Open thread

Still in NYC, had a really interesting weekend. Went to see The Ritz, a revival of an old comedy set in a gay bathhouse in NYC. It was cute (I'm a tough sell on comedies), with lots of eye candy and some excellent acting. Starred Kevin Chamberlin (who was great) and Rosie Perez, and included an outstanding performance by Patrick Kerr (who previously played Noel, the geeky dark-haired officemate in love with Roz on "Frasier"). I got to meet Rosie Perez after the show, and then go to dinner with Chamblerlin and Kerr and some mutual friends. Just the nicest guys. Kerr in particular was just fascinating, I got to speak with him for a long while over dinner. It's so interesting to talk to people who don't do politics for a living. Read More......

NC Pride 2007 - fundies toot their horn (literally)

Kate and I had a great time at Pride on Saturday. We marched with the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association, my former haunt, which is the host neighborhood for the NC Pride parade.

It was funny — I was recognized by a few folks along the parade route (for the blog). I guess next year I should march with a Pam's House Blend banner, but it would look kind of silly with just me and a sign, unless I could rustle up a few Blenders to march.

Anyway, we had a few fundie protestors again. It was hilarious. For your amusement, I took some video of the protestors from Operation Save America. They were the truly unhinged amateur hour crowd.



Photos and a short clip of former Village People singer Randy Jones are over at my pad. Talk about a blast from the past…

***

ENDA

John's posted on it, but if you want to read my take on the ENDA dustup, there are posts over at my pad to check out.

On Friday I happened to be in DC at the Out and Equal Workplace Summit -- right when the ENDA issue blew up. I was slated to appear on a panel that was relevant to the developments -- Workplace Equality in the American Spotlight -- so it was definitely apt timing to talk about the issue of trans inclusion with attendees charged with inclusion and diversity in corporate America. My post on the conference is here.

Other entries:

* The rationalizations of the trans-stripped ENDA crowd fall flat
* More on the ENDA 'family fight'
* Separate But Equal" Doesn't Really Mean Equal (Autumn Sandeen)
* The battle over ENDA
* ENDA in trouble over trans inclusion - and weak Dem spines Read More......

What would Gandhi do?

For the past couple days, there has been a roving rally here in Washington to support the movement for democracy in Burma. Chris has been writing almost daily posts about the anti-government protests in that country. The protesters in DC, led by monks, have marched to the Burmese, Chinese and Indian embassies. The Washington Post profiled the Burmese exile community today.

I caught up with the protest today in front of the Indian embassy where they stopped en route to the White House. There was something very powerful about seeing a group of Burmese monks protesting next to a statue of Gandhi -- in front of the embassy of India, the world's largest democracy, which Ganhdi helped create. Gandhi's statue includes the inscription "My life is my message." The Burmese people could use some of India's moral authority and democratic ideals right about now.

Read More......

Republicans planning to force Larry "Wide Stance" Craig out of Senate with public ethics hearings

I am simply amazed that Craig would try to stay in the Senate after his gay bathroom sex conviction. The GOP is freaking out. And fighting back. Read More......

Giuliani's strategy: I'm not Hillary

Could have fooled me. Read More......

Two headlines to contemplate on a Sunday morning

Two headlines on the AP wire caught my attention this morning. The juxtaposition says so much about the U.S.

Headline 1: Jenna Bush Begins National Book Tour

Headline 2: Wounded Vets Also Suffer Financial Woes Read More......

Sunday Talk Shows Open Thread

Last week, it was Hillary Clinton. This week, it's Bill (although he's not doing all five of them). Gingrich, who was running for Prez, but now isn't, is also on a couple shows. Beside them, it's an eclectic mix on the shows today. When was the last time anyone say Kit Bond on a weekend show? Bob Geiger, who knows the Senate better than anyone, told me anytime he saw Bond's name in the Congressional record, it was going to be something absurd and/or bizarre.

Here' the lineup:

ABC's "This Week" — Former President Bill Clinton; former House Speaker Newt Gingrich; Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus.

___

CBS' "Face the Nation" — New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Democratic presidential candidate.

___

NBC's "Meet the Press" — Clinton.

___

CNN's "Late Edition" — Sens. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari; New Yorker writer Seymour Hersh.

"Fox News Sunday" _ Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Trent Lott, R-Miss.; Gingrich.

Have at it. Read More......

22 million pounds of beef recalled - yes, E. coli again

Oversight has never seemed so far away. The most pathetic story by a corporate PR spinmeister churned out in a long time leaves me just shaking my head in amazement:

"Because the health and safety of our consumers is our top priority, we are taking these expansive measures," said Vice President of Operations Geoffrey Livermore in the statement.

Um, if "health and safety of our consumers" was so important the problem of E. Coli would not be so widespread both in this recall and the industry in general. The problem consistently comes back to rushed processing and businesses that are more attentive to cost savings then to the end result delivered to consumers. Read More......

Abu Galum, Sinai

Since coming back to Paris at the start of September I've been missing warm weather so checking out photos from Sinai are helping take the edge off of the rather cool temperatures. Abu Galum is a Bedouin fishing village along the Gulf of Aqaba that is thankfully not connected to the overdone and high-hassle town of Dahab so transport to Abu Galum is an hour plus camel ride along the sea. A very pleasant view and nice diving - they actually have fish, compared to Dahab! - though I never really adjusted to sitting on a camel and felt it for days, with the salt water not helping the process. Read More......

Desmond Tutu nails it again

If only there were more like him who weren't afraid to speak out like this. On Zimbabwe:

"The stories we are hearing of the harassment of political opponents, detentions without trial, torture and the denial of medical attention are reminiscent of our experiences at the hands of apartheid police," said Tutu, who was a leader of the struggle against South Africa's whites-only rule.

Read More......

Saturday night with some Springsteen

Yesterday morning, Bruce Springsteen did a concert on the TODAY Show. It was, of course, fantastic. In the intro to his new song, Living in the Future, Bruce gave one of the best -- and most succinct political speeches I've heard in awhile. He said, "This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here." And, he listed some of those things.

My good pal, Taylor Marsh, got the video. Worth a watch on a Saturday night:
Read More......

