The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
The federal government would be banned from funding sex change operations and other services for transgender individuals if social conservative activists get their way.
There's no sponsor yet for an amendment to the health care overhaul - and it may remain in the dustbin of unrealized wedge issues - but culture warriors are shopping the proposal to Republican senators.
The language is written: "None of the funds authorized or appropriated under this act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be used to cover any part or portion of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of" any sex or gender reassignment procedure, surgery related to such a sex change, hormone therapy for a sex change or pre- and post-operation treatments for a sex change.
A senior aide to a Republican senator said that a public insurance plan could easily end up covering sex-change procedures if that's not specifically banned in the bill...
The "Fierce Advocate" for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community in the White House needs to draw a line here. House and Senate leadership need to draw a line here too. LGBT people just cannot acquiesce the enshrining of new discriminatory policies against any subcommunity of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community into law.
I have zero expectation that healthcare reform is going to end up in mandated genital reconstruction surgery. However, if this amendment is adopted should a Republican put it forward -- when zero or close-to-zero Republicans are going to vote for this bill no matter what it looks like -- this would be a travesty. This would be on the same plane as when Congress passed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA).
If this amendment is submitted and were to be adopted -- when Democrats have sizable majorities in both Houses of Congress -- then I believe there would be something incredibly wrong with the Democratic Party's position on LGBT people and issues. It one thing to drag ones' feet or repealing discriminatory legislation of the past; it's another thing altogether to create new laws enshrining new discriminatory policies against any LGBT subcommunity into law.
San Francisco San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has been seen as a leading contender to be the next governor of California, announced today that he is quitting the race.
Newsom is withdrawing from the Democratic primary amid lackluster poll numbers and meager fund-raising receipts. His withdrawal leaves state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, who is expected to run even though he has not officially entered the race, with little opposition in the Democratic primary.
"It is with great regret I announce today that I am withdrawing from the race for governor of California," Newsom said in a statement. "With a young family and responsibilities at City Hall, I have found it impossible to commit the time required to complete this effort the way it needs to - and should be - done. This is not an easy decision. But it is one made with the best intentions for my wife, my daughter, the residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and California Democrats." ...
Mayor Newsom may be an lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community hero because of his stand on marriage equality, but he apparently didn't have that extra something to catch the imagination of the rest of the Democratic base here in my home state.
Jay Ovittore is a Farm Team Prospect running for City Council (District 3) in Greensboro. He's the only Democrat in the race, a long-time blogger, and as of late he's been attacked by a local conservative paper because he was unafraid to blog that he was an atheist:
Before he decided on a career in politics, Ovittore was an outspoken atheist. On a blog in 2005 he wrote, "I am athiest (sic), always have been, always will be." It turns out "always" is not as long as some people think it is. Ovittore did not want to answer the question about his atheism. He said it was personal and he believed in the separation of church and state. However, Ovittore on his blog was the one who brought it up and declared his atheism more than once.
October 3, 2009, the Washtenaw County Democratic Party held its annual dinner. Three U.S. Congressmen were in attendance. The first was freshman Representative Mark Schauer, a young, vibrant and optimistic Congressman. The second was Representative John Dingell, the longest-serving member in Congress today and a man who has introduced a single-payer health care bill every year for 52 years. The third was a pioneer in the Civil Rights Movement, a man jailed over 40 times, beaten and bloodied for his views and actions, Representative John Lewis from Georgia. He attended President Obama's inauguration as the only living speaker from the rally at the March on Washington.
These three men, from dramatically different backgrounds and perspectives, all spoke with one voice in saying that health care reform in this country is the civil rights struggle of our time.
From L to R: County Dem. Party Chair Stu Dowty, Rep. Mark Schauer, Rep. John Dingell, Rep. John Lewis
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) warned Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly" during an after-hours House floor speech Tuesday night.
His remarks, which drew angry and immediate calls for an apology from Republicans, were highlighted by a sign reading "The Republican Health Care Plan: Die Quickly."
