Crazy Be Crazy: Politics, Apathy, And Michele Bachmann

Call me crazy, but I am WAY more excited to watch the utterly insane Michele Bachmann (the link is great, if a tiny bit NSFW) give the Republican rebuttal than I am to watch Obama's actual State of the Union address tonight. I mean, she's crazy. Scary… but just plain out there, which should hopefully provide lots of fun for everyone to pick through!

I can't quite pin down why, but I'm just not so very excited about the State of the Union address tonight. Maybe it's because I don't expect to hear anything good (or anything at all) about the things I care about: LGBT equality, healthcare, and education. Maybe it's because I'm afraid the President will spend his time pandering to the Right. Or maybe it's because I'm starting to care less and less about politics of late.

Ah… ye old political apathy. The most vile villain of all campaign managers! If someone doesn't win an election, they blame it on voter apathy. Obviously it's the voters fault that the politicians can't seem to excite them anymore. Perhaps AstraZeneca can come up with a political Viagra to help out with that problem…

But I'm having a hard time wondering why I should get so passionate right now. I was passionate during the Bush era because he was actively working against my interests. I was passionate during the 2008 election because the alternative to Obama would likely have put me on a big game preserve for future hunting shenanigans. I was passionate during the Prop 8 lead up because it could directly affect me.

Or maybe it was just because I was in my early 20's. Who knows?

What I do know is that right now I don't feel driven to fight and care deeply about politics. I've accepted that nothing good will be accomplished in the next two years, if anything is accomplished at all, at least on a Federal level. In city politics, I should be fired up about the mayoral campaign, but really… in a city where the mayor just tears down private property in the middle of the night and gets away with it, does what I want really matter? Yes, the Rahm situation is quit hysterical, but all the other candidates are laughably under-funded and under-impassioned.

So while I realize that I might be called a "bad citizen" by some of my more politically motivated friends for just not caring about the state of political affairs at the moment, I just don't see the point in getting all wrapped up in something that ultimately won't lead anywhere. Rahm will go all Bush v Gore if he needs to steal win the election here in Chicago and nothing is going to happen on a Federal level except a bunch of posturing. And none of that gets my belly all tickly at all. I mean really, Mitch McConnell strutting his stuff usually results in explosive vomit on my end.

In the meantime, I am more than happy to sit back and watch a crazy woman be crazy on a national scale. Believe me, her rebuttal will be the most entertaining thing on TV tonight, and I just can't wait!

Avenue Q Had It Right: Everyone's A Little Bit Racist

The continuing saga of Shirley Sherrod provides an excellent starting point for something that has bothered me for a very long time. Her point is not my point, mind you, but it leads in to what I've though for far too long. There are far too many people willing to accept racism within their own ethnicity but will then cry foul when someone of a different ethnicity expresses even the slightest racist thought.

That mentality is what is at the root of the entire Shirley Sherrod scandal. Some white dude edits a video that ostensibly shows an African American government official admitting she had a racist thought at one point in her life, distributes said video, the news orgy erupts with outrage, and she gets fired in the process. A few days later, people take a look at the context of what she was saying and realize that she was actually admitting that she knew race had nothing to do with the situation at hand and that people needed to work together to solve societies ills, and now everyone is all apologizing to her and offering her new jobs. But why did people not take the time to go through all the information when the story first hit?

Here's the bottom line of it all though: there are racist white people and there are racist black people and there are racist Hispanic people and there are racist (insert ethnicity here) people. Until we can accept that and admit that, then the dialogue on race goes no where. As long as we pretend that members of a different ethnic background should be immune to racist thought while accepting it within their own, nothing moves forward.

Admitting that at one point in your life you had a racist thought is not the end of the world. Well, it should not be the end of the world. What it should be is an admission of fault which lead to a growing understanding. Saying that I once had a racist thought, but that I then examined that thought and it lead me to the conclusion that every one suffers and that we all should work together to resolve differences is the correct attitude. Racist thoughts are bred into us through our societies and the people we surround ourselves with and the media we consume. It will happen that, on occasion, a person will have a racist thought. The condemnation should not come at admitting that thought, rather the condemnation should come if a person chooses to act on or accept that racist thought. Do you act upon that thought negatively, or do you take the initiative to analyze it and work beyond it?

There is a psychological theory on racism (which I, of course, cannot find or remember the name of at the moment) which looks at racist thought as a forgone conclusion. It is not whether someone has racist thoughts that determines if someone is racist, because everyone has racist thoughts. Instead it looks at how quickly we move away from those thoughts. The theory goes that when presented with a situation, we immediately jump to our most basest thought first, then move to a more rational thought. When it comes to race, this is where racism is measured. We may think racist thought initially, but the measure of racism is how quickly we move beyond that thought to a more rational view of the situation.

