Saturday Male Beauty

Churches That Play Politics Should Pay Taxes

Cahir O'Doherty has a timely op-ed piece in Irish Central that looks at the political activities of the Roman Catholic Church and makes the case for revoking the Church's tax exempt status. After power and control, nothing is dearer to the Catholic hierarchy than money. The same holds true for many other anti-gay churches - e.g., the Mormons, Southern Baptists, etc. - and thus making them pay for their bald faced involvement in politics and support for targeted pieces of legislation and candidates clearly violates the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Not to mention that efforts to restrict or take away the rights of other citizens should not be indirectly underwritten tax exempt status. Here are some column highlights:
*
I have written in recent weeks about the anti-gay marriage amendment that Minnesota's state GOP placed on their 2012 ballot. . . . the truth is there's just no way to talk about this unnecessary amendment other than to call it what it is: a political ploy wrapped inside an anti-gay attack. But the state's most prominent conservatives get very upset when you call it that.
*
Minnesota Archbishop John Nienstedt wrote a column this week defending the Catholic Church's decision to lobby for the amendment insisting that it's not 'anti-gay, mean-spirited and prejudicial.'
*
Really, Archbishop? You want to deny gay people the right to protect their relationships and their families under the law and you want the public to believe that's not anti-gay? No one's buying it. If you try to limit someone's behavior without actually protecting them or anybody else from anything, it's an attack.
*
To justify his position Nienstedt echoed the sentiments of New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who claims if same-sex marriage is legalized, it could lead to polygamy and incest.
*
Untruths told in the name of religion are still untruths. If you plan to influence public policy shouldn't you at least make a special effort to be honest?
*
Is anyone else becoming increasingly uncomfortable about the Catholic Church's deep involvement in this state issue in Minnesota, New York and elsewhere? It's become clear church officials are using their influence to encourage citizens to vote a certain way, whilst retaining their tax exemptions. As it becomes obvious to all how deeply they're involved isn't it time we taxed them like any other PAC?

Hampton Pride is Today

I hope that local readers will come out to today's event in Millpoint Park on the City of Hampton waterfront. The event will be far smaller that last week's event in Norfolk where the police and Fest Events estimate the crowd was 14,500 strong - the largest turn out ever for a pride event in Hampton Roads. I will be at today's event running a booth for the law firm, HRBOR and the Old Dominion University Gay Cultural Studies endeavor. Andrew Sullivan's blog has this from a reader that explains why pride events are important:
*
There are, of course, multiple reasons to go to a Pride Parade: the spectacle (seeing it and/or being a part of it), the fun, the social aspects, "getting dates!" (as my father observed), providing support for "for those just coming to terms with being out." But at the heart of it is a group of people standing publicly against the pervasiveness of homophobia - not standing against it by giving a speech that says "I oppose homophobia," but standing against it by standing there, openly, together.

Tea Party Targets Incumbent Senators

I cannot help but relish in some ways the manner in which the GOP's self-created Frankenstein monster - a/k/a the Tea Party - has now turned on those in the party that display a semblance of sanity. Of course, right behind the Tea Party are the ranks of the Christian Taliban - the other twin pillar of the GOP's party base. Politics is about electing candidates to office or so the saying goes. With the Tea Party, one's electability isn't an issue. Rather it's all about adherence to a litmus test concerning ideology. Never mind the fact that in a general election, the Tea Party's ideology is deemed frightening by many. The last round of Senate elections in Delaware and Nevada are a case in point. The Daily Beast has a piece that looks at Senate incumbents now in the cross hairs of the Tea Party. Here are some highlights:
*
Orrin Hatch is conservative by almost any measure, but these days that’s not enough to shield him from the right. There’s a credible challenger in the wings and a real possibility that the Utah senator could become the first establishment casualty of the 2012 season.
*
The Tea Party movement first demonstrated its clout last year by knocking off Hatch’s Utah colleague, Bob Bennett. Now the movement’s activists have served notice that they are displeased with several big-name Republican senators. Hatch, like most of them, is cultivating the grassroots, moving rightward, and hoping to fend off a serious primary challenger.
*
It’s already too late for that in Indiana, where state treasurer Richard Mourdock is taking on Richard Lugar. And it may be too late for Hatch, who could well face Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a self-described “definite maybe” who will decide after Labor Day whether to run. Others drawing conservative scrutiny and complaints are Olympia Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, and Bob Corker of Tennessee.
*
What all this amounts to is nothing less than a redefinition of conservatism—or, at least, the brand of conservatism acceptable to those who have the power to boot Republicans who have long toed what used to be the party line.
*
Many of Hatch’s alleged sins, as reeled off by Chaffetz and the Club for Growth, involve his support for such George W. Bush initiatives as TARP (the bank bailout), the Medicare prescription-drug benefit and the No Child Left Behind education act. He also backed earmarks (unfashionable these days), raising the debt ceiling (once considered a responsible vote to avoid default), and a 2007 extension of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.
*
Indiana is another hotbed of unrest. Most of the state’s GOP establishment has endorsed Mourdock and all three national groups are looking at the race. Lugar, facing what conservative “Hoosier Pundit” blogger Scott Fluhr habitually calls “Lugargeddon,” has removed his name from the DREAM Act to help children of illegal immigrants. He recently signed on to a bill to replace the income tax with the “fair tax,” a national sales tax.
*
So far Snowe has two challengers hoping to capitalize on conservative frustration: Scott D’Amboise, a small businessman aligned with the Tea Party, and Andrew Ian Dodge, who heads Maine Tea Party Patriots. Neither is getting much traction.
*
Corker, who has negotiated with Democrats over financial reform and auto bailouts, is a top target of RedState.com founder Erick Erickson. “He pushes the Senate GOP left and toward capitulation. He is contemptuous of conservatives,” Erickson wrote last month. Yet Corker fits squarely in his state’s bipartisan tradition of centrists, and so far no challenger has surfaced. The same is true in Massachusetts, where Brown won a stunning upset last year for Kennedy’s old seat.
*
[W]ill these groups go to the mat next year for conservative challengers who are inexperienced or erratic, who display sub-par fundraising, communication, or organizational skills, in hard-to-win liberal or moderate states? Probably not. For the moment, at least, it seems the maturing Tea Party movement has raised the bar.
*
Time will tell what the Tea Party will do. Meanwhile, opportunists in the GOP who laughed at Tea Part loons attacking Democrats probably aren't laughing so much any more.

