This Is Your Republican Party, America

I was angry when the Republicans controlled the Federal House, Senate and the Presidency (and the Supreme Court, if we're being honest). But that anger never reached the level of Rage that I feel today.

In some sweeping and utterly disgusting moves, the GOP has truly shown it's colors today. Remember, this is the party of "compassionate conservatism"…

Destruction of the Working Class

Governor Scott Walker and his lackeys in the Wisconsin house and senate have somehow, and with little legal integrity, passed a bill designed solely to destroy state workers unions. This, in their estimation, was a measure designed to Save The State. The State will go broke if the Unions are still in existence, according to their estimation.

Yet this does nothing to resolve state budget issues. In fact, if it was related to state budget issues, their senate could not have "passed" the measure in the way they did, which prohibits voting on any budget-related bill without more than 50% of the senate. But that's irrelevant, because this isn't about the budget.

At it's heart, this is a measure designed to destroy the Democratic Party's base. Unions are to Democrats as the NRA is to the Republicans. It's just an unfortunate side-effect that working class people are now set down a dangerous path where representation and fair bargaining are now longer within reach.

All Hail Cesar

Jump the pond over to Michigan, where another completely Republican-run legislative and executive branch have passed some quaint laws today. Namely, they have decided that Big State Government knows best. If the governor so chooses, he or she can dissolve your properly and legally elected local government and install one of their choosing. You know, so they can handle financial issues in a way they think is best without any recourse or due process.  Like dissolving unions, firing public employees, and other day-to-day duties.

For those of you who say your vote doesn't count, you now have a valid point. In Michigan at least. Because no matter how you decide to run your town or your local school district, if the State doesn't like it they can oust your officials and replace them.

There's really no need for those pesky elections anymore. I mean, you could hold elections, but they'd have about as much integrity as an Iranian election.

Sing It, Cindy!

So yes Republicans, we have seen your true colors today. They have sat back and made grandiose claims about the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, pushing for Socialism or Totalitarianism. Yet in one day they have shown that they really are the pushers of fringe governmental tactics.

And yes, I take the actions of these state legislators as indicators of what the national republican agenda is because there isn't a single national republican official standing up to denounce these acts as farce and lunacy. By their silence, they are showing their acceptance.

Air Force DADT Training Timeline And Issues Still To Come

I was passed this document (PDF) from the Air Force talking about their implementation plan for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

There are a couple interesting things to pick out of here. First, that all training is to be completed by June 2011. To me, this represents that the top brass of the Air Force fully expect the repeal to be certified soon, as training is to begin in April 2011. So that's good news for those of us skeptical of when the repeal would be certified.

Second is section 2, labeled Policy. This is pretty much what I figured would happen, but I was hoping for something more. Essentially, this section confirms that the Air Force plans on ONLY implementing the letter of the repeal, meaning that they will no longer discriminate based on sexual orientation when considering recruiting, promotion and kicking people out. However, they will not put in to place any other policies to even the playing field for LGB soldiers.

The housing policy will not change. The pay scale policies will not change. The medical benefits policies will not change. Even naming a partner/spouse as your benefactor or next of kin will still not be allowed, as the Federal Government does not recognize this. Essentially, they are stating that because of DOMA, they cannot implement any other changes.

And this is where I call bull shit. While I am fully aware that the armed forces are simply limited in what they can and cannot provide because of federal policies, I'm going to point to the State Departments recent revelations that they can, indeed, provide same-sex partner benefits and can provide for housing of same-sex partners to foreign-service employees. They are regulated by federal policy as well, yet they have found a way to make it work.

I knew this would be a problem. I knew that this repeal would be just the beginning. And I know that there will be many more discussions, legislative efforts, and lawsuits to come to iron out these policies to make them fair for every soldier.

But this does still benefit quite a few soldiers and potential recruits. I think it will mostly aid young LGB people considering a one-time enlistment in military service, possibly so they can take advantage of GI benefits. These young people may not yet be in a place where they are concerned about long-term relationships or partner benefits, etc. But if they get stop-lossed because we're still tied up in senseless wars, this could become a problem.

For anyone considering longer service, there are still many hurdles to overcome. They'll get no support when it comes time to move because they've been re-assigned to another base. They're spouse will receive no support while the soldier is deployed. It doesn't even look like the soldier's partner will get base privileges. It's not like soldiers are on the top of the pay scale, so trying to find private insurance for their significant others is going to be prohibitive. In short, life for LGB soldier's trying to make a career out of service will still not be easy.

