TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | civil rights

Barack Obama, the Sane Republican

By on 30 December 2011

photo by Pete Souza


The quote to end the year comes from Cenk Uygur in a piece that’s worth a read.

I am “uncommitted” toward Obama. I’m uncommitted from supporting a guy that has walked all over our civil liberties, that thinks tax cuts are the only answer, that gave all of the money to the bankers and asked for nothing in return, that thinks the right-wing establishment has all of the answers. Uncommitted is the kindest word I have.

As Cenk reveals, he didn’t want to come down to “uncommitted,” but Pres. Obama made him do it. At least the door remains open to possibly voting for Obama.

Glenn Greenwald, writing this week in the UK Guardian, basically writes what I’ve been writing for three years: Vote Obama – if you want a centrist Republican for US president.

But how can a GOP candidate invoke this time-tested caricature when Obama has embraced the vast bulk of George Bush’s terrorism policies; waged a war against government whistleblowers as part of a campaign of obsessive secrecy; led efforts to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs; extinguished the lives not only of accused terrorists but of huge numbers of innocent civilians with cluster bombs and drones in Muslim countries; engineered a covert war against Iran; tried to extend the Iraq war; ignored Congress and the constitution to prosecute an unauthorised war in Libya; adopted the defining Bush/Cheney policy of indefinite detention without trial for accused terrorists; and even claimed and exercised the power to assassinate US citizens far from any battlefield and without due process?

Reflecting this difficulty for the GOP field is the fact that former Bush officials, including Dick Cheney, have taken to lavishing Obama with public praise for continuing his predecessor’s once-controversial terrorism polices. …

The best case to make for Pres. Obama in 2012 is that he’s the sane Republican.

Are you in?

Read full story · Comments { 31 }

Hillary and Joe, Condi vs. Joe

By on 29 December 2011

The rumors are flying around the internets.

Robert Reich reveals the Democratic panic deep within the insiders by pushing a Hillary – Biden switch. He’s just the latest.

The subject of a Biden – Hillary switch makes my book, but I’ve yet to read anyone address the damage it would do to Pres. Obama, who right now is seeing his approval ratings rise. What would dumping Joe Biden, which isn’t going to happen, say about his candidacy? That he absolutely needs Hillary to win? There’s no proof that this is true.

Would Hillary supporters automatically vote for Pres. Obama if she’s on the ticket? Newsflash: Most Hillary supporters are going to vote for Obama anyway.

This site was a leading anti-Puma venue in the 2008 general election. Would anti-Obama voters who tilt Democratic and to the left automatically vote for Obama if Hillary was his nominee? Could these people be inspired to vote Obama in order to save Hillary from humiliation of the possibility of not delivering for him?

With Robert Reich the latest to hoist the Hillary – Biden swtich, there is obviously real worry by insider Democrats that the base won’t be inspired to turn out for Obama alone.

For me, however, the most interesting rumor hitting my inbox lately is Condi versus Biden. An abundance of popcorn would be required for a Rice debate with Joe Biden.

But as the CBS video above from November 2011 reveals, she says “… I’m a policy person not a politician. …politics doesn’t appeal to me.”

But before anything would happen Pres. Obama would be forced to combat yet another push for the Biden – Clinton tango, something I think is ludicrous to suggest and, for what it’s worth, do not endorse.

Dr. “swatting flies” Rice was arguably the worst national security adviser in U.S. history.

“I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. That they would try to use an airplane as a missile? A hijacked airplane as a missile? All of this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” – Condoleezza Rice

Another round of “mushroom clouds,” anyone?

There’s that little item “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside U.S.” that didn’t get much attention from her. Rice’s reaction to George Tenet telling her the U.S. needed to strike Afghanistan is equally disturbing.

Dr. Rice played third fiddle in the Rummy-Cheney fiefdom, then allowed herself to be humiliated by Pres. Bush, who wouldn’t let her do her job and even hung her out on torture.

Rice also demoted Richard Clarke, the man Pres. Clinton elevated to a cabinet position, because of the terrorism threat, including cyberterrorism. Then there’s the decision not to set up a principle’s meeting with Clarke until after 9/11.

Dr. Rice missed the Hamas moment, when Pres. Bush pushed for elections that landed them in power (from 2006), which rendered her “surprised” at the time. It should be noted that the Palestinians warned Bush they weren’t yet ready.

But no one would likely care.

In a year of the Republican circus primary shuffle, Condoleeza Rice comes off like Margaret Thatcher, only moderate.

Ms. Rice is an abortion rights advocate, so she’ll catch some flak from some. However, among suburban women who vote Republican, as well as the highly educated contingent, and independents, not to mention cafeteria Catholics, that will be a plus.

It’s just another rumor, but if Dr. Rice heard George W. Bush’s voice on the phone saying her country needed her could she resist?

I’m still waiting for Liz Cheney’s move, though she’s got plenty of time to make it.

Assuming Romney prevails, the most dangerous man for team Obama remains Chris Christie, though everyone should remember only the fringe people vote on vice presidential choice alone. That includes Robert Reich’s hail Mary panic pick, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

With Visions of ‘Laziness’ Dancing in Obama’s Head

By on 24 December 2011



‘Twas the weekend after the debacle, when all through the town; everyone was thrilled to be rid of these clowns.

The Congress deserved hanging by the monuments for their idiocy, but instead they were sipping Scotch after the deal they’d just botched.

The middle class had no security and no clue about next year, with visions of unemployment and an election providing no cheer.

With Gingrich and Perry kicked off Virginia’s ballot, Mitt Romney sat snugly and dreamed of a wrap.

I’ll stop there, so as not to torture the “Night Before Christmas” any further.

Pres. Obama can take it from here. This might explain why he never bothers to work the Congress, bending their ears in phone calls and visits to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., always a sweetener. He’s just not that into his job. Compliments of Barbara Walters:

“It’s interesting…. Deep down underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me,” Obama said. “It’s probably from growing up in Hawaii, and it’s sunny outside. Sitting on the beach.”

Well, at least he’s not into the part of his job that has to do with leading or dragging Congress to consensus. However, when it comes to signing statements, delivered on a festive holiday weekend no less, Pres. Obama is all in.

The signing statement says that on the issue of accused terrorist detainees, Obama will interpret and apply provisions that bar the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, “in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts.”

Obama also objected to Defense provisions in the bill that limit the president’s ability to put troops under foreign command and require 30 days advance notice to Congress for any use of the military which would involve more than $100,000 in construction costs.

Political shenanigans don’t stop even at a time when we the people aren’t paying attention. It’s actually a perfect time to weave power where you want it.

Now you know why people like me work 24/7.

