Of Browsers

The newest wrinkle at a/k/a Hunter: If you are not using Internet Explorer (and perhaps AOL or Netscape), links to some of the galleries vanish off the page. I found this out when I used IE to view the site, and then went back in Firefox.

Rather unsettling.

At any rate, there is a new gallery up this morning, a series I did in 1996 called "Veil." Use IE and go see it.






UPDATE:

I just checked with the link on this post, using Firefox, and everything's fine. Don't ask me to explain, because I can't.

Did I mention that Mercury's in retrograde?

The Bloggers

Melissa McEwan has now resigned, hard on the heels of Amanda Marcotte's resignation yesterday. I don't like McEwan's decision, but I do like her announcement.

I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. In spite of what was widely reported, I was not hired as a blogger, but a part-time technical advisor, which is the role I am vacating.

I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign's reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family's level of exposure.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.

There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.

I simply don't know enough about the inside dealings to know whether she's being entirely accurate here, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. And before anyone starts screaming that "Democrats get a free pass," let me point out that I'm willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt until I know better. That means that people like Bill Donohue don't get the benefit of the doubt. I know he's a liar. I know James Dobson's a liar. I know Bill O'Reilly's a liar. I'm not about to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't know that Melissa McEwan's a liar. Q.E.D.

Considering the kind of comments she's likely to have gotten, I can't really fault her.

Speaking of comments, I particularly liked this little gem:

This whole story broke because Bill Donahue and Michelle Malkin happened to look up the things these two bloggers posted on their blogs.

Happened to look up? Excuse me? You know as well as I do that they had every resource available to them combing the internet archives for dirt. Unless, of course, they were fed the news by the RNC.

The problem is that the actual writings, offensive and out of line as they may have been, are largely a sidebar to the real issue here, which, let me repeat, is Donohue's use of dirt that is essentially irrelevant to Edwards' campaign to try to tar Edwards. Suddenly Edwards' judgment is in question? Bullshit. Donohue's tactics are in question.

Evolution in Kansas

Yeah, I know, kind of an oxymoron. However. . . .

I happened to see a headline for this story about the Kansas School Board yesterday, but couldn't follow up at the time:

On Tuesday, the board dumped the 2005 standards that had downplayed evolution and encouraged educators to teach that evolution was a controversial theory without sound basis. The new standards are the result of the 2006 election that gave a majority to those who voted this week to treat evolution as a bedrock theory underpinning biological science education. The standards represent the work developed and continually promoted by a committee of scientists and educators, even after being rejected in 2005.

Note that the Kansas School Board has rewritten the science standards five times since 1998. All because of evolution. The last time, they changed the definition of science.

Meanwhile, a couple doors south in Texas:

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges.

The memo assails what it calls "the evolution monopoly in the schools."

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

If Kansasa and Texas didn't exist, we'd have to invent them. Or settle for Florida. (I know -- this originated in Georgia, but Georgia is so schizophrenic I can't quite get a handle on it.)

Chisum himself, by the way, although he believes in creation, doesn't hold with teaching religion in schools. Refresshing, isn't it?

(Thanks to Pharyngula for this gem.)

OK -- Thought About It

Not only do you get new pictures, you get a whole new gallery. Just go to a/k/a Hunter and follow the links from the Galleries page.

Hmm. . . .

I'm debating whether to give you a new picture today. You had a bunch a couple of days ago, and I don't want you to get blase about it.

Thinking. . . .

Point/Counterpoint

At AmericaBlog, a response to Donald Hitchcock's letter to the Washington Blade (which I posted here) from DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias. Note that the response is not an official one, but from Tobias personally.

Like John, I know Paul and Donald personally -- have even done their laundry when they stayed with me -- and wish them well.

But there's a lot in Donald's letter that's off the mark and, unintentionally, counterproductive.

Donald says "Gov. Dean barely addressed the LGBT caucus with only 5 minutes worth of comments, and no questions from the floor."

The Governor's comments to the DNC LGBT caucus were well received by a packed room. And when questions were invited from the caucus, none of the caucus members chose to ask one. (One audience member did raise his hand but, as it turned out, only wanted to offer thanks rather than ask a question.) If Donald or Paul have questions not answered below, I'd be glad to try to answer them.

