Throwback Thursday: Clinton and 2008 Misogyny

This post is a sort of meta, but I'm old enough to remember that the misogyny thrown at Hillary Clinton in Election 2016 was similar to when she ran in 2008.

Hop in the DeLorean and let's take a trip back in time, shall we?

First, The Feminist Law Professors' Ann Bartow, in her 2008 piece "The Sexism in the Democratic Primary," has a rundown of the misogyny Clinton experienced that year. Reading through it, geeeez, the misogyny was (ironically) so shrill, so overt, and so very emotionally fragile. This was before phrases like "SJW," "alt-right," and "cuck" entered the Internet lexicon. It was a simpler, kinder time.

Ha ha, just kidding. George W. Bush had just been President for 8 years. It was awful!

For instance, I had forgotten that Hillary Clinton was made to publicly deny that she was a lesbian and that one of her 2008 version of "email server" controversies was that she teared up during a speech (lock her up!). In Bartow's piece, Echidne was quoted with an observation:

"But if you read widely on this topic on blogs you will find that even many feminists have this view that the sexism is not really deplorable, because Hillary Clinton really is a monster bitch."

(Props to predicting "deplorable" 8 years ago!)

Sadly, I recognize some of that buying-into of the "monster bitch" caricature in my 8-years-ago self. My feminist consciousness was less developed then. I was less critical of what I was hearing. I wrote several posts back then noting instances of sexism aimed at Clinton but did not come out strongly supporting her over Barack Obama.

To quote Sarah Paulson's famous Emmy speech about having unfairly judged Marcia Clark, "...I, along with the rest of the world, had been superficial and careless in my judgment." I'm ashamed and sorry I didn't or say enough to counter it back then. Looking back, I can say that watching what Clinton experienced did, I believe, turn out to be formative to my ongoing development as a feminist.

I recognized much of this uncritical acceptance of the Hillary "the monster bitch" meme in many young women in 2016, particularly some I interacted with or saw on Twitter who uncritically bought in the notion that Bernie Sanders was something of a saint compared to Clinton.

Some of these people truly believed that Trump and Clinton were both just as bad as one another. And now? They sure are gonna see. We're all gonna see. That's, perhaps, the tragedy of it. How could this happen, but for some seriously-unexamined misogyny?

I try not too think too much about the alternative universe where Madam President is diligently working for us - protecting reproductive rights, not cutting violence against women programs, celebrating diversity, some people on the left still calling her a neolib and telling us Trump would have been better (ha ha).....lord, where do you even stop?

But, hopping back in our DeLorean, Historiann also wrote a 2008 piece that's interesting to read today, entitled, "Hark! A Voice From the Future, Today:"

"In many ways, the misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton this year–the blowback of which will probably be felt by women in all walks of life for years to come in thousands of discouraging ways–is part of an old story best documented by Bob Somerby at The Daily Howler.  Somerby has been on the case of the insular corporate media since 1999, when he noticed the power of the preferred media narrative about Al Gore’s candidacy for the Presidency, and its curious imperviousness to the facts.  And as Somerby points out regularly–you’ll never see or hear the media tell the truth about its own role in shaping our political and cultural discourses."

She notes that many people, including liberals and Democrats, were bystanders to or active participants in the spreading and acceptance of vicious lies about Clinton. (+ note the mansplainy condescending comments following the post - how familiar those look!).

In 2016, the media certainly had a preferred narrative about Clinton: She's hiding Serious Wrongdoing in the Emails, with the implication that Trump is right to call her Crooked Hillary. Both sides are therefore Just The Same.

What I believe helped lead to her primary and general popular vote win, however, are two factors:

(1) Social media usage for candidates, pundits, and voters was likely much greater in Election 2016 than 2008, meaning more people were exposed to messaging other than that of mainstream media sources; and (2) Many Clinton supporters, and feminists in particular, used social media, blogs, and larger media platforms to confront misogynistic tropes leveled at Clinton, probably to a greater degree than what we saw in 2008.

In a dark way, I suppose it is progress that, this time, it took misogyny, racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant fear-mongering, Russian interference, hacking, Wikileaks, the media obsessively reporting on Hillary's email server, and assists from James Comey and Jill Stein to obtain a small electoral college win over the woman.

Dear Diary

So I was scrolling through my archives and check out this HOT TAKE from me circa 2007:

"My voting strategy as of now. And this could change. First, I'm going to throw away my vote for Mike Gravel in the primaries. I refuse, on principle, to vote for any candidate whose support for LGBT rights is not clear, and frankly not correct- even if there's a woman running, and even if there's an African-American running. Because right now, this little-known and underexposed candidate is the ONLY one is in full support of marriage equality, who opposes the Defense of Marriage Act, AND opposes "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (http://www.gravel2008.us/issues) 

And then Hillary will win the primaries. And I'll have to choose between (a) not voting at all (b) voting for "the lesser two-evils," neither of whom fully support gay rights and are more beholden to corporate interests than they are to the common citizen. Ahhh, the 'lessser of two evils,' that bane of the American voter's existence. 

But, since voting is one of the few meaningful ways for a non-millionaire average citizen to participate in our democracy, I'll choose to vote. 

And I'll vote for Hillary. Who will lose to Rudy Giuliani. Because when America's gut-checked, we'll find out we aren't quite ready for a woman president after all. 

I hope I'm wrong."

What the what? Who the fuck even was I back then? Who the hell is Mike Gravel? Why was I too lazy to use basic HTML to embed a URL? Was I a single-issue "gay rights" voter?

And damn, at least dudes regularly get paid for being wrong about politics.

I mean, it's like reading a journal of sorts, except way more embarrassing because other people can read it as well. (I know, oh woe is the blogger life).

Anyway, I guess my larger, more serious point here is that people's political opinions can and often do change over time.  I ended up voting for Obama in both the 2008 primary and general elections, which is a decision I still agree with. But, I supported the Greens in 2000 (yikes) - mostly because I was in college with little work experience, hadn't yet experienced gender discrimination, didn't fully appreciate that perhaps incremental change is the best way to make lasting change, and I felt powerless in the grand scheme of things and thus sympathized with "anti-establishment" sentiment.

The second point is that I'm also quite certain there are plenty of topics within my archives that I think differently about at present.  The challenge is if and how to address that now.  My thoughts are "out there" representing me, but I have changed over time, as many people are wont to do.

Sadly, neither political nor Internet "gotcha"/"callout" cultures allow for such change or concede that change can be genuine.  The demand is that people must have been perfect, however that is defined at the moment (which itself changes over time), from day one.  A person is painted as a flip-flopper at best or unchangeably rotten to the core at worst.

Hillary Clinton, for instance, is now sometimes critiqued for not fully supporting LGBT rights from the start of her political career. Now, however, I believe she is a sincere ally. I trust that now. I didn't in 2007.

I guess when I look for sincere change, I look for the reasons the person gives for changing. Have they listened? Have they learned? Have they apologized if they've done wrong?  And, looking at ourselves as the judge of someone else, what is our investment, if any, in painting another person a certain way?

Odds 'N Ends

1) Frenetic Swine Flu Article of the Week

From the current Time magazine, in big, bold type that takes up half of an entire page in the print version (the online version I've linked to is different):

"More than 2 billion people worldwide could get it. Hundreds of schools may shut down. And 160 million Americans will need to be vaccinated- twice."

Then, in teeny tiny print on the 3rd page of the article, the author informs us not to panic because "overreaction- individually or as a country- will only make it worse."

Now Time, don't be silly. Why on earth would anyone feel the need to overreact?

2) Progressive Are Going Nowhere?

Via truthdig, Chris Hedges argues that America has not and will not change under the Obama Administration. His money quote, in arguing against our current two-party system:

"The Liberty Party, which fought slavery, the suffragists who battled for women’s rights, the labor movement, and the civil rights movement knew that the question was not how do we get good people to rule—those attracted to power tend to be venal mediocrities—but how do we limit the damage the powerful do to us."

In believing that the Democrats and the Republicans are So Very Different from each other, we the people remain politically passive.

