Senate spouses' meetings

WaPo reports that embattled Senator Craig's wife attended a Senate spouses' lunch last week as the Senator made the rounds on the Hill.

Which to me raises the question: What on earth are those meetings like? Does Mr. Clinton ever attend? Or even Mr. Dole? There are some heavy-hitter Senate spouses; it's really entertaining to think of them all hanging out together. Are they bipartisan, I wonder?

And what about Mrs. Vitter? Does she commiserate with Mrs. Craig?

Slightly more seriously, I wonder to what extent policy is discussed at such an event. One would think that spouses might have an ability to form bonds that the elected officials themselves might not. Surely some enterprising Hill reporter could dig up these vital details. Read More......

Should blacks vote for Obama because he's black? And should women vote for Hillary because she's a woman?

It sounds like a funny question, to ask it so starkly, but I don't think it is funny at all. A lot of Greek-Americans supported Dukakis because he was Greek. There was pride that one of our own had finally made it (well, almost). And we knew that it would help our community, break a few glass ceilings as it were, if a dark Mediterranean made his way to the Oval Office. So why not the same logic for African-Americans and women? Yes, no, maybe? Read More......

Bishop would deny communion to Giuliani

Okay, this is kind of funny. It's totally outrageous, of course, but still funny as hell that now the far-right religious wackjobs, enabled for so many years by the GOP, are coming back to haunt them, big time. Read More......

Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) retiring

This is big news and presents another serious pick-up opportunity for the Democrats in the Senate. Domenici has been an institution in the Senate, although a rapidly faltering institution lately:

Veteran Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) is expected to announce tomorrow that he will retire from the Senate in 2008, according to several informed sources, a decision that further complicates an already difficult playing field for Republicans next November.

Domenici has struggled with health problems over the last several years and has been dogged by questions about the role he may have played in the firing of U.S. Attorney David C. Iglesias in Albuquerque. As a result, he had been long been rumored as a potential retirement. He joins Republican Sens. John Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Wayne Allard (Colo.) on the sidelines for 2008.

And besides Virginia, Nebraska and Colorado, Democrats have real opportunities in Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Oregon, Alaska (because Ted Stevens is in some serious trouble), Kentucky (the Minority Leader's approval ratings are tanking) and North Carolina (if the Dems. can find someone to run against the hapless Liddy Dole). Even Texas is looking better. And, who knows what will unfold with South Carolina's Lindsey Graham.

The Republicans running for re-election in 2008 last faced voters in 2002. They were all gung ho supporters of Bush's war in Iraq back then. This time around, they're going to pay a political price. Read More......

Limbaugh compares Iraq vet to suicide bomber

And he's George Bush's and Dick Cheney's favorite interview. Read More......

The transgender fiasco

WHY ADD GENDER IDENTITY TO ENDA WHEN YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE DROPPED ANYWAY?

Something has been bugging me. Why did Congress add gender identity to ENDA this year if they knew it didn't have the votes and they knew they were going to remove it anyway? I mean, they must have known that America isn't exactly as trans-friendly as it is gay-friendly (and calling America gay-friendly is already a stretch). And they must have known that they didn't yet have the votes in the House, and certainly the Senate, to pass a law that protects transexuals in the workplace. Yet, at the same time they added gender identity to ENDA for the first time ever, those same members of Congress knew that this year they were going to get ENDA passed, come hell or high water.

But none of this makes sense. If you're hell-bent on passing ENDA this year, then you don't add a provision to ENDA that you know is going to kill it. And if you were planning on eventually dropping transgendered people from the bill from the git-go, then why add them in the first place, when you know darn well that there's going to be hell to pay when you drop them? The entire thing doesn't make sense.

Or does it?

MY THEORY ON REVOLUTIONS

I have a theory about all of this. It's a theory about revolutions. I've always believed that you can't force a country to have a revolution, and then expect democracy to stick. Yes, you can launch a coup, topple a government, execute Saddam, but for a revolution to stick - for democracy to stick - a country's citizens need to be responsible for their OWN revolution. Otherwise they have no ownership - it wasn't their revolution, it was yours. (And actually, the Washington Post (I think) did a fascinating article about this a while back, about how statistically revolutions really don't stick when they're forced from the outside - anybody got the link?)

Anyway, that brings us back to transgender rights.