Donald says, ". . . my reasons for standing up to Gov. Dean's reluctance to treating our community with dignity and respect, an action for which I was fired. I claim that firing as a badge of honor."

Donald is of course entitled to his view, but having spent a lot of time observing the Governor ever since he signed -- and then spent months stumping his state in a bulletproof vest promoting -- the nation's first civil unions bill, I have seen him consistently demonstrate nothing but a respect for and commitment to our community.

As for his "badge of honor," Donald frequently attacks the DNC, assuming it will not attack him back -- and he's right. But as someone who likes Donald and who shares his commitment to our community, I can nonetheless say that I do not share his sense of outrage over the way he was treated.

Am I sorry it didn't work out? Very.

Do I agree with his view of why it didn't work out? No.

"After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political."

After Governor Dean became chair, ALL the constituency desks were "abolished" in favor of a different organization the Governor and his staff thought would be more effective. You can argue that the old system was better -- or not -- but you can't argue that our community was singled out. The African-American desk was "abolished," the "Hispanic desk" was abolished -- ALL the desks were "abolished."

Instead, you have now at the DNC the head of the Northeast political desk who happens to be gay, and the head of the DNC training program -- who, pivotally, interacts with hundreds of our field organizers every year -- who happens to be gay (and lets them know it!). And, yes, you have several finance staffers who happen to be gay (raising money IS a big part of what the DNC does), including Brian Bond, who has a sterling resume within our community, and who spends a lot of his time interacting with other LGBT leaders who I think would vouch for his good efforts.

Indeed, from a practical point of view, Brian brings our community clout that Donald -- through no fault of his own -- could not. That's because, as it happens, Brian gave the DNC's chief operating officer his very first job in politics. That is the kind of relationship and level of trust within the DNC that Donald can't be faulted for not having had -- but that is good news for our community.

Donald and Paul have both criticized the level of financial support the DNC put into fighting the anti-marriage amendments.

After eight years as DNC treasurer, I have pretty much given up on getting Paul's or Donald's support, much as I admire their passion and good intentions.

Indeed, Paul has called upon major LGBT donors to *withhold* financial support from the national Democratic Party committees.

He and I obviously disagree that this is the best way to advance the goal of LGBT equality, which we both share.

The DNC has worked hard ever since I've been soliciting funds to elect candidates who in almost every instance were FAR better on LGBT issues than their opponents.

(Of the 107 Senators and Congressfolk with perfect 100% ratings from HRC in this past Congress, 103 were Democrats and only four Republicans. Of the 156 who rated ZERO, 152 were Republicans. The difference could hardly be more stark.)

In 2006, our principal focus was on the effort to win back the House and Senate. That's where the bulk of the LGBT money went. I, for one, am pleased with the results. Not only are our newly-empowered leaders like Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Barney Frank far more fair-minded than their predecessors; our victory in the Senate may also have an impact on judicial appointments that last for decades.

The Senate victory was so close that I think it can be fairly said it might not have happened without support from the DNC that was made possible by LGBT dollars.

Of course, that is true of other communities' money and effort as well. But I think those of us in the LGBT community should feel very proud that we pitched in. And even leaving pride aside, it was simply in our selfish best interest to do so.

Donald is quite right that only a little DNC money was diverted in 2006 specifically to fight the anti-marriage amendments. But one reason for that is simply that the precious "federal" dollars the DNC raises (precious because contributions are limited by law) are not *required* to fund statewide efforts . . . whereas *only* federal dollars can be used to fund federal elections.

So it makes sense for someone like me to give his federal dollars to the DNC, expecting them to be used mainly for federal purposes, while giving non-federal dollars to non-federal groups to fight the anti-marriage initiatives.

On the non-monetary side of fighting the anti-marriage initiatives, we were able to do more in some states than others. But there's no question that GLLC director Brian Bond worked hard to be helpful. I don't think the same can be said of efforts over at the RNC.

As unfortunate as it is that things did not work out with Donald, there are important, historic battles to be joined and won for our equal rights. Widening our margin in Congress and winning the White House in 2008 will only help. That's what the DNC is working hard to do. Onward and upwards, guys.

