White House Fears Bolton Nomination Will Fail

The UN is in trouble -- thanks to the ineffectual and/or willfully corrupt Koffi Anan -- and desperately needs reforming. Unfortunately, instead of finding a diplomat that can further that agenda, the White House is trying to install a firebrand who has proven about as undiplomatic in style as is imaginable. Now the White House admits Bolton's nomination is in serious trouble.

But the criticism of Bolton is not that he's a "tough" or "mean" or even "jerky" boss. He is seriously accused by career government employees and conservatives (and of course liberals) as a serial abuser of power, a man who tried to force intelligence employees to DISTORT their findings to further a particular agenda (well, no wonder the White House had no problem with that), with trying to FIRE career agents simply because they refused to do so and smearing anyone who got in his way. Serious questions have also been raised about Bolton abusing intelligence information access to dig up dirt on other government officials.

Besides, what if the only charge against Bolton was that he physically harassed women, chasing them down hallways and threatening them? Maybe Dick Cheney thinks that's just being a good boss, but most of us don't find such behavior amusing or acceptable or Christian. Why does he? Read More......

Open thread - and by the way, Happy Birthday AMERICAblog and its 5,258,231 visitors

This is the one year anniversary of launch. We've had 5,258,231 visitors over the past year, and traffic is growing. I hope that number gives Microsoft and the public relations people a special chill tonight.

Thanks to everyone who made that happen - from my fellow bloggers on this site, the other bloggers who are kind enough to link to us, and all of you AMERICAbloggers who visit regularly and make this a fun and effective community. :-) Read More......

What is the Right Wing's "Homosexual Agenda"?

For years, the radical right wingers have been bemoaning what they call the "homosexual agenda." I have never been sure exactly what that means. But, recent events have really got me wondering what their "homosexual agenda" is...and where does it ultimately lead?

The anti-gay fervor that has become acceptable in America has a far wider reach than many of us imagined.

Microsoft is tripping over themselves to justify what they did in Washington State. But the impact is clear. They have retrenched from their long-standing support for gay rights. This is a big deal. And, whatever Steve Ballmer thinks, the radical right wing is going to take credit. If they can get Microsoft to switch, who's next?

One thing the gay community (such as it is) always had going for us was the support from corporate America. The wingnuts know that too. That's why they are going after our corporate sponsors.

I lay this change in attitude at the feet of George W. Bush. To appease the extremists, he made gay-bashing acceptable in America. When he endorsed using the constitution to set aside a group of Americans, he basically declared open season. We didn't fight him hard enough last year. Instead of calling it was it was, gay bashing, all of our friends engaged in a semantics game about the policy of marriage. This was never about policy. It was raw politics. And gays and lesbians in America lost.

Unfortunately, too many of our so-called friends haven't been much better. Bill Clinton signaled it was okay for Democrats to jump on the gay-bashing bandwagon when he told Kerry to support the amendment. (Let's see how far his wife tries to stray from us.)

The right wing extremists are also going after the Courts...one of our other only hopes. The term "activist judges" is applied to any judge or court that grants right to gays and lesbians. How many times did Bush and the GOP use designate the Massachusetts Supreme Court "activist" because of gay marriage? And, tomorrow, Bill Frist will join the craziest of the crazy fanatics in a judge-bashing teleconference. Don't think overturning Lawrence v. Texas isn't at the top of their agenda.

So, as the radicals chip away at our support, we should be asking ourselves where this will lead. They are already enshrining gay bashing in state constitutions. They are stripping away corporate support. They have made homophobia acceptable. Surely, they want more. What?

What's their final goal? It's time to turn the tables and ask what is ultimately the "homosexual agenda" of the radical right wing. Their agenda is what's scary. Because none of this bodes well for gays in America. None of it. Read More......

Open thread

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

No turkee for Salon.com

Ok, who let the real reporter into the room?

From Tim Grieve at Salon.com:

But here's the part that doesn't make sense. If Microsoft wanted to "focus" its "energy" on a "limited number of issues" in the current legislative session, it could have just left matters as they were. [Microsoft spokesperson] Begasse told us that, while Microsoft sent out a letter last year in support of the bill, it had never lobbied actively on its behalf. So why not leave it at that? Microsoft didn't have to do anything more, and it would have been free to "focus" its energy on other legislation. But by changing its position on the anti-discrimination bill from "support" to "neutral," Microsoft did focus on the issue -- it had to inform the sponsor of the legislation, it had to meet with gay and lesbian employees, and now it's had to take a lot of criticism for the late-game switch. If Microsoft really wanted to preserve its resources to "focus" on issues closer to the core of its business, wouldn't it have been better to remain in support of the bill and leave it at that?

We asked Begasse that question as many ways as we could, and the answer was always the same. "We did move to a neutral position on the bill, but it was in order to focus our energies on legislative issues that are directly related to our business," Begasse said. "It wasn't influenced by external factors."