But progress is progress. As anyone familiar with the military knows, everything is a process and change does not come quickly or easily to the armed service branches.

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!

She Who Inspires Laughter And Loathing

Oh, my dear Sarah Palin. She's sooo smart! Every time she does something stupid and gets called out for it, she has this amazing ability to act like the problem isn't her, it's everyone else ganging up on her that's the real problem! It's almost like she's one of those soccer players you see during the World Cup that fake an injury whenever anything happens in hopes of getting another player carded or just slowing down the game. Effective but blatantly obvious.

She's been the at the center of the controversy about over-the-top rhetoric in the U.S. political landscape, particularly for her map of targets. And she recently went on to a Fox program (BTW, she also works for Fox) to explain why she is really the victim in all of this hate-spewing recently, and that her "targets' couldn't possibly be used to indicate anything other than happiness and bunnies. Or some such bull shit, I usually stop hearing what she says shortly after she starts talking. Once someone has proven their an idiot it's hard for me to waste time on them anymore. But if want to hear what she said verbatim, check out the video at this link.

One of her quotes that I'll paraphrase here is that she believes that the whole point of this backlash against her recently is to try and get her to shut up and go away, and that it's all some conspiracy from The Left to discredit her. Why is it always a conspiracy with her?

While I won't throw out the possibility that some in the behind-the-scenes business of Washington may be fanning the flames of the story to add fodder to the anti-Palin presidential bid in 2012 (which is inevitable), I also won't throw out the idea that some on the Right are right there with the Lefties pushing the story. Less competition is a good thing for lesser known Republicans looking for the party nomination.

However, perhaps Palin should actually learn to shut up. "Uh-oh, another lefty trying to hinder free speech!!1!11!" Well, no, not exactly. I actually hope that she continues to speak, as publicly and as often as possible. It's extremely amusing once I settle my knee-jerk reactions. And I firmly believe in the credo of letting someone be their own demise as the are much more effective at it than someone else pointing at their flaws. You know, let them ramble so the people can see how idiotic they actually are.

Sometimes silence is golden. And if Palin were smart, which she's proving that she is not, she would simply not comment on the whole ordeal. Maybe state that in light of the situation she's removed the map, but other than that simply state "I refuse to engage in this highly charged and obviously biased discussion." Then move on.

Of course, she allows herself to be drawn in, which does nothing but benefit her opponents on the Right and the Left alike. So please, Sarah, please, please, please keep on talking.

We Just Don't Know, So Don't Assume

I'm terribly conflicted. I want to be a reactionary, confused and bias-influenced blogger and point to people like Sarah Palin as "the cause" of the shooting in Arizona this weekend, but I honestly can't bring myself to agree with that assessment. One person (as far as we know at this point) committed this vile act, and unless someone can produce communications between him and these talking heads that have insinuated violent actions need to be taken, then it is just irresponsible to link them.

We can be clear on one thing right now: this was a senseless slaying. When a politician is specifically targeted we naturally assume it is because of that politician's ideology or stance on legislation, but when the killing of children and seniors alike is added to the mix that assumption becomes a little less solid.

Personally, this whole ordeal has disturbed me. We don't yet know the full motivation of this guy, but I can't help but think it was his way of retaliating against a political agenda he opposed. If that is the case, then this is no less than an act of terrorism, regardless of how sane or not sane the shooter is.

But we don't know his real motivation yet, and taking time to blame anyone other than this guy for this crime is rather pointless. I think David Gergen with CNN said it best:

The country would be well served now if we cooled the accusations until we learn more about the man police are holding in Tucson, Jared Loughner. He appears to be mentally unhinged, someone who has threatened others. Why he targeted one of the most admired and popular political leaders in Arizona is unclear.

I also have to wonder about the motivation of those using this situation as a political platform. I agree that at some point we have to realize that hyperbolic rhetoric is unproductive. I did. But should it really take a shooting (of as-yet-unknown reason) to get people to realize this?

This is not a situation that should be used to rally political bases. No political party should be using this as a "see, the problem is them, not us." And we certainly should not be looking at knee-jerk legislation calling for the (further) special protection of politicians without consideration of the consequences of said legislation.

Believe me, I want to point at the hard-line right and say "this is your fault," but I can't. Even if I could, what would that really accomplish? Those people would still be dead and the terror inflicted on the American people would still be real.