Gap loses private data for 800,000 people

And the delightful folks at the Gap don't even think that it's important enough to provide any details. Sure, what could really happen with Social Security numbers and contact details? Sheesh, some people need to learn how to relax and put blind faith in a company that is too stupid to protect personal data because they've already proven themselves to be so competent with safeguarding information but are happy to pass the buck to a subcontractor which they are responsible for regardless of the buck passing. Read More......

Newt's not running after all

The big tease. Yesterday, Newt was leading the Republicans to believe he was going to run for president. The GOPers are desperate because the presidential field is so pathetic. Newt was their next big hope. But, Newt's campaign is already over:

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Saturday decided against running for president in 2008, less than a day after the Republican indicated publicly that he would spend the next month exploring the viability of a White House bid.

Gingrich said the last-minute change of heart, which came as aides readied the newtnow.org website and prepared to file campaign papers, was the result of legal advice that running for president would require stepping down as chairman of his non-profit organization, American Solutions.

That group is the latest vehicle for Gingrich's musings about politics and policy, and opened its first-annual "ideas summit" Saturday at a Georgia college an hour west of Atlanta and with webcasts on the internet.

Yes, American Solutions is apparently bigger platform for Newt than running to be the American President. Read More......

5 Witnesses Insist Iraqis Didn't Fire On Guards

Wash Post:

BAGHDAD, Sept 28 -- Five eyewitnesses to a Sept. 16 shooting incident in Baghdad involving the private security firm Blackwater USA insisted that company guards fired without provocation, forcing civilians and Iraqi police to run for cover, and that the Iraqi officers did not return fire.

The eyewitnesses and a senior Iraqi police official close to an investigation of the incident contradicted initial accounts provided by the company and the State Department, which employs Blackwater to protect U.S. diplomats. At least 11 Iraqis died in the shootings, which have focused attention on the actions of largely unregulated security companies operating in Iraq.

Read More......

Director of National Intellgience kind of lied to congress

But the Democrats don't do anything when they're lied to anyway, so it's not really any wonder that the Bushies keep doing it. Read More......

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Big news in the Washington Post. Really big news. They have a front page article about Jenna Bush because she is getting married -- and wrote a book. Wow. No other real news for the Post to cover. So, Jenna gets front page. I'm not even going to link because it's so not worth it.

I'm heading out for a long run. Only four weeks til the Marine Corps Marathon. Read More......

Myanmar military shutting down protests, internet

Reports continue to vary with some saying 9 dead and others, including British PM Gordon Brown, believe it is much, much higher. With a steady stream of blogs reporting on the violent government crackdown, the junta responded by shutting down the internet in addition to arresting hundreds (thousands?) of monks and containing monks to their monasteries. Other reports suggested divisions within the military - even two units fighting each other - though today current reports suggest calm and lack of protest.

The new battle at the moment is over corporate involvement in Myanmar such as US and French oil companies Chevron and Total who both continue to operate. Some are calling for them to stop all operations or to pull out completely, requests which have been rejected. I would certainly not consider myself to be supportive of the oil industry though I wonder if it is not better to have some inroads into such a country which can be used to exert influence. The very strong counter argument is that if you do have influence you have to actually use it. So far there are no overt signs of China or India using any of their influence and they are the two countries who have the most interaction with the reclusive government. As for Chevron and Total, when was the last time we saw an oil company stand up for human rights? Yea, I can't recall such an event either. Read More......

US savings and loan with $2.5 billion rescued after defaults

Partially rescued, at least. But hey, it's the 1980s all over again! Now how did a savings and loan collapse manage to somehow - mysteriously, really - not get mentioned until late in the day on a Friday? Do they have a loyal Bushie working there or something? It's not exactly a Northern Rock-like failure but it's not insignificant either. At issue with the failed NetBank is over-exposure to loan defaults. Customers have the standard $100,000 FDIC guarantee but it is not clear what happens with deposits that were above that amount though the bank has been purchased by Dutch giant ING.

While dozens of mortgage companies have closed due to soaring defaults of home loans made to borrowers with weak, or subprime, credit, those problems previously had occurred among non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. NetBank, in contrast, is federally regulated.

Loose mortgage standards in recent years — especially among lenders catering to subprime borrowers — have resulted in a spike in home loan defaults.

Bert Ely, a banking consultant based in Alexandria, Va., said NetBank was in "deep trouble" before the subprime mortgage market's woes accelerated this year. Regulators, he said, "should have closed it a long time ago."

"Regulators?" What regulators? The GOP has made sure such old-fashioned ideas such as oversight and regulation were made a thing of the past. Read More......

Open Thread

At dinner in NYC. I love this city. Read More......

Senate Democratic leaders demand Limbaugh apologize for dissing troops

Good. Read More......

Tom Allen really needs to be in the Senate

Earlier this week, Tom Allen stood up for free speech and America's soldiers when he voted against the ridiculous resolution condemning the MoveOn newspaper ad. Just got this email from him on Limbaugh's slam against the troops:

I support all the troops, regardless of their position on the war. The men and women of our armed forces and their families have sacrificed a lot, and done everything that was asked of them. It is time to bring them home.

Tom is a great Congressman, but we really need that kind of sensibility in the U.S. Senate. While Susan Collins continues to do the bidding of George Bush, Tom has had a consistent message: We need to end the war. He didn't support the war in 2002, he doesn't support it now.

So, everyone's getting hit up because the FEC fundraising quarter ends of Sunday. But, if you're thinking of making a contribution to Tom Allen so he can beat Susan Collins, you really should do it now. The early money matters -- and in Maine, every dollar will go a long way.

AMERICAblog has an ActBlue page for Tom. Send him some early money so Maine can send him to the Senate. This is money well spent. Read More......

Barney on ENDA Transgender controversy. And, he's right.