One of the key things to note about this is that what we're getting from the Democrats, albeit only one of them, is dialogue (if you can forgive the politically correct corporate boardroom diction). A reasoned discussion. What do you think the response would have been if the context had been the RNC? One of the reasons I think most gays are left-friendly is that the left has, historically, been more sympathetic to our community. Keep in mind that, Andrew Sullivan notwithstanding, American conservatives have historically espoused limited government along with personal freedom for some members of society. The only difference now is that the criteria for determining who gets the goodies have changed -- wealth and position are no longer enough. (And please keep in mind that, from a historical perspective, "conservative" does not equate to "Republican" at all times.)

While you're at it, check out the comments at "That Anti-Catholic Nonsense", where my ongoing discussion with Robbie of The Malcontent is taking place -- at least, this installment.

Pictures of the Past

Take some time to wander through Olduvai George, the website of natural history illustrator Carl Buell. I find his images of early mammals the most interesting, but he has some beautiful paintings of more modern things, as well -- even a couple of choice landscapes.

He's also a thoughful commentator on the interface between science and art, and about evolution. No agenda, just taking evolutionary theory, as I do, as a given and wandering around from there. He has a wonderful piece on Pakicetus, and if you don't know what that is, just let your fingers do the walking and go find out. I like his posts because he not only talks about the science, but the ways scientists -- and illustrators -- work to make it comprehensible. Immensely valuable, that.

Well worth a visit. I just wish he'd post more.

Dream Ticket

Rumsfeld-Bolton.

Yes, there are people who are serious about this.

On Going Through Old Photographs

Which is actually the title of a poem I wrote -- one of the few that have been published.

I do that periodically, because I've found, in thirty years of making pictures, that my artist mind far outstrips my editor mind sometimes. It's become all too common for me to go back through old material and say to myself, "Why have I never printed that? It's fantastic!"

So, here's a little something I found recently.




Every once in a while I run into an image that has too many possibilities. I do most of my work in the darkroom (or in Photoshop), unlike those photographers who do their work in the camera. As a result, I make crappy negatives, but they have a lot of ways to go. Here's one that first appeared on the scanner roughly like this:



















I looked at it a bit, and liked it, but I wanted to see what else was possible. So I played around a bit and came up with this:




















I'm not sure which I like better.

Funny Du Jour

Q: What do you call a thousand heavily armed lesbians?
A: Militia Etheridge





From TBogg.

More on Donohue

In case you were wondering just what kind of scum Bill Donohue of the Catholic League (it even sounds medieval) is, here's a little piece he wrote defending child-molesting priests.

The overwhelming majority of those abused are postpubescent males—they are not children. Breaking the seal of the confessional could not have saved any of them; nor will it protect anyone in the future. Let’s remember a few basic facts.

There's a little thing called "age of consent laws" that applies here. In all cases, the victims were legal minors. Donohue is at pains not to point that out. Nor does he touch on the Church's reaction to reports of abuse over several decades, but offers this possibility:

The seal of the confessional does not apply to the penitent. If someone confesses knowledge of abuse to a priest, there is nothing to stop him from contacting the authorities. Nor is there something that would prevent the priest from asking such a penitent to discuss this further in his office, thereby freeing the priest from his confessional vows. The priest could also withhold absolution until such time as the authorities were notified. In short, there are ways a priest can fulfill his duties without sacrificing anyone.

And just how many times did this happen? Among those not threatened with excommunication if they talked, I mean.

In other words, let the Church police itself. It's done such a good job so far.

More on Donohue, along with some insights on Mel Gibson, at Orcinus. Scarily illuminating.

From Under A Rock In Arkansas

Actually, he was in Rhode Island or someplace when he came out with these whoppers. Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas. Who's a primary contender for Idiot of the Week. From 365gay.com:

Republican Mike Huckabee said Friday that marriage shouldn't be treated as an experiment in response to questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter should have the right to wed.

The former Arkansas governor, who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, said heterosexual marriages face enough challenges without adding new configurations to the mix.

OK -- this is one of those cognitive dissonance things. Who's trying to treat marriage as an experiment? Mary Cheney and Heather Poe love each other enough to have been together for fifteen years (without any official support from society at large) and now they want to start a family. What's experimental about this? What's the new configuration here? Two parents and child. Seems pretty standard to me. Is this somehow worse than single mother and child?

Frankly, if Huckabee can't step back and look at the larger picture, he's certainly not fit to be president.

Huckabee declined to comment on Mary Cheney's decision.

