Counterpoint

This is the denouement for Obama's HRC speech Saturday night -- really a response to the march yesterday. Didn't take long, did it?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

As you might imagine, the reaction in the gay community is not positive. Both John Aravosis and Pam Spaulding were right on top of this one, and neither was being very nice.

FDL has a transcript of the relevant portion, but I'm going to zero in on one comment:

LESTER HOLT: John what we saw in that protest today, was it simply frustration or does it represent a serious problem the President is having with an important part of his base?

JOHN HARWOOD: As a practical matter Lester I don’t think it’s a serious problem. we’ve seen and certainly Bill Clinton learned that they Democratic President can get punished by the mainstream of the electorate for being too aggressive on social issues so for now I think the administration feels that if they take care of the big issues — health care, energy, the economy — he’s going to be just fine with this group. (Emphasis added.)

It appears that the White House really is stuck in 1993. It's this kind of thinking that informs the entire HRC, "wait-and-see" wing of the movement, and it's this kind of thinking that gets Obama a pass for not producing. And let's get a little real about this -- it's not the mainstream that Obama -- that is, Emanuel -- is afraid of. It's the rabid right. Jim Burroway has done us the signal service of rounding up some of the more coherent initial reactions from the Neverneverland set.

Digby sums it up nicely:

It's Goldilocks punditry: since the gasbags had to admit that the teabaggers are a bunch of loons, they also have to dismiss the LGBT community and "the left" as loons as well. That means the village is juuuuust right.

Also keep in mind that John Harwood is one of the biggest putzes in town.

Unfortunately, it's the putzes who are getting the air time. (And this is new exactly how?)

The big problem with the Obama administration to date, as I see it, is that it took no time at all for them to become establishment politicians and adopt the Village mindset.

Update:

From The Plumline, the White House is denying, denying, denying the "internet left fringe" slam:

Asked for comment, White House senior communications adviser Dan Pfeiffer emailed:

“That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”

Now, of course that "administration advisor" is safely anonymous, and I will grant that the administration does seem to be interested in keeping the blogosphere in the loop. So was it Harwood just stirring shit, or do we have a case of plausible deniability here? I, and most other commentators I've run across, have taken those remarks as being directed against the gay blogosphere in particular, and given the circumstances -- nice campaign speech to HRC, complete indifference to the March for Equality, an "anonymous source" and a swift denial -- I'm not sure I'm convinced.

As always, actions speak louder than words, and actions have been in pretty short supply.

Let's Do the Time-Warp Again

Various reports on Obama's speech to HRC last night. Louise has posted videos of the speech at Pam's House Blend. (Which I've decided to post here as well):







See if you can spot anything that anyone else has missed.

Pam Spaulding is trying hard to be even-handed, but winds up pretty much where I am:

There are two realities, the Beltway reality, a myopic view that is so disconnected from the lives of everyday LGBTs (particularly Ts) that has us setting such low expectations. The reality outside the Beltway doesn't exist, the focus is on cultivating the relationships with power brokers with the secondary focus on obtaining "what's possible" politically, which of course is pretty subjective and dependent on whether there is professional peril in rocking any boats.

The reality outside the Beltway is often too impatient about the logistics of moving legislation in many respects, but the impatience is borne of the peril of losing a job, losing custody of children, or myriad other problems that will not be solved in their Red state any time soon. To see such inaction and promises and action delayed or deferred is disheartening -- and very personal. For activists in this sphere, a speech like this is a reality check of its own -- beautiful, empty prose telling us we are on our own for who knows how long. (Emphasis in original.)

It's a good post, one of her best -- read it.

As for realities on the ground, get this exchange from the comments to that post (edited for cleanup only):

# Thank you for posting this.

I was outside picketing. My signs and those around me called for real action and for Obama to keep his promises. Just before his motorcade came by, the Secret Service had the MPD force us back from where we had our premit. It seems that our fierce advocate can't stand the heat.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 21:24:21 PM CDT

# P. S.
I did two on camera interviews. Pam, I don't know how you do it. I felt like I was going to hurl.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sat Oct 10, 2009 at 21:25:38 PM CDT

#
How far back did they move you?
What was the excuse?

Or didn't they bother to offer one?

"In order to maintain an untenable position, you have to be actively ignorant." The Colbert Report
by: Lev Raphael @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 03:55:19 AM CDT

#
They tried to move us two blocks away to the other side of the convention center. That way we would have been out of site from the motorcade.

We moved about 30 feet (1/4 down the block) and then sat down. We had filled out all the propper paperwork for a permit, so we used that motivate us and them.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:22:16 AM CDT

# As to why...

One police officer pulled one of our organizers aside and appologized. He said that they were being pressured to do it by Obama's Secret Service detail.
by: TrumpetDC @ Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 07:23:23 AM CDT

Somehow, sadly, I have to say that I'm not surprised -- it seems to have become the norm to insulate the president from anything that might cause him to actually notice people's reactions to what he says and does.

John Aravosis was very funny:

Barack Obama just promised us that if he becomes president, he's going to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and get ENDA passed. It was a bit surreal. I'm sitting at a fundraiser for the No on 1 effort in Maine (that Obama didn't even bother to mention), and we were all just speechless (actually, hardly speechless - and I thought yelling at the TV was long since over). Obama repeated his campaign promises. That was it.

Joe Sudbay wasn't quite so amused:

This speech offered less than the cocktail party speech for the A-listers back in June.

The expectations were very high. The president spoke for approximately 25 minutes. And, tonight, he did not deliver anything new or exciting. He did not assuage our concerns.

I'm sure HRC is happy. This was a big night for the institution. But, I'm not sure what it did for the movement -- or HRC's actual mission of full equality.

Dan Savage:

Imagine all the wonderful things this guy is going to accomplish if he ever actually gets elected president.

Andrew Sullivan, from his live blog:

8.56 pm. More campaign boilerplate. This speech could have been made - and was made - a year ago.

8.53 pm. His major achievement - the one thing he has actually done - is invite gay families to the Easter egg-roll. (Ed. note: So did Dubyah. Does that make George W. Bush a "fierce advocate" for gay civil rights?)

8.51 pm. Again, more of a campaign speech. I've called on Congress to repeal DOMA. Does he think we're fools? He has done nothing to advance this.

8.50 pm. Now we get the campaign speech on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Does he not realize he is now in office? "I'm working to end this policy. I will end Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Solmonese has given us the timeline: 2017. This is bullshit. .

Jim Burroway:

When he becomes President, he’s going to sign the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, he’ll sign the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if it ever sees the light of day, and sometime during his presidency he’s going to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Oh, and he’s gonna appoint a gay ambassador or two, and we’re all invite to the big Easter Egg roll.

Jeremy Hooper, noting Obama's stance on marriage:

Dear HRC dinner attendees:

The president does not deserve a standing ovation on anything involving our relationship recognition unless and until he comes out for FULL marriage equality. He did not do that. On this issue, let's not rise to our feet (in a supportive way) until he does.

A polite applause? Sure. Even a standing O when he vows to repeal DOMA? Okay, fine. But when the official position is still "one man, one woman = marriage," his support for our bonds really has no other way to fall but short.

I think you get the idea -- there is, after all, a recurring theme in these responses -- and I'm sorry, once again, that Obama has fully met my minimal expectations. What's left to say? Has he made any real progress on gay civil rights? No, he hasn't. I'm afraid I'm of the camp that says extending benefits that were already available to gay government employees is no big deal. Neither is appointing a gay ambassador. When there are substantive issues, embodied in actual pieces of legislation, that have widespread public and institutional support, across party lines, and he can't be bothered to push for them, why should I listen to a rehash of his campaign speeches? Yes, I am talking about DADT. I am talking about the HIV ban on overseas visitors. These are no-brainers. Look, everyone has their favorite bit of "most important" on gay civil rights, and some are going to be easier to get done than others. Certainly DADT is one of those. As I believe Pam Spaulding put it, the face of opposition to DADT reform is Elaine Donnelley, for crying out loud! And you will remember that her last testimony before a Congressional committee hearing on this issue sparked outright laughter.