I'm going to call this Democratic congressmember's commentary a House Floor version of internet trolling:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Rep. Grayson's comments would, if made in an internet forum, would qualify as a kind of flaming:
An Internet user typically generates a flame response to other posts or users posting on a site, and such a response is usually not constructive, does not clarify a discussion, and does not persuade others. Sometimes, flamers attempt to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority over other users. Other times, a flamer is simply an individual who believes he or she carries the only valid opinion. This leads him or her to personally attack those who disagree. In some cases, flamers wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they can be called "trolls". Most often however, flamers are angry or insulting messages transmitted by people who have strong feelings about a subject.
I want healthcare reform -- especially for the underinsured and the uninsured -- and I want a public option as part of that healthcare reform. I don't see how Rep. Grayson's comments lead us to the kind of healthcare reform -- the kind with a public option -- that many of us progressives want.
In my mind, it comes down to this: Rep. Grayson's commentary doesn't clarify discussion on healthcare reform and isn't likely to persuade others; Rep. Grayson's commentary does personally attack those with whom he disagrees. What was the point of the speech? In my mind, it was simply to antagonize his opponents.
The problem is that, if anything, his commentary will in the long run turn out to be destructive. This is because his commentary will turn off those in the middle -- those whom progressives want to persuade to support healthcare reform that includes a public option. I would say many of us Americans are tired of Republican and Democratic sniping back and forth at each other -- throwing snowballs at each other from the safety their own snowball forts.
Basically, one doesn't change hearts and minds if one behaves like a jackass. Rep. Grayson, if he wanted to speak on the subject of healthcare reform, could have (and should have) done much better at framing the discussion -- One doesn't have to sink to one's opponents' jackassary to effectively counter these others' fallacious arguments.
We're working hard to keep NC Blue, and to change the composition of the political landscape, so this effort is something to support.
Three years ago I was a 20-year-old candidate for County Commissioner. I had a good bit of civic experience (after-school program leader, volunteer at the Lesbian & Gay Community Center of Charlotte, Democratic Party and School System activist) and I was able to get a lot of support from my local community. But you're never dumber than when you're a candidate, and I was lucky to go into the experience open to all of the lessons I would learn.
In spite of losing, the race made me a believer in young candidates. I was progressive, energetic, and I like to think that I was honest. I got new people involved in the governmental process, and after my race I got involved with other young candidates and causes. Last year, I worked on the Jim Neal for Senate campaign and saw everything that could be accomplished when a campaign decided to partner with young voters. Later, I managed one of the closest state house campaigns in NC for a 28-year-old who ran an incredible race.
This year, my experiences (and those of others across the state) have culminated in the creation of the Grassroots Farm Team PAC, a committee with one main goal - raise the money and build the small-dollar donor network to get young, progressive leaders elected.
...Now, after this summer of bad political behavior -- full of hecklers, birthers, truthers, death panels and guns -- I think it's time to take up the cause against poorly behaved politicians and citizen activists alike. Do it for the children!
It wouldn't be so bad if politics weren't viewed as the be-all and end-all of American culture. I mean, I'd be happy if someone like, say, South Carolina GOP Rep. Joe "You lie!" Wilson had the courage of basketball star Charles Barkley to stand up and say, "Hey, I'm not a role model just because I got elected to Congress."
But you know that won't happen, because despite all the evidence to the contrary, we like to delude ourselves into thinking that politics is an honorable profession guided by only the most moral and high-minded of individuals and intentions...
In the middle of the piece, commentator Gregory Rodriguez makes a serious comment about Nazi politics (that for once isn't an exercise in violating Goodwin's Law):
Otto von Bismarck, the 19th century German chancellor, is famously said to have remarked that "laws are like sausage. It is better not to see them made." As much as I agree with his assessment, I also recognize the dangers of looking away from the sausage machine. Indeed, one of contemporary Germany's foremost intellectuals, Wolf Lepenies, argued a few years ago that the German elite's disdain for the lowly practice of politics (and preference for high culture) essentially allowed the Nazis to emerge unchecked. So dismayed were they by the everyday horse-trading, the elite left politics to others.
But if none of us can afford to turn away, what can we do to make political discourse and behavior more palatable?
Of course, the writer answers his rhetorical question with his ideas on how to create space for civil political discourse.
