Your chance to promote your blog, other blogs, and things of interest.
What’s going on?
Monday Blogwhorin’
Caution: Eyes may bug out of head
Okay, it's humorous, but it's still very creepy.
(via Tbogg who asks what I'm thinking, "I wonder how many people have ordered this because it accurately reflected their views?")
Justice Sunday Wrap-ups
The Green Knight, ever the go-to guy, has tons of good stuff. Just head over and start reading.
Shaker Idyllopus did some great paraphrase blogging during the event last night, which can be found here, and notes, “They're out for blood and will get it one way or another.”
United Church of Christ Seminarian Chuck Currie’s wrap-up, which looks at the event through the eyes of a liberal Christian opposed to the dominionist movement, is here.
A truly chilling account from a liberal who attended a viewing at a local church is here, which I highly recommend. A brief excerpt:
Anyway, after watching the show on the church's big screen, and seeing with my own eyes the reactions of the forty or so people I sat with in the church, I felt the need to yell out this word, very loudly and very clearly:Really—read the rest.
***DANGER!!!***
The Christian fundamentalists are at the gate. They are organized and on the march for change – the sort of change that is very bad if you’re not one of them. The hour and a half show was filled with inflammatory, impassioned rhetoric against all non-evangelical Christians, and especially against “liberal secularists,” as they called Democrats. "Be afraid" laughed several of the evenings' featured speakers, confident in the pending doom of their political opponents.
How far would one have to push these emboldened zealots before they start burning piles of Harpers, or coming after you or me with baseball bats in the street? Not very far at all, was the impression I got watching Justice Sunday.
If you spy any other good reviews of the event, please add links in comments.
Well, that's appropriate....
This is from Bob Harris' blog. As it's a short entry, I'm going to cut & paste the whole thing.
From Rolling Stone (with thanks to alert reader Mark):
The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the "Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them."
... the commission would enable the Bush administration to achieve what Ronald Reagan only dreamed of: the end of government regulation as we know it. With a simple vote of five commissioners -- many of them likely to be lobbyists and executives from major corporations currently subject to federal oversight -- the president could terminate any program or agency he dislikes. No more Environmental Protection Agency. No more Food and Drug Administration. No more Securities and Exchange Commission.
This should be no surprise to anyone paying attention. The Chimpsters long ago sniffed out the Social Contract as a communist plot. They've been trying to stamp out every vestige ever since.
Really scary stuff (particularly for someone that works for a non-profit organization that will probably be one of the first to get the boot), but I had to shake my head in disbelief at the title...
The Sunset Commission?
So... Bush commissions, policies, what have you are leading us basically into the pitch-blackness of night. And they're openly admitting it with the ridiculous names that they're giving to these things.
Every time he appears on television, Bush should just stand there, giving us the finger, as he speaks. Because that's basically what he does with even the smallest details of every goddamned thing he does.
(cross posted from my blog)
Serial for Breakfast
Over the past month (or so), the Dark Wraith has written a four-part opus analyzing our probable future in the 21st century. The final installation has been posted this morning. It’s grim reading; standing on the edge of the end of Enlightenment, looking out at a tide one cannot hold, is not easy, but it’s important.
If you haven’t been following the series, start with Part One, Part Two, and Part Three, and wrap up with Part Four.
In the end, the Dark Wraith notes:
It remains for the reader, then, to decide which way to believe the future will turn and in so deciding, find comfort or fear in contemplating what lies ahead.I believe it is likely long past the time when any homegrown twilight scenarios would be anything more than the distant twinkling of a fading star, but one must carry on trying nonetheless. Or maybe that's just my Baggins complex talking.
Your thoughts as you contemplate our collective future are, as always, most welcome.
Freedom of Information, Baby!
Just in case anyone’s forgotten who Jeff Gannon / James Guckert is, he’s the dubiously-credentialed journalist / gay male hooker who was not only given access to White House Press Briefings, but also somehow came to be in possession of an internal CIA memo and miraculously preordained shock and awe four hours before it happened. The story broke back in February, when Gannguckerton asked a fishy question at a White House Press Briefing (quoting Rush Limbaugh misquoting Harry Reid), which prompted a bunch of Lefty supersleuths to uncover his dodgy past.