Let's take a moment to really understand what happened. Until then, we should be rallying behind the victims and doing what we can to help rather than obscure the situation.

I Don't Like Voting For You Because You Always Break My Heart

Every single election cycle I hear the same message from Gay Inc.: you have to go vote, and you have to vote Democrat. Anything else, apparently, would lead to utter disaster. You simply can't vote for an evil, bad Republican, and voting for a third party… I mean, who even does that? Third parties are totally for hippies, nut jobs, and tin-hat wearers, amiright?

Every. Single. Year. The same exact message.

And you know what? The message is wrong. You should vote for whomever you think will best represent you. Period.

Vote (dem) Or Die

It's funny to me that every time I mention in a group that I want to vote for a Green Party or (god forbid) Socialist candidate the whole group gasps and stares at me with bewilderment. How could I vote for someone other than a Democrat! Everyone knows that if I vote for anyone other than the Democrat, I'll be "wasting" my vote and then the evil, vile, blood-thirsty Republican will eat me in my sleep. Seriously, everyone knows that. Just ask your average LGBT person at the gay bar, they'll tell you all about it.

But here's the thing: your average Democrat doesn't represent my beliefs. Most Democrats don't support full marriage equality, the unequivocal repeal of DADT, the inclusion of LGB and T folks in the civil rights bills, completely universal health care, stronger, larger government enterprises regulating more business and industry, free higher education, publicly subsidized political campaigns, etc. They simply don't support those causes. Occasionally Democrat X or Y might support one or two of these, but never more than that. Why should I accept that my representative only represents a tiny, tiny portion of what I believe in?

It's All Fun And Games Until The Conservative Wins

So then we're told that if I do go and vote for a third party candidate, I'm wasting my vote and hurting the candidate that is at least left-leaning. I've got two questions about that: why does that barely leftist candidate deserve my vote? And, will she really represent me better than the slightly right-leaning candidate? People that make this statement also assume that I would vote for the Democrat in the first place, which at this point is no longer the case. If the Democrat does not support my views, I will find a candidate that does and vote for them. So it follows that ultimately that vote that I cast for my non-mainstream candidate does not harm the mainstream candidate's chances.

It Ain't Easy Being Green

Was I under any delusion that a Green Party candidate or other far left party candidate was going to win this last election? No. But I do believe that me voting for the candidate that I truly support will send a message that Democrats cannot count on my vote any longer until they are willing to support my views.

"But they can't do anything if they aren't in power," some say. To which I reply "Oh really? Look what the Republicans did the last two years!" Not only did they halt the government, but they went back to the drawing board and reassessed their platform. They listened to the far-right in their party and they assimilated that platform. And you know what? It worked for them! For now at least… it'll blow up in their faces in a couple years, but they won in the short term.

If the Democrats want my vote, they need to earn it. Stand up for me, fight for me, pass the legislation you said you would pass. Until then, I'm throwing my weight behind someone who will do those things.

Quandry Of The Day

If the goal of the Credit Industry is to make borrowers default (thus lowering their credit rating) just so the lender can collect more fees to boost revenues, how does a consumer work to improve their credit rating?

And if more borrowers' credit ratings are falling, how are lenders going to find new burrowers to bilch?

And if consumers wisen up and stop borrowing from assbackwards lenders (read: pretty much every lender), where does that leave the Credit Industry?

Maybe, just maybe, it's time to reasses this Credit Industry. The CARD act from last year was great, but when the ultimate result was more consumers getting the raw end of a dull stick, perhaps we should realize that magical "market forces" don't always work.

Side Note To Everyday Politics

As a side note to my post earlier today, I'd also like to point out that I have far fewer readers today than I did two years ago while I was writing my fiery posts.

There are quite a few possible reasons for that, but I can't help but think the biggest reason is that I'm not writing fiery posts anymore, and people respond to that kind of writing.

Then again, I have three posts in the history of my blog that continue to get weekly hits: Lady Gaga Minus Autotune, Gay Riviera Maya, and Gay Chicken.

Perhaps pop culture, vacations and pseudo-gay games have an enduring appeal while black and white politics has a momentary yet avid audience.

Everyday Politics

Election season is always a blast. If you go back through my archives to the last election cycle in 2008, you can see that I can be quite… passionate about my opinions in politics. I have to say though that I am a bit proud of myself for not getting so wrapped up and impassioned this time around.