"I wouldn't get near specific cases," he said.

But when pressed, he said the historic definition of marriage has worked for so long for a reason.

"People have a right to decide how they live their lives. But they have to respect not changing the definition of marriage," said Huckabee, who served as a pastor in Baptist churches before becoming governor in 1996.

Notice he is avoiding specifics. Maybe because if you have to deal with real people and the damage you're doing them, you don't feel so virtuous? Just sayin'.

Another version of the right defining the discourse. No one wants to change the definition of marriage, except to those who "define" marriage very tightly to fit their own worldview. Two people who love each other and want to be a family, with or without children. How hard is that?

I guess it's only hard when you have to confront real people with your smallness.

Here's one that just doesn't compute at all:

In 2006, when the Arkansas Supreme Court rejected a ban on gay foster parents that had been put in by a state board, Huckabee said through a spokeswoman: "I'm very disappointed that the court seems more interested in what's good for gay couples than what's good for children needing foster care."

Another WTF? comment from the rabid right.

That Anti-Catholic Nonsense

Y'know, between Bill Donohue and the Pope, I think it's a wonder there's anyone who's not anti-Catholic.

I was going to dismiss the whole issue with that comment, but my reading this morning has brought up some interesting insights.

See this post by Glenn Greenwald on what the real significance of this whole "anti-Catholic bloggers" mess is. Greenwald has further comments here. And here's Sara Robinson in rare form on the Donohue strategy. It was written before Edwards decided to keep his bloggers -- or before he "rehired" them, and touches on my reservation about the whole thing: it took pressure from the netroots, apparently, for Edwards not to cave in to Donohue. That bothers me a lot. I think his response should have been, right from the start, "Bill Who? Do you have a question on a real issue?"

I think both Greenwald and Robinson hit some important points: public discourse in this country has been dominated by right-wing extremists for more than a decade -- really, their influence goes back to the 1980s, when Reagan used them to gain power, but also gave them legitimacy and a forum. (This is the same Reagan whom conservatives praise as the greatest president of the twentieth century. He is also the one who created the "imperial presidency," let us not forget.) The mainstream media has bought into the diction of the radical right, and even worse, has stopped questioning the assumptions within which our discourse is framed. The blogosphere is our only recourse, so I don't find it paranoid at all that Robinson advances the idea that one goal of the right is to silence us. (The historian in me reflects that history is, after all, a series of reactions, and we're just suffering through the reaction to the 1960s. As I remarked to a younger friend, "I realize your generation marks the end of civilization as we know it, but it's pretty annoying to have to live through it.")

From the other side of the aisle, this also touches on my exchanges with Robbie of The Malcontent about Mary Cheney and the reaction of "gay politics." (We really have to be more precise about what that means, otherwise we're getting nowhere -- precision, alas, seems to be another victim of the current mode. I do note, however, after reading several recent posts at The Malcontent, that Matt and Robbie seem to have a common response to certain questions: the left is always wrong, especially the gay left, and is moreover hateful about it. In Matt's post touching on the blogger controversy, the bloggers, of course, are totally wrong and evil; there didn't seem to be any question that Donohue's motives are of the purest. [There are other issues here, but this is not the place for them. Let's just say that I see the post as underhanded, at best.] I can see why the boys at GayPatriot find them soulmates. Considering that observation, perhaps imprecision is merely part of the arsenal, much in the way that creationists skate among various meanings of "theory." Actually defining what they were talking about would kill their "controversy." Just sayin'.) It's a context in which any criticism of the right is seen as based on a double standard (as though they don't), without reference to how deserving of criticism they are. As I stated, I think the Cheneys, father and daughter, deserve whatever brickbats we can throw: they are not our friends, they are out for themselves and themselves only. I'm not about to give Mary Cheney a pass because her closet has a revolving door. (Known in GayPatriotspeak as "out and proud.") This doesn't mean I won't criticize a Democrat when I don't think they're right, but I'm going to save my harshest comments for those who I think are doing to most damage to my community. Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi is not in the running.