Openly gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) released a statement about ENDA this afternoon. It's long, but read it:

Being in the legislative minority is easy – pulling together to block bad things does not require a lot of agonizing over tough decisions. Being in the majority is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, we have the ability to move forward in a positive way on important public policy goals. Detracting from that is the fact that it is never possible for us at any given time to get everything that we would like, and so we have to make difficult choices. But it is important to remember that the good part of this greatly outweighs the bad. Going from a situation in which all we can do is to prevent bad things from happening to one in which we have to decide exactly how much good is achievable and what strategic choices we must make to get there is a great advance.

The current manifestation of this is the difficult set of decisions we face regarding the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We are on the verge of an historic victory that supporters of civil rights have been working on for more than thirty years: the passage for the first time in American history by either house of Congress of legislation declaring it illegal to discriminate against people in employment based on their sexual orientation. Detracting from the sense of celebration many of us feel about that is regret that under the current political situation, we do not have sufficient support in the House to include in that bill explicit protection for people who are transgender. The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today.

When the bill banning sexual orientation discrimination was first introduced by Bella Abzug and Paul Tsongas more than thirty years ago, it was a remote hope. Over time because of a good deal of work, education of the general public, and particularly the decision by tens of millions of gay and lesbian people over that time to be honest about our sexual orientation, we have finally reached the point where we have a majority in the House ready to pass this bill. Those of us who are sponsoring it had hoped that we could also include in the prohibition discrimination based on gender identity. This is a fairly recent addition to the fight, and part of the problem we face is that while there have been literally decades of education of the public about the unfairness of sexual orientation discrimination and the inaccuracy of the myths that perpetuated it, our educational efforts regarding gender identity are much less far along, and given the prejudices that exist, face a steeper climb.

We introduced legislation opposing sexual orientation discrimination with explicit inclusion of gender identity for the first time this year. Earlier this session under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we were able to get through the House a hate crimes bill that provided protection against crimes of violence and property damage for lesbian, gay and bisexual people and people who are transgender. There was some initial resistance to the inclusion of transgender people but a very organized effort on the part of Congresswoman Baldwin, who took a major role in this, myself, and the Democratic leadership allowed us to overcome it, with the support of some of our Republican colleagues.

We then began the work on passing a transgender inclusive ENDA. I was optimistic at first that we could do this, although I knew it would be hard. One of the problems I have found over the years of discussing this is an unwillingness on the part of many, including leaders in the transgender community, to acknowledge a fact: namely that there is more resistance to protection for people who are transgender than for people who are gay, lesbian and bisexual. This is not a good fact, but ignoring bad facts is a bad way to get legislation passed. I have for some time been concerned that people in the transgender leadership were underestimating the difficulty we faced in a broadly inclusive bill being adopted.

Still this seemed to me an effort very worth trying, and, when I testified before the Education and Labor Committee on ENDA I spent much of my time explicitly addressing the need to include transgender people. In fact, I believe I spent more time on that than any other witness. Sadly, as the time approached for the vote to be taken in the Committee, we encountered a good deal of resistance. The great majority of Democrats remained committed to this, but with Republicans overwhelmingly likely to be opposed – even on hate crimes on the critical vote we were able to retain only nine Republican supporters out of two hundred Republican Members – it became clear that an amendment offered by Republicans either to omit the transgender provision altogether or severely restrict it in very obnoxious ways would pass.

Responding thoughtfully to this requires people to accept facts. Some have tried to deny this unpleasant reality. The Democratic leadership, which is in complete sympathy with a fully inclusive bill, did a special official Whip count – a poll of the Members. There had been earlier informal counts that had showed significant support for a bill that included transgender, although even these informal checks never showed that we had a majority. But Members will sometimes be inclined to give people the answers they think the people who are asking the questions want until the crunch comes. In the crunch – the official Whip count taken in contemplation of the bill – it became very clear that while we would retain a significant majority of Democrats, we would lose enough so that a bill that included transgender protection would lose if not amended, and that an anti-transgender amendment would pass.

The question then became how to proceed. There were several choices. One was to go forward with the bill understanding that an amendment would be offered to strike the transgender provision. There was a proposal to have the Democratic leadership do that in what is known as a manager’s amendment, in the hopes of avoiding a divisive roll call on the subject. But the Democratic leadership did not want to take the lead in killing a provision to which its Members are committed as a matter of principle, and in fact, given Congressional procedures, there is no way to prevent a roll call even on that. People have claimed that the desire to avoid a roll call is aimed solely at protecting some Democrats from having to make a tough choice. That is of course a factor, and asking your supporters to vote with you on a matter that is doomed both to lose itself and to lose you votes is not a good way to build up support. But it is also the case that a number of the Democrats were prepared to vote for the inclusion of the transgender provision even though they knew that it would hurt them politically. The main reason not to put this to a vote is our interest in ultimately adopting transgender protection. If we were to push for a vote now, knowing that the transgender provision would be defeated by a majority, we would be making it harder ultimately to win that support. As recent campaigns indicate, Members of Congress who are accused of switching their position on votes are pilloried, even when this is done unfairly as it was to Senator Kerry. Thus, forcing a vote on transgender inclusion now, which would without any question result in a majority against it, would make it harder to win when we have done better in our educational work, because Members who vote no now will be harder to persuade to switch their votes than to persuade them to vote yes in the first instance.

In addition, going forward in this situation leaves us open to Republican procedural maneuvers in which they could succeed not only in getting rid of the transgender provision. This would not kill the bill, but it would substantially delay it, and would be have very bad psychological effect in a situation in which maintaining the right psychology –optimism – is important.

That is why I believe that a strategy of going forward with a transgender inclusive provision that would certainly be stricken at some point in the procedure by a vote in the House would be a mistake.

Leaders in the GLBT community, who strongly support the inclusion of transgender, now acknowledge that this would be the case – namely that the transgender provision would lose – so their proposed alternative was simply to withhold the bill from the House altogether.

That is, their recommendation was that the Speaker simply announce that she was not going to allow the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to come up at all. I believe that would be a disaster – politically, morally, and strategically. While their reason for this would be the debate over how ultimately to achieve transgender inclusion, the impression that would be given to the country was that Speaker Pelosi, the first Democratic Speaker in thirteen years, and a lifelong strong supporter of LGBT rights, had decided that we could not go forward on what had been the major single legislative goal of gay and lesbian people for over thirty years.