Well, the Freedom of Information Act requests that were filed at the time are starting to produce some interesting information. RawStory reports:
In what is unlikely to stem the controversy surrounding disgraced White House correspondent James Guckert, the Secret Service has furnished logs of the writer’s access to the White House after requests by two Democratic congressmembers.The only question I have is: who the hell was he fucking?
The documents, obtained by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal Guckert had remarkable access to the White House. Though he wrote under the name Jeff Gannon, the records show that he applied with his real name.
[…]
Guckert made more than three dozen excursions to the White House when there were no scheduled briefings. On many of these days, the Press Office held press gaggles aboard Air Force One—which raises questions about what Guckert was doing at the White House.
On at least fourteen occasions, Secret Service records show either the entry or exit time missing. Generally, the existing entry or exit times correlate with press conferences; on most of these days, the records show that Guckert checked in but was never processed out.
In March, 2003, Guckert left the White House twice on days he had never checked in with the Secret Service. Over the next 22 months, Guckert failed to check out with the Service on thirteen days. On several of these visits, Guckert either entered or exited by a different entry/exit point than his usual one. On one of these days, no briefing was held.
[…]
Guckert sometimes stayed for an extended period of time before and after press conferences, particularly early in his tenure. This was especially common during his first few months, when he might be in the White House for as long as six hours.
[…]
Occasionally, the former Talon News reporter visited the White House twice on the same day. This was also most common in the early months.
I cannot put together the facts of this case—a paid escort with the most lackluster journalism credentials this side of Ali G, an unusual (mis)use of day passes, and extended periods of lounging around the White House without reason, often without checking in or out—and not come to the obvious conclusion. I would have to extricate all traces of common sense and logic from my brain to find any other reasonable explanation for all of this other than Gannguckerton being somebody’s rentboy.
If he were a woman, no one would doubt it. If he were a woman, no one would question the explanation that’s staring us in the face. If he were a woman, every reporter in the western hemisphere would be chasing the two-bit hussy down the street, demanding an explanation.
But because he’s a man, for some reason, people are reluctant to speculate about such things.
I, however, cannot indefinitely suppress my ability to reason.
As it turns out, I can neither restrain myself from suggesting a prime suspect.
Georgie likes to give head.
I’m just saying…sometimes repression of an urge compels a bizarre expression of that smothered desire.
What the...?
Pam of Pam’s House Blend found this ad running on Daily Kos:
As of this posting, it’s still there—on the front page, toward the bottom of the lefthand sidebar.
Pam also found the following information about the company running the ad:
ABOUT METROSPYSo basically, it’s not a joke.
METROSPY, based in San Bernardino, CA is a designer and marketer of politically conservative apparel, gifts and accessories. The company"s target consumers are the growing number of young Republican conservatives ages 18 - 35. MetroSpy markets t-shirts, jackets and caps printed with edgy, often controversial political slogans. The company has recently added posters, wristbands and key chains to its product mix. MetroSpy currently employs 7 full and part time employees with annual sales of $500,000.
I don’t know whether Kos has to approve the ads that go on his site or not, but surely by now he or one of his writers has seen it. Is Kos’ opinion that money from his ads is worth more than preventing homophobic sentiments from running on the biggest Lefty site? Does this have anything to do with Kos’ curious assertion that gays “might or might not qualify for ‘minority’ status”?
This is pretty discouraging, I have to say. Although there’s some satisfaction to be gained knowing that a company like this is helping pay for Daily Kos, that the content of its ad includes what can only be described as a thinly veiled threat against gays (or was that odd juxtaposition between killing bugs and the rights of gay men just coincidence?) surely warrants its deletion.
I certainly hope that the ad is removed from the site.
[UPDATE: I have been told that ads must be approved before they are posted.]
More on Microsoft
There’s a lot of discussion going on in the blogosphere right now (see here for a start) about the reaction to Microsoft’s decision to “remain neutral” on the gay rights bill in Washington state. There are those who believe that after Microsoft has done a lot of good things for the LGBT community, a backlash over their position on a single piece of legislation is unfounded.
They are, however, wrong. And here’s why.
First, quite simply, I believe that if there were a piece of legislation proposing the rescinding of protections for people of color, or women, or people with disabilities, and Microsoft remained neutral, there would be no criticism of those who reacted with horror.
