A couple of notes from AmericaBlog (here and here).
I keep remembering that Frank is one of the people who has actually made things happen with civil rights legislation for gays. HRC and the other national "rights" organizations haven't, and after thirty years, they are once again prepared to torpedo the boat if they don't get their ideologically pure way. It's an object lesson in how to be completely ineffective.
I hope I've made it plain that I support a trans-inclusive ENDA, but that the arguments for dropping the orientation-only bill, which can pass, in favor a trans-inclusive bill that can't, are not in the least persuasive. Frank is right, and that's all there is to it. I'm also more than a little bit irritated at the revisionist history I've seen coming out on the gay movement, with the not-so-subtle subtext that the transpeople have been carrying the rest of us on their backs and it's payback time.
Crock, that.
You're welcome to come in, but you don't own the house.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Oh, Camille! Oh, Andy! Oh, Brother!
Paglia once again demonstrates her ability to gaze longingly into her own navel (go to the second page):
This kind of partisan rancor and mutual recrimination are the sad legacy of two self-destructive administrations in a row. Bill Clinton's lies about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky paralyzed the government and tainted his legacy, while George Bush's poor judgment and managerial ineptitude have mired us in an endless, brutal war with little chance for a happy ending.
'Scuse me, but just who made Bill Clinton's extramarital activities an issue? It wasn't Clinton, and it wasn't the American public. As for "tainting his legacy," well, Camille says so, so it must be true.
Andrew Sullivan, of course, concurs. (The irony of Sullivan's post title is exquisite.) (Update: Ezra Klein has some observations on Sullivan and the Clintons.)
I guess the stories about the Washington establishment really do have some substance. I'm also continually amused that a "cultural critic" is so completely clueless about what's going on.
I wish I could say I was surprised that Sullivan is dumb enough to fall for it.
This kind of partisan rancor and mutual recrimination are the sad legacy of two self-destructive administrations in a row. Bill Clinton's lies about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky paralyzed the government and tainted his legacy, while George Bush's poor judgment and managerial ineptitude have mired us in an endless, brutal war with little chance for a happy ending.
'Scuse me, but just who made Bill Clinton's extramarital activities an issue? It wasn't Clinton, and it wasn't the American public. As for "tainting his legacy," well, Camille says so, so it must be true.
Andrew Sullivan, of course, concurs. (The irony of Sullivan's post title is exquisite.) (Update: Ezra Klein has some observations on Sullivan and the Clintons.)
I guess the stories about the Washington establishment really do have some substance. I'm also continually amused that a "cultural critic" is so completely clueless about what's going on.
I wish I could say I was surprised that Sullivan is dumb enough to fall for it.
What Republicans Want
Colin McEnroe finds the philosophical basis of the smear campaign against Graeme Frost and his family:
These people -- even with their combined income of a VERY modest $45,000 -- have no business turning to the government for help with their medical bills because they haven't been bankrupted yet. They're income is low, but they've managed to hang onto some assets that place them a little closer to the middle class. It's disgusting that they get help from the government if they have anything.
Of course, since privileged Republicans can afford insurance (or own stock in insurance companies), they don't have to worry, so things like an expanded S-CHIP are probably a socialist plot (Republicans who aren't wealthy are becoming a vanishing species):
And look at this! Malkin and her friends don't want to fix that problem. On the contrary, they insist on it! They insist on the risk of bankruptcy as kind of a moral imperative; and they say members of the shaky, eroding American middle class who are not willing to put up with the ruination of their financial health from medical bills are leeches and wussies! Wow.
Of course, if it's a moral good to be bankrupt, why aren't they volunteering? Like they did to serve in Iraq?
Commenter ny nick has a good question:
My question is, god forbid one of these kids had fallen into an irreversable coma like Terry Schiavo, Michelle Malkin and her friends in the flying monkey brigade would be more than willing to let the government pay to keep the brain dead person on life support. Why are they willing to spend government money on Terry Schiavo but not on rehabiliting a child back to health?
Simple -- because the right wing doesn't want to help anyone who can talk back.
Thanks to Atrios.
These people -- even with their combined income of a VERY modest $45,000 -- have no business turning to the government for help with their medical bills because they haven't been bankrupted yet. They're income is low, but they've managed to hang onto some assets that place them a little closer to the middle class. It's disgusting that they get help from the government if they have anything.
Of course, since privileged Republicans can afford insurance (or own stock in insurance companies), they don't have to worry, so things like an expanded S-CHIP are probably a socialist plot (Republicans who aren't wealthy are becoming a vanishing species):
And look at this! Malkin and her friends don't want to fix that problem. On the contrary, they insist on it! They insist on the risk of bankruptcy as kind of a moral imperative; and they say members of the shaky, eroding American middle class who are not willing to put up with the ruination of their financial health from medical bills are leeches and wussies! Wow.
Of course, if it's a moral good to be bankrupt, why aren't they volunteering? Like they did to serve in Iraq?
Commenter ny nick has a good question:
My question is, god forbid one of these kids had fallen into an irreversable coma like Terry Schiavo, Michelle Malkin and her friends in the flying monkey brigade would be more than willing to let the government pay to keep the brain dead person on life support. Why are they willing to spend government money on Terry Schiavo but not on rehabiliting a child back to health?
Simple -- because the right wing doesn't want to help anyone who can talk back.
Thanks to Atrios.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
S-CHIP and the Loonysphere
This very thorough post by Barbara O'Brien reflects the tenor of the left's reaction to the right-wing attacks on Graeme Frost -- who, as you might remember, is twelve years old and made the mistake of appearing in an ad supporting S-CHIP.
However, one thing I haven't seen in the online discussions of this, which focus on how disgusting the whole tactic is, is the real purpose of the Malkin-led swiftboating: aside from the fact that Malkin and her ilk have no moral standards whatsoever, their goal here is to scare anyone else who might lend their support.
Think about it -- would you want your kid to appear in a public forum in support of a good program that has proven its value if you're going to have your personal information published in some right-wing smear campaign and be subjected to total strangers peering in your windows at all hours and calling you with threats?