3) Recognizing Sex-Based Hate Crimes

At the Huffington Post, Louise Marie Roth argues that the George Sodini's murderous rampage was a hate crime against women.

I agree.

Current federal hate crimes laws race, color, religion, and national origin. While much of the focus on the pending Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act ("Matthew Shepard Act") has been on protections of the LGBT community, this new law would give the Department of Justice the power to investigate and prosecute bias-motivated violence based on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability in addition to the already-protected classes of race, color, religion, and national origin.

I have reservations as to whether hate crimes legislation actually deter hate crimes, but I think it's important to (a) acknowledge that gender-based hate crimes do occur and (b) to label them as such given the degree to which violence against women has been normalized.

And also, it sort of makes one wonder why anti-gays are so opposed to the Matthew Shepard Act, and so opposed that they lie about it!, since it also seeks to protect, not only LGBT people, but also heterosexual women (and men) from bias-motivated violence.

Odds 'N Ends

1) Why I'm a "Socialist"

An awesome take on our wonderful private health care system

2) Women Get Aroused Sometimes Too!

Oh my gawdess, you guys, women have sexual desires too! My favorite part of this article from CNN regarding the Surprisingly High numbers of women who enjoy porn was this:

"Even more compelling were the results of a 2004 study at Northwestern University that also assessed the effect of porn on genital arousal....[W]hen the researchers showed gay, lesbian, and straight porn to heterosexual and homosexual women and men, they found that while the men responded more intensely to porn that mirrored their particular gender orientation, the women tended to like it all. Or at least their bodies did."

You would never know this, of course, if you only listened to the dominate narrative on sex, which demands heterosexual women to forego their own sexual pleasure and play gatekeeper to men's naturally Very High Sex Drives.


3) The Birfers

I have shied away from talking about the manufactured conspiracy theory that is the Obama Birth Certificate "Controversy." By rebutting it and reporting on it, the media and bloggers always run the risk of giving waste-of-time wack-a-loon theories a shred of legitimacy.

Nonetheless, a part of me remains intrigued by the phenomenon of movements of people who believe in "obscure, discredited theories," as Ben Smith writing for Politico calls them. Don't get me wrong, I am all for questioning Official Truth. I think it would be irresponsible not to do so, in fact.

But, whether people remain convinced that 9/11 was an inside job or that Barack Obama is a Secret Muslim Non-Citizen, why people display an irrational distrust of the Official Truth in spite of a lack of credible evidence for their skepticism, to me, is always far more interesting than the actual alleged conspiracy. In the case of the 9/11 Truthers, I think many people were perhaps over-reacting to a very real inability to trust the Bush Administration. In this case, I think the Birthers are perhaps over-reacting to the angst they are still feeling about the fact that Barack Obama, a black Democrat with a funny name, won the 2008 election. Being mired in conservatism, it is only natural for the birthers to couch their conspiracy theory in a faux Concern That We Haven't Complied With the Constitution. Yet, at heart, I think they are, to put it simply, unpatriotic sore losers who are demanding that we put resources into their asinine theory instead of into more important issues that actually matter.

I think it's time for some people to get over it, re-group after their loss, and start thinking of valid criticisms to make of our President.

More Strawfeminism

You can always count on "news" source WorldNetDaily to keep the fun in fundamentalist. You know, practically every day I learn more and more about what feminism is and what it means to be a feminist from those experts on feminism, People Opposed to Feminism. Such folks have this bizarre habit of telling we feminists what it is that we believe without asking us what it is that we believe.

Writing their theses against feminism, such folks rarely present actual feminist quotations or analyses. When they do present supporting evidence for their indictments against feminism, they usually take out-of-context quotations or the most radical feminist statements ever made and present them as being representative of what every single feminist in the entire world believes. Ignorantly, they present weakened scarecrow-like variations of feminists arguments and blow them down as though they have obliterated real arguments and, indeed, the entirety of feminism altogether.

Of particular fun are women opposed to Feminazism. As with other traitors to causes that generally benefit those who share their identity within an oppressed group, one inevitably wonders whether their loud and proud stances are the product of genuine convictions, a desire for pats on the head from those within the dominant identity group, and/or a simple desire for the attention that identity betrayal brings. WorldNetDaily writer and blogger Patrice Lewis has "a problem with feminists" and in her article "Selective Feminism" she succeeds mostly in winning her very own game of anti-feminist bingo.

Before delving into the specifics of her article, let's examine the name of her column: "Real America." When people use the phrase "Real America," I always wonder what that means and which parts of America, specifically, constitutes "real" America. The phrase itself implies that there are parts of America that are not real America and I wonder which parts these are. It's very strange. Some people would be very surprised to learn that they reside in fake America.

Anyway, I will use Patrice's article to demonstrate the anti-feminist errors of treating feminism as a monolith and of erecting straw arguments. Of feminists, she claims:

"They hate femininity (which they see as weakness) and loath women who choose traditional roles."

One of my rules for critical thinking is that one should immediately be wary about sweeping statements about "them" and "they." If such hugely general statements are not properly qualified, they are rarely indicative of reality-based thought. Patrice's piece contains no qualifiers such as "some feminists," "many feminists," or even "most feminists." Nope, her entire article is about "feminists," thereby implying all of them.

Yet, I am a feminist and I neither "hate femininity" nor do I "loathe women who choose traditional roles." There, I just debunked Patrice's entire argument. Game over.

Her argument is both a straw argument and an overgeneralization. It is a claim that many anti-feminists make about feminists, and it is a misperception that leads to many people's resentment of feminism. Many feminists do not, actually, "hate" the concept of "femininity." Rather, many feminists think that what is called "femininity" is not actually inherent in women; instead, it is something that women learn through conditioning and society that begins as soon as baby girls are swaddled in pink blankets and told how soft, little, and dainty they are. Along these lines, it is mostly advocates of "gender complementarity" who present femininity as weakness, because they view it as the opposing counterpart to man's "inherent" strength.

Furthermore, I, and many feminists, do not "loathe" women who choose to stay at home. I have always said that raising children and choosing to stay home is admirable. Yet, like many feminists, I think that women should have more than that one option in life. It's all about having choices rather than restricting women to one life ambition and demanding them to be satisfied with it because it is their "natural" station in life.

See how different my feminist argument is than the argument that Patrice presents as the Feminist Argument?

Perhaps more grating than people who misrepresent feminism are those who tell me what I, a feminist, believe. Nonetheless, Patrice continues that, while she supposedly used to be a feminist, she learned that feminists don't really advocate for all women:

"At the time I didn't know that, contrary to their claim to speak for all women, feminists sure as heck didn't speak for the strong, self-confident women of Flyover Country."

I wonder if, in Patrice's world, Flyover Country is in Real America? In any event, I don't think "Flyover Country" means what Patrice thinks it means. Generally, when people use the term they are speaking of anything that is not LA or New York. Many a feminist who does not reside in these two cities, myself included, might be surprised to learn that feminism doesn't speak for them. In fact, I think many people, feminist and non-feminist alike, would be surprised to learn that feminism has geographic boundaries at all.

Really, almost her entire article is a big play on the down-home folksy Real America schtick that makes people like Sarah Palin so popular. Patrice accuses feminists of being out-of-touch coastal elites who snobbily think of middle America as "Flyover Country," yet it is she who denigrates and excludes some parts of America as being not-real parts of the country. In November 2008, the majority of Americans made a decision to end the polarizing politics that have divided our country for 8 long years. And so, at the end of her article, when Patrice provokes feminists to "bring [the "snark"] on," I can only issue a calm no thanks.

Instead, I will issue a plea for her to write with more precision and more nuance in the future. I will ask her to stop implying that law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who happen to hold different political views than her are not part of real America. While it may invoke a sense of certainty to believe that the world is black and white, accuracy lives in shades of gray.

Thoughts On Pride

40 years ago almost to the day, New York City police officers and the Public Morals Squad raided the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City. 40 years ago, raids of gay bars were common and patrons, especially if they were male and wearing dresses, were arrested.

40 years ago, laws were still on the books that criminalized consensual sex between two people of the same-sex in their private homes.