Secondly, regarding Microsoft’s assertion that they must respect the views of their religious employees and shareholders, the legislation itself was an anti-discrimination bill, which should not be controversial by any stretch of the imagination. Irrespective of one’s views on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, there’s no religious precedent for this type of discrimination. (I don’t see a national movement for adulterers, compulsive gamblers, inveterate liars, etc. to be denied equal employment, housing, or other opportunities, and I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that such legislation would discriminate against the majority of the members of GOP’s top echelon.) A basic understanding of the tenets of every major religion will easily confirm this contention—allegedly religious justifications for the continuation of slavery and the prohibition of interracial relationships were similarly rejected.
Thirdly, in response to those who suggest that social activism isn’t the responsibility of corporations, I would remind them that any time a corporation (or group of corporations) lobbies Congress for something like deregulation on pollutants or stricter bankruptcy laws, or against family leave or universal healthcare, that is social activism. Corporations are collectively one of the primary social activists in this country; it's just that they tend to be pro-corporate and anti-society. The redistribution of taxation is a primary example of that of which I speak. A century ago, the vast majority of federal taxes were paid by corporations; now the vast majority is paid by individuals. That is a massive societal shift. We didn't lobby for that—corporations did. And, as a matter of fact, corporations are currently engaged in a comprehensive lobbying effort against the eradication of the filibuster:
The country's leading business lobbying associations, close GOP allies in recent legislative efforts and political campaigns, have told senior Republicans that they would not back the Frist initiative to force votes on President Bush's judicial nominees.Even as the dominionists have their panties all in a bunch with excitement over the nuclear option, which is itself social activism of the highest order, Big Business is busily trying to thwart it because they believe it will be bad for business. Corporate America is constantly engaging in social activism; whether one agrees or disagrees with their involvement in our legislative process is another issue altogether. The point remains that suggesting social activism isn’t the obligation of corporations ignores their decidedly eager participation as social activists on a regular basis.
Business leaders say they fear the move would lead to a shutdown of Senate action on long-awaited priorities…
Finally, should a community whose support Microsoft used (rather effectively) as a marketing tool not have a reasonable expectation to receive continued support in return? Of course the LGBT employees of Microsoft were given great benefits by the company, but every member of the community was used in Microsoft’s not-so-subtle marketing campaign to position itself as a progressive company, which was used in no small manner to both attract the best and the brightest from that very community as employees and the LGBT community as consumers—not a small market share when you consider their disproportionate representation in creative fields utilizing cutting edge technology. One might fairly note that the relationship between Microsoft and the LGBT community has been a mutually beneficial one—Microsoft was able to promote its progressive ideals on social issues concerning the community, and in return, members of the community were offered benefits (if employed by Microsoft) and the hope that other corporations would follow the monolithic Microsoft’s leads (if employed elsewhere).
If the LGBT community and their supporters don't vociferously stand up to those who would throw gays to the wolves for political expediency, it's likely to happen with increasing frequency. Most corporations are not as gay-friendly as Microsoft. If they see Microsoft taking the lead on abandoning gay issues without any notable backlash, what hope does the LGBT community have that the good things Microsoft has done, in terms of partner benefits, etc., will ever be extended by companies who have not already started down that road?
When Microsoft first decided to use its progressive policies as a marketing tool, they took on a responsibility to the LGBT community and an obligation to protect them against discriminatory legislation. When the richest corporation in the world takes you dinner then sticks you with the bill, you have a right to get angry.
Sunday Smiths Blogging
Make of it what you will...
Learn to love me
Assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow and always
My only weakness is a list of crime
My only weakness is ... well, never mind, never mind
Oh, shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Hand it over
Learn to love me
And assemble the ways
Now, today, tomorrow, and always
My only weakness is a listed crime
But last night the plans for a future war
Was all I saw on Channel Four
Shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Shoplifters of the world
Hand it over
A heartless hand on my shoulder
A push - and it's over
Alabaster crashes down
(Six months is a long time)
Tried living in the real world
Instead of a shell
But before I began ...
I was bored before I even began
Shoplifters of the world
Unite and take over
Women: Soon to be Officially Defined by Their Babymaking Abilities?
