Showing posts with label Ma'amselle Lezident. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ma'amselle Lezident. Show all posts

4/24/10

The New Fight for the 40-Hour Work Week

Workers of the industrial age fought long and hard to secure a 40-hour work week. According to labor historian Prof. Philip Foner, "No single issue in nineteenth-century labor history produced as many songs and ballads." Here's one for you:

       We mean to make things over; we are tired of toil for naught,
       With but bare enough to live upon, and never an hour for thought;
       We want to feel the sunshine, and we want to smell the flowers,
       We are sure that God has willed it, and we mean to have eight hours.

       We're summoning our forces from the shipyard, shop, and mill,
       Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, eight hours for what we will!


The Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 realized this dream on a national scale. Mission accomplished? Not exactly.

Like a cruel joke, we workers today have our own struggle for a 40-hour work week; unfortunately ours involves fighting to maintain a full 40 hours in the face of furloughs, hours cuts, "permatemps", and part-time reassignment. A 32-hour work week sounds bad when a person starts out with 40, but consider the plight of the 10% of the American populace who can't find any employment at all--for them, not even a 1-hour work week.

If employers could run companies with only managers and no workers, they would, and this nightmare becomes more and more plausible with innovation in technological advances. Even when employers owned slaves and had no obligation to pay their workforce, they still rejoiced at the introduction of the cotton gin that meant fewer laborers required to make even more money. That's been the name of the game since the beginning of capitalism.

With the abolition of slavery (excepting interns), employers may mask their contempt a little better, but they still find it obnoxious that workers always want stuff--like money, or healthcare, or dignity--that ultimately cuts into their pocketbooks. Sadly for the Boss, until SkyNet becomes self-aware and our robot overlords can fend for themselves, workers will remain a necessary evil to the people who employ them, much to the employer's chagrin.

The cunning employer recognizes this and attempts to persuade the worker into a new frame of mind. The ruling-class employer says to his working-class employee, "Now, now, I am no better than you; we are a team! We're all in this together to make the company the best it can possibly be!" Employers often embellish this lie with a call to sacrifice; "I'd like to pay you overtime, but would you really want to put the company in that position of financial burden?" or, "Think of the company before you come in here and selfishly ask for a week's paid maternity leave."

Our grandparents saw this for what it was--baloney. They recognized that if they had a job manufacturing gold-plated turds for TurdCom Incorporated, an attack on their integrity was not worth a nicer, sleeker, faster, shinier, more efficient gold-plated turd (now with less fragrance!). No amount of sacrifice on their part was going to result in a better gold-plated turd, anyway. It was the job of the Boss with the Seven-Figure-Salary (how quaint) to earn that salary with Big Money-Making Ideas about what kind of company to have and what to produce; the worker's only role was to keep production moving. If the company really needed to save money, why not let the Boss's paycheck take a hit? He (yeah, likely a dude in this scenario) could certainly afford it.

The disparity in wages made the class divide perfectly clear then, and the divide could not be clearer now when even "nonprofit" CEOs can make millions of dollars per year; workers today turn a blind eye to this, however, getting suckered into the "team" mentality only to find that they're the only ones on the "team" doing work for offensively low wages and making sacrifices of any kind. We've all had the experience of involuntarily doing the heavy lifting, and we all can agree it sucks; why are people falling for it now with such vehemence?

It can't be the recession, because our grandparents win that contest of financial hardship. Perhaps it is that the lie has become more believable, now that we live in a world where companies have more rights than humans enjoy. I'll let Jon Stewart explain:



We're all just grist in TurdCom Inc.'s mill, in other words. The company's rights override all others. As far as employers are concerned, workers should waive their right to ask for compensation that the law "guarantees" them--did you know that 75 percent of employers in California break the law by neglecting to pay their workers for overtime?--because it impedes the company's Supreme-Court-awarded right to make money, and the company's rights "win."

Too many workers buy into this and start having aspirations of working their way up through the company's ranks, riding the Gold-Plated-Turd-Train into Big-Money-Station; best way to do that they figure is to kiss ass, work extra hours for no extra pay (often just to keep up with their heavy workloads), and stay docile. Besides, complaints about working conditions are anti-"team" (i.e. "anti-company") and thus subject to punishment; too many complaints, and a worker gets furloughed, has hours cut, is reduced to part-time status, or is replaced.

This is even worse than where we started. Our GREAT-grandparents got paid 60 hours' wages for 60 hours' work; meanwhile, the workers at 75 percent of California's workplaces work 60 hours and get paid for 40. Welcome to 2010, everybody.

Hey, Boss! Got too many employees qualifying for full-time benefits? Fire them all, and hire twice as many part-timers with zero benefits to replace them. Better yet, hire a "temp" from an agency to work for you permanently--no benefits AND no promotions, guaranteed. Best of all, ship all your jobs to someplace like India where workers can live in your factory like this:

Heck! If they live there, you'll never have to pay them overtime! Problem solved!


According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 12.3% of American workers (11.3% of female workers) in 2009 were represented by a labor union; I figure that makes my being a lesbian union maid especially rare. I would like to say that none of this applies to the labor union world, but I can't. Where the union worker of 1933 stared down hired guns (and occasionally lost to them) to defend the right to a fair wage, union workers today toil furiously for nothing, disillusioned by labor leaders who work hand-in-hand with management in propagating (and propagandizing) the "coalition" mentality and fearful of becoming the next ex-TurdCom former employee battling to find even part-time employment.

That being said, strong unions could win the new fight for the 40-hour work week just as they did the old one; whether or not working- (or even middle-) class Americans can (or even want to) organize themselves well enough to take on such an endeavor remains uncertain. My own union puts into practice every day that jobs not only can be protected but made better, yet the successes we achieve are possible only with formidable and vigilant effort (and a good measure of unpleasantness between managers and union personnel). Until America's workers quit empathizing with the glorified pimps running her businesses today, this codependent abuse of her working people will continue. As The Boss likes to call it, that's "teamwork."

1/13/09

Book Review: _The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For_ by Alison Bechdel

I am stepping all over BOOK_REVIEWER's bailiwick by writing my own unauthorized book review today, but I have a feeling she might forgive me on this one as it totes warrants everyone hearing about it!

I'm referring to the inimitable The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For by Alison Bechdel (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt). The book compiles twenty years of the infamous comic strip into a hefty tome of all things lez with sumptuous results.

We get the chance to watch Bechdel's art evolve from squiggly 1980s butches into her vividly recognizable contemporary panoply of loveable characters lovingly rendered. Her heroines slog through every major political event from Reagan's departure to the Iraq occupation, and throughout I suspect we hear Bechdel's ultraliterate voice in her characters' passionate criticisms of their era's injustices. Dissections of other concepts that are topical yet timeless (such as marriage equality and lesbian parenting) pop up somewhat presciently in her earliest comics and span the whole book.

Bechdel self-consciously struggles with the task of highlighting all that is special, different, and radical about lesbians while simultaneously depicting them in the most mundane of everyday situations; in an effort to pin down the dyke "essence" she cannot help but admit that humanizing a counterculture invariably involves comparing that which is unique to that which is universal--effectively destroying the "us" versus "them" activist component of drawing a comic with the word "Dykes" in the title. Her later comics face further complication of themes as she introduces her first transgender characters who steamroll over all "common wisdom" notions of gender--welcome additions to Bechdel's work that showcase her maturity as an author.

The one element of her oeuvre that keeps me puzzled is the extremely high volume of infidelity among her characters. Every couple of strips features forbidden lust, causing me to wonder if this is another comment of Bechdel's on lesbian culture at large, or if the yearnings and trysts of the Dykes to Watch Out For are purely plot-driven. (I guess I may never know.)