If we cannot admit to having racist thoughts, how can we examine those thoughts for what they are and learn to grow beyond them? That, in a roundabout way, is what Shirley Sherrod was getting at in her video. If we cannot accept that racism is real and alive, we cannot fight against it. We cannot fight an enemy that we do not believe exists, and that includes a belief we hold.

I'll only give a passing mention to the hypocrisy of the far right holding this story up as a beacon as if they were revealing some seedy underbelly of the Obama Administration. One woman does not an administration make More importantly, one should always clean their own house before criticizing someone else's home. Using this woman as a smokescreen is pretty obvious and just a little pathetic.

But Shirley is right. We all need to move on, and we can't do that until we admit that there is a problem that needs to be solved.

Repealing DADT: I'm Concerned About A Compromise

There is a lot of news today about a potential deal that may have been worked out between Congress and the White House/DOD concerning the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don't Tell policy. Here's the breakdown of what I've seen so far:

The bill will provide for the repeal of DADT under the assumption that two conditions are met. First, the study that is currently under way concerning how the repeal of DADT would effect military readiness must be completed. Second, the President, Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must sign off that the findings in the report are acceptable and that they agree that the repeal of DADT works in favor of military readiness. Only when those two conditions are met will the DADT be officially considered repealed.

It's progress. It's a step forward toward the goal of getting rid of the discriminatory, putrid DADT policy and another step toward full equality in this country. I would argue that the full integration of LGB folk into the Armed Services is perhaps the most important equality measure this country can implement now, as I feel most other rights will fall in line after LGB people are allowed to serve their country openly, honestly and courageously. So yes, it is a progressive step.
Well… at least it sounds like a progressive step. As some have pointed out, this may not be as great as it sounds.

If you notice in my description above, there was no specific time table laid out for the completion of the two prerequisites. There is also no specific mention of protections for LGB service members against discrimination. These two issues are very troubling to me.

Without a time table, the President or his lackeys (Secretary of Defense and Chairman JCOS) can simply sit on this thing until they deign it OK for service members to serve openly. The report could be delayed for "further analysis" or the three signees may not agree and nothing would move forward. This would, in effect, completely halt the repeal of DADT. Even if the President rushes the study through, all it would take to stop the Repeal effort would be that the Chairman simply not sign off on the changes and nothing would happen and no one would have any recourse as Congress would have already passed the buck.

Without specific protections included in the repeal effort, we are for all intents and purposes putting the military back to where it was pre-DADT. For those that don't recall, DADT was considered a compromise at it's time, a way for LGB folk to serve in the military without getting discharged. The idea was that they could serve just as long as they did not "flaunt" their sexuality. As we all know, things did not work out quite like that, as anytime someone tangentially related to the service member sneezes in a gay way the service member gets the boot, but if you look at the military prior to DADT, they were able and allowed to kick men and women out for suspicion of gayness. They had a pure and simple policy that stated No Queers. Without specific protections, we're rolling back to that same era where it is up to the military how to manage The Gays… and history shows us they do not like to manage us very well.

I like the idea of DADT repeal and I have to say that I'm afraid that if we don't accept this "deal" then we won't get anything at all, but I also have to say that I don't have a single good feeling about this. Not one bit. Nothing about this smells good for our people. I feel like we're being stung along here and oddly right before the 2010 election season begins in full.

We need full repeal. We need specific protections. We need real assurances. I get that those things won't happen tomorrow, but these are the things that should happen. However, in the meantime we have LGB service members that are being bled out of the service and that needs to stop immediately, and this bill may be the only way to make that happen.

Here's what I would propose: instead of giving three people total and utter control of the repeal process, pass a bill that calls for full integration within 1 year's time with specific deadlines for integration including an immediate moratorium on expulsions based on DADT. Also include very specific non-discrimination policies with that bill. And do not give three people who have zero accountability to the Congress complete control. Pass it through Congress so that any threat of a veto can be overturned. And do it today.

The Case Of The Missing Insurance

Here's a fun story. A woman who works for the federal government sued for the right to have her wife covered by her employer's health insurance program. Arguing that denying her partner insurance meant that she was not getting equal pay for equal work because the costs of buying private insurance for her gal was astronomically higher than what her heterosexual co-workers paid to have their spouses covered under the company insurance program, a federal judge ORDERED the federal government to cover the plaintiff's wife.

So, you know, a Federal Judge comes along and makes a ruling against the Obama Administration, who of course follows that ruling as is required by law, right? Well, no, not really. Instead, the Administration tells Blue Cross/Blue Shield to not process the claim and then makes this quaint claim that they are not allowed to cover the woman because of DOMA. BUT A FEDERAL JUDGE TOLD YOU THAT YOU CANNOT DENY THIS WOMAN BENEFITS!!