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Ron Paul Newsletter Scandal, Iowa, and Trump’s Revenge

By on 23 December 2011

Can Ron Paul’s “rock solid” caucus strategy save him from the negative incoming?

Paul’s PR troubles are real and the criticism deserved, but these types of things also can make die hard supporters of a candidate double down. Andrew Sullivan, who endorsed Paul, ended up spinning himself senseless today.

But could Paul’s troubles help Mitt Romney? Who knows, it could even give Newt a respite from the onslaught.

The New Republic has posted a compilation of his greatest worst hits on racism, bigotry and general wingnuttery.

Race

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.

This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

A February 1991 newsletter attacks “The X-Rated Martin Luther King.”

This is Ron Paul’s last stand and the godfather of the Tea Party movement is going out in a blaze. It’s been all the rage for Republican presidential candidates this year.

In other political news, in an early Christmas president to comedians everywhere, Donald Trump is now officially an independent. CNN’s headline is priceless: “Trump Dumps GOP.”

More like revenge, because there was no way Donald Trump was going to take the Newsmax Apprentice debate humiliation, delivered at the hands of the Republican establishment, without a rejoinder or giving them some time to sweat.

So, if Santa is listening I have one last wish for Christmas. You know what it is. I’ve been very good. Please.

ps-Enjoy the Usher video of Christmas music, because everything this time of year goes better with a seasonal soundtrack.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Robert Cruickshank is Half Right

By on 19 December 2011

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Read Robert Cruickshank’s post on “Occupy the Progressive Movement.” Unfortunately, it only goes half way, which has been the problem with progressives since the health care bill sell off.

What’s needed from movement progressives and Democrats is to Occupy the White House. If the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), see Glenn Greenwald’s analysis or Jonathan Turley’s thoughts (h/t newdealdeme1), didn’t prove that to progressives nothing will.

I also understand that progressives and their leaders like Robert Cruickshank recoil from giving the Tea Party any credit. It’s understandable considering the astroturfing by the Koch Bros. and many others, because it’s hard to laud the Tea Party as grass roots when they’re being funded by 1% whales.

However, back during the Bush-Cheney era, when the Tea Party actually sprang up, giving Ron Paul the energy that now has him leading in Iowa, their foundation wasn’t the stuff of millionaire Republicans and financing through insiders. It was a genuine revolt by the right to Republican hypocrisy, which included that Republican Establishment that they targeted for take down. This included the very leaders in power, from Congress to the White House.

In 2010, the Tea Party succeeded, regardless of the loss of power and the irrelevancy they’re living today. Though the vindication of Ron Paul over the Koch Bros. wing proves that the righteous are finally having their day, even it’s likely to disappear post Paul.

Mr. Cruickshank hits very important points, which movement progressives will hail. But one glaring omission reveals the weakness of the progressive movement today, which still doesn’t have at its foundation the courage to go all the way.

Cruickshank suggests that organizing will manifest the change needed. He’s smart enough to know that Occupy’s agenda is not the same as the progressives movement’s agenda, but he won’t go so far as to answer the question I posed about movement progressives taking on the Democratic Party at the convention in Charlotte, giving political heft to Occupy. It’s not a small point.

I have tremendous respect, in some cases awe, of what movement progressives work to accomplish, which is especially productive on local levels and through primary challengers, but the progressive “movement” is still afraid to take it the last mile.

Unless movement progressives are willing to Occupy the Obama White House they will remain supplicants to a political message and leader that uses them during election seasons, but never delivers once empowered.

I understand fully the difficulty in accepting you cannot take down and defeat a corporate behemoth like Obama reelect.

Why no movement progressive is making the case against Pres. Obama on principles and policy in a public and tactical way reveals the weakness of Robert Cruickshank’s case, but also the “movement” he’s attempting to inspire to action.

No pain, no gain. There will be pain for taking on a Democratic president on issues and substance of his decisions, with the gain being that of movement progressives, which could harm Pres. Obama in a reelection year.

It is a hard choice, but one of long-term thinking and credibility over expediency that rarely delivers.

Movement progressives should have long ago decided to Occupy the current occupant of the White House who has compromised or caved time and again, while moving the entire country’s political discourse to the right.

The good news about Pres. Obama’s frightfully bad first term is that he played a role in helping Occupy rise, too.

As long as Pres. Obama’s reelection is more important than the policies, principles and purpose of the progressive movement the notion of “Occupying the progressive movement” is strictly amateur.

It’s not the job of movement progressives to get Pres. Obama reelected. In fact, it’s not really in their best interest, as the indefinite detention bill revealed. Why don’t they know that by now?

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

No Millionaire Surtax, but Indefinite Detention is a Go

By on 15 December 2011

photo by Pete Souza
Of course. Why not? Absolutely.

From CNN:

In what would be a major concession, President Obama and Senate Democrats will drop their insistence that a surtax on millionaires pay for extending the payroll tax cut, a Democratic source tells CNN. This would be part of a new Democratic offer.

With the track record of Pres. Obama and the Democrats, why in the world wouldn’t Republicans filibuster? They knew Obama and the Democrats would cave in the end.

But Republicans talking about paying for a tax cut is ludicrous. They didn’t do it once in the Bush-Cheney era, so they’re not kidding anyone. This is more about 2012 and gumming up the works for Obama and Democrats, who are helping them do it.

I presume you’ve already read that Pres. Obama has rescinded his veto threat over the Defense Authorization bill. Indefinite detention follows other aspects of Obama’s Executive Branch muscle. From Jay Carney:

“While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength,” it said.

“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people,” the statement said, although it added that if the uncertainty raised by the legislation does impede investigations, the White House expects lawmakers to write a fix.

The rationale is also that it already exists in current law, so this latest bill won’t change anything. A section also states: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” Ah, but it doesn’t say they cannot be detained, with that idea failing Senate passage.

[Rep. Jerry Nadler] also took issue with Smith’s assertion that the bill just spells out what is already law.

“It doesn’t codify existing law. It codifies claims of power by the last two administrations that have not been confirmed by [the Supreme Court] — rather terrifying claims of power, claims of the right to put Americans in jail indefinitely without a trial, even in the United States,” Nadler said.

When are people going to get tired of listening to these incompetent individuals who call themselves Democrats and just quit supporting them?

Read full story · Comments { 32 }

The Big Two Political Conventions and Occupy

By on 10 December 2011

In the greater Occupy world, there’s uncertainty verging on ambivalence toward the idea of protesting either the DNC in Charlotte or the Republican National Convention taking place in Tampa. Some activists admitted that they did not know when the DNC was taking place. While they stressed it might be important to show opposition, they are more focused on the idea of creating alternatives to the political system, or even just dismissing it entirely as irrelevant. – Huffington Post

Front page of the Huffington Post .