Much of the book's activity takes place in a bookstore, so be prepared for SAT vocabulary and hidden references to Shakespeare; I would venture to say that your average dyke is (SADLY) far less literate than Bechdel and her two-dimensional progeny would lead an uninitiated breeder to believe. Even if you are not up-to-speed on your postfeminist dialectics you will--not might, but will--unceasingly enjoy this witty and thought-provoking compilation. Get a copy today and watch all your friends beg to borrow it (but make them get their own copy; let's all support kick-ass lesbian authors!).

Bechdel, Alison. The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2008.

1/9/09

Rights Watch 2009

2009 has only just begun, and look at the high volume of crappy goings-on for LGBT folk already. I hope that we're getting all of this out of the way so the rest of the year can be superawesome for our community.

Here are a few of the shittiest things just in the last three days:
  • Yesterday, nine Senegalese men were jailed for--can you guess?--being gay. Jailed. In Senegal, being gay constitutes "indecent conduct and unnatural acts," and "indecent conduct and unnatural acts" in Senegal are punishable by five years of jail time. So why is each of these men serving eight years of jail time? That would be because the judge added three years on each sentence for involvement in a "criminal group." What did this "criminal group" do? Answer: fight HIV and AIDS.
  • Hackers took down the host (SoapBlox) of several major LGBT blogs (including award-winning Pam's House Blend), and SoapBlox admitted defeat. Paul Preston of SoapBlox is quoted as saying: "It was a good ride, but it's over. All these hackers messing with our stuff, and we here at SoapBlox have no clue what to do. We don't have enough knowledge, time, money, or care to fix it...Consider this the 'We're Out of Business' post." (As of this article at least Pam's House Blend is back online.)
  • Stephen Andrew Moller, who in 2007 was convicted of killing gay 20-year-old Sean Kennedy by leaving him for dead on the sidewalk after hitting him in the face so hard that his brain separated from its stem, could be out on the streets again in February as he is up for parole. You're probably thinking, What??????, but remember--this is South Carolina we're talking about here. Oh. He received a 5-year sentence but was given credit for the time he served before sentencing. Oh yeah, sorry Mr. Future Convicted Killer for holding you against your will before you were declared guilty; what a pity we might have inconvenienced you after you severed a gay man's brain from its stem and left him for dead on the sidewalk. (Thanks to Queers United for the tip. Please follow that link to get information on writing to the parole board in South Carolina.)
  • A court in Minnesota has decided that a lesbian couple--a lesbian couple that has been together seven years, is raising a daughter together, co-owns a business, shares joint finances, had a commitment ceremony in 2002, owns drafted estate plans for themselves and their daughter, and where everyone in the unit has the same last name--does not count as a family. Why was this case before a judge? Was the couple trying to file taxes together? Were they attempting to legally adopt the child? Were they trying to get benefits extended? Was it something superduper important that for very serious legal reasons there was no way the couple could get a break?? No. This couple was trying to apply for a family membership to their gym. So think about this: you're a membership rep at a gym in Minnesota. A lesbian couple comes to you asking for a family membership. You refuse them. The same couple threatens to sue you over it, and you hire a lawyer to defend you in court just so you don't have to give the lesbians a discounted gym membership--effectively losing more money than the discounted membership would have cost you--just to prove your point that gays don't get to have families. Fuuuuuuuuck. Seriously? Their defense was that unmarried heterosexual couples can't get one, so neither can gays; well, since getting married if you're gay is illegal in Minnesota, don't you think the lesbians would have tried if they had had a choice???
  • The New York Times mobile service is convinced that "gay" is a bad word; the word "gay" gets replaced by the word "beep" anywhere it appears. Swell. That'll teach those nasty queer kids to hate themselves like they're supposed to!
  • Eleven gay bars in the Seattle area received anonymous threats stating the pursuer would poison patrons with ricin, a toxin lethal if inhaled or ingested. An alternative weekly newspaper in the area also received an intimidation and ominous note suggesting it prepare itself to report the deaths of 55 gay bar patrons. Local reports indicate that patrons are turning out all the same, which makes me proud; I believe that if you live letting threats intimidate you, then you might as well already be dead. I am also happy to report that people in the area have acknowledged that law enforcement is taking this seriously. There has been speculation that the individual responsible is a self-hating gay--but of course, I accuse all homophobic people of being self-hating gays on the inside. Really, how sad is that statement that the world we live in inspires shit like this?
  • Three men have been arraigned in the vicious December 13 gangrape of a California lesbian, who almost certainly was targeted based on her sexual orientation; only one of the men allegedly responsible has been charged with a hate crime. For many years I have felt wishy-washy about the whole "hate crime" issue; I have wondered if the intent propelling some crimes really is driven by the victim's identity, and if so, how can you prove it? Well, in this case, allegedly the victim was targeted after the defendants spotted a rainbow sticker on her car; seems pretty clear to me. Fuck the people responsible for this and send them back to the "factory" (if you catch my meaning), whether it is these guys or some other guys. The defendants allegedly stole a car, kidnapped the victim, and took her to a remote location to gangrape her. One 21-year-old defendant (*not* the hate-crimes one, incidentally) is reportedly accused of "various sexual crimes against the woman." If gangrape already makes you violently mad, I hope the thought of various sexual crimes--and not just gangrape--makes you nuclear-level ballistic. Please: send a letter of support to the victim (whose name has not been released):

    Richmond Police Department
    Attn: Sgt. Brian Dickerson
    1701 Regatta Blvd.
    Richmond, CA 94804

    or send monetary contributions to help with her medical bills here:

    Community Violence Solutions
    2101 Van Ness Ave.,
    San Pablo, CA 94806
    Attn: Mrs. Joanne Douglas

    In the memo section of the check please write: Richmond Jane Doe. (Again, thanks to Queers United for the addresses.)
So, um . . . Happy New Year?? We sure don't have a dearth of things to fight; guess we're gonna be busy again this year. Fuck.

12/24/08

Gay Hardball Smackdown - Mike Rogers of PageOneQ

Mike Rogers of PageOneQ goes on MSNBC's Hardball and totally brings it as regards Rick Warren. They say this other guy with whom he's arguing is an MSNBC contributor? What does this dude contribute typically? I suspect he doesn't work on Dr. Maddow's show.

Watch the video below and cheer! Giving a high-five to PageOneQ and encouraging LT readers to check out their site. To draw a poor comparison, your Ma'amselle Lez was interviewed for a Canadian magazine called Xtra recently regarding straight allies in marriage equality, but I wasn't as cool under the gun as Rogers is here below. He's really quite remarkable.



(Update since this broadcast: Queerty reports that Saddleback Church isn't taking their anti-gay stuff down after all. So I guess no one's happy . . .)

12/23/08

Scientists Argue for Marriage Equality . . . for Cousins

I couldn't help but notice this headline from Wired.com:
Cousin Marriage OK by Science

The religious right has argued that allowing same-sex marriage means permitting incest is not far behind. Now here I am bringing up marriage equality in relation to incest. I know; it feels weird--but I can't help myself. The Wired.com article cites the Public Library of Science Biology, zoologists, anthropologists, statistics from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, and genetics counselors themselves--all in favor of accepting cousin marriage.
Thirty-one states outlaw marriage between first cousins, making the United States the only developed country in which the practice is regularly banned. Most [laws] were passed in the Civil War's aftermath — not, say [Hamish] Spencer and [Diane] Paul, to reduce the chance of defects caused by combinations of deleterious genes, but as part of a radical expansion of government authority over private lives.