One of Big Brass Blog’s brilliant contributors, Linnet from Looking at the Stars, posted this scary little bit of information yesterday:
According to the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 (Senate Bill 51 and House Bill 356, if you're curious), it's the ova and the uterus and nothing else. The Act, which has been criticized for its possible effects on abortion law, has been referred to committee in both the House and the Senate. It contains this excellent definition:As Linnet points out, the possibility that such a narrowly construed definition of “woman” could be used in other legislation, which may not be strictly limited to pregnancy issues (as is the above-cited legislation), is chilling. It’s also incredibly offensive to women who are childless by choice, or infertile by proxy if their partners are incapable of making them pregnant.
WOMAN- The term `woman' means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.
This definition of 'woman' was considered appropriate by both House and Senate. There are several interesting implications to this:
A. A female human being who is not capable of becoming pregnant does not qualify as a woman under this definition.
B. This definition implies that a woman is not, as any dictionary will tell you, an 'adult female human.' A thirteen-year-old female child is a woman if she has reached puberty. Fertility is the sole measure of womanhood, not maturity and the capacity to make one's own decisions.
C. This definition could be used in other laws if this bill is passed and signed.
All of this reminds me of the definition of 'woman' in Margaret Atwood's A Handmaid's Tale, wherein infertile women were considered Unwomen.
The bill itself is ridiculous. That it contains language reducing women to breeding machines by legal definition is unconscionable.
Eddie Izzard Blogging (Justice Sunday Edition)
Eddie Izzard on creation:
The beginning of the world, the Old Testament. That’s where stuff began, in the Christian version of things…
So God… God created the world in seven days! A foolish brag, I feel. If I was God, I’d say, “I’m gonna create the world over a number of days;” not sure how long, might be a bit pressed, you know? Too much pressure, seven days dead! I’d just do it like Microsoft:
“It’s gonna be done by Saturday… Tuesday… next week… about a month… We’re gonna bring it out when we’re fuckin’ ready, right?” I think God was actually in bed, and his Mum said, “Get out of bed, will you, God? You’ll miss the best part of the day!” …
“No, I won’t get out of bed, Mother, because I haven’t yet created the best part of the day. Can’t get me on that one! Boxed that one easy.”
“Oh, you, young scallywag! I’ll box you a bit later…”
So then God created the world, and the first day he created light, and air, and fish, and jam, and soup, and potatoes, and haircuts, and arguments, and small things, and rabbits, and people with noses, and jam – more jam, perhaps, and soot, and flies, and tobogganing, and showers, and toasters, and Grandmothers, and… Belgium.
The second day, He created fire, and water, and eggnog, and radiators, and lights, and Burma, and… and things that go “uuuhh,” and Colonel Khadaffi, and… Arthur Negus.
I think the third day, He probably got lists – “I can’t remember what I’ve invented, now. I’ve just been ad-libbing so far...” And so everything sort of builds up through the days, and you know, if you have a deadline, you know how it works; everything builds right up to the end. I think on the seventh day, God was running around, going, “Oh, my God! What haven’t I…? Rwanda! I better create Rwanda! Sorry, haven’t quite done that… The Tower of Pisa! Oh, it’s leaning… Oh, shi… done! Toilets in French camping sites… there we go. English football hooligans… there we go, whatever that is… Mrs. Thatcher’s heart… there we go… oh, fuck that! I know, I’ll put a stone in, that’ll work! There we go…”
The next week, I think, people are coming back, going, “Rwanda doesn’t work very well; infrastructure’s fucked.”
“I’m terribly sorry, I’ll… put some more jam here, and… a mountain of cabbages, and a radiator.”
“Thank you, it’s just what we wanted.”
Happy Justice Sunday!
On June 14, 1954, President Eisenhower signed a bill that added two words to the US Pledge of Allegiance: under God. Ever since, there has been a debate about adding those two words to what was designed to be a secular oath to the country. Today, however, I’m not concerned with those two words; I’m concerned about the other two words that are slowly being erased from the Pledge by those who are, in part, the architects of Justice Sunday. On Justice Sunday, I would like to remind those involved that when we pledge our alliance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, we are pledging to fight for liberty and justice for all.