40 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association considered homosexuality to be a mental disorder.

40 years ago, being gay was something to be kept secret and to be ashamed of.

The LGBT rights movement did not begin at Stonewall, but we celebrate LGBT pride every June because Stonewall symbolizes a visible act of resistance to government-sanctioned oppression.

2009 began as a year of hope and change for all Americans. And, after a particularly alienating previous 8 years, LGBT Americans especially took this message to heart. This Pride weekend, let us celebrate how far we've come but let us not forget that, although the rhetoric is more appealing, our own government continues to weight us down. The Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask Don't Tell exist to remind Americans that being gay is less-than being heterosexual. These two federal laws tell us that being gay is so very different than being heterosexual that those who are gay can't possibly be the same types of spouses to each other, or the same types of soldiers for our nation, that people who are heterosexual can be.

Today, we know that being gay is not something to be kept secret or to be ashamed of. Yes, organizations, individuals, and some politicians who fancy themselves our modern-day public morals squad devote their lives to telling us otherwise. And likewise, those who claim to be our friends and then take no action to repeal unjust laws also tell us otherwise.

I am reminded this Pride that true change comes from within communities, through grassroots organizing, and through the simple work of everyday people and rarely from politicians who make big promises in hopes of gaining power from us.

Obama's DOMA Fail

Given Barack Obama's impotence on LGBT rights thus far into his presidency and the duty of the Department of Justice to enforce current US law, it comes as no surprise that Obama's Department of Justice (DOJ) is defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the law that prevents same-sex couples from receiving any of the federal benefits, rights, and privileges of marriage. What is more surprising, and extremely disappointing, is that the DOJ brief deploys arguments that are to be expected from rightwing anti-gays, not from certain liberal Democrats who claim to be "fierce advocates" for the LGBT community.

You may read the brief over at Pam's House Blend, embedded within a post that gives an excellent run-down of its arguments and subsequent responses by LGBT organizations. Some of the arguments included within the brief include the argument that DOMA is good because it saves the federal government money (since surviving same-sex partners cannot receive Social Security Survivors benefits, for instance), that no analogy exists between bans on inter-racial marriage and bans on same-sex marriage, and that DOMA doesn't discriminate against lesbians and gay men because lesbians and gay men are already free to marry people of the opposite sex. Strangely, the brief also argues that DOMA is actually "neutral" towards marriage equality, despite the fact that in the reality-based world it prohibits the federal government from recognizing legal same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.

I have addressed these substantive arguments previously and the links are embedded above. So, putting aside those issues, I want to focus today on another topic. Namely that, from the Obama Administration, the LGBT community has endured one slap in the face after another. Personally, I was willing to let the Rick Warren thing go. I could see, after all, that a reasonable person might think that a symbolic gesture to unite our nation was more important than Rick Warren's previous vilifications of our community. Then, when the Obama Administration announced that repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell would have to wait, I took that at face value and continued to hold out HopeChangeyChange that he would eventually follow through with his campaign promise once he finished More Important Business.

But now, to support DOMA, the most sweeping piece of legislation that prevents same-sex couples from full legal equality, and to use asinine rightwing homobigoted arguments in the process, that's strike three in my book. And yes, the Department of Justice has a duty to defend current laws, but past presidents (and Obama, in a different instance) have refused to do so when "there are important political and social issues at stake." While many of us in the LGBT community have suspected that Obama secretly favored marriage equality despite his statements to the contrary, I think some of us, myself included, were giving him too much credit.

The Obama Administration's new line is now that DOMA will be repealed before his term ends at some unspecified future date. That's nice. But promises at this point are empty when his Administration unnecessarily and counter-productively just elevated offensive fringe arguments into the mainstream. During his presidency, the Obama Administration has consistently validated every homophobe out there and has made it just a little bit easier for people to continue thinking it's acceptable to treat LGBT people poorly and enshrine discrimination into law.

I'm neither a Democrat or a Republican, but at least with McCain and Palin we would have known what we were getting. So, for now, I'm officially "neutral" towards President Obama.

Desperately Seeking Campaign Follow-Through

So, 100+ days into his presidency President Obama's follow-through on some of his campaign rhetoric has been less than stellar. I have applauded some of his early moves such as issuing an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay, ending the Global Gag Rule, signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, and expressing his commitment to LGBT civil rights on the White House website. Those are important, changey actions that I doubt would have come to fruition under Team McCain/Palin.

That being said, however, those were the easy decisions for a Democratic President to make. The true test of President Obama's mettle will be to see how he handles those more difficult, more politically-charged decisions. Near and dear to my heart, of course, is Obama's scaling back of the pro-LGBT goals he touted during his campaign and the early days of his presidency. His administration thus far has not taken concrete action on LGBT equality efforts. In addition, perhaps because their own rights as heterosexuals are not directly at stake, there is a general liberal sentiment that Obama should focus on More Important Things Right Now while issues like Don't Ask Don't Tell, immigration equality, hate crimes legislation, and marriage equality sit on the backburner until the Time Is Right (tm).

Obama's support for LGBT equality is pretty broad. In recent months, however, he's scaled back his support somewhat and has taken little or no action on earlier campaign promises. For instance, his White House webpage on Civil Rights used to express his support for hate crimes laws, a transgender-inclusive employment non-discrimination act, full civil unions and federal benefits for same-sex couples, expansion of adoptions rights, HIV/AIDS funding, opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and opposition to Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT). Now, however, he has completely removed mention of repealing DOMA from the site. That is a startling omission since same-sex couples will not be able to receive any of the "federal benefits" that legally married couples receive with DOMA in place.

The page also now states that Obama supports removing DADT "in a sensible way." It's not clear what "in a sensible way" means, however Obama and his officials have said multiple times that ending the policy would have to wait. I can appreciate consensus building. Respect for opposing views comes in contrast to the previous administration's strong-minded habits. However, when qualified gay men and lesbians continue to be discharged during wartime, my patience on this issue is running thin. With 81% of the US population believing openly gay people should be allowed to serve in the military, I suspect that many people feel this way.

By now, it is mostly only self-embarassing homophobes who oppose allowing gay men and lesbians to openly serve their country. By catering to that unfortunate anti-gay crowd, Obama and Congress are allowing arguments like "lesbians would take pictures of people in the shower" to be presented as though they're a legitimate Other Side to this debate. For a man who based his campaign on beautiful political rhetoric, it's incredibly disappointing for the level of discourse to be lowered like that. It is arguable as to whether Obama can or should unilaterally end DADT, but what a strong leader who promised big things to the LGBT community should be doing is at least calling for Congress to unequivocally repeal the law.

Furthermore, while it is refreshing and appreciated that the President supports so many pro-LGBT policies, it will all be meaningless and utterly disappointing if none of them actually come to fruition. Obama has, relatively speaking, talked a big game. But, as The Gaytheist Agenda reminds us, his support has thus far been of little tangible consequence. More than 100 days into his Administration, no change has taken place on any of the pro-LGBT policies that Obama supports. Let's hope that the man who chastised his opponent for being a Bush clone turns out not to be one himself when it comes to doing something tangible and real as far as LGBT equality goes.

Then, there's Obama's replication of Bush era counterterrorism policies. Writing for The New Republic, Jack Goldsmith explains:

"Former Vice President Cheney says that President Obama's reversal of Bush-era terrorism policies endangers American security. The Obama administration, he charges, has 'moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11.' Many people think Cheney is scare-mongering and owes President Obama his support or at least his silence. But there is a different problem with Cheney's criticisms: his premise that the Obama administration has reversed Bush-era policies is largely wrong. The truth is closer to the opposite: The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric."

Some of the specifics mentioned in Goldsmith's piece include Obama's continuation of detaining terrorism suspects without trial indefinitely, his narrow view of the right of habeas corpus, and his ramped up use of "targeted killing" in Afghanistan and Pakistan that also cause "collateral damage" the murder of innocent civilians.