Maybe that sounds odd. After all, we should be involved and interested in politics! And while I agree with that sentiment, I also have to wonder why everything in politics needs to boil down to rage and agony? I've started to think that the more we accept that kind of tactic from our politicians, the more they are willing to "go there" to that dark, dank place known as smear campaigns.

Some would argue that politicians will always "go there" because, frankly, it works. There are piles upon piles of uneducated, uninterested voters to pull from, and it is much easier to find that one issue those voters care about and push that button than it is to engage an audience and sell them on real political platforms.

Take, for example, this guy. It doesn't matter where he's running or what he's running for (if you're really interested, check the link), but what does matter is his tactic. In a recent robo-call, he had the following to say:

Liberal Democratic lawyer and openly homosexual statehouse candidate Tony Sessoms, doesn't share our values. Michiganliberal.com boasts that Sessoms is 'independently wealthy, and if elected would become the first openly lesbian state representative.' Sessoms is endorsed by the homosexual newspaper in Detroit, by Detroit's homosexual equality Michigan PAC and by the Michigan Democratic Party homosexual and transgender caucus. Sessom's campaign manager is the openly homosexual Central Michigan University faculty member who lost the statehouse race two years ago. Her deputy campaign manager was co-president of CMU's homosexual student group -- an openly homosexual candidate with a campaign run by homosexual activists. But, of course, in a district where voters strongly supported the marriage protection amendment none of this is disclosed on Tony Sessom's campaign material. With homosexual activists in the Michigan Democratic Party pushing to repeal our marriage amendment, our families deserve a state representative we can trust shares our values. Not a candidate with a hidden agenda, homosexual activist agenda, not Tony Sessoms.

Let me sum this up for you: HE'S A HOMOGAY!!!!!11!1! OMG, RUN!!

Notice that there's zero actual information about politics or issues that matter. Notice that there is insinuation, but no actual substance. Notice the Gay Is Evil-Bad meme.

This is politics today. Well, it's politics everyday, really. Will we ever be able to move away from that?

Anger Ball

I am a pretty opinionated person. Everyone who knows me knows this, and I'm pretty sure anyone who reads this blog has picked up on that! Thing is that these opinions of mine get me in trouble quite often. Well, not really trouble like people yelling at me or anything. That I could handle easily. They get me in trouble with myself.

When I get worked up over something my body tends to respond in kind, like most people. The problem is that I also have pretty terrible acid reflux. Actually, really terrible acid reflux. And my family has a history of high blood pressure. So when I get worked up, the rage I feel about any given issue ends up getting channeled into my body, which is very, very, very bad for me.

The problem is not that I have opinions though. I feel that I can justify my beliefs and I also feel that if someone can propose a rational counter-argument or different perspective (with sound justification) I am willing to change my stance. No, the problem is that have very strong beliefs makes me susceptible to becoming quickly enraged over things I cannot change, which leads to agitating my above mentioned reflux, which then frustrates me further… it's a nasty cycle.

Lately I've been getting very worked up over people's negative reactions to the recently passed Health Care Reform. I have still not heard a single, rational, logical opposition to this legislation, and yet the opposition continues to make uneducated, irrelevant arguments against what is now the law of the land. It was "shadily" passed? Really? Because from my perspective this piece of legislation had more public debate and openness than just about anything we've seen debated in recent years. It's unconstitutional? Straight up baseless rhetoric.

On top of that, there's been an increase in disturbing gun violence rhetoric. More and more people are taking to the Sarah Palin-esque mantle of "Loading Up" in preparation for… what? If they continue to follow that path, it will apparently mean loading up a gun and shooting specific politicians, as illustrated by her charts. Now, I'm going to assume that most people are sane and will not act out violently toward members of congress that supported HCR (or members who opposed it, for that matter). Most people are. But not everyone. And when the right-wing stirs their already rabid base with imagery and suggestive wording that indicates shooting people to get your way is OK… well, it's a bit worrisome.

Further, I find the idea that "loading up" to protect yourself from Government to be a bit laughable. I do support your right to own a gun in this country. So long as anyone is allowed to own guns, everyone else (within reasonable boundaries) should be allowed to protect themselves against others who have guns. I get that. Honestly I think there needs to be a nationwide gun ban, but that's highly unlikely considering the Second Amendment and all. But owning a gun so you can Fight The Man? Really? You do understand that The Man has tanks, F22s, highly-trained military special ops, and various other weaponry that the common person could hardly understand, right? Anyone remember Waco? Koresh was loaded to the brim, and look at how that worked out for him. All I'm saying is: own your gun if you believe it will help you protect yourself against others who might harm you, but don't trick yourself into believing for one moment that the cute handgun you just bought will stop The Man from taking over if He so chooses.

