Photo from Brisbaine Pride
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Obama's Fatal Error in Failing to Crack Down on the Corruption of the Bush Years
I have been extremely harsh on President Barack Obama on many fronts, particularly broken campaign promises that as of this moment still have not been kept. In respect to the Gulf oil spill disaster, I have been equally harsh. Why British Petroleum - which created the disaster by its utter disregard to safety regulations and the complaints of the drilling staff - has been left in charge of addressing the disaster is mind numbing. From my oil and gas industry background, I continue to believe that BP is more concerned in salvaging the blown out well than it is in stopping the oil flow. Equally disturbing is the fact that the USA in its typical hubris has refused better technology offered by The Netherlands and Norway, both nations with major experience with offshore oil exploration - Norway from its own deep water production and The Netherlands as home of Royal Dutch Shell, the world's eight largest corporation.However, what must not be lost in all of the Fox media and GOP noise is the fact that Obama's biggest error - and it was a huge error - was not to promptly overhaul the deregulation nightmare put in place by the Bush/Cheney regime. Under Bush/Cheney - and I suspect mostly under Cheney - the supposed regulators of the oil industry were in effect members of a revolving door operation staffed by either former oil industry officials or people more than willing to turn a blind (maybe even accept a bribe) eye toward criminal misconduct. Surprisingly, it is the Rolling Stone that has one of the most comprehensive articles that traces the blame back to the handiwork of Bush/Cheney. Yes, Obama screwed up an incredible scale by his failure to fully clean house at MMS. But the ultimate blame traces back to Bush/Cheney - a fact that needs to be shoved down the throats of the Fox News talking heads and Republican windbags. We need comparable investigative reporting stories that look at the torture programs and other foul initiatives put in place by the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney that Obama has yet to overhaul. Here are highlights from the Rolling Stone article (NOTE: I urge you to read the full story even though it may make you sick):
*
For weeks, the administration had been insisting that BP alone was to blame for the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf – and the ongoing failure to stop the massive leak. "They have the technical expertise to plug the hole," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had said only six days earlier. "It is their responsibility." The president, Gibbs added, lacked the authority to play anything more than a supervisory role – a curious line of argument from an administration that has reserved the right to assassinate American citizens abroad and has nationalized much of the auto industry. "If BP is not accomplishing the task, can you just federalize it?" a reporter asked. "No," Gibbs replied.
*
Now, however, the president was suddenly standing up to take command of the cleanup effort. "In case you were wondering who's responsible," Obama told the nation, "I take responsibility." Sounding chastened, he acknowledged that his administration had failed to adequately reform the Minerals Management Service, the scandal-ridden federal agency that for years had essentially allowed the oil industry to self-regulate. "There wasn't sufficient urgency," the president said. "Absolutely I take responsibility for that." He also admitted that he had been too credulous of the oil giants: "I was wrong in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios." He unveiled a presidential commission to investigate the disaster, discussed the resignation of the head of MMS, and extended a moratorium on new deepwater drilling. "The buck," he reiterated the next day on the sullied Louisiana coastline, "stops with me."
*
Like the attacks by Al Qaeda, the disaster in the Gulf was preceded by ample warnings – yet the administration had ignored them. Instead of cracking down on MMS, as he had vowed to do even before taking office, Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the agency's culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous drilling operations by BP – a firm with the worst safety record of any oil company – with virtually no environmental safeguards, using industry-friendly regulations drafted during the Bush years.
*
Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components – a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to "catastrophic" errors.
*
During the Bush years, the Minerals Management Service, the agency in the Interior Department charged with safeguarding the environment from the ravages of drilling, descended into rank criminality. According to reports by Interior's inspector general, MMS staffers were both literally and figuratively in bed with the oil industry. When agency staffers weren't joining industry employees for coke parties or trips to corporate ski chalets, they were having sex with oil-company officials. But it was American taxpayers and the environment that were getting screwed. MMS managers were awarded cash bonuses for pushing through risky offshore leases, auditors were ordered not to investigate shady deals, and safety staffers routinely accepted gifts from the industry, allegedly even allowing oil companies to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil before tracing over them in pen.
*
"The oil companies were running MMS during those years," Bobby Maxwell, a former top auditor with the agency, told Rolling Stone last year. "Whatever they wanted, they got. Nothing was being enforced across the board at MMS."
*
Salazar was far less aggressive, however, when it came to making good on his promise to fix MMS. Though he criticized the actions of "a few rotten apples" at the agency, he left long-serving lackeys of the oil industry in charge. "The people that are ethically challenged are the career managers, the people who come up through the ranks," says a marine biologist who left the agency over the way science was tampered with by top officials. "In order to get promoted at MMS, you better get invested in this pro-development oil culture." One of the Bush-era managers whom Salazar left in place was John Goll, the agency's director for Alaska. Shortly after, the Interior secretary announced a reorganization of MMS in the wake of the Gulf disaster, Goll called a staff meeting and served cake decorated with the words "Drill, baby, drill."
*
"Employees describe being in Interior – not just MMS, but the other agencies – as the third Bush term," says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. "They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies. Why would you expect a different result?"
*
The tale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is, at its core, the tale of two blowout preventers: one mechanical, one regulatory. The regulatory blowout preventer failed long before BP ever started to drill – precisely because Salazar kept in place the crooked environmental guidelines the Bush administration implemented to favor the oil industry.
*
MMS has fully understood the worst-case scenarios for deep-sea oil blowouts for more than a decade. In May 2000, an environmental assessment for deepwater drilling in the Gulf presciently warned that "spill responses may be complicated by the potential for very large magnitude spills (because of the high production rates associated with deepwater wells).
*
Enter the Bush administration. Rather than heeding such warnings, MMS simply assumed that a big spill couldn't happen. "There was a complete failure to even contemplate the possibility of a disaster like the one in the Gulf," says Holly Doremus, an environmental-law expert at the University of California. "In their thinking, a big spill would be something like 5,000 barrels, and the oil wouldn't even reach the shoreline." In fact, Bush's five-year plan for offshore drilling described a "large oil spill" as no more than 1,500 barrels. In April 2007, an environmental assessment covering the area where BP would drill concluded that blowouts were "low probability and low risk," even though a test funded by MMS had found that blowout preventers failed 28 percent of the time.
*
Nowhere was the absurdity of the policy more evident than in the application that BP submitted for its Deepwater Horizon well only two months after Obama took office. BP claims that a spill is "unlikely" and states that it anticipates "no adverse impacts" to endangered wildlife or fisheries. Should a spill occur, it says, "no significant adverse impacts are expected" for the region's beaches, wetlands and coastal nesting birds. The company, noting that such elements are "not required" as part of the application, contains no scenario for a potential blowout, and no site-specific plan to respond to a spill. Instead, it cites an Oil Spill Response Plan that it had prepared for the entire Gulf region.
*
Under Salazar, MMS continued to issue categorical exclusions to companies like BP, even when they lacked the necessary permits to protect endangered species. A preliminary review of the BP disaster conducted by scientists with the independent Deepwater Horizon Study Group concludes that MMS failed to enforce a host of environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act. "MMS and Interior are equally responsible for the failures here," says the former agency scientist. "They weren't willing to take the regulatory steps that could have prevented this incident."
*
BP is the last oil company on Earth that Salazar and MMS should have allowed to regulate itself. . . . The company applied the same deadly cost-cutting mentality to its oil rig in the Gulf. BP, it is important to note, is less an oil company than a bank that finances oil exploration; unlike ExxonMobil, which owns most of the equipment it uses to drill, BP contracts out almost everything. That includes the Deepwater Horizon rig that it leased from a firm called Transocean. BP shaved $500,000 off its overhead by deploying a blowout preventer without a remote-control trigger – a fail-safe measure required in many countries but not mandated by MMS, thanks to intense industry lobbying. It opted to use cheap, single-walled piping for the well, and installed only six of the 21 cement spacers recommended by its contractor, Halliburton – decisions that significantly increased the risk of a severe explosion. It also skimped on critical testing that could have shown whether explosive gas was getting into the system as it was being cemented, and began removing mud that protected the well before it was sealed with cement plugs.