Bob Marshall Continues to Make Virginians Look Like Neanderthals

In today's economy when states and regions are competing as business relocation destinations and trying to nurture job generating start up businesses, one would think that thinking Virginians would not want the state on display as a region that continues to cling to a mindset like that of the Spanish Inquisition or red necks out of the old movie Deliverance. Not so in the case of Northern Virginia's Del. Bob Marshall who seeks out ever opportunity to tarnish Virginia's image. Of course he gets plenty of help in that endeavor from Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinella, the state's (in my view) mentally ill attorney general, and Governor Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell. The controversy over the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank to fly a rainbow flag during Pride month could have remained a small scale story. But not with Marshall's constant rants and batshitery. Now, to further publicize the worse elements of bigotry in Virginia, the New York Times has latched onto Marshall's latest display of anti-gay hatred. Here's a portion of the Times' story:
*
RICHMOND, Va. — The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond ran a rainbow flag up its flagpole last week and has been hearing about it ever since.
*
The bank unfurled the flag on June 1, at the request of a group of gay and lesbian employees in honor of gay pride month.
*
One day later, Bob Marshall, a Republican in the House of Delegates and an outspoken opponent on gay rights issues, was moved to write a letter to the bank’s president, saying that the flag was inappropriate for a quasi-governmental entity.
*
Gay and lesbian “behavior,” he wrote, “undermines the American economy, shortens lives, adds significantly to illness, increases health costs, promotes venereal diseases,” among other things.
*
In many ways, the controversy mirrors the changing demographics of this fast-growing state, whose traditions and habits are mixing with an influx of immigrants and young professionals in the northern part of the state.
*
Jim Strader, a spokesman for the bank, said the bank had fielded hundreds of phone calls and as many e-mails about the flag. The flag, he said, symbolizes “values of being open and inclusive,” and shows that the bank is “a place that doesn’t discriminate.”
*
One of the most popular arguments by the flag’s opponents was that the bank is a government institution and so should not be displaying a flag that promotes a cause. And now that they are, the argument goes, they have an obligation to other causes. . . . Mr. Strader’s response is that the bank is in fact privately owned, as are all regional Federal Reserves, and that it considers requests by employees — this was the first one — but not the general public.
*
Mr. Marshall, 67, has been vocal on gay issues. He told The Washington Post last year that he was concerned gay troops would spread venereal disease. He was also a sponsor of Virginia’s ban on gay marriage. . . . Mr. Marshall has written an opinion article that he said is scheduled to run on Sunday in The Richmond Times-Dispatch. “I am sure this flag and or Fed story will not end here,” he said.
*
One can only imagine what lies and untruths Marshall will put in his op-ed. Like most self-congratulatory "Christians," Marshall thinks himself exempt from the Commandment against lying and bearing false witness. I sure hope that when Marshall dies he discovers that God is a black lesbian. He'll have earned a special place in Hell for himself.

Friday Male Beauty

Do churches have the right to discriminate?