I consider this replication of Bush policy to be early mistakes that may haunt Obama when he's up for re-election. He based his campaign on messages of "Hope" and "Change," but thus far he's not proving to effectuate all that much change. I write that knowing full well that the Obama-disappointment of liberals, LGBT people, and progressives makes many conservatives cream their panties. Am I disappointed? Sure. Obama knew that in the midst of economic downturn, multiple wars, and a divisive previous 8 years that he had to give the people hope if he was going to win. His energy was a marked contrast to his opponent's and he played Youthful Washington Outsider very well.

However, did I really think the Obama years were going to be a utopian era of peace, equal rights, prosperity, and unicorns? Of course not. I consider my political leanings to be "Other" partly because both major parties in the US are so predictably disappointing. Because of this, I still yearn for a political leader with the moral courage to not let ridiculous arguments continue to be legitimate reasons to deny people equal rights, civil rights, and human rights. I suspect I'm not alone. I wanted that person to be President Obama. I suppose time will tell.

Odds 'N Ends

1) The Film Industry's Romance with the Bromance, Take Two

This cartoon pretty much sums it up.


2) Remember How Gay People Totally Aren't At All Oppressed?

Via The Gatheist Agenda, a woman was beaten in an anti-gay hate crime a man was arrested and charged with a hate crime (under state law) for allegedly beating a woman in Provincetown:

"'Patten was screaming biased, anti-gay language,' Lopes said. 'We took him into custody as quickly as possible, so he would not incite the large crowd that was gathering.'

He fought the police officers, kicking one and spitting on the other, Lopes added.

Patten faces charges including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (a window), assault and battery under the state hate crime statute, wanton destruction of property of more than $250, disorderly conduct, assault and battery on a police officer, and resisting arrest. He was so combative during the booking process, officers could not get a booking photograph, Lopes said....

The bars had just closed on a busy holiday weekend, and a crowd gathered as the Post Office Café incident unfolded.

'They were very upset,' Lopes said of the crowd. 'There were all these women crying. They were just very agitated and visibly upset, not just by what they saw but by what they heard.

'That's the thing with a hate crime, it's not just the victim who is hurt, the whole community is affected,' she continued. 'You could really see that this morning.'"

Provincetown "is perhaps the best-known gay summer resort on the East Coast."

3) Proposition 8 Update

The California Supreme Court is set to render a decision regarding the state's defense of Proposition 8 today, which removed the right that same-sex couples previously had to marry. Personally, I'm sort of over the whole Prop 8 debacle and here's why you should be too. For one, we've had a string of recent victories in other states, proving that our loss in California hasn't been as ominous as perhaps we thought back in November. Since Proposition 8 passed, Vermont, Maine, and Iowa have legalized same-sex marriage with two of these states doing so through the legislative process.

Secondly, this case isn't even on the merits of same-sex marriage so I don't think it's appropriate to get hung up on the outcome. The issues to be decided are whether the Proposition procedure was valid, whether it violated the Separation of Powers doctrine, and its effect on same-sex marriages that occurred prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. This case isn't about whether same-sex marriage is "good" or "bad," it's about the validity of the process used to amend California's state constitution.


[UPDATE: The Court has upheld Proposition 8, but is also letting the 18,000 marriages performed prior to Proposition 8 stand.]

"Joe the Plumber" and the Arrogance of this "Average American"

I'm not really sure why Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher is still making the national news, but it greatly annoys me that some people consider him to be "a metaphor for the average American." Calling this straight white conservative dude "a metaphor for the average American" not only perpetuates the fiction that such a thing as "average American" exists, it of course places white guys at the center as the default American person, once again.

Anyway, apparently the guy has written a book and is traveling around the country promoting it. I guess it pays to be a national metaphor! In a recent interview, he explained that he's not, like, a bigot or anything (he even has "homosexual" friends!), he just doesn't think "queer" is a slur. It's okay though, his probably-fictitious homo friends "know where [he] stand[s], and they know that [he] wouldn't have them anywhere near [his] children." Huh. That's really representative of the Average American view on "queers"? Funnily enough, mom-Americans would beg to differ with Mr. Average American on this issue as recently polled moms reported that they would trust their kids with Ellen and Portia moreso than any other celebrity (Even Octo-mom Angelina Jolie).

So, here's the thing about Mr. "Average American." Not only is he not all that representative of Americana, you know those queer kinds of people he claims to be friends with? Well, if he's calling them "homosexuals," "queers," and informing them that he won't let them near his children, I think it's fairly obvious that these "friends" of his are mostly figments of his imagination that exist somewhere in Candyland with unicorns, Big Foot, and faeries.

But what annoys me moreso than the whole If I Claim To Have Gay Friends, People Can't Call Me a Homobigot game is this- calling Joe the Plumber some sort of metaphor for Average American does a real disservice to the concept of Average American. In reality, he represents only that arrogant swath of Americans who mistakenly believe that they hold a monopoly on the genuine, whether it be Real American, Real Family, or Real Religious Person and that there is only one right way to live, believe, and be in this world.

Taxy Teabaggers

Happy Tax Day everyone. In case you haven't heard, a "revolution is brewing."

Today, a bunch of so-called "fiscal conservatives" are engaging in "grassroots" Tea Parties protesting what they call "out of control government spending," the "bankrupt liberal agenda of the White House Administration and Congress," and the "Stimulus Bill and pork filled budget."

Neat-o, huh?

It's my personal opinion that many of these folks are still reeling from the shit taco they've been chewing on since November 2008 and are essentially using these protests to air more of their stinky Barack Hussein Nobama Socialism breath, but that's a tangential point. Oh, and some of them seriously advocate tea bagging, but that's just a small point that I find amusing. I do have three real things to say about this.

One, I know that there are issues with the stimulus bill. It's not perfect and, aside from the specifics, I think many people of all political persuasions would at least agree on that. But for the love of all that is holy can these so-called fiscal conservative teabaggers give us a little intellectual consistency here? Let's talk about government spending, shall we? Where were these "fiscal conservatives" when George W. Bush increased defense and non-defense federal spending at its fastest rate in decades thereby causing the largest budget deficits in US history and passed his, albeit smaller, stimulus bill? Was Bush's spending lucky, magical, thrifty unicorn spending? Why no nationwide protests?

Secondly, as much as some present these Tea Parties as some sort of Spontaneous Grassroots Uprising of the People, corporate lobbyists have actually been helping to orchestrate them. As Think Progress reports, two lobbyist-run think-tanks called Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for "Average Joes" to plan coast-to-coast protests including coordinating conference calls, giving them sign ideas, feeding them sample press releases, and providing guides for delivering messaging. This is similar to how members of the anti-gay "grassroots" Digital Network Army blogs are fed, from mysterious "Team Captains," stories to blog about. In both instances of orchestration, Average Joes and Janes are pretty heavily involved, but at least some of it is being coordinated from above by "professionals" whose livelihoods are dependent upon keeping certain issues relevant.

Third, some of the biggest conservative promoters of these protests are, like Michelle Malkin, those who endlessly criticized the LGBT community for protesting Proposition 8, exaggerated every instance of aggression in what were by and large peaceful uneventful protests, and accused the LGBT community of crimes that have yet to actually be linked to LGBT people. Again, I have to point out the double-standard. Why are conservatives so special and lucky that when they are unhappy with democracy in action their protests are legitimate, but when LGBT people are unhappy with democracy in action, we're just being fascist "Angry Gay Mobs" who should just accept things the way they are?

Odds 'N Ends

1. Repentant Phelps: "I Made a Mistake"

This Phelps.


Not this one.

Yawn.



2. "Yes on 8" Doesn't Mean What She Thought It Meant


In other news, sorry but this made me laugh.

Like I said before, sometimes celebrities should just stick to what they do best.


3. How Not To Give An Apology

Generally, an apology is an admission of error coupled with an expression of regret. Some people, unfortunately, believe that apologies are just something that other people make them do when their otherwise legitimate expressions are "negatively received" by overly-politically correct people who lack senses of humor.


4. Annoying Use of Passive Voice

In Chicago, there have been a series of attacks at a Metra train station. In describing one of these attacks, ABC writes:

"The woman resisted a sexual assault and she was thrown into the path of a train."