Some in the transgender community and those who agree with them have given a variety of strategic arguments why they think it would be better not to go forward. One variant is that since the President is likely to veto the bill anyway, it does not make any difference if we fail to vote on it. But it should be noted that this is directly contradictory to the arguments that the LGBT community has been making for years. That is, we have been very critical of arguments that we should not push for votes on anti-discrimination legislation simply because it wasn’t openly going to win. People have correctly pointed to the value of getting people used to voting for this, of the moral force of having majorities in either the House or the Senate or both go on record favorably even if the President was going to veto it, and have in fact been getting Members ready so if that if and when we get a president ready to sign this, we are closer to passage. To repeat, the argument that we should not take up legislation unless we are sure the President is going to sign it is directly opposite to all of the arguments LGBT advocates have been making for as long as I can remember.

The real reason that people are now arguing that we should withhold any action on the antidiscrimination bill unless it includes transgender as well as sexual orientation is that they are, as they have explicitly said, opposed in principle to such a bill becoming law. That is the crux of the argument. There are people who believe – in the transgender community and elsewhere – that it would be wrong to enact a law that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation unless it fully included people who are transgender. I think this argument is deeply flawed.

First, I would note that since I first became a legislator thirty-five years ago, I have spent a lot of time and energy helping enact legislation to protect a variety of groups from discrimination. In no case has any of those bills ever covered everybody or everything. Antidiscrimination legislation is always partial. It improves coverage either to some group or some subject matter, but never achieves everything at once. And insistence on achieving everything at once would be a prescription for achieving nothing ever.

To take the position that if we are now able to enact legislation that will protect millions of Americans now and in the future from discrimination based on sexual orientation we should decline to do so because we are not able to include transgender people as well is to fly in the face of every successful strategy ever used in expanding antidiscrimination laws. Even from the standpoint of ultimately including transgender people, it makes far more sense to go forward in a partial way if that is all we can do. Part of the objection to any antidiscrimination legislation is fear of consequences, which fears are always proven to be incorrect. There is a good deal of opposition now to passing even sexual orientation legislation. Enacting legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and getting a year or two’s experience with it, will be very helpful in our ultimately adding to it protection for people who are transgender. That is, if you always insist on doing all the difficult things in one bite, you will probably never be successful. Dismantling the opposition piecemeal has always worked better.

For these reasons I have proposed along with the Democratic leadership the following strategy. First, we have introduced two bills. One will be ENDA as it has historically existed, banning discrimination on sexual orientation. A second will add transgender protections to that basic scheme. We will move forward with the ban on sexual orientation for which we finally – after thirty-plus years have the votes. After we are successful in winning that vote, I will urge the Committee on Education and Labor to proceed with our next step, which will be to continue the educational process that I believe will ultimately lead to our being able to add transgender protections. This will mean within a month or two a hearing in the Committee on Education and Labor which, unlike the hearings we previously had on this bill, will focus exclusively on transgender issues, and will give Members a chance to meet transgender people, to understand who they really are, and to deal with the fears that exist. The other options are either to bring a bill to the floor in which the transgender provision will be defeated by a significant majority, making it less likely that we will be able to succeed in this area in the future, or ask the Speaker of the House in effect put aside her lifelong political commitment to fairness and be the one who announces that we will not pass a bill banning discrimination based on sexual orientation even though we have the votes to do it. Passing ENDA in part and then moving on to add transgender provisions when we can is clearly preferable to either of these approaches.

Read More......

The Dem candidates' weird answer on Iraq withdrawal

When asked at the recent Democratic presidential debate about whether we'd be withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq by the end of their first term (i.e., in 5 years), neither Obama, Hillary, or Edwards were willing to say "yes." What disturbs me is that they could have easily given a qualified yes. Qualified because it is entirely possible that we'll need to leave some troops in Iraq, say a few thousand, for various duties. But that's a far cry from Bush's current bottom line of some 140,000 or so troops that we MAY get the number down to some time next year. So why couldn't any of the top three say "yes, though we may need to leave a small number in place for a variety of duties that don't include major combat operations as they do now"? And especially Edwards and Obama. If they wanted to shake things up, Read More......

Bush repudiates Limbaugh's attack on the troops

About time. So will Bush and Cheney still be doing interviews with the troop-hater? And will Republicans in Congress finally distance themselves from this hateful excuse for a human being? Read More......

Should we kill ENDA if transgendered people aren't included?

There's a debate raging in the gay community over an upcoming vote on the most important piece of civil rights legislation to the gay community, ever. We are on the verge of passing, at the federal level, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, legislation that would make it illegal for an employer to fire, not hire, no promote an otherwise qualified employee or job candidate simply because they're gay. Some are now arguing that if transgendered people are not included in ENDA, the gay community should not support its passage.

Most Americans, including lots of people in the gay community, do not realize that under federal law it is LEGAL to fire someone for being gay. It is also legal in most states. Contrary to popular belief, "discrimination" is not illegal in America, and it's not illegal under the Constitution. It is only illegal (more or less) if your particular class is specified in legislation. If you read the existing civil rights act, you'll see it lists very specific categories that are covered (race, religion, national origin...). It is not a blanket protection against "discrimination." That is why ENDA is needed. And that is why ENDA is not "special rights" or extra rights being granted to gay people and not other Americans - we are not included under the current civil rights laws, and that's unfair. Currently it is legal to fire someone for being gay under federal law and in most states. Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.

That brings us to today. ENDA is very close to passing, many expect it to pass, in both the US Senate and the US House. The bill was expected to include not just gays, lesbians, bisexuals and heterosexuals (i.e., all sexual orientations), but it also was expected to include "gender identity" (i.e., transgendered people):

Transgender is generally used as a catch-all umbrella term for a variety of individuals, behaviors, and groups centered around the full or partial reversal of gender roles. More recently, the term transgender can also mean someone who considers that they fall "between" genders, not identifying strictly to one gender or the other, identifying themselves as neither fully male, nor female.

We now hear from House Democratic leaders, including openly-gay congressman Barney Frank, that ENDA is dead if it includes gender identity/transgender.

