Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Another open thread
Post about other stuff too if you like. Dinner was delicious, thanks. Italian. Mmmm...
Read the rest of this post...
Evening open thread
Running off to grab some dinner with Joe in DC. Curious about something. What do you guys think the problem is with the left in this country today? Why are the non-profits, the Democratic party, our candidates, or members of Congress so meek? What's causing it? Or do you agree at all about the extent of the problem as I see it?
Read the rest of this post...
Yikes, that was a bit long (below)
Consider this an open thread. Didn't realize my post below was so long!
Read the rest of this post...
Cheryl Jacques vs. the Human Rights Campaign
For those of you not in the know, I'm talking about the largest gay civil rights group in Washington, DC and their former executive director who was recently fired.
Jacques seems to have started a PR offensive to portray herself as the great defender of gay rights, including marriage, and at least to my read, she's implicitly trying to get the point across that HRC is not the great defender of either gays or gay marriage. (Though Jacques doesn't say this directly, nor can she - she and HRC have mutually agreed not to comment on the circumstance surrounding her leaving HRC.)
The issue comes up again today because of today's article in the Boston Globe about Jacques, entitled "Jacques stands by marriage rights goal." The title on its face is a bit odd since I'm not sure who in the community isn't standing with the marriage rights goal. A lot of us, myself included, are not wholly convinced it was the best issue for us to be debating right now, but we also recognize that it's not like we had a choice. The issue came up, it's a central point of discussion now, so we have to engage and win on it. But as for "standing by marriage," again, this isn't really news. Unless, the article is implying Jacques is with marriage but "others" are against (i.e., HRC).
2. Jacques launched her own Web site today, in which she positions herself alongside MLK and Susan B. Anthony, defending gay America against un-named individuals who aren't as keen on aggressively defending our rights as she is (again, we are left guessing who she means). The open letter on the site is hardly objectionable - it's hard to disagree with Susan B and MLK, the mom and apple pie of civil rights politics. But I'm still left wondering why launch this site and this article now? What's she up to?
A friend noted the last line of the Globe piece: "Jacques, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2001, also said she might consider another run for office." Cheryl may be positioning herself for a run in local Massachusetts politics or nationally. Thus, the need to clear her name after being fired, but also to win over the gay vote. And again, that's understandable.
But here are a few thoughts, questions that nag at me:
1. I don't know why Jacques really left HRC. I suspect there had to be something pretty big for them to force her out within a year of her hiring. I've heard via the grapevine that some folks thought she was a bad boss, and clearly Jacques thinks that she got fired for being too aggressive. Honestly, I don't really care. I want to see HRC, and the rest of the gay rights movement, and the rest of the liberal movement and the Democratic party get its act together and start fighting back hard. I find the Jacques/HRC debate a distraction to all of that - worthy of inside-the-beltway wonks perhaps, but relevant to the national discussion, not really.
2. The counter argument is that the Jacques/HRC thing is very relevant to the national debate as, if she's right in her apparent implication that HRC is backing off somehow of the marriage issue, and more generally HRC feels it was too aggressive last year, then the public needs to know that our largest group has gone soft. My response to that is this. I can't name a single large gay group that was aggressive last year other than the gay Republican group, Log Cabin Republicans. The notion that HRC was "too aggressive" and "too edgy" last year strikes me as laughable. I WISH our groups were so aggressive as to be accused of being TOO truly aggressive, we should be so lucky. So it doesn't ring very true in my ear that Jacques was forced out for being too aggressive. I just don't buy it.
I've known folks at HRC for years - they contributed to our StopDrLaura.com campaign (even though that move was "controversial" to some) and I've worked with them over the years on a lot of issues of mutual interest, though so far I've not had them as a client (though I'd be happy to). I've worked with HRC staff since the early 90s, as well as people working at the other top gay groups. I've had my complaints with all the groups, and I still do, and document them here all the time. Just like I have complaints with most of the groups working on the left, gay and straight politics alike, and that includes the Democratic party. What bothers me about this Jacques/HRC thing is that it forces us in the gay community to take our eye off the ball.