But, of course, let's "unrhetoricalize" the question, and make it a question for all of us. What do each of us who are politically engaged on some level or another to make political discourse and behavior more palatable?
But let's not frame our answers in tems of "this is what I think the other guy should do," but instead from the perspective of "what do I think I could and should do?" So, how would you answer Gregory Rodriguez's question of "what can we do to make political discourse and behavior more palatable?" if you applied the question to yourself and your own behavior during political dialog?
And I know, the question as I've interpreted it takes on my perspective that civil political dialog is the preferred kind of political dialog. So for those who don't agree with mine or Mr. Rodriguez's perspective that civil political dialog is preferred, you can instead answer of how you think you should engage in political dialog in the current reality that political dialog is currently pretty uncivil.
So what are your thoughts?
~~~~~
Since this is a discussion about political civility, here's a special excerpt related to Godwin's Law that I like to quote occaionally:
And the Hitlers keep on coming. Yes, Adolf Hitler, one of the worst mass-murders in all of history, has become the go-to metaphor and comparison for anyone you have a minor disagreement with.
...Here's my point. When you compare people to Hitler, enh, you lose a little credibility.
...[P]lease stop calling people Hitler when you disagree with them. It demeans you, it demeans your opponent, and to be honest, it demeans Hitler. That guy worked too many years, too hard, to be that evil to have any Tom, Dick and Harry come along and say "Hey, you're being Hitler." No--You know who was Hitler? HITLER!
The Jon Stewart video on that linked site to the quote is a particularly poignant and funny take on calling an opponent a Hitler or a Nazi. Higly recommend its vieing.
Tonight, President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, whose members are freshly returned from August recess. What the President will say and how it will affect the national discussion on health care reform remains to be seen. What is absolutely certain is that the discussion over the past month has been hijacked by delusional claims by people whose agenda consists of little more than scoring cheap political points.
The greatest and most offensive inequities in this nation happen when someone is denied medical care. That this concept does not drive to the core of every elected official who holds the public trust is a threat to our Democracy.
The bottom line is insurance companies don't care, Democrats have a real mandate, Republicans won't support anything, and it's time to flex some muscle. Before the discussion even began in earnest, insurance companies already won when a single payer plan was replaced with a goal of universal coverage. Let me say what no one is saying:
- Health insurance companies are corporations with a fiduciary responsibility to earn a profit for its shareholders.
- They do not have a legal responsibility to provide medical care.
- Yet, health insurance companies are the primary means of access to medical care for Americans.
- All of the above points to a system that is badly broken.
While requiring them to insure people with pre-existing conditions is progress, it's kind of like bailing out the Titanic with a teacup. There are now 50 MILLION people without health insurance and therefore without proper access to medical care. It is a national crisis and it's time that Washington acted with a sense of urgency in addressing it.
Democrats enjoy larger majorities in the Congress than we have had in a generation. We have a President who made health care a central tenant of his campaign for election. The American people have charged them with the awesome responsibility for making our nation a more fair and just place.
Republicans have made it clear that they will not be a part of the solution. It is a simple political calculation for them. Each day that passes, the President's approval rating slips, making it easier for them to obstruct the progress that America so badly needs. Further, they have incited enough fear to prompt the usual Blue Dog Democratic fear of doing what they were elected to do. Hence, we find ourselves in the political quandary of cobbling together enough votes to pass reform that includes a public option, which is absolutely critical in forcing private health insurance companies to be better through competition.
What's the way forward? It's time for the White House and Democratic Leadership to get its act together and put together the votes. The political reality is that passing a bill with a robust public option is NOT a liability. The Republicans have actually created a huge opportunity for Democrats. On the one hand, we can retreat from our values and deliver them a huge victory that they will continue to hammer us with. Or we can defy the fears they have conjured and pass the bill.
When the situations they have predicted never come to pass, they will pay a long term political price for hindering and voting against what may be seen as the greatest piece of social progress made in decades. By passing real health care reform with a public option now, it will become a huge asset to Democrats by the time the 2010 election rolls around.