The two big party political conventions are anything but irrelevant. Occupy activists can say they’re part of the problem or that they don’t want to be associated with them. However, don’t political activists and groups agreeing or even supporting Occupy activists have an obligation to challenge the political structure that has created the space for Occupy in the first place? If they don’t, doesn’t that say something about political activism today compared to, let’s say, 1968?

How can unions and other Democratic organizations trumpet Occupy’s complaints, then show up, suck up, support and endorse the Democratic establishment in Charlotte, which is absolutely part of the problem?

Republicans are against taxing millionaires and Sean Hannity and right wing radio, the base of the right, has called Occupy irrelevant, or worse, compared to the Tea Party. What does it mean if political activists who support Occupy do not peacefully demonstrate in Tampa?

From the Huffington Post:

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — When the Democratic National Committee picked Charlotte to host its September 2012 convention, city leaders saw it as a boost to the local service economy. Hotels would be filled, restaurants would be booked, and party spaces would be rented. Up until a few months ago, officials only had to worry about the would-be traffic congestion on Trade Street as lobbyists shuffled to the next cocktail party. But now, they have to be concerned about feistier visitors known as Occupy Wall Street.

If Charlotte officials fear having another Chicago ’68 on their hands, they’re hoping to take one essential weapon out of the hands of activists: their tents. On Oct. 27, the Charlotte city manager released a draft ordinance that makes camping on public property a “public nuisance” and would prohibit “noxious substances,” padlocks and other camping equipment that city officials fear could impede traffic and create public safety issues.

The Charlotte City Council has not yet voted on the ordinance, and some argue its language is vague and may violate First Amendment rights. “If the ordinance is passed, it is possible that its constitutionality will be challenged,” wrote Isaac Sturgill, director of the Charlotte School of Law chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, in an editorial that will run in the Charlotte alternative weekly Creative Loafing on Dec. 13. “There is also the potential for increased confrontation between protesters and police.”

It’s a long way from convention season, so thinking about what could possibly play out is nowhere on the Occupy radar yet. But these events are a challenge to the continued importance of Occupy, but also whether it’s able to mature as a movement through the actions of political activists supporting Occupy.

A story in the Miami Herald reported the Republicans aren’t worried.

Around 50,000 people are expected to come to the Tampa Bay area for the convention, including 5,000 to 6,000 delegates, 15,000 media members and possibly 10,000 protesters. Officials said it was too early to discuss the specifics of security plans, which may have to take into account larger-than-normal demonstrations spurred by the recent Occupy Wall Street movement. A small group of protesters has maintained a presence in a downtown park since October.

A “security perimeter” around the downtown arena will be established, but Harris said it was too early to determine the boundaries or how close to the venue the designated area for demonstrators would be located.

“The convention has been made a national security special even by the federal government, so the U.S. Secret Service is coordinating all the agencies down here together to come up with a security plan,” Harris said. “We have absolute confidence in their ability.”

If Occupy is to resonate as a movement on a wider scale and be taken seriously in a year where economic issues will be central to the debate, how can it not turn its sights on the politicians who make Wall Street’s greed possible, the nexus of both gathering in Charlotte and Tampa?

You can rail about unfairness and Wall Street all you want, but unless you take it to the political powers that can do something about the situation, you’re just not getting to the heart of it.

Occupy’s presence in Charlotte and Tampa is not only relevant to manifesting a shift in policies, it’s critical to driving the message of inequality and fairness home.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Rick Perry’s Latest Oops

By on 08 December 2011

With Newt Gingrich now capturing the wild imaginings of the rabid right primary voter, it’s no wonder Rick Perry’s been reduced to this latest stunt. The ad is titled “Strong.” It divided the Perry campaign, according to a report by Sam Stein.

But not everyone was comfortable with the script. When the ad was being crafted several weeks ago, Perry’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, called it “nuts,” according to an email sent from Fabrizio to the ad’s main creator, longtime GOP operative Nelson Warfield. In a separate email to The Huffington Post, Warfield confirmed that the ad was made over Fabrizio’s objections.

“Tony was against it from the get-go,” Warfield wrote. “It was the source of some extended conversation in the campaign. To be very clear: That spot was mine from writing the poll question to test[ing] it to drafting the script to overseeing production.”

The folks over at Americablog noticed something special about the ad, Perry’s jacket, with the photo below coming from them.

If you haven’t had your complete fill of Rick Perry, check out Vanity Fair‘s January issue. From “the rumors about gay affairs” to the “painkiller use,” it’s brutal.

Some people just aren’t meant for the national stage. But his fashion choice in “Strong” really is quite precious.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Pres. Obama’s War on Women’s Reproductive Freedoms Continues

By on 08 December 2011

**UPDATED**

In a statement, FDA Administrator Margaret A. Hamburg said she had decided the medication could be used safely by girls and women of all ages. But she added that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had rejected the move. – Washington Post

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

First it was Bart Stupak.

Then came poor women in Washington, D.C.

Now it’s Pres. Obama putting politics before science, while making Kathleen Sebelius the first H.H.S. secretary ever to overrule the F.D.A.

Mr. Obama didn’t get the message in 2010, when women split with Republicans, after winning their vote by 13 points in 2008. Now Pres. Obama has given progressive women a real reason not to vote for him, because he’s confirmed for the third time that what’s important to a majority of women in the Democratic Party isn’t important to him.

Obama’s continual war on our reproductive freedoms sends a message to organizations like Planned Parenthood, a group that’s been feckless since Pres. Obama came into office, with NARAL not much better. But they’ve got their own funding to worry about, which isn’t coming from the right, so what difference does it make if a poor or young woman has to pay more to get a doctor to prescribe medication that’s been approved by the F.D.A. as safe for women of all ages to be available over the counter? This hurts women in the 99%, upping the ante on their reproductive choices. More from the Post:

“We are outraged that this administration has let politics trump science,” said Kirsten Moore of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, a Washington-based advocacy group. “There is no rationale for this move. This is unprecedented as evidenced by the commissioner’s own letter. Unbelievable.”

Susan F. Wood of George Washington University, who resigned from the FDA in 2005 because of delays in relaxing restrictions on Plan B, said she was “beyond stunned” by the decision.

“There is no rationale that can justify HHS reaching in and overturning the FDA on the decision about this safe and effective contraception,” Wood said. “I never thought I’d see this happen again.”