*Ahem* Excuse me a moment, just need to … recover here…

Anyway, John Berry, who is the head of the Office of Personnel Management, or the VP of HR of the Federal Government so-to-speak, was questioned about this decision of the Obama Administration at the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute (hosted by the Victory Fund). Oh, did I mention that Berry is also the highest ranking openly 'mo member of the Administration? Yeah, that's a bit relevant. Anyway, here's his adorable response:

She was looking at this, and both her and the Justice Department, and Matt's here from the Justice Department, concluded that basically neither I nor the president have the authority to do this. Which is why Congresswoman Baldwin's legislation is so essential. And why the administration is inaudible on behalf of it it and is helping work with her to get it done. Because it will give me the authority to do it and as soon as we get it, the president will signed it we'll do it.

Now the judge has ordered me to go ahead and do it. And the lawyers are, you know, finding out what what we can do or not and they're going to tell me what I can do. And if the Justice Department says we can pay it, I'd be happy to pay it. If I can't, I can't.

To sum up, he won't because he can't. But he can, because he was ordered to by a GD FEDERAL JUDGE! Which means someone above him is telling him he's not allowed to. Hmmm…. Wonder who would have the authority, or at least perceived authority, to block a federal judge's ruling? I'll give you one guess, and it's that guy that's made lots of promises to the gays and has done his best so far to not live up to as few of them as possible...

Is It Us, Or Him?

A lot has been said in the last few months about President Obama's dedication, or lack thereof, to the LGBT community. I've chimed in on it, others have spoken on it. There's been no lack of screaming on our part for action NOW. Lately, there's been some push back on the issue. Not that we should be waiting in line, but more so that we are just impatient, and on the extreme end, the gay community is being called racist.

I've take some time to think about the accusations. Sometimes when you are enraged at someone else, it's hard to see your own faults, so I thought there could be some credence to these accusations. Is the gay community racist, which has as it's core leadership a whole slew of white people? Are we just being impatient children? Do we even have a valid reason to be screaming for so much so quickly?

When I look at the racist claims, I think there's something that definitely needs to be said on that front. It's true that there is an unseemly divide between the white gay community and the black gay community. Most of it has to do with sense of identity, where many white men that exclusively (or almost exclusively) have sex with other men identify as Gay. That is their identity, a Gay Man. I don't believe the same can be said for the equivalent black community, who identify more with being Black Men than with being Gay Men. There's a cultural divide, and it's true that there's a gap that needs to be bridged there. But I don't think that racism, or even lack of cultural understanding, plays that heavily in the LGBT community's cry for action from President Obama. I think that has more to do with a man that made promises and has yet to show indications of delivery on those promises.

When I look at the claims that the LGBT community is being too impatient with the President, I think there is some truth mixed with fiction in this claim. We need to be honest with ourselves and understand that he has only been in office six months. One simply cannot accomplish all of one's political promises in that time frame. You need to rally the base, make deals with key supporters in the legislature, convince the public, etc., particularly when we talk about potential major cultural shifts like repealing DOMA. Look at the fight we're having now with Health Care, and to me that should be an absolute given. There's also now "moral" component to that debate. When he takes up the anti-DOMA cause, there will be just as much rabble-rousing from the Right, if not more. That's a fight that needs full attention, I think. However, even though DOMA is a big issue and should likely be worked on when it can be a focus issue, President Obama has given no indication since he took office that he will tackle the issue. If anything, it's been repeated that he's not interested in the issue right now, and that's my concern. I'll work with you for Health Care, but you have to work with me on DOMA.

So do we have valid reasons for screaming at the Executive Branch for their lack of action on our issues? I believe so. I've said it many, many times: The moment you let up the pressure is the moment you lose the fight. If we don't constantly demand the attention of our law makers, we will never get it. However, we do need to be reasonable with regard to the President's plans and time tables. It would be nice to have more information about when the administration plans on tackling our issues. An all-inclusive ENDA was introduced to Congress today. Talk and work on repealing (or at least suspending) Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been buzzing. Those are two key policy changes that need to be enacted. So there is some movement. But our big money items, the items that we want to see before mid-term elections… those are what I'm worried about and what I want to hear more about.

Ultimately, I don't think the LGBT community hates is mad at President Obama due to deep seated racism, nor do I think we are being unfair in our demands. I do think we need to hold him to the fire and make sure he's accountable to the promises he's made, and I do think we need to rationally understand the process, but overall I think the LGBT community is doing what it can to forge ahead. Just like every other cause has previously. We don’t "stand in line and wait our turn," because we've seen that doesn't accomplish anything. We ask, we demand, and we fight for what we want.