The issue isn't whether HRC was TOO aggressive last year. The issue is why HRC wasn't MORE aggressive last year. The issue is why the other gay groups weren't more aggressive last year. Why the other liberal groups, women, anti-guns, civil rights, enviros, weren't more aggressive. And why the Democratic party and John Kerry weren't more aggressive. The idea of all of this descending into a debate as to how boldly aggressive HRC was last year is simply laughable. No offense to my friends at HRC,but the organization has been accused of many things over the years - being overly aggressive isn't one of them. And to some degree, that's the nature of big non-profits. It's hard to be as aggressive as you want to be, or need to be. I get that. And that's part of the reason I think outside agitators (including yours truly) should be better funded by the movement.
But getting back to the point, I'd like to see this story go away, but I doubt it will. Jacques feels the need to tell her story, to the best of her ability within the constraints of her agreement with HRC not to talk. And I get why she feels that need. And HRC will naturally feel the necessity of responding, and I get that too. And in principle, I like the idea of having a public debate about these kind of issues in general, because we need to know what went wrong in our movement over the past year(s), and what went wrong across the left, if only so that we can figure out how to do things better next time.
But having said all of that, I'll say it one last time. Other than the gay Republicans, I can't think of a single group on the left, gay or straight (and ironically, the gay "republicans" aren't really on the left, are they), that was "too aggressive" last year. To claim otherwise strikes me as an untrue effort to rewrite history, whatever its motivations.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks. Read the rest of this post...
Jacques seems to have started a PR offensive to portray herself as the great defender of gay rights, including marriage, and at least to my read, she's implicitly trying to get the point across that HRC is not the great defender of either gays or gay marriage. (Though Jacques doesn't say this directly, nor can she - she and HRC have mutually agreed not to comment on the circumstance surrounding her leaving HRC.)
The issue comes up again today because of today's article in the Boston Globe about Jacques, entitled "Jacques stands by marriage rights goal." The title on its face is a bit odd since I'm not sure who in the community isn't standing with the marriage rights goal. A lot of us, myself included, are not wholly convinced it was the best issue for us to be debating right now, but we also recognize that it's not like we had a choice. The issue came up, it's a central point of discussion now, so we have to engage and win on it. But as for "standing by marriage," again, this isn't really news. Unless, the article is implying Jacques is with marriage but "others" are against (i.e., HRC).
2. Jacques launched her own Web site today, in which she positions herself alongside MLK and Susan B. Anthony, defending gay America against un-named individuals who aren't as keen on aggressively defending our rights as she is (again, we are left guessing who she means). The open letter on the site is hardly objectionable - it's hard to disagree with Susan B and MLK, the mom and apple pie of civil rights politics. But I'm still left wondering why launch this site and this article now? What's she up to?
A friend noted the last line of the Globe piece: "Jacques, who ran an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2001, also said she might consider another run for office." Cheryl may be positioning herself for a run in local Massachusetts politics or nationally. Thus, the need to clear her name after being fired, but also to win over the gay vote. And again, that's understandable.
But here are a few thoughts, questions that nag at me:
1. I don't know why Jacques really left HRC. I suspect there had to be something pretty big for them to force her out within a year of her hiring. I've heard via the grapevine that some folks thought she was a bad boss, and clearly Jacques thinks that she got fired for being too aggressive. Honestly, I don't really care. I want to see HRC, and the rest of the gay rights movement, and the rest of the liberal movement and the Democratic party get its act together and start fighting back hard. I find the Jacques/HRC debate a distraction to all of that - worthy of inside-the-beltway wonks perhaps, but relevant to the national discussion, not really.
2. The counter argument is that the Jacques/HRC thing is very relevant to the national debate as, if she's right in her apparent implication that HRC is backing off somehow of the marriage issue, and more generally HRC feels it was too aggressive last year, then the public needs to know that our largest group has gone soft. My response to that is this. I can't name a single large gay group that was aggressive last year other than the gay Republican group, Log Cabin Republicans. The notion that HRC was "too aggressive" and "too edgy" last year strikes me as laughable. I WISH our groups were so aggressive as to be accused of being TOO truly aggressive, we should be so lucky. So it doesn't ring very true in my ear that Jacques was forced out for being too aggressive. I just don't buy it.
