Our Revolution Will Not Be Televised

As I’d written about in the last blog, Jon Stewart on the Dec. 10 edition of The Daily Show took much of Mike Huckabee’s philosophies on the gay and lesbian community to task. Interestingly enough, the entire argument pertained to the same-sex marriage fight. To summarize, Stewart noted below:

“I think it’s a shame that they have forced gay people (in California) to have to make their case that they deserve the same rights as someone else.”

Marriage … is the bellwether of whether “gay people … deserve the same rights as someone else.” Not to belabor the point, but it must be made: this is the most recent item to come to the table. Any number of other issues pertinent to GLBT have been on the front burner for some time, and are suddenly (and notably) absent.

“Gay Liberation? I ain't against it. It's just that there's nothing in it for me.” — actress, Bette Davis

That encapsulates much of the media rhetoric that’s occurred recently. We’ve seen it on Ellen DeGeneres’ shows (even interviewing GOP presidential candidate John McCain), Hollywood’s stars coming out with splashy TV ads supporting it, Prop 8 national protest media coverage, and gay and straight print media alike (e.g. The Advocate, New York Times) are drawing heroic struggle comparisons between marriage rights and the Civil Rights movement. In a nutshell today, it’s all about marriage.

Nothing else matters – or at least that’s the message communicated to everyone else still waiting for hate crimes protections, employment opportunities, access to health care, and even domestic partner benefits! Hello? Did our Queer Community leadership forget about this one? That’s a pretty ephemeral memory, I must say ….

All of the other incomplete (and glaringly disparate) issues have been overwritten and completely buried in media lately. Some may say that these other issues have already been attained and are unneeded – if not in codified protection, at least in practice as there’s greater public exposure, reduced levels of hate and plenty of gays and lesbians in employment up to even the highest levels of business and government. Heady days!

But these are still unaddressed issues in gay and bi communities of color! Did any of the GLBT leaders ever bother to ask them? I did. Yeah, folks … it’s not been addressed. Ask! H. Alexander Robinson of the National Coalition for Black Justice (NCBJ) recently noted a study showing that staff in GLBT organizations were only 5-7% on average. They make up 12% of the population nationwide – do the math. Undoubtedly the same numbers are likely to be found in other ethnic categories on GLBT employment as well. On average, when they lead organizations these same ethnic minorities are paid $9000/yr. less.

Further down the food chain are (as many consider us) the lowest of the low: the Transgenders. Gay and Lesbians (per estimates) equal 10% of the overall population, with Transgenders at 2%. Finding one of six employees in GLBT-land being transgendered is a dream we will likely never live to see. For a community separate from gay or lesbian, where everyone states that educating on our distinct issues is paramount, the message that communicates to straight corporate America (that even gay and lesbian organizations can’t bring themselves to consider transgenders equal) speaks volumes.

Yet with all the continuing need and over a decade’s worth of advocacy work, the only thing on popular TV and in print is what the privileged, moneyed leaders of what’s now become of the GLBT movement demand. And these, our well-funded leaders, insist upon that being about marriage. The rest of the movement will take care of itself (or so the mindset appears to be).

“You say you got a real solution, well you know
We don't all love to see the plan.
You ask me for a contribution, well you know
We're all doing what we can.
But if you want money for people with minds that hate,
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait.” — Revolution 1, the Beatles

And what if it doesn’t take care of itself? In essence, it’s going to be “who cares? We got ours!” There’s always Cabinet positions to lobby for or other high-visibility positions or elected offices to aspire. Or if they can’t get that, maybe fabulous vacations somewhere. (Do people still do “vacations” in broke-ass America? How?)

Don’t believe me? Take a look at uber-liberal Massachusetts, home to Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Ted Kennedy. Marriage is legal, even out-of-staters can marry there. Trans people? There’s not any meaningful effort to do anything there for them, beyond some dry-jacks for PC image purposes. Equality Massachusetts has plans to go around other states in New England to help pass other marriage laws.