I'd have second thoughts.
However, one thing I haven't seen in the online discussions of this, which focus on how disgusting the whole tactic is, is the real purpose of the Malkin-led swiftboating: aside from the fact that Malkin and her ilk have no moral standards whatsoever, their goal here is to scare anyone else who might lend their support.
Think about it -- would you want your kid to appear in a public forum in support of a good program that has proven its value if you're going to have your personal information published in some right-wing smear campaign and be subjected to total strangers peering in your windows at all hours and calling you with threats?
I'd have second thoughts.
Top Secret
Hilzoy has a terrific post on the courts and the whole problem of rendition and secret trials. This quote, I think, puts the whole thing in focus:
"By no means do we endorse El-Masri's theory that publicly reported information concerning his alleged rendition is ineligible for protection under the states secrets doctrine simply because it has been published in the media." --El Masri v. Tenet, 4th Circuit, footnote 5.
This is what happens when you let wingnuts pack the courts.
"By no means do we endorse El-Masri's theory that publicly reported information concerning his alleged rendition is ineligible for protection under the states secrets doctrine simply because it has been published in the media." --El Masri v. Tenet, 4th Circuit, footnote 5.
This is what happens when you let wingnuts pack the courts.
"By Their Works Shall Ye Know Them"
Isn't that how the quote goes? I've seen several posts on the topic of the current perception of Christianity, but this one by Sara Robinson at Orcinus seems to be the most thoughtful and complete. Worth a read.
I think I'd only like to add something that I've expressed to Christian friends and participants in discussion groups: it is not for those such as me to reject the rhetoric and activities of the rabidly anti-gay religious fanatics -- it is Christians themselves who must fight back against this, and fight strongly by rejecting these poeople and their smallness loudly and publicly. It's not enough to say "I don't agree with that" and change the subject.
I think I'd only like to add something that I've expressed to Christian friends and participants in discussion groups: it is not for those such as me to reject the rhetoric and activities of the rabidly anti-gay religious fanatics -- it is Christians themselves who must fight back against this, and fight strongly by rejecting these poeople and their smallness loudly and publicly. It's not enough to say "I don't agree with that" and change the subject.
TPC
If you've never seen The President's Analyst, try to find it someplace. It's an hysterical dark comedy with James Coburn as yoga-practicing, pot-smoking psychotherapist who is tapped to be the president's listening post -- and winds up being stalked by The Phone Company (TPC).
AT&T is on my shit list right now, to the extent that I am changing my service -- it seems that under the government-approved pricing system they now have, a local call is not necessarily a local call any more -- you can call the same area code and be charged for long-distance.
See this post by Pachacutec at Firedoglake on the telecom industry in general.
Scum.
(A Footnote: I see a trend with my phone service similar to what I saw with my bank: AT&T bought SBC, which had bought Illinois Bell -- and as the company got bigger, the service got worse and more expensive.)
AT&T is on my shit list right now, to the extent that I am changing my service -- it seems that under the government-approved pricing system they now have, a local call is not necessarily a local call any more -- you can call the same area code and be charged for long-distance.
See this post by Pachacutec at Firedoglake on the telecom industry in general.
Scum.
(A Footnote: I see a trend with my phone service similar to what I saw with my bank: AT&T bought SBC, which had bought Illinois Bell -- and as the company got bigger, the service got worse and more expensive.)
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Scum
What digby said.
Keep in mind that these are the kind of people who thing others' misfortune is something to laugh about, not something to do something about.
Keep in mind that these are the kind of people who thing others' misfortune is something to laugh about, not something to do something about.
Everyone's the Same Person
I did have some time yesterday to go back to Gabriel Rotello's post at HuffPo. I found it absolutely infuriating.
In broad terms, there's a lot of the same sorts of assertions I reject from right-wing anti-gay activists -- a lot of "researchers believe," "studies indicate," and the like, with no direct quotes (and even those can't be trusted, as we've learned from the likes of James Dobson) and no citations. Granted, this is an opinion piece, but by the same token, it's nothing more than opinion, with an unverifiable basis.
It strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to enlist science in the service of ideology, something with which I have no patience whatsoever. I had started a detailed critique of the piece, but there is so much wrong here that I would have been faced with a huge amount of reserach (for which I simply don't have the time) to be oon absolutely firm ground on the science, I'm just going to say that I dispute his conclusions, largely because they seem pre-ordained. Since the whole argument relies on definitions of terms that are not defined and I'm not buying the conflation of sexual orientation with gender identity (which he admits is a political definition), I can't give it much credit as a serious statement.
In broad terms, there's a lot of the same sorts of assertions I reject from right-wing anti-gay activists -- a lot of "researchers believe," "studies indicate," and the like, with no direct quotes (and even those can't be trusted, as we've learned from the likes of James Dobson) and no citations. Granted, this is an opinion piece, but by the same token, it's nothing more than opinion, with an unverifiable basis.
It strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to enlist science in the service of ideology, something with which I have no patience whatsoever. I had started a detailed critique of the piece, but there is so much wrong here that I would have been faced with a huge amount of reserach (for which I simply don't have the time) to be oon absolutely firm ground on the science, I'm just going to say that I dispute his conclusions, largely because they seem pre-ordained. Since the whole argument relies on definitions of terms that are not defined and I'm not buying the conflation of sexual orientation with gender identity (which he admits is a political definition), I can't give it much credit as a serious statement.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
ENDA, Yet Again
Chris Crain has a good post on Dale Carpenter's examination of the argument that transgender protections in ENDA will protect gays and lesbians as well.
I haven't had time to get back to Gabriel Rotello's piece -- I've really got to focus on doing some reviews today. Maybe tomorrow.
I haven't had time to get back to Gabriel Rotello's piece -- I've really got to focus on doing some reviews today. Maybe tomorrow.
"Gay Fathers"
OK -- this is a wonderful post from Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin.
I'd add Gertrude Stein, Samuel Barber, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare to the list.