At any rate, going back to Robinson's comments, the blogosphere is democracy in action, spontaneous, rough, dirty, and offensive. I've often said that you have to have a fairly thick skin to survive in a democracy, and I still have that opinion. You will maintain my respect if you show integrity and honesty, although you don't need to be particularly genteel about it (come to think of it, I've used a couple of naughty words myself from time to time) and if you don't, take the consequences. I'm not prepared to moderate my stance at all for some poseur like Bill Donohue, whose religiosity is arguably nothing more than a front for a politcal agenda. My only comment to him is "Grow up and get a life." (And even that, I think, gives him too much credibility -- after all, where are his comments from the time those "objectionable" posts were first available?)

PS -- if you scroll down the recent posts at Eschaton, Atrios has a wealth of comments by Donohue fully illustrating just what a piece of slime he is.

And this is the spokesman for American Catholics?

Update:

Jane Galt has some interesting thoughts on this, but I think she misses a point: If there were the slightest reason to believe that Donohue's outcry rested primarily, or even in large part, on genuine religious feeling, I daresay my reacton would be quite different. I don't believe it for a minute.

Beginning with a quote from Ampersand, she goes on to make what to me is the major error:

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window” is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

I think this captures the essence of the argument, although I'm not sure that Amp is right about this being an attempt to shift it; my admittedly limited knowlege of Non-Coastal-Elite-America indicates that in most of the country, slagging off the Pope, or indeed making fun of religion qua religion, is mostly verboten.

The error is simply that the right has so distorted the discourse in this country that attacking (or satirizing) the political agenda of someone like Donohue (or the Pope, for that matter, who, let us remember, has said that separation of church and state is "a myth" and who is nothing if not a politican) is equated, almost automatically, with attacking his religion. This is an entirely predictable result of equating God with, for example, the Republican Party, not that it's a desirable result. We can lay it at the feet of Donohue's spiritual forebears, so to speak -- Robertson, Falwell, and their ilk, who repeatedly conflated their religion and their politics -- and those outside of that small coterie who let them get away with it. And, to the rejoinder that in their minds their religion and their politics are inseparable (the Rushdooney Effect), I say "So what?" As far as I can see, that's an example of taking political correctness way too far. If, living in a country founded on secularism, they can't separate their beliefs from the common good, and go so far as to insist that only their beliefs have any validity as a basis for our society, then I reiterate: they are not only un-American, they are anti-American.

(I got this link from Andrew Sullivan. It seems to be his only comment on the situation, which surprises me -- I would have thought that anything that so seamlessly intertwines the Catholic church and the Christianists would merit more scrutiny from him.)

Update II

(Channeling Glenn Greenwald again.) Steve Gilliard at Newsblog calls it just about the way I see it:

This is NOT about bloggers, but allowing the right to still determine the agenda of Democrats.

It's about allowing the right to determine agendas, period. That's Donohue's whole game. And Dobson's, and Limbaugh's, and Wildmon's, and. .

Scanner News

Finally! I found the magic button that got me back to optimum working conditions. Spent yesterday afternoon scanning my little brains out.

However, considering that I'm trying to go through thirty years of my work, I'm going to have to limit the number of images in the galleries. If I get enough positive response (hint, hint), I'll consider adding more in each group.

Pelosi's Plane

Can we lay this to rest now? Here's a statement from the House Sargeant at Arms:

February 8, 2007

As the Sergeant at Arms, I have the responsibility to ensure the security of the members of the House of Representatives, to include the Speaker of the House. The Speaker requires additional precautions due to her responsibilities as the leader of the House and her Constitutional position as second in the line of succession to the presidency.

In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi. The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable. This will ensure communications capabilities and also enhance security. I made the recommendation to use military aircraft based upon the need to provide necessary levels of security for ranking national leaders, such as the Speaker. I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue.

Via Josh Marshall.

Coming Soon To A Natural History Museum Near You

I'm waiting for this to start happening here -- if it hasn't already:

[Bishop Boniface] Adoyo, the Chairman of Evangelical Alliance of Kenya that represents 35 churches with a membership of six million faithful, says the theory confuses children who frequent the museum on educational tours. "I'm worried that children will believe we evolved from monkeys. Yet this is not the truth that's killing our faith," he says.

Saturday Standard has learnt that the alliance has enlisted a number of Western institutions to raise funds for anti-hominid campaigns in the media and through religious sermons.

The church plans to hold major demonstrations to the museum to press for the removal of the bones.

There is a strong element of denial of reality here:

But Adoyo dismisses the theory as "mere speculations".