If you’re trans and your celebrating that, you’re brain dead. Get a clue, they’re free.

Otherwise, when gay marriage finally pushes forward through every state in the union (however many decades that takes), we can count on … well … all the Hollywood stars and the media and employers and everyone else fixated on what shows up in front of their noses on the TV set will go away. You think someone like Jon Stewart’s gonna come to the transgender community’s rescue? Fat chance! Do you believe Hollywood’s top stars are going to give impassioned pleas to retrace back and begin pushing to employ trannies? Dream on! Do you really entertain any fantasy about media digging around and discovering that trans people were blithely left behind? Hell to the no!

If you’re lulled by the delusion that Washington’s L&G leadership (personified prominently, but not exclusively by HRC) are going to come back, lift you up, treat you as equals or make amends … well, I’ve got two words for you. WAKE UP!

If you want to fall for unctuous ‘promises’ from the likes of Ol’ Barn’ (“let me shoot ‘em Andy!!!”) Frank, or fake reports of contrition from the likes of Teddy-Boy Kennedy, or any of the sugar-bullet promises from DC “professionals” in LGBT-land, then keep the delusions to yourself or work for the other quislings.

Bottom line, once marriage and all other items on their agenda are attained, all the above parties are going on about their daily lives and never even noticing we exist. That is … unless we take a page from Sylvia Rivera.

Sylvia admitted a year before she died that there was a time to negotiate and a time to “take to the streets”. When you negotiate, you can only realistically do so with those of whom you can negotiate in good faith! Negotiating with these folks have gotten us nothing more than burned, discredited, censored and completely shut out, so that’s obviously not going to work.

The time to unleash your voices is upon us. The unemployed, the disenfranchised and disempowered won’t enjoy the televised assistance to attaining equal treatment. It’s up to us all to raise hell and find a way, by whatever means possible, to stealing back our voice and pushing for our own rights.

If you’re simply going to play polite and wait for marriage to pass before you receive your rights, once that victory’s won the lights go out and the equipment gets packed up and rolled away. And your revolution will be standing there empty-handed in the dark … all by its lonesome.

“If you say you want a revolution, baby,
There is nothing like your own….
After you revolution, baby,
There is nothing you can't be.” — We Are The Revolution, World Party

The Next Revolution On TV: Marriage!

........The Same-Sex Marriage Debate is viewed in Black & White
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was one of my two favorite shows from the days when I had cable and used to watch TV a bit more. Today I pulled it up online and watched his show featuring former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, half of which focused on gay marriage and the difference of opinions Stewart held on Huckabee’s opinions expressed in his most recent book: “Do The Right Thing.”


As an aside, I never previously noticed the delicious double entendre in that statement: Do the right thing a la Spike Lee’s movie, as in doing the correct thing, as opposed to a GOP take on do the right thing (which would obviously be exhorting one to do the devoutly conservative thing). They aren’t always mutually inclusive.

Ever an open and engaging interviewee, Governor Huck admitted he was disenchanted with the way the pro-life movement in America had conducted themselves. In a lot of ways, Huck is a renaissance type of Republican, not really given to the same red-meat, arrogant rhetoric of his party-mates, and even admitting that blind mantras of slashing government a la Grover (the muppet) Norquist. Heck, Huck even supports funding for the the arts! The heresy!

“The party of Lincoln should be reaching out to blacks, Hispanics, gays and so forth and so on.” — former Calif. Senate Candidate, Michael Huffington

“I guess this makes us so forth and so on ….” — National Transgender Advocacy Coalition President, Vanessa Edwards Foster

But it seems one point Huck won’t recant is the dogmatic homosexuals-are-the-unclean automatic myopia. One would have thought he’d be a little more circumspect than the rest of the red-meat crowd, and he is tamer rhetorically. But devout he is, and Stewart took him to task on it.
Some of the points of highlight from the Jon Stewart – Mike Huckabee exchange:

Jon: “you talk about how marriage is the bedrock of our society, why would you not want more couples [to marry] … why would you want that precluded for an entire group of people?”
“in your book, you write that it is corrosive to society to allow them have all the privileges that the rest in society enjoy.”
“Religion is far more of a choice than homosexuality.”
“A loving financially secure gay marriage beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline any day.”