Solis To DoL: I'm Proud Of Pride

A friend passed this along to me, and I felt it only prudent to share this with everyone. Given the current atmosphere surrounding President Obama's Administration and his lack of movement on promises he made to our community, this letter by current Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to Department of Labor employees shows that this administration is still very much more gay forward than any other before it.

As a little back story, the DoL has posters in its offices proclaiming Pride month, following suit with President Obama's proclamation earlier this month of National Gay and Lesbian Pride month. Some employees saw fit to desecrate those posters. This is the response of Secretary Solis, in a letter titled "I'm Proud Of Pride":

Dear Colleagues:

On June 1st, I initiated an elevator poster campaign in the Frances Perkins Building, with the goal of recognizing department initiatives and accomplishments, and to share my thoughts and priorities with the entire DOL team. We are currently exploring ways to provide the same information to BLS and to our regional offices.

Something else far more important also happened on June 1st. The President issued a proclamation recognizing June as national Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month. I was excited to have an opportunity, through our poster campaign, to acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of the LGBT community and affirm our commitment to all workers across the country. The posters went up in the elevators on Monday.

As a founding member of the LGBT Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, I was particularly pleased to have the opportunity to be the first Secretary in the department’s history to publicly recognize Pride Month. I am very proud of that.
It appears, however, that some members of the Labor Department team have a different view, as it has come to my attention that most of the posters have been continually defaced or removed. On several occasions, even the poster frames have been torn completely off the elevator walls.

My reaction to this news has ranged from disappointment to outrage.

I do not believe these actions represent the majority of our employees, so I refuse to let this situation define us. But I do want to make myself absolutely clear: Respect for others is non-negotiable at the U.S. Department of Labor.

As the enforcer of fair and safe workplaces across the country, each and every one of us must be committed to working with all employers and employees, no matter their race, color, religion or sexual orientation. And as colleagues, each and every one of us must embrace, value, and celebrate the contributions of the entire Labor Department family.

The posters will stay up until the end of the month, and will be replaced immediately if they are removed or destroyed. This is a small way to remind everyone here how I, and most of our colleagues, feel about this issue.

We will continue to recognize and celebrate diversity at the U.S. Department of Labor, through the posters in the elevators, as well as education initiatives, special observances and events. I would very much like to hear your suggestions and thoughts on how we do this, as well as how we constructively address this specific issue at the department.

As always, I appreciate your efforts on behalf of working people across the country. And I wish each and every one of you a very happy Pride Month.

Hilda L. Solis
U.S. Secretary of Labor

I love this letter for many reasons, not the least of which being that she is stating "They're here, they're queer, get used to it" in a slightly different way. Going into Pride weekend in most of the major cities in the country, and with the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots just around the corner, I think this is an appropriate little something for us LGBT's to nibble on.

How To Waste A $25 Million Investment

Here's how the administration can easily throw away $25 MILLION of our tax money: Fire a highly decorated and commended fight pilot/instructor that has served our country gallantly over the last 18 years. Go ahead, fucking fire him. He's one of them there 'mosexuals, he obviously can't perform his duties. Oh, wait.. You mean Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach has been doing it for the last 18 years and is only 2 years away from retirement with full military pension, which he'll lose if Obama doesn't act RIGHT FUCKING NOW?

Oh, that's cool. No worries, I really enjoy watching our military fall to the shitter because of some fucked up notion of sexual normalization by old white dudes in purty uniforms (most likely designed by another queer guy). It's really no big deal that we're in the midst of a losing war and a financial crisis, $25 million in investments, not even mentioning the courage and integrity the administration will be tossing out the window, is really just chump change, right?

Obama, you made a promise. Now live up to it. Stop fucking around and get it done. We're really over it. Our community is on the brink of losing it because we've heard absolutely nothing from you. It's like we're AIDS in the 80's: if you just don't mention us, maybe we'll go away. Sadly for your team, that's not the case. We aren't going away, and we will continue to demand equality and continue to force your hand as best we can until you live up to your campaign promises. And not in your (supposed) next term, but in this term. You know, the one you promised to fix things in.

Fight For Your Own Money, Please

Yesterday, I spent the evening watching talking heads speak about Tea Bagging. I watched Rachel Maddow giggle with glee as she marveled at the protestors ignorance of the colloquial meaning of Tea Bagging. I listened as Keith Olberman derided the Tea Baggers as puppets of the grand corporate marketing scheme. I even witnessed Anderson Cooper admit to not being able to effectively talk while being Tea Bagged. And it was all good stuff.