Leslie Fenton has a timely article in Salon that looks at the issue described in the caption of this post. To me the answer is simple: No churches do not have the right to discriminate if they are taking public funds. And the same holds true if they are acting as a quasi agency of the state - e.g., providing adoption and foster care services. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and its agencies believe that they are entitled to special rights and privileges in the form of receiving millions dollars in public funds while retaining the right to indulge in religious based bigotry against taxpayers who are the source of some of the funds the Church is sucking up out of the public trough. This is really what the recently filed lawsuit in Illinois is all about. It's about special rights - what the opponents of LGBT equality accuse gays of wanting when in fact it is they, not LGBT citizens who are seeking special rights. It is far past time that the courts say no to this in a resounding manner. Here are highlights from Salon:
*
Imagine this scenario: As a part of its efforts to fight hunger, the State of Illinois gives out a number of grant contracts to private agencies that run food bank programs. One of these grants goes to the Catholic Church's social services arm, Catholic Charities, which runs a number of food bank programs in several Illinois cities. Soon, state investigators discover that Catholic Charities has imposed a severe condition on its food bank program: They will not distribute the food to hungry families unless the recipients sign an affidavit stating that none of the family members are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Illinois then terminates its grant to Catholic Charities. The group immediately files suit claiming religious discrimination, and conservative legislators repeatedly introduce new legislation in an attempt to exempt all religious organizations from having to follow the state's human rights laws even when they are using state money to fund their programs.
*
Outrageous, you're thinking. . . . . Think again. In the State of Illinois, a real battle is underway between Catholic Charities and the state's human rights laws. Specifically, Catholic Charities has suspended its publicly funded adoption and foster care services because they anticipate state sanctions if they were to continue refusing to serve LGBT families. They have now filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction against the state from enforcing the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. . .
*
In many cities around the country, adoption and foster care services are farmed out to private agencies, many of them religious, through lucrative state contracts. Adoption and foster care have long been big business for the Catholic Church, and up until the last few years they have always been happy to benefit from public dollars. But now that states have begun to recognize LGBT families as part of the public, as members of the community who deserve equal treatment, those state dollars come with a catch. Publicly funded programs can't deny services to members of the public whose rights are protected by anti-discrimination laws.
*
[T]he Church still wants to have its cake and eat it too, and isn't willing to give up on those state contracts so easily. In Illinois, they're fighting on both the judicial and legislative fronts. In addition to the civil lawsuit seeking an injunction, they've also been pushing hard on friendly legislators to amend the civil union law to exempt religious organizations from having to comply. So far, the legislative efforts have failed several times in committee. The lawsuit should also be a no-brainer.
*
Their complaint also glosses over the very real problem that many anti-gay religious groups have when attempting to use state funds to enrich their own programs: Cherry picking. Not only does Catholic Charities want to cherry pick between the members of the public who benefit from public funds, but they want to do so in a way that would not be legally permissible for a public agency. Further, the Church cherry picks through its own religious values.
*
Finally, no one is forcing Catholic Charities to take public money. They can continue to run private adoption services in as discriminatory a fashion as they like, using the Church's own private funds.
*
By refusing to serve LGBT families, Catholic Charities appropriates a huge quantity of state resources and reserves them exclusively for straight members of the public. Now that the state has recognized that this is illegal discrimination, it's time for them to either start serving the entire public or to give up the public funds.

What Loving v. Virginia Continues to Say About Virginia

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia which was handed down 44 years ago on June 12, 2011, stands as a lasting indictment of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Supreme Court which had upheld Virginia racist ban on interracial marriage. Bob "Taliban Bob" McDonnell, Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli and the so-called Marshall-Newman amendment to Virginia's constitution are proof that some in the state have learned little over the the past 44 years. Indeed, prejudice and bigotry remain official state policy and the religious based beliefs of a few are granted special rights over the freedoms of other citizens. It's a shameful legacy, but it is all too typical of Virginia. Jonathan Capehart has a brief column in the Washington Post that looks at the situation nearly 40 years later:
*
Truth be told, the original defense of marriage occurred on June 12, 1967. That’s when the Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that two people, no matter their race, should be legally allowed to marry. In a stirring video tribute to the landmark case released by the American Foundation for Equal Rights, Ted Olson and David Boies, the conservative-liberal tag team fighting to overturn California’s Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage in the state constitution, pay homage to Richard and Mildred Loving and use their powerful example — and Mrs. Loving’s own words — to make the case for legalizing same-sex marriage.
*
As Loving said on the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, “I believe all Americans, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. . . . I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” Thankfully, more and more Americans agree with her. Now, we just have to get the courts to.

More Thursday Male Beauty

Habatat for Humanity - Tysinger Mercedes Hyundai

The boyfriend and I attended a wonderful fundraiser for Habitat for Humanity put on by Tysinger Mercedes-Benz/Hyundai in Hampton, Virginia this evening. Yes, it was close to 98 degrees, but the event was great nonetheless. I suspect thousands of dollars were raised - especially because of the main raffle prize put up by Tysinger and Mercedes Benz USA: $15,000 or a three year lease on a new C-Class Mercedes. In addition, LGBT businesses such as Decorum Furniture provided silent auction donations. I am posting about the event because Tysinger is a gay friendly business and one of the principal sponsors of Hampton's Diversity and Pride event on Saturday, June 11, 2011, in downtown Hampton, as well as a corporation that gives back to the community over and over again.
*
If you are looking for a new car and live in the Hampton Roads area, I urge you to contact our dear friend Miles Burcher at Tysinger or Mark or Denise Tysinger about what they can do for you in terms of helping you to buy the right new vehicle. If a Mercedes-Benz isn't your thing, check out the Hyundai's which are remarkable vehicles (several family members own Hyundai's and love them). The boyfriend and I have Mercedes and love them as well. We need to support LGBT friendly businesses.