Nope. Wrong. The woman was not "thrown" on to the train tracks. Somebody threw her onto the tracks.

I don't agree with the journalistic tendency to maximize the victimhood of women and minimize the fact that perpetrators, other human beings, are committing these crimes. People don't just walk to work and get themselves assaulted. Other people assault them.



5. Only in America?

Is the rise to power of someone coming from a "stigmatized ethnic minorit[y]" group something unique to America, or is the phenomenon "an uncommon but regularly recurring part of history"?

Macon over at Stuff White People Do makes a convincing case that it's the latter.

Going Beyond Empty Claims

[With UPDATE below]

Some of those who oppose same-sex marriage simultaneously claim to support reciprocal beneficiary laws which grant same-sex couples some of the rights and benefits of marriage. For instance, after its instrumental role in the passage of California's Propostition 8, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) claimed:

"The Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches."

Such support is appreciated even though I take issue with statements that make "the traditional family" the sun around which all other families revolve. Regarding support of civil unions but not marriage, I hear similar pronouncements from other "marriage defenders." Yet, perhaps because I mostly see these same folks celebrating our every political loss, I'm inevitably left wondering what these folks are tangibly doing to help us gain the rights they claim to be so in favor of. From where I sit, I only see "marriage defenders" take actions in the real world that deny us rights rather than those that help us obtain them.

On December 23, 2008, right before he left office, President Bush took a surprising break from history and signed a law benefiting same-sex couples. Specifically, the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 allows same-sex couples to inherit retirement plans from their partner without facing the tax penalty that unmarried couples face. Previously, individuals in a same-sex relationship could be their partner's beneficiary but upon receiving the benefit, the surviving partner would face an immediate tax penalty on the inheritance.

This law represents a welcome change. Although I profoundly disagree that we should have to earn our state and federal rights as equal citizens on a piecemeal basis, it is better than nothing. Unfortunately, surviving individuals in same-sex relationships are still denied Social Security spousal benefits and survivor's insurance that surviving members of legal marriages are able to receive. As taxpaying citizens, that is fundamentally unfair.

Recently, the Human Rights Campaign, in response to the LDS Church's claim that it does not oppose non-marital and other legal benefits for same-sex couples, has recently requested the LDS Church to support legislation in Utah that would offer same-sex couples some of the benefits, protections, and rights of marriage. I certainly hope that the LDS Church responds (and perhaps urges its members to put their considerable funds where its loud mouth is). Otherwise its claim to support legal protections for same-sex couples looks like nothing more than meaningless, false-compassionate political posturing. I also hope that other "marriage defenders" who claim to support protections for same-sex couples are able to recognize and act on some of the basic unfairnesses in our legal system.

Many of these issues, for us, are not abstractions. Our families matter too. And yes, we do have families, even if some people do not call them that. As it stands now, no web of (expensive) legal arrangements can duplicate all of the benefits that same-sex couples need to protect their families.

I wonder if there's some way for us to work together in a spirit of compassion to protect all families.


UPDATE: Thus far, the Mormon Church has been all talk and no action when it comes to LGBT non-marital rights. Yesterday, the Box Turtle Bulletin reported that Utah legislators voted on a bill that would have granted non-marital couples the same right to sue for wrongful death that married couples have. Not only did the Mormon Church remain silent on this bill, but it died in committee when its 4 Mormon members voted against it (compared to 3 non-Mormons who voted Yes or who were absent).

California "Marriage Defenders": Scared or Ashamed?

The National Organization for Marriage-California (NOM) and ProtectMarriage.com have filed a lawsuit arguing that campaign finance disclosure rules should not apply to them in this scary post-Prop 8 world.

Generally, California's Government Code requires contributions to ballot measures such as Proposition 8 to be made available for public inspection. Organizations such as NOM and ProtectMarriage.com, as well as those on the pro-gay side, are required by law to file public campaign reports listing contributions to their cause. The basic idea behind these laws is to limit the influence of well-funded lobbyists on government actions by providing greater transparency to the campaigns.

The complaint, which can be found here (PDF), alleges that "supporters of Proposition 8 have been subjected to threats, harassment, and reprisals as a result of their support for Proposition 8." And further that these alleged misdeeds "have been enabled" by the campaign finance law's disclosure requirement. After reciting a brief history of the marriage battle in California, the complaint goes on to allege specific incidents of "threats, harassment, and reprisals."

Hearing NOM's accusations, one might come to believe that an epidemic of death threats is currently raging through California. Upon taking a closer look at the complaint, however, we see a very different portrait.

Reading through the specific allegations, one will mostly find that the "threats, harassment, and reprisals" were, while juvenile, not as scary as NOM and ProtectMarriage.com have made them out to be. For instance, one "John Doe" reported receiving a "threatening email" saying "congratulations. for your support of prop 8 you have won our tampon of the year award" while another person received an email that said "I AM BOYCOTTING YOUR ORGANIZATION AS A RESULT OF PROP 8." Moving on to allegations of physical threats and harassment, one "John Doe" claimed that a window was broken using a "Yes on 8' sign" and the complaint also cited the notorious WhitePowderGate, a notorious incident in which no one has been proven guilty. Further, the complaint also ominously claimed that businesses have been "blacklisted," a reference to legitimate, legal boycotting of businesses.

In total, the complaint listed two vague death threats. When a complaint makes huge, exaggerated claims yet produces mostly relatively minor instances of name-calling and harassment, I have to wonder why NOM and ProtectMarriage.com are really seeking special protections. Persecution complex? More vilification of gays? Who knows. What a sense of entitlement these folks must have to keep people from marrying and then turn around and seek special protections while doing so.

Very generally, when deciding whether campaign finance disclosure law is unconstitutional, a court will balance the state's interest in disclosure against the harm that may result from the disclosure. I am sure it hurts the delicate butterfly feelings of "marriage defenders" to be called names, but immature name-calling just does not outweigh the state's interest in disclosing who is contributing to campaigns. Furthermore, it is a most ironic plea for special rights to argue that only marriage defense organizations should be exempt from campaign finance disclosure laws. And, it's even more ironical that these people are attempting to overturn a law, as enacted by the will of the people, by utilizing the very activist judges that they've been condemning for years.

I don't think calling people names is acceptable, and it really is unfortunate that some people on our side are stooping to that. Yet, this lawsuit seems to be the equivalent of a playground bully bringing a multi-million dollar defamation suit because someone called him an asshole. While it's unkind and immature to call someone a name, it's a bit of an overreaction to try to bankrupt someone for doing so.

The sole purpose of this complaint, as with any such document, was to paint the most persuasive picture in the plaintiff's favor. It's almost laughable that the most persuasive document that NOM and ProtectMarriage.com could come up with consisted mostly of a bunch of name-calling and instances of legitimate boycotting. The two referenced death threats were unfortunate, but the criminal justice system already contains mechanisms for responding to such threats. Campaigns require transparency. After reading this complaint and seeing how absurd most of the instances of "threats" really were, I wonder if this complaint speaks more to a growing, desperate awareness among "marriage defenders" that it is their position that is embarrassing to hold.

A Farewell to Bush: He Did a "Heckuva Job"

Today marks the last day of George W. Bush's presidency. I've been waiting a long time to write this post celebrating this occasion. Even though I do think the man will go down as one of our worst presidents in history, I found that I had sort of just stopped blogging about him. It wasn't a conscious thing. Perhaps like some of you, in a twisted Stockholm Syndrome sort of way, I slowly became accustomed to political ineptness. When I've heard his voice on the news lately, the best I've been able to do is wonder what "funny" thing he'll say next. 8 years in, after all, was there really much more he could do to offend, surprise, or scare us? What's that you say? The lame duck is pushing through some last-minute anti-environment initiatives? *Shrug* What can we really do about it?

In general, I think much of the problem with Bush's presidency comes from the fact that while the type of guy who might be fun to grab a beer with serves a purpose, he's not necessarily the same guy who's going to lead the nation in understanding the world on anything other than an immature "you're either with us or against us" level. That's probably "elitist" of me to say, but I just don't think it's wrong or stupid to wish for a more nuanced, thoughtful person for president.