So get to it! As soon as a robust bill is passed, the politics of the situation will turn quickly in favor of the Democrats and we will have honored our Party's tradition of taking on the greatest challenges of our nation at the most difficult of times.
For those who don't know who Ms. Siperstein is, she's a long time activist in the Garden State Equality, Stonewall Democrats (currently she's the New Jersey Chapter's President), and the New Jersey Democratic Party {as a Vice-Chair, she's currently the only Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus member on The New Jersey Democratic State Committee), and has held leadership positions in all of these organizations. She was an at large delegate for the 2004 Democratic Party Convention, and an elected delegate at the 2008 Democratic Party Convention.
Recently, she was nominated by Democratic Party Chair Tim Kaine to be one of the 75 at large members of the 447 member Democratic National Committee (DNC). Ms. Siperstein's confirmation to the DNC is pretty much a formality at this point, so she will officially become a member of the DNC this Friday, September 11, 2009.
It's no surprise to most of you that Ms. Siperstein identifies as a woman, and as a senior citizen, and by my highlighting her you probably can guess she's a part of the LGBT community.
Well, that's part of it. Babs Casbar Siperstein also identifies as a transsexual, and a part of the transgender subcommunity of the broader LGBT community. Ms. Siperstein's appointment to the DNC by Gov. Kaine is a first for a trans-identified person -- she is going to be the first openly trans DNC member.
This isn't tokenism. My friend Babs has been working very hard towards this for years. When in 2004 the DNC failed to embrace a plank regarding civil rights based on gender identity or expression, she saw that trans people needed to be better represented on the national scene. So, she began working towards getting that better representation of gender identity or expression civil rights issues within the DNC, and working towards this appointment to the DNC.
The question I had, of course, had to do with how she'd arrived at the place that lead to this appointment -- what she did to work towards this first-of-a-kind-for-trans-people appointment. Well, besides fundraising for/donating to Democratic candidates for public office (which we would all likely expect would be important for a political appointee to the DNC), she built alliances with LGBT people and potential "straight" allies; she built alliances with people in the Democratic Party based on looking for commonalities.
I think the broader LGBT community forgets about looking for commonalities sometimes. Think for a moment about immigration reform; there is a whole community of immigration advocates that the LGBT community could work with to help to make same-sex/same gender partner sponsorship possible. If members in the LGBT community care about the progressive immigration reform issues, and work with the organizations that promote immigration reform, we could use our commonalities to build a stronger, more powerful coalition. The LGBT community's partner sponsor issue could become part of a broader immigration reform bill; and in the process of LGBT people working for immigration reform, our broader LGBT community issues could become immigration advocates' issues.
This is the kind of way that Babs Casbar Siperstein works on Democratic Party issues -- she looks for commonalities. She works on others' issues that are not what I'd call her primary issues, and others she works in turn end up working on lesbian, gay, bisexual, -- and especially transgender -- community issues. Babs Siperstein isn't the only reason New Jersey has civil rights laws that cover trans people, but she had a great deal to do with it.
A current example from Babs' issues would be women's senior citizen issues in New Jersey. As a senior and a woman, she works with others on senior issues those senior issues that may not her primary issues but these are issues she cares about. In turn she has turned hearts and minds about trans women in these women's issues circle -- some of whom now see gender identity or expression civil rights issues as their Democratic Party issues.
Visibility matters. Effort matters. Finding commonalities matter. Just ask Babs Casbar Siperstein -- the first openly trans committee member of the DNC.
Okay, I have to admit that at times, I can be a control freak. But it is only because when I see something is misguided and not firing on all cylinders, I want to make it right for all those concerned. It's this reason that I want to go to the White House and be put in charge of our healthcare planning. Here is what I would do:
In another brief video (two minutes long, on the nose!), I interview Democratic New Orleans mayoral candidate James Perry for Pam's House Blend:
In the short interview, I ask Mr. Perry what his message is to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community, as well as the African-American community, both of which communities frequently read Pam's House Blend. We also discuss the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and how it's (what I would describe as) an ongoing embarrassment for the United States.