How about you?
I'd add Gertrude Stein, Samuel Barber, Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare to the list.
How about you?
Saturday, October 06, 2007
The Right-Wing Mind
Doing a little surfing and ran across this story from TPM via John McKay at archie:
"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," [Gen. Peter Pace] told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.
"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."
I find Pace's attempt at qualifying his statement even more repulsive than the original, being the First Amendment freak that I am. McKay had a similar reaction:
Before going any further, everyone should notice the very disturbing implication of his last statement. Pace is firmly endorsing the Religious Right position that American law should not be allowed to run counter to their sect's interpretation of Biblical law. This position is firmly embedded in their revisionist "Christian Nation" theory of American history.
This is right in line with John McCain's contention that the Founders established the US as a "Christian nation," which is obviously and blatantly untrue. (McCain seems to be a prime example of what pandering to the nutfudge right will do to you -- he used to be worthy of some respect before he made himself into a raddled old doormat.) I really would like to see someone ask a subject like Pace just exactly what in the Constitution gives him the right to impose his own personal religious beliefs on the rest of the country. Alas, not with this press corps -- they're just as ignorant as their interviewees.
This all ties into Barbara O'Brien's comments about the conservative mindset:
Over the long years I’ve observed some consistent traits among righties. One is that they sincerely believe most people think the way they do, even when polls say otherwise. In fact, “most people agree with me” is a common fallback debate tactic. Some have an almost frantic need to believe they belong to a majority, possibly because it makes them feel powerful. Erich Fromm wrote that people who find autonomy isolating and bewildering often will submerge themselves in an authoritarian group. Such people often have a strong sado-masochistic streak, Fromm said. They derive pleasure both from submission to a higher authority and from aggressively dominating people who fall below them in the social/power strata. “Humor” is often a socially acceptable form of hate speech used to keep less desirable people in their place.
Naturally, people who submerge their individuality into an authoritarian group place much importance on the trappings of conformity. Today much of the Right Blogosphere is in a tizzy because Barack Obama has stopped wearing a flag pin in his lapel. From right-wing reaction you’d think Obama had announced his engagement to Osama bin Laden.
I've noticed similar traits in discussion groups and even in comments on this blog: anything that runs counter to their beliefs doesn't exist. And I'm using "beliefs" in the broadest sense, as in the legendary headline at GayPatriot at the height of the Abramoff-Coingate-Cunningham etc. scandals: "The Democrats' Culture of Corruption." The Republican-owned scandals received no mention there because, I would assume, Republicans couldn't possibly be corrupt.
O'Brien also has a lengthy quote from John Hawkins that you would swear was from The Onion. It's not.
"Are there wonderful Americans who happen to be homosexual serving in the military? Yes," [Gen. Peter Pace] told the Senate Appropriations Committee during a hearing focused on the Pentagon's 2008 war spending request.
"We need to be very precise then, about what I said wearing my stars and being very conscious of it," he added. "And that is, very simply, that we should respect those who want to serve the nation but not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law."
I find Pace's attempt at qualifying his statement even more repulsive than the original, being the First Amendment freak that I am. McKay had a similar reaction:
Before going any further, everyone should notice the very disturbing implication of his last statement. Pace is firmly endorsing the Religious Right position that American law should not be allowed to run counter to their sect's interpretation of Biblical law. This position is firmly embedded in their revisionist "Christian Nation" theory of American history.
This is right in line with John McCain's contention that the Founders established the US as a "Christian nation," which is obviously and blatantly untrue. (McCain seems to be a prime example of what pandering to the nutfudge right will do to you -- he used to be worthy of some respect before he made himself into a raddled old doormat.) I really would like to see someone ask a subject like Pace just exactly what in the Constitution gives him the right to impose his own personal religious beliefs on the rest of the country. Alas, not with this press corps -- they're just as ignorant as their interviewees.
This all ties into Barbara O'Brien's comments about the conservative mindset:
Over the long years I’ve observed some consistent traits among righties. One is that they sincerely believe most people think the way they do, even when polls say otherwise. In fact, “most people agree with me” is a common fallback debate tactic. Some have an almost frantic need to believe they belong to a majority, possibly because it makes them feel powerful. Erich Fromm wrote that people who find autonomy isolating and bewildering often will submerge themselves in an authoritarian group. Such people often have a strong sado-masochistic streak, Fromm said. They derive pleasure both from submission to a higher authority and from aggressively dominating people who fall below them in the social/power strata. “Humor” is often a socially acceptable form of hate speech used to keep less desirable people in their place.
Naturally, people who submerge their individuality into an authoritarian group place much importance on the trappings of conformity. Today much of the Right Blogosphere is in a tizzy because Barack Obama has stopped wearing a flag pin in his lapel. From right-wing reaction you’d think Obama had announced his engagement to Osama bin Laden.
I've noticed similar traits in discussion groups and even in comments on this blog: anything that runs counter to their beliefs doesn't exist. And I'm using "beliefs" in the broadest sense, as in the legendary headline at GayPatriot at the height of the Abramoff-Coingate-Cunningham etc. scandals: "The Democrats' Culture of Corruption." The Republican-owned scandals received no mention there because, I would assume, Republicans couldn't possibly be corrupt.
O'Brien also has a lengthy quote from John Hawkins that you would swear was from The Onion. It's not.
Alphabet Soup: A Digression
Some cogent remarks from Rex Wockner on ENDA, LGBTPQRST . . ., etc.
I'm also not convinced that homosexuality and transsexuality are the same thing, and I really don't think there is such a thing as "the LGBT community." Gay men and lesbians are the same thing (homosexuals) -- and bisexuals, when they're not exercising their heterosexual option, are then exercising their gay or lesbian option. Many transsexuals I've known have had surgery and then partnered with someone of the opposite sex, at which point they are, I'd imagine, heterosexual. But, of course, in reality, it's all much more nuanced than that, and NGLTF head Matt Foreman is a very eloquent spokesman for T inclusion in ENDA. There's all sorts of good stuff at NGLTF's Web site.