*
For weeks, the administration had been insisting that BP alone was to blame for the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf – and the ongoing failure to stop the massive leak. "They have the technical expertise to plug the hole," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had said only six days earlier. "It is their responsibility." The president, Gibbs added, lacked the authority to play anything more than a supervisory role – a curious line of argument from an administration that has reserved the right to assassinate American citizens abroad and has nationalized much of the auto industry. "If BP is not accomplishing the task, can you just federalize it?" a reporter asked. "No," Gibbs replied.
*
Now, however, the president was suddenly standing up to take command of the cleanup effort. "In case you were wondering who's responsible," Obama told the nation, "I take responsibility." Sounding chastened, he acknowledged that his administration had failed to adequately reform the Minerals Management Service, the scandal-ridden federal agency that for years had essentially allowed the oil industry to self-regulate. "There wasn't sufficient urgency," the president said. "Absolutely I take responsibility for that." He also admitted that he had been too credulous of the oil giants: "I was wrong in my belief that the oil companies had their act together when it came to worst-case scenarios." He unveiled a presidential commission to investigate the disaster, discussed the resignation of the head of MMS, and extended a moratorium on new deepwater drilling. "The buck," he reiterated the next day on the sullied Louisiana coastline, "stops with me."
*
Like the attacks by Al Qaeda, the disaster in the Gulf was preceded by ample warnings – yet the administration had ignored them. Instead of cracking down on MMS, as he had vowed to do even before taking office, Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the agency's culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous drilling operations by BP – a firm with the worst safety record of any oil company – with virtually no environmental safeguards, using industry-friendly regulations drafted during the Bush years.
*
Most troubling of all, the government has allowed BP to continue deep-sea production at its Atlantis rig – one of the world's largest oil platforms. Capable of drawing 200,000 barrels a day from the seafloor, Atlantis is located only 150 miles off the coast of Louisiana, in waters nearly 2,000 feet deeper than BP drilled at Deepwater Horizon. According to congressional documents, the platform lacks required engineering certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components – a flaw that internal BP documents reveal could lead to "catastrophic" errors.
*
During the Bush years, the Minerals Management Service, the agency in the Interior Department charged with safeguarding the environment from the ravages of drilling, descended into rank criminality. According to reports by Interior's inspector general, MMS staffers were both literally and figuratively in bed with the oil industry. When agency staffers weren't joining industry employees for coke parties or trips to corporate ski chalets, they were having sex with oil-company officials. But it was American taxpayers and the environment that were getting screwed. MMS managers were awarded cash bonuses for pushing through risky offshore leases, auditors were ordered not to investigate shady deals, and safety staffers routinely accepted gifts from the industry, allegedly even allowing oil companies to fill in their own inspection reports in pencil before tracing over them in pen.
*
"The oil companies were running MMS during those years," Bobby Maxwell, a former top auditor with the agency, told Rolling Stone last year. "Whatever they wanted, they got. Nothing was being enforced across the board at MMS."
*
Salazar was far less aggressive, however, when it came to making good on his promise to fix MMS. Though he criticized the actions of "a few rotten apples" at the agency, he left long-serving lackeys of the oil industry in charge. "The people that are ethically challenged are the career managers, the people who come up through the ranks," says a marine biologist who left the agency over the way science was tampered with by top officials. "In order to get promoted at MMS, you better get invested in this pro-development oil culture." One of the Bush-era managers whom Salazar left in place was John Goll, the agency's director for Alaska. Shortly after, the Interior secretary announced a reorganization of MMS in the wake of the Gulf disaster, Goll called a staff meeting and served cake decorated with the words "Drill, baby, drill."
*
"Employees describe being in Interior – not just MMS, but the other agencies – as the third Bush term," says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which represents federal whistle-blowers. "They're working for the same managers who are implementing the same policies. Why would you expect a different result?"
*
The tale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster is, at its core, the tale of two blowout preventers: one mechanical, one regulatory. The regulatory blowout preventer failed long before BP ever started to drill – precisely because Salazar kept in place the crooked environmental guidelines the Bush administration implemented to favor the oil industry.
*
MMS has fully understood the worst-case scenarios for deep-sea oil blowouts for more than a decade. In May 2000, an environmental assessment for deepwater drilling in the Gulf presciently warned that "spill responses may be complicated by the potential for very large magnitude spills (because of the high production rates associated with deepwater wells).
*
Enter the Bush administration. Rather than heeding such warnings, MMS simply assumed that a big spill couldn't happen. "There was a complete failure to even contemplate the possibility of a disaster like the one in the Gulf," says Holly Doremus, an environmental-law expert at the University of California. "In their thinking, a big spill would be something like 5,000 barrels, and the oil wouldn't even reach the shoreline." In fact, Bush's five-year plan for offshore drilling described a "large oil spill" as no more than 1,500 barrels. In April 2007, an environmental assessment covering the area where BP would drill concluded that blowouts were "low probability and low risk," even though a test funded by MMS had found that blowout preventers failed 28 percent of the time.
*
Nowhere was the absurdity of the policy more evident than in the application that BP submitted for its Deepwater Horizon well only two months after Obama took office. BP claims that a spill is "unlikely" and states that it anticipates "no adverse impacts" to endangered wildlife or fisheries. Should a spill occur, it says, "no significant adverse impacts are expected" for the region's beaches, wetlands and coastal nesting birds. The company, noting that such elements are "not required" as part of the application, contains no scenario for a potential blowout, and no site-specific plan to respond to a spill. Instead, it cites an Oil Spill Response Plan that it had prepared for the entire Gulf region.
*
Under Salazar, MMS continued to issue categorical exclusions to companies like BP, even when they lacked the necessary permits to protect endangered species. A preliminary review of the BP disaster conducted by scientists with the independent Deepwater Horizon Study Group concludes that MMS failed to enforce a host of environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act. "MMS and Interior are equally responsible for the failures here," says the former agency scientist. "They weren't willing to take the regulatory steps that could have prevented this incident."
*
BP is the last oil company on Earth that Salazar and MMS should have allowed to regulate itself. . . . The company applied the same deadly cost-cutting mentality to its oil rig in the Gulf. BP, it is important to note, is less an oil company than a bank that finances oil exploration; unlike ExxonMobil, which owns most of the equipment it uses to drill, BP contracts out almost everything. That includes the Deepwater Horizon rig that it leased from a firm called Transocean. BP shaved $500,000 off its overhead by deploying a blowout preventer without a remote-control trigger – a fail-safe measure required in many countries but not mandated by MMS, thanks to intense industry lobbying. It opted to use cheap, single-walled piping for the well, and installed only six of the 21 cement spacers recommended by its contractor, Halliburton – decisions that significantly increased the risk of a severe explosion. It also skimped on critical testing that could have shown whether explosive gas was getting into the system as it was being cemented, and began removing mud that protected the well before it was sealed with cement plugs.
*
[O]n the eve of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the Deepwater Horizon rig went off like a bomb. From the start of its operation in the Gulf, BP had found itself struggling against powerful "kicks" from gas buildup, just as MMS had warned. Now, on April 20th, the pent-up methane exploded in a fireball that incinerated 11 workers. Like a scene out of a real-life Jerry Bruckheimer film, the half-billion-dollar rig – 32,000 tons and 30 stories tall – listed over and sank to the bottom two days later, taking a mile of pipe down with it.
*
[T]he effort, has been "like a drunk driver [BP] getting into a car wreck and then helping the police with the accident investigation." Indeed, the administration has seemed oddly untroubled about leaving the Gulf's fate in the hands of a repeat criminal offender, and uncurious about the crimes that may have been committed leading up to the initial sinking of the rig.
*
The failure of the Obama administration to crack down on BP – and to tackle the crisis with the full force of the federal government – is likely to haunt the Gulf Coast for decades to come. Oil continues to lap up onshore in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida. Pelican rookeries are fouled, their eggs and nests soaked in oil. The region's fisheries – some of the richest in the world – are imperiled; anglers and shrimpers have been barred from more than a third of the Gulf's waters, which may never fully recover from the toxic stew of crude and chemical dispersant now twisting in its depths. The region's beaches are empty, and tourist towns are dying. Administration officials now admit that the oil may continue to gush into the Gulf until August, when relief wells are finally in place.