But with all the Liberal pundits spouting off about the hilarious double entendre of Tea Bagging, I had to stop and wonder exactly what they were protesting. Just like every protest, some random, non-related people showed up to join in the protesting fun. Racists freaks, anti-Government bums, Christian "Rights" groups, and even pro-war protesters (whatever the fuck that means) showed up to join in the fun. I swear, it's like a gay rights march in reverse. The problem I had though is that the talking heads tended to focus on those fringe characters to deride the protestors as Crazy or Insane when the fringe participants were hardly representatives of the majority there. They weren't shunned in most cases, mind you, but I hardly think one man carrying a racist, anti-Obama poster counts as the totality of the message the larger group was trying to convey.

I'm willing to set aside a few of the fallacies of this "grass-roots" movement to examine the concept. Sure, it wasn't a grass roots movement, it was backed by and supported by corporate lobbyist firms. And sure, many of the protestors were protesting Obama's bailout package… even though they supported Bush's less-stringent version just a few months ago. Putting that all aside, do these people have a point? Will the raising of taxes on the wealthiest Americans (which, by the by, would not affect the overwhelmingly vast majority of the protestors in the least) really do anything to save our country? And will these bailout packages make a difference?

In my opinion… well, I have no idea if the bailouts will save us. Finance is not my area, and it's obviously not the area of most of the talking heads on TV. Most of the experts seem to think they will help, but I've grown weary of partisan experts anyway, so it's hard to say. What I can say is that if you get a chance to watch last night's Daily Show, you should probably do so, as their guest did a great job at explaining why the past 10 years of deregulation have led us to this point, and how re-regulating industries rife with greed can only benefit us all. If we need to bail out all the financial institutions in this country in order to reign in their practices, than so be it.

What else I know is that I'm still amazed at how easily poor and middle class Americans can be manipulated to fighting for rich people. I did not hear of many wealthy people showing up at these Tea Parties, the people that are actually affected by Obama's tax increases. Instead I saw tons of middle-class white people crying. Why? I still have no idea. Just like yesterday's post about the fight for Marriage, I am baffled at why middle-class people that will NEVER be in that top 1% of the wealth curve insist on fighting for rich people's right to have, keep and make more money than them. It's as if they are still disillusioned into believing they'll be there some day, if only they buy enough lottery tickets…

I just don't understand is all. We've got A LOT to fight for in our lives, and these people choose to fight over some one else's money. Let the rich people complain about their money themselves! Stop fighting about what isn't yours in the first place and get back to working on things that will actually affect your quality of life.

It's OK For Me, Not For You

Iowa is the new bastion of progressive thought? Really? Sweet! I like having neighbors that are welcoming and accepting of me… now if I could only get my home state to stop pussyfooting around and approve equal rights….

The gayterwebs (coined it!) are abuzz over the past few days over Obama's lackluster response to the Iowa Supreme Court decision. Before I tear into it dissect it, here's the snippet that has many of us LGBT folk up in arms:

"The President respects the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage. Although President Obama supports civil unions rather than same-sex marriage, he believes that committed gay and lesbian couples should receive equal rights under the law."

Straight from the horses mouth there kids. Or the horses website, at least.

So he supports "equal rights" at the same time as supporting un-equal and second-class-status-granting Civil Unions? My brain hurts just thinking about this dissonance, I can't imagine what it must be like to actually believe this bull shit! How is it possible to support equal rights at the same time support "separate-but-kinda-not-equal" rights in Civil Unions?

Nurse: I'm sorry sir, only family are allowed to visit right now
Civilly Unioned "Partner": Oh, that's my legally defined partner, although not exactly the same as my Husband, but close enough
Nurse: Wait… so is that you're legal Husband?
CUP: Well, sort of, but not really. Technically, we're suppose to have the same rights as married couples, but someone in the political atmosphere decided that he needed to segregate us further from our peers by not allowing us to be treated equally
Nurse: I'm confused then… are you family or not?
CUP: See, it's a complicated issue…

And on and on and on…. It's an inane difference that will only serve to muddy up the idea of marriage and confuse the public. Yesterday, Jim Douglas, Governor of Vermont, said the reason he vetoed the marriage equality bill passed by the Vermont House and Senate was that he sees no difference between marriage and civil unions. Great! So why arbitrarily separate the two then? If there is really no difference between Marriage and Civil Unions, why should the different terminology exist?

Is it because people like Jim Douglas and Barack Obama see us LGBT folk as different than them? Is it because they do not feel that our relationships are as valid as theirs? Is it because they don't really respect me and my family? The answer, in case you were wondering, is Yes to all the above.