Off camera, we discussed the large transgender community, and how they have no legal protections. In a very positive way, we discussed housing, employment, and public accommodation protections for the trans people in New Orleans - one of what I consider the six "Transgender Mecca" cities of the United States (the others being Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, New York, and Atlanta).
I have a pretty good feeling about Democrat James Perry for Mayor of New Orleans; googling him turned up some pretty good coverage and reviews from media (here and here, for example).
Senate Democrats said on Monday that they would seek to broaden the federal hate crimes law to protect victims of attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disabilities.
To lift the chances of passage, Democrats said the legislation, known as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, would be attached as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill - a must-pass measure.
The proposal is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay University of Wyoming student who was tied to a fence, beaten and left to die in 1998.
The Senate approved the legislation last year, also as part of the military authorization bill, but it was never reconciled with a similar House-passed bill.
Didn't we try this last session (2007/2008)? The House Democrats wanted a stand alone bill, while the Senate Democrats connected the bill to the Defense Appropriation Act. Nothing ever made it to President Bush's desk.
If the same scenario plays out in the 2009/2010 version of the Matthew Shepard Act, how does the Democratic Party believe the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community would respond to not getting federal hate crimes legislation to President Obama's desk? -- A president who would sign such a bill?
To quote the musical The Music Man:
"Ya' got trouble,
my friend,
right here,
I say,
Trouble right here
in River City."
Even with the District's comprehensive Human Rights Act, which includes protections for gender identity or expression, trans and gender non-conforming people continue to experience verbal and physical harassment ranging from being attacked and thrown out to even being arrested for simply trying to use the bathroom in the District. In fact, according to a recent citywide survey for transgender and gender non-conforming people, 70 percent of respondents indicated that they had experienced problems accessing or using gender segregated bathrooms.
"Since its founding in 2005, the DCTC has organized community members to fight for the human rights of and equal access for trans and gender non-conforming people living in the District of Columbia. The Bathroom Access and Safety Campaign carries on this commitment, ensuring that the District's laws are appropriately enforced, making certain that trans and gender non-conforming residents have equal access and appropriate safety when using restroom facilities along with other public accommodations," said Sadie Baker, a member of the DCTC.
Regulations accompanying the Human Rights Act clarify that all residents have the right to use a bathroom consistent with their gender identity or expression, regardless of real or perceived assigned sex or gender expression. The regulations also specify that all single occupancy restrooms (i.e., any restroom intended for use by one person at a time) in any public or commercial space, like a restaurant, should use gender neutral signage only. For example, signs reading "Men" and "Women" must be replaced with signs that read "Restroom," or another non-gendered label.
"Despite these regulations, many businesses all over DC are not in compliance with the law, which is why we created this campaign. We are developing a list of all non-compliant businesses throughout DC so that we can inform the Office of Human Rights. OHR Director Velasquez has agreed to help by sending all the businesses we identify a letter informing them of the Human Rights Act and what they need to do in order to be compliant. The businesses will then have 30 days to change their signs, at which point we will check back. It is our hope that all business will comply with OHR's request. If they do not, we will report them to city officials who will initiate a discrimination complaint," said Jody Herman, a member of the DCTC.
Basically, The District of Colombia's Trans Coalition (DCTC) and the District of Colombia's Office Of Human Rights (OHR) have asked that community members help by identifying restaurants, cafes or any other public or commercial spaces that are not in compliance with the law -- If you live in DC, please take a read at the Presser and consider helping in this undertaking.
FindLaw columnist and human rights attorney Joanne Mariner comments upon Newsweek's recent report that Attorney General Holder is considering appointing a prosecutor to look into Bush Administration interrogation abuses. Mariner argues that Holder should make the appointment, which she says would send the strongest possible message to the world that the U.S. does not employ, endorse, or condone torture. However, she also expresses concern about the reported scope of the potential prosecutorial task, which is said to be limited to investigating only interrogation tactics that went beyond those authorized by lawyers. Mariner contends that opting for such a narrow scope would validate the erroneous legal opinions of attorneys who were simply Bush Administration ideologues providing easy rubber-stamps; and would mischaracterize the facts, styling Bush Administration torture as the work of a few rogues, not the officially-validated policy it actually was. Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Is David Tennant coming to Comic-Con International to say goodbye ... or to announce the start of something big? The time traveler is on the clock when it comes to his signature role - the announced plan is that he will leave the character behind after a series of specials that will air on the BBC next year - but there has been speculation across the Atlantic that he is coming to San Diego to announce a Doctor Who feature film. Could it be true? It seems unlikely to me, but (ahem) time will tell...