Hampton Roads Pride Week
.jpg)
Just a reminder that the City of Hampton's first ever Pride and Diversity Event will take place in Millpoint Park on June 19, 2010. As previously noted, there have been some organizational changes, and the helm of organizing the event are St. Mark's Episcopal Church in Hampton and Unitarian Universalist congregation in Williamsburg. These non-profit, gay supportive organizations will be giving all net proceeds derived from the event to local charities. In addition to food, wine, beer and vendors, organizations and businesses that want to promote themselves can secure a booth for $50.00. For more information contact St. Marks at (757) 826-3515 0r go to the church's website: http://www.stmarkshampton.org/.
*
This event will be the kick off for a week long Pride theme that will culminate with HP Pride's "Out in the Park" on June 27, 2010 at Chesapeake City Park off of Greenbrier Parkway in Chesapeake. The HR Pride website has all of the details.
Also, on Saturday June 26, 2010 there will also be another fabulous pier party at the Ocean View Fishing Pier just off 4th View Street in Norfolk. Pope Begs Forgiveness for Sexual Abuse, But Then Blames Devil and Fails to Act
What do Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI have in common? Both are great at making promises of decisive action and then doing nothing to follow through. Both seem to think that if they say the right things they can avoid taking any meaningful action. In the case of Obama, it's his constant oratory to LGBT Americans who in the next breath he throws under the bus. With Benedict XVI, he claims that the institutional Church is contrite over its horrific sexual abuse of children and minors, but then he does nothing to remove from the ranks of the hierarchy those involved in enabling and covering up abuse. Of course, this would also mean that Benedict would need to resign himself to fully set thing right. The Huffington Post has coverage on Benedict XVI's latest crocodile tears which, without concrete action are meaningless. The fact that Benedict tries to blame the Devil for the explosion of the abuse scandal all across Europe demonstrates that no serious action will be forthcoming. Indeed, if Benedict wants to see the face of the Devil, he need only look in the mirror and the faces of a majority of the U.S. Catholic Bishops. Here are some story highlights:*
VATICAN CITY — Addressing the clerical abuse scandal from the heart of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI begged forgiveness Friday from victims and promised at a Mass to "do everything possible" to protect children.
*
While symbolic, Benedict's pledge failed to satisfy victims groups who said promises were useless without a clear-cut action plan to root out pedophile priests, expose the bishops who protected them and change the Vatican policies and culture that allowed abuse to continue.
*
Benedict implied the devil was behind the timing of the scandal, saying the Year of the Priest was supposed to have been a year in celebration of the priesthood and encouragement for new vocations.
*
"It was to be expected that this new radiance of the priesthood would not be pleasing to the `enemy'"; he would have rather preferred to see it disappear, so that God would ultimately be driven from the world," Benedict said in his homily, to applause from the gathered priests.
*
"And so it happened that in this very year of joy for the sacrament of the priesthood, the sins of priests came to light – particularly the abuse of little ones," he said.
*
"We, too, insistently beg forgiveness from God and from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again," he said.
*
Victims groups who had been hoping for a papal mea culpa and clear-cut action plan to protect children weren't satisfied.
*
"A promise is nominally more helpful than an apology. But promises are usually easy to make, hard to keep and broken often if there's no oversight or penalties," said Barbara Blaine, president of the U.S. victims group SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
*
Another group, BishopAccountability.org, said the pontiff's remarks were both a disappointment and a squandered opportunity in that he only prescribed an internal step: better screening for priests.
*
It called for him to tell his bishops to do more: stop opposing legislation to extend statutes of limitations so victims can seek justice from abusers; post information about known abusers on diocesan websites and for the Vatican office that handles abuse cases to do the same.
*
"Once again, the pope focused only on wayward priests, and he once again minimized the sodomizing and abuse of helpless children by calling it a 'sin,'" the group said in a statement.
Alabama Paying Price for Republican Policies
Having lived on the Gulf Coast for six years - part of it in the Mobile area - and with family roots that trace back to New Orleans, I continue to be saddened by the damage being done to both the environment and people's livelihoods as a result of British Petroleum's apparent gross negligence and wilful misconduct at the Deep Horizon well which continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico. At the same time, I cannot help but note the irony that through their blind support of the deregulation/smaller government worshipping Republican Party, Alabamians helped set the stage for their own misfortune. Yes, the Obama administration has dropped the ball on dealing with the disaster. But the framework that allowed the disaster in the first place was put in place by the Bush/Cheney regime. Time and time again we were told that big oil could police itself. Obviously, the mantra was a lie and now thousands of people are seeing their businesses and livelihoods wither. Whenever the GOP faults Obama's missteps, it is critical that the blame be cast back on the anti-regulation mindset that controlled Washington, D.C., for the eight years of the Bush/Cheney age of darkness. The Mobile Press Register has some details on the latest devastation along the Alabama coast. Here are some highlights: *As unprecedented amounts of oil slathered Alabama's coastline Friday, officials closed stretches of water in Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to most boat traffic to aid containment efforts.
*
The closure of Alabama waters inside Perdido Pass to all recreational boating traffic, requested by Orange Beach Mayor Tony Kennon, effectively shut down fishing from the self-titled "Red Snapper Capital of the World."
Only vessels working with BP will be allowed to use the pass until further notice.
*
The main body of the Gulf oil slick will hover just miles south of coasts on both sides of the Florida-Alabama line by Sunday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration projected.
*
[Alabama Governor] Riley told members of the Press-Register's editorial board on Friday that he was dissatisfied with delays in processing claims related to the spill, and would send National Guard troops and staff from the Alabama Emergency Management Agency to help speed the process.
*
"These are small businesses and family businesses that don't have a lot to fall back on," Riley said. "They're losing business, and if they don't get help, they're gone."
*
Some of these business owners should have thought harder before casing votes for Bush/Cheney and "drill baby drill" Sarah Palin.
Bradlee Dean - the Face of "Christianist" and GOP Hate
It never ceases to amaze me how hateful and down right vile self-congratulatory "Christians" can be. Other than tempestuous love affairs with themselves, the seem to hate just about everyone else - especially if that everyone else is gay. Or, black. Or, Hispanic. Or an immigrant. Or Jewish. The list truly goes on and on. Yet another example of this is phenomenon is Bradlee Dean, drummer for the Christianist rock group, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide. Dean (pictured above), who looks pretty damn effeminate if you ask me, has close ties with GOP wing nuts - including GOP Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, one of the nuttiest of them all, has recently condoned the execution of gays. Applying the rule of thumb that the most strident homophobes are usually self-loathing closet cases, Dean must have some serious issues of his own. The Minnesota Independent recently looked at how Dean's rock group has become a quasi-fixture at Minnesota GOP events as well as Dean's kill the gays statements. Here are some highlights:*
You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit ministry that brings its hard rock gospel into public schools, has been deepening its long-running ties to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Long a cause célèbre for Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has twice lent her name to the group’s fundraising efforts, You Can Run (YCR) had a booth at the GOP convention in April, and the group’s frontman, Bradlee Dean, reports that gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer recently accepted an invitation to visit with him at Dean’s home. But recent controversial statements by Dean — that Muslim countries calling for the execution of gays and lesbians are “more moral than even the American Christians” — have drawn the ire of some both within and outside the party.
*
“Muslims are calling for the executions of homosexuals in America,” Dean said on YCR’s May 15 radio show on AM 1280 the Patriot. “This just shows you they themselves are upholding the laws that are even in the Bible of the Judeo-Christian God, but they seem to be more moral than even the American Christians do, because these people are livid about enforcing their laws. They know homosexuality is an abomination.”
*
“If America won’t enforce the laws, God will raise up a foreign enemy to do just that,” Dean continued. “That is what you are seeing in America.”
*
“The bottom line is this… they [homosexuals] play the victim when they are, in fact, the predator,” Dean said, before going on to make a claim that has no basis in fact: “On average, they molest 117 people before they’re found out. How many kids have been destroyed, how many adults have been destroyed because of crimes against nature?”
*
GOP chair Sutton did not respond to the Minnesota Independent’s request for comment on Dean’s rhetoric about executing gays and lesbians, but Emmer’s press secretary, Chris Van Guilder, passed along this statement from Emmer: . . . Tom did meet Bradlee Dean while campaigning, and may have doorknocked his house. Tom has also appeared on AM1280 and KKMS, including on Bradlee Dean’s radio show. Tom has appeared on many other radio stations and shows as well.Tom’s position on social issues has been very clear and consistent. He is a supporter of traditional marriage, and he strongly opposes any kind of violence or unfair discrimination against any group. . . .