Some in the gay community, including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, say that if transgender is not included in ENDA, the legislation should be killed. Others say that we should take half a loaf, pass ENDA without gender identity, and continue to fight for transgender rights in the future - this is what happened in New York where the lead gay group accepted ENDA-like legislation that did not include gender identity.

I'm not going to weigh in, yet, because I'm curious what you all think and don't wish to prejudice the discussion. I will, however, give you a bit more background on the various points of view.

Kill ENDA if gender identity is not included
The main argument here is that we shouldn't leave a portion of our community behind. We'd never pass ENDA if it only included lesbians but left behind gay men, so why pass it if it doesn't include transgendered people? The underlying assumption here is that gender identity is the same thing as, or close enough to, sexual orientation as to make gays, lesbians, and transgendered people all one family.

Pass ENDA even if gender identity is not included
Depending who you speak to, there are various arguments here. The first is that it's better to take half a loaf than nothing. The second is that the gender identity issue is new to the game - gays and lesbians have been lobbying for decades to pass this legislation, gender identity advocates have not been lobbying, have not been a serious movement, nearly as long. Thus, their time will come, but it's not time yet. And a third argument is that gender identity has nothing to do with sexual orientation, so what is it doing in the bill at all.

This third point is perhaps the most crucial, the most controversial, and the least debated issue in this entire debate. While some, many, consider the gender identity community part of the gay community, others ask when this addition to the family occured. Some of the opposition to the inclusion of transgendered people is based on prejudice, a visceral dislike of "drag queens" and the like. And I suspect some of the support for the inclusion of transgendered people is based on the opposite gut instinct, a visceral like of and sympatico for transgendered people, rather than a rational argument as to why gay men are as similar to transgendered people as they are to lesbians. But some of the opposition is based on a legitimate disagreement as to whether believing you are a man trapped in a woman's body is the same thing as, or similar enough thing to, being a man who likes other men or a woman who likes other women.

I've not seen a lot of public debate in the gay community about the transgender issue being akin to sexual orientation, other than from those who argue that of course gender identity should be included in the larger gay community and of course we should kill ENDA if they're not included. I also suspect that the lack of a debate is not a true indication that a debate does not exist. So, let's have one. Read More......

Why isn't the MSM covering Limbaugh's attack on the troops?

UPDATE: Greg Sargent has an excellent post up about this issue as well:

President Bush was recently asked at a press conference to comment on the MoveOn ad attacking Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus. Many concluded it was a planted question, and naturally, Bush responded by slamming the group and saying that he was disappointed in Dems for their reluctance repudiate MoveOn's mean and nasty attack on the General.

So here's the question: Will anyone in the White House press corps ask whether Bush -- who's appeared on Rush's show, as has Veep Cheney -- will repudiate Rush for remarking that soldiers who don't agree with the President's war policies are "phony soldiers"?

When MoveOn legitimately called into question General Petraeus' honesty (he's lied before), the mainstream media dutifully covered the Republicans' crocodile tears. But when Rush Limbaugh - Dick Cheney's favorite interviewer - attacks the integrity of American troops dying in Iraq for our country, the most the media can muster is coverage in their "blogs." Whether it's CBS blog, the Baltimore Sun blog, or the Chicago Tribune blog, there isn't a lot of coverage of this issue in the real CBS News, the real Baltimore Sun, or the real Chicago Tribune, or anywhere else. Why the double standard? Senior Democrats have called out Limbaugh for his venom, which is usually what's needed to make a story "real" in the eyes of the MSM. So why the double standard - when Dems are accused of dissing the troops, it's a front page story for weeks. When Republicans actually diss the troops, it's no big deal. Read More......

Jon Soltz of VoteVets to Rush: Say it to my face

Rush Limbaugh has no idea what he stepped into by denigrating those who actually served our country. We've seen a lot of outrage about Rush's slam on soldiers, but none from Republicans who are protecting the fat ass.

Jon Soltz, who did serve his country and does oppose the Iraq war, has a challenge for Rush. Say it to my face. Anyone who has seen Soltz in action knows this isn't a fair fight. If you haven't seen him, check out some of Jon's debates on the VoteVets' YouTube channel.

Soltz has a challenge for Rush, which we all know that fat ass will never take:

You weren't just flat out wrong, you offended a majority of those of us who actually had the courage to go to Iraq and serve, while you sat back in your nice studio, coming up with crap like this.

My challenge to you, then, is to have me on the show and say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq. I'll come on any day, any time. Not only will I once again explain why your comments were so wrong, but I will completely school you on why your refusal to seek a way out of Iraq is only aiding al Qaeda and crippling American security.

Ball's in your court.

We're all waiting for that one. And, I know who I'd rather have defend my country. Not Rush. Read More......

Top GOP Candidates blow off debate on minority issues

No Giuliani. No Thompson. No McCain. No Romney.

An empty podium for each of the top Republican candidates said everything. Well, not quite everything. Money was more important than minority issues:

As the candidates debated for 90 minutes on PBS, those who didn't were scattered around the country.

Thompson had three fundraising events in Tennessee, his home state. Romney was in California, wrapping up the day in Rancho Santa Fe. Giuliani also was in California, concluding his day with a fundraising event at the Antelope Valley Fairgrounds in Lancaster. McCain began his day with a speech at the Hudson Institute in New York and spent the rest of the day in meetings and fundraising activities.

And it was the top story on the TODAY Show: Read More......

Friday Morning Open Thread

Finally Friday.

Start threading the news. There's really a lot to discuss. Read More......

Protests in Yangon continue, 9 dead on Thursday

After a very bloody Thursday, protesters in Myanmar are back out though most reports are saying that monks are not involved because of government troops limiting their movements to inside the monasteries and also busing them out of the city centers. Follow the Guardian Burma blog for regular updates.

If diplomacy was not so out of fashion in the White House, you would expect increased activity and pressure to be exerted on some of the regional partners who enable the dictatorship such as China and India but the days of active diplomacy and dialog seem long gone. Read More......

Who do you want fixing the airline problems in the US?