And yet, what reaction are we getting to questions on DADT repeal? Somehow, that timeline keeps getting longer and longer. Not good enough.

(Stray thought: If, as seems to be the rationale, gay issues are too likely to bring fire from the right [and the thinking there, if you can call it that, just floors me], it would appear that the administration is really not cynical enough to use them to draw fire away from the stimulus and health-care reform. Bunch of tyros.)

Now I Get It! Revisited

Andrew Sullivan has a blistering and spot-on post in reaction to Joe Solmonese's e-mail that I quoted yesterday. He not only nails Obama but Solmonese and the HRC, in a post titled "The Battered Wife Syndrome of the Human Rights Campaign":

What HRC have now done is give away any leverage or bargaining power the gay community has with the Obama administration. They are doing what they did with the Clintons: essentially apologize for being a burden and prostrate ourselves to the Democratic party in the hope that they will be kind to us in the very, very long run. And since at a federal level, almost everything is a Congressional act, there's absolutely no guarantee that Obama will even be able to fulfill any pledges past 2010, let alone 2017. And there's no guarantee that he will be re-elected in 2012.

You know, it took me years of getting to know myself and realizing that I am indeed a gifted and worthy human being. I was fortunate to have strong reinforcement from some very good people who were able to take me as me and not as a "gay man." Maybe that's one reason I resent so thoroughly the tack that HRC and the "wait and see" wing of the movement invariably take. I didn't get this e-mail for some reason. Probably because I don't donate to HRC. Even if I had money, I wouldn't. Sullivan gives credit where credit is due, but I would be more willing to cut some slack in the absence of oily, self-serving, spineless actions like this e-mail. Sullivan includes the full text of Solmonese's letter, and it's appalling. This particularly jumped out at me:

More importantly: today, and for the next seven years and three months, Barack Obama is the most powerful person in the world, with the largest bully pulpit, and the most power to effect change. To do the work, we have to work with our supporters in Congress and with the Administration. Whatever you think of the Administration's first nine months, you don't pass laws by sitting out. You pass laws by sitting at the table.

"You don't pass laws by sitting out." That is exactly what Obama has been doing on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, and the HIV ban -- nothing. Sitting out. "It's Congress' job."

But when the President signed a memorandum providing family protections and an inclusive non-discrimination policy for federal employees—policies for which HRC and our sister organizations had advocated—I was proud to be present. Our disagreement about DOMA did not require me to ignore a step forward for transgender federal workers and for same-sex partners. In turn, the President invited me because he recognized HRC's accomplishments in promoting those fair policies, and because he would not exclude a civil rights advocate for speaking up about our community's rights.

I wish he's stop making a big deal about Obama offering protections that already existed -- and that after Hillary Clinton had already made them mandatory in the State Department. (Now there's someone who has a very full plate and managed to pull off a victory for gays without a hitch.) Yes, Obama made them mandatory across the board. He could have done that on Day One and not after getting pinned to the wall because of that atrocious DOMA brief. (But then, of course, he would have been forced to come up with a substantive response on that issue. I guess it makes sense to keep something shiny and sparkly in reserve for those sorts of occasions.)

I'm with Sullivan, Aravosis, Andy Towle, Dan Savage, and Pam Spaulding. Even Jeremy Hooper, who's about the gentlest of gay bloggers, raises an eyebrow -- not at the specific content (and Hooper does make a good point that it can be interpreted not as a free pass, but as a "when we look back" message), but at the timing and tone, which I think are what offend me the most.

Now, is Joe right to be so optimistic? Well, that's a separate question. And in my humble opinion, this was not the best type of message for the head of the biggest, most oft-criticized LGBT rights group to send at this, a time when most LGBT activists want to see more of a crystal clear plan than a crystal ball. But I do think it's a little disingenuous for any of us to pile on to HRC simply on the basis of the wording of this one email message. Especially when we can criticize HRC for that ivory tower that they call an office. ;-)

Jeremy does know how to twist the knife, doesn't he?

Spaulding has an update: Solmonese "clarified" the message.

And here are Solmonese and Cleve Jones, organizer of the March for Equality, on Hardball:



Frankly, as I've noted here before, I have reservations about the March, but it turns out that the president is in town and Congress is in session after all -- except for Barney Frank, who doesn't seem to be in favor of gay civil rights this week.

The Nobel Prize

I'm ambivalent about the award to Obama, myself. I mean, it's a good vote of confidence in the new regime, at least insofar as it differs from the old regime, but couldn't they have awarded it to him when he's actually done something?

Of course, not being a Washington insider, I didn't have a reaction like this one from Time magazine:

Time magazine explains, in two separate pieces:

Why Winning the Nobel Peace Prize Could Hurt Obama

Obama's Nobel: The Last Thing He Needs

One hardly knows what to say. I can only echo Jamison Foser:

This is so true. Sure, some people may think finding out you have cancer is the last thing you need. Or that your kid has cancer. But not me. I spend every day of my life grateful that I'm never going to win a Nobel Peace Prize. 'Cause that would really be terrible. It's literally the last thing anyone needs. You know, what with it being the most prestigious award in the entire world and all. Nobody wants that.

Andrew Sullivan seems to see it close to the way I do:

I've had some coffee now. Reading through all the reactions, compiled by Chris and Patrick, there are two obvious points: this is premature and this is thoroughly deserved.

Both are right. I don't think Americans fully absorbed the depths to which this country's reputation had sunk under the Cheney era. That's understandable. And so they also haven't fully absorbed the turn-around in the world's view of America that Obama and the American people have accomplished. Of course, this has yet to bear real fruit. But you can begin to see how it could; and I hope more see both the peaceful intentions and the steely resolve of this man to persevere.

This president has done a huge amount to bring race relations in this country to a different place, which is why the far right has become so vicious in attacking him and lying about him. They know he threatens their politics of division and rule. He has also directly addressed the Muslim world, telling some hard truths, and played a small role in evoking a similar movement of hope and change in Iran, and finally told the Israelis to stop cutting their nose off to spite their face.

I like Shimon Peres' statement, reprinted in a useful compendium of world reaction at the Lede:

“Very few leaders if at all were able to change the mood of the entire world in such a short while with such a profound impact. You provided the entire humanity with fresh hope, with intellectual determination, and a feeling that there is a lord in heaven and believers on earth.” Mr. Peres, who won the peace prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat in 1994 following the Oslo Accords, added: “Under your leadership, peace became a real and original agenda. And from Jerusalem, I am sure all the bells of engagement and understanding will ring again. You gave us a license to dream and act in a noble direction.”

I think Sullivan's absolutely right: we don't realize what a shambles our standing in the world was, and how quickly Obama has started to turn it around. A lot of it is symbolism, but symbolism is potent stuff.

But by the same token, it's the lack of even symbolic gestures on the domestic front regarding gay rights that infuriates me so. On the world stage, he's said the words and taken some pretty decisive actions. On the gay rights front, it takes a lot of pressure to get him to even say the words. There's been no action, decisive or otherwise. It all seems to be a function of fear of offending the Republicans, who are open about opposiing anything Obama proposes, so why bother with them? Why not just go ahead and ram his agenda through the Democratically-controlled Congress. He could do it, if he'd make the effort.

And until I see that happen, I'm taking everything else with a grain of salt.

I <3 Alan Grayson

Why, oh why aren't there more Democrats like him?