*
Emmer’s campaign acknowledges that Emmer’s Minnesota House campaign donated $250 to You Can Run in 2008; the campaign has alerted the Campaign Finance Board because the donation exceeds the legal limit by $150.
*
For a generally progressive state, Minnesota seems to have some really scary whack jobs. Personally, I find it frightening that someone as blatantly untethered from reality as Michelle Bachmann ever got elected to Congress.
Closeted Republican Alert - Me, Gay?
Via Gawker comes this this wild photo of GOP Rep. Aaron Schock (right) which is rumored to be "jamming up the gay staff listserve" on Capitol Hill. The photo was taken at Tuesday night's White House picnic. Did he win any prizes? I'm 100% out and even I wouldn't wear that outfit. Schonk - is that any relation to Schrock?? Click to the image to enlarge.
More Democrat Betrayal of LGBT Americans
Nancy Pelosi has announced that there will be no movement on efforts to pass ENDA until the Senate acts of the so-called "repeal" of DADT. Which, given the fact that there's no guarantee of when the Senate will take up DADT much less pass it, means that there's no guarantee that ENDA will see movement this year. Meanwhile, the Uncle Tom like suck ups at HRC and other alleged LGBT rights organizations continue to act as if they were paid cheerleaders for the Obama administration. It's a sad state of affairs and - at least for me - extremely demoralizing. Personally, I am using the November elections as my cut off mark. Either the Senate has passed DADT repeal - which isn't even really repeal - and ENDA has been enacted, or all bets are off in terms of me voting for Democrats in November. The boyfriend is pretty much of the same mind and equally disgusted. Glenn Nye, we live in your district, are you listening?? *
While Joe Solmonese and others gush that Obama is the best pro-gay president ever, the reality is that it takes almost nothing to win that title given the abysmal track record of Obama's predecessors. And while Obama may have appointed more gays to federal positions than any predecessor, for the vast majority of us in the LGBT community, in most states we still have no employment non-discrimination protections, our relationships are not recognized, we face religious based bigotry and cannot serve openly in the military, and in numerous other ways we are clearly second or third class citizens. Yes, the passage of federal hate crimes legislation was nice, but actually impacts only a few in the LGBT community. As a result, I'm not sure what there is to gush about if you are not part of the inside the beltway professional gay rights clique like Solmonese. Here are some highlights from the Washington Blade of Nancy Pelosi's disingenuous double speak:
*
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday said that a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act wouldn’t take place until Congress completes legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” During her weekly press conference, Pelosi said in response to a Blade inquiry on ENDA’s prospects that lawmakers “still have to finish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
*
Referencing the successful House vote May 27 to attach repeal to Defense Department budget legislation, she said, “And now, of course, we’ll go — after the bill passes in the Senate — we’ll go to conference. But our work is not finished in that regard, so one thing at a time.”
*
It could take several months for Congress to finish legislative action on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The full Senate has yet to vote on the defense authorization bill, and differences in the House and Senate versions would have to be hammered out in conference committee before the measure is sent to President Obama’s desk.
*
Still, Pelosi said, “we’re very proud” of the House vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the House, calling it a “historic” action.
*
Never mind that the House version of "repeal" leaves the military brass in a position to kill DADT repeal or that there are serious questions as to the one-sidedness of the Pentagon "study." A study that isn't even needed were the U.S. military to bother looking at how our military allies successfully repealed their bans on gays serving openly in those nations' military. John Aravosis sums up the situation well at America Blog:
*
70% to 80% of the public, in poll after poll, support the full and immediate repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The President, however, is fighting for piecemeal legislation that won't guarantee repeal ever. And note how the White House has never said, even once, when they plan to actually repeal DADT, to actually lift the ban entirely. It's hardly a profile in courage to play this fearful with something so popular with the American public.
*
Has Barack Obama really caught up with the times? I don't think so. I think he's still living in 1992. And so is the Democratic party. So he, and they, think that whatever would have placated us in 1992 - OMG he spoke at our dinner! - will make us happy in 2010. It won't, and it shouldn't. When I was a kid all I wanted out of life was a Major Matt Mason doll. Now I'm a bit older and I expect a bit more. We all do.
*
Democrats need to stop striving to be marginally better than truly awful human beings. We voted for better, they promised better, and we expect better.
*
U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday said that a vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act wouldn’t take place until Congress completes legislative action on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” During her weekly press conference, Pelosi said in response to a Blade inquiry on ENDA’s prospects that lawmakers “still have to finish ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’”
*
Referencing the successful House vote May 27 to attach repeal to Defense Department budget legislation, she said, “And now, of course, we’ll go — after the bill passes in the Senate — we’ll go to conference. But our work is not finished in that regard, so one thing at a time.”
*
It could take several months for Congress to finish legislative action on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The full Senate has yet to vote on the defense authorization bill, and differences in the House and Senate versions would have to be hammered out in conference committee before the measure is sent to President Obama’s desk.
*
Still, Pelosi said, “we’re very proud” of the House vote to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in the House, calling it a “historic” action.
*
Never mind that the House version of "repeal" leaves the military brass in a position to kill DADT repeal or that there are serious questions as to the one-sidedness of the Pentagon "study." A study that isn't even needed were the U.S. military to bother looking at how our military allies successfully repealed their bans on gays serving openly in those nations' military. John Aravosis sums up the situation well at America Blog:
*
70% to 80% of the public, in poll after poll, support the full and immediate repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The President, however, is fighting for piecemeal legislation that won't guarantee repeal ever. And note how the White House has never said, even once, when they plan to actually repeal DADT, to actually lift the ban entirely. It's hardly a profile in courage to play this fearful with something so popular with the American public.
*
Has Barack Obama really caught up with the times? I don't think so. I think he's still living in 1992. And so is the Democratic party. So he, and they, think that whatever would have placated us in 1992 - OMG he spoke at our dinner! - will make us happy in 2010. It won't, and it shouldn't. When I was a kid all I wanted out of life was a Major Matt Mason doll. Now I'm a bit older and I expect a bit more. We all do.
*
Democrats need to stop striving to be marginally better than truly awful human beings. We voted for better, they promised better, and we expect better.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Gay Best Friends Crowned Prom King and Queen
All too often I and other bloggers look at wrongs in the world, especially wrongs done to GLBT individuals. But sometimes - often to our surprise - some things get done right. A case in point is the crowning of two gay boys as prom king and queen at a high school in Hudson, New York located roughly half way between New York City and Albany. Like much of upstate New York (through high school I lived in the Syracuse area), Hudson is light years from the world of New York City. Yet the students at Hudson High School got it right and voted for the boys by a near landslide. Would that the older generation could look beyond stereotypes and religious based bigotry. Congratulations to Charlie Ferrusi and Timmy Howard - and their peers who had the ability to see them as fully human and worthy of equal treatment. Here are some highlights from Hudson Register-Star:*
The Hudson High School prom made history this past Saturday when openly gay best friends were named prom king and queen. Seniors Charlie Ferrusi and Timmy Howard won their respective crown and tiara by a landslide Saturday and said the support they received from their peers and school administration has been fun and humbling.
*
“It’s a really big step for Hudson but also for the gay community in general,” Howard said Wednesday. “To have this happen in our city is pretty exciting.”
*
By prom night the overwhelming majority of students cast their votes in the open ballot race. They won by such a wide margin the school didn’t crown any runners up.
*
In 2008 Augie Abatecola ran and won the race for Hudson prom queen but he was denied the crown by school officials. This time around Ferrusi and Howard decided to run their plan by advisors and Principal Steven Spicer beforehand. The school officials said they wouldn’t interfere with the student body’s vote and gave the boys their blessing.
*
Incidences of young men winning prom king or queen do occur but two gay friends taking both crowns without incident is rare. Ferrusi and Howard’s crowning was appropriately timed, as Hudson will hold its first ever gay pride parade on Sunday, June 20. They said they plan on riding down Warren Street in the back of a truck with their crowns and homemade sashes.
*
The Hudson Pride celebration will include a talk by Ed Beatty who was a part of the Stonewall riot in 1969 where gays at the Stonewall bar in New York City clashed with police trying to disperse their gathering.