Thursday Male Beauty

Rick "Frothy Mix" Santorum Shows His Extremism

Without a doubt of of the most psychologically disturbed of the would be GOP presidential candidates is Rick Santorum. The guy truly ought to move to Iran or Afghanistan and join the Taliban and similar religious extremist groups since his views on gays and abortion are likely identical to those of such theocrats. Santorum clearly shows the danger far right Christianists pose to the religious freedoms of other citizens. Nothing short of forcing their fear and hate based beliefs on all citizens will suffice. Think Progress has two posts in which Santorum reveals his extremism on favored Christianist issues. The first deals with his desire for a federal constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage and here's a snippet:
*
SANTORUM: Once people realize the consequence to society of changing this definition [of marriage], it’s not that we’re against anybody. People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you’re talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people’s life to live the life they want to lead but don’t change how with that definition.
*
In the second, Mr. Frothy Mix rants that the the abortion exception to protect the life of the mother is "phony." Here's a sample of that batshitery:
*
When discussing his track record as a champion of the partial birth abortion ban, Santorum dismissed exceptions other senators wanted to carve out to protect the life and health of mothers, calling such exceptions “phony”:
*
SANTORUM: When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, “Why don’t we just ban all abortions?” Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective.

80,150 Hampton Roads Homeowners "Underwater" on Mortgages

The residential real estate market continues its death spiral as members of Congress and the White House dither and do nothing to halt one of the biggest forces dragging the economy downward. The financial industry received billions of dollars in bailout funds and little or nothing has trickled down to distressed homeowners. The result has been plunging home values and more and more people faced with simply walking away from properties no worth far less than what is owed on them It's a national problem and even Hampton Roads which is somewhat cushioned by the large military presence in the region is not exempt from the pain. The Virginian Pilot has a story that looks at the local mess where an estimated 24% of homes are "upside down" and now worth less than the mortgages balances outstanding against them. Here are some highlights:
*
Nearly one in four homes with a mortgage in Hampton Roads - 24 percent - is worth less than what is owed on the loan, according to a report released Tuesday. The number of local home-owners who were "underwater" on their loans rose slightly to 80,150 at the end of March, according to CoreLogic, a Santa Ana, Calif.-based company that tracks mortgages nationwide.
*
The firm's quarterly report said 22,967 more mortgages in the region will be underwater if home prices decline 5 percent from current levels.
*
Economists and real estate experts say that owing more on a home than it is worth is one of the most common precursors to foreclosure. For homeowners who aren't in jeopardy of falling behind on payments, being underwater means they are tied to their homes - unable to sell without paying their lender the difference or negotiating a short sale. That also impacts the local home sales market, said Vinod Agarwal, an economist at Old Dominion University.
*
The proportion of homeowners in Virginia who owe more than their homes are worth was 23.1 percent in March, CoreLogic reported.
*
Across the country, the number fell slightly to 10.9 million, down from 11.1 million at the end of 2010, the firm reported. That represents about 22.7 percent of all residential properties with a mortgage nationwide. The highest concentration of underwater loans was in Nevada at 63 percent.

Virginia Board of Juvenile Justice Goes Against Cuccinelli

Virginia's - in my view - certifiably insane Attorney General Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli is on a never ending crusade to stigmatize and make life generally a living Hell for LGBT Virginians. Indeed, he seems to seek out opportunities to try to send a message to LGBT citizens that they are inferior and to strip them of any non-discrimination protections. Cuccinelli provides a glimpse of what life would be like if Christianists were to succeed at gaining more power at the national level than is already the case. Fortunately, not everyone in Virginia is willing to obediently participate in Cuccinelli's persecution of LGBT individuals. The latest instance of opposition to Kookinelli's agenda is a vote by the Virginia Board of Juvenile Justice to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in Virginia’s juvenile correctional facilities. The vote was in spite of Kookinelli's directions against such action. Here are highlights from the Washington Post on the insurrection by the Board of Juvenile Justice (NOTE: LGBT youth are disproportionately represented in juvenile facilities):
*
The board that oversees Virginia’s juvenile correctional facilities has agreed to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation despite being counseled against such action by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II.
*
In a unanimous vote Wednesday, three members of the Board of Juvenile Justice, all of them appointed by former Democratic governor Timothy M. Kaine, backed the ban, rejecting Cuccinelli’s contention that only the General Assembly can designate a special class of citizens.
*
It was unclear exactly what the implications of the ban would be for Virginia’s five juvenile corrections facilities and for the more than 800 young people housed in the institutions.
*
But the vote marked another instance where Cuccinelli’s office has become involved in an agency or board policy decision on discrimination.
*
8 percent of boys and 23 percent of girls in juvenile detention identify their sexuality as other than heterosexual.
*
In at least three other instances since McDonnell and Cuccinelli were sworn into office last year, state agencies have had to weigh protections based on sexual orientation against advice from the state’s top elected officials.
*
In April, the State Board of Social Services accepted the advice of Cuccinelli and the McDonnell administration and overwhelmingly voted to continue a practice that some argue allows faith-based organizations in Virginia to discriminate in adoptions.
*
But earlier, the state’s public colleges appeared to reject Cuccinelli’s counsel that they rescind policies that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
*
Last year, the Board of Corrections reaffirmed a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, overruling concerns expressed by a representative from Cuccinelli’s office.
*
My advice to non-Virginians is to avoid Virginia because of its official hostility to LGBT citizens. Likewise, I would strongly urge LGBT individuals to think twice before moving to Virginia. Frankly, I look forward to the day when I can get the Hell out of Virginia once and for all and move to a state where I am not viewed as a fourth class citizen.