Now I Get It! (Updated)

If you behave nicely and wait your turn, what you get is -- increments!

And now, to add insult to the injury, we face the subtle bigotry of "incrementalism." The White House has found a new buzzword - a rhetorical silver bullet to get the President off the hook for yet another forgotten promise. It's a common tactic of this particular White House. For example, did that promise to get DADT repealed suddenly become more trouble than it's worth? No problem. Simply change your commitment from "repealing" DADT to now only promising to "change" it in an incremental way. That way, you can take a small Solomon-esque step towards putting a friendlier face on the daily discharge of two gay service members under this administration, while still keeping the main policy in place and hopefully avoiding the pesky controversy that often comes with principle.

In three stories in the past twenty-four hours we've seen the appearance of the "incrementalism" buzzword (here and here), and one story reports that President Obama is going to explain to our community on Saturday night how necessary incrementalism is to achieving our rights.

Don't believe it. It's a smoke screen. There has been no incremental movement whatsoever by this administration towards repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, repealing DOMA, or passing ENDA. Again, I take you back to the gay passports. It's a nice gesture, don't get me wrong. But how is putting our partners' names on passports in a handful of states, holding a cocktail party for some gay leaders while banning others, issuing a Pride Proclamation, and nominating a gay ambassador to an island when we've had gay ambassadorial nominees for 12 years already - how does any of this even incrementally advance the President's major commitments on DADT, DOMA, ENDA, the HIV travel ban, and so much more?

Do you suppose the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in increments?

Obama and the Democrats are facing a major revolt in 2010. If they lose seats in Congress, it will be because they lied to us in 2008. I wish there were someone in the House or Senate who had balls like Alan Grayson's speaking on behalf of gays. What we get is Barney Frank saying "Keep quiet!"

And the sad part is that Aravosis is absolutely right: we're not even getting increments. We're getting backpedaling and stonewalling in the form of cocktail parties.

And frankly, if one of the attendees at tomorrow's HRC soiree doesn't stand up and give Obama hell, I wash my hands of the entire gay establishment. (Of course, I'm close to that already, but I do maintain a little hope.)

But then, I stopped expecting miracles a while ago.

Update: Timothy Kincaid has an angle I hadn't though of:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee countered that it was trying “to promote what he stands for and the positive processes that have started now.” It lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

If we are now presenting awards based on intentions and promises rather than on actions and accomplishments, then no doubt the Human Rights Campaign will be awarding the President on Saturday with the Fierce Advocate Award.

It appears that Joe Salmonese is paving the way for a big speech tonight that says -- nothing:

I've written that we have actually covered a good deal of ground so far.

And what exactly is that? Granting benefits -- and not the critical benefits, mind you -- to the partners of gay government employees? The same benefits that were available under Clinton and Bush? Allowing the people in some states to include their spouses on their passports? Asking the Pentagon to think about how they would implement the repeal of DADT -- when they have a minute to spare?

I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will look back on the President's address to my community as an affirmation of his pledge to be our ally. I will remember it as the day when we all stood together and committed to finish what Senator Kennedy called our unfinished business. And I am sure of this: on January 19, 2017, I will also look back on many other victories that President Barack Obama made possible.

I've got news for you, Joe -- it's not Barack Obama making anything possible. Barack Obama is reneging on every campaign pledge he made to this community. What's happening is happening in spite of him -- and in spite of you and HRC.

Words are cheap. And now we know HRC's price.

FTC Tramples Tokyo!

Well, close enough, but it's hard to see the FTC as a tragic hero.

As a follow-up to my earlier post, I got look-see on this item:

At least one university press does not like the Federal Trade Commission's new guidelines governing "endorsements and testimonials." Laura Sell, a senior publicist for Duke University Press, wrote on the press's blog that the new rules "will have a chilling effect on the online book-reviewing community" -- a community that publishers rely on more and more as print review outlets fade away.

The FTC guidelines now say that "the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service." If they don't, they risk substantial fines. The worry among
publishers and reviewers is that "in-kind payment" could include review copies of books.

"We send these books with the hope of a positive review, but with no agreement or contract with the recipient," Ms. Sell wrote in an open letter to the FTC posted on the Duke press's blog. "They are free to give the book a negative review, or to toss it in the trash. It's just a way to get the books into the hands of people who might write about them."

In the letter, Ms. Sell talked about how much literary activity has jumped online. "Many of us have turned to new media to get review attention," she wrote. "We consider the writers for this new media to be journalists or columnists, just like those at old-fashioned print publications. The threat of huge fines might make many of them stop accepting books from publishers. I hope the FTC will reconsider these
new rules that will make it harder for consumers to learn about new products from online reviewers that they trust."

As is usual with the kind of ham-handed regs the government invariably tries to impose, this is going to have what's commonly referred to as "unintended consequences." It's the sort of thing that happens so often that you start to wonder if those consequences really are "unintended." Those hurt by these regs are not going to be corporate media or large publishing houses, but small independent presses, university presses, and online review sites. And let's face it, the worst culprits as far as undisclosed connections are concerned have been -- yep: major media outlets.

This is from my response to the e-mail alerting me to that article:

Taken in concert with Sen. Chuck Schumer's attempt to define "journalists" to exclude anything on the Internet (unless operated by a corporate interest), this marks another example of the government not knowing when to butt out. (And this just occurred to me -- does anyone know if these regs contain any provisions controlling corporate media's relationships with lobbyists, as in WaPo selling access to government officials to the highest bidders? I haven't seen a sign of it.)

That's another story that I never saw a follow-up on -- WaPo inviting lobbyists and other interested parties to dinner with Official X at a quarter-million a head. Seems to me all they got was some negative publicity -- in the blogosphere -- and the tightened rules are going after the people who outed them.

This fish smell many day dead.

Looking Behind the Wrong Door

While "libertarians" are moaning about government-run health care and nationalizing the banks and other fantasies, they're missing one of the real problems we're facing from bloated bureaucracy:

In new guidelines (PDF) released Oct. 5, the FTC put bloggers on notice that they could incur an $11,000 fine if they receive free goods, free services, or money and write about the goods or services without conspicuously disclosing their "material connection" to the provider. The FTC guidelines extend even to Facebook and Twitter posters. If you received a gratis novel from the publicity department of a publisher and posted a tweet about it without disclosing that the book was a freebie, you become an "endorser" in the FTC's view. It could—in the name of consumer protection—hit you with a fine. The 81-page guidelines, which also mandate stringent celebrity endorsements rules, will take effect Dec. 1.

Read the article. It's pretty scary, and a good illustration of a process that reached its full flower (I had thought) under Bush II. He wasn't the first president to push the government into every aspect of American life, just the most blatant. This whole thing is way beyond what's necessary. And there's an even more disturbing aspect to it:

Because of a pesky thing called the First Amendment, the guidelines don't apply to news organizations, which receive thousands of free books, CDs, and DVDs each day from media companies hoping for reviews. But if the guidelines don't apply to established media like the New York Review of Books, which also happens to publish reviews on the Web, why should they apply to Joe Blow's blog? Regulating bloggers via the FTC while exempting establishment reporters looks like a back-door means of licensing journalists and policing speech.

And just why should the guidelines not apply to corporate media? Is it because, perhaps, of the "corporate" part? As in, the government knows which side the butter is on?

Write the FTC. Write your congresscritter. Write your senators. Kill these guidelines.

(And you will note that this blog now contains a disclaimer in the sidebar.)

Ignorance Is Bliss

Their ignorance, our bliss. Flushed with the success of their boycott of Disney, the American Family Associations has now called a boycott against Pepsi for its support of gay organizations. (And this is a surprise exactly how?) Some of the results are too funny for words:

Last month, Bell Shoals Baptist, a mega-church in Brandon, Florida, removed its Pepsi vending machines and replaced them with Coke machines.