*
That riot was one of the major events that led to the abolition of a law banning gays to congregate. Star said recognizing those events and Ferrusi and Howard’s achievement in the same event is really significant. “It’s a brave new word,” Star said. “It’s a brave new Hudson.”
*
Not surprisingly, some of the comments on the news story were not pretty, proving that there are still many Neanderthals out there. Fortunately, they are dying off just like the Neanderthals in prehistory.
DADT Illegal Under First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause
Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson has a thoughtful and timely column at Huffington Post that explains in plain language why DADT should be struck down as illegal and in violation of the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Would that more among progressive Christians would loudly condemn religious based discrimination that turns the promise of the Constitution on its head. Sadly, too many courts - i.e., think Supreme Court of Virginia - lack the courage to apply the clear language of the Constitution that bar unequal treatment based upon one's failure to conform to the religious beliefs of others. In the process of his column, Robinson excoriates Archbishop for the Military Services USA, Timothy Broglio, who supports the continuation of Don't Ask Don't Tell which has wrongfully enshrined the Roman Catholic Church's (and other religious faiths') anti-gay religious beliefs into the civil and military laws. DADT flies directly in the face of Section 1 of Thomas Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom wherein Jefferson ripped religious persecutors like Broglio a new one." As for the Catholic Church's claim that gays are "inherently disordered," it would seem that if anyone is inherently disordered it's Pope Benedict XVI, Broglio and the rest of the Church hierarchy that covered up the sexual abuse of hundreds of thousands of children and youths. Here are some highlights from Robinson's slam dunk column:*
Archbishop for the Military Services USA Timothy Broglio released a statement earlier this month arguing that the federal government should not repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, which prevents gay and lesbian men and women from serving openly in the military. He claims that doing so would compromise the faith and role of Roman Catholic military chaplains. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. His arguments are so spurious and misguided it is hard to find a place to begin in refuting them.
*
The separation of church and state is not threatened by a change in the DADT policy, despite the archbishop's claims. No Roman Catholic chaplain, nor any other chaplain with negative views of homosexuality, will be required to teach, preach, or counsel anything outside their own beliefs.
*
The archbishop restates in his letter what everyone knows: The Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" and "are contrary to the natural law" and that "Homosexual persons are called to chastity." If you go to a chaplain with those beliefs under a repealed DADT, that's still what you're going to get in the way of counsel. What you won't get under the repeal is a dishonorable discharge to boot!
*
No chaplain is required to marry or bless any relationship against his or her will--just as no such requirement is made of any clergyperson in American society. This is a red herring--a strenuous objection to a problem that does not exist. DADT is not about relationships or marriage. It is about who is allowed to serve their country in the military.
*
The archbishop inexplicably goes on to drag alcoholics into the debate: . . .
Saying that there is no cure for homosexuality, as for alcoholism, is to say that there is something that needs curing. The archbishop is welcome to his opinion, but he must admit that it flies in the face of contrary judgments by every reputable psychiatric association in the world.
*
I am not saying that the archbishop has no right to his religiously held beliefs. My question is whether the church has the right to impose those beliefs on the state. Separation of church and state works both ways! Just as the archbishop argues that he should not be coerced by the state to change his beliefs (I totally agree!), so must the church not impose its beliefs on the secular state and its military. The church has no right to argue for less-than-equal rights for any American citizen.
*
As I have argued many, many times, when anti-gay arguments are stripped of all the smoke and mirrors, they come down to one thing: RELIGIOUS BELIEF. As such they are inherently unconstitutional and need to be struck down.
Virgiia Supreme Court Rules Against Breakaway Anglicans
In an unusual display of courage and decency, the Supreme Court of Virginia has reversed a lower court decision that would have allowed break away Episcopal parishes to abscond with the property of the Episcopal Church USA. The lower court had embarrassingly based its decision on a Virginia Civil War era statute that had been enacted for the specific purpose of allowing pro-slavery Baptist churches - i.e., those that became part of the Southern Baptist Convention - to seize and keep the property of the anti-slavery American Baptist Church. Apparently, this ruling based on a racist law that ought to be repealed and removed from the Code of Virginia was too much for the usually spineless Supreme Court of Virginia. The case has been remanded back to the lower court, so the battle will continue, but this ruing is a major blow against the break away Episcopal parishes which are aligning themselves under anti-gay extremist bishops in Africa - including Peter Akinola of Nigeria who is rumored to have ordered the massacre of 600 Muslim men, women and children. The Washington Post has details on this development. Here are some highlights:*
Virginia's Supreme Court struck a blow to Anglican conservatives Thursday, ruling against nine congregations who split from the Episcopal Church after a series of doctrinal disputes that culminated with the 2003 installation of an openly gay bishop.
*
At issue are tens of millions of dollars in church property and symbolic momentum for dueling movements in the Anglican Communion.
*
The unanimous decision by the five-judge panel dismissing a lower court ruling that favored conservatives is not likely to end the dispute for the nine church properties. The panel simply found that a Civil War-era law governing how property is divided when churches split was wrongly applied to the current dispute. The panel sent the parties back to Fairfax County Circuit Court for a second, parallel case that focuses on who owns the properties. The case is expected to be more complex and messy.
*
Although the legal issues were particular to Virginia, the case has been closely watched by Anglicans worldwide and other faith groups battling over how to interpret Scripture. The Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism, has been at odds for decades over everything from the ordination of women to the concept of salvation to more recent disputes about the rights of gays and lesbians to become clergy and marry. Conservatives' push to separate revved up after church leaders voted in 2003 to ordain Gene Robinson, an openly gay New Hampshire priest, as bishop.
*
Asked whether the dispute was worth the emotion and about $3.5 million paid by the Virginia Diocese alone (the national church is also a party), he said: "We want to worship in our historic home; it's a holy place for us. Children were baptized there, parents buried." The 175-person congregation, which meets in a Presbyterian church across the street, planned a healing worship service for Thursday night. Pipkin said he planned to call the rector of the Anglican congregation who worships in the 800-seat Falls Church.
*
Like the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church structure vests title to all church properties in the diocese as opposed to ever changing congregations. To allow the break away parishes to steal the diocese property would in effect place the Courts in a position of tampering with internal Church governance - something all denominations should be against.
Same Sex Marriage: A Basic Civil Right
In a strong editorial, the New York Times has come out squarely on the side of gay marriage and calling laws barring gays from marrying unconstitutional and discriminatory. No doubt fundies will be threatening to cancel their subscriptions - assume they subscribe in the first place. In addition to urging Judge Walker to strike down Proposition 8, the Times go on to state that states like New York need to stop the dithering and enact legislation allowing same sex couples to marry. To do otherwise, in my view, is to work to deliberately deny marriage's stabilizing influence and benefits from gays solely because we fail to conform to Christianist ideals of sexuality. Plain and simple, anti-gay legislation is religious based discrimination that the courts and legislatures need to have the courage to call illegal. Particularly, now that legitimate medical and mental health experts recognize that sexual orientation is not something changeable. Here are highlights from the Times editorial:*
No one expects the ruling from Judge Vaughn Walker in Federal District Court to be the last word. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, will have its say, and so, eventually, may the Supreme Court.
*
The testimony made abundantly clear that excluding same-sex couples from marriage exacts a grievous toll on gay people and their families. Domestic partnerships are a woefully inadequate substitute.
*
Defenders of Proposition 8 produced no evidence to back up their claim that marriage between same-sex couples would hurt heterosexual marriage. “I don’t know. I don’t know,” the defense attorney, Charles Cooper, said when asked for an explanation by the judge at a pretrial hearing.
*
The defense called only two witnesses. The first, Kenneth Miller, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, argued that gay people are a powerful political force, which was meant to support the claim that there is no need for enhanced judicial protection. He ended up admitting that gay men and lesbians suffer discrimination.
*
The other witness, David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values . . . Upon questioning, he acknowledged that marriage is a “public good” that would benefit same-sex couples and their children, and that to allow same-sex marriage “would be a victory for the worthy ideas of tolerance and inclusion.” The net result was to reinforce the sense that Proposition 8 was driven by animus rather than any evidence of concrete harm to heterosexual marriages or society at large.