A final word about "community." Whether you're talking about "the gay community" or "the LGBT community," I think these phrases are bandied about way too much. Gay men span all the same spectrums as straight Americans. Lesbians run the same gamut as all Americans. Ditto for the B and T folks. Is there really a gay-male community, let alone an LGBT community? Or are there, in reality, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who are as varied in myriad ways as the American population itself.
I've broached this subject myself. Homosexuality and transexualism are not the same thing. Never were. Never will be. Nor is there a true "LGBT community." We have the tenuous connection of being sexual outlaws, and as the country becomes more and more accepting, it's falling apart because our interests and concerrns are not the same. It's been a political alliance, pure and simple, dominated by the PC, include-everyone and their relatives left wing, which has become a serious problem with movement politics. HRC, NGLTF, GLAAD, the whole crew don't really represent me any more -- they represent a construct that simply doesn't exist in this country. I'm of an age when I remember the major gay groups coming out in support of itinerant farm workers and any other oppressed minority they could find, all in the name of alliance-building. Fine. Look at the attitudes about us in the black community, and the latino community. That's what happens when you have a bunch of college sophomores running things. (My own feeling is that Urvashi Vaid, who for some reason symbolizes the whole gay left and the movement politics of the '70s and 80s for me, did more damage to our casue than Jesse Helms in his wildest fantasies.)
On "community" I think he has it basically right: it's an intersecting group of subcultures that have, as they develop, less and less in common. That seems to be a good, solid, basic reason why the movement is so fractious -- its composition is completely artificial, the way the alliance of the neocons and theocons, which is also on the verge of tearing itself apart, has been.
Wockner includes a statment from Shannon Minter that includes one sentence that I can't swallow:
But I bet that many of them would feel differently if they truly understood the whole picture -- that a gay-only bill will actually harm transgender people, that any delay in passing a viable bill that includes everyone likely will not even be that significant in this case, and that other [non-gay] groups have stood by us [gays] even when it meant their own protections were delayed.
Aside from the condescending tone -- I think I have a fairly firm grasp of the whole picture, and I don't think I'm alone in that -- the last part gets my back up: Please point out to my one non-gay group that has stood by us when it meant delaying their own protections. One. Just one.
Wockner also links to a post from Gabriel Rotello that on first reading strikes me as nothing more than politically-correct cant. Sorry, but this is a miserable example of one thing I've been bitching about: shallow, sloppy terminology, conflating several distinct phenomena, and driven more by ideology than any real understanding of the psychology involved. I may come back to this later for a closer critique, because it's an overall statement that has to be challenged.
(Thanks to John Aravosis)
I'm also not convinced that homosexuality and transsexuality are the same thing, and I really don't think there is such a thing as "the LGBT community." Gay men and lesbians are the same thing (homosexuals) -- and bisexuals, when they're not exercising their heterosexual option, are then exercising their gay or lesbian option. Many transsexuals I've known have had surgery and then partnered with someone of the opposite sex, at which point they are, I'd imagine, heterosexual. But, of course, in reality, it's all much more nuanced than that, and NGLTF head Matt Foreman is a very eloquent spokesman for T inclusion in ENDA. There's all sorts of good stuff at NGLTF's Web site.
A final word about "community." Whether you're talking about "the gay community" or "the LGBT community," I think these phrases are bandied about way too much. Gay men span all the same spectrums as straight Americans. Lesbians run the same gamut as all Americans. Ditto for the B and T folks. Is there really a gay-male community, let alone an LGBT community? Or are there, in reality, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who are as varied in myriad ways as the American population itself.
I've broached this subject myself. Homosexuality and transexualism are not the same thing. Never were. Never will be. Nor is there a true "LGBT community." We have the tenuous connection of being sexual outlaws, and as the country becomes more and more accepting, it's falling apart because our interests and concerrns are not the same. It's been a political alliance, pure and simple, dominated by the PC, include-everyone and their relatives left wing, which has become a serious problem with movement politics. HRC, NGLTF, GLAAD, the whole crew don't really represent me any more -- they represent a construct that simply doesn't exist in this country. I'm of an age when I remember the major gay groups coming out in support of itinerant farm workers and any other oppressed minority they could find, all in the name of alliance-building. Fine. Look at the attitudes about us in the black community, and the latino community. That's what happens when you have a bunch of college sophomores running things. (My own feeling is that Urvashi Vaid, who for some reason symbolizes the whole gay left and the movement politics of the '70s and 80s for me, did more damage to our casue than Jesse Helms in his wildest fantasies.)
On "community" I think he has it basically right: it's an intersecting group of subcultures that have, as they develop, less and less in common. That seems to be a good, solid, basic reason why the movement is so fractious -- its composition is completely artificial, the way the alliance of the neocons and theocons, which is also on the verge of tearing itself apart, has been.
Wockner includes a statment from Shannon Minter that includes one sentence that I can't swallow:
But I bet that many of them would feel differently if they truly understood the whole picture -- that a gay-only bill will actually harm transgender people, that any delay in passing a viable bill that includes everyone likely will not even be that significant in this case, and that other [non-gay] groups have stood by us [gays] even when it meant their own protections were delayed.
Aside from the condescending tone -- I think I have a fairly firm grasp of the whole picture, and I don't think I'm alone in that -- the last part gets my back up: Please point out to my one non-gay group that has stood by us when it meant delaying their own protections. One. Just one.
Wockner also links to a post from Gabriel Rotello that on first reading strikes me as nothing more than politically-correct cant. Sorry, but this is a miserable example of one thing I've been bitching about: shallow, sloppy terminology, conflating several distinct phenomena, and driven more by ideology than any real understanding of the psychology involved. I may come back to this later for a closer critique, because it's an overall statement that has to be challenged.
(Thanks to John Aravosis)
Friday, October 05, 2007
Evolution, Darwin, and All That
Tristero has an excellent post over at Hullabaloo on intelligent design and Darwin. Recommended reading (and do follow the links).