The real litmus test here, kittens, is would Jim Douglas or Barack Obama change their Marriages to Civil Unions? Would they start referring to their wives as legally binded partner? Would they want to have that discussion with a hospital worker who is ignorant of the differences? I doubt it. And if it's not good enough for them, why the fuck should I accept that it's good enough for me?

A Sailor Walks Into A Debate...

I need you to check out this story. If that isn't a shining example of why the military's current anti-gay policies need to go, I don't know what is. People should not have to live like this, not when they are serving in defense of our country. The only thing that DADT improved (if you can even use that word) is that it is no longer a dishonorable discharge from the military, as it would have been for David.

The policy needs to end, and not in a quaint little "when the time feels right" time-frame that we've recently been blindsided with. The time will never "feel right" for bigots, same goes for marriage equality. It is the Government's job to force these changes and do what is right and correct. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the President to live up to his promises, and I think it's fair to call him out on his presumed failures when his people are making statements to the effect of "Yeah… we don't really care about DADT…. TY for you Vote though! LYLAS!"

Check out David's blog, then feel free to copy and paste my letter to Obama from yesterday and send it to the President. Or write your own. Modify it and send it to your Representative and Senator. This policy has to go, and it's going no where as long as we allow our Government to sit back and do nothing.

This Week's Letter To Obama

Dear President Obama,

Over the weekend, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced to the country that the administration has decided that the repeal of the aged, dated, useless, and anti-military Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy will be put on the back burner, or more accurately "pushed down the road." As I'm sure you are quite aware, DADT has been responsible for the termination of several thousands of military careers. When considering how many of those careers were interpreters in highly needed areas or intelligence analysts, it would also be fair to assume that these terminations have caused a few causualties as well. Casualties that could possibly been prevented if our country would simply choose to not enshrine anti-gay sentiment into law.

Kicking the repeal of DADT down the road will only result in a less prepared and less effective military. It's not even a matter of fairness at this point, it's a matter of making sure our best military personnel are being used in both wars that we are currently involved in. We, as a country, simply cannot afford to sit back and allow qualified soldiers to be sent home day after day if we expect to win these fights!

I'm asking you to reconsider this generic, non-conclusive "down the road" timeline for fulfilling your campaign promise or repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's time for the Lesbian and Gay population of this country to serve in the military without the constant fear of being "found out," and without being made to feel ashamed of who they are. Every man and woman that serves bravely in our military deserves to be treated like a hero for their service, but as of right now many of them are made to feel unwelcomed. This cannot continue to happen. Please, be the Change you promised America and actually fulfill your promise to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

Sincerely,

Dickie

Lamentation For Taxes And The Economy

I'm very frustrated lately with the entire issue of economic stimulus. It seems to be a war completely at odds with itself. The federal level of the government is able to do a few things that can help the American public out (and a few things that screw us over… thanks AIG-fiasco), and they can "finance" that aid through foreign investment and by simply printing more money. Meanwhile, the state and local level governments are running into the same economic "crisis" level as everyone else, yet they don't have the ability to simply make money appear. Instead, they have to take money out of their constituents pockets to make ends meet, who are in turn simply trying to make ends meet.

As an example of why this is frustrating me, let's look at the great state of Illinois. Obama's recent stimulus bill has already started to benefit many of us, myself included, by padding our pay checks with anywhere from $10-25 each pay day. Some say that's just silliness, but really it makes a bit more sense than a lump of $500 or so, even though it adds up to roughly the same. We'll actually spend that money because we consider $20 to be basically negligible. It doesn't make sense to us to throw $20 into the savings account, so we go ahead and go to the movies or buy a t-shirt or something with that money, which helps to fuel the economy. Personally, I'm a fan of this method.

Here's the catch in Illinois though, and probably many other states. Our Illinois State Income Tax is 3% flat. Generally speaking too, with your standard deduction on your yearly taxes, you aren't getting a dime back from the state, and if you are, most of us don't think it's even worth filing for. However, our new Governor has decided that he needs to hike our State Income Tax to 4.5%. Guess how much that tax hike works out to be for the average worker? If you guessed $10-25 a pay check, well then you're a smart cookie!

So Illinois wants to make our economic stimulus work out to a zero sum game. In theory, we'll receive a much higher Standard Deduction, but let's be real, states aren't in the business of giving money back to their people. Being a Liberal, I should be excited that my state wants more taxes, because that should mean more programming or better transportation or a CTA that's worth a damn. But I'm not excited about this measure, because all this does is "balance the budget," which is really another way of saying "raises for state legislators."

The economy will not improve if we get all the money that's coming back to us taken away by another entity. Point blank. Here in Chicago, the city thought it'd be fun sell off all the parking meters in the city to an outside company, who promptly raised the cost to park and increased the hours we are required to pay for those spots. Want to park on a street near downtown? Perfect, that'll be $3.50 a hour please. Want to take advantage of the Sunday parking holidays to go shopping in another neighborhood (and spur the economy…)? Oh, that's cool and all, but now you have to pay to park on Sundays. $2 an hour. Until 10pm.