This is Dr. Who -- Stranger things have happened in that franchise's plot lines.
Yesterday afternoon in Brazil, I went to a Brazilian Government public pharmacy (see above) to fill receive the medicine prescribed for me last week by the doctor at the Government´s free neighborhood medical clinic.
When I saw that there were about twenty people in line, I was afraid I might have a long wait ahead of me. Instead, the three workers dispensing medicine were business-like, courteous, and I was in and out in fifteen minutes. (The white paper sign to the left in the above photograph says, "Open Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM until 4:00 PM.")
Unlike in the United States, Brazilian Government employees providing free services are not universally condescending and rude to their clients, if only because most of the recipients here are working-class Brazilians whose aggregated tax dollars are paying for the services they receive.
The other day, I received in the mail the following "2009 Priority Issues Survey" from the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). The idea is to gather our input ("us" being happy Democratic donors, presumably) about which topics the Democrats in the House should prioritize in the coming year or so.
The brochure is reprinted below in its entirety. See if you can guess WHICH Democratic issue, heavily campaigned on by Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential race, is completely missing.
When I was asked to review The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be by Michael Lux of Openleft.com fame, I expected another partisan rehash of "Yay Liberals! Boo Conservatives!" with little depth. Instead, what I got was one of the most insightful and exciting historical looks at America's ongoing battle with itself and its ideals I have ever read.
The book takes an illuminating walk through American history, from our founding to modern day, highlighting "Big Change Moments" that have altered the course our country, for good or bad. Filled with quotes, facts, and long-lost historical tidbits, the book could come off as dry, but Lux's voice and humor bring the reader along and make it nearly impossible to put down.
To be completely honest- this is the first book since college that I have found myself taking notes on and highlighting passages in, just because it was filled with so much amazing information.
This book is much more, however, than just an interesting read. It is a timely cautionary tale on what has become the troubling buzzwords of the current administration: "compromise" and "bipartisan."
Tonight the second quarter of 2009 draws to a close, and it's a significant point in the 2010 campaign cycle. This is the point at which a lot of folks who are considering maybe possibly getting into a race take a hard look at their fundraising, and either throw their hat in the ring, or throw in the towel.
This is also the point at which challenger candidates examine the funds that incumbent candidates have on hand -- and decide whether the incumbent's war chest is so formidable that s/he can outspend the challenger and own the election, or whether that incumbent looks vulnerable to a challenge.
Since I donated more than I should have in the 2008 election cycle, this means I'm getting fundraising emails and requests from all over the friggin' place, because people are scrambling to make those second quarter numbers look as flush as they possibly can.
Below the fold, you'll read my response to every request.
Joe Sudbay documented yesterday's Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) protest outside of the White House, where demonstrators also collected 265 buttons, each representing a discharged service member under the Obama administration, to give to the President.
It's really quite sad that SLDN has to protest to get the attention of the White House. But, we are where we are and this White House needs pressure. If you haven't called yet, the number is 202-456-1414. Tell Obama to end the DADT policy -- he has the power. Yes, we want a legislative repeal, but Obama can stop the discharges NOW. He is the leader.
Photos from the protest (via Blender Tammy S.):
***
Joe also has another thoughtful post up, "Democrats and Political Homophobia," that gets to the heart of the problem regarding our elected "allies" who attempt to explain away their political decision to leave the LGBT community twisting in the wind by saying the personally aren't homophobic.
Political homophobes aren't gay-hating in the traditional sense. In fact, publicly, most are strong supporters of LGBT equality. But, behind closed doors, many Democratic leaders, consultants, Hill staffers and the rest will vociferously argue that there is no political benefit to actually supporting LGBT rights. Political homophobia is rampant among some Democrats. In some ways, it's worse than blatant homophobia, since we think most Democrats are on our side. And outwardly, they are.