'Unlike the situation in Britain and much of Europe, cousin marriage in the U.S. was associated not with the aristocracy and upper middle class but with much easier targets: immigrants and the rural poor,' they write.
It sounds odd to me, but this article makes many convincing arguments. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

California much more tolerant of cousins than gays.

William Saletan at Slate.com has already drawn comparisons to our struggle for marriage equality with cousin-marriage:
HRC maintains that 'criminalizing the conduct that defines the class serves no legitimate state purpose,' since gays 'are not less productive—-or more dangerous-—members of the community by mere dint of their sexual orientation.' They sustain 'committed relationships' and 'serve their country in the military and in the government.' Fair enough. But couldn't the same be said of sibling couples? Don't laugh. Cousin couples are already making this argument.
Do we as a community come together in support of this under the marriage equality umbrella if the evidence for it is true?

12/19/08

Obama Rips Gays with Rick Warren Choice

President-Elect Obama decided that on the most important day in a decade, he would choose this guy to start the show:



Also nice:


Christian ministers have been used by every President to perform the inaugural invocation, but this guy--this guy--has been asked to perform the invocation at Obama's inauguration. Yeah, Obama--the hope-y guy! Even if you're not gay you can still hate Rick Warren for being against women's reproductive rights, and I personally hate him a little bit extra because he has also said stupid things about atheists like myself:
I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God,' [Warren preached, according to the Los Angeles Times]. They're saying, 'I'm totally self-sufficient by [myself],' and nobody is self-sufficient to be president by themselves. It's too big a job.
The L.A. Times also reports this scariness:
At the center of [Warren's] operation is Saddleback Church, which occupies 120 acres in the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains.

The church – with nearly 400 employees – features nine types of weekend services, including one in the cavernous 'worship center,' with seating for 3,200 and Warren’s image beamed on jumbo screens.

More than 180,000 pastors subscribe to his weekly “ministry toolbox” e-mail.

“The Purpose Drive Life,” published in 2002, helped create this reach. “It not about you,” Warren writes in the opening of the book, which has sold 35 million copies.
Now isn't that delightful?

While I will wait to see and judge how Obama handles universal healthcare (which I desperately need), the economy (which desperately sucks), and creating green jobs (which desperately are absent), I take this as a complete assault on the issue of LGBT acceptance, and I am deeply offended. I mean, sure, John McCain and MILFy McMooseBurger were much bigger douches, but still!

Sarah Posner of The Nation writes:
Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics.
Wonkette writes:
Basically, the Obama people have to argue that they’re being 'inclusive' by giving a platform to this terrible weenie [. . .]. Remember how Bill Clinton had a very 'inclusive' inauguration, with Maya Angelou and snake-charmers and NAMBLA all doing peyote and dancing around Ronald Reagan’s funeral pyre? That’s basically what Obama’s inauguration will be like, only with a diverse array of hairfaced hobbit cretins rubbing their nipples while they fantasize about gay marrying Jesus.
Matt Stoller of OpenLeft writes:
There is no three dimensional chess here or political calculation that makes sense on this point. If the argument is that sacrificing the rights of another group on the altar of political power is a reasonable choice, then you should remember that a society that callously denies one group their humanity can just as easily deny you yours.
If Obama fails to ditch Warren, I urge everyone to follow this passive protest: If you are lucky enough to be at the inauguration, turn your back on Rick Warren while he speaks.

Someone has already taken up this cause and created a website, turnyourbackonrickwarren.com. Let bigoted shithead Rick Warren know that we are past him--that he is behind us.

For more ways to speak out against Rick Warren, click here.

Chris Bowers of OpenLeft writes:
I do have to wonder though--why are opposing equal rights for LGBT, and why are hating atheists, still tolerated as mainstream opinions in America? The only reason why someone like Rick Warren represents 'bringing people together' rather than hatred of multiple large minorities in America, is because hatred of atheists and homosexuals are tolerated.
Sad but true.

(On a positive note, Faith in Public Life reports that marriage equality-supporter and civil rights icon the Rev. Joseph Lowery will be giving the benediction at the end of Obama's inauguration. Among many accomplishments, Rev. Lowery headed the Alabama Civic Affairs Association in the early 1950s--an organization devoted to desegregating public places. He founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) with MLK Jr. in 1957, and when the Selma to Montgomery March needed a delegate to speak to the governor with its demands in 1965, they chose Rev. Lowery. He also cofounded the Black Leadership Forum, a consortium of groups promoting black advocacy and the end of apartheid in South Africa. His other accomplishments will also astound you. So that makes this whole thing hurt a little less . . .)

12/10/08

Sign the Letter to Secretary Gates: "Support the Repeal of 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'"

Please follow our link to sign the letter to Secretary Gates asking him to support the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Brought to you by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

12/9/08

Stoller: Proposition 8 and California's Festering Corrupt Democratic Consulting Class

cross-posted with permission of the author; pictures added by Lesbiatopia

Ed. note: This post by Matt Stoller gets it brilliantly correct. I urge you all to follow the OpenLeft blog as I do for truly thoughtful political journalism. I am a lifelong Democrat and current member of the Stonewall Young Democrats Executive Committee, and I think we rightly need to take a critical look at ourselves; this is a good start. -Ed


by: Matt Stoller

Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson has an interesting article on the campaign against Proposition eight in California, and what they did wrong. What's interesting about the post-mortems, though widely known, is how little scrutiny the anti-prop 8 leaders have actually gotten. Dickinson's article is useful to a point in that he got five people to go on the record with what the group did wrong, but most of his piece is framed by sniping from anonymous top level Democratic consultants and strategists towards the (mostly) unnamed leadership of the No on Proposition 8 forces.
According to veteran political observers, the No on Prop 8 effort was slow to raise money, ran weak and confusing ads, and failed to put together a grass-roots operation to get out the vote....

"This was political malpractice," says a Democratic consultant who operates at the highest level of California politics. "They fucked this up, and it was painful to watch. They shouldn't be allowed to pawn this off on the Mormons or anyone else. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and now hundreds of thousands of gay couples are going to pay the price."

"They had no ground game," says a leading Democratic consultant. "They thought they could win this thing by slapping some ads together. It was the height of naiveté."....

"The ad was a huge fucking mistake," says a top Democratic campaign strategist. "Any objective consultant who has done any research on this issue will tell you that the struggle for marriage equality is not accepted by minority communities to be equivalent to the civil rights movement. In fact, it pisses minorities off."...
What is so frightening to 'top' Democratic consultants in California that they can't discuss the reasons the campaign structure dithered and failed using their own names? Just what are they afraid of? Could it be that the real story here is damning to the entire Democratic California political consulting class? Perhaps.

Let me add what I know to the story. No on Prop 8 was run by an unwieldy bureaucratic committee that rejected help from most quarters and organized a strategy to pretend like hiding from homosexuality and Obama's opposition to gay marriage would work. The initial campaign leaders basically thought that the pollling data showed they were going to win, were completely out-organized by Mormons, had a website "someone would've been proud of in 1996", rejected most offers to help, and finally, six weeks before the election, ceded control to prominent and effective gay rights leader Patrick Guerriero and a team of volunteers, who took control and attempted (successfully) to turn a route into a narrow loss. I remember when the distress call went out about Prop 8, and cash started pouring in (not just through their website designed by volunteers from Google, but also through Actblue, which had Prop 8 as their top donor item for weeks); we added Prop 8 to our Better Democrats page, and Markos raised hundreds of thousands for this cause. There's no way to tell what happened, but it seems fairly reasonable to assume that the leadership transition worked and the Guerriero was able to at least narrow the margin to where it ended up in November.