Some Real Reasons Not To Support ENDA
Chris Crain comes up with Lambda Legal's analysis of the new ENDA and points out a couple of real reasons not to support it. They key points:
This version of ENDA states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot be considered sexual orientation discrimination. The old version at least provided that states and local governments could require that employees be provided domestic partner health insurance when such benefits are provided to spouses.
In the previous version of ENDA the religious exemptions had some limitations. The new version has a blanket exemption under which, for example, hospitals or universities run by faith-based groups can fire or refuse to hire people they think might be gay, lesbian or bisexual.
The domestic partner benefits exclusion is completely unacceptable. Crain is not so worried about the religious exemption being expanded, but I think he's missing a point.
I'm less concerned about the breadth of the religious exception. Anyone who goes to work for a company controlled by a religious group knows going in that there is a religious purpose behind the enterprise. Even so, it does seem worthwhile to revise ENDA so that again only employers or positions whose primarily purpose is religious are excluded.
This ignores the way the definition of "religious organization" has broadened under the Bush regime. Once upon a time, when we still had separation of church and state, if a religious denomination wanted to run a community-service organization -- hospital, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, what have you -- they organized a separate legal entity that could apply for and accept government funds without conflict with the First Amendment. The tit-for-tat was that the separate entity had to abide by all civil rights laws, including those dealing with religious discrimination. The way the religious right has begun interpreting "religious organization" (with the willing connivance of the Bush administration) has essentially left no public activity untouched -- hospitals, pharmacists, even landlords have cited "religious" exemptions as grounds for bias. I'm not at all comfortable with including that sort of language in a gay civil rights bill.
Let's get back to some Constitutional principles here.
This version of ENDA states without qualification that refusal by employers to extend health insurance benefits to the domestic partners of their employees that are provided only to married couples cannot be considered sexual orientation discrimination. The old version at least provided that states and local governments could require that employees be provided domestic partner health insurance when such benefits are provided to spouses.
In the previous version of ENDA the religious exemptions had some limitations. The new version has a blanket exemption under which, for example, hospitals or universities run by faith-based groups can fire or refuse to hire people they think might be gay, lesbian or bisexual.
The domestic partner benefits exclusion is completely unacceptable. Crain is not so worried about the religious exemption being expanded, but I think he's missing a point.
I'm less concerned about the breadth of the religious exception. Anyone who goes to work for a company controlled by a religious group knows going in that there is a religious purpose behind the enterprise. Even so, it does seem worthwhile to revise ENDA so that again only employers or positions whose primarily purpose is religious are excluded.
This ignores the way the definition of "religious organization" has broadened under the Bush regime. Once upon a time, when we still had separation of church and state, if a religious denomination wanted to run a community-service organization -- hospital, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, what have you -- they organized a separate legal entity that could apply for and accept government funds without conflict with the First Amendment. The tit-for-tat was that the separate entity had to abide by all civil rights laws, including those dealing with religious discrimination. The way the religious right has begun interpreting "religious organization" (with the willing connivance of the Bush administration) has essentially left no public activity untouched -- hospitals, pharmacists, even landlords have cited "religious" exemptions as grounds for bias. I'm not at all comfortable with including that sort of language in a gay civil rights bill.
Let's get back to some Constitutional principles here.
ENDA and Alphabet Soup
A series of thoughtful and interesting posts from AmericaBlog on the ENDA crisis. First is this post from John Aravosis of a couple of days ago, followed by a link to this editorial from Bay Windows.
The House is on the verge of passing groundbreaking workplace protections for millions of Americans. It’s the first piece of legislation Congress has seriously considered since the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed in 1993 that offers American workers protection from arbitrary firings. It’s not perfect. Few pieces of civil rights legislation are. But it would provide a concrete base upon which to expand ENDA protections not just to transmen and women but to also add provisions to the bill that would require employers to offer domestic partnership benefits to the partners of their LGBT employees if they offer such benefits to their heterosexual employees — a provision that is not in the current bill. As it happens, that’s exactly how Congress dealt with the FMLA. It was a nine-year fight of submitting bills, amending them and persevering through two vetoes of the bill by President George H.W. Bush. The bill that was eventually signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 was much more comprehensive than the one first approved by Congress. This is not unusual; it’s how the legislative process works.
There is much concern that if a bill protecting employees solely on the basis of sexual orientation is passed then protections for transmen and women will be forgotten. It’s hard to take that concern seriously given the flurry of support that’s been forcefully expressed for trans rights now that we know a trans-inclusive ENDA simply will not pass in the House as its currently configured.
Claiming that Frank has betrayed the trans community, as some are now doing (Los Angeles Times sportswriter Christine Daniels wrote this week that he was engaged in a strategy to “throw the transfolk overboard”) is breathtakingly ignorant of the facts.
The targeting of the Human Rights Campaign for its failure to align itself with the LGBT organizations that have promised to work to defeat a non-inclusive ENDA is equally ignorant of reality. Who can seriously expect the nation’s largest organization working to pass legislation on our behalf to refuse to work with Pelosi and Frank?
This petulant insistence on purity, principle and perfection is a hallmark not just of the LGBT community, but of American politics in general. Just look at James Dobson’s and the Christian right’s demands that the Republican Congress take up an overly broad Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when a much narrower provision that would have allowed for civil unions stood a much better chance of passage.
Not that I’m comparing progressive LGBT activists with the Christian right. After all, the Christian right is capable of delivering votes, huge sums of money to candidates and hundreds of thousands of phone calls to lawmakers when an issue is deemed important enough to warrant it. Progressive activists? Not so much.
He also publishes a response to his posts from Dana Beyer, a trans activist currently nominated for the board of HRC. Beyer's comments strike me as terrifically slanted and one-sided (the comment about Stonewall being "run by trans women" is only the most egregious example, although the assertion that "gays guys were added to the trans community" with Stonewall is a very close runner-up, particularly since there was no "trans commnity" at the time), and a prime example of the insistence on ideological purity that has effectively neutered the gay left. (I'm not going to comment on the anger in her post. I figure that transpeople are carrying a lot of the same load as gays, and anger is just part of the package. Hell, I'm very angry. I figure I have every right to be.)
