face.
News like this starts connections forming in my head, such as the fact that, in most non-Judaeo-Christian societies, those with same-sex orientation seem to occupy a very high proportion of spiritual roles in the community -- one thinks immediately of the North American berdache, men who adopted women's roles and dress, and who were regarded as spiritually very powerful by their community. The men who married them were seen as specially favored. There are equivalent institutions in other cultures.
There is also, in shamanism, a recurring motif of the shaman-in-the-making becoming, at least psychically, a member of the opposite sex. This is supposed to complete him/her and enable the shaman to serve the whole community.
And can we talk about the high proportion of gay men in the priesthoods of various Christian denominations? (It would also be interesting to see a breakdown of members of the "helping" professions -- doctors, nurses, social workers, therapists -- by sexual orientation.)
Edward O. Wilson once posited the development of altruism as a result of genetic economics: if a non-breeding member of a group devotes his/her time to caring for others in the group -- offspring, mostly -- that behavior and the root causes of it (i.e., the non-breeding part) would be reinforced as an adaptive trait and carried on through siblings and their descendants. Can we see the same mechanism at work in the maintenance of same-sex orientation in vertebrates?
No conclusions, but some interesting trains of thought.
He is in a healthy, happy relationship with Mark as he studies to become an Episcopal priest. He is giving back to others who have made mistakes, often because they were caught up in the circumstances of their lives.
Gay people mostly forgave McGreevey for his affair when it came to light five years ago. We are well aware of the many ludicrous situations that occur because men, particularly in McGreevey’s generation, have been forced to live their lives in the closet. That he is living such an honorable and giving life freed from the shame of the closet is testament to the real Jim McGreevey.
McGreevey volunteers at Exodus Transitional Community at the Church of Living Hope in East Harlem, New York, which tries to help newly-released prisoners learn life skills and handle the significant challenges that ex-convicts face.
News like this starts connections forming in my head, such as the fact that, in most non-Judaeo-Christian societies, those with same-sex orientation seem to occupy a very high proportion of spiritual roles in the community -- one thinks immediately of the North American berdache, men who adopted women's roles and dress, and who were regarded as spiritually very powerful by their community. The men who married them were seen as specially favored. There are equivalent institutions in other cultures.
There is also, in shamanism, a recurring motif of the shaman-in-the-making becoming, at least psychically, a member of the opposite sex. This is supposed to complete him/her and enable the shaman to serve the whole community.
And can we talk about the high proportion of gay men in the priesthoods of various Christian denominations? (It would also be interesting to see a breakdown of members of the "helping" professions -- doctors, nurses, social workers, therapists -- by sexual orientation.)
Edward O. Wilson once posited the development of altruism as a result of genetic economics: if a non-breeding member of a group devotes his/her time to caring for others in the group -- offspring, mostly -- that behavior and the root causes of it (i.e., the non-breeding part) would be reinforced as an adaptive trait and carried on through siblings and their descendants. Can we see the same mechanism at work in the maintenance of same-sex orientation in vertebrates?
No conclusions, but some interesting trains of thought.
Irreverence du jour
Patrick Appel notes a disagreement between Paul Krugman and John Cole, two of my favorite people: Cole objects to Krugman's use of the word "treason" in public debate over global warming, suggesting a version of Godwin's law. Appel wonders:
How do we apply this law when both sides of the debate accuse the other side of treason? They can't both "lose automatically."
Yes they can.
How do we apply this law when both sides of the debate accuse the other side of treason? They can't both "lose automatically."
Yes they can.
About That Stonewall Anniversary Celebration
Not the one at the White House -- I'm so disgusted with the Obama administration right now that I don't even want to comment on their dog and pony shows. I'm talking about the one in Forth Worth. Jim Burroway and Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin have been pulling together the resources. Just scroll down their posts over the past couple of days -- and pay attention to the pieces in the sidebar, as well.
It becomes plainer and plainer that the police claims just don't stand up to even the barest scrutiny.
Look, we've all been in gay bars -- well, all of my gay readers, and probably a lot of the straight ones -- and we know that conditions are radically different than the police are claiming. Kincaid notes the reaction of one straight visitor to a gay bar: Jeff Prince of the Fort Worth Weekly's blog has this to say:
As I sat there, I kept figuring one of these guys would hit on me. I was going to politely explain to them that I wasn’t that way. Except nobody paid any attention to me. For 10 or 15 minutes not a single person spoke to me or approached me. I was relieved and offended at the same time. What am I chopped liver?
Another straight dude Weeklyteer Dan McGraw did a cover story called “Waking Up the Rainbow” in 2005 about gay politics in Fort Worth and spent several nights incognito at a gay bar called Best Friends. He had a similar experience of being ignored. “It was like hanging out at any other bar,” he said. “Most of the guys had been married before and had kids.”
For some reason, however, Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officers went into a gay bar on Saturday night and the patrons allegedly became fraught with horn and damn near raped our boys in blue.
Yeah, gay bars can get kind of raunchy, late at night when the conditions are right. Somehow, a police raid doesn't really spark the right mood, you know? And to tell the truth, I've had straight guys come on to me in gay bars. I remember one who was there with his wife -- he was cute, she was -- well, a women. They wanted a three way. I explained that I don't do women, ever. Normally, however, if you don't know people there, they won't talk to you for a while -- even if you're gay. (Sometimes I think it's especially if you're gay.)