Link:
Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith, a live nationwide television simulcast hosted by FRC Action, the legislative arm of Family Research Council, and Focus on the Family Action, will make its way into 61 million households in 44 states today.Except, of course, people of faith, any faith, who believe in a strict separation of church and state, who believe that God endowed humans with free will and the right to choose one’s own path, who believe in the equality of all people, who believe that homosexuality is not wrong, who believe that even if homosexuality is wrong homosexuals still deserve equal protection and rights under the law, who believe that women have the right for final decisions over their bodies, who believe that sex can have other purposes aside from procreation, who believe that victims of rape and incest should have legal solutions to end pregnancies that may result, who believe that we live in a country that is meant to protect the religious freedom of people who practice all religious and people who choose not to practice religion at all, and who disagree with the limited, oppressive viewpoints espoused by Perkins and his ilk.
We have had an amazing response because people of faith are realizing that actions in Washington have a direct impact on their lives in the heartland," said Tony Perkins President of FRC Action.
[…]
"This is not about faith, but a debate and fairness for people of faith, any faith."
For all.
Faithful liberals and secular people of any political persuasion are not of concern to the perpetrators of a cynical maneuver like Justice Sunday, who have conveniently ignored the 95% of Bush’s judicial appointments already approved. The remaining 5% are not interested in championing justice for all, which is exactly why the dominionists behind Justice Sunday are so keen to create a furor over their blocked appointments.
For all means nothing to them, and nothing to their supporters, but it does mean something to me. To that end, here is my protest, and my solemn vow:
On Justice Sunday, I vow to passionately pursue true justice for all. I will fight for the rights of the oppressed and minorities. I will fight for people of every race, creed, color, ability, sexuality, gender, religion or lack thereof, class, and political affiliation to have a voice and a place in our democratic process, guided by the principle my rights end where yours begin. I will fight for an honest national discourse. And I will not be deterred by those who claim to have cornered the market on faith. I acknowledge the potential for goodness and wickedness in all people, and I will not bow to those who seek to harm any of my fellow Americans for any reason, even if they come carrying a cross and wrapped in a flag. The stars and stripes represent us all, and my voice will be heard. For all.
That flag, and all it stands for, represents a struggle for freedom, for equality, for the rights of all, and I’m taking it back. It’s my fucking flag, too, and it doesn’t belong in the hands of those who would ignore the two most important words in the oath which we use to pledge our allegiance to that for which it stands. Liberty and justice for all.
I believe in those words. To those who support Justice Sunday: do you?
Friday Limerick (Saturday Edition)
I forgot about the Friday Limerick yesterday, so here it is today instead:
There once was a group of believers.
Who said they were God’s word’s receivers,
But they push only hate;
The dominionists’ fate
Is exposure as wanton deceivers.
Pursuant to that little rhyme, and my earlier post warning Women, They’re Coming For You Next, in which this idea is referenced, one of the problems in which we are constantly getting tangled up is the semantic argument about how liberals are trying to oppress people of faith. Lance Mannion has a great post on this issue today, and in his comments thread I noted: [T]he particular people of faith about whom you're talking have a name. They're dominionists, and we should all start using it. No more "Christians" (because we all know that's far too broad), no more "evangelical Christians" (because there are evangelical Christians who don't want to blur the line between church and state), and no more "conservative Christians" (because you can be a conservative Christian without being a hatemonger and wanting control of the government). They are dominionists, and we all need to start calling them what they are.
If you are not familiar with the specific definition of dominionism, here it is:
Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called “Christian Reconstructionism.” Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism “seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of ‘Biblical Law.’” He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate “…labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools.”Sound familiar? Let’s continue:
Dominionists have gained extensive control of the Republican Party and the apparatus of government throughout the United States; they continue to operate secretly. Their agenda to undermine all government social programs that assist the poor, the sick, and the elderly is ingeniously disguised under false labels that confuse voters.Dominionists. That’s what they are. That’s what we should be calling them. We need to use language the same way they do, except, of course, this is not hyperbole or exaggeration. This is their rightful name. Pass it on.