I’ve referred before to the chapter in my book, The Hillary Effect, that’s titled “Is Freedom Just for Men?” It’s detailed, taking on the right, including Sarah Palin, who trumpets “freedom,” just not for women, and also Michele Bachmann and the “baby Palins,” among others, including Leader Pelosi, for allowing the Catholic bishops into the conversation when health care legislation was being debated, as well as Pres. Obama for emboldening and then capitulating to the Bart Stupak contingent, which ended up codifying the Hyde Amendment into law (previously it was a budget item, voted on yearly). You may also remember this past April, when Obama caved to Speaker Boehner, this time again screwing poor women, doubling down in D.C. Hey, why not? They don’t vote, right? From Colbert King, as a refresher:

The budget deal that averted a federal government shutdown delivered a below-the-belt blow to local self-determination. Congress used the budget negotiations to attach riders that prevent locally raised tax dollars from being used for reproductive services for low-income District women. Another provision forced a federally funded school-voucher program on the city.

If that weren’t galling enough, President Obama threw the city under the bus and bought the deal, telling GOP House Speaker John Boehner, “John, I will give you D.C. abortion. I’m not happy about that.” Boo-hoo. Like hell.

That Pres. Obama has hit women again isn’t surprising. Pres. Obama is afraid Republicans will use his support for reproductive freedoms against him in the general election campaign. The right is anti-science, so Obama wants to prove he can be, too, when it’s convenient and the constituency being hit is also being squeezed, because Republicans would do worse. Never mind that this mentality is what inspires Pres. Obama and other Democrats like him to believe they’ve got nothing to lose, because women won’t dare bolt the Democratic Party.

So, get ready for Obama fans to tell you that it’s the correct decision, because young women under the age of consent don’t have rights, unless their parents say so, while the Bill O’Reilly contingent applaud Obama, as will conservatives and some independents, which is exactly what the White House wants to hear.

Obama and his fans will ignore how his decision impacts a healthy majority of the female population, especially women in rural areas and poor women, as well as others in the 99% hit hard by bad economic times, women who have lost their insurance. They’ll say it’s important to support Obama, because Republicans are worse.

The right’s argument is that it encourages early promiscuity and encourages men to prey on young girls. Men who victimize young girls don’t give two hoots about the Morning After pill or contraception, they’ll do it anyway. Teenage girls in today’s society are not the same as they were during the June Cleaver era, sexualized at younger ages than ever before. Preparedness and access to all SAFE and F.D.A. approved medicines is the only way we will prevent unwanted pregnancies.

That’s not to say the thought of a girl age 14 or 15 getting pregnant and taking Plan B shouldn’t make everyone squeamish, because having sexual relations this young is not a wise decision. But first sexual encounters are almost always rooted in emotional and physical reactions, not through thought. That doesn’t mean emergency measures that have been tested and proven completely safe by the F.D.A. shouldn’t be available for these teens.

Teen sex is a reality throughout history, as females at puberty are going through a potent sexual passage, which they obviously feel, as their partners sense.

But 13-year old females having a child is a much worse consequence, one that is life threatening. The embarrassment, shame and fear of telling a parent of such an occurrence is no doubt harrowing, with a young female not having the means to do other things or the support system, beyond family, to rescue herself. When you take it to rural areas it’s worse, as it is in religious communities and families. Doctors are also out of reach for young girls in emergency situations.

We haven’t even begun to talk about victimization, force and abuse.

As with all access and reproductive health care products, it’s a public health and safety issue, which should be subject to science, not politics, as Pres. Obama has done, or religion, which does not belong in the dialogue either.

Modern women would be better off if Mr. Obama would go back to voting “present,” as he did so often in the Illinois state senate.
Modern women would be better off if Mr. Obama would go back to voting “present.”

I wonder how Pres. Obama would like it if progressive women did that next November?

Read full story · Comments { 46 }

Secretary Clinton: ‘Free and Equal in Dignity and Rights’

By on 06 December 2011

The United States will begin using American foreign aid to promote gay rights abroad, Obama administration officials said on Tuesday. President Obama issued a memorandum directing American agencies to look for ways to combat efforts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality. – U.S. to Use Foreign Aid to Promote Gay Rights Abroad

What Pres. Obama has done through this directive is historic. Having Secy. Clinton to deliver the message makes it resound.

To use American foreign aid to combat foreign governments from criminalizing homosexuality is something only a president can do and Barack Obama has done a great and controversial thing, given the focus on foreign aid and our economic state, through his decision.

This speech continues what Hillary began in Beijing, China as first lady in 1995, a speech that is foundational to my book, The Hillary Effect, and which is cited in the Introduction. The Hillary Effect itself, along with Secy. Clinton’s advocacy, helped by time, made possible by Pres. Obama’s courageous act, aided by the advocacy of gays and lesbians fighting for equality, which reached critical mass on DADT, manifested a global moment of pride for our country today.

Contrary to the naysayers, I always contended, in fact I knew, that Barack Obama could have no stronger partner than Hillary Clinton in his Administration. Having studied her for two decades, I had never a doubt. Their partnership here sings out.

It is a great day for which we owe Pres. Obama a great deal, with this speech by Secy. Clinton a historic moment for her as well.

Of course, in an election season, nothing this grand could go without scurrilous words from the right. It’s fitting that it comes from Rick Perry.

“This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop. … Promoting special rights for gays in foreign countries is not in America’s interests and not worth a dime of taxpayers’ money. … This is just the most recent example of an administration at war with people of faith in this country. Investing tax dollars promoting a lifestyle many Americas of faith find so deeply objectionable is wrong. President Obama has again mistaken America’s tolerance for different lifestyles with an endorsement of those lifestyles. I will not make that mistake.”

Ah yes, human rights as “special rights,” the threats of torture and even death for gays not enough to convince Republicans like Rick Perry that this is a human rights issue.

This is the sort of action that inspires people to repeat the axiom that presidential elections be seen as a choice and not a referendum. Only a president can make such a groundbreaking, sweeping decision. It’s a reminder that hits deep for many and will bind some people to Pres. Obama tightly, while also revealing a core tenet of the Democratic Party.

First Lady Hillary Clinton said “human rights are women’s rights.”

Today she spoke for America once again saying, “human rights are gay rights.”

It is a great day.

Read full story · Comments { 34 }

Thoughts on The Hillary Effect

By on 06 December 2011

Daubry is a college student who writes “Dash of Dan,” seen here on most Saturday mornings.

A Barnes & Noble Exclusive

Walking into the polling booth, February 5th was unlike any experience I had ever felt. There was a sense of urgency in the air and excitement.

And when Hillary Clinton gave her concession speech, in Washington D.C., my sister-in-law informed me she had to sit and watch with her daughter, because this was history in the making.