"We fight this battle one skirmish at a time," said Terry Kemple, the Bell Shoals member who organized the vending machine change, in an interview with the Brandon News & Tribune. "Our forefathers came here for religious liberty, not sexual liberty."

But the church's switch from Pepsi to Coke -- which other Florida churches joined -- may have been a strategic mistake. As Bridgette LaVictoire reported on the LezGetReal blog, "Coca Cola has consistently scored higher on the Human Rights Campaign’s list of LGBT friendly businesses" than Pepsi.

"The AFA [is] furious with PepsiCo over their diversity training, which is actually not quite as good as Coca Cola’s, and their work place support of LGBT individuals, which is not quite the same level of support as seen in Coca Cola Corp.," she wrote.

You have to love it.

We Should Have Expected This

From Conservapedia, the Conservative Bible Project.

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:[2]

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

I have nothing to add.

Thanks to John Cole.

Instant Replay

Remember that nice cocktail party to observe Stonewall -- right after the nasty DoJ brief supporting DOMA? Well, it seems that the president thinks it's time to throw another bone to the gay community, and will speak at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner, the night before the National Equality March. It will be interesting to hear what he has to say to justify his backpedaling on the promises he made to the gay community during the campaign.

And do I have to point out that this is another "inside the Beltway" event -- another nice, clubby gathering of people who have no clue as to what real life is like. Pam Spaulding calls them the "A-list gays" and I think she's absolutely right -- these people are the Establishment, which has proven that it no longer has much, if any, relevance to the gay community at large. And of course, some people are offended by that:

What I am referring to here is the class and access distinction between most of the LGBT community (who cannot afford the $250 and up ticket price to see the President or pay thousands to captain a table at other events). The divide is very real and troubling on several levels. These are often a sea of gay white well-to-do men with a sprinkling of lesbians, plus media and anyone lucky enough to scrape money together or are sponsored by their organizations to attend. It doesn't mean attendees are just schmoozing or have no sense of activism, it just means there's an inconvenient truth no one likes to talk about and that makes it uncomfortable when it is raised.

These events are simply out of reach of the vast majority of average LGBTs. It's the truth. That's why I also said it's too bad the President won't be at the march; that was an opportunity to balance the scales and it's clear it won't happen for a host of reasons.

The reason "A-gays" pushes buttons is the obvious class issue. And we can't continue to sweep that factor under the rug because it affects all of us -- the Obama admin thinks that appearing at an HRC dinner is talking to the LGBT community at large (which is also what HRC wants him to think, of course, why wouldn't the org?) -- and it's what causes the internal strife between the grassroots and the Beltway orgs all the time. Owning up to what's going on is what's at the root of "A-Gays" when I use it.

Remember, HRC and the other national groups are the ones who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the marriage fight, lost on Prop 8, which should have been a no-brainer, and haven't managed to do squat on DOMA, ENDA, and DADT in years. But they do have some nice parties.

John Aravosis is also among those who are saying "Show me" and has a pretty impressive list of those who have also expressed their doubt.

The days of Obama riding by on his oratorical skills are long since past. Yes, I'm sure he'll give a great speech. And yes, I'm sure the very-safe cocktail and weenie crowd will go ga-ga over the president, as they did in June when he bought them off with a few drinks at the White House, but gave them nothing substantive in return. But Obama needs to be careful. The "safe" gays no longer control the community as they once did. Obama is going to need to announce something big at the speech, or he's going to get some very bad press following it. As will HRC for inviting him, I suspect.

From Andy Towle:

I certainly hope Obama has some big news or additional plans for the following day because choosing the black tie dinner over the grassroots march certainly won't get him much respect unless he does.

Yes, but you see, the administration knows the A-list. They don't know the grubby marchers who will be there on Sunday.

Towle also quotes Richard Socarides:

Eleven months after his election, he has failed to deliver on any of his commitments to gay Americans, but even worse has been his refusal to engage around these issues. What he needs to do now is engage and deliver. Spend some of his political capital on ending the gay military ban, a hugely symbolic issue. And with no intellectually sound arguments left against it, come out squarely for gay marriage equality.

Andrew Sullivan approaches Hunteresque realms of bluntness:

If Obama wants to support gay equality, he knows what to do. If Pelosi and Reid want to support gay equality, they know what to do. If HRC believes in gay equality, they also know what to do.

So spare us the schmoozing and the sweet-talking and do it. Until then, Mr president, why don't you have a nice steaming cup of shut-the-fuck-up?

Read Sullivan's post -- it's short and deadly.

One of Sullivan's readers has what I think are some astute observations on HRC and the culture of Washington itself:

HRC is useless because there is nothing good that can be achieved at the federal level and they and the Democrats know it. You can be as repulsed as you want by them but it won't change the facts. At the federal level the right wing culture warriors own the issue just like they own gun rights. The Democrats won't do anything because they have been trained to passivity by the high voltage shock they get when they go there.

The only way through that fence is to ignore the Democrats and the culture warriors patrolling the perimeter and get out of Washington all together.

I hate to have to keep harping on this, but HRC, GLAAD, and their ilk simply don't connect with the vast majority of gays any more -- if they ever did. (I see the same sort of thinking in Equality Illinois -- the tendency to play the odds and wait until things are more favorable. I think it's no mistake that ACT-UP was the most effective gay organization of the 1980s, and perhaps ever.) These are the people who keep counseling "wait" on marriage suits, who didn't want Boies and Olson to file their suit (and then wanted in on the action once it finally sank in that there was a chance), who want to wait until 2012 to repeal Prop 8. These are the people who hired "poitical consultants" and held focus groups in California and never connected with anyone real. Spaulding refers to the "A-list gays" as a class thing, but I think it's much more a functional dissociation: HRC and the A-list gays as a whole are part of the establishment culture (as, to a large extent, is Sullivan) and they have no connection to the rest of the country.

Fine -- Obama's going to speak to HRC, ignore the March, and HRC will issue another press release which will sit in my in-box unread because I already know what it's going to say.

I'm not the least bit impressed.

Sullivan Gets Pissed (Updated)

And rightly so. He takes on James Bowman, writing in the Weekly Standard:

Just when you think the Weekly Standard's institutionalized contempt for gay people could not get any worse, along comes James Bowman's defense of barring openly gay men from military service:

Facing enemy bullets--is inextricably bound up with ideas of masculinity. We also know that most heterosexual males' ideas of masculinity are inextricably bound up with what we now call sexual orientation. In other words, "being a man" typically does mean for soldiers both being brave, stoic, etc.--and being heterosexual. Another way to put this is to say that honor, which is by the testimony of soldiers throughout the ages of the essence of military service, includes the honor of being known for heterosexuality, and that, for most heterosexual males, shame attends a reputation as much for homosexuality as for weakness or cowardice.

Sullivan rips him a new on in the polite way that only Sullivan can do it.

I have a very short response to Bowman's fact-challenged fantasy: The Sacred Band of Thebes. To anyone who knows anything about military history, that name is still up there as one of the most shining examples of courage, determination, and sacrifice ever known. And for those who don't know, the Sacred Band was a group of three hundred warriors composed of pairs of lovers, all men, who were one of the most feared fighting forces in the ancient Greek world. They were finally annihilated by Alexander at Cheironaea: he offered them terms and they refused to surrender to overwhelming odds because to do so would sully their honor.

Bowman is obviously really reaching here -- I mean, come on: the "honor" of being known for heterosexuality? Give me a break.

Read Sullivan's piece. It's choice.