[…]
It is estimated that thirty-five million Americans who call themselves Christian, adhere to Dominionism in the United States, but most of these people appear to be ignorant of the heretical nature of their beliefs and the seditious nature of their political goals. So successfully have the televangelists and churches inculcated the idea of the existence of an outside “enemy,” which is attacking Christianity, that millions of people have perceived themselves rightfully overthrowing an imaginary evil anti-Christian conspiratorial secular society.
[…]
Dominionism started with the Gospels and turned the concept of the invisible and spiritual “Kingdom of God” into a literal political empire that could be taken by force, starting with the United States of America. Discarding the original message of Jesus and forgetting that Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world,” the framers of Dominionism boldly presented a Gospel whose purpose was to inspire Christians to enter politics and execute world domination so that Jesus could return to an earth prepared for his earthly rule by his faithful “regents.”
Reid Calls Pres a Liar
It’s about time:
Cheney on the nuclear option:
“These nominations were held up strictly for partisan political reasons, in an astounding departure from historical precedent,” Cheney said. “If the Senate majority decides to move forward and if the issue is presented to me in my elected office as President of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up-or-down vote,” he said to applause from the politically friendly audience. “On the merits, this should not be a difficult call to make.”Reid responds:
In the span of three minutes, the vice president managed to reinvent 200 years of Senate history and ignore the fact that Congress has already approved 205 of this administration’s nominees. Apparently, a 95 percent confirmation rate is not enough for this president. He wants it all, even if it means shattering the checks and balances in our government in order to put radical judges on the bench.Damn straight.
Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules. Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power.
It is disturbing that Republicans have so little respect for the separation of powers established by our founding fathers. Based on his comments last week, I had hoped that the president was prepared to join Democrats in taking up the work of the American people, but it is clear this is no longer the case. If the White House and Congress insists on proceeding down this road, Democrats will do all we can to ensure that Congress pursues an agenda the American people can be proud of.
Women, They’re Coming For You Next
Remember yesterday’s Twat of the Day, SC Rep John Graham Altman, who killed a domestic violence bill the same week he voted to protect gamecocks? Well, if you thought there might be some other explanation beside an abhorrent attitude toward protecting women, you’re wrong:
At Tuesday's meeting, according to the newspaper account, Rep. John Graham Altman asked why the bill's title "Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)" just mentioned protecting women.I’ve been asked why I am so passionate about fighting for gay rights when I myself am not gay. Here are the reasons:
Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Harrison suggested calling the bill the "Protecting Our People in Every Relationship Act," or "POPER," the newspaper reported.
A voice on the tape is heard pronouncing it "Pop her." Then another says "Pop her again," followed by laughter.
1) I believe with every ounce of my being in equal rights. I was taught in school from a very early age, as were we all, that America was a place where all people were seen as equal under the law. When I realized this was not true for certain people, simply because of their sexuality, which has no basis for legal discrimination and the prejudice against whom is rooted in a particular and limited religious interpretation that should not have legal standing, it made me fucking mad. I’d feel the same if people with brown eyes were suddenly and randomly exposed to employment, housing, and other types of discrimination.
2) There are people who I love very much, my family by design, who are gay. Until they are no longer treated as second-class citizens, I will not rest.
3) I am motivated in many things by this quote from the Rev Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran minister who lived in Germany during WWII: First they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me—and by that time no one was left to speak up for me. What I take away from this sentiment is not the fear, as might be assumed, but obligation. I am obliged to speak up for others who find themselves at the mercy of bigotry and oppression, because we are all in this thing together…and we’re stronger when we fight for each other.
4) The conservative brand of Christianity that is growing in prominence in America, and currently has designs on getting full-scale control of the government (which by the way has a name and we should all be using it: dominionism), has a history of sexuality and gender oppression that is inextricably linked. It’s no coincidence that dominionists are just as opposed to abortion and birth control as they are gay rights. Restricting access to abortion and birth control is about forcing women to cede control over their bodies. The underlying rationale—that they care about the fetus, the whole pro-life banter—is absolute nonsense. If dominionists cared about saving children, they would dedicate at least as much time and energy to solving the problem of poverty in America as they do to criminalizing abortion. That no such sweeping movement to relieve children suffering from poverty, or abuse, is afoot among dominionists tells you everything you need to know about their motivations. They do not care about saving children; they care about controlling women. And I can assure you, it won’t stop with abortion and birth control.
Pop her again.