More Wednesday Male Beauty

Brazilian Tourists and American Idiocy.

A new Time magazine article looks at the USA's ass backwards approach to would be tourists from major South American nations - nations like Brazil, Argentina and Chile which are modern by any definition and which are now more progressive in many ways than the USA itself (e.g., equality afforded to LGBT citizens, lower levels of surveillance of their own citizens and a lower wealth disparity than the USA). Tourists from these nations have money to burn in the USA - where, if no one has noticed, the economy is in the toilet and tourism is down except for in the LGBT tourism segment - yet USA visa policies make it a nightmare for these tourists to gain admittance to the USA. It's unfortunate that the USA continues to treat these nations as two bit banana republics when it's the USA itself that id headed to banana republic status in part because of its idiotic and prejudiced policies. Here are some brief story highlights:
*
Everyone should love Brazilian tourists. They spend more per capita than any other nationality. Worldwide, Brazilian tourists shell out an average of $43.3 million a day, dropping a gigantesco $1.4 billion last April alone, up 83% from the same period last year, according to the Brazil's Central Bank. In 2010, 1.2 million Brazilians visited the United States, injecting $5.9 billion into the U.S. economy.
*
Not that the U.S. has made it particularly easy for os turistas brasileiros to visit. Instead of rolling out the red carpet for the travelers from the increasingly wealthy South American nations, the U.S. makes Brazilians — and every other Latin American nationality — undergo a lengthy and expensive visa-application process that takes months of planning and can cost thousands of dollars in travel, lodging, food and other expenses — all before leaving the country.
*
In all of Brazil, a country larger than the continental United States, the U.S. has only four consular offices: in the capital Brasilia, Recife, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. . . . While the State Department claims the average international wait time for a visa interview is 30 days, in Brazil it can be as high as 141 days,
*
Tourist industry officials say Brazil should be on the list of countries whose citizens do not need a visa to enter the U.S. There are currently 36 countries on Washington's visa waiver list, but none of them are in Latin America. Some argue it's hampering the U.S.' economic growth and global competitiveness. For example, Chilean tourism to the United States is down more than 30% from 10 years ago, while globally the number of Chileans traveling overseas to other countries is up 50%.
*
Indeed, the visa hurdles are at odds with a $200 million PR blitz led by the Corporation for Travel Promotion, a public-private partnership created by congressional law in 2010.
*
The most lucrative target is Brazil, Latin America's largest economy. In the past, most Brazilians used to come to the United States looking for work; now they come to spend money and create jobs. The spending would help the U.S. economy tremendously. The American tourism market has recovered slowly since 9-11, but it missed out on a decade of growth,
*
By just extending the visa-waiver program to Brazil and Chile, he says, the United States could double visits from those countries in one year and quickly generate $10.3 billion in new tourism revenue while creating 95,100 new American jobs.
*
[B]y not doing more to welcome them, it might just be Uncle Sam who is denying more Americans a better shot at living the dream themselves.
*
There are many things that could be done to improve the economy. Sadly, Washington insiders from both parties seem to be doing nothing.

Tim Geithner's/Barack Obama's Plan to Lose the 2012 Election

While I cannot get enthused about any of the potential GOP presidential candidates, some are beginning to worry that Barack Obama and his advisers - Tim Geithner in particular - may be on the way of throwing the 2012 election to the GOP. To me, it's part and parcel with (1) Obama's refusal to act as a leader and (2) his never ending desire to appeasing his enemies in the GOP rather than supporting the interests of those who put him in office. I shudder at the prospects of a GOP president (especially given the inherent insanity of the current GOP line up), if Obama ends up being a one term president, he will have largely brought defeat down upon himself. Salon has an article that looks at the latest Obama/Geithner effort to lose the 2912 election. Here are some highlights:
*
Zach Goldfarb's much-buzzed-about Washington Post profile of Treasury secretary Tim Geithner boils down to this: Geithner was and is the primary architect of the Obama administration's pivot from the economy to the deficit. Furthermore, since Geithner now reigns supreme on economic policy, there is zero chance of any change of direction in the next year. All the advocates for greater attention to boosting economic growth and job creation in the short term -- Christy Romer, Jared Bernstein, Austan Goolsbee, and even the much-hated-by-progressives Larry Summers -- are gone.
*
[A]s is already clear from the initial campaign salvos from credible Republican presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, the 2012 election is going to be a referendum on the economy.
*
By ruling out any further stimulus -- and, even worse, by abandoning efforts to keep the economy growing far too early -- Geithner has helped to make Obama and the Democrats extremely vulnerable in 2012. If Republicans take the White House and the Senate in 2012, then it really won't matter whether Geithner's deficit pivot could have preserved "the capacity to do a whole range of things that are really important." Healthcare reform will be dead. Banking reform will be dead. Medicare and Medicaid will face a deeply uncertain future.
*
Geithner doesn't deserve all the blame here. Obama picked him and Obama backed him to the hilt. . . . the electoral problem for Obama may not hinge on whether or not the president has the actual power to make manifest his will on job creation, but rather on whether he is perceived to be trying. Is he giving it his best shot? Is he making it clear to the general public what constraints have been placed on him by the opposition party and external events?
*
The answers are no, and no. . . . . It's going to be a tough platform to run on, if the economy continues to slump as the campaign heats up.