*
It’s not possible to know whether the final ruling in this case will broadly confront the overarching denial of equal protection and due process created by prohibiting one segment of society from entering into marriage. The Supreme Court has, in different cases, called marriage “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men” and a “basic civil right.”
*
[T]here are actions that can be taken now. States like New York should not put off acting on legislation to legalize same-sex marriage. Last week, President Obama extended a modest package of benefits — including day care and relocation allowances — to all partners of federal employees. Congress has a duty to extend to same-sex partners the rest of the benefits that are enjoyed by federal workers whose spouses are of a different sex. It also needs to repeal the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
AFA's Bryan Fischer: Gay Sex Is Domestic Terrorism
Along side the hate and hypocrisy of the the Pakaluk column in The Pilot, the Boston Archdiocese's newspaper, one has American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer (pictured at left) once again engaging in verbal diarrhea that attacks LGBT citizens and labels us as "domestic terrorists." As I have said before in the context of Peter LaBarbera and Robert Knight, anyone as hysterically anti-gay as Fischer must be secretly lusting for gay sex in a major way. Meanwhile, I cannot help but wonder how many young, closeted gays are being damaged by hearing Fischer's hateful words and how many well meaning but ignorant and uninformed parents may be influenced by such bullshit. Real lives are damaged or destroyed and Fischer obviously cares nothing about the damage he does to others who are just as human as he is and just as equally entitled to full rights as citizens. Once again I wonder if the world might not be a better place without religion. Here are samplings of Fischer's un-Christian commentary:*
If we connect the dots here, the inescapable conclusion is that gay sex is a form of domestic terrorism.
*
Every time an HIV-infected male has sex with another male, it's essentially the same as plunging an infected heroin needle into his arm. He's passing on a potential death sentence, just as the Taliban seeks to do on a foreign battlefield.
*
It is because of the risk of HIV transmission that the FDA will not allow a male homosexual to donate blood if he has had sex with another male even one single solitary time since 1977. The second riskiest behavior for HIV infection is injection drug use.
*
Now if gays are allowed into the military, they will be inevitably be put in battlefield situations where donated blood from soldiers may be necessary to save the lives of wounded comrades. An HIV-infected American soldier whose blood is used in those circumstances may very well condemn his fellow soldier to death rather than save his life.
*
If open homosexuals are allowed into the United States military, the Taliban won't need to plant dirty needles to infect our soldiers with HIV. Our own soldiers will take care of that for them.
*
Excuse me, but if anyone constitutes a domestic terrorist, it's Fischer and his fellow Christo-fascists.
Amother Hateful Catholic Anti-Gay Diatribe
The Archdiocese of Boston continues in many ways to be ground zero in the USA when it comes to the criminal cover up of the sexual abuse of minors. Among those implicated were Cardinal Bernard Law who basically resigned and fled to Rome to place himself outside the reach of the U.S. law enforcement authorities. Equally guilty were now retired Cardinal Egan of New York City and Bishop Thomas Daly (who was also Supreme Chaplain for the red Prada shoes licking Knights of Columbus) each of whom went out to threaten and silence sex abuse victims and their families. Despite this morally bankrupt background, the Boston Archdiocese had the depravity to run a column by Michael Pakaluk (pictured above) who slanders gay families and goes into near vapors over the fact that allowing children of gay couples to attend Catholic elementary schools might lead to - God forbid - other students coming to know that homosexuals exist. Pakalik's hypocrisy is off the charts. While condemning gay parents, as Andrew Sullivan has noted, Pakalulk is affiliated with the Legion of Christ, an organization whose founder has now been found to be guilty of child rape and other sexual offense, not to mention fathering children despite his vow of celibacy. Sadly, such is the nature of today's Roman Catholic Church. Here are some highlights from Pakaluk's anti-gay screed (NOTE: Pakaluk totally ignores the 280,000+ children and youths molested by Catholic priests):*
The question arises of whether children in the custody of (one cannot say, “children of”) same-sex couples should be admitted to Catholic parochial schools. Surely everyone’s first instinct is to say “yes.” The children are doing nothing wrong, and, if they are taught in Catholic schools, they will be instructed in the truth about marriage and the family.
*
However, a careful consideration of how this actually works out suggests, I believe, a different answer, which I propose not theoretically but on the basis of experience. My own son in the first grade in a Boston Archdiocesan parochial school had a classmate who was being raised by his father and another man. From what I observed then, I concluded that the arrangement served neither my son nor the other students in the class.
*
There were three basic reasons. The first involves the inevitability of scandal. It was inevitable that either the teacher, or some parent, would deal with the two men in such a way as implicitly to teach my son, or other children in the class, that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. But this is scandal: that is, leading a “little one” astray in some serious matter by the example you set.
*
The second reason is that parents are rightly given access to a child’s classroom, and yet I could not trust the designs of the same-sex couple. A mother or father may volunteer to read to the class or chaperone for a class trip. If the homosexual parent does so, what guarantee would I have that he would not be an advocate for his lifestyle, implicitly if not explicitly? . . . I saw this happening in my son’s school. The same-sex couple was interestingly activist in hosting pizza parties, sponsoring tables at fundraisers, and volunteering when parental help was needed.
*
The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household.
*
Is your blood boiling yet? Mine is. It's crap like this that makes my son's description of the Catholic Church as the "Church of Satan" look pretty much on point.
The question arises of whether children in the custody of (one cannot say, “children of”) same-sex couples should be admitted to Catholic parochial schools. Surely everyone’s first instinct is to say “yes.” The children are doing nothing wrong, and, if they are taught in Catholic schools, they will be instructed in the truth about marriage and the family.
*
However, a careful consideration of how this actually works out suggests, I believe, a different answer, which I propose not theoretically but on the basis of experience. My own son in the first grade in a Boston Archdiocesan parochial school had a classmate who was being raised by his father and another man. From what I observed then, I concluded that the arrangement served neither my son nor the other students in the class.
*
There were three basic reasons. The first involves the inevitability of scandal. It was inevitable that either the teacher, or some parent, would deal with the two men in such a way as implicitly to teach my son, or other children in the class, that there is nothing wrong with same-sex relationships. But this is scandal: that is, leading a “little one” astray in some serious matter by the example you set.
*
The second reason is that parents are rightly given access to a child’s classroom, and yet I could not trust the designs of the same-sex couple. A mother or father may volunteer to read to the class or chaperone for a class trip. If the homosexual parent does so, what guarantee would I have that he would not be an advocate for his lifestyle, implicitly if not explicitly? . . . I saw this happening in my son’s school. The same-sex couple was interestingly activist in hosting pizza parties, sponsoring tables at fundraisers, and volunteering when parental help was needed.
*
The third reason is that it seemed a real danger that the boy being raised by the same-sex couple would bring to school something obscene or pornographic, or refer to such things in conversation, as they go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which--as not being related to procreation-- is inherently eroticized and pornographic. He might expose other children to such things, as he might easily have encountered them in his household.
*
Is your blood boiling yet? Mine is. It's crap like this that makes my son's description of the Catholic Church as the "Church of Satan" look pretty much on point.
U.S. Border Guard Shoots to Death 14 Year Old Boy ... for Throwing Stones at Him
I hate to say it, but I suspect that some teabaggers and far right nominal Christians - e.g., Tony Perkins, Don Wildmon, James Dobson, et al - are applauding the U.S. Border Patrol's killing of a would be "terrorist/illegal immigrant" in respect to the death of Sergio Hernandez Huereca (pictured at left). That a 14 year old throwing stones across the width of a river could be considered a serious threat is ridiculous. The sad story underscores the fact that in the eyes of the teabaggers and far right Christianists, Hispanic immigrants, gays and a host of others are not even viewed as human. Indeed, it's a testament to how perverted Christianity has become under the poisonous influence of the Christianists. Personally, thinking of this boy's needless death sickens me and speaks volumes about how un-Christian many Americans have become notwithstanding their constant self-aggrandizement as righteous Christians. Here are highlights from the UK's Daily Mail (it's sad that foreign media gives better coverage of travesties like this than the U.S. media):*
Mexico has slammed the U.S. for its 'disproportionate use of force' after a boy of 14 was shot dead by an American Border Patrol officer. U.S. officials claim the guard was defending himself and his colleagues when he gunned down the teenager on the other side of the border as he and other officers were pelted with stones. The border patrol were trying to arrest illegal immigrants on the Texas side of the Rio Grande river near El Paso on Monday night.