I've known folks at HRC for years - they contributed to our StopDrLaura.com campaign (even though that move was "controversial" to some) and I've worked with them over the years on a lot of issues of mutual interest, though so far I've not had them as a client (though I'd be happy to). I've worked with HRC staff since the early 90s, as well as people working at the other top gay groups. I've had my complaints with all the groups, and I still do, and document them here all the time. Just like I have complaints with most of the groups working on the left, gay and straight politics alike, and that includes the Democratic party. What bothers me about this Jacques/HRC thing is that it forces us in the gay community to take our eye off the ball.
The issue isn't whether HRC was TOO aggressive last year. The issue is why HRC wasn't MORE aggressive last year. The issue is why the other gay groups weren't more aggressive last year. Why the other liberal groups, women, anti-guns, civil rights, enviros, weren't more aggressive. And why the Democratic party and John Kerry weren't more aggressive. The idea of all of this descending into a debate as to how boldly aggressive HRC was last year is simply laughable. No offense to my friends at HRC,but the organization has been accused of many things over the years - being overly aggressive isn't one of them. And to some degree, that's the nature of big non-profits. It's hard to be as aggressive as you want to be, or need to be. I get that. And that's part of the reason I think outside agitators (including yours truly) should be better funded by the movement.
But getting back to the point, I'd like to see this story go away, but I doubt it will. Jacques feels the need to tell her story, to the best of her ability within the constraints of her agreement with HRC not to talk. And I get why she feels that need. And HRC will naturally feel the necessity of responding, and I get that too. And in principle, I like the idea of having a public debate about these kind of issues in general, because we need to know what went wrong in our movement over the past year(s), and what went wrong across the left, if only so that we can figure out how to do things better next time.
But having said all of that, I'll say it one last time. Other than the gay Republicans, I can't think of a single group on the left, gay or straight (and ironically, the gay "republicans" aren't really on the left, are they), that was "too aggressive" last year. To claim otherwise strikes me as an untrue effort to rewrite history, whatever its motivations.
Let's keep our eye on the ball, folks. Read the rest of this post...
Colin Powell lies about US tsunami aid on Today Show
UPDATE: Who knew? The initial US commitment was only $4m, not even $15m. From the Wash Times, no less:
The United States pledged $4 million the day after the tsunami struck. That amount was increased to $15 million on the second day of the crisis and to $35 million on the third day.Why do reporters let them get away with stuff like this? CrooksAndLiars.com has the video of Powell claiming that the US "initial commitment" of tsunami relief was $350 million. That's an outright lie. The initial commitment was $15 million, and that only came several days late after Bush got totally embarrassed by the Washington Post crtiticizing him for ignoring the tragedy. It's sad how much of lackey Powell has become. How many times will he lie for this administration? Read the rest of this post...
XM thinks Howard Stern is a problem but Dr. Laura isn't?
This is interesting. When the head of XM says: "Howard is a personality that is polarizing... he will also alienate several other listeneners." But then he gets asked about Dr. Laura and he defends her right to free speech. Sure sounds like he was trying to say having Howard on board would be a liability because of his polarizing nature. Then why isn't Dr. Laura a liability too?
Read the rest of this post...
George Bush, fan of "Fuck" apparently
Update: Feel free to call the Presidential Inaugural Committee and ask why George Bush is promoting a singer who yells "fuck" every other word. Time to make them sweat. Is Bush going to uninvite a key supporter to appease the fundies, or will he piss of the fundies by keeping the foul-mouthed supporter on the ticket?
Presidential Inaugural Committee
Phone: (202) 863-2005 | Fax: (202) 264-8919
Email: info@inaugural05.com
WingNutDaily is all upset that Bush is having Kid Rock, an apparently rather foul-mouthed rapper, sing at the inaugural. I have to admit, they have a point. If Kid Rock uses the "fuck" word while singing, then what business does Bush - the king of anti-"fuck" whose FCC is on a mission to ban the word (while Bush bans the action) - have promoting and embracing Kid Rock. It's not that Kid Rock is a problem, but if you're George Bush and you're beating the crap out of everyone out because of THEIR family values, then you don't pick a guy who says "fuck" every other word as your singer at your inaugural.
Oh, first it was the "holiday" tree and now this. See what happens in a second term. You just can't control your monster. Read the rest of this post...