Heaven forbid Bush touches that mess because the results will be predictably terrible for consumers. Please let the Democrats address this because even as bad as the US airline industry is today - and it's awful, among the worst in the world - Bush or any other Republican will somehow find a way to make it even worse. Instead of thinking about consumers including business travelers and tourists, Bush will find a way to create a new handout scheme to the long time players in the industry who always seem to struggle with the concept of old fashioned business ideas such as profit, customer service and decent pay for people who don't sit on the board. (In contrast, they do seem to excel in accepting billions in handouts from Congress and paying millions a year to executives while slashing workers pay despite being in bankruptcy and even finding a way to go out and right back in to bankruptcy.)

George, just leave this broken mess alone and let an adult handle it. You'll only make it worse. Read More......

Consumer Product Safety Commission - less consumer, more product

Oh, you mean they were supposed to help consumers and not industry despite deadly and dangerous products? How does that fit with the GOP theory of industry self regulation?

The CPSC finally picked up the crib last week after the newspaper informed the agency of its investigation.

In announcing the recall, the CPSC said it had received reports of three deaths, seven infants trapped and 55 other incidents relating to faulty drop rail hardware and design. In all three deaths, parents had unwittingly installed the drop rails upside down.

"The fact that it has taken more than four years from the date of the first incident report and more than two years since the first report of an infant's death to announce a recall of these products is alarming," [Senator] Durbin said in the letter.

"It is unacceptable for the public to have to rely on journalists for this commission to act in a timely fashion."

A sad but true reality of consumer protection during Republican rule. Read More......

Fred Thompson's increasing cluelessness

He does seem to be increasingly showing a lack of depth. First he claimed to not be familiar with the details of the Terri Schiavo case, and now isn't even up on big death penalty news in his own state when he claims the death penalty as one of his signature issues. I'm increasingly surprised, and amused, by how bad the GOP candidates really are. Read More......

O'Reilly surprised that black restaurants are just like white restaurants

From Media Matters:

Discussing his recent dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at the Harlem restaurant Sylvia's, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." O'Reilly added: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' "

Then again, I understand the customers were surprised that O'Reilly wasn't screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more loofahs.' Read More......

Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) slams Cheney's favorite interviewer, Limbaugh, for dissing troops

Is Dick Cheney going to continue doing interviews with this hateful drug addict who dishonors our troops? Or was all the "outrage" from the Republicans about the MoveOn ad phony? Read More......

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chair of Dem. House Campaign Committee, blasts Limbaugh for attacking troops

This is what we're talking about:

Rush Limbaugh's personal attack on our men and women in uniform is reprehensible. It minimizes the sacrifice our troops in Iraq and their families are making and has no place in the public discourse. Rush Limbaugh owes our military and their families an apology for his hurtful comments that minimize their service to our country.

Where is the rest of Congress on this outrageous, callous attack on the troops from the big, fat drug addicted chickenhawk, Limbaugh, the hero of the GOP? Read More......

Mychal Bell finally released from jail

Mychal Bell from the Jena 6 was released from prison today on $45,000 bail. He'll now face trial as a juvenile for the schoolyard fight -- instead of attempted murder as an adult. Read More......

The relationship between security and reconciliation

I have a lot of respect for thinkers/bloggers/pundits who have educated themselves about Iraq despite starting out with a completely different area of expertise or focus. I mean, four and a half years into war, one would think that everybody could learn the basics -- but many, including plenty of people who comment authoritatively (or "authoritatively"), still haven't made the effort to understand the situation, so those who have deserve credit.

Ezra Klein, whose blog I imagine many AMERICAblog readers frequent, is a health care wonk. He can talk capitation and cost control and coverage -- and even all the topics that don't start with "c"! -- with the best of 'em; in fact, he *is* one of the best of 'em when it comes to that stuff. He also, however, has managed to educate himself about the broad realities of the war in Iraq. This summer, I decided I didn't know nearly enough about what I thought was the most important domestic political issue, health care, so I bought a bunch of books and started reading. But even just getting the basics was hard! So I'm correspondingly impressed when a health wonk recognizes something like this:

The surge sort of dramatized this effect [the damaging and misguided US focus on military focus rather than political efforts] by coinciding with a complete loss of faith in the Maliki government's ability to pursue consolidation: The security situation and the political situation really aren't linked, at least not in that direction. The idea that stability would accelerate reconciliation was always backwards. There's a lack of stability because there's an absence of reconciliation -- and the relationship there is causal.

Right. The idea that you can stop attacks primarily instigated by 1) Sunnis who feel politically marginalized and 2) Shia groups fighting each other for dominance by capturing or killing the fighters is, when you think about it for more than five seconds, absolutely crazy! Terrorists, yes: kill and capture. We don't want to be negotiating with al Qaeda; there's no room for compromise there. But much of the violence in Iraq -- and especially the environment that enables it -- results from the political situation. Which is why the dual idiocy of pretending that violence in Iraq is all about al Qaeda AND trying to "create room for compromise" by escalating our troop presence is so disheartening and wrongheaded. In particular, as Ezra memorably observes,

The surge was like trying to stop someone with a cold from sneezing by pinching their nose really hard. It didn't cure the cold, and it sort of created a mess.

Right now, we have 168,000 US troops enabling corrupt and intransigent governance in a foreign nation that most people still have no conception of nearly five years into war. Read More......

My thoughts on Rush

Hi Folks,

Sorry to once again "preach to the choir." But just moments ago it was brought to my attention that conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh once again issued an unforgivable insult to those who disagree with his neoconservative philosophy of blind loyalty to George W. Bush's needless war in Iraq.

Limbaugh boldly stated that any troops who call for a withdrawal of troops in Iraq are "phony soldiers."

Not that long ago he made a similar comment about Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, who has been a long time critic of George W. Bush's reckless Iraq policy. Limbaugh called Hagel "Senator Betray Us."

Surprise, Surprise - there was no outburst in Congress over that remark.

Back to the point -

As an Iraq war veteran who is strongly opposed to this war I am beyond words with this Bush administration mouthpiece Limbaugh who has no clue as to what he is talking about.