Have some faith in the system, people! Our country has survived via our system of government for centuries. Should we question the Government when they do something we disagree with? Absolutely. But there is a productive way to do that which typically nets results: activism. Organize, lobby, form a PAC… these are the things that can give you power in this country. Not inflammatory rhetoric. Not threatening violence. Cindy Sheehan had power because she acted and organized and had a cause. Pat Robertson built power the same way: by having a cause and organizing people around him (albeit he used the vices of religion and the old "give me money 'cause God said so" trip, but still). They built power and used it to fight for change. That's how to do it.

But all that said, I need to learn to take a step back and breath again. Stress, particularly over things that I ultimately cannot fix, does me no good. It doesn't help my general health and it certainly does not help me in my goal of getting slimmer and healthier. Plus no one wants to be around a grump. So this is me getting some of those issues off my chest so I can move on.

Attack Of The Unwilling To Think For Themselves Crowd

And yet another twit that can't separate "how I was raised" from reality. This from Maine State Representative Sheryl Briggs from the floor of the Maine House (they're debating marriage equality today… still not sure what's to debate, but that's what they're wasting their time doing):

"I have been struggling with this bill for months knowing it is going to come forward … that I'm going to have to choose … I'm so sorry I'm going to hurt my family, friends, citizens of the state of Maine. See, my daughter is gay. I have known this for about 15 years. Throughout all this time, I have kept my personal feelings on this matter separate … She has never ever heard me express my opposition to this in her life … I would never hurt her. I would got to end of the earth for her. But because I feel so strongly about opposed to this bill, blame it on my upbringing or the good book. … I can't change how I feel … But because of who I am and where I am and as a member of this legislative body, ethically it is my duty and responsibility to publicly say to my daughter that I do not support [gay marriage]. I just had to finally confess to her exactly how If eel and now i have no choice. I have to hit that button. Although I could say that the majority of my constituents are in opposition to this bill, to which they are, and to use that as my excuse to my decision making process, but that would not be fair to me, my daughter, or my constituents. I am sorry that there is no other way we could compromise to make things better for everyone, because that's what we do as legislators. We are here to fix things. To make things better for everybody. I feel like I need to let everyone citizen know that the decision we make here today is not an easy one. … I ask each citizen in the state of Maine on both sides of the aisle to please respect our individual decisions."

Fantastic! So not only is she completely unable to think for herself, she also is fully aware of just how horrible she sounds as evidenced by the several apologies laced throughout this speech. Miss Briggs has stated that her hatred is simply because of how she was raised or because of the "good book" (of which it is unclear she has read or understood). She is just not able to question those beliefs taught to her at some point in her life. Good for her, I'm glad she's perfectly happy with being an ignorant tyrant. I'm even happier for her constituents that can accept an excuse like that.

But truly I feel sorry for her lesbian daughter, who's mother willingly hid her hatred from her for so long. I sure hope her daughter has a bigger heart than the mother and can love and accept her mother for who she is, regardless of how bigotted she is. I sure hope that her daughter can teach her the error of her ways by being a better person.

Finally, I think I need to know why Rep. Briggs feels the need to apologize multiple times in this speech. Is it because she knows how ridiculous she sounds? Is it because she knows that she's stabbing her daughter in the back? Is it because she knows that people like me will tear her apart for never once taking the time to consider this position for herself? No, I think it's because she's fully aware of how wrong she is.

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.

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!

Milk: Not Just For The Gays?

I don't often get moved to tears by films. They just don't push me very far, and I think most times it's because I don't identify with the character's emotions. Seeing a heterosexual couple's unrequited love on screen for the 18 millionth time doesn't do it for me, not because I'm not hetero, but because that doesn't speak to my experience. Sure, I've had unrequited crushes before, but those were a completely different set of circumstances, and in many of the cases I would never be able to earn the attention of my longing because they simply were not gay, unlike most of these romantic movies where the hetero guy/girl simply annoys the shit out of their opposite sex crush until they give in. But when a film maker takes the time to speak to me, directly to the heart of who I am, then I can truly be moved by a film.