Update: I did read Bowman's whole piece. Believe it or not, the quote that Sullivan uses is probably the most cogent and realistic part of it. The rest is even more a fantasy. Bowman trots out all the old, worn-out talking points of the right, from the "unique nature" of the love between man and woman to the "moral" aspect of having gays serve openly to the "unit cohesion" of the "band of brothers" one serves with. Lord. Love. A. Duck. (He also hauls out the Military Times poll that's been pointed out as biased, but doesn't acknowledge any of the other polls that show that most active service-members don't really care -- they're much more interested in whether the guy covering their back can do the job than in who he's sleeping with.)

Bowman also seems to have a problem with gay service-members being honest about their orientation -- oh, wait, honesty is in very bad odor on the right these days, isn't it? It's OK to have gays in the military (or should we call them "hommosectionals" to keep in line with the right-wing's normal idea of civility) as long as they're firmly in the closet.

The funniest part is where Bowman refers to "unbigoted" reasons for opposing repeal of DADT. Pity he couldn't come up with any.

Update II: Timothy Kincaid also takes a look at Bowman's "unbigoted" reasons to continue DADT -- and finds them just as specious as I did:

So in summary, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the following:

1. “Being a man” means experiencing contempt for gay men.
2. Robust heterosexuals fear any relationship that might be too close – just a matter of degree – to a homosexual relationship.

In other words, Bowman’s “unbigoted” argument is based on the assumption that heterosexual men – those who are robust and take pride in being a man – rightly fear and hold contempt for gay men.

And those are Bowman’s “sound reasons–unbigoted ones–for our policy on gays in the military”.

Bowman's problem is not that he can fool some of the people some of the time, but that he can't fool anyone at all. Except maybe himself.

Reviews in Brief: Hyouta Fujiyama's Tale of the Waning Moon

I got a heads up on this one from Yaoi Rose, which is a site I highly recommend for those interested in yaoi/BL manga. Rose provides some good insights, although she's coming from a very different place in her reviews than you'll find here.

On to the Tale of the Waning Moon.

Ryuka's sweetheart has been stolen by a millionaire from the next village. As seems to be the norm in Japan, he goes out to drown his sorrows, then makes his way to the top of the Wishing Hill, where, it is said, if you wish to the night, your wish will be granted. Ryuka wishes for someone who will love him truly and steadfastly. His words reach the ears of Ixto, the spirit of the Waning Moon, who appears with a handful of the Cards of Fate, each depicting someone who can love Ryuka truly. Ryuka's only problem is that they are all men, and he rejects them all. Ixto, who seems to be the default position here, then has his way with Ryuka and tells him that he will be the man's true love, but Ryuka's heart must follow his body. And so Ryuka begins his journey in the company of one of Ixto's helpers, the moon-cat Coon.

Right up front, the story is pretty thin, episodic and not very deep, but entertaining enough. As it happens, as his journey progresses, Ryuka meets each of the men portrayed in the Cards of Fate, and manages to escape them all (although that sometimes requires Ixto's help). And of course, as the story progresses, Ryuka finds his thoughts turning more and more to Ixto. It's worth noting, however, that it's a sharp departure from Fujiyama's usual contemporary school-boy romance, and although it lacks the edge of other works, it's still engaging.

The drawing is Fujiyama in top form. This is a recent work, originally published in 2008, and shows Fujiyama's mastery of the medium. My one complaint is that Yen Press, the publisher, produces books in a smaller format than Juné, which has released most of Fujiyama's work in English, and the images have been compressed to fit, which leads to some crowding on the page. (In point of fact, I just reread Sunflower last night, and the difference is noticeable.) Sex scenes display Fujiyama's usual reticence.

The highlights in characterization are the two moon-cats, Coon and Cymric, who echo earlier characters in Fujiyama's works, especially Coon, who strongly recalls Kawahara from Sunflower, not that there would be any mistaking them: Coon and Cymric are both kemonomimi characters, and quite charming. In general, visual characterizations, while still firmly within Fujiyama's basic character design, show a great deal of variation, and she's moved into showing older characters, as well.

All told, it's not up to Fujiyama's usual standard, but that is still pretty high. Yen Press is an imprint of the Hachette Book Group.

Kevin Jennings

I had been planning to post a bit on the controversy surrounding the appointment of Kevin Jennings as Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. Jennings is also the founder of GSLEN, a critically important organization in the lives of any number of young gay men and women. Of course, appointing someone who actually understands the issues involved and is sympathetic to the people affected is anathema to the right wing, and in Jennings' case they've seized on a story he's told any number of times. Jim Burroway has what seems to me to the best summation, so I'm not going to crowd the field any further.

For most people, this story, taking place as it did in the late 1980s, would be about how critical it is for LGBT students to have someone they know they can turn to in safety and confidence. It is also a story that illustrates how a young man can be made so desperate coming of age in a culture that condemns everything about him. But for some, this was a story has become about an underage fifteen-year-old student having sex with an adult, and Jennings’ failure to report this “statutory rape” or “molestation” to authorities.

Of course, the fundies only want statutory rape reported when it's two men involved. If one of the participants is an underage woman, and especially if the perpetrator is a preacher, it's OK.

And it turns out that the young man in question was of legal age at the time, which in Massachusetts is (and was) 16. Alvin McEwen posted at Pam's House Blend reporting the evidence and corroborating that particular and vitally important bit of information. However, don't look for any retractions from the right. McEwen passes on Peter LaBarbera's reaction to the news:

You are so pathetic Alvin. Hanging on a technicality. You are as corrupt as the perverted movement you serve. Spare me the preaching.

Those who are slightly less deranged than LaBarbera will probably just slide past it and on to another point of attack, but they'll be thinkig the same thing.

Here's a CNN report that gets it mostly right, although the reporter's comment that new evidence "suggests" that the student was of legal age is wrong. It doesn't "suggest" any such thing -- it states unequivocally that the kid was at the age of consent, and that includes Jennings' book, a statement from his lawyer from 2004, and a statement from the man in question himself.



The most encouraging thing about this report is that the administration may finally be digging in its heels and supporting Jennings against the hate groups. We'll see if their balls have enough juice to stay the course.

Update: That CNN report seems to have vanished from every site that had it posted. If I manage to locate it at CNN in some sort of imbeddable form, I'll stick it in -- or at least see if I can get a link. In lieu of that, here's a follow-up story. (Note that Tony Perkins, one of the more repellent of the reality-challenged liars on the right, is still talking about child molestation, although there was no molestation involved in the incident Jennings related. I guess if you say it often enough, it's true, no matter what the facts are.)

Update II: And now it's back. Glad I decided not to re-edit the entire thing. Enjoy.

Do read Burroway's entire post -- then write to Obama supporting Jennings.

Vatican: Still Dodging Bullets

This time by using the "other kids do it, too" argument. They just don't get it. From The Guardian

The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

The statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, defended its record by claiming that "available research" showed that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse.

And they're lying about it, too:

The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

Try 15 to 17. An eleven-year-old is not an ephebe. An eleven-year-old is a child.

Melissa McEwan rips them a new one:

Okay, first of all, ephebophilia is not specific to people with same-sex attraction. Tomasi's implication that it's a uniquely "homosexual attraction" is patently false. The Catholic Church has been trying to blame its sex abuse problems on gay men since day one, in order to avoid its own responsibility for ordaining and protecting pedophiles, but that shit's been publicly debunked so resoundingly that the Holy See can't just scream "homo priests!" anymore.

So this is their new spin: Gay ephebophiliacs—which not only allows them to do an end-run around accountability for ordaining pedophiles, but also conveniently allows them to do an end-run around accountability for engaging in the vicious homophobia of gay-blaming for the sex abuse scandal for two decades.