Presidential Inaugural Committee
Phone: (202) 863-2005 | Fax: (202) 264-8919
Email: info@inaugural05.com
WingNutDaily is all upset that Bush is having Kid Rock, an apparently rather foul-mouthed rapper, sing at the inaugural. I have to admit, they have a point. If Kid Rock uses the "fuck" word while singing, then what business does Bush - the king of anti-"fuck" whose FCC is on a mission to ban the word (while Bush bans the action) - have promoting and embracing Kid Rock. It's not that Kid Rock is a problem, but if you're George Bush and you're beating the crap out of everyone out because of THEIR family values, then you don't pick a guy who says "fuck" every other word as your singer at your inaugural.
Oh, first it was the "holiday" tree and now this. See what happens in a second term. You just can't control your monster. Read the rest of this post...
Highest Weekly Jobless Claims Jump in Two Years
Looks like another banner year for George Bush's booming economy. From Reuters:
Initial U.S. jobless claims surged unexpectedly last week by 43,000, taking claims to their highest level since late September, a government report showed on Thursday -- but an official noted there were seasonal adjustment difficulties.When you have a good chunk of your labor force chronically unemployed or underemployed, they take jobs for the holiday to pay the bills. When those jobs go away, they return to the unemployment rolls. Seasonal adjustments might have been off because of this chronic underemployment, but it shouldn't have been that unexpected. Unless you think that the economy is "fantastic". Or was it "fabulous"? I forget. Read the rest of this post...
The number of Americans making first-time claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose to 364,000 in the week ended Jan. 1, up from a revised 321,000 in the previous week. It was the largest one-week gain since a 62,000 jump in the week ended March 30, 2002, the Labor Department said.
Wall Street economists' had forecast initial claims to rise to 331,000 from the originally reported 326,000 in the week ended Dec. 25, 2004.
A Labor Department analyst said the rise was pumped up more than expected because season adjustments were unable to account for the holiday-shortened week, and, as always, he urged observers to look at the four-week average. ...
Senator Boxer is actually challenging the election results!
I have to admit, I'm surprised. I know a lot of the blog/sites published the alert to contact her office on this (mine included), but truth be told, I didn't think it would help. Guess it did. Geez, I should have taken to heart my own lecture about anything being possible so long as we try. This is gonna get interesting.
A small group of Democrats agreed Thursday to force House and Senate debates on Election Day problems in Ohio before letting Congress certify President Bush's win over Sen. John Kerry in November.Read the rest of this post...
While Bush's victory is not in jeopardy, the Democratic challenge will force Congress to interrupt tallying the Electoral College vote, which had been scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. EST Thursday. It would be only the second time since 1877 that the House and Senate were forced into separate meetings to consider electoral votes.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., signed a challenge mounted by House Democrats to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which put Bush over the top. By law, a protest signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. Lawmakers are allowed to speak for no more than five minutes each.
Wow. Horrible photo from Indonesia
Someone sent me a horrendous photo from Indonesia. It's quite graphic, if you look at it closely, so I'm posting a link to it, rather than posting the photo directly. The sender raised a good point when sending it to me, namely, asking if our media was sanitizing what was really going on over there. At first I thought that was ridiculous - now looking at that photo closely, I think he may be right. As horrible as the films and photos have been, I'm not sure we're REALLY getting the true sense of the rampant death that this photo exhibits.
The photo is here. Read the rest of this post...
The photo is here. Read the rest of this post...
30,000 trained terrorists in Iraq
With all of the manpower, expertise and money you would think the US would be able to properly train a lot more Iraqi soldiers but the terrorists somehow seem to be able to round up the people, the supporters and the weapons with a lot less. The longer this drags on, the more I think this is mirroring the situation in South Vietnam where the government made it official policy to perform poorly in combat because otherwise the US and the money would pull out and leave.
Considering the US history with out-of-sight-out-of-mind they might be right. With all of the money being thrown into Iraq by the US, what is the incentive for the Iraqis to do the fighting? As it stands today, the Iraqi government also has the benefit of blaming the US for everything that goes wrong, so why would they want to change that? These guys have local power, plenty of money and a scapegoat. Why change?
Read the rest of this post...
Considering the US history with out-of-sight-out-of-mind they might be right. With all of the money being thrown into Iraq by the US, what is the incentive for the Iraqis to do the fighting? As it stands today, the Iraqi government also has the benefit of blaming the US for everything that goes wrong, so why would they want to change that? These guys have local power, plenty of money and a scapegoat. Why change?
Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