These aren't things that will spark our economy! Instead of doing what we are asking our major corporations to do, which is cut down on expenses and needless spending to maintain profitability, our local governments are simply raises prices. Ask ANY company what happens when you raise prices in a recession. Go ahead. I'll give you a minute to do a quick Google search and check it out. That's right! Your sales drop and profits disappear! It's like magic! The only difference here is that when it comes to governments and taxes, we don't get the option to not shop there anymore. Well, I suppose we do, but there's a HUGE barrier to doing so.

It's Time For A TEA Party! And, No, It's Not The IML Kind...

I have to admit, I'm a bit amused by the newest sham being thrown together by the Conservatives of our country. On Tax Day, April 15, the right wing plans to protest all across the country at the same time to show their disgust for such things as:

- "How dare they let them there brown people into my country… that my ancestors stole from them…"
- "How dare the Gov'mint try to provide realistic solutions to the our farcical health care system" - "How dare them Warshinton Elitists attempt to tax themselves more so that we average Amuricans can pay our bills better."

And my personal favorite:

- "How dare them bastards support equal rights for them gays and them blacks and them Latinos! This is my country!"

They are calling it the TEA Party (how quaint), and acronym for Taxed Enough Already. Which you are Taxed Enough Already. If you make less than $150,000 a year, which is why your taxes won't go up with the Obama Administration's plan, but hey, who's actually taking the time to read things when it's much easier to listen to the Republican Savior Bill O'Reilly.

It simply amazes me that somehow, poor and middle-class white x-tians have convinced themselves that they should be fighting for the rights of rich white atheists instead of for their own rights and their neighbors rights. Or doing things like, I don't know, helping and loving your neighbor… or working to alleviate to that pesky poverty issue… or whatever.

To be honest, the above quotes are paraphrased. It seems that haters feel the need to hide their bigoted thoughts with as flowery a wording as they can manage. But, if you feel so inclined as to see the actual wording (and to be fair to the opposition… which is more than they'd consider), here's the link to Official TEA website. You can even get names and phone numbers of local idiots near you! Except Chicago, because the organizer is apparently to afraid to post his/her own information...

How To Be A Leader

This is one of the reasons I like Obama. In the wake of gynormous shit storm known as the "AIG forgets that tax payers aren't fond of their money being spent on the wealthy who don't need it in the middle of a recession when we're all suffering pretty hardcore," or what some have more simply called the AIG Fiaso (simpler... But does it truly convey the depth of the situation?), Obama had this to offer:

"Everybody's pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the
Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm
the president," he said at a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California.

Well, I'll be! Look at that, a leader taking responsibility for, you know, leading. And a politician at that!

I'm Still Confused...

I'm not suite sure how I feel about Obama making his first interview since the Inauguration to a non-US news organization. I could care less that it was an Arab station, what annoys me is that it wasn't an American station. Now, I fully get that we need to rebuild the bridges with the world that have been torn down by the ass-hat that previously help the Office of President, but I also think that Obama owes us the first… well, just about the first everything. He is our President, not the President of the World.

Ok, ok, "the US is the leader of the world," blah blah blah. Still, we are the citizens that hoisted him to Office. We deserve that first whatever, if only for symbolism's sake. Right now, we're all a little fragile. We, or are friends and family, are losing our jobs. Over 50,000 jobs lost this week alone. The queer community is still hurt over the pains of the past few months. The Red States are still bitter about being angry, hateful, ugly people. We have problems, and we'd like to hear some positive words from our leader.

I know I've sounded like a pessimist when it comes to Obama, but I will defend myself. We always must ask for EXACTLY what we want, never anything less, never compromise. If you ask for what you think is a good compromise, you will end up with even less. Aim for the stars, because even if you miss, you'll still reach the moon… and all the second grade BS. I demand the absolute best from Obama, and I won't settle for anything less.

My Typical Day At The Office

Coworker 1: Man, Fox News was all over that Obama Oath crap.

Coworker 2: Yeah, you know, he's not President until he says it right.

Coworker 1: Whatever. Fox is so Fair And Balanced, haha

Coworker 2: They are man! C'mon!

Coworker 1: Oh… sure. Hey look, I think I just saw a pig fly!

Me: Stay out of it, Stay out of it, Stay out of it… resist the urge!