I couldn't have stated it any better. "Check and mate" Mr. Stewart

Mike: “The only way we can create the next generation is through a male-female relationship.”

Actually we know better than that. Remember the Test Tube baby anyone? In-vitro fertilization?

Mike: “Marriage is a privilege, it is not a divine right…. Marriage still means between a male and a female.”
“Words do matter. Definitions matter.”

Indeed, words and definitions do matter. As defined, privilege is a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; especially such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office. Privilege by its nature is not equal treatment, but special treatment. If marriage is a privilege, then who is the arbiter of this privilege in a non-theocratic (we’re still advertising we’re democratic here – freedom of religion and all) government and society? Marriage per Huckabee is then not a “legal or moral entitlement” decided by law. If marriage is not binding by law, then what is government doing being involved in enacting law against it for anyone, or even deciding who may be recognized as being married and able to claim next of kin, property inheritance, etc. It’s not law.

Mike: “Those who support gay marriage have a lot of work to do to convince the rest of us….”

As marriage is simply a privilege deigned upon us by some shadowy set of individuals, who is it specifically we’re having to work to convince? Keep in mind, not all marriages are church ceremonies. Clearly that means that just going to the church involved to convince them isn’t going to work uniformly. Some churches already support and will marry same-sex couples. That sounds arbitrary and privileged, doesn’t it?

Is this something that only people of certain monetary means should be privileged with? What impact does that have on impoverished individuals who get married every day – how do they manage to get this privilege? If it’s not a right or a law passed down from our elected leaders, who has to be paid or bribed (if that’s the case) in order to be married?

Yeah, everyone hearts Huckabee (except maybe Dustin Hoffman who’s wondering if this was his Ishtar II). But Mike, methinks you stepped in it here. As you said, marriage is a privilege … not a right. That means that if the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut have already passed their laws, it’s their responsibility to privilege their citizens thusly. And it will never be taken away by anything the federal government does because they are a legal body in a federalist nation that passes laws. Rights. Not privileges.

“We've got gays working there. If they can demonstrate long-term relationships, we make same-sex benefits available just as we do with common-law marriages. Gays are productive people. Some fly airplanes, some work in breweries.” — Pete Coors

Neo-cons in America are probably frothing at the mouth right now. They’re both furious and frenzied over this prospect (especially considering there is still a Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution, ensuring that the law of the land passed in one state is recognized as such by the others). Then again, neo-cons are beatific at this revelation as well. Think of the phobia this will generate and the heavy-duty fundraising windfall this will produce!

Yes America, there is still one recession-proof industry that will always have job openings: neo-con, religiopolitical, gay-despising, red-meat political advocacy and lobbying organizations. Line up!

Putting an excellent final-point on this, Jon Stewart opined, “I think it’s a shame that they have forced gay people to have to make their case that they deserve the same rights as someone else.”

Indeed, why should some people in America accept the fact that we will never have the right to deserve equal consideration? Where was it I read that “all men are created equal”? Maybe someone should sue them for false advertisement.

One last observation on this (which will lead to my next blog) … note how the only rights discussed on The Daily Show, the point Jon Stewart used exclusively, was marriage? Why is marriage the only issue on TV which will make the gay community equal? [… to be continued]

“God did not create gays and lesbians so He could have something to hate!” — Rev. Troy Perry

More Random Thoughts As Winter Gloom Settles In

'A Christmas Carol' scene from central New Orleans as seen from the Omni Hotel
**************
**************

It turns out that I got pretty lucky last night (at least as far as we snow-phobic south Texans go): I ended up getting flurried with a few little snowflakes along with it. A mile north of me on my trip to the 99-cent Store (yes I shop there – or will shop there until later this month when they close the store due to not being profitable enough), I got to see snow falling. Real live flakes and noticeably falling in front of my headlights and in the parking lot. But we stayed one degree above freezing here, and my outdoor plants didn’t die (bonus!)