Got it?

Read More......

Leaked Microsoft CEO's email confirms they're abandoning gays. Only supported gays rights in the past because hadn't given the issue enough thought.

(Graphic courtesy of Pam's House Blend)

This comes from TowleRoad.com, a blog run by the former editor of Genre, Andy Towle:

From: Steve Ballmer
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 6:40 PM
To: All Employees of MS in Puget Sound; All Employees of MS in MSUS
Subject: Microsoft and the Anti-Discrimination bill

[snip]

"There have been several news stories that imply that Microsoft changed its position on an anti-discrimination bill, HB 1515, because of pressure from a conservative religious group. I want to make it clear that that is not the case."

Here is Ballmer's first mistake. Framing the issue as though it's about whether the religious right leader made Microsoft go anti-gay or whether Microsoft decided on its own to go anti-gay. Honestly, I couldn't care less WHY Microsoft decided to stop supporting gays, the fact is they DID.

"When our government affairs team put together its list of its legislative priorities in Olympia before the Legislative Session began in January, we decided to focus on a limited number of issues that are more directly related to our business such as computer privacy, education, and competitiveness. The anti-discrimination bill was not on this list and as a result Microsoft was not actively supporting the bill in the Legislature this year, although last year we did provide a letter of support for similar legislation...."

Huh? First of all, nice verbatim quoting of your spokesperson's statements - couldn't you at least tell us what YOU really think? Second, since when is simply saying you support a bill "actively supporting" it? I worked on Capitol Hill for 5 years and that statement from Ballmer is utter bullshit. Simply saying you support a bill for the umpteenth year in a row expends NO political capital.

"On this particular matter, both Bill and I actually both personally support this legislation that would outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me."

Yeah, and this wasn't true the previous 15 years that you've been publicly supportive as a company of gay rights laws? It didn't seem to matter then. But it does now. You're not telling us something.

"We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike - when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not? What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly-held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?...."

Again, this is the FIRST time you've thought about what balance to strike on civil rights legislation you've been supporting for year? If that's the case, then you should step down as CEO. How could you, as a company, endorse national gay rights legislation for years and years, and statewide gay rights legislation for the same period of time, and NOT make a determination as to whether you've struck the "right balance" between whether or not you should take the position in question? What, you just flippantly and stupidly supported gay rights in the past, but now that you've actually THOUGHT about it you realize it was a dumb move?

Again, if you're trying to tell us that after all these years you only JUST thought about this issue now, after years of endorsing these bills, then you should step down because you clearly are not serving your company or your shareholders, and frankly, you're admitting you weren't serving your shareholders for years when you endorsed this legislation which we now know falls on the wrong side of this "balance."

"I am also adamant that I want Microsoft to be a place where every employee feels respected, and where every employee feels like they belong. I don't want the company to be in the position of appearing to dismiss the deeply-held beliefs of any employee, by picking sides on social policy issues."

Okay, now you're in trouble. Picking sides? Do you pick sides between blacks and the Klan, Mr. Ballmer? Between Jews and David Duke? Since when did Microsoft take the position that people who support gay rights and anti-gay bigots are equal in the eyes of Microsoft?

If that's the case, then why do you have non-discrimination policies at all in your company? You do realize that those same "Christian" employees, as your general counsel calls them, don't support corporate non-discrimination policies that include gays either. They boycotted Procter & Gamble forever because of their positive internal policies on gays. So what's the difference here, I'm terribly confused. You can pick sides internally and shun your radical rights employees but not externally? It's okay to force your employees to work side by side with homos getting "special rights" but it's wrong to support those same rights statewide?

I didn't realize that Microsoft's vision of civil rights and equality had a geographic limitation to it.

"It's appropriate to invoke the company's name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it's much less clear when it's appropriate to invoke the company's name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry - and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions between my personal views on policy issues and when it's appropriate to involve the company."

Screw you. You've been invoking the company's name on broader issues for fifteen years now, and today, after a religious right preacher threatens you, you're now caving and retrenching and no longer supporting gay civil rights in the public arena. If this is some new revelation you just had, you only JUST realized you were breaching your duty to your shareholders, then you need to resign because you've been breaching that duty for 15 years now.

This is despicable. The CEO of Microsoft just said that the company has in fact decided to pull back from its support of gay rights because it is concerned about the religious right shareholders and religious right public. You heard it here, in Ballmer's own words.

You guys are such toast.

Read the rest of the post here. Read More......

Colbert King compares Family Research Council and its ilk to the KKK

Oh man. I LOVE this man. Read it.

They are not now and never will be the final arbiters of Christian beliefs and values. They warrant as much deference as religious leaders as do members of the Ku Klux Klan, who also marched under the cross.

Read More......