At any rate, check out the posts at BTB. The story we're getting from FWPD stinks. (Note: One of the commenters at Prince's post was there -- he says the police are lying.)
It becomes plainer and plainer that the police claims just don't stand up to even the barest scrutiny.
Look, we've all been in gay bars -- well, all of my gay readers, and probably a lot of the straight ones -- and we know that conditions are radically different than the police are claiming. Kincaid notes the reaction of one straight visitor to a gay bar: Jeff Prince of the Fort Worth Weekly's blog has this to say:
As I sat there, I kept figuring one of these guys would hit on me. I was going to politely explain to them that I wasn’t that way. Except nobody paid any attention to me. For 10 or 15 minutes not a single person spoke to me or approached me. I was relieved and offended at the same time. What am I chopped liver?
Another straight dude Weeklyteer Dan McGraw did a cover story called “Waking Up the Rainbow” in 2005 about gay politics in Fort Worth and spent several nights incognito at a gay bar called Best Friends. He had a similar experience of being ignored. “It was like hanging out at any other bar,” he said. “Most of the guys had been married before and had kids.”
For some reason, however, Fort Worth police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission officers went into a gay bar on Saturday night and the patrons allegedly became fraught with horn and damn near raped our boys in blue.
Yeah, gay bars can get kind of raunchy, late at night when the conditions are right. Somehow, a police raid doesn't really spark the right mood, you know? And to tell the truth, I've had straight guys come on to me in gay bars. I remember one who was there with his wife -- he was cute, she was -- well, a women. They wanted a three way. I explained that I don't do women, ever. Normally, however, if you don't know people there, they won't talk to you for a while -- even if you're gay. (Sometimes I think it's especially if you're gay.)
At any rate, check out the posts at BTB. The story we're getting from FWPD stinks. (Note: One of the commenters at Prince's post was there -- he says the police are lying.)
Monday, June 29, 2009
Stonewall Revisited
So on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall uprising, what do we get? A raid on a gay bar.
The Dallas Voice’s blog is reporting that a gay bar in Ft. Worth, Texas, was raided sometime last night:
This fish smell many day dead. The police are coming up with all sorts of rationales that sound pretty bogus. Reports are still coming in on this one, so there's not much I can say, except to wonder if they really think they can get away with it? Of course, now that we live in a police state, there's no way to know. I have to say, though, no one reports the police claiming illegal drugs. How odd. Do you suppose they actually thought about this before they did it? Doesn't sound like it.
Here's a report from Joe Sudbay, with this bright note:
Fort Worth City Councilman Joel Burns issued the following statement:
It will be interesting to see how much effort the Fort Worth police expend on protecting the instigators here. Maximum, I would suspect. There was one patron who suffered a head injury and is hospitalized. Should be an interesting law suit coming out of this -- a lot of them, I hope.
The Dallas Voice’s blog is reporting that a gay bar in Ft. Worth, Texas, was raided sometime last night:
This fish smell many day dead. The police are coming up with all sorts of rationales that sound pretty bogus. Reports are still coming in on this one, so there's not much I can say, except to wonder if they really think they can get away with it? Of course, now that we live in a police state, there's no way to know. I have to say, though, no one reports the police claiming illegal drugs. How odd. Do you suppose they actually thought about this before they did it? Doesn't sound like it.
Here's a report from Joe Sudbay, with this bright note:
Fort Worth City Councilman Joel Burns issued the following statement:
I want all citizens of Texas and Fort Worth to know and be assured that the laws and ordinances of our great State and City will be applied fairly, equally and without malice or selective enforcement. I consider this to be part of "The Fort Worth Way" here. As an elected representative of the city of Fort Worth, I am calling for an immediate and thorough investigation of the actions of the City of Fort Worth Police and Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission in relation to the incident at the Rainbow Lounge earlier this morning, June 28, 2009.
It is unfortunate that this incident occurred in Fort Worth and even more so to have occurred on the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall protests. Unlike 40 years ago, though, the people of this community have elective representation that will make sure our government is accountable and that the rights of all of its citizens are protected. I are working together with our Mayor, Police Chief, the City of Fort Worth Human Relations Commission, and our State Legislative colleagues to get a complete and accurate accounting of what occurred.
Rest assured that neither the people of Fort Worth, nor the city government of Fort Worth, will tolerate discrimination against any of its citizens. And know that the GLBT Community is an integral part of the economic and cultural life of Fort Worth.
Every Fort Worth citizen deserves to have questions around this incident answered and I am working aggressively toward that end.
It will be interesting to see how much effort the Fort Worth police expend on protecting the instigators here. Maximum, I would suspect. There was one patron who suffered a head injury and is hospitalized. Should be an interesting law suit coming out of this -- a lot of them, I hope.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
I know, I know. . .
I haven't posted in a couple of days. Chalk it up to the most annoying week in the history of Western civilization -- I finally just pooped out. I managed not to finish a single writing project yesterday, although I started several.
It was that kind of day.
However, I ran across something in passing at Pam's House Blend that made me think a bit. It's a post by The Author on those pre-medieval minds at Manifest Glory Ministries who tried to exorcise "the homosexual demons" from a sixteen-year-old boy.
I don't think I really need to comment on that, except to point out that the pastor and congregation appear to be a few centuries behind the rest of the world. (By the way, the boy, according to the blogosphere, is now attending an LGBT-affirming church.)
This comment made me stop:
I'm not even going to answer that silliness except for to say that not all gay pride parades are the same. Down here in South Carolina, our events are extremely family-friendly.