Canal Street Trolley in New Orleans

As it turns out, points up north had quite a bit of snow but little that stayed on the ground, but east … they got socked! From downtown Houston and further east, everyone got an inch and even inches (plural!) of snow on the ground! Dayton, a small town an hour northeast of downtown, had 4 inches! This sounds funny to folks up north, I’m sure. Keep in mind, we’re not snowbirds! We’re where the snowbirds go to escape the snow up north! This snowfall tied the record for the earliest snow ever in Houston. But in 1944, there was only a trace of snow. East Houston way surpassed that. This is historic.

This morning, the news showed a live shot from New Orleans. It looks like a freaking blizzard hitting town – they’re getting multiple inches! The Big Easy is the Big Freezy today. All this weather makes me long for the days back in the 70’s or 80’s when I lived in Corpus Christi, and we’d go out to the beach even as late as Christmas Eve when it would still be a warm, humid 88 or 89 degrees! What happened to those days?

Scenes from Mid-City New Orleans (above) and its suburb, Metairie LA (below)

The weather isn’t helping my mood. Winter already sucks due to the dark days, and the cold helps shut you in even more. As the mood turns sour, so does your outlook. So being unemployed (as I am) and sitting here in an ice box of a house (no budget for things like heat or A/C), reading about our “Economic Recovery” or “fundamentally strong economy” or whatever the hell Bush-baby wanted to term it all these years, this begins looking like the endless dark tunnel. Maybe it’s a black hole? At least when Bush-daddy left office, as bad as the economy was for most of his term, we were at least on a bit of an upswing.

Things in Houston are feeling like it did in 1986. About the only thing missing are the proliferation of crack dealers hanging out on the street corners. I’m noting the foreclosures nibbling around the edges of my neighborhood, and the spike in random and extreme violence and death here in my part of the world. Wild, wild west Houston indeed ….

Foreclosures apparently have ebbed a little this month, reducing by 7%. Gee, I wonder if the moratorium on them and the $300 billion pumped into the banks to abate this had anything to do with that? Then again, why only 7% for $300 big ones?

Meanwhile the auto industry bailout passed in the House. For the record, I was not a proponent of the Wall Street Welfare State Act (also known as the bank bailout), but now that we’ve officially tanked the nation’s budget and established the precedent, why stop now? The automakers CEO’s should all be canned and replaced with leaders with more vision (instead of buying the gas for those buying their guzzler-SUV-vehicles). But treating them differently than Wall Street folks makes as much sense as exonerating one person for murder, then putting a bullet in the head of the next one.

Oh, but GOP senators want to filibuster and sink the bill. Oddly, the most vocal of these are the senators from southern states … whose own automaking plants are all foreign-owned and healthy carmakers like Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, BMW, Mercedes Benz, etc. Let’s kill off the Big 3 in northern states … and shift more business to the folks in their own. No personal interest in that, eh? Hey, how better to show how patriotic you are than being a senator from a southern (confederate) state making sure that we benefit carmakers who are based in Germany, Japan, Korea and ensure we once-and-for-all kill off those American-based carmakers!

After all, only unpatriotic scum would support American carmakers who actually offer careers for generations of American families, even retirement and health care! Better to shove all those gray-haired former autoworkers onto Social Security … which these same senators also want to privatize and do away with. Entitlements, ya know? Kinda like the entitlements these same senators will look forward to once they retire – oops, shhh! After all … it’s only another 2 million people out of work once it all goes away! We’ve already disemployed 2 million-plus this year … it’s not going to be that big a deal!

Meanwhile, the irascible pundit Bill O’Reilly of FOX (Faux) News promoting his memoir on yesterday’s NPR This Week. He was asked about a passage in which the social and political commentator describes people who think he himself is evil as he "puts themselves on the line." "Some people thought Jesus was evil; they nailed him to a cross," O'Reilly said in the interview.