Wednesday Male Beauty

Catholic Charities Sues Illinois Over Non-Discrimination Rules

The Roman Catholic Church is once again demanding special rights which would allow its Catholic Charities organizations to continue to suck up millions of dollars in taxpayer funds yet indulge itself in discriminating against members of the public it prefers to persecute and stigmatize - gays, of course, being the principal target. As I have argued many times, religious groups are free to engage in their religious based bigotry as long as they stay within their own separately funded organizations. However, once they put their hand out for taxpayer funds, the rules change. If Catholic Charities refuses to abide by Illinois' non-discrimination laws, then the state needs to cut the organization off from the taxpayer teat. The Chicago Tribune looks at the lawsuit launched by Catholic Charities - wouldn't it be nice if similar vigor was put into ridding the Church of sexual predators and their enablers? Here are some story highlights:
*
Lawyers for Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Springfield, Peoria and Joliet are seeking an emergency injunction that would protect religious agencies who turn away unmarried couples who want to become foster parents -- including couples in civil unions.
*
In a petition filed today in Sangamon County Circuit Court, the three Catholic Charities agencies sued the Illinois Attorney General and Department of Children and Family Services for threatening to enforce new policies that accommodate civil unions, which went into effect last week.
*
In March, the attorney general’s office issued a letter stating that the office “received notice that Catholic Charities … discriminates against Illinois citizens based on race, marital status and sexual orientation” in the provision of foster care and adoption services and demanded that Catholic Charities turn over a wide range of documents in response.
*
The charities ask the court to declare that they are legally justified to preserve their current policy of exclusively granting licenses to married couples and single, non-cohabiting individuals and referring civil union couples to other child welfare agencies.
*
Last week, Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Rockford ended its publicly funded foster care and adoptive services. Catholic Charities in the dioceses of Peoria and Joliet temporarily suspended issuing new licenses for foster care and adoptive parents. Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese of Chicago ended its foster and adoption services in 2007 when it lost insurance coverage.

Margaret Thatcher to Palin - Stay Away

It's no secret that I find Sarah Palin to be an ignorant egomaniac. Indeed, the woman is dangerous and anyone who takes her as a serious political contender for any office above perhaps a latrine attendant needs their mental health condition checked out. Thus, it's such fun to see one of Palin's attempted self-promoting publicity stunts crash and burn before it even gets off the ground. It seems that the Idiot of the North wanted to visit former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher - a/k/a the Iron Lady - during a European adventure this summer. Sources indicate that Thatcher in no way wants to see the buffoon from Wasilla. Part of the reason may lie with Thatcher's failing health. But even more likely she doesn't want to make herself look like a fool by seeing Palin. The Guardian has coverage and here are some highlights:
*
Sarah Palin wants to show to the Republican right that she is the true keeper of the Ronald Reagan flame by meeting the late president's closest ally on the world stage.
*
A meeting with Margaret Thatcher in the centenary year of Reagan's birth would be the perfect way of launching her bid for the Republican nomination for the 2012 US presidential election. This is what Palin told Christina Lamb in the Sunday Times.
*
It appears that the former prime minister has no intention of meeting the darling of the Tea Party movement. Andy McSmith reported in the Independent this morning that Palin is likely to be "thwarted" on the grounds that Thatcher, 86, rarely makes public appearances.
*
It would appear that the reasons go deeper than Thatcher's frail health. Her allies believe that Palin is a frivolous figure who is unworthy of an audience with the Iron Lady. This is what one ally tells me: Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts.
*
No doubt a rebuff from Thatcher will delight Andrew Sullivan, the creator of The Dish blog, who regards Palin as a dangerous lightweight.