Taylor’s book captures all this and more. It is a well researched book, pushing aside fan politics for the realm of reality, but it is also personal and poignant at times.  No it is not a rehash of old rivalries or reliving the primary, but the story of Hillary Clinton’s historic candidacy weaves its way throughout the book, because of the challenges it presented to our preconceived notions, not only about Hillary, a former first lady of Arkansas and the U.S.A., a senator from New York, and presidential hopeful, but to that of women as a whole.

The book takes to task, with Taylor’s sharp tongue and trademark wit (which readers like myself find daily on her blog), the establishment media who frankly didn’t know how to handle a female who was a viable candidate for President, especially a Clinton. While simultaneously name-dropping alleged progressive blogs, who were anything but. Unlike Game Change, the Hillary Effect makes no effort to blindly praise its presidential hopeful, Taylor is candid about the Clinton campaigns missteps and mismanagement; but dually blasts the notion the Obama campaign was running a clean campaign (quite the contrary).

The Hillary campaign runs through the book, but like I’ve said it’s not the main focus, there is always a bigger picture at the end of every chapter. My favorite chapter, “Is Freedom just for Men?”, tackles the rise of females after Hillary’s loss, those who benefited most: Republican women. From Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, to Michelle Bachmann; conservative women are re-defining what freedom means for a woman, and at the state level we are seeing a historic amount of challenges to women’s freedoms.

Taylor, who describes herself as a “recovering partisan”, spotlights what is wrong with both parties, the sexism entrenched in our culture, the rise of the Tea Party, the meaning behind the occupy wall street protests,  the upcoming 2012 election, and women’s progress globally, this is all built upon the Hillary Effect, which sets the stage for our modern political landscape. A prime example being the rise of women in politics, conservatives included but also major changes to our political spending during elections (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).

Hopefully, one day we will all be able to look back at that historic run, our current political atmosphere, and recognize the changes Hillary’s presidential run made to our own politics, whether here at home or around the world. And I know, when I look at my four nieces that if any of them want to run for President one day, that challenge was made a little less steep, the climb a little less weary, the attacks a little softer, the media fairer, because someone paved the way first.

 

Read full story · Comments are closed

Chilling Video of UC Davis Police Pepper-Spraying Peaceful Students

By on 19 November 2011

I can’t see any legitimate basis for police action like what is shown here. Watch that first minute and think how we’d react if we saw it coming from some riot-control unit in China, or in Syria. The calm of the officer who walks up and in a leisurely way pepper-sprays unarmed and passive people right in the face? We’d think: this is what happens when authority is unaccountable and has lost any sense of human connection to a subject population. – James Fallows


What if the powers that be simply let the peaceful protests continue without any show of force?

After the event shown in the video, what did the UC Davis chancellor do? Sent out a letter and announced a task force. A task force? What’s wrong with these people? Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi is revealing more institutional blindness and callousness, which we saw most recently with Penn State, though that was obviously on a level all its own.

You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds. – Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi

A petition is now circulating to demand Chancellor Katehi resign.

Calling Gov. Jerry Brown.

The full story is at Huffington Post.

A judge in Massachusetts had the right idea earlier this week.

A Boston judge on Wednesday ordered the city not to remove Occupy Boston protesters or their tents from their encampment in the city’s financial district without court approval, except in an emergency.

[...] Howard Cooper, a lawyer for Occupy Boston, said the protesters are living under an “imminent threat” of the impairment of their constitutional rights if police are allowed to tear down the camp without giving the protesters the chance to argue against it in court.

“You can’t get those rights back once the moment is destroyed,” Cooper said.

It doesn’t preclude police from arrests on actual crimes.

Exercising your First Amendment rights peacefully is not a crime. It certainly doesn’t require pepper spray to be used on seated, peaceful students.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

Vigils, general strikes … The Occupation continues

By on 27 October 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.



The Occupy movement continues creating space for much needed conversations about the realities of the lives of the “99%.” The conversations have actually been taking place for years, decades even. But Occupy’s highly visible physical spaces are making room for more people to engage in the discussions. This worries the Serious People, who’ve tried ignoring and demeaning and co-opting and “I’m one of you” and multiple other ways to control what’s happening. Including, of course, police force. The Occupation simply continues.

Occupy Oakland update:

If you haven’t, check out Taylor’s earlier post regarding Scott Olsen, be sure to do so.

Today from OWS:

Tonight: Vigils Across America for Scott Olsen, Marine Veteran Critically Injured by Police Projectile at #OccupyOakland …

This morning Occupy Oakland and Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) put out a call for occupations across America and around the world to hold solidarity vigils for Scott Olsen, a former Marine and two time Iraq War veteran. Olsen sustained a skull fracture after being shot in the head on October 25 with a police projectile while peacefully participating in an Occupy Oakland march.

People across the country reacted with outrage yesterday to the police brutality unleashed against peaceful people engaged in protest in Oakland — and particularly to the injury of Scott Olsen. …

Scott is currently sedated and in critical condition at a local hospital.

Also today, from Occupy Oakland: (emphasis mine)

GENERAL STRIKE & MASS DAY OF ACTION – NOVEMBER 2

… Below is the proposal passed by the Occupy Oakland General Assembly on Wednesday October 26, 2011 in reclaimed Oscar Grant Plaza. 1607 people voted. 1484 voted in favor of the resolution, 77 abstained and 46 voted against it, passing the proposal at 96.9%. …

PROPOSAL:

We as fellow occupiers of Oscar Grant Plaza propose that on Wednesday November 2, 2011, we liberate Oakland and shut down the 1%.

We propose a city wide general strike and we propose we invite all students to walk out of school. Instead of workers going to work and students going to school, the people will converge on downtown Oakland to shut down the city.

All banks and corporations should close down for the day or we will march on them.

While we are calling for a general strike, we are also calling for much more. People who organize out of their neighborhoods, schools, community organizations, affinity groups, workplaces and families are encouraged to self organize in a way that allows them to participate in shutting down the city in whatever manner they are comfortable with and capable of.

The whole world is watching Oakland. Let’s show them what is possible.

In other Occupy news …

Two totally random tweets from the OWS Twitter feed. There are far more supportive than otherwise at the feed, but we know that these anti-Occupiers do, in fact, represent a probably sizeable faction.

FreeCapCon @zapem That is true, I remember the 60′S riots. The difference is we have a Marxist in the WH this time and he sides with #OWS #FleaParty

K1er RT @TCOT_Talk: RT @marklindesr Today is Teargas A Commie Day! #ows #tcot

A related story making the rounds is in regard to allegations that both You Tube and Google were asked to remove videos showing “police brutality,” including but well beyond Oakland.

Via RT:

Google has been asked by a US law enforcement agency to remove several videos exposing police brutality from the video sharing service YouTube, the company has revealed in its latest update to an online transparency report.