People like Limbaugh, who never wore the uniform, never seen combat, and who would never have the courage or the intestinal fortitude to put their own body where their rhetoric is have no right whatsoever to criticize combat veterans who express dissent toward a war that they actually had the courage to fight.

In my perfect world, Limbaugh would be out there right now in Baghdad, in the 120 degree heat, in full "battle rattle" with a an infantry unit getting a dose of what he is advocating for - and I would bet the farm that once he returned he would have a whole different perspective on what war really is. However, I'm not that lucky.

All in all, Limbaugh has absolutely no respect for veterans as far as I'm concerned. He loves to regurgitate Bush's main talking point for Iraq of "where fighting for freedom."

Well with this latest stunt by Limbaugh he obviously has no regard for freedom or those who fight for it. Unless of course you agree with his methodology of total lunacy.

LIMBAUGH IS A DISGRACE.

John Bruhns
Iraq War Veteran
Legislative Representative
Americans Against Escalation In Iraq
www.IraqCampaign.org Read More......

Gen. Pace says gays are immoral, again

Good to know the general is worrying about the important things. Not how to win a war and stop his men and women from dying needlessly. No. General Pace is more concerned about whether his gay troops are immoral. And we wonder why we're losing (lost) in Iraq. Here's a video of Sen. Harkin taking God's general on.

Read More......

Update from MTV/MySpace forum

It's going okay. Edwards is his usual informed, casual self. He's doing well, but still hasn't done anything, said anything, that's going to knock Hillary out of first place int he polls. As for unique format of the event, I'm not convinced that they're using the online real-time feedback as well as they could (people can vote online about how well they think Edwards is answering the questions). It's a neat idea, but it still feels like a regular old town meeting, with the occasional interjection of the updated polls or an IM question from a viewer. Whereas the CNN/YouTube debate, at least watching it on TV, felt original and novel to me (and I honestly didn't expect it to) - they somehow made the electronic, Internet part of the event the KEY part of the event, an interesting part of the event, rather than simply ancillary. Not surprisingly, the college aged audience is asking a lot of questions that youth would be interested in (education funding, etc.), which is good for them, but kind of boring for the rest of us, but this is the audience they're shooting for. It's a fine event, overall, but it just isn't as unique and cutting edge as I'd have hoped.

And, as usual, we're getting the "blogger" treatment from some quarters - meaning, some of the powers that be seem to be deathly afraid of us. We were told we couldn't blog from the event itself - if we wanted to WATCH the event in the room where it's taking place, we could watch, but we couldn't blog live or bring our laptops with us. If we wanted to blog, we could do it in the media room next door, where we could only follow the event on a TV screen. Well, not surprisingly, we all dutifully obeyed and left our laptops in the other room, while the MSM reporters are watching live, in the room with Edwards, with their laptops wide open and no one is saying a word. But God forbid that one woman powered up her Blackberry and someone immediately ran up to her and told her "you'd better not be blogging." (MySpace says this was an MTV person.) When I pointed out the numerous non-blogger reporter laptops open behind her, in violation of the "don't report live from the set" and "don't you dare have a laptop" rule, no one cared. Whatever the logic or rationale, they also told the kids not to take cell phone pics of the event during the event, not to send pics to friends via their phones during the event, etc. Knowing kids... good luck with that. And while they said it was motivated out of a fear that the kids' phones might interfere with the mics (and apparently, Blackberrys DO interfere with mics), I have a sense that the larger concern was control of message on the set, they don't want folks on the set doing any kind of reportage, especially (only?) bloggers. And I don't get why. Anyway, it's a bit annoying. And I do get a kick out of how we're the only ones who are actually obeying the rules. I'm thinking we won't make that mistake again.

Anyway, here are some pics of the event going on now.



The hosts, Gideon Yago and SuChin Pak.



Edwards, in front of a screen showing the viewer live feedback.



MTV's Sway.



The audience is all college kids, which is great. We were told that last night, at the NBC Democratic debate held at Dartmouth, college kids were specifically banned from the event. They let a few in, like the head of respectable college organizations, but otherwise, they wanted "older" people only. Nice.



Finally, I got to have a good chat last night with MySpace founder Chris de Wolfe. Very interesting guy. He was really interested in the blogs, how we function, etc., and had some good advice for how we can move forward as businesses (and we are businesses, news and advocacy businesses). Read More......

Senate approves expansion of hate crimes legislation

The big hurdle facing hate crimes legislation in the Senate as been overcome. In a 60-39 vote to proceed to adoption, the Senate approved the Kennedy amendment which adds sexual orientation, gender identity and disability to the existing hate crimes legislation.

Among the Republicans that crossed the aisle to move the legislation forward. (Roll Call here):

John Warner
Richard Lugar
Susan Collins
Olympia Snowe
George Voinovich
Arlen Specter
Norm Coleman
Judd Gregg
Gordon Smith (co-sponsor)

Kennedy then asked for a voice vote on the amendment and that subsequently passed.

The measure is part of the defense reauthorization bill, which is slated to go up for a vote in the near future.

As you might imagine, Diaper Dave Vitter voted no, as did Toe Tapping Larry Craig. Read More......

MTV, MySpace and John Edwards

This is the venue for the chat. Check here to find out more how you can join in the voting.



I'm in New Hampshire, courtesy of MySpace (they flew and lodged several bloggers from the left and right up here, attending the first of a series of presidential candidate Q&A;'s they're doing. It's actually quite interesting. (At left are Jen from Feministing.com (l) and Georgia10 from DKos (r).) The candidates will be questioned by some MTV and Washington Post folks and then you can vote on how well you like the responses. Then the questioners can incorporate your responses into the next questions. Georgia has a great post on this over at DKos. I can't link via my phone, but you can go to DKos and check it out. Read More......

Another $190 billion for the endless war

Let's review George Bush's week: 1) Bush won't spend a couple billion on health care for kids; 2) Bush now wants another $190 billion for his endless war; and 3) We seen more evidence that Bush's endless war is destroying our military capacity.

This war is getting more costly in both human lives and financially every year. The $190 billion is the largest request so far:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates asked Congress yesterday to approve an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the Bush administration's 2008 war funding request to nearly $190 billion -- the largest single-year total for the wars so far.