And if this bit of rhetorical parsing weren't already pathetic enough in its attempt to redirect blame, it's not even accurate: Ephebophilia is not, in fact, the correct term for people who "sexually engage" with children ages 11-17. Ephebophilia refers to people who have a sexual preference for advanced adolescents; hebephilia refers to people who have a sexual preference for those in early puberty; and pedophilia refers to people who have a sexual preference for pre-pubescent children. Most 11-year-old are not advanced adolescents, and many, especially boys, are still pre-pubescent.

The Catholic Church has a problem with priests who rape children below the age of consent. That is a fact which is not changed by what name it's called. And, at this point, the last thing any thinking person with a conscience wants to hear from the Vatican is a bunch of bullshit technicalities being substituted for any serious acceptance of accountability.

But, as usual, that's all we're gonna get.

Andrew Sullivan's summation:

But this is Ratzinger's real view: that the sex abuse crisis was basically a liberal plot to discredit the Church, rather than what it was, an international conspiracy for the molestation of children, enabled by the Vatican.

The hierarchy is busting a nut trying to deflect attention away from the fact that the Church was doing just what Sullivan says: enabling and abetting child molesters. For decades. Here's a devastating story from one of Sullivan's readers:

I grew up in Boston and was raped by priests beginning at age 6. I just let you into a very small circle. When the predators who liked young children had no more use for me because I had aged they traded me to other priests. Unlike some I have remembered my abuse on a daily basis (forgetting would be such a blessing). While the Pope may find comfort in the fact "that only 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse," he should wonder and worry about the morality of the many who knew and said and did nothing. From my experience I would say that over 50% of the other priests knew and allowed the horror to continue. As an adult I have talked with some and their evasions and justifications are disgusting.

I chose not to sue the Catholic church because I did not think that punishing the people of the church, taking their hard-earned money, would help my mind or slay any of the demons. Plus I hoped that the church would have some kind of soul-searching, maybe public hearings, that would shine a light on that whole ugly chapter in its history. So far all we have is rationalizing and blame-shifting.

It's this sort of thing that points up to me the moral bankruptcy of the Catholic hierarchy. I should point out that I think it's endemic to all hierarchical institutions, but the Catholic Church has made itself the prime example. If the hierarchy had dealt with this problem in a timely and transparent manner, and penalized the deviants instead of enabling them, I would be hold a different view. But I think the Church's actions, as exemplified by this statement, speak for themselves.

Vile

I've sat on this one for a couple of days on purpose, until my blood pressure came back somewhere close to normal. Even for Dan Riehl, this is appalling. (I've encountered Riehl's comments on gays before -- he's an empty gasbag.) It's one of the most disgusting pieces of slander I've ever read, from anyone. Riehl, who admits he has absolutely no basis for anything he writes here, has decided that the census worker murdered in Kentucky, Bill Sparkman, was a child molester. Oh, he doesn't actually claim that, he's just "speculating" on the basis of -- well, nothing:

Before any more people start going bonkers that I'm accusing Sparkman of anything, take a breath. I've done a fair amount of crime blogging mixed in with politics over time. One doesn't rule anything in or out without some firm answers. People feel free to speculate about Meth labs and pot fields but none have been reported in the area, yet. All I'm doing is looking at any and all possibilities. You'd think a moonshiner, or Meth head would have just buried the guy. Why hang him and invite the Feds into it by writing Fed on his chest? Why strip him naked and bind and gag him, which has serious sexual overtones?

I have no idea what happened, but from the reporting I've seen, neither does anyone else. If he adopted a boy as a single man, or was married and split with the wife and kids, who knows. But I never assume I know a story or motive until I know it. Right now we don't. I'm simply speculating on one possible alternative, however impolite.

Let me be equally impolite: Right off the bat, Riehl as good as says that he has no background and no qualifications (other than his standing as a professional homophobe) to be speculating on this. ("Crime blogger"? WTF is a "crime blogger"?) Riehl is bringing up this "possible motive" because it's somewhat more than impolite, and that's the only reason. It's safe, if you happen to be a right-wing professional homophobe -- Sparkman isn't in a position to defend himself, the circumstances point in an entirely different direction -- directly at the crazed wingnut Beckbots that Riehl seems to be attempting to cultivate -- and it's a golden opportunity to smear gays as a group, because after all, everyone knows that gay men only adopt boys to molest them. (Although I must also point out that Riehl offers absolutely no evidence that Sparkman was gay, either.) (Another note -- further reading on this revealed the fact that Sparkman's son is in his twenties.)

Sullivan, I think, treats this too lightly:

But the far right is obviously concerned that its violent anti-government rhetoric might at some point be implicated. So what do these people do? Notorious homophobe Dan Riehl pre-emptively asks if Sparkman was a gay child predator, because he had an adopted son. He has no other evidence at all.

Sorry, Andrew, but the fact of a single man adopting a son is not evidence of anything. It's not that Riehl is offering "no other evidence" -- it's that he's offering no evidence at all.

I do think, however, that Sullivan points to a plausible motivation: gods forbid that the Limbaugh-Beck-O'Reilly complex (which Riehl apparently wants to join) should actually suffer consequences for their hate speech, so best to deflect as soon as possible when something really happens.

You know, the anti-gay right doesn't really have to continue to prove itself morally bankrupt -- we've already gotten the message loud and clear. And has anyone spoken to Riehl about the psychological process of projection, and how easy it is to spot? Like, maybe he should be a little more circumspect about voicing his fantasies?

Riehl may have achieved one of his goals -- he got lots of attention in the blogosphere. Robert Farley, John Cole, and Jesse Taylor all come to the same conclusion, in almost identical terms:

1.) What if he was?

2.) Wouldn’t it be irresponsible not to theorize?

Ed Brayton goes into slightly more detail, but comes to the same conclusion.

Jeff Fecke alerted us to a piece by Dave Weigel, who managed to get a statement on this from Dan Riehl's godmother, Michelle Bachman (R-Our Lady of Bethlehem), who hates census workers:

After the speech, Bachmann had only a few minutes to sign autographs and collect a stack of CDs and books from fans who’d followed her into the lobby. I caught up to her as she headed outside and asked if she had any response to the murder of a Kentucky census worker, having noticed that the Census, a constant target for Bachmann, did not figure into her speech. Bachmann recoiled a little at the question and turned to enter her limo.

“Thank you so much!” she said.

But then, it would appear that Bachmann is exactly the sort of loon that Riehl is trying to protect here.

Let's summarize: A notorious right-wing homophobe, commenting on the murder of a census worker, pulls out of his ass the idea that the man was killed for being a child molester. There is no basis for that supposition whatsoever, and the investigation to date has, in fact, pointed toward the obvious conclusion -- the man was murdered for being a "federal agent." But that's not going to stop Dan Riehl, who has managed to kill two birds with one stone: he's deflecting criticism from his own cronies on the right, and smearing a whole group of people, all in one completely irresponsible commentary.

A pre-publication update: Here's Barbara O'Brien on Riehl. It's brilliant.

Before any more people start going bonkers that I’m accusing Dan Riehl of anything, take a breath. I’m just saying one doesn’t rule anything in or out without some firm answers. After all, Riehl is a man, and most serial rapists are men. All I’m doing is looking at any and all possibilities.

And the first commenter at O'Brien's post brings this up, which I also ran across in relation to this piece:

Apparently now he’s twittered that it was meant as Lib bait, as in, “gee, can’t you Libs take a joke?”

You have to ask yourself, which kind of person (to use the term in its broadest sense) would smear the reputation of a murder victim as a joke?

Another Health Care Post

But I'm handing this one over to Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog -- she's done a lot of reading and comparing on health care reform, and probably knows it better than anyone in Congress. This post is in the wake of Rep. Alan Grayson 's (D-Reality) speech in Congress on the "Republican plan." Here's a quote from Grayson's speechL:

“It’s a very simple plan,” Grayson said in a floor speech about health care on Tuesday night. “Don’t get sick. That’s what the Republicans have in mind. And if you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly.”