That led to a question: Was he now comparing himself to Jesus Christ? "No, but I'm giving you an analogy that's vivid," O'Reilly answered. So O’Reilly’s persecution is vividly analogous to Jesus Christ’s, eh? Humble guy. Who wants to bet that the O’Reilly comparison to Jesus does not draw the same “album bonfire” protests by the religiopolitical types that John Lennon’s comments drew? Yeah … as O’Reilly himself said, he sees the world is just “good and evil,” and only self-declared good people can compare themselves to Christ.

Back to the subject of filibusters, it was interesting to note how conservative principle can be shifted in just a few short years. The below was from Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) back in 2005 during the confirmation process for Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts:

"Republicans seek to right a wrong that has undermined 214 years of tradition …. The fact that the Senate rules theoretically allowed the filibuster of judicial nominations but were never used to that end is an important indicator of what is right, and why the precedent of allowing up-or-down votes is so well established. It is that precedent that has been attacked and which we seek to restore….

"My friends argue that Republicans may want to filibuster a future Democratic President's nominees. To that I say, I don't think so, and even if true, I'm willing to give up that tool. It was never a power we thought we had in the past, and it is not one likely to be used in the future. I know some insist that we will someday want to block Democrat judges by filibuster. But I know my colleagues. I have heard them speak passionately, publicly and privately, about the injustice done to filibustered nominees. I think it highly unlikely that they will shift their views simply because the political worm has turned."

So three and a half years later, how does this same senator think of his principled stand stated above?

The Nov. 7 edition of the Triangle Business Journal reported that Jon Kyl, the second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, put president-elect Barack Obama on warning that he would filibuster U.S. Supreme Court appointments if those nominees were too liberal. “He believes in justices that have empathy,” said Kyl, speaking at a Federalist Society meeting in Phoenix.

Earth to Sen. Kyl: remember when George W. Bush was re-elected with what he declared to be a “mandate”? And that mandate was to elect Supreme Court justices that followed his mold, as the electorate instructed? Well, guess what? We’ve recently had another mandate. No less than 57% of those who cast their votes for Obama stated that Supreme Court justices were an important reason why they cast their vote for him. Are you, the ever-so-principled conservative Sen. Kyl willing to openly defy the mandate of the people?

Not only is Kyl an astounding hypocrite, he’s not even a very clever one! How partisan is it when you make such statements mere days after an election, when the new electee hasn’t even been sworn in – much less have any nominees been named! Anyone who had an idea that Republicans were going to be anything but obstructionists out to ensure no bi-partisan common sense can put the last nail in that coffin and lay it to rest!

Let the neo-con obstructionism begin! (And yes, America, nothing will get done, the country will tank, and the red-meat folks will be laughing and wringing their hands while they watch the USA get flushed down the toilet)

This alone would normally nominate Kyl for Tool-Of-The-Day. But no … Joe The Plumber (yes, he’s back in the news) wins that one! Yep, Joe The Plumber’s Tool came out in the news saying he was “appalled” with Sen. John “My Friend” McCain, specifically for his reasons for voting for the Wall Street Welfare State (WSWS) Act (aka: the bank bailout). “I was angry," Wurzelbacher told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on Tuesday. "In fact, I wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him."

Interesting! There’s only one problem with this … why did he even get on the McCain “Straight People Talking” Bus in the first place when this occurred AFTER the WSWS Act passed and was signed by Bush-baby? Yeah, Plumber’s Tool, go ahead and use that as an excuse … when you didn’t even hit the TV airwaves until the night of the second presidential debate! Joe, do you make it a habit to put your name and face all over the media when you can’t stand the policy positions of the guy you’re shilling for? So how are we to ever believe you on anything when you can pull such straight-faced public deceit, you who stated publicly you want to run for political office against Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)! What a credible guy – NOT!