He argues that the theory presents assumptions as facts. He says it takes more faith to believe in the theories than that God created man. "These are just speculations yet we believe in them. ...Man is uniquely created; there is nothing concrete about the evolution theory and that is why we as Christians are uncomfortable with the museum's plans to display the hominids and narrate the story of evolution as if it is the truth," he explains.

Reminds me of our home-grown creationists (who are probably the ones funding this campaign).

And of course, he has to play the race card:

But the NPC cleric insists that evolution is an archaic theory meant to perpetuate racism. "Even Darwin on his death bed expressed surprise that people believed his theory," Adoyo says. "Pure science has overtaken palaeontology.

This one got me:

The advent of DNA testing has helped us to trace the origin of man to Adam and Eve," he says. "Palaeontologists do not want to admit this because it will crumble their scientific edifice," he says.

This is sort of staggering, aside from simply not being true. RNA has been traced back to a group of women in Africa about 200,000 years ago, as I recall, who are lumped together metaphorically as "Eve" (but I forget -- fundamentalists don't admit to metaphor -- if they did, they wouldn't be fundamentalists). DNA mapping has led to the inescapable conclusion that we are closely related to chimpanzees and gorillas.

This goes back to Jack Balkin's comments on Ted Haggard, which I mentioned in my last post on that subject. The mindset seems to be that the universe is ordered the way you've been told by highest authority that it's ordered, and nothing that contradicts that exists. They just don't see it, even though they're staring it in the face. I have to admit, it's a way of looking at the world that I don't understand at all.

(Sidebar: I'm cynical enough that I have a hard time swallowing that anyone acts this way from pure religious belief and not from some political agenda. I admit it. I don't understand this attitude that "everyone must believe as I believe and my beliefs must be the law of the land" (nice little dose of proto-fascism there), probably because my own religion recognizes that there are many paths to Truth. I simply feel that those who insist on the unalterable rightness of their beliefs are up to something. It doesn't help that they usually are.)

Free Rides

Given the blanket condemnation of "gay politics" by Robbie that led to the exchange in this post, I though this letter from Donald Hitchcock was interesting.

Washington Blade

DNC Not Ready to Make Nice

Dear Editor,

After attending the recent Democratic National Committee LGBT Caucus meeting, it reaffirmed for me my reasons for standing up to Gov. Dean’s reluctance to treating our community with dignity and respect, an action for which I was fired. I claim that firing as a badge of honor.

Gov. Dean barely addressed the LGBT caucus with only 5 minutes worth of comments, and no questions from the floor. And unfortunately, his talking points had shifted from the comprehensive plan to address the anti-LGBT state ballot measures offered last year to throwing only “a little bit of money” into the states at the end of the fight. So much for the strategy to combat them that he touted in the LGBT press prior to the elections. A recent survey shows that the DNC gave states less than $20,000 in-total, despite having raised almost $2 million from the LGBT community in 2006. But we will never know the exact amount given to state groups since the DNC is embarrassed to officially release the numbers.

The most shocking revelation during the meeting was that Gov. Dean misspoke by claiming that there were no 2006 LGBT exit-polling numbers, stating that “people won’t admit that they are gay” to pollsters while walking out of the voting booth. However, as many of us know, there are indeed exit polls reporting that approximately 80% of LGBT voters voted Democratic. Obviously, either his staff still does not have access to brief him on our issues, or he is not listening. I wonder if he would address any other constituency group, not knowing this basic information.

At the meeting, LGBT finance staff and key fundraisers did sit at the Caucus table, as before, but what is different is that lately we seem to be treated solely as an ATM for the party, with our civil rights seeming an afterthought or burden. After Gov. Dean became Chair of the DNC, two LGBT political positions were abolished, and two finance positions were added, for a total now of four positions in Finance and zero in Political. Given the meeting, it’s obvious that we continue to be invited to the table, pay for the meal, but we are not allowed to eat.

I have great faith in the community to continue to ask questions, and hold our party accountable. That is the only way real progress can be made.

Sincerely,

Donald Hitchcock
Washington, DC

Editors Note: Donald Hitchcock is the former Director of the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee

OK -- open letter from a gay former DNC staffer to a gay publication. Tell me again how we're giving the Democrats a pass.