O'Brien parses the "Republican plan":

The various health care plans being put forward by Republicans address two vital issues:

1. They provide impressive talking points to repeat on cable news programs.

2. They can be printed into respectable stacks of paper to hold up to cameras, accompanied by the declaration See? We do so have a plan.

As explained in the two posts linked in the previous paragraph, the crown jewels of the Republicans “plan” are these:

1. People should pay more for their health care so they take better care of themselves and not need health care (in other words, don’t get sick).

2. Allow the insurance industry to separate us into low-risk and high-risk pools. They can make bigger profits selling junk policies to the healthy, and if the unhealthy can’t afford their jacked-up premiums, that’s too bad (in other words, die quickly).

3. Tax credits.

Seriously. The “purchasing insurance across state lines” scam falls under “separating us into low-risk and high-risk pools,” as explained elsewhere.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in allowing health care to be paid for by “free markets” is that there is no incentive for “free markets” to cure anyone. The health care industry doesn’t make money by curing you, but by what it can sell to you at a profit. Whether you live or die, you (or your heirs) still have to pay the bills.

Remember, the insurance companies are the ones who give people bonuses for letting you die.

Here's Grayson on the Ed Schultz show -- it's a great clip:



I almost wish I lived in Florida, so I could vote for him.

Sedition

Via AmericaBlog, this story (a couple of days old -- I'm catching up). If you thought the right wing couldn't sink any lower, you're wrong (wait -- I've got a story coming up that shows just how low they can go). Here's a link to the story at MediaMatters, on a colum by one John L. Perry, who apparently doesn't put much trust in the American system of free elections:

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Military intervention is what Obama’s exponentially accelerating agenda for “fundamental change” toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama’s radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don’t shrug and say, “We can always worry about that later."

Excuse me -- "defend the Constitution"? By staging a military coup? Who is he trying to kid? Let me point out that we exercised our non-violent, Constitutional alternative to a military coup last November, after eight years of assault on the Constitution and creeping fascism: it's called an "election," and your side lost because your ideas, your programs, and your methods are repellent to the majority of the American people.

Andrew Sullivan took the approach of making this one a Hewitt Award nominee. Sort of a flabby response, I think. The man's voicing sedition, after all. It's a little bit more serious than just some run-of-the-mill wingnut spouting off.

The story also got a mention by KatRose at Pam's House Blend featuring an OpEd by Thomas Friedman that's kind of chilling:

I hate to write about this, but I have actually been to this play before and it is really disturbing.

I was in Israel interviewing Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin just before he was assassinated in 1995. We had a beer in his office. He needed one. I remember the ugly mood in Israel then — a mood in which extreme right-wing settlers and politicians were doing all they could to delegitimize Rabin, who was committed to trading land for peace as part of the Oslo accords. They questioned his authority. They accused him of treason. They created pictures depicting him as a Nazi SS officer, and they shouted death threats at rallies. His political opponents winked at it all.

And in so doing they created a poisonous political environment that was interpreted by one right-wing Jewish settler as a license to kill Rabin — he must have heard, “God will be on your side” — and so he did.

Others have already remarked on this analogy, but I want to add my voice because the parallels to Israel then and America today turn my stomach: I have no problem with any of the substantive criticism of President Obama from the right or left. But something very dangerous is happening. Criticism from the far right has begun tipping over into delegitimation and creating the same kind of climate here that existed in Israel on the eve of the Rabin assassination.

I also want to add something that I'm surprised wasn't picked up on elsewhere (although it may have been and I just missed it -- it's been a sort of fragmented couple of days): anyone want to guess what the code phrase "Obama problem" really means to a reality-challenged, racist right-winger?

Digby, as usual, nails it:

Yes. Nine months in, it's obvious that the only choice Real Americans have is to stage a coup. The lessons they've learned from recent presidencies is that impeachment is no sure thing and that unless you can get close enough to steal elections, you might get stuck with someone you didn't vote for. So they're dreaming of more tried and true methods. That whole democracy thing is very inconvenient.

(And just the thought of "skilled, military trained, nation builders" bending the government to their will clearly sends one big thrill up these fellows' legs. Oooh baby.)

As of yesterday, Newsmax (another wholly-owned subsidiary of the RNC, it seems) finally figured out that maybe that wasn't such a good piece to publish, and is backing off like crazy, while repeating the "describing isn't advocating" excuse that Perry himself used. Bullshit. Double bullshit.

I can only hope Mr. Perry gets a nice friendly visit from the Secret Service very soon.

Bears With Chainsaws

Jon Stewart very neatly lays out the political realities of the Democratic supermajority:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democratic Super Majority
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

I don't really have anything to add.

Stupid, or Disengenuous? (Updated)

Meg Whitman, who wants to be the GOP candidate for governor of California, came up with this priceless bit of -- well, something:

So as you know I am pro-civil union and not for gay marriage. And just for me, that term marriage, for me needs to be between a man and a woman...I do not feel it is a slap in the face [to millions of gay and lesbian Americans]. I had a terrific record at eBay, an excellent work environment for people of all different backgrounds and all walks of life. And as I said I am pro-civil union.

I bet she has gay friends, too.

Think about that in the context of this story, via Box Turtle Bulletin:

…The court ruled that the hospital has neither an obligation to allow their patients’ visitors nor any obligation whatsoever to provide their patients’ families, healthcare surrogates, or visitors with access to patients in their trauma unit. The court has given the Langbehn-Pond family until October 16 to review the ruling and consider all legal options.

The hospital's statement:

Jackson Memorial Hospital also issued a statement:

We have always believed and known that the staff at Jackson treats everyone equally, and that their main concern is the well-being of the patients in their care. …Jackson will continue to work with the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community to ensure that everyone knows they are welcome at all of our facilities, where they will receive the highest quality of medical care.

The phrase “everone knows they are welcome” stikes me as perhaps the most cynical statement ever made by any organization or individual.

Update: Pam Spaulding has more detail on this story.

(Personal note: I was born in that hospital. I almost regret it.)

Jim Burroway has the best take on Whitman and her ilk:

Whatever Whitman may wish to believe, I think we can all agree that the recipient of a slap is in the best position to judge whether he or she was slapped or not.

Do you suppose it's ever going to penetrate the hard-shelled mind of any politician of any stripe that no one gives a shit what their personal beliefs are until they try to write them into the law of the land? Even Obama has that one figured out (or did until Rahm Emanuel started running the government).

Update II: Add rapper Warren G to the list of those who just don't get it:

I ain’t against gay people. I’m just against it being promoted to kids. . .
I know people that’s gay. My wife’s got friends that are gay. I got family that’s gay. Cousins and shit. He cool as fuck. He cool as a motherfucker. He’s my homie. I just mean that on some of these TV shows, they got dudes kissing. And kids are watching that shit. We can’t have kids growing up with that. . . .but let’s keep it behind the scenes. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with it if that’s what two dudes wanna do. Cool. But that’s not bring that out into the world, where the kids can see that. We don’t want all the kids doing that. ‘Cause that ain’t how we was originally put here to do. Like I said, I ain’t got no problem with the gays.

Poster Alvin McEwen calls it "hypocrisy," but I don't think that's really accurate. I'm actually figuring cognitive dissonance somewhere on the scale between idiot and moron. McEwen spends the bulk of his post contrasting Warren G.'s remarks with the behavior of straights, especially the behavior of the African American community as reflected in the rapper's music, and he is in a much better position to do that than I am. I'm taking it back a step. Explain to me in rational terms, without reference to your own religious beliefs, what's wrong with two men kissing. Especially if you don't have a problem with Teh Gays. And why shouldn't kids know that it's acceptable behavior?