Latest on Microsoft, they're hoping it blows over

Seattle Times has a new story about the Gay and Lesbian Center demanding their award back.

At this point, I can tell you where things stand. It's the same story with every company we've taken on - from AOL to Paramount. They're having crisis meetings. Their public relations "experts" are telling them to "tough it out." "This will all blow over in a few days. Just keep telling folks this is all a misunderstanding and remind them how pro-gay we've been in the past."

Problem is, someone hasn't learned the lessons of history. America Online tried that strategy when they outed gay sailor Timothy McVeigh (not THAT Timothy McVeigh) back in 1997. The result? Because AOL kept lying and twisting the truth and avoiding coming clean, the story grew and grew and became one of the top 100 stories of the year, and AOL's brand was damaged, and remains so in the gay community to this day.

Then there was Paramount. Remember them? Oh, the silly gays are launching a boycott because of mean old Dr. Laura. Silly, silly gays. Everyone knows boycotts don't work. But this time, oops, they did. 170 top advertisers dropped Dr. Laura's TV show and she lost $30m in advertising from her radio show. And the show was canceled. All because those silly gays had a dream and didn't give up.

There are more examples. And a lot of them I've worked on. Every single time - like clockwork - the big bad company writes off the small insignificant gay activists and waits for the controversy to blow over. And every single time the controversy grows and grows until finally the company is shitting bricks, and their public relations people are replaced with folks who get it. And by the end, we win.

So, Microsoft, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. I've been here before. You haven't. Read More......

Another open thread

Just checking the news Read More......

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Maureen Dowd has a fun column today, comparing Cheney to Ratzinger....and manages a zing at Microsoft: "even Bill Gates seems to have caved to a preacher on gay rights legislation because of fear of a boycott"

So chat away.... Read More......

Senator Corzine "gets it" re: genocide/Darfur

While some in DC talk about moral values, they seem to think that means restricting basic rights for certain people rather than universal moral values. One does not need to be a christian fundamentalist to see that genocide is a crime against humanity, though sadly that group seems to be laggards on this disastor. Senator Corzine had an important piece of legislation written and passed by the Senate with bipartisan support, no less. In short the Darfur Accountability Act insists on well, accountability.

How quickly some forget about Rwanda and Cambodia, events which have occured during my own years on the planet. What I like about this is that it raises the issue not only with the US government, but Sudan, UN as well as the African Union as well. All too often countries look the other way because they are getting a piece of the action whether there is oil involed (as is the case with the government of Sudan) or weapons being sold.

Fellow African countries may have dropped the ball by throwing red meat to their home audiences when they turned a blind eye to the recent election in Zimbabwe but it's time they step up and take action with this crisis. The White House should have been leading this if they want to try and re-gain any of the respect that we had at one time, they would have taken the lead but they did not. If we want to talk the talk, it's time to walk the walk. Is it going to be "freedom and democracy" or "freedom and democracy but only in certain circumstances when political donors see a windfall of profits"?

Corzine gets it but does the White House? Read More......

Country for sale! Country for sale. Who wants to buy a country?

Yes, the gutting of America continues and it's either get with the program and make a profit or just go away. The slackers in the Forest Service apparently forgot that they are supposed to be capitalists raking in the mega-bucks instead of just being nature for the citizens of the country. They're probably a bunch of socialists and in fact, national forest-lovers are probably all socialists as well who just want to sit there and enjoy nature instead of making it profitable.

It looks like the country is headed more to 1900 than to 1950 the more I think about it. Let's turn back the clock on everything, except presidential vacations. The future is the past, horray! Read More......

It's the 1950's all over again - death threats for minorities at Christian university...again

Not quite Happy Days, but we've been going retro for some time now. We had the public smear campaigns like we hadn't seen since McCarthy, gutting the federal social programs, turning back the clock with gays and lesbians and now it's good old fashioned death threats for minorities who have the audacity of dating good ol' Christian white women.

Despite students and administrators who claim shock and surprise and immediately dismiss the case as having nothing to do with white women dating minority students, Trinity International University has been here before...just last year, in fact. The so-called Christian university seems to be struggling with the modern world and those daggum folks who is a fixin' to rise above where they's supposed to be. Ain't the Bible clear that good ol' white folks is meant to be with white folks and them there minorities is supposed to stay with their own kind?

Ain't life great with the Taliban states of American? Now where on earth would people like this ever get such crazy, outdated ideas? Read More......

Is voting and democracy a priority with the GOP?

After Fridays resignation by DeForest Soaries, the first chariman for the Election Assistance Commission created after the 2000 fiasco, one has to wonder.

"All four of us had to work without staff, without offices, without resources. I don't think our sense of personal obligation has been matched by a corresponding sense of commitment to real reform from the federal government," he said.

If only they were trying to pump oil like other good Americans they no doubt would have received a helping hand. Read More......