This weekend, I went with my boyfriend and a few friends to see Milk, as we had planned. I know, everyone in the gay blogosphere is raving about how great the movie is. And it's true, the movie is simply brilliant. I related to the characters on so many levels, and I felt strongly about the ideals being espoused by the characters and the film maker. I teared up in more than a few occasions, and my sweet boyfriend who knows me all too well knew exactly when to pacify me with a kiss or caress as the bigots spoke or the police beat innocent people in the streets. As we left the theater, I was awe struck at the power the movie had on me, but was also intrigued to find out that not everyone felt the same way as I did about the movie.

One of my friends just didn't like the movie. What's worse (according to another gentleman we talked to the next day) was that my friend is gay… and apparently, being gay means you must like Milk. I've stated above that I loved the flick, but my friend had some solid reasons why he didn't like the movie. Mainly, he felt the character development was lacking. Truth be told, I think I agree with him there. We were introduced to many characters in the film, and did not see really that much progression in them throughout the picture, which ultimately makes it hard for people to connect to the characters… unless they are passionate about the content or message. Which I am. Which is why I loved it.

Not to say that my friend isn't an activist. He is, but I have a feeling that he doesn't hold quite as liberal views on equality issues as I do, as evidenced by our discussion on hate crime legislation (I'm in favor of it, he's not… we talked about it once, then realized our friendship was more important that a disagreement on public policy). I think that I idolize people like Harvey Milk, that can stand up and fight for our community, and I also think that my friend thinks there are other ways to achieve these same goals. I'm not sure they are mutually exclusive concepts either. Like I said about Corporate Advocacy vs Grass Roots campaigns, I feel they need to coexist to ultimately win. I have a feeling that I'm more the in-the-streets activist and he's more the lobbyist activist.

All that aside, it makes me then wonder how well Milk will do in front of general (read: heterosexual) audiences. Will straight people really connect with the message, or even the characters? I would hope that, even if they do not personally connect, that they get a better perspective on the LGBT community and struggles. Brokeback Mountain did very well in front of straight audiences, but that was not nearly a political picture. Beautiful and tragic, yes, but not political. Milk is political. It's highly relevant. And with all the emotions raging across the country regarding what should be my legal rights to marriage, will "middle-of-the-road" thinkers really get into Milk?

Fact Checking - DIY Guide

A few months ago, I stumbled upon an email from an old acquaintance that pissed me off. I hadn't really talked to the guy that sent me the email in more than two years, but I was still apparently important enough to him to be included in his mass email spam. To be honest, it wasn't that I was receiving spam from him that bothered me, it was the particular type of spam I received: the ill-informed, partisan, fear-driven, anti-candidate-x political spam.

I've always held that if you are going to slam someone, at least slam them for who/what they are, not for your perception or personification of that person. This particular email was one that I'm sure many of you saw. It talked about how Obama was really a radical Muslim hell-bent on taking over America from the inside, and that any true American would do his best to save his fellow citizens from the evil black man's voodoo magic… something like that. Me being me, I couldn't stand for that BS. I mean, I could tolerate an email saying that Obama is somehow wrong for his liberal tax policies (I think he's spot on right, just to clarify). I wouldn't agree per se, but I wouldn't think less of you for sending it. But spamming straight up BS without checking into the accuracy of any of it, particularly when they are blatantly false claims… well, that's when I realize that person's an idiot and cut the ties.

After reading the email, I popped over to Scopes.com to check the legitimacy of the information. I knew it was fake, but I wanted a fairly reliable source to back me up. Sure as shit, that same email my former acquaintance shot off to me was there, plain as day, debunked in all it's stupidity. So I hit reply all, copy and pasted the page text, and provided a link, also adding a snide comment most likely similar to "while I think it's great that you are becoming politically engaged, you should probably inform yourself of the truth of things before attempting to misinform your entire contact list" (this guy was never big in to politics when I knew him, and he had been a member of what is widely regarded as one of the most racist fraternities in the country… just a few thoughts…).

That sparked an interesting email exchange, and shortly thereafter I was removed from his "friends" list on Facebook and MySpace, which I terribly upset about. But the point is, if you're going to make assertations one way or another about someone, in particular about political candidates that could literally change the direction of this country, you should inform yourself first. Check out this article for some great suggestions on fact checking sites. Don't be uninformed, don't fall for stupid political spam tricks, and please don't let people get away with spreading BS lies. Even if those lies are about John McCain. Lord knows there are plenty of true reason to not like the man, we really don't need fake ones too.