Beyer also spends a fair amount of her response claiming that "mainstream" gays are afraid of the gender nonconformity represented by the trans community without once touching on the fact that it is those organizations who are now demanding the full monty on ENDA that repeatedly call for us to tone it down at Pride parades and the like -- the same organizations who are now on the side of the angels in refusing to support the first gay rights bill that might pass Congress. Forgive me if I smell more than a faint whiff of hypocrisy. Sorry, boys and girls, but you're not going to have it both ways here: to say that expressing gender nonconformity is desirable when it is going to kill our chances for federal civil rights legislation but not OK when we're celebrating the range and diversity of our various interlocking communities is one big load of manure. In my opinion, Beyer's full of beans on this one, and she should look to her political allies if she wants to pinpoint whose responsible for this.
A Note: Questioning gender norms has always been part of the gay experience, and it's a very complex historical phenomenon. As a young gay boy growing up before there was such a thing, I had no gay role models. I liked boys; therefore, my only model was women. Fortunately for me, the gay movement started to happen before I'd gotten completely screwed up, and I was able to reconcile being male with wanting males. (Let's hear it for the Information Age!) Also, as I've mentioned before, I count a large number of drag queens, female impersonators, transvestites and even a few transpersons among my friends and acquaintances, and they are not coming from the same place and don't, I think, belong in the same categories. Gender-fuck is one thing; transsexualism is something else entirely, and I seriously question the legitimacy of equating them. This is something that's implicit in a recent post by Chris Crain, where he talks about transgenders and their legal weddings: the point is, transsexuals are not interested in redefining gender, they are interested in moving from one to the other and seem to be quite willing to take on all the definitions of their new identity. Consequently, my attitude toward the conflation of transsexuals and gays is simply that it's a dodge and doesn't indicate anything except a political alliance.
Pam Spaulding has contributed a post discussing the discourse more than the nuts and bolts of strategy, and I think he makes some good points, underscored by Beyer's response and some of the I comments I received in my own posts on this subject: to repeat myself as a foundational statement, "sloppy definitions make sloppy arguments." Nor does backdating terminology convince me of anything -- you simply cannot go back to 1968 and talk about the "gay community" or the "trans community" -- those things didn't exist then, and it's questionable whether we can legitimately point to them as existing now.
One further thing that I think is very relevant to Aravosis' comments on the discourse, and that I think is patently obvious in Beyer's comments and the comments on my own previous posts is the incredible defensiveness of the trans responses, expressed in the finger-pointing that forms such a strong part of their comments. I take this as, in part, a reflection of the PC authoritarianism that forms the foundation of gay left politics, and perhaps also informed by the sneaking suspicion that Barney Frank, John Aravosis, Chris Crain and I are right. Pragmatism and the far left are pretty much strangers, in my experience, and I'm of an age at this point that I would like to see some results, not just more posturing.
Chris Crain also makes a strong point about the "gay leadership" in this issue: they are not in any way representing the community, despite their claims to the contrary. My own reaction to the groups who are demanding all or nothing is that they've once again sold me out. I really wish I were a major donor so I could call Matt Foreman and simply say, "No more money from me."
This is obviously an ongoing issue, so there may be more on it later. What you see here, however, is my thinking as of now.
The House is on the verge of passing groundbreaking workplace protections for millions of Americans. It’s the first piece of legislation Congress has seriously considered since the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed in 1993 that offers American workers protection from arbitrary firings. It’s not perfect. Few pieces of civil rights legislation are. But it would provide a concrete base upon which to expand ENDA protections not just to transmen and women but to also add provisions to the bill that would require employers to offer domestic partnership benefits to the partners of their LGBT employees if they offer such benefits to their heterosexual employees — a provision that is not in the current bill. As it happens, that’s exactly how Congress dealt with the FMLA. It was a nine-year fight of submitting bills, amending them and persevering through two vetoes of the bill by President George H.W. Bush. The bill that was eventually signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993 was much more comprehensive than the one first approved by Congress. This is not unusual; it’s how the legislative process works.
There is much concern that if a bill protecting employees solely on the basis of sexual orientation is passed then protections for transmen and women will be forgotten. It’s hard to take that concern seriously given the flurry of support that’s been forcefully expressed for trans rights now that we know a trans-inclusive ENDA simply will not pass in the House as its currently configured.
Claiming that Frank has betrayed the trans community, as some are now doing (Los Angeles Times sportswriter Christine Daniels wrote this week that he was engaged in a strategy to “throw the transfolk overboard”) is breathtakingly ignorant of the facts.
The targeting of the Human Rights Campaign for its failure to align itself with the LGBT organizations that have promised to work to defeat a non-inclusive ENDA is equally ignorant of reality. Who can seriously expect the nation’s largest organization working to pass legislation on our behalf to refuse to work with Pelosi and Frank?
This petulant insistence on purity, principle and perfection is a hallmark not just of the LGBT community, but of American politics in general. Just look at James Dobson’s and the Christian right’s demands that the Republican Congress take up an overly broad Federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when a much narrower provision that would have allowed for civil unions stood a much better chance of passage.
Not that I’m comparing progressive LGBT activists with the Christian right. After all, the Christian right is capable of delivering votes, huge sums of money to candidates and hundreds of thousands of phone calls to lawmakers when an issue is deemed important enough to warrant it. Progressive activists? Not so much.
He also publishes a response to his posts from Dana Beyer, a trans activist currently nominated for the board of HRC. Beyer's comments strike me as terrifically slanted and one-sided (the comment about Stonewall being "run by trans women" is only the most egregious example, although the assertion that "gays guys were added to the trans community" with Stonewall is a very close runner-up, particularly since there was no "trans commnity" at the time), and a prime example of the insistence on ideological purity that has effectively neutered the gay left. (I'm not going to comment on the anger in her post. I figure that transpeople are carrying a lot of the same load as gays, and anger is just part of the package. Hell, I'm very angry. I figure I have every right to be.)