While George W. Bush was not an intellectually "elite" president, I do wonder if his supporters forget that his elite family and upbringing played a large role in his life's accomplishments. Like many men of privilege, George W. Bush was born on third base but he seems to think he hit a triple to get there. And so, with his cocky, entitled swagger he sauntered into the 2000 election perhaps unaware that someone with his intellect and ability, on anyone other than the son of the much-more competent George H.W. Bush, would have been mired in middle-management anonymity somewhere.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, in 2000 we found ourselves gripped in a constitutional crisis involving him and a man named Al Gore. I think that many of us have been unable to forget how Bush's presidency all started mostly because we are left wondering what could have been. In general, I think that the 2000 election has been best summed up by Jack Balkin of Yale University Law School:

"As the new century began, the Supreme Court of the United States settled a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore by inventing a novel legal theory which did not even justify its remedy of stopping all recounts, and which, the Court suggested, it would be unlikely to apply to any future decisions. The reasoning was so weak and ad hoc by professional standards of legal argument that it appeared that the majority simply wanted to end the contested election in favor of the Republican candidate, George W. Bush."

The irony that many of us did not miss was that George W. Bush ran a campaign largely opposed to "activist" judges, yet was placed into office by activist judges who invented a new legal theory to stop the recount of our most democratic of all democratic processes. Not surprisingly, we don't hear much about this instance of judicial activism from today's anti-homosexualist opponents of activist judges.

The notorious Bush v. Gore decision succeeded mostly in eroding a large chunk of the legitimacy of the US Supreme Court and what we generally refer to as the rule of law. Many liberals and democrats were bitter about accepting a man as president who lost the popular vote and who, they believed, was placed into office by 4 conservative justices. This enduring bitterness, I believe, partly explains why, prior to September 11, 2001, President Bush enjoyed some of the lowest approval ratings of any president. The percentage of Americans approving of his job during this time hovered around 50-55%.

That, of course, changed one tuesday morning.

After doing little more than swaggering onto Ground Zero in a jumpsuit and declaring war on an abstract noun, President Bush immediately enjoyed some of the highest approval ratings of any president. Showing ourselves willing to rally around this "uniter not divider," immediately post-9/11 the percentage of Americans approving of his job hovered around 85-90%. September 11, 2001 was a tragic moment in our nation's history. It was a time for us to come together as a nation and figure out why something so horrible could happen here so it would never happen again. Unfortunately, many could not foresee how dangerous it would be to lend this mediocre man our uncritical "patriotic" support.

The post-9/11 Bush Administration "made repeated assaults, some subtle, some not so subtle on key rule of law values of transparency, accountability and constraints on arbitrary power, particularly executive power."
The USA Patriot Act, for instance, was quickly rushed through Congress and signed by President Bush. While a nation fighting
terrorismterrorists needs to have flexibility to act quickly and decisively, the rule of law should not be compromised. With great power comes the power to abuse; and a law enacted for the purpose of fighting terrorism should be narrowly tailored for that purpose only.

After 9/11, the US began detaining (mostly) Muslim men, holding them incommunicado and without charges in Guantanamo Bay, and utilizing special tribunals to try these detainees. Following the advice of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the Bush Administration labeled these detainees "illegal enemy combatants," enabling them to argue that the humanitarian protections of the Geneva Conventions did not apply to this category of persons. And, in another blow to the rule of law, Congress passed a law taking away the right for these human beings to access US federal courts for purposes of even challenging their detentions. Countering a rubber-stamp Congress and apathetic public, the US Supreme Court ruled that even foreign suspects of terrorism have the right to challenge their detentions in US courts. The writ of habeas corpus, after all is one of the most important protections of individual liberty in existence.

In 2005, the Bush Administration acknowledged that detainees at GTMO, Iraq, and Afghanistan "have been tortured." Even when disgusting and highly embarrassing pictures at that one prison surfaced for the rest of the world to see, Bush twice refused to accept the resignation of the man with whom the buck would have stopped if bucks stopped in the Bush Administration.

During these humiliating post-9/11 events that may or may not have had something to do with stopping terrorism and/or making the world safer, a little lady named Katrina came along. In a profoundly out-of-touch "let them eat cake" moment, George W. Bush declared that "Brownie," his cutely-named head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, did a "heckuva job" with respect to his handling of the Katrina situation. Even though dealing with disasters is generally a responsibility of local government, this federal agency which exists for purposes of disaster response and mitigation began preparations before the disaster hit and quickly federalized the response. Despite Bush's praise of "Brownie," FEMA's response has been criticized seen as a ginormous, mis-managed embarrassment of a governmental response to a natural disaster.

Most recently, of course, we find ourselves in the midst of two wars. Well, three wars if you count the perpetual war against that abstract noun. The war in Afghanistan began as a response to 9/11. The general purpose of this war was to capture Osama bin Laden and to topple Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We don't hear much about these goals or even this war these days, even though bin Laden is still at large.

In 2003, the Bush Administration initiated the Iraq War by infamously claiming that Iraq possessed "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMDs) and posed an "imminent threat" to us. United Nations' weapons inspectors later found that Iraq did not, actually, possess these WMDs. The Bush Administration then claimed that it never actually claimed any such thing about Iraq posing an "imminent threat," contrary to many produced quotations showing otherwise. A few months into this war, Bush declared our Mission to have been Accomplished in Iraq and major combat operations to have ended. 5 years later, however, history has shown that 98% of casualties from this accomplished-yet-paradoxically-ongoing war have occurred after Bush's premature Mission Accomplished ejaculation. Meanwhile, the tours of duty of more than 50,000 of our brave men and women in uniform have been "involuntarily extended," sometimes up to 18 months longer than their service was supposed to end, since the Iraq War began.

Throughout the years of the Iraq War, the Bush Administration has carefully filtered information about the war. Photographs of soldiers returning from war in coffins were prohibited, for instance. And, it was later learned that the Army staged the iconic image of the toppling statue of Saddam Hussein and of Iraqi citizens "celebrating." At least 935 times, Bush or one of his top officials made false statements about the threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed and, especially these days, more than a few Americans wonder what exactly was our purpose there.

Most currently, even though the "haves and the have mores" might not be tightening their belts right now, our nation has been in a recession these days. Bush came into office padded with low unemployment and a national surplus. Almost immediately upon entering office, Bush implemented trillion dollar tax cuts because "the surplus is the people's money" yet also increased domestic and foreign spending. In 2008, he leaves us with unemployment at a 15-year high and a 100% increase of the national debt.

Of the few people left who remain unabashed Bush loyalists, I don't think many understand why so many people feel disdain for his presidency. Perhaps they think we're "just being mean" to him or that we just woke up one day and decided not to like him. Yet, you'll notice that this post does not hinge on Bush's socially conservative ideology. Volumes could be written, and probably will be, on these matters. As a lesbian, I can say that I didn't always feel that I had a place in George W. Bush's America. It's a joke to me that he considered himself to be a "compassionate conservative" while simultaneously pandering to his bigoted base, making few efforts to bridge cultural divides. This man supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, an asinine usurpation of state's rights, and his administration actually paid profe$$ional "marriage defenders" like Maggie Gallagher boatloads of taxpayer dollars to write columns supporting his anti-gay agenda. (Who knew that professional "marriage defense" could be so lucrative?)

Yet, while I vehemently disagree with the man on social issues like homosexuality, abortion, and stem-cell research, it's quite possible to argue that his presidency was an epic failure without mentioning such "hot-button" issues. With this post, I hope I've made it clear that it really is about much more than not liking him as a person. He may indeed be a fun, nice guy. However, while I can tolerate spoiled, incompetent frat-boys in small doses, the end of their monopoly on the office of US Presidency has been long overdue. We've learned the hard way that perhaps the entitled are not as competent as they believe themselves to be.

In the post-9/11 world, by electing Barack Obama, I think in our own American way we've chosen to grow up a little.