Meanwhile, the Plumber Tool had only praise for McCain’s running-mate, calling Sarah Palin “the real deal.

"It disgusts me on how often [the media] try to bash her just for her sincerity," he said. "She really wants to work for America." Yeah, I hear the paychecks are nice … and the clothing budgets are pretty cushy too!

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: if the neo-con base has their way, the future GOP ticket will be “Pit Bull With Lipstick” Palin and “Joe The Plumber’s Tool” Wurzelbacher. They’ve captured the minds of Republican America …. You betcha!

The Gloomy Days Of Winter

I decided I’d do something different as it’s been a weird day today … extremely cold, almost freezing here, and snow is getting very close. I actually saw flakes falling a mile north of my house, flurries at home. Strangely enough, Galveston got snow – just three months after Hurricane Ike! Even Seabrook on the coast had an inch of snow! Points north and east of me ended up getting quite a bit of snow, enough to cover the grass!

This is totally bizarre. It’s not even winter yet (and we never get snow before Christmas).

The National Policy Roundtable occurred yesterday (Tuesday). It’s the national gathering of all groups that work on policy work across the country (both national and more localized). Over the years, I’d sensed that NTAC was getting pushed out in favor of the newer, Mara Keisling-led NCTE. It felt even more so this time. I truly miss the Kerry Lobel-era of NGLTF (or even the Kirsten Kingdon-era of PFLAG). Things have never been the same since.

It was also interesting watching the interplay between HRC’s Joe Solmonese and NCTE’s Mara Keisling. It was clear there’s no hard feelings these days between the two parties, even with the words and occurrences over the course of the past year. If anyone is thinking there’s animosity between these two, let me disabuse you of those impressions now.

One item that became news while we were in the Roundtable was the arrest of Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich for blatantly selling the appointment of Senator (filling Barack Obama’s uncompleted term). Yes, selling for money. About the only way he could’ve been more brazen about it would’ve been putting the senate seat up for sale on Ebay. Actually, that would’ve been more open and could’ve brought in some really good money for the state deficit – ah … except this lamebrain was keeping the money for himself.

Reportedly Blagojevich even contacted President-Elect Obama (who was hopeful his friend Valerie Jarrett might get the seat) and attempted to solicit money from them for the seat! Obama apparently told him to take a flying leap (and the Lincoln state Guv had some profanity-filled things to say about the President’s not wanting to play politics the old fashioned, graft way!) What a tool. Some things just never change. Greed is greed is greed.

Republicans have also been pleasantly surprised, and even claiming their own Obama-like victory in – of all places – the most democratic seat in the country: New Orleans, Louisiana! Further more implausibly, this was the first Vietnamese-American elected to a federal congressional seat in a very African-American, democrat district. The GOPers are feeling bulletproof and 90-foot tall. Of course, this wasn’t just any old democrat, but Rep. William “Cold Cash” Jefferson – he who was found to have $90,000 in bribe money stashed in his freezer. And of course, there could be another explanation beyond GOP’s inevitable invincibility. Maybe democrats are just sick of scandal and have a desire to clean house – even if it’s one of their own.

Frankly, this should be an example for Illinois to learn from too. Blagger Buddy’s been caught now like genitalia in a zipper. He ain’t getting out of this one, and there will be pain. He needs to do the honorable thing and resign ASAP, and whomever the replacement is should work to make an open decision free of controversy.

Of course, the Kool-Aid drinkin’ neo-cons are already crankin’ up the scandal-tinged rhetoric and calls for inquisitions. “How dare the Democrats …?” These folks have the memory of moths hitting a burning lightbulb: any light goes on and they race to beat themselves to death against the white hot orb. Apparently, Republicans are supposed to be … what? Scandal-free? Uh … Valerie Plame’s outing? Manipulation of pre-war intelligence for Iraq? Sanctioning torture? Defiance of the Constitution? I could go on ….