Another request filed by a different agency required Google to remove videos allegedly defaming law enforcement officials. The two requests were among 92 submissions for content removal by various authorities in the US filed between January and June 2011. Both were rejected by Google along with 27 per cent of the submissions.

Among many reasons such government actions are significant is the obvious: citizen reports and documentation of events are the only way we get a lot of this kind of news, at least initially. Videos, photos and tweets that go viral clearly force the MSM, and Electeds and Wall Street, to look where they just as clearly don’t want to.

It’s also becoming more difficult to maintain the claim that the Occupy movement doesn’t have a “clear message,” which usually means, they don’t have the kind of list of demands that fits the way the Serious People prefer. One example of what seems rather clear to me, from Occupy Chico: (emphasis mine)

It is no longer enough to vote and to participate in the political system because our political system has been altered drastically from its intended and proper function. Currently, we are allowed to pick from a few candidates whose campaigns are funded more and more by large organizations, corporations, and special interests. The success of their campaigns depends entirely on how the corporate mass media presents them. …

We are one city in a growing national movement of people who no longer feel that their government works in their best interest.

Finally, an example of what’s happening in Occupied cities across the nation – city officials and police departments trying to decide how to handle Occupiers who aren’t going away. From Nashville Peace & Justice Center:

Occupy Nashville has been told it that must vacate Legislative Plaza during the nights, starting at 8pm tomorrow (Thursday, 10/27), although the authorities had earlier agreed that Occupy Nashville had First Amendment rights to stay there. At tonight’s and tomorrow night’s (Oct 26 and 27) General Assemblies at 7pm, Occupy Nashville will have to make big decisions and plan how to carry them out with dignity and nonviolence.

Your thoughts, and local Occupy information, always great to receive.

(Photo via Occupy Oakland)

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

About the Book Cover

By on 25 October 2011

The party’s over.
The view from a recovering partisan.

My e-book is scheduled to be published two weeks from today, November 8th. It will be available on Amazon, to download on Kindle, or on Barnes and Noble, as well as your iPad. It’s a busy, exciting time in my world.

Since I announced my book two weeks ago, I’ve had a lot of feedback on the cover. Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 28 }

Progressive Notes: Op-ed on TX School Finance Lawsuit Event Makes News

By on 25 October 2011

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

State Rep. Hochberg (D-Hou)

Well, the Texas school finance lawsuit forum was a success. It was something to be proud of. My club, Meyerland Area Democrats, hosted it in a well known public school. We got 100 folks from all over to come. Although the media expressed interest and press releases were sent to reporters, none showed to cover this event. A landmark lawsuit seeking to remedy funding cuts on top of a woeful system in a state whose governor wants to be president was NOT enough to garner attention from the papers.

However, we are getting some attention now, thanks to an op-ed I’ve written about our event. It was published in the Examiner papers locally. It is a worthy read because I sum up our event and the core issue of this lawsuit of national significance. We hope other papers will pick this up and I will update ya’ll on that.

Here is what I wrote to all the papers in town and hope you spread the word:

Taking Texas to court over school funding inequities
By ART PRONIN

Posted: Monday, October 24, 2011 11:04 am

The Meyerland Area Democrats hosted a lively forum on the critical school finance lawsuit at Johnston Middle School last week. Because the state legislature has failed to come up with a universal equitable system to fund our schools time and again there is no choice but for hundreds of ISDs to sue the state for remedy. This funding inequity should infuriate and mobilize all Texans no matter if you are liberal, conservative, rich or poor. Why? Because your tax dollars are not being properly distributed in any fair manner and your community is not getting its share of funds.

Paul Colbert, a consultant to the Equity Center, State Rep. Scott Hochberg, Randall Buck Wood of Ray & Wood, and David G. Hinojosa, Southwest regional counsel for MALDEF, spoke about why the lawsuits have been or will be filed.

Other dignitaries who attended were HISD Trustee Juliet Stipeche, Harris County Department of Education Trustees Debbie Kerner and Jim Henley, State Rep. Borris Miles, Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan, and former U.S. Rep. Chris Bell.

Rep. Hochberg provided insight into the nonsensical school finance system and showed how the legislature utterly failed in its duties to properly fund our schools. The bottom line is our state is in perpetual deficit intentionally created when the new business “margins” tax was implemented in 2006 to remedy the last time the courts told the state to improve school funding, which was in 2005 While there was even less revenue due to the economy and no new federal stimulus funds in 2011, the legislature simply cut over $5 billion from the schools and blamed it on the economy rather than fixing the problem they created.

David Hinojosa, MALDEF

MALDEF’s Hinojosa focused on the gross civil rights violations of this funding system. He noted that all students must meet the same standard to get into college – all must do well on their SAT tests, get great grades and pass state-mandated exams. Yet the poor districts, which often enroll sizable Latino, African American, and low income children, simply cannot give their students the footing needed to make it into college. The result: a nightmare for the future of Texas. MALDEF expects to soon file a lawsuit on behalf of low wealth school districts, parents and children.

Wood, general counsel for the Equity Center, which filed one of the lawsuits against the state, explained how arbitrary and unfair the funding system is. One poor district might tax at a higher rate but gets less back from the state to educate their pupils, while a rich district might tax less and find they too are not getting needed funds. Texas currently has the lowest high school graduation rates in the nation, while the finance system continues to worsen and cuts pile on. So the only remedy is to go to court and get a fix by getting the court to order the legislature to fix the system or close the schools. He also noted the Texas constitution guarantees an equitable quality education to all residents.

Colbert provided a detailed view of the inequities in the current finance formulas and pointed out how they are based on cost levels from the 1980s. Changes have not been made to fund a growing need to better educate students. Instead, large and unnecessary cuts were made, yet the state leadership is now falsely trying to claim an increase in funding for schools. Colbert provided the actual numbers from the state itself demonstrating that funding has decreased by billions of dollars, leaving schools with a decrease in revenue of over $500 per student from the prior two years. School districts are getting less state aid per student than they received in the 2007-8 school year. He also pointed out that Houston ISD would have received over $11 million more this year if it had just been funded at the state average level per student.

The Equity Center has organized a coalition of parents, civic groups and ISDs to press forward for justice for Texas schools. It is called Texas Taxpayer and Student Fairness Coalition.

The Meyerland Area Democrats Club is made up primarily of residents of election precincts in the Meyerland area, including Westbury, Maplewood and Marilyn Estates. For additional information, click to http://www.meydems.org

Pronin is president of the Meyerland Area Democrats.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Michele Bachmann and The Gays

By on 24 October 2011

“You know, his reparative therapy clinic where he tries to de-gay people? For me, that was called high school, and it doesn’t work.” – Kathy Griffin

Huffington Post reports that in a new interview with People Magazine, Michele Bachmann will further prove she’s capable of being president of only some of the people.