*
The killing comes less than two weeks after another Mexican migrant, Anastasio Hernandez, 32, died after a U.S. border official shocked him with a stun gun at the San Ysidro border crossing that separates San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. The San Diego medical examiner's office ruled that death a homicide.
*
Victim: Sergio Hernandez Huereca was one of a group of teenagers throwing stones at border officials when he was killed, the U.S. saidMexican pesident Felipe Calderon yesterday demanded an inquiry and said his government 'will use all resources available to protect the rights of Mexican migrants'. 'The government reiterates its rejection to the disproportionate use of force on the part on U.S. authorities on the border with Mexico,' he added.
*
Maria Guadalupe Huereca said: 'May God forgive them because I know nothing will happen to them.' But the incident has already proved divisive after U.S. and Mexican officials traded suggestions of misconduct in the incident. Arturo Sandoval, a spokesman for the Chihuahua state Attorney General's office, said a spent .40-caliber shell casing was found near the body - raising the question of whether the fatal shot was fired inside Mexico, although he did not explicitly make that allegation.
*
The agent told the rock throwers to stop and back off, but they continued. The agent fired his weapon several times, hitting one who later died, said the FBI, which is leading the investigation because it involved an assault on a federal officer. The agent was not injured, Simmons said. Chihuahua state officials released a statement demanding a full investigation into the death. The boy was shot once near the eye, Sandoval said. Authorities were still investigating the bullet's trajectory, he said.
*
Sandoval said Mexican investigators were questioning three teenagers who were with the victim at the time of the shooting. The boy's sister, Rosario, said her brother was playing with several friends and did not plan to cross the border. 'They say that they started firing from over there and suddenly hit him in the head,' she said.
*
The boy's mother said he had gone to eat with his brother, who handles luggage at a border customs office. While there, he met up with a group of friends and they decided to hang out by the river, she said. 'That was his mistake, to have gone to the river,' she told a Mexican television reporter. 'That's why they killed him.' Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said its records indicate the number of Mexicans killed or wounded by U.S. immigration authorities rose from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009 to 17 so far this year.
*
Yet again I find myself embarrassed to be an American citizen. And we wonder why so many view the USA with hate and loathing. Murdering a 14 year old boy - possibly while U.S. Border Guards were illegally on Mexican soil. There simply is no excuse.
Sandoval said Mexican investigators were questioning three teenagers who were with the victim at the time of the shooting. The boy's sister, Rosario, said her brother was playing with several friends and did not plan to cross the border. 'They say that they started firing from over there and suddenly hit him in the head,' she said.
*
The boy's mother said he had gone to eat with his brother, who handles luggage at a border customs office. While there, he met up with a group of friends and they decided to hang out by the river, she said. 'That was his mistake, to have gone to the river,' she told a Mexican television reporter. 'That's why they killed him.' Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said its records indicate the number of Mexicans killed or wounded by U.S. immigration authorities rose from five in 2008 to 12 in 2009 to 17 so far this year.
*
Yet again I find myself embarrassed to be an American citizen. And we wonder why so many view the USA with hate and loathing. Murdering a 14 year old boy - possibly while U.S. Border Guards were illegally on Mexican soil. There simply is no excuse.
Why Judge Walker's Questions Are Important
Fellow Bilerico contributor Nan Hunter, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., and Legal Scholarship Director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Policy at UCLA Law School, has a thoughtful post on The Bilerico Project that looks at the issues raised by Judge Walker to the litigants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. While the outcome of the case is yet to be known, the evidence presented and the scope of the analysis looks to be the most comprehensive ever in a gay rights case and Nan predicts that the decision will be a "blockbuster." The questions posed by Judge Walker can be found here. Wherever Judge Walker is going on this case, the amount of evidence presented will make it difficult for an appellate court to overturn Walker's findings of fact since deference is always given to the trial court's conclusions unless clearly not supported by the facts. Here are highlights from some of Nan's analysis of matters to date in this important case:*
[I]if the questions are any indication, the Walker opinion will be a blockbuster, at least in terms of its scope, depth and detail. Court decisions generally take an analysis far enough to resolve the particular issues presented, but no farther. But from the beginning of this case, Judge Walker has indicated a willingness to dig deeper, by forcing both sides - plaintiffs and defendants initially both resisted the demand for extensive evidence on the ground that it was unnecessary - to come up with evidentiary support for the kinds of quasi-philosophical arguments that make constitutional law so fascinating.
*
The judge's questions to the defendants press them, in various ways, on why allowing same-sex couples to marry should be such a big deal under the law: What is the evidence of negative social consequences? What is the magnitude of those consequences? What is the evidence that "same-sex marriage is a drastic or far-reaching change to the institution of marriage?" Except for fertility, how are same-sex couples different from opposite-sex couples vis-a-vis marriage? Why is the "deinstitutionalization" of marriage bad? To the extent that moral disapproval of homosexuality is at the bottom of this, how is that different from discrimination?
*
One of Judge Walker's concerns gives me some apprehension: he seems to have been drawn into what I consider to be the deadend of thinking that immutability has any constitutional significance. Thus these questions to both sides: "What does it mean to have a 'choice' in one's sexual orientation?" "What are the constitutional consequences if the evidence shows that sexual orientation is immutable for men but not women? Must gay men and lesbians be treated identically under the Equal Protection Clause?" Note to Judge re: that last question: have you ever heard of sex discrimination?
*
And then, my absolute, all-time favorite question that I have ever seen a judge ask: "Assume that the evidence shows that sexual orientation is socially constructed. Assume further than the evidence shows Proposition 8 assumes the existence of sexual orientation as a stable category. What bearing if any do these facts have on the constitutionality of Proposition 8?"
*
Maybe I could suggest some reading...
Did BP Deliberately Lie on Its Drilling Application?
The more facts that come out, the more it appears that British Petroleum deliberately lied on its permit application for the Deep Horizon well that is now turning much of the Gulf of Mexico into a toxic wasteland. While fault also lies with the permit review authorities who never checked out the details of the application - e.g., one of the experts cited as available for consultation in the event of a spill had in fact been dead for several years - the principal blame lies on BP which was apparently willing to say anything in order to secure the drilling permit. Obviously, someone at BP needs to be prosecuted for the knowingly false application. The facts as disclosed by the Associated Press certainly seem to support a finding of gross negligence, if not wilful misconduct on the part of BP. The facts also underscore why oil companies need to face strict liability without a liability cap in respect to all future drilling. I suspect BP factored in the maximum fines under the rules in place at the time and figured it was worth the gamble. The Virginian Pilot has some highlights:*
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Glaring errors and omissions in BP's oil spill response plans have exposed a slapdash effort to follow environmental rules, outraging Gulf Coast residents who can see on their beaches how unprepared the company was.
*
BP PLC's 582-page regional spill plan for the Gulf, and its 52-page, site-specific plan for the Deepwater Horizon rig vastly understate the dangers posed by an uncontrolled leak and vastly overstate the company's preparedness to deal with one, according to an Associated Press analysis. The lengthy plans were approved by the federal government last year before BP drilled its ill-fated well.
*
Among the glaring errors in the report: A professor is listed in BP's 2009 response plan for a Gulf of Mexico oil spill as a national wildlife expert. He died in 2005.
*
The plan lists cold-water marine mammals including walruses, sea otters, sea lions and seals as "sensitive biological resources." None of those animals live anywhere near the Gulf.
*
Also, names and phone numbers of several Texas A&M University marine life specialists are wrong. So are the numbers for marine mammal stranding network offices in Louisiana and Florida, which are disconnected.
"The AP report paints a picture of a company that was making it up as it went along, while telling regulators it had the full capability to deal with a major spill," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., wrote in an e-mail to the AP. "We know that wasn't true."
*
Legal experts say that to file criminal charges, the Justice Department will have to find evidence that BP or other companies involved in the deadly oil rig explosion and subsequent spill orchestrated a coverup, destroyed key documents or lied to government agents. Charges and civil penalties can be brought under a variety of environmental protection laws.
*
In its Deepwater Horizon plan, the British oil giant stated: "BP Exploration and Production Inc. has the capability to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge, resulting from the activities proposed in our Exploration Plan."