U. S. Afghan Nation-Building Programs not Sustainable

A version of this post's headline is the lead story in today's Washington Post. Tell us something any mediocre student of Afghanistan's history could have deduced a decade ago. For over two millennium no outside power has ever been able to successfully conquer and recast Afghanistan for any notable period of time. The last to arguably do so was Alexander the Great who married into the feudal like war lord hierarchy in order to pull it off. But none of history's lessons mattered to the American hubris that led the nation to war under Chimperator Bush in both Afghanistan and then Iraq. Now, billions of wasted dollars later and thousands of wasted lives later, a report says that the U. S. goal in Afghanistan is crumbling and is not sustainable. When are our leaders - especially our military leaders - going to start facing reality? The Middle East adventure begun by the Chimperator and Emperor Palpatine Cheney has always been a fools errand. Here are story highlights:
*
The hugely expensive U.S. attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan has had only limited success and may not survive an American withdrawal, according to the findings of a two-year congressional investigation to be released Wednesday.
*
The report calls on the administration to rethink urgently its assistance programs as President Obama prepares to begin drawing down the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this summer.
*
The report, prepared by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Democratic majority staff, comes as Congress and the American public have grown increasingly restive about the human and economic cost of the decade-long war and reflects growing concerns about Obama’s war strategy even among supporters within his party.
*
[I]t says that the enormous cash flows can overwhelm and distort local culture and economies, and that there is little evidence the positive results are sustainable. The report also warns that the Afghan economy could slide into a depression with the inevitable decline of the foreign military and development spending that now provides 97 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.
*
Even when U.S. development experts determine that a proposed project “lacks achievable goals and needs to be scaled back,” the U.S. military often takes it over and funds it anyway, the report says. It also cites excessive use and poor oversight of contractors.
*
[A]n increasing number of lawmakers on both sides have called for a more wholesale reconsideration of Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan, saying that the war’s cost cannot be sustained at a time of domestic economic hardship. They point as well to changing realities on the ground, including signs of growing extremist violence in Pakistan and the killing last month of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
*
Last week, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan said in a separate report that billions of dollars in U.S.-funded reconstruction projects in both countries could fall into disrepair over the next few years because of inadequate planning to pay for their ongoing operations and maintenance. That report warned that “the United States faces new waves of waste in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
*
Foreign aid expenditures by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development in Afghanistan, about $320 million a month, pale beside the overall $10 billion monthly price tag for U.S. military operations.
*
[E]vidence of successful aid programs based on “counterinsurgency theories” is limited, the Senate committee report says. “Some research suggests the opposite, and development best practices question the efficacy of using aid as a stabilization tool over the long run.”
*
Other than a quick, limited assault on the Taliban (something Bush/Cheney screwed up), the U.S. should never have gone into Afghanistan. Now, the question is how many more billions of dollars and how many more lives will be squandered for nothing? We need to get out now.

More Tuesday Male Beauty

ODU Gay Cultural Studies Invites You to a House Party

The boyfriend and I are hosting a house party in support of the Old Dominion University Gay Cultural Studies endowment effort this Friday at 5:30 PM. Our goal is to fund an endowment that will provide for a permanent post-doctorate position at Old Dominion University ("ODU"). Information on the goals of the effort can be found here. The speaker at the event at our home will be Dr. George D. Greenia, Professor of Hispanic Studies at William and Mary. Dr. Greenia (pictured below) is most famous locally for his pioneering efforts in bringing LGBT programming and organizations to his culturally conservative campus during the Reagan era of the 1980s.

We hope that peninsula readers will try to attend. Here are details:

When: Friday, June 10, 2011 at 5:30 Pm to 7:30 PM

Where: Michael Hamar & Barry Menser's House

To RSVP: Click Here

Southwest Virginia.Wants to Change Its Image

I have mixed emotions about a story in the Richmond Times Dispatch that looks at efforts in Southwest Virginia to change the region's image and attract "entrepreneurs and high-tech businesses." The goal is meritorious and I feel for many in the region who suffer from the harsh economic realities that many municipalities face. The one aspect that those trying to recast the region's image doesn't seem to address is the social and cultural backwardness of the region and its intolerance towards those who are deemed "other." Yes, the region is physically beautiful and there are many good people in the region. But, when a region is anti-black, anti-gay, anti-immigrant and far right Christianist in its mindset, attracting progressive business is going to be difficult. Here are some story highlights:
*
Heartwood officials say Southwest Virginia will change the nation's negative perception of Appalachia. "Give us three years," said Chuck Riedhammer, the marketing director with a $1 million budget to promote the new facility, a regional artisan center set up as a gateway to Southwest Virginia's arts and culture.
*
Our No. 1 objective isn't even tourism," said Todd Christensen, executive director of the Southwest Virginia Cultural Heritage Commission, which is overseeing the project. "Our number one objective is to develop a quality of life that's going to attract entrepreneurs and high-tech businesses to the region."
*
Heartwood is designed to bring all of the region's cultural assets under one roof. The theme of what's included, from artisans and musicians to local foods and outdoor recreation sites, has become almost a mantra: "authentic, distinctive, alive."
*
Tamra Talmadge, spokeswoman for the Virginia Tourism Corporation, said Heartwood packages the generations-old culture in a new form at a time when tourists, particularly of the millennial generation, are craving authenticity.
*
I continue to believe that Southwest Virginia's biggest problem is the strangle hold that the Christianists have on the region. Having visited Martinsville back when I was representing Michael Moore in his lawsuit against the Virginia Museum of Natural History, as an LGBT individual, suicide would seem a positive option rather than living long term in the area. I suspect innovative and progressive business would view the region in a similar negative perspective.