My Random In-No-Particular Order List of the Best of 2008

I'm going to start off the New Year on an upbeat note and reminisce about some of the things I liked best about 2008. In no particular order, I appreciated:


The historic election of Barack Obama.

Rachel Maddow's success.

My discovery of chocolate-covered oreo-thingies from Trader Joe's.

Free speech, diverse opinions, and the fact that anti-gay, anti-feminist, and extremely conservative websites, blogs, and news sources are a constant source of blog fodder.

That the above-mentioned free speech enables us to better understand our opposition and has the potential to let us interact with our ideological opponents in more meaningful, useful ways.

The always-entertaining parodist Jon Swift's roundup of (the self-nominated) Best Blog Posts of 2008 from around the blogosphere.

That my post Above the Hate: Below the Propaganda was included. If you don't rememember, this post was about the National Organization for Marriage's misleading ad campaign against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. Or, as Mr. Swift says, it's about "the terrible discrimination Christians face from powerful, intolerant gays in the wake of the Proposition 8 battle." Anyway, check out the list for gems of good reading.

Bicycling.

Milk.

Grace the Spot being nominated for Best New Blog of 2008!

A new athletic endeavour that is immensely rewarding, fulfilling, and challenging.

Hammerpants and our spoiled snaggle-toothed dogs.

Seeing the silver lining in the passage of anti-gay propostions in the 2008 election. That is, that the LGBT rights movement has been re-vitalized and a new web-fueled movement is becoming increasingly relevant.

This quote: "The truth you believe and cling to makes you unavailable to hear anything new."


Happy New Year everyone.

National Organization for Marriage: Teh New McCarthyism

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) is at it again with an absurd false equivalency. This time, the organization, which opposes same-sex marriage, is equating post-Prop 8 boycotts of businesses with "McCarthyism." In expected over-the-top manner, the organization has recently ejaculated:

"McCarthyism is threatening our free speech and freedom of association—our most basic constitutional rights. Donors who exercised these rights in supporting proposition 8 are seeing their employers or companies being targeted for harassment and intimidation."

The alleged purpose of NOM's new campaign, called "bust the blacklist," is to urge people to support "businesses targeted for harassment."

First off, like other recent versions of this Gays Are the Real Haterz!!11! campaigns, this message is also mostly nothing but a vague, spaghetti-at-the-wall accusation against marriage equality advocates. It is absurd. Unfortunately, just because some people will actually believe NOM's drivel, someone actually has to take the time rebut NOM's claims.

1. McCarthyism Was Much More Pervasive and Sinister Than the Private Protesting and Boycotting of 2 Businesses

On its "busttheblacklist.com honor roll," as of today anyway, NOM includes two (2) businesses that have supposedly been targeted for "harassment." The first business mentioned is A-1 Storage and is owned by someone who made "substantial personal donations to support Proposition 8." NOM claims that, "for this reason, his business has been targeted for punishment." Yet, NOM does not detail what this alleged "punishment" includes. My inquiring mind certainly wished to know more details. In fact, about 30 seconds after reading NOM's allegations, I learned a bit more about this case.

My "investigative reporting" revealed that the owner of the A-1 business, along with his family, allegedly donated $693,000 in support of Prop 8 making him the proposition's 2nd largest contributor. For these reasons, Californians Against Hate urged a boycott of his business.

Of the second business, NOM claims:

"Leatherby's Ice Cream, a popular local family-run ice cream store in Sacramento, faced an angry crowd of protestors outside their doorstep Sunday afternoon, November 23rd. The protestors spoke out against Leatherby's because members of the Leatherby family contributed to the Yes on 8 campaign. Despite the turmoil outside, Leatherby's was still packed with people who supported the business. Though the protest Sunday was peaceful, David Leatherby, Jr. did receive angry emails, one of which read, 'We're going to put you out of business, you hate mongers, you people are evil.'"

Again, even though this statement is written from a biased perspective, nothing in it describes pervasive "harassment" or "intimidation." I don't know whether the businessowners are "hate mongers" or "evil" so I can't say whether those statements are accurate. But, I do know that boycotts and protests are not illegal or inherently wrong. Given the context of the protest outside of the ice cream store, I think it's clear that the cited "angry email" was referring to the legitimate activity of boycotting the business as opposed to illegal, immoral, or otherwise questionable activities.

NOM made a very serious charge when it claimed that businessowners who supported Prop 8 were being "harassed" and "intimidated." While "angry emails," depending on what they actually said, may not have been appropriate, being the recipient of "angry emails" does not make one a victim of "McCarthyism." Furthermore, NOM cited a mere two businesses that were the targets of boycotts and protests. That, ladies and gentleman, they have called McCarthyism.

2. McCarthyism Was Implemented Through the Power of the State

You know, in their post-Prop 8 euphoria, it's like these people have lost all capacity for critical thinking.

While it's true that some marriage equality advocates are urging people to boycott businesses whose owners donated to Prop 8, boycotts have nothing to do with McCarthyism. Real-life actual McCarthyism had incredible power due to the legitimacy and authority of the state that was behind it. What made McCarthyism especially sinister was that government officials abused the power of the government, ruining people's lives, for an extreme rightwing political agenda. Unlike the recent Prop 8 boycotts, governmental institutions and officials were instrumental during McCarthyism in conducting communist/homosexual witch-hunts, firing thousands of people, and imprisoning hundreds. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia informs that during McCarthyism:

"There were many anti-Communist committees, panels and 'loyalty review boards' in federal, state and local governments, as well as many private agencies that carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their work force."

During McCarthyism, the FBI also engaged in burglaries, opened mail, and conducted illegal wire-tapping. I can't believe we actually have to point this out, but the Prop 8 boycotts have nowhere near such power or authority behind them. There are no "loyalty review boards" in the government making people sign pro-gay oaths. There are no state-sanctioned investigations or private investigators carrying out with-hunts on behalf of the gays. It is absurd to even compare the two.

Some equality advocates have urged boycotts of businesses, in fact, precisely because the state denies us equal rights thanks to the influence of rightwing elements and propaganda. Thus, it bears mentioning that, during McCarthyism, "far right radicals were the bedrock of support for" the persecution of suspected Communists and "homosexuals."

Even today, more than 50 years later, remnants of McCarthyist thought are apparent. During the 2008 election, for instance, the rightwing media exploded when Obama made his infamous "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber. To diligent red-scare watchmen, like the folks over at Conservapedia, such statements are just further evidence that Obama is a "Marxist Leftist." What these people rarely explain is why it's inherently bad or wrong to be a "Marxist" or a "Lefitst." To them, the label speaks for itself and everyone just knows it's a Really Bad Thing to be. Anyone who questions this assumption they view as being deeply entrenched in the cesspools of Leftist thought.

What is so ironic about NOM's latest charge is that the "marriage defense" movement in general, like McCarthyism, is an extreme and unnecessary reaction to progressive politics and social justice movements. Like anti-feminist sentiment, opposition to full equality for LGBT people is a "defense" against so-called radical, leftist, elitist elements that are supposedly ruining America. For fun, google "homosexual radicals" some time and see what you come up with. Perhaps not understanding the history of McCarthyism and the role it continues to play in the political sphere, NOM has created an absurd anti-gay campaign. It is paradoxical for "marriage defenders" to simultaneously paint the LGBT community as leftist radicals and McCarthyists.


What I'm left wondering is why organizations like NOM can't ever just look at an LGBT boycott and just call it a boycott? Why the trumped-up charges? Why the huge paranoid accusations and vilification of people who just want equal rights?

Everyone knows that boycotts are non-violent, legitimate means of protest that virtually all political movements, including "family values" organizations, have engaged in throughout our nation's history. When groups of people feel failed by the state, by the legal system, or by the political process, boycotts are a way to make their voices heard.

Contrary to what NOM may think, businesses certainly don't have a right to our dollars. And it most certainly is not an infringement of a businessowner's "free speech" or "free association" if we refuse to patronize his or her business. No court in this nation would call a private boycott of a business an "infringement" of the businessowner's free speech or freedom of association. If we know that the owner of a business is a virulent bigot, we have no obligation to pay his or her salary.