Beyer also spends a fair amount of her response claiming that "mainstream" gays are afraid of the gender nonconformity represented by the trans community without once touching on the fact that it is those organizations who are now demanding the full monty on ENDA that repeatedly call for us to tone it down at Pride parades and the like -- the same organizations who are now on the side of the angels in refusing to support the first gay rights bill that might pass Congress. Forgive me if I smell more than a faint whiff of hypocrisy. Sorry, boys and girls, but you're not going to have it both ways here: to say that expressing gender nonconformity is desirable when it is going to kill our chances for federal civil rights legislation but not OK when we're celebrating the range and diversity of our various interlocking communities is one big load of manure. In my opinion, Beyer's full of beans on this one, and she should look to her political allies if she wants to pinpoint whose responsible for this.
A Note: Questioning gender norms has always been part of the gay experience, and it's a very complex historical phenomenon. As a young gay boy growing up before there was such a thing, I had no gay role models. I liked boys; therefore, my only model was women. Fortunately for me, the gay movement started to happen before I'd gotten completely screwed up, and I was able to reconcile being male with wanting males. (Let's hear it for the Information Age!) Also, as I've mentioned before, I count a large number of drag queens, female impersonators, transvestites and even a few transpersons among my friends and acquaintances, and they are not coming from the same place and don't, I think, belong in the same categories. Gender-fuck is one thing; transsexualism is something else entirely, and I seriously question the legitimacy of equating them. This is something that's implicit in a recent post by Chris Crain, where he talks about transgenders and their legal weddings: the point is, transsexuals are not interested in redefining gender, they are interested in moving from one to the other and seem to be quite willing to take on all the definitions of their new identity. Consequently, my attitude toward the conflation of transsexuals and gays is simply that it's a dodge and doesn't indicate anything except a political alliance.
Pam Spaulding has contributed a post discussing the discourse more than the nuts and bolts of strategy, and I think he makes some good points, underscored by Beyer's response and some of the I comments I received in my own posts on this subject: to repeat myself as a foundational statement, "sloppy definitions make sloppy arguments." Nor does backdating terminology convince me of anything -- you simply cannot go back to 1968 and talk about the "gay community" or the "trans community" -- those things didn't exist then, and it's questionable whether we can legitimately point to them as existing now.
One further thing that I think is very relevant to Aravosis' comments on the discourse, and that I think is patently obvious in Beyer's comments and the comments on my own previous posts is the incredible defensiveness of the trans responses, expressed in the finger-pointing that forms such a strong part of their comments. I take this as, in part, a reflection of the PC authoritarianism that forms the foundation of gay left politics, and perhaps also informed by the sneaking suspicion that Barney Frank, John Aravosis, Chris Crain and I are right. Pragmatism and the far left are pretty much strangers, in my experience, and I'm of an age at this point that I would like to see some results, not just more posturing.
Chris Crain also makes a strong point about the "gay leadership" in this issue: they are not in any way representing the community, despite their claims to the contrary. My own reaction to the groups who are demanding all or nothing is that they've once again sold me out. I really wish I were a major donor so I could call Matt Foreman and simply say, "No more money from me."
This is obviously an ongoing issue, so there may be more on it later. What you see here, however, is my thinking as of now.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
ENDA, Again
As a follow-up to this post, see this note from Daniel Gonzales at Box Turtle Bulletin in response to the cries of abandonment from the trans community.
Somehow, seeing this, the "it'll never happen" argument loses some force. Those are all the states that have civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. You'll note that they all also have those protections for transgendered persons.
Here's a post from Pam Spaulding on the issue. I have a lot of problems with it, as might be expected, particularly when she gets into rhetoric like this:
Those who would throw our T brothers and sisters out like yesterday's trash to get any kind of weakened ENDA passed, even if it faced a presidential veto, fail to realize the serious flaws in other modifications in the bill.
Slanted, just a bit, wouldn't you say?
And suddenly there are all sorts of flaws in the bill. How did that happen? Or was it just that no one noticed until their PC sensors got tickled?
Let's get a few things sorted out here, before I get more angry comments: I support the full-dress ENDA, with the full alphabet soup included. That's not the question. The question is, if we can only get a partial bill through Congress now -- and, let me point out, for the first time in history that such a bill stands a ghost of a chance of passage -- shouldn't we do it? Opponents of this idea are working from the not-always-subtextual meme that once a sexual-orientation-only ENDA is passed, we'll all just pack up and go home and forget about it. That's bullshit. Anyone with any brains knows that's not the case, if for no other reason than that this fight -- for full legal equality -- is not going to be over anytime soon. Bush will veto ENDA no matter what its content. When it does finally become law, there will be radical fringe groups mounting campaigns for repeal. There will be a slew of nuisance cases in the courts argued by the Thomas More Law Center and Liberty Council on spurious First Amendment grounds. There will be state cases that have to be fought and won.
That's what's going to happen.
And taking your ball and going home isn't going to help anyone. Ever.
Somehow, seeing this, the "it'll never happen" argument loses some force. Those are all the states that have civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. You'll note that they all also have those protections for transgendered persons.
Here's a post from Pam Spaulding on the issue. I have a lot of problems with it, as might be expected, particularly when she gets into rhetoric like this:
Those who would throw our T brothers and sisters out like yesterday's trash to get any kind of weakened ENDA passed, even if it faced a presidential veto, fail to realize the serious flaws in other modifications in the bill.
Slanted, just a bit, wouldn't you say?
And suddenly there are all sorts of flaws in the bill. How did that happen? Or was it just that no one noticed until their PC sensors got tickled?