That said, this was too little too late. You can't really run a multi-million dollar campaign like this in six weeks, so the framing and tone was set by the executive committee, which refused to make decisions for fear of offending blocks of voters. This was a centrist cautious campaign similar to John Kerry in 2004. Campaigns like this are completely predictable, it's how Democrats have worked for decades, and though the Obama campaign provides a nice reminder of how far the party has come in just a few years, the progress is obviously uneven.

California is especially bad, because it's an expensive state and TV is where the consulting money is made. While you wouldn't notice it on a national level because California always goes for the Democratic Presidential nominee, 'top' California Democratic consultants have a history of this kind of nonsense. Consider their recent legacy of defeats: Gray Davis's recall in the face of a fiscal crisis orchestrated by conservative interests who helped Enron steal much of California's budget through price fixing, the embarrassing campaign to oppose Arnold Schwarzenegger for reelection by Phil Angelides who not only ran a horrific campaign but was repeatedly sabotaged by insider California consultants and his primary opponent Steve Westly, and the overfunded losing campaign to pass Proposition 87 to increase the use of alternative fuels with an oil tax in 2006. These weren't just awful campaigns, they were embarrassingly awful, with money going to fill the coffers of the consultants who preached TV TV TV and failed to do any significant field, internet work, or basic outreach to different constituencies. These campaigns shared the standard characteristics of the No on Prop 8 campaign; entirely TV dependent, passively messaged, no field, hostile treatment towards possible allies, and anonymous sniping from other consultants not cut in on the cash.

I don't see how Prop 8 was any different. Geoff Kor, the head of the executive committee, hired Dewey Square principal Steve Smith to run the campaign. In his article, Dickinson misses Smith's role, and misses that Smith, while nominally running Prop Eight until late in the game, was also working on the campaign against an anti-abortion proposition (prop 4) at the same time. Smith was clearly overworked and took on too much responsibility, which is probably why the more labor intensive activists, such as field and web outreach, were marginalized in favor of simpler TV buys. Dewey Square, a field oriented Democratic political consulting group run by Michael Whouley that at various points had employed three Presidential campaign managers from 2004 (Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards), itself is ensconced in a profitable racket to suck up corporate money by opposing policies like net neutrality while running these pro-Democratic campaigns on the side.

What makes this so galling is that it's quite obvious that the people who ran this campaign learned nothing and are simply incapable of effective advocacy for progressive causes. What this California consulting racket wins they win by accident. For instance, after the campaign, Smith diagnoses the primary problem as insufficient resources to get up on TV, and then pleads with the gay community not to target the Mormon church.
"It's hard not to act out, but I'm telling you, don't act out. The spray paint on the Mormon Church, that hurts us. Any violence, that hurts us."
Framing protests towards the Mormon Church as 'violent' is sure helpful, now isn't it? I can literally smell the Bob Shrum on this statement, both the inappropriate attempts at leadership (who the fuck is Smith to tell people he betrayed by doing a bad job what to do) and the reluctance to demonize and personalize the fight against those with different values. Smith also argues that the group should have released its polling numbers and done outreach to allied groups earlier: "The community woke up. We should've done that earlier. It felt bizarre to do it, but it worked." Smith is saying that it it 'felt bizarre' to be honest and open with allies, and then says like the community of allies was 'asleep', as if they weren't dormant because Smith had refused to correct the misimpression that the proposition was in the bag. Unbelievable.

It's a very lazy and cash-soaked business, this California Democratic consulting world, in which risk-averse TV dominant consultants waste money from donors and lose to the right while sniping at each other anonymously like wealthy high school gossips. And that's why these consultants won't go on the record, because they are all part of the cartel. They have to pretend like the system itself works, that this was just an isolated instance, that there's no problem with a corporate lobbyist running two progressive campaigns inefficiently at the same time, only this instance of a corporate lobbyist-type running two progressive campaigns inefficiently at the same time. I mean, look who else is a 'top' Democratic consultant or strategist in California - Gary South and/or Chris Lehane come to mind, and there aren't that many, so these guys are probably sources for Dickinson. Lehane's record is wonderful; he screwed up Wes Clark's Presidential campaign and most reprehensibly took money from the anti-labor studios to go after the Writer's Guild during their strike. Sniping at a fellow club member anonymously is a sure way to signal to others that this was simply a problem isolated to Proposition 8, instead of systemic inefficiency and corruption in the California consulting establishment itself.

But that's what it was. This corroded group lost significant statewide races and initiatives in 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2008, in good years and bad years, by running cautious and ineffective TV dominant lazy campaigns. I'm quite confident that Proposition 8 shook the gay community to the core, and gay rights is going to take a more radical and effective tact from now on. Still, this consultant racket can still do a lot of damage. In 2010, Barbara Boxer is going to be up for reelection, and she might be very heavily targeted by Republicans in a year that probably won't be great for Democrats. She'll have a lot of money and it might just be a very expensive race; let's just hope that Boxer chooses someone other than a 'top' Democratic strategist to run her campaign.
*
Matt Stoller is a political activist/blogger in DC, and was an editor at MyDD from November 2005 until June 2007. He also consults for the Sunlight Foundation, FreePress.net, and Working Assets as well as proactively networking other progressive bloggers/internet activists and progressive professionals. In 2006 Stoller was very involved in supporting Ned Lamont's campaign to replace Joe Lieberman as senator from Connecticut, a project he undertook after he came off of the Jon Corzine for Governor in New Jersey, where he blogged for the campaign. Stoller was one of the co-creators of The Blogging of the President, which explored the ongoing digital transformation of politics first in weblog format and later as a nationally syndicated talk radio show from Minnesota Public Radio. This represented one of the first attempts to bring the conversation in the blogosphere directly into the broadcast media. In addition to his daily work, he has testified before the Federal Election Commission on the role of electronic media in politics, and is the co-author with Chris Bowers of a report on electronic communities in politics. Stoller started blogging in response to the buildup to the Iraq War in 2002. Stoller worked on the Draft Clark movement to bring Wesley Clark into the nominating race for president of the United States.

12/3/08

The Movement versus The Election, Junior Uprising Edition

One benefit of the poorly run "No on 8" campaign has been the emergence of youth leadership and the willingness of the "Old Gay Establishment" (OGE) to listen to new ideas from us "kids." They're willingly giving us the keys, and it's time to drive.

I can't believe it's finally time! For several months I've been thinking about David Sirota's book The Uprising. (Read my old post about it here.) In my last post about Mr. Sirota's book I admitted to you, my hot readers, that I had no idea what I was talking about, had no idea who David Sirota was, and only cared about him and his book because Rachel Maddow mentioned them on her radio show, and I thought knowing about them might attract chicks (but aren't those still good reasons to care?).

My life has indeed completely changed since last June when I first woke up to David Sirota and his populism. I asked you back then:

How do we self-organize to inspire change without an umbrella organization? How do we unite bloggers with our aged cultural warriors to kick ass?

(Prop 8 calling! Wake up, Ma'amselle! The movement's on the line!)

David Sirota's book investigates what happens to angry people when they organize. That's oversimplifying it, but I want you to understand why I cannot stop rereading this book in my head. (Nerd alert: I read it on paper twice and typed up most of my favorite passages on my laptop for quicker rereading.) Check out this gem from the introduction alone:

Sirota, David. "Portrait of the Writer on a Bathroom Floor." The Uprising - An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. New York: Crown, 2008.