In the Oct. 31 issue of People, the couple defended themselves against accusations of harboring an anti-gay bias. “There’s never been a bias,” Marcus Bachmann said. “I’m no better than anyone else,” Michele added.

People also talked to Michele Bachmann’s gay stepsister, Helen LaFave, who Bachmann said she loved. LaFave said, “Yes, we are family and love each other, but she seems to have a disconnect. Her statements and actions related to gay rights are very hurtful, whether she understands that or not.” Their once-close relationship reportedly strained over Bachmann’s anti-gay activism.

It’s truly remarkable that Mrs. Bachmann can sit in interviews talking about The Gays, while Marcus Bachmann says things like “there’s never been a bias,” without any sense of irony.

Michele Bachmann is already honorary president of the land of denial.

Someone needs to remind the Bachmanns that it is the 21st century. Being anti-gay is so 20th century.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Trump Meeting with Perry Results in Birther Confession

By on 23 October 2011

Rick Perry is so desperate to prop up his flagging presidential bid he’s listening to the birther king. That Donald Trump is a powerful guy, because he evidently convinced Perry there’s something to his madness.

From the transcript of Parade magazine (h/t Think Progress):

You don’t believe what’s been released?

I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.

And?

That came up.

And he said?

He doesn’t think it’s real.

And you said?

I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.

Perry makes no sense here, because if he really has doubts about Barack Obama’s legitimacy, that his birth certificate doesn’t prove he’s an American citizen, why is it just “a distractive issue”? It’s the minimum requirement to prove eligibility.

That’s the problem with these birther crazies. They try to diminish Barack Obama’s Americanism through vile swipes hinting illegitimacy. But they won’t go all the way. They simply float the slur out there to hook the wackiest Tea Party types, then say it’s a distraction and doesn’t matter.

Republicans can’t have it both ways.

When Donald Trump had his very first interview with Rush Limbaugh, talking about China, he sounded sane and knowledgeable. Now the guy seems to be running a one-man consultancy that first tried to help Michele Bachmann, now Rick Perry.

Karl Rove was no charmer and his tactics were pure dirty ops, but what Donald Trump is running on the side isn’t going to end up with anyone he talks to making it to the White House.

Rick Perry’s debate performances proved he’s not national candidate material. His birther confession drives it home. It also proves how desperate he is to get back into the race, though thinking that birtherism will get him there makes me want to ask Who’s advising this guy?

Read full story · Comments { 12 }

The Perils of Pissing off Maxine

By on 20 October 2011

photo credit: Ward Wesley

According to the Politico article today, Rep. Maxine Waters has said not only that “I don’t have a relationship with the White House,” but also that she’s “never had a conversation with the president.”

Given who Rep. Maxine Waters is, especially her place in the black community and the activist Congressional Black Caucus, these are stunning statements.

There’s a lot of talk about Pres. Obama not reaching out to Congress and forging relationships with senators and also representatives. That he has not worked at his relationship with Republicans, but also Democrats.

Not having a relationship with Maxine Waters is just stupid.

President Obama learns perils of roiling Maxine Waters

… But the blunt, tell-it-like-it-is criticism she has aimed at President Barack Obama may have taken Waters’s reputation — loudmouth bomb-thrower or fearless truth-teller, depending on your viewpoint — to a new level. By blasting the president for failing to do enough to ease black economic suffering during the recession, she has surfaced some slowly building grievances among African-Americans and confronted the White House with racial issues it has worked assiduously to avoid.

After Waters chaired a series of national jobs forums over the summer that in part faulted the Obama administration’s response to black unemployment, Obama responded in a high-profile speech urging black lawmakers to “stop grumbling”and fight alongside him. Waters responded with five TV hits in one day, delivering a blunt message: “I don’t know who he was talking to.”

[...] But other black leaders said Waters — nicknamed “Kerosene Maxine” by her detractors — had lobbed Molotov cocktails that hit their mark. She had expressed out loud the sense of frustration that a president whose election was hailed as a crowning moment in African-Americans’ struggle for equality has not resulted in the sweeping change pioneered by a white Southern Democrat’s Great Society four decades earlier.

Black-themed political websites and talk radio exploded in debate over whether Obama was tougher on African-Americans than on Republicans and Wall Street. Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating among black voters, once solidly above 80 percent, continued to slide into the mid-70s in several polls.

Waters had done it again.

Rep. Waters’ ability to speak to the troubles inside the African American community and the plight of black unemployed hits a chord that makes Barack Obama uncomfortable: African Americans, but also Latinos, have been hit the hardest by the economic implosion.

Whether Pres. Obama is comfortable addressing this specific reality head on or not, minority unemployment is a ticking bomb.

For the first African American president to not be able to speak directly to the plights of minority unemployed, which is Rep. Waters’ home base, represents the mirror image of Obama’s lack of connection with the blue collar working class, whose economic plight is also turning downward.

When you look at the people who still sit atop Pres. Obama’s economic mountain, all of whom represent the anti-OWS crowd, it’s no wonder Democrats are struggling to create a cogent economic message.

Of course, I’m a fellow Missourian, Rep. Waters born in St. Louis, where I was raised, so I can’t help but know she’d be a formidable partner if Barack Obama would listen and heed her message. It would certainly be smarter than having “Kerosene Maxine” on the outside highlighting issues that make you uncomfortable.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Mitt Romney’s Problem with Women

By on 17 October 2011

My personal experience interacting with Mormons has been an education. As I’ve written before, my husband was a Mormon, but left the church, also having his name taken off the roles, something that’s considered quite controversial and isn’t easy.

I noticed in the Dartmouth debate recently, Mr. Romney flaring up a bit when questioned, then pressed, by Bloomberg’s Julianna Goldman. It was clear to me Mitt didn’t like Ms. Goldman being hard and direct, doing her job as a journalist.

This New York Times article recounts a couple of instances that say a lot about Mr. Romney and his patriarchal moorings. This doesn’t surprise me in the least, but it’s chilling, nevertheless.

Some Mormons, like Mr. Clark, found Mr. Romney thoughtful and compassionate; one mother recalled his kindness to her dying son. Others, including a group of Mormon feminists demanding a greater role for women, found him condescending, doctrinaire or just plain bossy. He clashed with a married mother of four who sought to terminate a pregnancy; the incident made news years later, when Mr. Romney ran for United States Senate as a supporter of abortion rights — a position he has since abandoned.

“Mitt is the type who liked to be called Bishop Romney or President Romney,” said Judy Dushku, a professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston and a Mormon feminist leader. “He is very conscious of his place in the hierarchy, but not yours.”