Like the notorious argumentum ad nazium, this latest Gays are McCarthyists comparison is so absurd as to be virtually meaningless. I sometimes wonder when those leading the "marriage defense" movement will stop being so over-the-top with their accusations. Are asinine exaggerations really the only way they can get people to care about their pet issue of opposing same-sex marriage? These folks would do better to remember the parable of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The villagers will come running to one's shrill, ridiculous cries only so many times. At some point, perhaps when our nation faces a true threat, one's cries will be met with apathy.

Becket Fund Ad: Below the Propaganda

Recently, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty ran a misleading ad in The New York Times regarding vague "mob"-like behavior in the wake of Proposition 8's passage in California.

The Human Rights Campaign has countered the ad and members of its Religion Council had some valid criticisms of it. Yet, I do wonder how widely HRC's counter-message will be heard. As far as I've seen, HRC's message has only been disseminated via Email Alert and posts on its own website. That sort of preach-to-the-choir communications strategy is unlikely to reach those who, you know, might have actually believed the Becket Fund ad. I certainly hope they would consider running a counter ad in mainstream publications, as Wayne Besen's Truth Wins Out recently did. HRC and GLAAD have more resources at its disposal to run such ads than most of us mere individuals, and accordingly it should be countering such ads on the same playing field where defamatory ads are running.

There are 3 major problems with the Becket ad that need to be pointed out to a larger audience than the LGBT community:

1. The ad never specifies who is being violent

If you haven't read the ad yet go read it now. Notice anything odd about it? Immediately, I was struck by the fact that the ad is a vague, passive-voice written accusation against someone yet no one at all. The purpose of the ad is to say "no" to "mob" behavior, but it never specifies who is actually engaging in all of this alleged "mob"-like "violence and intimidation."

Like the National Organization for Marriage's version, the Becket Fund ad's general accusations are not actually targeted at any one specific group or individual. The closest the ad comes to being specific is when it accuses "some public voices" of excusing the "threats and disruptions" (that were also never specified). Yet, given the context of the ad's relation to Prop 8, the implication is very clear: it is the marriage equality movement that is the "mob"-like entity engaging in religious-based "violence and intimidation."

Readers are quite capable of filling in the blanks themselves. Even though the Becket Fund can back up with its hands in the air and claim that the vague ad is not defamatory, the ad does indict the entire marriage equality movement. The Becket Fund ad is basically just throwing a bunch of scary accusations at the wall perhaps hoping that some of will stick to the marriage equality movement.


2. The ad blurs the lines between legitimate protest and violence

Along with vagueness, the ad grossly exaggerates the "violence and intimidation being directed at the LDS or 'Mormon' church." Just as the ad never names anyone engaging in "violence or intimidation" the ad never actually cites specific instances of violence, mob or otherwise, directed at the LDS church by marriage equality advocates. The ad essentially just says over and over again how "wrong" violence and intimidation are. How big of them. The thing is, not many reasonable people would disagree with such general moral pronouncements. What most people take for granted as moral in a civil society, this group feels the need to publicly pat itself on the back for. What next, a daring Becket Fund ad against genocide? How "brave."

Furthermore, no distinction is made between the peaceful, lawful protests that most marriage equality advocates have engaged in versus the very few instances of actual "violence and intimidation." Thus, what we're left wondering is what the Becket Fund's definitions of "violence and intimidation" are. What constitutes a "threat" in their eyes. How many gay people does it take to make up a "mob"?

Here's a primer. I think most would agree that the following Prop 8 protest that drew thousands of people in Chicago, for instance, was peaceful:



I think most would agree that the riots that are occurring in Greece right now, are violent, threatening, and intimidating. Perhaps "marriage defenders" are just delicate little butterflies, but I think they're wearing their Hyperbole Goggles again if they think the nationwide Join the Impact protests have been anywhere near violent rioting. What's next, comparisons to terrorists? Oh, right then.

3. White Powder-Gate

Most egregiously, the ad obfuscates the notorious White Powder Incident by claiming that "thugs" sent "white powder" to "terrorize" the Mormon church. Although the ad never outright accuses LGBT rights' advocates of sending the powder, again, given the context there really is no other implication that could be drawn. Silence goes a long way and in this silence people fill in the gaps with their own preconceptions of what the anti-Prop 8 "mob" is like.

Yet, in the reality-based community it is still unknown who sent the white powder. Despite this lack of evidence, "marriage defenders" all over the internet have been blaming this incident on The Angry Gays never stopping to think that they are stating as fact what no one knows for certain. And, even if it was someone in favor of marriage equality who sent the white powder, I don't know of many reasonable marriage equality advocates who would agree that doing so is appropriate action to take. So again, neat-o to the Becket Fund for "courageously" pointing out how wrong such behavior is.


In conclusion, the ad ends, "even the crudest anti-religious propaganda isn't illegal, and may not constitutionally be outlawed. But it's nevertheless wrong. It has no place in civilized society." With that statement, I think many of us would agree. Indeed, I'm pretty sure HRC and most LGBT rights advocates would agree. But you know what else has no place in "civilized society"? The use of sweeping generalizations, lies, and false innuendo to attempt to silence one's political opponents.

The beauty of our nation is that we have free speech and perhaps the Becket Fund has forgotten that. As no one holds a monopoly on truth and political debate necessarily includes inherent tensions, competing viewpoints are not "outlawed." We certainly are not expected to censor ourselves just because our opposition characterizes our criticisms as religious bigotry, hatred, or intolerance. See, the Beckett Fund does not hold a monopoly on defining which actions and messages constitute "crude anti-religious propaganda" and we will not be silenced just because this group paints us all with the same sloppy, overbroad "mob" brush.

Speaking of which, topping the ad in big bold letters is the headline "No Mob Veto."

The over-the-top use of the word "mob" not only is unfortunate, it is simply inaccurate. The dictionary definitions of the word mob include:

1: a large or disorderly crowd ; especially : one bent on riotous or destructive action

2: the lower classes of a community : masses , rabble

3 chiefly Australian : a flock, drove, or herd of animals

4: a criminal set : gang ; especially often capitalized : mafia

5 chiefly British : a group of people : crowd

By referencing a "mob," the Becket Fund ad by definition references a large or disorderly crowd possibly bent on riotous action. Yet, while the crowds were large, most groups of Prop 8 protesters were neither disorderly nor riotous. The word choice also connotes a criminal element (ie- the "gay mafia"), lower classes of people, and sub-human herd of animals. Given how over-the-top many "marriage defenders" are being about the peaceful Prop 8 protests, their cry of victimization at the hands of an oppressed minority group rings hollow.

A pretty apt cartoon illustrating the Christian Persecution Complex reminds me that it takes much more than protests and a few random acts of violence for those who hold virtually all power in our society to truly be bullied. Perhaps because LGBT rights have come so far in the past few decades, some defenders of "traditional values" truly do feel threatened in some way by a gay "homofascist" mob. It is all so ironic in light of the fact that it is they who, throughout history, have relied on nothing but their brute, shear numbers to bypass the protection of judicial review and deny us equal rights.



Yet, it is also dangerous for the powerful and the many to suggest that a historically oppressed small minority group is a "powerful, well-funded political force" and a less-than-human mob that holds the power to destroy society. It is dangerous to suggest that small groups of people are responsible for virtually every social ill facing our nation. Other-ing groups of human beings makes it easier to commit violence on people who have been dehumanized.

As a gay person, I take these claims personally. As such, I've been likened to terrorists, the Nazis, Al Qaeda, and "enemies" of America. If you're gay or an advocate of LGBT rights, public officials and organizations have claimed these things of you as well. You. You who are probably as kind, non-violent, law-abiding, and tax-paying as I am.

We all need to realize that when organizations like the Becket Fund take out ads like the one they posted in The New York Times, they aren't vilifying some abstract group of people, they are vilifying us. Allies, they are vilifying you and people you know.

I urge you, in whatever capacity you are able, to counter these dangerous messages. Don't be silenced by misleading, innuendo-filled ads. We know the truth about ourselves. The problem is that so many Americans do not.