"These laws of matter are also the laws of society. We typically exist in a gaseous state. We are all leading our own lives, bouncing around from place to place, watching our sitcoms, working at our cubicles, interacting briefly with each other between doing our own thing. But we change when enough negative economic and political pressure starts hammering down on us--we start to get organized" (7).

And here I was, reading this back in June, thinking to myself, "Yes, people sure are angry these days about the Iraq occupation and stuff. Lah-dee-dah." But what does it makes you immediately think of now, young queerpplz?

How about this? He's discussing how Iraq occupation protesters are spun on TV:

Sirota, David. "What Kind of Hardball Can Stop a War?" The Uprising - An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. New York: Crown, 2008.

"Saul Alinsky's advice to activists about 'accepting the world as it is, not as [you] would like it to be' means accepting that the reporters, politicians, pundits, and professional operatives who collectively make up today's [. . .] Establishment want to portray the antiwar movement as a bunch of patchouli-scented hippies, out-of-control college kids, anti-American extremists, and Hollywood elitists--all in order to write off the antiwar uprising. If given the opportunity, the major television networks would preview all their stories about the opposition to Bush's escalation by running a clip from Cheech & Chong, a snippet from a Hezbollah rally, and a photo of Jane Fonda under the banner AMERICA'S ANTIWAR MOVEMENT" (59).

Well how do you feel after three months of advertisements portraying you and your friends as scary child predators looking to creep into schools and turn kids bicurious--and in an argument about marriage no less?

When I finished the book I was determined to write a review for Lesbiatopia, but I had too much to say. I still do. All I can tell you is that I paged through this book over and over asking myself, "There's a practical application to this book somewhere, but I can't figure out what I need to do. Everyone's angry, but there's no shape to the anger. This book has taught me so much about how to coalition-build, but what would we fight?"

Well here it is, folks!

Okay, so everyone's seen Milk already, right? Yes, yes, there's only one lesbian in it, I know; get over it. The movie's so totes badass. I've seen it twice already. I don't need to tell you all why it's good, because you'll know; just go see it. If you've seen the movie, maybe you're looking at my opening paragraph right now and shaming me for my naïveté and don't-I-know-how-much-we-owe-our-eldersitude and my-generation-has-had-it-so-easyness. Okay, yes, I feel a little guilty about it, but I'm not stupid! I know we have come so far in my lifetime only through the determined efforts of seasoned veterans in our fight for equality; no question.

(Okay, now's the part where I rehash all my grievances with the "No on 8" campaign, so you can skip this part and proceed to the constructive positive stuff below. I'll let you know when it's over.) But we all watched the old people run "No on 8" into the ground, and lemme tell you, I had front row seats . . . okay, maybe a-couple-of-row-back seats kinda on the side, but closer than most, I assure you.

I just got voted onto my second year of the Executive Committee of the Stonewall Young Democrats (SYD). Stonewall Democrats proper, our umbrella group, certainly has members of the OGE in it, but our joint West Hollywood office on Santa Monica and Crescent Heights was crackin' during the campaign season, young and old. We were making phone calls and registering voters and walking precincts and translating campaign literature for our Russian and Latino neighbors and driving people to the polls and whatever, both for Obama and for "No on 8."

. . . meanwhile, in our back room dwelled the Official "No on 8" Campaign. Despite having the same goal (No on 8, duh), we clashed repeatedly on what was best for the effort.

We in Stonewall were giving away "No on 8" signs for free; they were charging $25 each. We were registering voters who supported us; they were hosting "visibility" parties in West Hollywood at the Abbey. We were begging people to make phone calls for us; they were discouraging people from using the official "No on 8" online calling program because the "script was too old." We were giving people thirty ways to help us; they were telling people, "If you don't like making phone calls, then leave," and forcing all volunteers to undergo 30-minute training sessions just to phonebank--and then if you wanted to come back and make more phone calls the next day, they'd still force you to go through the same 30-minute training again. And don't even ask me about the fact that they begged and pleaded for money and then cashed my 9/25/08 $25 check on 11/16/08, two weeks after the election was over; I'm still too mad.(Okay, I'm done with in-fighting now. Ready to move forward.)

Now that the new Prop 8 fight is ahead of us, we in SYD have put marriage equality on our front burner. Our brand new Marriage Equality Committee met for the second time last night in Downtown Los Angeles.

Okay, you're a superbright lesbian, so you're saying, "Fuck you, Ma'amselle Democrat, with your narrowminded Party-with-a-Big-'P' affiliation. Anyone with a brain is independent." Well, then you don't understand Stonewall Dems. We're the LGBTQI and allied wing of the Democratic Party. If elected officials don't seek us out or don't run an LGBTQI-friendly agendum when elected, they're toast in gay-heavy districts because we'll run candidates who will support us. We also give resources to gay candidates who might otherwise have trouble fundraising, and who among you doesn't like that?

What's that, David Sirota? You have a good quote to describe why Stonewall Dems are important? Go for it:

Sirota, David. "What Kind of Hardball Can Stop a War?" The Uprising - An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington. New York: Crown, 2008.

"Unquestionably, both the Protest Industry out here chanting [. . .] and the Players scheming in their offices a few blocks from here [. . .] are necessary parts of an effective [. . .] uprising. The outraged rabble provides the boots on the ground that can pressure lawmakers in their local communities. And that popular ferment could be enhanced by a professional presence playing the [. . .] media game" (64).

In other words, these rallies put pressure on our elected officials to choose a side, and we promote into office elected officials who will choose wisely and speak out for us on the national teevee.

SYD has a particularly interesting role in things now, as we face a host of young queers waking up on Christmas morning all blinky-eyed to discover someone's stolen their rights overnight. Boo, big lumps of Mormon coal in our stockings!

So back to our brand new Marriage Equality Committee. These are people 36 and under who felt frustrated during "No on 8" and are looking to make a difference. The committee has yet to go before the full board with the notes from the night's meeting, so I'm giving you a supersecret sneakpeek at some of the ideas hashed out that night while they're still all doughy and warm. Oo!

I heard everyone pissed off about feeling invisible. (One more "No on 8" bash warning)I mean, c'mon, those commercials! The first one out had the straight couple with the invisible lesbian daughter you never saw, and the next 1,000 commercials after that didn't mention gay people at all or even show the face of one gay person!(Bash finished) So my favorite thing I heard all night was when one woman said, "I would rather fight this angry and out and in the open--and lose--than sacrifice the movement for one more election." Fuck yeah! So how do we want to be visible?

* We all love the idea of the white knot campaign! Have you seen it? whiteknot.org gives you full instructions on how to create a white knot to wear as a symbol of your stance on marriage equality. Fuck a $25 sign that you can't carry with you; you can make 500 of these babies for about $3 and have them on you, visible, all the time, everywhere. The website has instructions on white-knot parties. I am so loving this, and I'm fairly certain we're going to follow this route to some extent in SYD.

* I contend that most people who voted against us don't know us. Why don't they know us? Because we spent the whole damn time in West Hollywood high-fiving each other while the campaign was going, making no effort to visit our neighbors further inland! What's the matter, bulldagger? Afraid to get a fat lip for marriage equality? I'm not worried about getting popped by some redneck in rural California, no matter how seemingly primitive, and you shouldn't be, either. I guarantee you that if 200 of us went out to Kern fuckin' County wearing Queer Voluntary Service badges to plant trees or feed the homeless, it would make the news and stun the bigots. Besides, you know every community like that, no matter how small, has an enormous closet, and if I were to get punched in the face standing up for marriage equality in Chino, some babyqueer who lives there would see I stand up for her.