*
The plans contain wildly false assumptions about oil spills. BP's proposed method to calculate spill volume judging by the darkness of the oil sheen is way off. The internationally accepted formula would produce estimates 100 times higher.
*
The Gulf's loop current, which is projected to help eventually send oil hundreds of miles around Florida's southern tip and up the Atlantic coast, isn't mentioned in either plan.
*
There are other examples of how BP's plans have fallen short:
*
- Beaches where oil washed up within weeks of a spill were supposed to be safe from contamination because BP promised it could marshal more than enough boats to scoop up all the oil before any deepwater spill could reach shore - a claim that in retrospect seems absurd.
*
- BP's site plan regarding birds, sea turtles or endangered marine mammals ("no adverse impacts") also have proved far too optimistic. While the exact toll on the Gulf's wildlife may never be known, the effects clearly have been devastating.
*
The obvious conclusion is that BP was lying and knew it was lying but simply did not give a damn. Some folks need to go to prison to ensure that no company in the future will dare to file such a false and cavalier document.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Why Being Out to Family and Friends Matters
Often, the most powerful act of activism that most of us can engage in is to come out to family, friends and employers. It is far harder to support discrimination when the targets involve people that you know and in many cases love. The figures above show the change that has occurred since 1992 in terms of the percentage of Americans who know someone gay. I believe that there is a direct correlation between the number of people who know someone gay and the growing acceptance of LGBT individuals and support for gay equality - particularly among the younger generations. Want to create change? Then come out and be honest about who you are. Is it something easy? Definitely not as long time readers of this blog have witnessed as I have made my jpurney. The rewards, however, are worth it.Is the Pentagon DADT Study Being Rigged?
I have written before about insider e-mails that I have received from inside sources at Westat - the contractor conducting the DADT study for the Pentagon - who indicate that there are reasons to be concerned that the study is being manipulated to find against the repeal of DADT. Obviously, the results of a study can be slanted to arrive at a predetermined conclusion by way of what questions are asked and who is consulted for responses. Personally, I have ZERO confidence in the Pentagon's ability to deliver an unbiased study. Most of the top military brass has made it clear that they are homophobic and still hostile towards a repeal of DADT. Yet these very folks are directing the study. *
Apparently, I am not the only one worried about a distorted study being delivered by the Pentagon. As the Denver Post is reporting, Citizens for Repeal, which represents active-duty gay and lesbian soldiers, has sent a letter to Defense secretary Robert Gates criticizes the lack of input from gay and lesbian service members in the months-long Pentagon study on repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell. Here are some story highlights ( a copy of the letter can be found at the bottom of this post):
*
The letter, sent Monday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, criticizes the lack of input from gay and lesbian soldiers. It claims that lack of input "will result in failure to show that the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy has allowed the worst of atrocities to occur in our military and go unreported." The problem for gay and lesbian service members is that as long as "don't ask, don't tell" is in effect, they can not openly discuss their experiences.
*
"The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process," said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. But, she emphasized, the group gathering information about "don't ask, don't tell" understands that it is "very important to get feedback from gay and lesbian members currently serving, and we are developing tools to gather that information."
*
The letter highlights that gays and lesbians already serve openly in many units with tolerant commanders and claims such units should be studied to understand how and why they work, something impossible under the study's restrictions.
*
"Our heterosexual counterparts see their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at arms being unjustifiably called 'a social experiment' and 'potential rapists' while no leadership defends us," said the letter from Citizens for Repeal, which grew out of a group of gay cadets at the Air Force Academy and now encompasses gay and lesbian service personnel from all five military branches. "The very groups that make these claims have direct access to the Pentagon working group, but gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives every day, do not," the letter said.
*
TEXT OF LETTER FROM CITIZENS FOR REPEAL TO DEFENSE DEPT:
*
June 7, 2010
Secretary Gates:
*
We, as openly gay and lesbian service men and women, write to you today to express our dismay at a significant omission from current efforts to study the impact of repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The dilemma created by current policies effectively prevents interviews of gay and lesbian servicemembers and the heterosexual colleagues who knowingly serve alongside them, and it has left a gaping hole in the current investigation.
*
Many of us have served, and will continue to serve, openly in our units —across all branches of the military. It is unlikely that any servicemembers will speak out honestly regarding open service because of the scarlet letter that has been symbolically placed on gay and lesbian men and women in the military. Leadership that has allowed open service would dare not admit it for fear of retaliation. These are the very units that should be studied the most, for they most clearly demonstrate the capacity for soldiers to serve with each other, regardless of sexual orientation, while still being highly effective at their service to our country.
*
This unbalanced debate hurts our military cohesion when we need it the most. Our heterosexual counterparts see their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at arms being unjustifiably called “a social experiment” and “potential rapists” while no leadership defends us. The very groups that make these claims have direct access to the Pentagon working group, but gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives every day, do not. Failure to directly interview gay and lesbian troops will result in failure to show that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has allowed the worst of atrocities to occur in our military and go unreported. Gay and lesbian servicemembers are given the choice to either report heinous crimes, such as rape, blackmail, and assault, or sacrifice the careers they love.
*
We ask that you allow the Pentagon working group to approach gay members of the military, under the current policy, without fear of retribution. We ask that our current service be respected as this critical inquiry proceeds. As we lay our lives on the line like our colleagues we ask our leaders to honor our service and respect our sacrifice by defending our service against these attacks.
The letter, sent Monday to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, criticizes the lack of input from gay and lesbian soldiers. It claims that lack of input "will result in failure to show that the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy has allowed the worst of atrocities to occur in our military and go unreported." The problem for gay and lesbian service members is that as long as "don't ask, don't tell" is in effect, they can not openly discuss their experiences.
*
"The law is still in effect, and if someone were to out themselves, we would have to begin the discharge process," said Cynthia Smith, a Pentagon spokeswoman. But, she emphasized, the group gathering information about "don't ask, don't tell" understands that it is "very important to get feedback from gay and lesbian members currently serving, and we are developing tools to gather that information."
*
The letter highlights that gays and lesbians already serve openly in many units with tolerant commanders and claims such units should be studied to understand how and why they work, something impossible under the study's restrictions.
*
"Our heterosexual counterparts see their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at arms being unjustifiably called 'a social experiment' and 'potential rapists' while no leadership defends us," said the letter from Citizens for Repeal, which grew out of a group of gay cadets at the Air Force Academy and now encompasses gay and lesbian service personnel from all five military branches. "The very groups that make these claims have direct access to the Pentagon working group, but gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives every day, do not," the letter said.
*
TEXT OF LETTER FROM CITIZENS FOR REPEAL TO DEFENSE DEPT:
*
June 7, 2010
Secretary Gates:
*
We, as openly gay and lesbian service men and women, write to you today to express our dismay at a significant omission from current efforts to study the impact of repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The dilemma created by current policies effectively prevents interviews of gay and lesbian servicemembers and the heterosexual colleagues who knowingly serve alongside them, and it has left a gaping hole in the current investigation.
*
Many of us have served, and will continue to serve, openly in our units —across all branches of the military. It is unlikely that any servicemembers will speak out honestly regarding open service because of the scarlet letter that has been symbolically placed on gay and lesbian men and women in the military. Leadership that has allowed open service would dare not admit it for fear of retaliation. These are the very units that should be studied the most, for they most clearly demonstrate the capacity for soldiers to serve with each other, regardless of sexual orientation, while still being highly effective at their service to our country.
*
This unbalanced debate hurts our military cohesion when we need it the most. Our heterosexual counterparts see their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters at arms being unjustifiably called “a social experiment” and “potential rapists” while no leadership defends us. The very groups that make these claims have direct access to the Pentagon working group, but gay and lesbian soldiers who risk their lives every day, do not. Failure to directly interview gay and lesbian troops will result in failure to show that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has allowed the worst of atrocities to occur in our military and go unreported. Gay and lesbian servicemembers are given the choice to either report heinous crimes, such as rape, blackmail, and assault, or sacrifice the careers they love.
*
We ask that you allow the Pentagon working group to approach gay members of the military, under the current policy, without fear of retribution. We ask that our current service be respected as this critical inquiry proceeds. As we lay our lives on the line like our colleagues we ask our leaders to honor our service and respect our sacrifice by defending our service against these attacks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)