I'm not sure what that means. I was on a float a couple of years running, and there are lots of families in the audience here in Chicago. Most of them are straight. And all of them are cheering, the leatherfolk and dancers no less than the politicians. (Actually, for the dancers, probably more.) I suspect that "family friendly" doesn't mean the same thing in Chicago that it does on South Carolina. In fact, I'm sure of it.
I've commented on Pride Parades and their context before (here and here), but just want to restate it once again for those who have internalized their closets: It's our parade. It's not James Dobson's parade, it's not Barack Obama's parade, it's not Middle America's parade. It's our parade, with all the color, vitality, and in-your-face outrageousness that are the gay community. If it bothers you, stay home.
And, come to think of it, today is Parade day in Chicago. I'm probably not going to go -- those pesky writing projects, which do need to be finished tout suite. And I'm not really in the mood, although if I didn't have to work tomorrow I might be tempted to go out and tie one on. After this week, that might be the best course.
But no. I'm going to be responsible.
I hate myself sometimes.
It was that kind of day.
However, I ran across something in passing at Pam's House Blend that made me think a bit. It's a post by The Author on those pre-medieval minds at Manifest Glory Ministries who tried to exorcise "the homosexual demons" from a sixteen-year-old boy.
I don't think I really need to comment on that, except to point out that the pastor and congregation appear to be a few centuries behind the rest of the world. (By the way, the boy, according to the blogosphere, is now attending an LGBT-affirming church.)
This comment made me stop:
I'm not even going to answer that silliness except for to say that not all gay pride parades are the same. Down here in South Carolina, our events are extremely family-friendly.
I'm not sure what that means. I was on a float a couple of years running, and there are lots of families in the audience here in Chicago. Most of them are straight. And all of them are cheering, the leatherfolk and dancers no less than the politicians. (Actually, for the dancers, probably more.) I suspect that "family friendly" doesn't mean the same thing in Chicago that it does on South Carolina. In fact, I'm sure of it.
I've commented on Pride Parades and their context before (here and here), but just want to restate it once again for those who have internalized their closets: It's our parade. It's not James Dobson's parade, it's not Barack Obama's parade, it's not Middle America's parade. It's our parade, with all the color, vitality, and in-your-face outrageousness that are the gay community. If it bothers you, stay home.
And, come to think of it, today is Parade day in Chicago. I'm probably not going to go -- those pesky writing projects, which do need to be finished tout suite. And I'm not really in the mood, although if I didn't have to work tomorrow I might be tempted to go out and tie one on. After this week, that might be the best course.
But no. I'm going to be responsible.
I hate myself sometimes.
Reviews in Brief: R. M. Meluch's The Sagittarius Command
A little departure for us today, an old-fashioned space opera (known these days as "military sf") with a couple of interesting twists.The Sagittarius Command is the third volume in R. M. Meluch's series, The Tour of the Merrimack. The known galaxy is dominated by two interstellar empires, the United States of America and the Palatine Empire, a resurrected Rome. In previous volumes, we've seen the reaction of both to the advent of the Hive, an alien species that travels in groups, seems to have no particular intelligence other than a hive-mind, and eats anything organic in its path. In previous volumes we've seen the discovery of the Hive, the victory of the Merrimack over Roman forces that enabled its captain, John Farragut, to enforce an alliance (called by the Romans "The Subjugation," and bitterly resented), and gotten a good idea of the political context, both interstellar and earthbound.
This installment begins with a surprise encroachment by the Hive on a Roman colony in Near Space, close to both Palatine and Earth. Farragut and the Merrimack are able to save most of the inhabitants and destroy the Hive (individually known as "gorgons," "soldiers," and "gluies," depending on the type), much to the disgust and resentment of its Roman garrison, Legion LXXI Draconis, and its commander, Herius Asinius. The Dracs wind up as part of Attack Group I when the allied strategy changes and it looks as though the point of origin of the Hive has been located.
Meluch's earlier works were relatively straightforward, hard-edged, poetic stories. The edge is here, as well, but this series is a space opera with a lot of intrigue and political maneuvering -- try to think of a cross between E. E. "Doc" Smith and C. J. Cherryh. She also set up an anomaly in the first volume that continues to play itself out, although at this stage I'm beginning to wonder whether it's a device she's actually going to use, or she's just playing with our heads: at the end of The Myriad, she shifted everything into an alternate universe. We're still in that universe, but the previous one does crop up in something that Farragut remembers that he shouldn't.
Characters, by the way, are a treat: larger than life, and basically stereotypical, but strongly drawn, and they do manage to surmount their origins to become real people. And the relationship between Farragut and Augustus, a Roman patterner, is a nice, edgy, not-quite-homoerotic kind of thing (although Augustus' interest is not entirely platonic). (Augustus' brain and body have been altered to enable him to process vast amounts of data and draw connections; he has no memory of anything before that process began.)
I've reviewed previous volumes in other places. The Myriad is at Rambles, and Wolf Star at Epinions. This one's published by DAW.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Two Must-Reads
From Timothy Kincaid and Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin.
The first, from Kincaid, about building bridges with Christians. It's strategic, and makes a lot of sense.
Wendy Gritter of New Directions is seeking to increase communication and decrease hostility between the Christian community and the gay community. While I do not see these as necessarily exclusive communities, it is unquestionable that conservative Christians and gay people are to some extent at war with each other.