* "IM4ME." What? "I AM FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY." Simple to promote, something of a double entendre ('cause "I am for me," too), classic conversation-starter. Make your own button!

* Send postcards to bridal shops. Man, I didn't want to be, but I got nasty bitter on Saturday shopping for a bridesmaid dress with my straight bride-to-be ladyfriend. There we were in the bridal shop, watching moms crying over their little straight daughters (most of whom couldn't care less) while friends squealed and jumped up and down. There I was in my stompy lesbian shoes with my new fabulous ultralez haircut that I'd gotten that morning (see insets), and it was like I was trespassing. I had one of those massively inappropriate desires to scream, "I LICK BOX SO I GUESS I'M NOT WELCOME HERE WITH YOU SANCTIMONIOUS DOUCHEBAGS, RIGHT??" You know what's really better, though? Pointing to this article where $63.8 million is missing from California now that gay marriage is gone. That coulda been your recession-proof cheese, bridal shop! Just a friendly postcard reminder!

* One of the most moving signs I saw at the "Repeal 8" rallies said, "I'm not allowed to talk about my two mommies at school." The children of gay couples have been remarkably absent in our P.R. One way to bring everyone together might be a "Gay Family Day." The conceit behind this is that the human race is a gay family, get it? We all came from straight people, but whom we love makes a family. We already know this, of course, but if we could get children of gay couples to meet our born-again cousins? Hello, dialogue!

* Whatever we do, don't stop calling it "marriage." So the contract down at City Hall says whatever it says. So what? The State is the State, and God is God, and God knows a marriage when s/he sees one. (Okay, I'm an atheist, but you get the point, spiritual readers.) People freaked out because "gay marriage" is new. So let's make it old. Yeah, they're still wife-and-wife, and more'll be wife-and-wife no matter what some piece of paper says. We're fighting for marriage equality, not the right to marry; they can't take that away from us. It's still marriage. We just want the same recognition of our marriages to theirs.

* We've all seen Sacramento's newest Prop 8 musical by now, and it's dope. We need more artists to write songs, scripts, paint, interpretively dance, put on multimedia extravaganzas, whatever, but just make it. It's part of historical storytelling; your art speaks when you're not present. Make it happen.

So these were not all of the ideas thrown around in the meeting, nor are these the decided upon avenues for SYD to take. (We are Dems, after all, so public official PR campaigns go without saying.) But several of us young Democratic queers took three hours to think about marriage equality last night, and we know that hundreds more of our queer brethren are doing the same throughout this month in the rest of the state. We are achieving the leaderless momentum that David Sirota's Uprising is all about, and I am proud to say it's youth-driven. Just like our beloved Renee's "8 against 8" can raise its goal five days early, we all must engage in spontaneous collective efforts and be pleasantly surprised at our own thoughtful determination. This time, we have no "official" restraints. Let it fly.

If you're in the Los Angeles area and are interested in the Stonewall Young Democrats and our marriage equality activities, contact info@stonewallyoungdems.org.

10/20/08

Republicans Already Stealing Votes in West Virginia and Not Doing It Very Well in California

(Check out the voting technology in your state here. Also, check out stealbackyourvote.org.)

West Virginians have reported electronic voting machines flipping votes for Obama to McCain.
    Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the [Republican] county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

    "When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

    When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

    Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted.
These types of problems have been occurring since 2000; why haven't they been fixed yet?



Here's what another WV resident had to say:
    Shelba Ketchum, a 69-year-old nurse retired from Thomas Memorial Hospital, described what happened Friday at the Putnam County Courthouse in Winfield.

    "I pushed buttons and they all came up Republican," she said. "I hit Obama and it switched to McCain. I am really concerned about that. If McCain wins, there was something wrong with the machines.

    "I asked them for a printout of my votes," Ketchum said. "But they said it was in the machine and I could not get it. I did not feel right when I left the courthouse. My son felt the same way."
Republicans are responsible for election oversight in both of the counties where fraud has been reported. They are giving the media all the same snarky lying bullshit that they spewed in 2004 and 2006 about it being the voters' faults, the incidents being isolated, blah blah blah. We've all heard this before! and the consequences are no less dire.

But Ma'amselle, you say, maybe it's just a computing error and not anything intentional. Then why is it that there has never been an instance of GOP votes switching to Democratic in the 4+ years this has been happening?

Congress has been remiss in passing legislation to ban these pernicious electronic voting machines. My least favorite Democratic Senator next to Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein--who has voted recently for things like telecom immunity and unwieldy blanket copyright legislation--introduced this stupid bill in May that would force electronic voting machines to print out a record of your vote as some sort of receipt. Here are the problems with that:
  • The legislation would not go into effect until 2012 (2 years after I've voted Feinstein's dumb ass out of Congress and 4 years into the Presidency of whoever wins this November), so it doesn't actually do anything of any use to anyone right now. Way to posture on empty promises again, Feinstein, you jerk!
  • A machine's "source code" is the software programming that outlines, "When a user does this, the computer responds by doing this." The source codes of these machines are proprietary; that means that the companies who write these codes into the machines (like Diebold, owned and operated by Republicans) will not let anyone see the codes. Their defense is, "If we were to show you the code, someone might steal it, and then our company would no longer be competitive in manufacturing voting machines." (Heaven forbid.)

  • Hey, Dianne Feinstein, someone at one of these companies could write something into the code that said, "Change an Obama vote to a McCain vote, and then print out a receipt that says, 'Obama'," and no one would ever be able to catch it.
Now that I've worked myself into a good rage, let's talk about exit polling for a second. Exit polling is when someone goes out and asks voters immediately after they've cast their votes: "Who did you vote for?" and records the results. People tend to, well, not lie when asked about something they've just done, so these stats are remarkably reliable. Funny as it might sound, this simple technique is used internationally by organizations as big as the U.N. as a tool to gauge whether an election is rigged; if the exit polls don't match the polls themselves, something is amiss. For instance, let's say I won by 46% in the exit poll but only 39% in the actual election; that would indicate my opponent had stolen votes. You can see how even a seemingly small percentage--just a couple of points--makes an enormous difference.
I bring this up because 2006 saw the defeat of two incumbent Republican Senators, George Allen of Virginia (the "Macaca" guy) and Conrad Burns of Montana. These guys were defeated by very narrow margins--so narrow that they were entitled to state-sponsored recounts (i.e. they wouldn't have to pay anything for them). Even though they both could have asked for recounts--free of charge--neither accepted, each conceding the race to his Democratic challenger. Everyone wondered, why? Why would these morally bankrupt, thieving, lying scumbags who would stop at nothing to win suddenly have a change of heart and gracefully step into the shadows?

Well, because their exit polls were off! Challenger Jim Webb (full of awesomeness) beat Allen in the exit poll 52%/47%; the election itself yielded a victory of only 49.6%/49.2%--a five percentage point discrepancy. Challenger Jon Tester (full of super-uprising-awesomeness) beat Burns in the exit poll 53%/46%, while the election itself was 49%/48%--a six-point discrepancy. Just about everywhere else in the country saw accurate exit polling that year--a huge step up from the 2004 elections and partially the effect of the rejection of electronic machines in some places; however, these two places had voting machines, the only electoral tools that could have possibly produced errors such as those stats--errors far beyond the human capacity to have been that wrong by accident.