Obama Caves On Oath Of Office

Obama decided that it would be better to take the Oath of Office again, even though it was completely unnecessary, than it would be to tell the whiny, right-wing idiots to shut the hell up and stop acting like little children. Essentially, he called the Chief Justice to the White House yesterday to re-adminster the Oath of Office using the correct placement of the word "faithfully" because some people were screaming that he isn't technically President until he takes the Oath verbatim, even after Obama's team said specifically that they would not re-do the Oath. Whiny. Fucking. Bitches.

What really irks me about this is that it confirms to me that my voice in this administration doesn't matter. Why is that? Because I can raise a LEGITIMATE concern about the use of an extremist hate-mongerer to deliver the blessing and invocation over Obama's inauguration and I am told to shut the hell up and get back to the corner. However, when a few bitchy, irritating fucks complain about the misuse of ONE FUCKING WORD, well then, the entire administration needs to come to a halt to appease the idiots that DIDN'T EVEN VOTE FOR OBAMA!

The VAST majority of the LGBT community worked the asses off to get Obama elected, and many more supported him unconditionally, yet we are handed a slap in the face named Rick Warren and told that our priorities aren't that important. But heaven forbid the right-wing talking heads at Fox News dare say something negative! Hurray Obama, Bill O'Reilley just said something bad about you closing Guantanamo, you need to change your mind on it and re-open it immediately!

I Wish I Could Get Away With Being As Stupid As These People...

I'm sure everyone has watched yesterday's Inauguration ceremonies celebrating Barack Obama's ascendency into the Presidency. Notice the key words in that sentence: ceremonies and celebrating. Because that's all yesterday was, a formalized ceremony that is not at all required, but the people like to celebrate these achievements, so we hold these massive to-do's so we the people can enjoy the regime change.

Since we've all watched the ceremony, we've all seen Obama's slightly flubbed Oath of Office. And if we've seen it, then the crazy idiot right-wingers have as well. And if they've seen, then they must be screaming that it must mean that Obama isn't really our President yet, which is exactly what I said they'd do the moment I saw it happen.

To be sure, the twits are running around on national TV screaming about how the Oath is in the Constitution, so it must mean that Obama can't become President until he says it exactly the way it's written. Well, that's a quaint notion. If we were going to follow that path of following the Constitution to the exact word of it, me thinks their dear former-President Bush would be hanging in some gallows by now.

What they don't realize is the Oath is truly a formality. It's not a necessity. Obama became President yesterday at noon Eastern. Period. Regardless of an Oath or ceremony or miracle from god, he became President. There's no avoiding that.

Good luck with your lawsuits and whatnot. Please make sure you go on TV as much as possible to complain about it as well because we all need to see your faces and know who to point and laugh at while in public.

A Little Bit Of Hope

Just want you all to remember that even though we've experienced some really rough times over the past three months, tomorrow brings the brightest hope our community has seen in a long time. Regardless of the Rick Warren fiasco, or the HBO debacle, or even the Prop 8 quagmire from hell, Barack Obama's inauguration ushers in a new world of potential gains for the LGBT community.

However you choose to spend and/or celebrate tomorrow, we have to keep hope alive that our lives will be better over the next few years. Not just because of Barack Obama, although I think he and his administration will be a catalyst in some respects, but because we deserve better lives. We deserve equality. We deserve respect. We deserve to be treated fairly and with love and acceptance.

Tomorrow's inauguration means so much more than just another President assuming his throne.

Yep, Warren Is Still An Ass

Towleroad has a great article up about the Warren fiasco and why he should not be left off the hook simply because he supports AIDS charities in Africa. You should absolutely read it.

First, let's just clear the air here about AIDS charities in Africa, and this includes the Bush support of the same. AIDS in Africa is largely considered a straight problem. It's not a gay disease because gays are murdered or chased out of whatever area they live. So to say that they are helping AIDS relief in Africa is not to say that they are supporting anything pro-gay whatsoever. It is nice to see charitable work going toward such a cause, but when you consider the next part...

AIDS work in Africa is largely tied to religious organizations. Just like Bush's support, Warren's support of AIDS work in Africa revolves around avidly Christian groups. Groups that will force someone to accept Christianity as their religion or they don't get treatment. Very Christ-like...

Warren worked with one Christian ass-hat leader in particular, who, it turns out, is just a sweet heart:

"With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. 'Arrest all homos,' read placards. And: 'A man cannot marry a man.' Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a website he created, along with photos and home addresses. 'Homosexual promoters,' he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda’s children into their lifestyle. Soon afterwards, two of President Yoweri Museveni’s top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding."

So, to put this plainly, the man Warren supports in Africa to run his AIDS charity work is directly responsible for the persecution of LGBT folk in Africa. Warren bankrolled his operation. He is just as responsible. And Warren is the man our future President has asked to bless his Presidency and our country in 12 days. I Can't wait...