Jackass -- would you listen to yourself?

Public Option

Andrew Sullivan opines that:

It seems to me that a public option which allows the government to use its huge buying power to achieve cost cuts that no private company could manage would be a Trojan horse. But a government option forbidden to use such leverage, but allowed to have an edge from administrative and overhead savings, is a useful compromise. It's one more incentive for cost control.

This strikes me as completely nonsensical. After all, we have the brilliant Medicare prescription drug program engineered by the Bush administration along the lines that Sullivan approves -- that is, the government does not have the ability to negotiate prices -- which has done nothing but shovel money into the pockets of drug manufacturers. Neither I nor anyone else has seen any cost control under that kind of plan.

Given, for example, that we spend 300-400% more for prescription drugs than anyone else in the world, I think Sullivan’s “Trojan horse” may be just what we need. Those kinds of inflated prices are not singular, by the way - we pay more than anyone else for health care, and get less than most. Yes, we have “the best health care in the world,” if you’re rich and/or you participate in one of the socialized-medicine programs we have here - for example, the plan that congressmen and senators enjoy. For the rest of us, it’s not so great.

One of Sullivan’s readers nailed him on his through-the-looking-glass thinking:

You call the public option a "Trojan horse." I take it that you do not mean that allowing a public plan in which the government could generate savings by using its collective buying power will not, in fact, result in lots of Greeks with swords jumping out and killing us in our sleep. I am at a loss, however, as to what exactly you imagine the danger to be -- your sentence follows with no explanation. This is one of those things that I just do not understand at all when public option opponents gesture in this direction: what is the perceived worst case scenario here and why do you find it objectionable?

Let's say that such a government public plan would prove so effective at negotiating low rates that it would price private plans out of the majority of the health care insurance market. Is this a problem in some way? Anyone who had enough money could assuredly buy whatever high-end services or plans they would wish--you can't seriously believe that such a government plan would result in the absolute legal preclusion of private payment for medical insurance or services, can you? Or is this just a generalized fear that people will overwhelmingly prefer the public option, and the portion of our collective income going to the government in taxes (rather than private insurance policies) will increase? Really wondering what your fear is.

Let me note that Sullivan did not have an answer.

This idea that there is something inherently evil about "socialized medicine" is so much garbage, frankly. What it stands for is the right/libertarian idea that government is bad and that government-run anything is wasteful and inefficient -- which, amazingly enough, it turns out to be under Republican administrations. What strikes me as the inherent evil in the position Sullivan is taking is the idea that the wellbeing of citizens should be contingent on their ability to pay. (Which is probably fine for the Sullivan/McArdle wing of the privileged libertarian establishment, but for the rest of us, isn't so great.)

As for the state of care as it is, John Cole has an observation that strikes me as apt:

The simple refusal to admit that we already ration care in the United States is maddening. We ration all the time- poor people don’t get it, or if they do, it is in the most costly and inefficient way possible.

This seems to be what the right wing wants to preserve.

Entropy Is Winning

I may take a day or two off. My brain hurts, and I have more to write.

I think I need a day at the zoo.

In the meantime, think carefully about this.

Yeah, I'm Still Here

but blogging this morning will be delayed, along with this weeks RiB -- I'm tied up with another project and the morning got away from me (not to mention having to fight with my certified antique computer).

Later. . . .

Joke of the Week

What I find most humorous about Michael Ledeen's remarks, as quoted by Conor Friedersdorf, is his repeated assertion that he thinks.

I see little evidence of it.

(Actually, the whole quote is just short of hysterical. I mean, "elitist hatred of freedom"? Excuse me? Who writes your stuff, Sarah Palin?)

(I'm not going to link to the Corner -- Friedersdorf quotes the entire post.)

We're Not Only Everywhere, We're Inevitable

Wonderful story at NYT on coming out in middle school, which when I was that age was unthinkable.

Though most adolescents who come out do so in high school, sex researchers and counselors say that middle-school students are increasingly coming out to friends or family or to an adult in school. Just how they’re faring in a world that wasn’t expecting them — and that isn’t so sure a 12-year-old can know if he’s gay — is a complicated question that defies simple geographical explanations. Though gay kids in the South and in rural areas tend to have a harder time than those on the coasts, I met gay youth who were doing well in socially conservative areas like Tulsa and others in progressive cities who were afraid to come out.

I often refer to myself half-jokingly as a "Kinsey 6" -- I've always liked boys, and I've always known that I like boys, but when I was, say, twelve or thirteen, there was no such thing as "gay." I think kids are coming out earlier in large part because now there is an identity that fits.

After all, I’d known on some level that I was gay when I was their age. If I were growing up today, it’s possible that I would feel emboldened enough to confide in my parents, or at least a close friend, that I was gay. I’d also spent the morning of my visit reading a handful of studies about when gay and lesbian youth first report an awareness of same-sex attraction. Though most didn’t self-identify as gay or lesbian until they were 14, 15 or 16, the mean age at which they first became aware of that attraction was 10. Boys tended to be aware about a year earlier than girls.

It's a very good article, a nice balance between anecdotes and issues. It's even funny in places. Read it.

Follow-Up on "Criminalizing Normalcy"

An update on this post about sex offender registries and teenagers.

One of Sullivan's readers makes a good point in relation to Classically Liberal's original post:

I do think, however, that "cls" could've served his/her readers... his/her own credibility... and the blogosphere in general, a lot better, had (s)he taken a day or two to conduct more research on sexual abuse, pedophilia, and so forth.

Whenever you have a sexual situation involving young people, it's important to consider the age differences between the parties involved. If the age difference is less than three years, you're most likely dealing with innocent exploration; if the age difference is three years or more, there's a good chance that some sort of coercion is involved.

"Coercion" in this context is a tricky word -- the implication in most people's minds is the use of force, and that's not necessarily the case. I suspect in a lot of the "coercion" cases, it's much more a matter of the younger child following the older child's lead. Is that "child sexual abuse"? That's iffy. It's much clearer in the case of an adult and a child -- the adult is able to make reasoned decisions and has the responsibility of looking out for the welfare of the child. It's much closer to black and white, as much as anything ever is. (Just to make it crystal clear, I am not excusing those instances in which coercion does mean forcing someone -- that's something that's unacceptable under any cirumstances, at any age.)

In the instance related by Sullivan's reader, he was the victim of abuse by an older child -- he was 8, the older boy 14. There's no question in my mind that the older boy was way over the line.

But the issue of placing a child on a sex offender registry for the rest of his/her life is a separate one. The Economist took a hard look at some of the consequences of our sex offender laws. And "sex offender" becomes a very loose term indeed:

Every American state keeps a register of sex offenders. California has had one since 1947, but most states started theirs in the 1990s. Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex-offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely. A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

Some of these laws are, as you can see, ludicrous. And getting off those registries is almost impossible. Read the piece in The Economist -- it's pretty thoroughly depressing, and brings up the point I mentioned above: most of the people on these registries pose no threat to children or anyone else. To some extent, Sullivan's reader is correct: in some cases, registration is reasonable. But in 65% of them it's not.

So my outrage and disgust remain unchanged: is it justice to place an eighteen-year-old on a sex offender registry for life because he had consensual sex with his sixteen-yer-old boyfriend? Give me a break.

Tojaso

This, from Dday at Hullaballoo:

Americans' views of political issues and their partisan attachments are being increasingly shaped by gut-level worldviews. On one side of many issues are those who see the world in terms of hierarchy, think about problems in black and white terms, and struggle to tolerate difference. On the other are those who favor independence over hierarchy, shades of gray over black-white distinctions, and diversity over sameness.

There's a lot more to this one, and I hope to come back to it, but probably not until tomorrow.

But read the whole thing.