Here's my point: any recounts in those areas would have required the manufacturers of the systems to reveal their source codes. They would have had to go inside the machines to expose not just which votes were logged for whom but exactly how they got logged inside the system. Burns and Allen, Republican jokers both, knew this and couldn't concede fast enough to protect their shadowy conspirators from having to demonstrate exactly how their machines took all those Democratic votes and turned them Republican magically. (For a fantastic and in-depth look at this, please visit this truly awesome article on InTheseTimes.com.)

Are you still not convinced voting machines are a bad idea? Really? Fine. Watch this Princeton prof. hack into a machine in one minute:

This electronic machine monkeybusiness is still legal, everybody, because Congress has been sitting on its lazy ass passing things like making November National Methamphetamine Awareness Month. I mean, really! I am a total stoner, and I can only imagine if there were a "Marijuana Awareness Month" to alert people to the dangers of smoking weed. Let me tell you, hardly anyone is more aware of danky herb than I am, and if I were to hear people talking about awareness of the ganj day in and day out, I would compulsively have to smoke bowlz. Oh, Congress!

But I digress. Some places have been passing local resolutions to ban electronic voting machines, and we should all pressure our local elected officials to do the same. Check out what the Deputy Secretary of State in West Virginia (a Republican) had to say:

"Sometimes machines can become miscalibrated when they are moved from storage facilities to early voting areas," Bailey said Friday. "We get a couple of calls about this each election year."

Miscalibrated! Like one of those pesky zeroes in the software code accidentally flipped to a "1" when someone shook the machine too hard! That makes total sense! And even assuming that could happen, she obviously suspected it could happen and didn't care--didn't bother to recalibrate any machines or check to see if they were working beforehand. Well, exactly! She's a crooked-ass elected official!

Look, O.K.? you don't want this to happen:


Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

In other election fraud news, in the midst of all this ACORN bullshit is a real story--an actual arrest in California:
    SACRAMENTO (L.A. Times) -- The owner of a firm that the California Republican Party hired to register tens of thousands of voters this year was arrested in Ontario over the weekend on suspicion of voter registration fraud.

    State and local investigators allege that Mark Jacoby fraudulently registered himself to vote at a childhood California address where he no longer lives so he would appear to meet the legal requirement that all signature gatherers be eligible to vote in California. His firm, Young Political Majors, or YPM, collects petition signatures and registers voters in California and other states.
So please don't get distracted by the Republican crocodile tears about Democratic voter fraud. They are afraid they are going to lose, so they are trying to claim foul play in a desperate last-ditch attempt to garner sympathy (or something)--"Look, Obama stole the election before it even happened!" Give me a break. Look at the headline of this article. Go ahead, I'll wait. Now look at the data I've just given you. What can you infer? That's right, Republicans are covering up lies with more lies plus extra-special fake outrage. These crooks acting all offended make me sick.

So I said it up there but I will say it again: go visit Steal Back Your Vote.org. They can't steal the election if we all turn out!

10/19/08

Lesbian politics: Dude, Mormons--Why the $H8?

(Before I say anything else, I would like to point out that you can make "No on Prop 8" phone calls from home, no matter where you live in the U.S. Save marriage equality in CA; click on that link above to find out how.

Do you really want to live in a country where voters get to decide who has inalienable rights and who doesn't? On November 5 will you be patting yourself on the back for having done all you could for your fellow queer brethren, or will you be kicking yourself that you failed to stand up for queer rights? Make phone calls today!
)

I don't really know very many Mormon people, so I'm hoping I can get an education here in the comments section. Here is what appears to be a spreadsheet with all the "Yes on 8" donors (source: mormonsfor8.com). 46% of them are Mormon. I ask you: why? These are people who themselves had to redefine their own "traditional" marriage to "Marriage is between a man and a woman" from "Marriage is between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman and another woman," and it wasn't that long ago. Their church founder advocated for plural marriages back in 1831 and had one himself in 1835, and the church had to restructure its traditional marriage system back in 1890 to get rid of that. Are the Mormons overcompensating now to prove they're the man-and-wifeiest? Or are they just mad that we can get wife-on-wife action today, and they can't?

Carlos Santoscoy at ontopmag.com writes: "Mormon leaders say gay marriage is incompatible with Mormon theology. According to church doctrine, Mormons must be married to achieve 'exaltation' – the ultimate state in the afterlife – where they retain their gender and give birth to spirit children."

O.K., so you need male/female interaction in the afterlife; let's assume that is true. But LGBT folks typically receive excommunication from the Mormon church when they're outed--hell, the LDS church will excommunicate people merely for supporting "No on Prop 8" even if they aren't gay--meaning (as far as I understand) that they are no longer Mormons. So if they aren't Mormons anymore, they do not go to a Mormon afterlife; is that correct? And if they're not going there, it doesn't really matter if they get married, does it?

Well, I'm attempting to apply logic to literalist religion, which is just going to frustrate everybody, so let that lie. Let's instead take a peek at the lengths to which the LDS community has gone to beat up on us so far:
  • technological firebombing (texts, blog posts, videos, podcasts, Twitter, Facebook) mostly by young people (how sick is that?)
  • traditional methods of political organizing (1,000,000 yard signs distributed by mob LDS crews)
  • collaboration with James Dobson, the Focus on the Family shithead (who says a father can teach his son not to be gay by doing the following:

  • He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

    Sure, James, keep up your pitching/catching, hole-pounding, and prominent penis contests . . . that's not gay at all.)
Almost $27,000 came from these Mormon lawyers alone all from the same law firm in Irvine, CA (contact info taken from firm website):
























































Brent M. Dougal
949.760.0404
Brent.Dougal@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $500
Douglas B. Espenschied
949.760.0404
douglas.espenschied@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $1,500
Nathan S. Smith
949.760.0404
nathan.smith@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $1,000
Marc Morley
619.235.8550
mmorley@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $1,000
Ted M. Cannon
949.760.0404
tcannon@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $5,000 (extra douchey)
Philip M. Nelson
949.760.0404
pnelson@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $1,100
Glen Nuttall
949.760.0404
gnuttall@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $150 (mini-douche)
Curtis R. Huffmire
949.760.0404
chuffmire@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $1,000
Paul Conover
949.760.0404
pconover@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $500
Christian A. Fox
949.760.0404
cfox@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $1,500
Bill Bunker
949.760.0404
bbunker@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $5,000 (megadouche)
Ned Israelsen
619.235.8550
nisraelsen@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $3,000
Jason J. Jardine
619.235.8550
jason.jardine@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $500
(unpictured)Michael Erickson
michael.erickson@kmob.com
Prop 8 Donation: $5,000

These are lawyers--you know, those people who are supposed to defend the Constitution? The ones who are supposed to promote equal rights for all free from religious persecution? The ones who sometimes grow up to be judges? My justice-seeking perennial heroes? Does the fact that lawyers are putting up big money for this terrify you as it does me?

I applaud the efforts of groups like Affirmation, the coalition of queer Mormons that has been admirably and bravely standing up for our side. (That is the link to their main site, but they also have a blog.) Unfortunately, many of Affirmation's members have to practice a sola scriptura, sola fide strain of Mormonism due to their rejection by the church proper.

I'm so curious why the LDS church is so LGBT-unfriendly! I mean, even the fundamentalist Christians let you stick around (although I'm not religious and never have been, so I would have to ask all you Lesbiatopia readers, "What's worse--excommunication from the church, or being allowed to stay but having to go through reparative therapy?") As always happens with whatever the evil kind of anti-gay garbage, devout and well-meaning people wind up hating and/or hurting themselves.