Towards the goal of healing, Wendy came up with the concept of a synchroblog, a time in which everyone would focus on their perspectives about such communication. She chose today, the Wednesday of Pride Week, for this effort. So today, a couple dozen bloggers with various Christian or gay perspectives will be participating in this joint conversation and Wendy invited me to join them.
Kincaid goes on to give his position. It's a good, and thought-provoking, read. Realizing full well that I am one of the angrier posters on gay issues (although in my own defense, I do try to maintain a relatively moderate tone and not go into shrill mode -- I have this thing about factual accuracy, you see, although my diction is sometimes blunt), I strongly support what's being proposed here.
Burroway's comments are more tactical:
About the White House cocktail party on June 29:
The seeds for my turnaround were planted when I finished that sentence:
Burroway points out something that I hadn't known and that radically changes my thinking on this event:
The third argument concerns His Friendly Gays themselves, and builds on the much-hated image of “A-Gays” drinking and schmoozing and not getting much done. That’s a hard image to knock down, but we do have to remember that in a town like Washington, D.C., relationships are formed and messages put across over exactly these kinds of activities. This is true in D.C. much moreso than in anywhere else, where these events are typically little more than non-work social hours.
And as for His Friendly Gays, it appears the gathering will be much broader than that. Some of those invited include some of the administration’s harsher critics on LGBT issues. One of those who will be there is Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, who is about to be fired from the Air Force for being gay. He’ll be there as a guest of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network. The invite list isn’t limited to those from inside the Beltway, which is exactly what’s needed to punch through the Presidential bubble. They aren’t the get-along-to-go-along usual suspects, although I’m sure some of them will be there also.
Knowing that it's not going to be the A Gays only makes a big difference in my thinking on this, because it's the non-As that need to be heard.
I'm still not happy with Obama's lack of support for gay issues, and to be honest I don't expect a big turn-around after something like this, but frankly, if increments are all you've got, then use the increments.
The first, from Kincaid, about building bridges with Christians. It's strategic, and makes a lot of sense.
Wendy Gritter of New Directions is seeking to increase communication and decrease hostility between the Christian community and the gay community. While I do not see these as necessarily exclusive communities, it is unquestionable that conservative Christians and gay people are to some extent at war with each other.
Towards the goal of healing, Wendy came up with the concept of a synchroblog, a time in which everyone would focus on their perspectives about such communication. She chose today, the Wednesday of Pride Week, for this effort. So today, a couple dozen bloggers with various Christian or gay perspectives will be participating in this joint conversation and Wendy invited me to join them.
Kincaid goes on to give his position. It's a good, and thought-provoking, read. Realizing full well that I am one of the angrier posters on gay issues (although in my own defense, I do try to maintain a relatively moderate tone and not go into shrill mode -- I have this thing about factual accuracy, you see, although my diction is sometimes blunt), I strongly support what's being proposed here.
Burroway's comments are more tactical:
About the White House cocktail party on June 29:
But a cocktail party? I can’t imagine that any self-respecting gay person would agree to go to a cocktail party at this stage in our difficult relationship with the current administration. . .
The seeds for my turnaround were planted when I finished that sentence:
…although I have to concede that House and Senate Republicans, even some of the most conservative ones, have taken the White House up on similar invitations.
Burroway points out something that I hadn't known and that radically changes my thinking on this event:
The third argument concerns His Friendly Gays themselves, and builds on the much-hated image of “A-Gays” drinking and schmoozing and not getting much done. That’s a hard image to knock down, but we do have to remember that in a town like Washington, D.C., relationships are formed and messages put across over exactly these kinds of activities. This is true in D.C. much moreso than in anywhere else, where these events are typically little more than non-work social hours.
And as for His Friendly Gays, it appears the gathering will be much broader than that. Some of those invited include some of the administration’s harsher critics on LGBT issues. One of those who will be there is Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, who is about to be fired from the Air Force for being gay. He’ll be there as a guest of the Servicemember’s Legal Defense Network. The invite list isn’t limited to those from inside the Beltway, which is exactly what’s needed to punch through the Presidential bubble. They aren’t the get-along-to-go-along usual suspects, although I’m sure some of them will be there also.
Knowing that it's not going to be the A Gays only makes a big difference in my thinking on this, because it's the non-As that need to be heard.
I'm still not happy with Obama's lack of support for gay issues, and to be honest I don't expect a big turn-around after something like this, but frankly, if increments are all you've got, then use the increments.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Local News
This is a good one -- and (my bad!) I had to go to Lawyers, Guns and Money to find it.
I don't know if anyone remembers this incident, of an off-duty Chicago cop beating a tiny little female bartender because she wouldn't serve him another drink. He was obviously inebriated, and by law she's required to cut him off. Here's the video:
It came to court, and the judge -- that Judge John J. Fleming, remember that name -- well, here's Paul Campos' summary:
Judge John J. Fleming thought this didn't merit any jail time, because a two-minute vicious beating of an 115-pound woman by a 250-pound drunk psychopath only resulted in "some bumps and bruises."
On the upside, the CPD is trying to fire the guy -- she was the third person he'd beaten up that day (yes -- that day!).
And Judge John J. Fleming is up for retention in the next election. Guess how I'm voting on that one.