Locally we have a GOPer who is Harris County’s Tax Assessor / Collector. Here in Texas, that means he’s the one in charge of voter registration collection (and purging, when he’s of a mind). This year, apparently there was a number of folks who registered to vote and were disallowed. They did everything right, but (against federal voting rights statutes) the man in charge, Tax Assessor Paul Bettencourt, saw fit to not register these new voters. Even though he had a hard-fought re-election, being GOP, he was re-elected (even facing the possible lawsuits of disenfranchising voters). After being re-elected, Bettencourt decided to announce he was resigning. Since the County Judge, Ed Emmett is also Republican, that guarantees that the replacement will be – you guessed it – yet another GOP. It’s become a pretty common tack for GOP folks … run for re-election even when you don’t want to, then resign shortly thereafter in order to have one of your own appointed. It gives them instant name recognition while working and learning via OJT their new political office. It gives the appointee the leg-up on competition when the actual election later takes place.

And after all, Ed Emmett should understand this. When the last County Judge was re-elected, he resigned and had appointed one of his own to replace him … Mr. Emmett. Gee, that’s okay … we voters here in the land of the vapid mind are too stupid to notice that pattern … so they say.

This blogger also found it both expected but also counterintuitive that the Vatican decided to oppose France’s resolution to the U.N. to urge member nations to decriminalize homosexuality. It’s a no-brainer that the Catholic Church would not support the resolution as it violates their stated views on the practice. But to conspicuously oppose it could encourage these same implications towards some of their own priesthood who’ve – ahem – thusly sinned. If keeping it criminalized is something that’s implicitly uniform for all, it’s not exactly a good visual having priests frog-marched in handcuffs to the back of a squad car.

And to wrap things up, Marti Abernathey put out a great blog post on “The Gingrich Who Stole Christmas” (not Newt!) She noted the consistency of Candice Gingrich’s statement on Countdown with Keith Olbermann with the most recent revelation (if you can call it that) from Rep. Barney Frank at a bloggers’ get together in Washington, where he noted pushing for inclusive legislation on employment wasn’t “pragmatic.” That’s right, Ol’ Barn’ is planning on pushing for the status quo in the upcoming congress. Shocked?

It’s true, Barney and HRC and the like are being clever with their wording. Lord knows we trans people are allegedly easy dupes, and some of us actually help self-fulfill their prophecy when we fall prey to that crapola. But cunning and guile shouldn’t cause us to take our eyes off of the patterns that are well-established. We need to begin fighting these attempts now. Yes, we’ll get whines from Mara about needing to “damage control” those of us putting forth these “rumors.”

Keep in mind, the “rumors” that were “damage controlled” last time … ended up being true. Learn from history. If you can’t, the rest of us don’t feel like repeating it with you.

"A winters day
In a deep and dark December;
I am alone
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow." — I Am A Rock, Simon & Garfunkel

The Problems With The Mainstream GLBT Movement

After my post on “Trans Rights Movement Is Disappearing Before Our Eyes,” there was quite a bit of commentary, understandably on both sides. One respondent – Jkusters – on Daily Kos opined:

[T]he trans community cannot expect their supporters to be mind readers. They need leaders who commit to educating their gay and straight allies on their own issues and what is needed to fight for those issues. Trans visibility isn't just going to spring forth from the head of Zeus, it needs visible leaders who are unafraid to speak their truth and inspire people to fight alongside them. I learn about trans issues from friends who are trans, but not everyone has that option.

Would that it were that easy! We’ve had leaders who were not afraid to speak their minds, and who have been doing so on an organized basis since 1993 at least (Sylvia Rivera and the street level activists notwithstanding)!

Simply because individuals step up, and are considered national icons within the transgender community, it does not mean they will be heard. For starters, not everyone can walk in and get an audience with a legislator, most particularly the trans community. Quite frequently, even today, gay and lesbian leadership may not like what they hear and squelch those with who may touch upon issues that disturb the agenda as it began (strictly gay and lesbian). There tends to be a gatekeeper effect where those who’ve been deemed to urgent in pushing for trans rights, rather than waiting their turn (whenever that may be).