Let's get a few things sorted out here, before I get more angry comments: I support the full-dress ENDA, with the full alphabet soup included. That's not the question. The question is, if we can only get a partial bill through Congress now -- and, let me point out, for the first time in history that such a bill stands a ghost of a chance of passage -- shouldn't we do it? Opponents of this idea are working from the not-always-subtextual meme that once a sexual-orientation-only ENDA is passed, we'll all just pack up and go home and forget about it. That's bullshit. Anyone with any brains knows that's not the case, if for no other reason than that this fight -- for full legal equality -- is not going to be over anytime soon. Bush will veto ENDA no matter what its content. When it does finally become law, there will be radical fringe groups mounting campaigns for repeal. There will be a slew of nuisance cases in the courts argued by the Thomas More Law Center and Liberty Council on spurious First Amendment grounds. There will be state cases that have to be fought and won.
That's what's going to happen.
And taking your ball and going home isn't going to help anyone. Ever.
Blackwater
As usual, TPM is right on top of it. Check out the recent posts. Note particularly this one on Blackwater CEO Erik Prince. Note also this story from WaPo, which has some interesting information about his testimony, but is mum on his political affiliations.
I don't really have any comments on this whole thing, except to note that it's one of the prime examples of non-accountability in an administration for which "accountability" is treason. And let's not even get into the whole thing about in-group politics. The country's being run by Blackwater and Halliburton.
I don't really have any comments on this whole thing, except to note that it's one of the prime examples of non-accountability in an administration for which "accountability" is treason. And let's not even get into the whole thing about in-group politics. The country's being run by Blackwater and Halliburton.
Good News
Via Andrew Sullivan, a report on a study that is really good news.
The study also found that, across all race/ethnic groups, younger cohorts of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (those in age groups 18 – 29 and 30 – 44 as compared with 45 – 59 years old) had lower prevalence of almost all mental disorders categories, and the difference was statistically significant for mood disorders. Younger cohorts also had fewer serious suicide attempts than did older cohorts (but this was statistically significant only for the middle cohort).
“The finding regarding younger cohorts of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals is consistent with social stress theories that predicted that the liberalization of social attitudes toward homosexuality over the past few decades can lead to a decline in stress and related mental disorders and suicide among lesbians, gay men, and bisexual individuals” said Dr. Meyer.
Sulivan's comments are, I think, a little off base.
Why some want to prevent this improvement, why they actively want to promote depression, anxiety and low self-esteem among gay people - and why they think this is better for society as a whole - remains a mystery to me. But that is currently the position of the Republican party. My best guess is that they're simply afraid of what they do not know or understand. And so they seek to persecute it.
I think that the phenomenon is a little more complex than that, particularly when dealing with the official positions of political parties and those who control them. I don't dispute that many social coservatives fear gays because they don't have first-hand experience of them, but I think the ultimate answer to the Republican position is somewhat more pernicious: those who have major influence on the party on social issues, such as James Dobson, the Wildmons, and their ilk, have a ready-made "other" to use as the enemy -- and they do need an enemy to stir up those fears. It's the classic authoritarian tactic: find the fears, find an enemy, and exploit it to hell, and forget about factual accuracy and reasoned discourse. That's not the point. Ultimately, it's not about gay men and lesbians (or immigrants or Muslims or Jews or any other group). That's just the target. The real issue is power.
Sullivan is too inclined, I think, to judge the leaders of the anti-gay right as being as sincere and honest as he is. I've seen no evidence to support that idea, and a great deal that denies it. I'm all in favor of the large of soul, but we're playing hardball here.
The study also found that, across all race/ethnic groups, younger cohorts of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (those in age groups 18 – 29 and 30 – 44 as compared with 45 – 59 years old) had lower prevalence of almost all mental disorders categories, and the difference was statistically significant for mood disorders. Younger cohorts also had fewer serious suicide attempts than did older cohorts (but this was statistically significant only for the middle cohort).
“The finding regarding younger cohorts of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals is consistent with social stress theories that predicted that the liberalization of social attitudes toward homosexuality over the past few decades can lead to a decline in stress and related mental disorders and suicide among lesbians, gay men, and bisexual individuals” said Dr. Meyer.
Sulivan's comments are, I think, a little off base.
Why some want to prevent this improvement, why they actively want to promote depression, anxiety and low self-esteem among gay people - and why they think this is better for society as a whole - remains a mystery to me. But that is currently the position of the Republican party. My best guess is that they're simply afraid of what they do not know or understand. And so they seek to persecute it.
I think that the phenomenon is a little more complex than that, particularly when dealing with the official positions of political parties and those who control them. I don't dispute that many social coservatives fear gays because they don't have first-hand experience of them, but I think the ultimate answer to the Republican position is somewhat more pernicious: those who have major influence on the party on social issues, such as James Dobson, the Wildmons, and their ilk, have a ready-made "other" to use as the enemy -- and they do need an enemy to stir up those fears. It's the classic authoritarian tactic: find the fears, find an enemy, and exploit it to hell, and forget about factual accuracy and reasoned discourse. That's not the point. Ultimately, it's not about gay men and lesbians (or immigrants or Muslims or Jews or any other group). That's just the target. The real issue is power.
Sullivan is too inclined, I think, to judge the leaders of the anti-gay right as being as sincere and honest as he is. I've seen no evidence to support that idea, and a great deal that denies it. I'm all in favor of the large of soul, but we're playing hardball here.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Outrage Allowance
Mine's used up for the time being. There are lots of stories worthy of comment -- Blackwater, the coming war with Iran, the Christian jihadist third-party threats, you name it -- and I just don't have the energy today. Maybe tomorrow.
For me, we're having one of those wonderful foggy mornings that happen in Chicago in the fall and I think I'm going to go out and take a walk. Maybe even limber up one of my cameras and do some shooting. I love fog. Somehow the world is a lot more peaceful when you're walking in the fog along the lakefront.
I can use some peaceful right about now.
For me, we're having one of those wonderful foggy mornings that happen in Chicago in the fall and I think I'm going to go out and take a walk. Maybe even limber up one of my cameras and do some shooting. I love fog. Somehow the world is a lot more peaceful when you're walking in the fog along the lakefront. I can use some peaceful right about now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)