I don't know if anyone remembers this incident, of an off-duty Chicago cop beating a tiny little female bartender because she wouldn't serve him another drink. He was obviously inebriated, and by law she's required to cut him off. Here's the video:
It came to court, and the judge -- that Judge John J. Fleming, remember that name -- well, here's Paul Campos' summary:
Judge John J. Fleming thought this didn't merit any jail time, because a two-minute vicious beating of an 115-pound woman by a 250-pound drunk psychopath only resulted in "some bumps and bruises."
On the upside, the CPD is trying to fire the guy -- she was the third person he'd beaten up that day (yes -- that day!).
And Judge John J. Fleming is up for retention in the next election. Guess how I'm voting on that one.
It Just Doesn't Stop
I realize this has become almost a one-issue blog, but -- well, it's an important issue, at least for me, and it's very revealing, I think, of just what we've installed in the White House.
Here's the latest on the appeal by members of Congress to Obama to stop discharges under DADT. From Kerry Eleveld at The Advocate:
The White House has responded to an inquiry from The Advocate about a letter sent from 77 House members Monday urging President Barack Obama to take immediate action to stop the investigations of "don't ask, don't tell" violations.
"President Obama remains committed to a legislative repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which he believes will provide a durable and lasting solution to this issue. He welcomes the commitment of these members to seeing Congress take action," read the statement.
The president's position is ridiculous on its face: we're talking about the repeal of a law here. Yes, the law is odious and reflects a terrible policy, and it should be repealed. But that's the whole point: laws can be repealed, so what is this bullshit about a "durable and lasting solution?" It's noise, that's all. It's white noise to mask the fact that the Obama administration, if spite of his fine words, has absolutely no commitment to insuring equality for gay Americans -- and is, in fact, backing off from opportunities to do just that. (And note that the letter didn't even request an executive order -- just an implementation of the "Don't Pursue" part of the policy. The full text is included in the article, along with a list of signers. If your congresscritter isn't among them, make noise.)
Let's get it straight: nothing is permanent in a democracy, not even in a democratic republic like ours: laws can be made and repealed, court decisions can be overridden, even the Constitution can be amended -- and fundamental rights, at least in some places, can be withheld by popular vote. Let's cut the crap, OK?
Well, boys and girls, there you have it: we seem to have another liar in the Oval Office.
There may be more: I'm just getting started this morning.
Here's the latest on the appeal by members of Congress to Obama to stop discharges under DADT. From Kerry Eleveld at The Advocate:
The White House has responded to an inquiry from The Advocate about a letter sent from 77 House members Monday urging President Barack Obama to take immediate action to stop the investigations of "don't ask, don't tell" violations.
"President Obama remains committed to a legislative repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which he believes will provide a durable and lasting solution to this issue. He welcomes the commitment of these members to seeing Congress take action," read the statement.
The president's position is ridiculous on its face: we're talking about the repeal of a law here. Yes, the law is odious and reflects a terrible policy, and it should be repealed. But that's the whole point: laws can be repealed, so what is this bullshit about a "durable and lasting solution?" It's noise, that's all. It's white noise to mask the fact that the Obama administration, if spite of his fine words, has absolutely no commitment to insuring equality for gay Americans -- and is, in fact, backing off from opportunities to do just that. (And note that the letter didn't even request an executive order -- just an implementation of the "Don't Pursue" part of the policy. The full text is included in the article, along with a list of signers. If your congresscritter isn't among them, make noise.)
Let's get it straight: nothing is permanent in a democracy, not even in a democratic republic like ours: laws can be made and repealed, court decisions can be overridden, even the Constitution can be amended -- and fundamental rights, at least in some places, can be withheld by popular vote. Let's cut the crap, OK?
Well, boys and girls, there you have it: we seem to have another liar in the Oval Office.
There may be more: I'm just getting started this morning.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Deconstructing the Memes
Jim Burroway has an excellent analysis of the DoJ Motion to Dismiss in Smelt, with particular reference, at least at the beginning, to the "incest" and "pedophilia" charges. I'm withholding judgment on this one: Burroway makes an excellent case, contra Aravosis, that there is no such comparison. However, I'm also very conscious of the effect that a decade and a half of right-wing reiteration of the gay man=child molester mantra, false as it is, has replaced the reality in people's minds. As I said in a previous post, I'm surprised DoJ didn't find a way to include bestiality: it's the gay-baiters' trifecta, and has been for some time.
So, even though the brief doesn't make explicit comparison, by advancing arguments founded on those relationships, they are evoking the worst calumnies the right can think of against the gay community. (Guess they figured "destruction of Western civilization" wasn't going to work.) If you doubt me on this, just remember that, although it sounds like a joke, it's been borne out by psychological studies: if you repeat something three times, it's true.
But do read all of Burroway's post. He goes on to point out the ways in which the DoJ brief is explicitly insulting to the gay community, all of which were unnecessary. It's right on point.
So, even though the brief doesn't make explicit comparison, by advancing arguments founded on those relationships, they are evoking the worst calumnies the right can think of against the gay community. (Guess they figured "destruction of Western civilization" wasn't going to work.) If you doubt me on this, just remember that, although it sounds like a joke, it's been borne out by psychological studies: if you repeat something three times, it's true.
But do read all of Burroway's post. He goes on to point out the ways in which the DoJ brief is explicitly insulting to the gay community, all of which were unnecessary. It's right on point.
The Torture Club
Interesting article in Slate on a recent decision in Padilla vs. Yoo that may finally give us, as the citizens whose names have been blackened by the previous administration, some relief.