THE ORIGINS OF LGBT/GLBT

Once upon a time we were called "the gay community." Then some of the women in the community felt that the word "gay" really only applied to gay men - women were called "lesbian." So lesbian was added to gay (not clear by whom) and we became the "gay and lesbian" (or "lesbian and gay") community. Then a while after that, bisexuals were feeling left out. Someone then decided to add bisexual to the mix, so we became the "gay, lesbian and bisexual community" (or "lesbian, gay, bisexual"). And if you Google the phrase, you'll see that the phrase, while not used any more, was in popular use a while back, and if you put the lesbians in front, and call it "lgb community," you get 15,000 hits. While verbose, perhaps, none of these inclusions was terribly controversial as everyone in the community accepted that gays, lesbians and bisexuals were all "gay" (well, bisexuals were at least "part-time gays," as the religious right so affectionately calls them :-)

As little as 14 years ago, the phrase "lesbian and gay community" was used by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force back in 1993 (while NGLTF is now leading the charge for transgender inclusion in the "LGBT" community). And as little as two years ago, GLAAD (which has also been at the forefront of trans inclusion in the gay community) still used the phrase "LGB community" on their Web site to differentiate the gay community from the transgendered community ("By dismissing these issues as merely a by-product of comedy, the LGB community gives a free pass to the mockery of the trans community"). Then, sometime in the late 90s, groups like GLAAD and NGLTF started adding the T to the LGB, and I remember at the time scratching my head as to why. And I wasn't alone.

The moral of the story: Anyone who says that transgendered people have always been accepted as part of the gay community is simply wrong. A little over ten years ago, NGLTF, the group that was quite possibly at the forefront of pushing the inclusion of T in LGB (and who is leading the effort to include trans in ENDA) didn't even use the T themselves. So the question remains, if NGLTF has only accepted transgendered people as part of the community for a little over ten years, when did the rest of the gay community do the same, and has it yet?

I would argue that the gay community never collectively and overwhelmingly decided to include the T in LGB (or GLB). It happened because a few groups like NGLTF and GLAAD starting using it, and they and a handful of vocal activists and transgender leaders pretty much shamed everyone else into doing it. Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, and it doesn't necessarily mean that the T shouldn't have been added. I'm just saying that I don't think the T was added because there was a groundswell of demand in the gay community that we add T to LGB. I think it happened through pressure, organizational fiat, shame, and osmosis.

And that is how we got into the mess we're in today.

WHEN REVOLUTIONS FAIL

I think that the transgender community was added to ENDA the same way the T got added on to the LGB. By force, and attrition, rather than by popular demand. I remember being at the beach with a bunch of gay friends about 6 or 7 years ago. There was an Advocate or OUT magazine on the table and it was open to some article about the transgender community. The details of the discussion now elude me, but I remember there being a lively debate about just how and when transexuals became part of the gay community, and vice versa - the consensus was that nobody knew how it happened, and nobody was quite sure that they agreed with the inclusion. Now zoom forward to today. We've heard a lot of anger from every single gay group on the planet, save HRC, that gender identity is being dropped from ENDA in order to save the bill. We've also heard from a number of vocal activists. But when I speak to friends and colleagues privately, senior members of the gay political/journalistic establishment, and just plain old gay friends around the country (and our own readers), the message I hear is far different from what I'm hearing from the groups. I'm clearly hearing three things. Well, four:

1. I feel empathy for transgendered people, and support their struggle for civil rights.
2. I want ENDA to pass this year even if we can't include transgendered people.
3. I don't understand when transgendered people became part of the gay community?

And then there's always #4: Please don't tell anyone I told you this.

What I'm hearing is a message far different from what you hear from NGLTF and some of the louder activist claiming to speak for the enlightened masses. I think that a lot of gay people never truly accepted the transgender revolution that was thrust upon them. They simply sat back and shut up about their questions and concerns and doubts out of a sense of shame that it was somehow impolite to even question what was happening, and fear that if they did ask questions they'd be marked as bigots. And now, that paper-thin transgender revolution is coming home to roost.

I have no insider information leading me to this conclusion, but, I think that gender identity was finally added to ENDA out of shame and fear. Neither the Congress nor the lead gay groups wanted to be seen as anti-trans, even though some of them clearly knew that adding trans was a death-blow to ENDA. So they did it anyway. Their calculus wasn't about including a vital, core member of the gay community (otherwise trans would never get dropped). And their calculus wasn't that we could win even with trans included (because in today's America, that's simply not true, and they know it). The calculus was one of fear and shame: I.e., If we don't add trans to the bill, we're going to get beaten up and labeled bigots. (Obviously other groups supported adding trans to ENDA because they accept the transgender revolution, but for the Congress and the lead groups, I don't think so.)

A STATE OF FEAR

People are simply afraid to ask any questions about this issue, and those unresolved conflicts are coming home to roost. I know I was afraid to write about this issue, and still am. I thought long and hard about even weighing in on this issue last week. Did I really want to have to deal with people screaming and calling me a bigot? And I've got gay journalist friends and gay political friends who have sent me private "atta boy"s supporting my public essays, while refusing to go public themselves.

There is a climate of fear and confusion and doubt about the transgender issue in the gay community. And no one wants to talk about it. And when you don't talk about your small concerns, when you're afraid to talk about them, when it's not considered PC for you to talk about them, one day those small concerns turn into big problems and the revolution comes tumbling down. Read More......