Liberal women who don’t fervently fight against the assault on gays and lesbians are fools, because if the dominionists win that battle, we’re the next front in their war.
Wow
The LA Gay and Lesbians Center has asked for the 2001 Corporate Vision Award they gave to Microsoft in 2001 to be returned:
"We honor companies that, among other things, set a high standard for others by exhibiting leadership in advancing the cause of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual equality," said L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center Chief of Staff Darrel Cummings. "Because of Microsoft's apparent capitulation to the demands of anti-gay extremists and withdrawal of support for a bill that would do nothing more than protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination, we believe it's no longer worthy of our highest corporate honor."(Via AMERICAblog.)
[…]
"One of the most basic civil rights is protection from discrimination," said Cummings. "By withdrawing support for legislation that would protect the GLBT community from discrimination -- especially in its home state -- we're very concerned about the direction Microsoft is headed. It sends a dangerous message to the rest of corporate America, and to society in general, and may be cause for our community to evaluate its support of Microsoft."
Microsoft didn’t get to be the corporate monolith that it is today by making terrible business decisions, but aside from the ethical failing of their decision to rescind support of this bill is one whopper of a bad business decision.
Creative fields have historically attracted and continue to be disproportionately filled with gays and lesbians: art, film, music, graphic design, architecture, interior design, writing, advertising, marketing, etc. (There was a study done recently delineating the connection between creative fields, urban centers to which companies specializing in such endeavors are typically drawn, and LGBT-friendly legislation and attitudes. The gist: being gay-friendly makes for a strong local economy.) Emerging markets depend on creativity, and all of the professions listed above depend on computers. How integral are computers to Focus on the Family’s operations versus Pixar’s operations? Is Concerned Woman for America using anything more sophisticated than PCs? What about ILM?
Just in my small circle of friends, I know two gay IT professionals. Next time their bosses ask them to upgrade the company’s computer systems, might they suggest something other than a Windows system?
They just might.
Who Was on the Grassy Knoll?
Was Ken Hutcherson, pastor of the Antioch Bible Church, the man who is claiming responsibility for Microsoft’s reversal on the Washington state gay rights bill, really delivering a deal, rather than a threat?
Chris Patil of Marching Orders thinks so, and I think he might be onto something:
It never seemed right that Microsoft, which has been decorated by LGBT organizations for its support of gay rights in the workplace and in society at large, would have reversed itself because of hassling by one ornery preacher -- if that were how it worked, and individuals had that much power over the corporate giant, Bill would have fixed the security holes in Windows a long time ago.And Ms. Julien notes:
What if the conservative preacher was a red herring, and instead, Microsoft bargained away its support for the gay rights bill in exchange for the future support of key Senators for the expansion project?
The bargaining could have occurred either actively on Microsoft's part (e.g., Microsoft approaches socially conservative opponents of the expansion and offers them a trade) or less voluntarily (i.e., social conservatives approach Microsoft and make them an offer they can't refuse, threatening opposition of the expansion project unless Microsoft pulls support for gay rights legislation).
…this is the way of our "ownership" society - they want the expansion - they traded with Republicans who have the power to give them the expansion - and those same Republicans get elected and re-elected by the religious right. There's your "lone wacko..."It seems quite plausible that the fix was in. Who knows that the real story is. It seems everyone’s willing to sell their souls these days, and if selling a few others along with your own helps grease the wheels, well, that’s just fine, too, I guess.
Friday Blogrollin'
Sorry this one's a little late in the day, but I didn't want to bury it under my earlier ramblefests.
DemiOrator, whose author, WordLackey, generously graces this blog regularly with his presence in the comments threads. His blog is terrific, and one of the best-kept secrets in the blogosphere. (Though not for long, I hope.)
Blog of the Moderate Left, authored by another Shaker, Jeff Fecke. Jeff and I don’t always agree on everything, which makes his blog a nice complement to this one.
Poverty Barn, which is full of good stuff, and deserves a space on the old blogroll for its clever name alone.
Slack LaLane, the baby of Ace Cowboy, who mixes sports and politics, which is something I might consider, if the Cubs ever get their shit together. Always a nice stop for a dose of snark, too.
And finally…she’s hip, she’s sassy, she’s DC Media Girl. Go say hi.