In 2002, Justice Department lawyer John Yoo wrote a memo recommending that Jose Padilla, arrested in Chicago in the wake of 9/11 and held on suspicion of plotting a dirty-bomb attack, be classified as an enemy combatant. Yoo also wrote memos arguing that American law does not prevent the president from ordering such enemy combatants tortured. This January, after enduring years of abuse in prison, Padilla sued Yoo for violating his constitutional rights.
And a week ago, Judge Jeffrey White ruled that Padilla's allegations were plausible enough to justify denying Yoo's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. White was appointed by George W. Bush the year Yoo was writing his memos.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the calls to "move forward" and "not dwell on the past" on the issue of torture, Guantanamo, rendition, and the like are just a way to keep the Bush administration jackasses off the hook. And it doesn't do Obama's credit any good in this quarter for him to be acceding to this bullshit. (I did wonder how much he was going to love unlimited presidential power once he was in the Oval Office. I guess we're starting to get the idea.)
(As an aside, I also have to wonder what kind of wars are going on over at DoJ, staffed at this point with a strong contingent of Bush loyalists who got moved into civil service jobs from their political appointments once Bush finally figured out that he would not be serving a third term.)
This is sort of disgusting, but no more than I'd expect of the Supreme Court as presently constituted:
In order to hold high-ranking government officials liable, plaintiffs need strong evidence that the officials personally authorized the conduct. Just last month, the Supreme Court made it a lot harder to get that evidence: It dismissed the lawsuit brought by Javaid Iqbal, who was rounded up in New York after 9/11 along with thousands of other Muslims, against John Ashcroft. The court held that Iqbal hadn't provided enough preliminary evidence to justify "subjecting high ranking Government officials ... to the burdens of discovery." That's right—he didn't have enough evidence to go get the evidence he needs to prove his claims.
Maybe Judge White's decision will help to circumvent that kind of crap -- this Court is no friend to American citizens at all.
In 2002, Justice Department lawyer John Yoo wrote a memo recommending that Jose Padilla, arrested in Chicago in the wake of 9/11 and held on suspicion of plotting a dirty-bomb attack, be classified as an enemy combatant. Yoo also wrote memos arguing that American law does not prevent the president from ordering such enemy combatants tortured. This January, after enduring years of abuse in prison, Padilla sued Yoo for violating his constitutional rights.
And a week ago, Judge Jeffrey White ruled that Padilla's allegations were plausible enough to justify denying Yoo's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. White was appointed by George W. Bush the year Yoo was writing his memos.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the calls to "move forward" and "not dwell on the past" on the issue of torture, Guantanamo, rendition, and the like are just a way to keep the Bush administration jackasses off the hook. And it doesn't do Obama's credit any good in this quarter for him to be acceding to this bullshit. (I did wonder how much he was going to love unlimited presidential power once he was in the Oval Office. I guess we're starting to get the idea.)
(As an aside, I also have to wonder what kind of wars are going on over at DoJ, staffed at this point with a strong contingent of Bush loyalists who got moved into civil service jobs from their political appointments once Bush finally figured out that he would not be serving a third term.)
This is sort of disgusting, but no more than I'd expect of the Supreme Court as presently constituted:
In order to hold high-ranking government officials liable, plaintiffs need strong evidence that the officials personally authorized the conduct. Just last month, the Supreme Court made it a lot harder to get that evidence: It dismissed the lawsuit brought by Javaid Iqbal, who was rounded up in New York after 9/11 along with thousands of other Muslims, against John Ashcroft. The court held that Iqbal hadn't provided enough preliminary evidence to justify "subjecting high ranking Government officials ... to the burdens of discovery." That's right—he didn't have enough evidence to go get the evidence he needs to prove his claims.
Maybe Judge White's decision will help to circumvent that kind of crap -- this Court is no friend to American citizens at all.
It Still Hot in the Kitchen
And it's going to stay that way until dinner is served.
First, from Jane Hamsher, some insight:
I've heard about A-List gays in DC having their arms twisted to push back against criticism of the White House for its handling of DADT and DOMA. I know many of these people and their commitment to ending DADT and DOMA is sincere, and having their livelihoods (and those of the people who work for them) threatened if they don't intervene on behalf of the White House is truly low politics.
The campaign that John and Joe Sudbay are waging to stop people from attending the $1000 a head DNC gay fundraiser this Thursday has been impressive. Movements that start at the grassroots create the space for everyone to operate in, and aren't susceptible to being squelched because those at the top are able to put the screws to a few key people.
That sounds about right. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of tactics that ever occur to me -- I don't consider myself particularly virtuous or anything, but I'd not stoop to that, I think. Of course, with this White House crew, we still down know how much -- or how little -- they have to stoop to touch bottom. We're starting to get an idea, though.
And of course, the administration's solution, since the dog-and-pony benefits thing didn't work, is to have another cocktail party. Mike Signorile:
This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.
It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- most all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT.
Let me point out something once again: DOMA repeal is a tough nut, no doubt about it -- but that's why Obama has to get behind it. DADT, on the other hand, is a no brainer -- at this point, FTLOP, a majority of Republicans favor repeal. What the hell is Obama waiting for, and if you tell me it's the Joint Chiefs, will someone please enlighten us as to just who the comander-in-chief is?
And please don't spend money on another cocktail party. Put it into AIDS research or something useful. (Read Signorile's complete post -- it's a good take.)