A gay US soldier's suspicious death in Afghanistan

I'm sure General Pace's bigoted comments didn't add to a culture of homophobia that led to this woman's death. Read More......

Towns rethink laws against illegal immigrants

Wait, you mean banishing illegal immigrants from a town can have negative consequences? But Lou Dobbs told me all illegal immigrants are evil and have pernicious effects upon our entire society! He told me they're killing our economy, not helping parts of it! Oh my, what will the children think.

This article is interesting for two reasons: First, it shows the logical result of the kinds of policies that rabid anti-immigration zealots support:

With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, it shows that for all the hysteria about illegal immigrants, it's actually pretty easy to solve the problem, at least at a local level:

A little more than a year ago, the Township Committee in this faded factory town became the first municipality in New Jersey to enact legislation penalizing anyone who employed or rented to an illegal immigrant.

Within months, hundreds, if not thousands, of recent immigrants from Brazil and other Latin American countries had fled. The noise, crowding and traffic that had accompanied their arrival over the past decade abated. The law had worked. Perhaps, some said, too well.

Not surprisingly, if you penalize *the people who employ* illegal immigrants, the job market dries up and they go somewhere else. As we saw when the Congressional immigration debates last year nearly split the Republican party in two, businesses are in no hurry to see a major workforce (and even, to some degree, customer base) evaporate. But hey, if people want it done, it can be done.

I should say, I think illegal immigration is a problem in a variety of instances, and certainly border issues are a matter of physical as well as economic security. What I dislike, though, is the dishonesty that infuses the illegal immigration debate. If people want to really work through the economic (and even cultural) issues involved -- some of which hurt American citizens and some of which help us -- that's great. If they just want to yell about brown people, well, not so much. Read More......

Bush vetoes bill to provide health coverage to millions of poor children

Suffer the little children was the message from Bush this morning:
Read More......

The State Department has a blog so you can get the unvarnished truth spin

Oh, this is rich. Karen Hughes and her toadies at the State Department have started a blog called "DipNote":

Fox News, launched with such high hopes 11 years ago as the "fair and balanced" network, apparently hasn't lived up to its billing. CNN never had a chance. The other networks? Please. No citizen could dare trust the agenda-driven print media -- The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times -- to figure out, let alone accurately tell, the "real" story.

But now the State Department is in the blogosphere, and says it "offers the public an alternative source to mainstream media for U.S. foreign policy information." The blog, launched last week and called "Dipnote," is "taking you behind the scenes."

This is what we've all been waiting for! No more media filters and distortions. Unbiased news directly from the federal government, a news source long noted for truthful, unbiased reporting. The Clinton administration and most all its predecessors vowed to end-run the media, and they finally have the new electronic media to help them to do it.

Okay, DipNotes? Karen Hughes? Seriously, these people are too much. Read More......

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

So, anything interesting going on? Read More......

Crackdown continues in Myanmar

Bush diplomacy in action as pro-democracy protesters are hunted by the junta security thugs. I suppose Myanmar just doesn't have enough oil, but then again, oil production hasn't missed a beat.

Soldiers announced that they were hunting pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar's largest city Wednesday and the top U.S. diplomat in the country said military police were pulling people out of their homes during the night.

Military vehicles patrolled the streets before dawn with loudspeakers blaring that: "We have photographs. We are going to make arrests!"

Shari Villarosa, the acting U.S. ambassador in Myanmar, said in a telephone interview that people in Yangon were terrified.

UPDATE: CNN has video of the repressive security forces in action. This is what China and India are supporting? China is no stranger to this but India? Disappointing to say the least. Read More......

Hot new Bush plan for food safety!

Try for a moment to forget about the numerous food safety problems including the recently announced recall of 22 million pounds of beef and instead focus on the GOP plan for just about everything: let industry self regulate. OK, so we already know that is a big reason why we are even in this current mess because industry has failed time after time to properly self regulate, probably afraid of the negative business impact of a new announcement. So here we are, years down the path of self-regulation and what's the new plan being proposed by the special new commission created by Bush? Uh huh, more of the same.

Worse still, the Washington Post delivers cover for this failed policy and manages to not even mention the 22 million pounds of beef that were just recalled, though they did mention the infamous E. coli recalls in spinach from a year ago. The Post article also fails to question the "new" approach which is hardly new, other than "new" statements made yesterday which only repeat the same plan as before. Is it not possible to ask questions or do anything besides regurgitate what the administration wants to say? What a terrible job by the Post on this story.

Yesterday, Mike Leavitt, secretary of health and human services and chairman of a panel established by President Bush to study the safety of imported food, reflected that point of view when he said: "We simply cannot inspect our way to safety."

This quote pretty much says everything we need to know about how the Bush administration plans to make food safer. There is no interest whatsoever in protecting consumers. The only interest is in protecting the businesses and their failed system. They can also quit blaming China because many, if not most of the problems are with American companies, unless the beef and spinach is suddenly being imported from China. Read More......