Political homophobia dictates policy in DC more than we'd like to think. I believe it's happening in the West Wing right now. I've been told by several people that while the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, isn't a homophobe in the traditional way (he always voted the right way when he was in the House), he is always the first person to suggest that his colleagues (and now boss) avoid gay issues. He'd rather not deal with them because he thinks they're bad politics.
It's time to call BS when, as we see with the protest above, and with the Stonewall ceremony tomorrow, it's clear that our "allies" :1) don't mind putting national security at risk and 2) believe photo ops and a speech are enough to placate us while they move on to "more important matters" lest they waste any political capital on civil rights.
In case you haven't been paying attention, there's an uprising going on. LGBT progressives are sick and tired of being taken for granted. We were promised "change" by candidate Obama, but all we've seen so far from President Obama & Congress has been more requests for our change ($). Seriously, this needs to change.
Apparently just two days before the scheduled "LGBT DNC Fundraiser Extravaganza" that's losing donors so fast the DNC & Obama White House are in full panic mode, Fundraiser Co-chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announces that he will introduce a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) as his colleague Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will soon introduce a repeal of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA). And pay attention to what they have to say.
"I'd like to make it a rule: No yelling at the president until you show me a letter you have written" to your House member and two senators, says gay U.S. Rep. Barney Frank.
As lawmakers prepare to head home for their July 4 recess, key congressional allies emphasize that every member of Congress needs to hear from constituents passionate about passing legislation to move gay Americans toward equality. [...]
What does gay-friendly Rep. Jerry Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on civil rights, need voters to do to help him pass the anti-DOMA bill he'll soon introduce?
"Call your representatives. Meet with them. Pressure them," Nadler told me.
Nadler hopes to quickly get a Senate companion bill. Already, a House bill to repeal [the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (DADT) military service ban] has been introduced. A Senate version is likely shortly.
OK, I get it. Frank and Nadler are trying to deflect criticism of President Obama by telling us to contact our members of Congress. Fine, then. Let's call them on their bluff.
If today's event in Boston is any indication, the DNC, DSCC, DCCC and Obama campaign committee can be expecting hundreds upon hundreds of protestors across the country at their fundraisers in the days ahead. About 30-40 people came to protest President Obama's DOMA brief at today's DNC fundraiser at Fenway Park in Boston, headlined by Vice President Biden.
Organized by Join the Impact Massachusetts, it was part of a coordinated effort to close down the "gayTM" -- all the millions that the gay constituency gives to the Democratic Party, without any results.
The protest was in reaction to President Obama's Department of Justice, which issued an inflamatory brief supporting the government's Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents gay couples from receiving federal benefits, even if in legally committed relationships. In the brief written by the DoJ, it compared gay relationships to incestuous relationships as justification for legally refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, going way beyond what was necessary in the case.
Some key moments of the protests: Lt. Governor Tim Murray and Mayor Boston both attended the event, but neither of them recognized the protestors. MassEquality's Scott Gortikov crossed the (picket) line, attending the fundraiser despite the protestors and Obama administration brief. Lastly, the police pushed protestors back beyond the original protest area, to the extent that it made it very difficult to have a fair voice in protesting.
Some more videos of the protests below the fold, as well as local media coverage and comments from the event's organizer, the ever-energetic Paul Sousa.
I'm a pretty patient guy, Mr. President. I must be, considering that while you were celebrating your 6th birthday I was putting my life on the line for my country, serving as a Military Policeman in Vietnam, even though I had to lie every minute of every waking hour to do so. I kept myself going with the faith that someday other patriotic gay and lesbian Americans would be able to proudly serve their nation without having to live a lie.
Higly recommend its vieing. 
So since it's Wednesday, here's what Bookworm Bob (my cartoon friend) and I have been reading in the webosphere this week:
The other day, I received in the mail the following "2009 Priority Issues Survey" from the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee). The idea is to gather our input ("us" being happy Democratic donors, presumably) about which topics the Democrats in the House should prioritize in the coming year or so.