This OpEd by Jonathan Capehart in yesterday's WaPo has drawn a lot of fire from Aravosis, Spaulding, and others, and it's really a mixed bag, but not as bad as has been claimed. Capehart's comments on the DoJ brief in Smelt are intelligent, give or take the still debatable standing argument (although most lawyers seem to regard that one as substantial). Capehart misses on small point:
The plaintiffs lack standing. Case closed. That would have been fine with gay rights groups, which viewed Smelt-Hammer as an imperfect vehicle for challenging DOMA's constitutionality. "We had no problem with DOJ getting rid of this case," one legal expert told me. "The plaintiffs didn't tell a good story."
What Capehart misses is that the "gay rights groups" he's talking about no longer have the support of their constituency. They are widely viewed in the community, with some justification, as lobbyists to the community for the administration, and not the other way around.
Where critics are correct on this one is that Capehart blows the "memorandum signing" out of proportion. It's not new, it's not enough, and it's an attempt to deflect criticism from the substantive issues.
As far as Capehart attempting to put the blame on Congress, Congress is doing something. From my own Congressional rep, Jan Schakowsky, via Pam's House Blend:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)
There is good and bad news but nothing that can't or won't be overcome in time.
The bad news -- The Justice Department filed a brief supporting DOMA. I read it. First of all, it wasn't necessary to file a brief at all, especially one that asked for the entire lawsuit to be dismissed. Very disappointing. I was unaware that it was coming, as were all of the House members.
The good news - Just this week, the President, in unequivocal terms, called for the repeal of DOMA. He said, "Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it." Rep. Jerry Nadler, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, is working on a DOMA repeal bill that he plans to introduce after the July 4th recess. I'll be on it.
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL
Legislation has been introduced by Ellen Tauscher, the chief sponsor of the bill, HR 1283, to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm a co-sponsor. I have good reason to believe the President will support this legislation -- but it's not clear when.
There are some barbs here -- note that last sentence -- and some good news.
What's coming back to haunt Obama now is that what's happening is not happening because of him, and in some cases in spite of him (or at least, his DoJ). And you expect me to call this leadership?
Nuh-uh.
First, from Jane Hamsher, some insight:
I've heard about A-List gays in DC having their arms twisted to push back against criticism of the White House for its handling of DADT and DOMA. I know many of these people and their commitment to ending DADT and DOMA is sincere, and having their livelihoods (and those of the people who work for them) threatened if they don't intervene on behalf of the White House is truly low politics.
The campaign that John and Joe Sudbay are waging to stop people from attending the $1000 a head DNC gay fundraiser this Thursday has been impressive. Movements that start at the grassroots create the space for everyone to operate in, and aren't susceptible to being squelched because those at the top are able to put the screws to a few key people.
That sounds about right. Unfortunately, it's not the kind of tactics that ever occur to me -- I don't consider myself particularly virtuous or anything, but I'd not stoop to that, I think. Of course, with this White House crew, we still down know how much -- or how little -- they have to stoop to touch bottom. We're starting to get an idea, though.
And of course, the administration's solution, since the dog-and-pony benefits thing didn't work, is to have another cocktail party. Mike Signorile:
This is pretty outrageous. In the midst of all the anger from LGBT people over the DOMA brief and the inadequate response -- so far -- by the Obama administration, gay lobbyists, executive directors and assorted others who comprise what is identified as the gay leadership apparently have been invited to a party at the White House thrown just for them.
It's another photo-op in which everyone -- the president and the gays -- can look happy and like they're having fun, but more so, it's a way for the White House to wank off the gay leaders a bit while still not delivering. None of them should fall for it -- and that means they should not attend this event -- most all the Human Rights Campaign. We don't want cocktails for high-paid gay and lesbians lobbyists and executive directors looking to schmooze and feel important. We want action on our rights, and at this point it means DOMA and DADT.
Let me point out something once again: DOMA repeal is a tough nut, no doubt about it -- but that's why Obama has to get behind it. DADT, on the other hand, is a no brainer -- at this point, FTLOP, a majority of Republicans favor repeal. What the hell is Obama waiting for, and if you tell me it's the Joint Chiefs, will someone please enlighten us as to just who the comander-in-chief is?
And please don't spend money on another cocktail party. Put it into AIDS research or something useful. (Read Signorile's complete post -- it's a good take.)
This OpEd by Jonathan Capehart in yesterday's WaPo has drawn a lot of fire from Aravosis, Spaulding, and others, and it's really a mixed bag, but not as bad as has been claimed. Capehart's comments on the DoJ brief in Smelt are intelligent, give or take the still debatable standing argument (although most lawyers seem to regard that one as substantial). Capehart misses on small point:
The plaintiffs lack standing. Case closed. That would have been fine with gay rights groups, which viewed Smelt-Hammer as an imperfect vehicle for challenging DOMA's constitutionality. "We had no problem with DOJ getting rid of this case," one legal expert told me. "The plaintiffs didn't tell a good story."
What Capehart misses is that the "gay rights groups" he's talking about no longer have the support of their constituency. They are widely viewed in the community, with some justification, as lobbyists to the community for the administration, and not the other way around.
Where critics are correct on this one is that Capehart blows the "memorandum signing" out of proportion. It's not new, it's not enough, and it's an attempt to deflect criticism from the substantive issues.
As far as Capehart attempting to put the blame on Congress, Congress is doing something. From my own Congressional rep, Jan Schakowsky, via Pam's House Blend:
DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)
There is good and bad news but nothing that can't or won't be overcome in time.