Sexual Misconduct - It's Alright If You're a Republican According to Eric Cantor

It's the hypocrisy of the GOP that makes me want to vomit. Case in point: Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor who is demanding the resignation of Congressman Anthony Wiener based on Weiner's incredibly stupid "sex-ting" of inappropriate photos. Cantor obviously applies one standard to the GOP while demanding a far different standard of Democrats. Remember " I was hiking the Appalachian Trial" GOP Governor of South Carolina Mark Sanford who was in truth boinking a mistress in Argentina? Or maybe you remember Nevada U. S. Senator John Ensign who was having an affair with the wife of one of his staff members? Still not remembering? How about Louisiana U. S. Senator David Vitter who was a client of the D.C. Madam as well as hookers in New Orleans? In each of these three instances, Cantor failed to call for the resignation of the individuals involved - even though their conduct was far more egregious than that of Wiener. Instead, he said that the decision lay with the individual involved and their constituents. But in the case of Wiener, Cantor wants a resignation. Let's be clear. I am NOT defending Wiener's stupidity. But Cantor's hypocrisy is nauseating. The Hill has coverage on Cantor's hypocritical double standard. Here are some highlights:
*
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor called on embattled Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign a day after the New York Democrat admitted to having sexually charged online relationships with six women, none of whom are his wife.
*
“I don’t condone his activity. And I think he should resign,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said after an event in his district Tuesday, according to the Daily Progress. Cantor is the first leader in either party to call for Weiner to step down
*
Cantor upped the pressure on Weiner Tuesday, breaking with Republican leaders who preferred to stand out of the way as Democrats tried to untangle the mess. While GOP leaders had remained silent on the matter, the party machinery has been working to stick Weiner’s troubles to other Democrats.
*
The National Republican Congressional Committee has pointed out which politically vulnerable Democratic incumbents are recipients of Weiner campaign cash, and one, Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) already has said she dump her Weiner contributions.
*
Frankly, in my opinion, Cantor is an embarrassment to rational, thinking Virginians. I view has a whining little worm who while not as insane as Ken "Kookinelli" Cuccinelli, is morally challenged at best even though he talks about so-called family values just like Ensign, and Vitter. Residents of Cantor's district need to wake up and vote his sorry, lying ass out of office.

Tuesday Male Beauty

The Very Real Chance of Another Great Depression

An article in the New Republic has an unsettling analysis of why the USA could be heading towards another Great Depression - what's truly upsetting is that the main underlying cause should the worse case play out is that we NEVER learn from history. The article parallels the mistakes made in the 1930's with political/economic actions today and indicates we are making the same mistakes all over again. Leading the way in the march toward the potential fiasco, of course, is the GOP which never seems to want to avoid repeats of past disasters. A sure mark of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Not that there is much doubt that the GOP is increasing controlled by the insane. Democrats, however, have no excuse for lacking the political will to speak out against such stupidity. Here are some article highlights:
*
When the financial system was on the edge of melting down back in the fall of 2008, there was much talk in the punditocracy of a second Great Depression. The story was that we risked repeating the mistake at the onset of the first Great Depression . . . Instead, however, we acted, and these days the accepted wisdom is that the TARP and other special lending facilities created by the Federal Reserve Board prevented a similar collapse that saved us from a second Great Depression.
*
But this view badly misunderstands the nature of the first Great Depression—and may, in fact, result in the country suffering the second Great Depression that the pundits claim we have averted.
*
Allowing the cascade of financial collapses at the start of the first Great Depression was a mistake. However, there was nothing about this initial collapse that necessitated the decade of double-digit unemployment that was the central tragedy of the Great Depression. This was the result of the failure of the federal government to respond with sufficient vigor to mass unemployment. Indeed, the economy only broke out of the Depression when the federal government undertook massive deficit spending to fight World War II.
*
Then, as now, politicians in Washington were obsessed with the budget deficit. They never would have countenanced such spending, apart from the threat to the nation posed by Hitler and the Axis powers.
*
Unfortunately, the country seems destined to follow the same course in the current slump as it did in the 30s. The May jobs report should have provided the sort of stiff kick that is needed to revive discussion of additional stimulus. Instead, it seems to have barely shaken Washington’s ongoing obsession with deficits.
*
In policy circles, there seems to be an absurd faith that demand in the economy will arise out of nowhere if we are just virtuous enough in reducing the deficit. That is not the way the economy works. Demand must come from some discrete source and it is very difficult to see where that might be if the country continues on a path of deficit reduction.
*
To see why this is the case, first note that nearly 70 percent of demand in our economy is from consumption, but consumption has been growing slowly for two reasons. The first is that the economy has been creating few jobs. Furthermore, in a weak labor market workers do not have the bargaining power to push up their wages. The slow growth in jobs and stagnant wages mean that most families, who get nearly all their income from working, are seeing little growth in income. Slow growth in income means slow growth in consumption.
*
The second factor depressing consumption has been the continuing deflation of the housing bubble. To date, the decline in house prices has destroyed nearly $7 trillion in housing equity. And prices are still falling. . . . The loss of this wealth will lead homeowners to cut back their consumption further in order to rebuild their savings.
*
With these other sectors accounted for, this leaves the government as the only remaining candidate for boosting the economy. But additional stimulus is not even on the agenda in Washington. Instead, we are seeing cutbacks at all levels of government. These cutbacks led to a loss of 29,000 jobs in May. The pace of job loss is only likely to increase when states impose another round of cuts on July 1, the beginning of a new fiscal year for most of them.
*
Moreover, there are more factors pointing to slower growth than faster growth going forward. In addition to the state and local cuts kicking in next month, the new fiscal year for the federal government begins October 1. This is also likely to involve further cuts in spending. And the payroll tax cut is scheduled to end 3 months later, as is the extension of unemployment benefits. At some point, the pain of high unemployment across the country may lead to some new thinking in Washington, but until that time, welcome to the second Great Depression.