[...] Mormons oppose abortion, except in extreme cases like rape, incest or where the life of the woman is in danger — and require that church elders be consulted. In 1990, Exponent II, a Mormon feminist magazine that Ms. Dushku, the Suffolk University professor, helped found, published an article by a married mother of four who recounted her own experience after doctors advised her to terminate her pregnancy when she was being treated for a potentially dangerous blood clot.

Her bishop got wind of the situation, she wrote, and showed up unannounced at the hospital, warning her sternly not to go forward. The article did not identify Mr. Romney as the bishop, but Ms. Dushku later did.

Now the woman has come forward, identifying herself in Mr. Scott’s book as Carrel Hilton Sheldon. (Through Ms. Dushku, she declined to be interviewed.) “Mitt has many, many winning qualities,” she is quoted as saying, “but at the time he was blind to me as a human being.”

For the misogynistic religious right, people like Mr. Romney who believe freedom is just for men, what matters in the situation described above is not the woman. Being “blind” to the personal human suffering and what the woman is going through doesn’t register with Romney. The woman isn’t a human being, she’s secondary and her pregnancy takes priority over her own life.

That Romney, as bishop or in any other role, has no right “warning” a woman about what she should or shouldn’t do at this most personal of times never even occurs to Mr. Romney.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Queer Talk: The Nitty Gritty of Activism

By on 15 October 2011

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Working toward equality is frequently slow, plodding, repititious to the point of boring, totally non-“sexy” work. That’s a lot of the exciting world of nitty gritty activism. The big moments are wonderful, but can happen only because of all that behind the scenes work by mostly behind the scenes people.
I thought about this, again, after reading three recent stories.

First, “News Corps.’s Two-Faced Treatment of the LGBT Community,” by Carlos Maza at Equality Matters.

The other two are about the recent deaths of two LGBT veteran activists, Paula Ettelbrick and Frank Kameny.

The News Corp. piece shows something about the sometimes blurry lines in non-profit and advocacy funding. And the activist lives of Ettelbrick and Kameny show something about the kind of tenacity activism requires, over years, decades, lifetimes.

From the Equality Matters article:

It makes sense to assume that News Corp. – Fox News’ parent company – isn’t exactly a friend of the LGBT community. For years, Fox News has been a reliable source of anti-LGBT misinformation and animosity … .

Over the past few years, however, News Corp. has also been working to position itself as an ally to the LGBT community. The company has been a longtime supporter of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association and is launching a magazine … aimed at celebrating (and capitalizing off of) the advent of marriage equality in New York. While Fox panders to the homophobia of its conservative audience, News Corp. continues look for opportunities to tap into the LGBT market.

That support has been noticed by, among others, Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality. Regarding the “WEDDING Pride” magazine, LaBarbera “called it an example that Fox is ‘promoting bad morality.’”

As Maza continues, some from the LGBT communities have also noted, with displeasure, “News Corp.’s long history of opposing marriage equality.”

This kind of thing isn’t that unusual in the non-profit – fundraing – for-profit relationships, with both sides walking a nitty gritty, where the money meets the road. News Corps. / Fox and the NLGJA, illustrate this, but are very far from being alone. The corporation or business makes a decision to support a non-profit or activist group because it’s a way to make money. A non-profit or advocacy group makes a decision to accept such support because it’s a way to get much needed funding.

It’s related to other concerns. For example, what about a non-profit or advocacy group accepting funds from a corporation that’s “good” on its civil / human rights issues, but not on others? Good on gay, bad on immigration or environment or whatever – what do you do?

I definitely do not want to reduce the focus on Kameny and Ettelbrick to funding challenges. The connection here is more on the fact that these two amazing people truly were pioneers in many ways, including how to traverse the world of advocacy and non-profits. The work they did helped lay the foundation present day Queerdom builds on. By necessity, both – in quite different ways – had to negotiate the nitty gritty of activism.

Of Paula Ettelebrick, well-known activist in her own right Urvashi Vaid wrote Paula Ettelbrick and Feminist Leadership.

On October 7, 2011, the progressive, feminist and queer movements lost a brilliant leader and tireless activist when Paula Ettelbrick succumbed to a year-long battle with cancer. Paula’s career, from her graduation from Wayne State University Law School in Detroit, to her tenure with numerous LGBT organizations and projects, was a testament to her dedication and her moral, feminist vision. …

She had an unapologetic faith in the inclusive vision of LGBT liberation; a commitment to economic and racial justice and an optimism about the ability of women and men to transform themselves and our worlds.

Urvashi recalls the conflict created by Ettelbrick’s out-spoken questioning of the focus on marriage equality (“Since When Is Marriage A Path To Liberation?”), and then turns to Ettlebrick’s insistence on seeking a “broad” focus on equality – reproductive freedom; poverty and low income; racism, etc.

Perhaps that is the tribute we could give to the more than 25 years Paula Ettelbrick put into the LGBT movement – to make a commitment to raise the broad progressive agenda, to make the difficult critique, to pose and champion the inclusive and often unpopular question; in short, to be feminists … .

I think you can see the “nitty gritty” challenge that brings to the world of LGBT activism, and activism in general. Do you take money from someone you know also spends other money demeaning you? Do you avoid activism for less popular, less “sexy,” less mainstream friendly members of the community you serve ? Do you challenge an issue focus, even when it’s growing in popularity, if you’re convinced it’s not the best use of sparse resources?

Ettelbrick was only 56 when she died on October 7. Frank Kameny was 86 when he died a few days later, on October 11, and began his activism in the 1950s. Sue Hydes, with The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, writes:

Frank Kameny’s life spanned the baddest old days of the McCarthy-style witch hunts to the elations of winning marriage equality in the District of Columbia and beyond.

His death came, as Lou Chibbaro notes in The Washington Blade:

The death came less a month before the planned celebration of the 50th anniversary of Kameny’s founding of the Mattachine Society of Washington, the first gay rights organization in the nation’s capital. …

Chibbaro writes that Kameny served in combat in WWII, earned a doctorate in astronomy from Harvard, worked

for the U.S. Army map service in the 1950s and was fired after authorities discovered he was gay. He contested the firing and appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, becoming the first known gay person to file a gay-related case before the high court. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court ruling against Kameny and declined to hear the case, but Kameny’s decision to appeal the case through the court system motivated him to become a lifelong advocate on behalf on LGBT equality.

A “broad agenda,” as Ettelbrick insisted upon; an insistence on going to court as an “open homosexual”; and the necessity of making decisions about support from corporations that give with one hand while slapping you down with the other … all indications of life in the nitty gritty world of equality activism, which is also where advances in equality are made. Raise your hand to join in.

( Photo via Photo Bucket )

Read full story · Comments { 3 }