The bad news -- The Justice Department filed a brief supporting DOMA. I read it. First of all, it wasn't necessary to file a brief at all, especially one that asked for the entire lawsuit to be dismissed. Very disappointing. I was unaware that it was coming, as were all of the House members.
The good news - Just this week, the President, in unequivocal terms, called for the repeal of DOMA. He said, "Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it." Rep. Jerry Nadler, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, is working on a DOMA repeal bill that he plans to introduce after the July 4th recess. I'll be on it.
DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL
Legislation has been introduced by Ellen Tauscher, the chief sponsor of the bill, HR 1283, to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I'm a co-sponsor. I have good reason to believe the President will support this legislation -- but it's not clear when.
There are some barbs here -- note that last sentence -- and some good news.
What's coming back to haunt Obama now is that what's happening is not happening because of him, and in some cases in spite of him (or at least, his DoJ). And you expect me to call this leadership?
Nuh-uh.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Reviews in Brief: Kazusa Takashima's Man's Best Friend
Kazusa Takashima seems to be one for charming stories with not a whole lot of substance, and absolutely gorgeous drawing. I've been looking for Man's Best Friend since I read Wild Rock, and finally got hold of a copy.
The title story concerns Ukyo, a student who rescues a very dirty, very scruffy stray. He takes him home, gives him and bath and a name -- Kuro -- and starts wondering about his sanity when Kuro turns into a gorgeous young man -- with dog ears and tail.
There are actually three stories about Ukyo and Kuro. The second details what happens when you take your dog for a walk, if the dog happens to have gotten so excited about going out that he turned into a human. The third is about what happens when a boy and his dog decide to play in the water on a hot summer's day.
The second set of stories are about Kasumi and Ken, childhood friends separated at an early age by Kasumi's parents' divorce. Kasumi eventually comes back to spend summer vacation with his father, which is when Ken finally realizes two things: Kasumi is a boy, and he's gorgeous.
The final fiction selection here,"Princess Goldfish," is fairly weird: Keisuke is just about to make some time with his friend when he is distracted by a couple of kids, disappointed in their winnings at the Pet Lottery -- a goldfish. As they are on the verge of tossing it away, Keisuke buys it from them and takes it home. As he's sleeping that evening, he suddenly realizes there's a beautiful boy in his bed: the goldfish he rescued, taken human form to thank him. And thank him he does.
Yes, the stories are light, but very entertaining, especially the Ukyo/Kuro series. Kuro, in particular, is a wonderful characterization, both through dialogue and drawing: he is about as believable a dog-turned-boy as possible, from his awkwardness in walking on two legs to his puppyish enthusiasm to his rambunctious sexuality. Even his difficulty with human speech is wonderful. Strong characterization is something that holds good throughout this collection.
And the drawing is indeed wonderful. Not as finished as Wild Rock, but somehow more appealing because of it. And Takashima has done some beautiful things with page layouts and flow here. There is a gorgeous two-page spread of Kuro in the third story. (And for those concerned with such things, sex scenes are quite restrained.)
This one's from BLU, and imprint of Tokyopop.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
After the Storm
I'm rained out, thanks to localized severe storms yesterday that appear to have been localized on my block -- no power since yesterday morning, soggy carpets (there's something unnerving about a floor that goes "squish" when you walk across it), and a computer that may or may not be functional -- I won't know until I have power back. (I'm actually at the office right now, since I really need to catch up on some writing, and there's nothing I can actually do at home. I could have gone to a coffee shop and done everything longhand, but a) my hand gets tired, and b) not even I can read my handwriting any more. And I have to listen to their crappy music.)
It seems a 100-year-old tree a couple of doors down took out the power lines, a pole, the neighbor's garage, and, I'm told, part of her house. We lost a Volvo or two down the street, but otherwise, there's amazingly little damage overall. As for me -- I think the computer is probably OK, because it doesn't look like there was actually any standing water in my place. The Books of Magic will never be the same, though. Ditto for 07 Ghost, Volume 1 and Blue Skies. (Of course you use the floor as emergency shelf space -- what else it is for?) And I was going to defrost the freezer anyway.
I happened to have been standing on the el platform when the microburst, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, hit. It was pretty spectacular. And bizarre. (Imagine winds so strong that you're not getting rain any more, just fine spray. Blowing horizontally.) I did get on a train, and half a mile south, nothing.
Today, of course, is a perfect summer day -- sunny, warm, light wispy clouds, soft breezes. Welcome to Chicago.
(Crossposted at Booklag.)
It seems a 100-year-old tree a couple of doors down took out the power lines, a pole, the neighbor's garage, and, I'm told, part of her house. We lost a Volvo or two down the street, but otherwise, there's amazingly little damage overall. As for me -- I think the computer is probably OK, because it doesn't look like there was actually any standing water in my place. The Books of Magic will never be the same, though. Ditto for 07 Ghost, Volume 1 and Blue Skies. (Of course you use the floor as emergency shelf space -- what else it is for?) And I was going to defrost the freezer anyway.
I happened to have been standing on the el platform when the microburst, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, hit. It was pretty spectacular. And bizarre. (Imagine winds so strong that you're not getting rain any more, just fine spray. Blowing horizontally.) I did get on a train, and half a mile south, nothing.
Today, of course, is a perfect summer day -- sunny, warm, light wispy clouds, soft breezes. Welcome to Chicago.
(Crossposted at Booklag.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)