The move came as Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff and former top U.S. commander in Iraq, warned lawmakers that the Army is stretched dangerously thin because of current war operations and would probably have trouble responding to a major conflict elsewhere. "The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply," Casey said yesterday. "We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

The administration's funding request -- which came on the same day that the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of a nonbinding resolution calling for the split of Iraq into three semiautonomous regions -- would boost war spending this year by nearly 15 percent and would bring the total cost of both conflicts to more than $800 billion since Sept. 11, 2001, according to the Congressional Research Service. The request comes two weeks after President Bush announced a limited troop drawdown from Iraq starting in December and the continuation of the "surge" troop increase through next summer. In the days since, Democrats have failed to force a shift in policy on troop rotations or the adoption of withdrawal timelines, but the debate over war funding offers them another chance to push for a change in course.

We need a change in course, desperately. Read More......

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Begin. Read More......

70,000 protesters in Yangon, junta continues violent crackdown

Plenty of reports coming in on the protests in Myanmar including reports of even more violence by the government security forces, attempts by the government to provoke violence between Buddhists and Muslims, searches for members of the international press and massive arrests. The Guardian has excellent coverage with links to multiple blogs that are providing regular updates. The junta has been attempting to shut down bloggers, unsuccessfully so far, who are still managing to distribute photos, video and regular updates. Read More......

More lead tainted toys being recalled

It's almost as though the effort in the 1970s to remove lead from paint had never happened. Industry, always looking for a way to cut corners and make an extra few pennies, is either absolutely stupid or they are just are simply despicable. If they didn't know they were buying lead-tainted products that would be sold to children, they should have known or else this calls into question their ability to properly run a business. It also raises yet another example of industry failing to self regulate and begging Congress to step in and provide guidance.

When businesses outsource production to the cheapest provider, what do they think they are receiving? Just because China doesn't care about safety regulations, that's an issue for China that will have to be addressed within their own country. We should expect a lot more from our own country, both in terms of regulation as well as minimum quality standards. The recall of 600,000 toys is not the first and will not be the last such recall and it's clear that the US is going to have to step up the regulation of what is being sold. Just because the GOP wants to live in another era where anything goes doesn't mean we have to accept it. Read More......

Focus on the Family lays off 30, moves 15 more to new jobs

Oh my goodness! Flogging the gay boogeyman isn't filling the coffers these days. Time for a happy dance...MSNBC:

Focus on the Family announced Monday that it is laying off 30 employees and reassigning 15 others. It also announced that founder James Dobson had been cleared of accusations that he jeopardized the group's nonprofit status by endorsing Republican candidates.

Most of the layoffs are in the organization's Constituent Response Services department that answers mail and telephone requests.

A drop in projected revenue played a part in the layoffs, and the growth of e-mail and Internet-based communications is behind the reassignments, said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of communications.

It's only 3% of the workforce, but Daddy D has been announcing on his radio show that donations are off. May the trend continue. How about this spin?

"Organizational change, while healthy and positive, is always difficult when it involves a staff reduction," [Focus president and CEO Jim] Daly said in a news release. "Building flexibility into our internal operations is vital to staying engaged with and relevant to our constituents. The adjustments we're making this week, though difficult, will allow us to better serve the families that rely on Focus on the Family in the future."

Read More......

Tom Allen from Maine: "I believe it is the job of the Congress to bring our troops home, not legislate free speech."

What a concept. Tom Allen wants Congress to do its real work. The Republicans want to play political games. Still playing politics over Iraq cause that's what GOPers do. Tom Allen will make a great United States Senator:

"I respect General Petraeus and honor all of our troops. They have done a phenomenal job and done everything that we have asked of them. General Petraeus is a soldier who simply takes orders from the Commander-in-Chief, President Bush.

Unfortunately the President and his Republican allies in Congress have continued to order General Petraeus and the rest of our troops to continue fighting. What we need is a plan to bring our troops home.

I voted against this resolution today because I believe it is the job of the Congress to bring our troops home, not legislate free speech."

We will never, ever see that kind of strong statement from Bush's loyal toadie, Susan Collins. She doesn't stand for anything -- except whatever Bush says.

And, by the way, if Congress is so outraged about speech, where's the resolution condemning John Boehner's disgusting comment about the loss of life in Iraq?
Read More......

Democratic Debate Open Thread

The Democrats are in New Hampshire at a debate moderated by Tim Russert. It's live on MSNBC.

We'll be monitoring...it could get interesting. Although, I find it a lot easier to liveblog the Republicans. They're so easy to mock.

9:28 p.m. John Edwards went after Hillary Clinton hard for supporting Lieberman's Iraq resolution. Very hard. Equated her vote for that resolution with her vote for the Iraq war.

And is it me, or is Tim Russert a mess tonight? He looks like he needs a hair wash and a hair cut...and he's sweating up a storm...

9:36 p.m. The Democratic answers on immigration are so much more reasonable, sensible and human then the immigrant bashing that occurs at GOP debates.

9:52 p.m. Health care. Wow. That was a tough go-round. The knives were out for Clinton on that one. Health care clearly is the most important domestic issue. And Biden with that "old stuff" about Bill Clinton in the 90s...hmmm, that "old stuff" was political.

10:00 p.m. Gay question. Couched in the guise of a controversy about a story for second graders. Keep in mind that in New England, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont all have civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay marriage. Edwards, Obama and Clinton were asked. Obama and Edwards gave very strong answers. Clinton's wasn't quite as clear.

10:29 p.m. Okay, Social Security..I get the reasons for that discussion obviously. Maybe even the smoking question given its significance as a health issue. But do the Presidential candidates really need to weigh in on the drinking age?

10:46 p.m. So, trick question from Russert about torture using a quote from Bill Clinton that appeared to condone torture. But, Tim didn't tell them the quote was from Bill. Again, the answers on torture from Democrats are so different than what we'd hear from the GOPers.

Okay, that's over.

And the correct answer to the last question was, of course, Red Sox. The magic number is 2. Read More......