(Reposted from AmericaBlog.)

WTF?

There arent's words in my vocabulary for this one. From WaPo:

Five of the seven Senate signatories to yesterday's letter [demanding a vote on the Warner resolution] -- including Warner, the bipartisan resolution's chief author -- had voted Monday to block the debate.

Snickers

Oh, for the love of Pete! Can we get a grip, please? The commercial as aired was faintly funny and satirical. Even the alternative endings can be read that way, although they're a bit on the edge. They can all very easily be interpreted as a slap against homophobia. So will all those activists with knots in their panties please run right out to (pick one: Neiman-Marcus, Sears, WalMart) and pick up a sense of proportion?

Reply to Robbie

Here is the comment left by Robbie of The Malcontent, in italics, on this post, with my comments in roman. I had thought I would probably just dump it in the comments on the original post, but he raises some issues that I think need to be addressed more widely. Just for convenience, here'a a link to his original post.

Well, for a start, I'm nowhere near as partisan or right-wing as Gay Patriot tends to be. I'm not a Republican, I don't like the GOP, and I typically have many harsh remarks for prominent figures on the Right. Not important in the larger scheme of your post, but I dislike being miscategorized at the outset.

I've reviewed my post and can's seem to find any categorization of you. Yes, I made several comments about the general tone of your post, but nowhere that I can find did I comment on your politics, which I don't know. (Although if you're talking about my reference to the right-wing historical selectivity gene, that was meant more for GayPatriot than you, although your post shows enough evidence of it that I can say "if the shoe fits, wear it.")

You seem to see my post through the prism of Republican apology. However, as written, my approach is less interested in Republicans as swell folks than gay politics as a hypocrisy-filled, double-standarding, unserious mess based in little more than narrow partisan ideology and heaps of emotionalism.

My beef (which you ignore) is that Mary Cheney is held to a standard that Democrats simply are not. She's held to a standard that most prominent gay people are not - if they possess the correct politics.

While you say Dick Cheney punted by asserting the president has the final say on policy, this is nothing compared to John Kerry lobbying for the repeal of gay marriage in Massachusettes. Both errors, I think, but the objectively worse decision is the man who would have the primary say in policy throwing gays under the bus vs. a second in command.

But the typical gay response to both men could not be more different. Instead of seeing individual positions, both are lumped into their parties. Democrats good, Republicans evil. My approach on these things is to give credit where due to individuals regardless of party.

The major question here is, "Who promulgates this 'typical gay response'?" I seem to remember both Pam Spaulding and John Aravosis raking Kerry over the coals for his position on gay marriage (not to mention Andrew Sullivan, who supported Kerry otherwise), and I, in my own small way, certainly did not give him a pass (I'd quote, but my archives from the old site are history). In the blogosphere, at least, I don't see Mary Cheney being held to a stricter standard, although I have to say that it might be justified to do so -- she's an out lesbian working against gay interests. No, I don't expect the same level of commitment from a straight who is by and large sympathetic, if not ready to jump on board for the most difficult issue facing us.

If you're talking about the national organizations such as HRC, I certainly have no faith in them and I've said so, time and again. I understand that they're working on a long-term strategy involving basic rights, and the marriage thing took them by surprise. By the same token, they've proven themselves unable to respond effectively to the issues of the day, and by their inactivity have done us considerable damage. I don't agree with allying ourselves to a party, and I think it's a stupid move. HRC should go back to supporting individual candidates, no matter their affiliation, if they meet our criteria for support.

If the Cheneys are going to be held to an utterly unforgiving standard, then much of the Democratic party must be as well. That doesn't happen, well, ever. I realize the HRC's full time job now involves full on fellatio of one political party - especially during this last election where they cheered on the election of people who support the FMA - but I do believe in having some integrity on these matters.

This only points up the validity of my comments on the degree of venom you seem to lavish on the left, or, in your parlance, "gay politics." As for the HRC, I understand their strategy, I think -- gettting Democrats into office was the major priority in this election -- but again, I don't agree with them and I think they're wasting valuable resources. In practical terms, though I'm not ready to give any Democrat a pass just because he or she is on the left, a Democrat is, at this point, much more likely to be someone we can work with. That doesn't mean anything they say or do is OK, and aside from HRC becoming an adjunct of the Democratic Party, I don't know of anyone who is willing to let them off the hook. I do take exception to lumping us all together, since there are numerous critics of HRC within the ranks of gay America, and they're not all on the right.

