Former DNC gay liaison sues Dean and the DNC

The problem with the dems is they want our $$$ and our labor, but many dems don't want to work on our issues.

TOUGH.

If the dems want to claim to be about equality for all Americans, they damn well better start working on these issues. Too often the DNC will happily through queers, people of color and all women under the bus if they think it will appeal to some mythical "Bubba." The kicker? Bubba has been watching this and he isn't a fool. He knows he's the next to go under the bus.

The DNC could learn a few lessons in spine from the NDP (Canada).

I have met Dean.  His conversation contribution on gay issues?  He said he had a gay friend in the army.  Big deal, I had many straight friends in the Navy.

Make alot of noise. Life is short.

Quite frankly, the only national party that has done anything for gay people was the Republican party, with the repeal of the estate tax.  I recognize that that benefit was unintentional, but it was a benefit, nonetheless, and now the Democrats want to re-institute it.

Why would any Gay voter want to vote for Clinton, Obama or Edwards? Log Cabiners don't.  None of them believe in equality and are on record as such in regard to marriage equality.  Why would or why should we vote for any of them just to take back the White House?  Do you really think that in doing so you're going to see any difference once elected?  I don't.  It will be four more years of the same.  They have always taken our votes for granted.  Lets get behind the Greens en masse, then maybe you'll see the others grovelling.  Imagine the effect this would have if 25 million or more of us voted Green.  The Dems to date have never earned my vote.

Whenever you see me say to callie "chirp chirp" (can you hear the crickets??) it is in regards to the lack of attention our posts have recieved over there about GLBT issues, we usually clear the boards.  There are many bloggers there who respect us and our cause, but don't fully understand the importance of the GLBT Outreach Desk as it was and did not understand the full scope of this issue.  Hopefully they will see that this is the result of broken promises and our own broken dreams. 

We have been trying to get them to understand our points, and how we, as a community, have grown weary of being asked for our "disposable" income, yet given very little creadence once the checks are cashed.

Looks like it's time for a third party candidate or time to put away our wallets.

The trollish sounding blogger formerly known as BURNSEY

  DNC, Do you get the message?

If I make sense? it was quite by accident.

As summer approaches and we build our summer reading lists, you might want to balance those psychological thrillers, romance, scientific discovery, and classsic re-reads with the legal pleading of Donald Hitchcock v. Democratic National Committee, et alia.

Textual Analysis

Most legal jurisdictions tweak the basic pleading to fit local customs and preferences, but this one (in D.C.'s Superior Court) is a first where "count" is used instead of "course of action" in a civil (versus criminal) case at bar. Many other "oddities" register. Seems to be a "provincial" read.

This pleading is my first seen to lack specified amounts for compensation, but "asks for relief in an amount to be determined by jury." Huh? A jury is suppose to divine some amount without some guidance? What if Hitchcock has "$2MM in damages and $5MM in punitive awards in mind, but the jury is supposed to "find" its own frame of reference in the extent of damages? As in $100 and $250 instead? Maybe this pleading fills the "religion" quota for the year?

The obvious issue is that most "discrimination" cases are filed in federal court (some in State courts, but relatively few in local courts). But no federal statue or act prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, nor Virginia, but because D.C. does, it's the "place" of offense, and therefore the venue. Shifting groundwork; some deconstruction; watch for falling rocks.

Narrative (Plot) Synopsis

Enough of the textual analysis. Now for the "plot." Howard Dean becomes chair of the Democratic National Committee, makes certain warrants and representations to many parties, including those to his subordinate, Plaintiff Mr. Hitchcock, but then Dean changes his mind. Instead of promoting the GLBT "constituency," (so "democratic" language-speak will register with many readers), Dean et al. chose to downplay, and then eliminate the very GLBT advocacy within the DNC, he initially touted. (Gossipers will like all the "backbitting" action in what follows.)

Then matters start to get "messy," as we say. Mr. Hitchcock is angry at Dean's change in the DNC's priorities, is urged to resign lest he be fired for being "disagreeable" and "uncooperative," a colleague expresses discomfort with Mr. Hitchcock's Significant Other (relevance? Enters stage left, and exits without a trace), Mr. Hitchcock is required to make an urgent choice forced upon him (resign or termination -- existentialism's finest moment), because he's not being a "team player," so Hitchcock chooses termination (in order to charge Dean, DNC, et alia with "wrongful termination"). If that were not sufficient for a course of action, apparently several of Hitchcock's former colleagues are "bad mouthing" his liabilities (but which opens the door to "punitive" damages; for slander charges?).

Hermeneutics

I'm certainly no attorney, much less a jurist, and courts can be capricious, but this case -- in my reader's view -- should be summarily dismissed. I realize "employment at will" is not as "at will" as it once was, and employers are barred from "wrongful termination." But "insubordination" remains a reasonable and legal criterion for employment termination (which is how I see Mr. Hitchcock's behavior). And corporate entities can, and often do, change their business plans, particularly multinationals and political parties -- without requiring subordinates to "sign-off" on the new strategy (wrong direction of fit, Hitchcock). Hitchcock must live an isolated existence in some mental utopia, if he and his counsel seriously believe a legal case is at bar. If the venue were not D.C. Superior Court, I'd predict "summary dismissal" by 8:1. But the Problem of Induction does not play any odds.

However, Hitchcock's objective may already presume he has no leg to stand on, but is merely orchestrating a public-relations strategy to re-expose Howard Dean's betrayal of the GLBT "constituency," abandoning it in order to pander to Pat Robertson and Evangelicals, before Dean realized the futility of that strategy (God is not only the DNC's side), and returned to the "faith" of DNC constituency politics. But to clog courts to do so? To be "dismissed" by a jurist as "frivilous," but to "make a point?"

Moral of the Story

Making a fool of oneself to expose another fool rarely "works" except in the minds of similar "fools." No conflict, no need for resolution. Literally, no story here. However, polysemy opens the "moral" sense for discerning readers.

Lesson learned: DNC to Hire Illegal Immigrants, because they have "no standing" in any jurisdiction, they cannot "balk" over executive sea-changes, cannot file frivolous lawsuits, they are significantly cheaper labor "packages" in, during, and out of they labor contribution, they can be "leveraged" into silence to "play/pay," they work much harder for much less, lack the means of redress, and when they become a "constituency" down the road, as many as 12 million new Democrats will be added to voter rolls. Isn't that precisely the same strategy that Republicans permit its "commercial constituencies" for payback (kickbacks) for undermining American economics?

The Psychological Implications (No Conflict)

Psychologist Eric Berne, a Sixties' Self-Help Guru, probably would consider this a Win-Win "game that people play," for the DNC (win) and Illegal Immigration (win), and in the "transactional analysis" to a different order, it would also be a Lose-Lose game people play for GLBT (lose) and Nativists (lose). But, it that Lose-Lose begets a Lose-Win. Where will GLBT and Nativists go? To the Republicans? Not a viable choice, at this time. So the "losing" constituencies (GLBT, Nativists) have no alternative, they too have been leveraged, which means the "winning" constituency wins twice. Frankly, Dean is a pretty smart operator (however fickle), but he knows how to get his bread buttered. Leverage assets. Rebalance his portfolio. Get better returns on his investment.

Hopefully, Hitchcock can seek "relief" in other ways? He does have a Significant Other, no?