There is a really terrific autobiographical one-man show about these types of issues called Confessions of a Mormon Boy. The show's protagonist mires through unceasing struggle from beginning to end, confronting faith, upbringing, family, addiction, and hate on his passage to coming out. He does get excommunicated, though not for lack of trying. I highlight this show because I know there are thousands of people out there with similar stories--people the LDS church has gone out of its way to shame into silence. Now the church is trying to extend this into government policy, because, sure, look how well it works to hurt people.

I'm a, well, fairly tolerant person so long as no one is attacking me and mine; sometimes even under attack I can forgive if I can understand from whence the attack comes. I just don't get this one, though, especially because it seems like we have so much in common, me and Mormons. I mean, c'mon, we both like choral singing, genealogy, soda . . . well, the list just keeps going. Can't we be friends?

10/18/08

Things We Love: Learning, Language, and Saving the World

I normally post articles on how to save the world by voting in your best interests, but today I want to highlight a website that is changing the world in a different way. Please take a second to check out FreeRice.com.

The site's application gives you a word with four possible definitions, and if you define the word correctly, the site's sponsors pay for 20 grains of rice for the UN World Food Program, which works to end hunger worldwide; answer 5 questions correctly in a row, and you donate 100 grains. According to the WFP the average person who includes rice as a staple in his/her diet eats 400 grains per day, and I was able to donate 2,000 grains in about 10 minutes. Fun and meaningful! If words aren't your thing, you can choose from the following subjects:
  • Famous Paintings
  • Chemical Symbols (Basic)
  • Chemical Symbols (Full List)
  • English Grammar
  • Identify Countries on the Map
  • World Capitals
  • French
  • German
  • Italian
  • Spanish
  • The Multiplication Table
The questions vary in difficulty, and the program adjusts the level of difficulty based on how you perform.

From their FAQ:
    The rice you donate makes a huge difference to the person who receives it. According to the United Nations, about 25,000 people die each day from hunger or hunger-related causes, most of them children. Though 20 grains of rice may seem like a small amount, it is important to remember that while you are playing, so are thousands of other people at the same time. It is everyone together that makes the difference. Thanks to you, FreeRice has generated enough rice to feed more than two million people since it started in October 2007.
So go do that today right before you start making your No on Prop 8 phone calls from home, and save the world twice in one afternoon.

10/16/08

Lesbian Politics: Is Gay Marriage Good for McCain?

MotherJones.com has a very interesting article this week entitled "Will Gay Marriage Help McCain?"

Much has been said about the impact of the gay marriage debate on political discourse. Senator Dianne Feinstein notoriously said in 2004 that the efforts of our community had been "too much, too fast, too soon." This was echoed by many who argued that Kerry's defeat lay in the hands of gay couples who united a base of "fiscal conservatives who see promoting marriage as a way to reduce state dependency, anti-gay voters who quail at the notion of same-sex unions, right-wing Christians who seek to enforce biblically determined family law, and the mass of voters anxious about the instability of marriage" (cite). As Democrats wailed that gays had ushered this motley conservative crew into the ballot boxes to vote Republican, the 11 states that passed anti-marriage initiatives that year did so without showing any actual boost to Bush in the polls.

Despite this, the primary LGBTQ community strategy to combat homophobia and gender discrimination at the polls has relied most heavily on legislative methods (i.e. legal decisions by judges) rather than popular votes. Barack Obama's rhetoric about gay marriage being a states' rights issue might offend many of us, but his determination to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act would mean that the question of gay marriage would once again fall not to the states and their voters but to the U.S. Supreme Court. The bench might lean a little to the right at present, but we cannot deny that most of our gains--even in domestic partnerships--were achieved by judicial decision and not by popular vote; the same can be said for the majority of civil rights triumphs. E.g., 94% of whites polled in 1958 did not approve of interracial marriage, and courts legalized it anyway in 1967. I'm sure there must have been people then, too, griping about "activist judges legislating from the bench," but can anyone deny the value of that landmark ruling?

The MotherJones.com article poses the question: "Should Barack Obama brace for another round of backlash at the ballot box?" The answer I infer from reading the article is, maybe not! Consider this: a Quinnipiac University poll from September 2008 shows that 55% of Florida voters polled support their prospective gay marriage ban (margin of error ±2.6%); however, a Rasmussen poll from this week shows only 46% of Florida voters support John McCain (margin of error ±3%).

From whence does this disconnect come? Chris Lehane, former communications director for the Kerry campaign, is quoted as having said: "McCain has gone to such pains to try to distance himself from Bush and to make clear that he represents a different kind of politics that he's ultimately going to be forced to address this. [. . .] Either he waffles on it, which just irritates everyone; he takes the conservative position, which undermines his brand; or he takes a more open-minded, progressive view of the world, and he really hurts his base. What worked great in 2004 doesn't work so well in 2008."

Two recent Gallup polls indicate that even as the perceptions of homosexuality become increasingly tolerant, the idea of gay marriage lags behind in popular acceptance. Why is this?

Some people have argued that anti-marriage sentiment is not homophobic but rather about preserving one of the last vestiges of traditional stability in an increasingly unstable world. Others like Jonathan D. Katz, Prof. of Women's and Gender Studies at Yale, have said, "This isn't about lesbian and gay Americans being treated equally, which is a constitutional guarantee. It's not about that. It's about making money, wedge issues, forging boundaries. It's about dividing this country." Apart from these seemingly well intentioned or cynical foes, you and I can also recognize our homophobic detractors when we see them, whether they identify themselves that way or not.

Even with these traditional opponents, it appears that change is imminent. Some have started to take issue with anti-marriage initiatives as they affect gay and straight couples alike, preventing household diversity not only in gay relationships but also in those of foster parents, adoptive parents, and any number of other "nontraditional" living arrangements. A federal judge actually struck down a Nebraska anti-marriage initiative on these grounds in 2005. Similarly, a generational shift is occurring that shows younger voters have a more favorable view of gay marriage than their predecessors, and the percentage of under-30 voters with a favorable opinion increases each year. Our prospects improve as more tolerant voters come of age.

Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life


Richard Kim of The Nation also points out: "The premise that Democrats are still on the losing side of the culture war defined the last weeks of Hillary Clinton's campaign, which, aided by the mainstream media, dredged up nearly every assumed liberal Achilles' heel of the past forty years--race, religion, guns, elitism, patriotism and '60s radicalism--in order to paint Barack Obama as a general election loser. But, like Christian conservative attempts to portray same-sex marriage as a 'threat to civilization,' the culture war against Obama--waged around flag pins, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers and bowling scores--was a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Thankfully, the majority of Democratic voters refused to be manipulated by these symbols sheared of substance, and now it is time to retire the paradigm altogether." In other words, being liberal about stuff just isn't that politically dangerous anymore.

In response to Dianne Feinstein's "too much, too fast, too soon," I point to Prof. Katz again when he says: "We did not put gay marriage on the front burner of the national LGBT agenda; it was put on the agenda by the right and we had no choice but to respond." I believe that as more voters realize that their woes (unaffordable healthcare, unfair wages, increasing disenfranchisement, and undereducated children to name a few) are a direct result of the predatory behavior of the Bush administration, powerful lobbies, and underqualified cronies, they will feel less inclined to blame their eroding security on the queers. Even if this realization does not take place this election cycle, an Obama presidency could make all the difference, putting the fight back in the courts where it belongs.

Doesn't it cheer you to think the day might be here where it is no longer politically expedient to throw us under the bus? when it might expose one as a hypocrite to oppose us? when discrimination and hate would keep one from achieving office? Let us march with our allies to the polls on November 4, secure in McCain's ignominious defeat, chanting all the way: "Let Freedom Sting!"