As for integrity, I fear we are long past the point where you can expect any in politics. To insist that a candidate adhere to the party line in all respects may be, in your eyes, "integrity," but in real life, it's a good way to wind up with no one to support.

Mary's not perfect. Her on again, off again lesbianism is schizophrentic at best. But given her family's position, I understand it. I don't agree with it - I never ever said I have - but I have sympathy for someone trying to maintain a very careful balance when it comes to leading her own life while tap-dancing in such a way that doesn't harm her father's political career.

It's not ideal, but it really is no different from a lot of behavior gay publications have no problem with in Democrats. John Kerry supported a repeal of gay marriage in his home state, and the apologists were out in full force. "Well, that's just what he has to do . . ."

Cheney's position was/is no different from a whole host of Democrats. From Obama to Edwards to Clinton, they're all mush-mouthed and ready to pass the subject at the first opportune moment. And again, isn't it objectively worse when the presidential candidate takes these positions over a vice-presidential one?

As far as I can tell, the gay community has reservations about the entire field of candidates at this point. However, considering how the Republican side of the roster is stacking up, any of the Democrats are preferable. Should we be supporting Sam Brownback or Mitt Romney? I don't think so. It's hard to tell whether Cheney has had any influence on the administration on gay issues, since the White House's attitude toward the religious right is an open secret at this point, and it's not pretty. Sure, the rhetoric is muted -- it was never very strident from that direction to begin with -- but there's been no action and no counter moves. I think we're safe in saying that, Cheney's public positions notwithstanding, these are not our partisans. When Cheney is making trips over to the Hill to lobby in support of ENDA, then I might change my view.

Cheney's out, she's not in an enviable position given her family, but she's still working to carve a place for herself in a very awkward environment. It's not the best situation, but I admire her for being open in a party as hostile to her as the Republicans. I think once her father is out of office, she'll be even more vocal about gay issues. Especially if she remains in Virginia.

It's important to have prominent, out Republicans if we're going to make gay rights a human thing rather than allow forces on both sides to minimize it as a partisan, easily marginalized special interest (the HRC strategy).

If I'm not as harsh on her as other people, perhaps it's because I don't believe in piling on when it isn't necessary, and I object to the self-righteous tone of those who yell and scream at a Mary while giving quiet hand-jobs to their political allies who behave in a very similar manner.

We either have standards and integrity, or we don't. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in GLBT discourse almost always come firmly down on the side of don't.

Your last comment sort of encapsulates the gist of my post, and I'm going to turn your own position around on you: why should Mary Cheney, who by all available evidence is as self-servingly hypocritical as any other public figure you want to name, be defended by any gay person in the country? Not for her integrity, that's for sure. What good does it do us to have a prominent, out Republicans (who is out when it suits her purposes, but calls people who refer quite legitimately to her orientation dirty names on television when it doesn't suit her agenda) standing there like butter wouldn't melt in her mouth when she has spent her entire career not only not giving a damn about the community at large but working against it for her own gain? Her work at Coors was nothing more than trading on her own right-wing connections to milk money out of the gay community to fund more right-wing nutjobs while she was making a very comfortable living at it. I'm supposed to give her a break? When pigs make poetry.

Mary Cheney has wealth and position, which most of us don't, and is going to be insulated from a lot of nastiness no matter where she lives. Do you honestly think anyone in Virginia is going to give her grief about Heather and their relationship? Not in this universe.

For all your talk about a double standard, I seem to see strong evidence of it in everything you've said regarding criticism of Mary Cheney. The gay community in this country is as diverse as any other, and probably more so than most, and to heap contumely (I love that phrase) on us because somebody criticized the Cheneys while giving Democrats a nod (and frankly, for our own interests, that makes a lot of sense) strikes me as more than a little confused. I'm still waiting for someone to point out this "typical gay response" when all I can see is the very broad range of opinion that is what we should be expecting.

If you want to take the gay press, the national rights organizations, or any other part of the gay community to task, do it for something they've done, not because they are quite justifiably criticizing someone who deserves it. Coming down hard on the Cheneys is not much indication of a double standard.

Frankly, you have more deserving targets out there than our own.