There have been any number of trans community leaders that have been available and willing to speak frankly: Sarah DePalma and Jessica Xavier of the previous It’s Time America, Phyllis Frye of the defunct International Conference for Transgender Law & Employment Practice (ICTLEP) and at it’s inception, even Riki Wilchins of GenderPAC (before she relented and was allowed to speak, but only in support of the consistent messaging as per the Human Rights Campaign – HRC).

The National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) began at the time GenderPAC began moving toward the HRC model, and its leaders chose an independent stance and spoke out as well. We created our group due to need (and attempts by HRC to manipulate our movement to "gender" and not "gender identity"). For the first three years we took a loose group of divergent folks, hardcore protesters like Sylvia Rivera for instance, and more business-oriented negotiators like myself and forged an alliance. Indeed, I was one of those in NTAC leaders, a co-founder in 1999 and elected President of the org in 2002.

One of the things I did after my first trip to DC (and the "political reality" I was schooled with by Sen. Bumpers' Chief of Staff) was to find a way to begin outreach to the "groundswell of support" at home that we needed to begin. I began the local series of transgender panel discussions here in Houston and around the region in both churches, with our local PFLAG (which was the only in the nation that was non-inclusive of trans at that time), and with our universities around the region -- even Texas A & M in College Station (which was admittedly a little dicey).

In Washington, we began the process of leaving educational packets in all congressional offices we visited, making inroads with offices on the Hill, and even getting media to pay attention to us. It was all without any hat-in-hand begging or asking assistance from anyone in the G&L community, and we circumvented the obstacles HRC placed before us.

Standing forth and speaking out wasn’t ever a problem. The problem arose when we began being heard by those who then questioned and embarrassed the incrementalists, primarily Rep. Barney Frank and HRC.

Respondent Pico commented:

There are problems with the mainstream movement that have contributed to the marginalization of the trans community - heck, to anyone "queer" who doesn't fit in an increasingly normalized gay/lesbian mold. It's not a new problem, and it led to fractures in the coalition way back in the 70s.

We saw a particularly ugly side of during the debate over ENDA, which is what the diarist is alluding to as well. Based on the perception that we couldn't get the votes to cover gender protections, we went forward with protections on sexual preference alone. The trans community felt it'd been thrown under the proverbial bus, and some groups came to their defense - I remember GLAAD issuing an immediate statement saying it was unacceptable to fracture the coalition like that. HRC stayed silent.

As I’d noted earlier, those issues didn't sit well with the powers that be in HRC-land. They decided to supplant us with others they found more accommodating. As a result, we theretofore moderate types who refused to compromise principle were summarily dismissed, marginalized and censored. In time they eventually declared us irrelevant (though that wasn't completely accurate). This new HRC-trans amalgam worked well for a time, taking our foundation and adding a little more progress to it.

Respondent Pico then commented on my quote from the previous blog:

“Meanwhile Gross or HRC and whichever trans quislings they may employ to plaster over this will merrily work to bury any unaddressed inequalities from public view – all the better to cleanse their legacies.”

I don't think that's fair, especially considering how hostile the environment can be to trans folk in the first place. Some people feel like they can harness the power of HRC to bring attention to trans issues, so they're doing their best to work from the inside. (And when they sense things are going badly, they react: remember when Donna Rose resigned from HRC?)

Point being, HRC is the most high-profile lobby we have, and it's better to have trans activists working there than not. I don't think it's fair to slam them unequivocally.

The comment wasn’t necessarily directed at Donna Rose. And indeed, they do go in with the impression they can succeed where previous iterations of similar-minded trans folks failed. It must be said, though, with the exception of two of the most recent folks joining HRC, all others previously had been warned about what HRC would do – something I can attest to personally with all except Riki Wilchins or Jamison Green (who no doubt were notified by Phyllis Frye before me).

In time, HRC and other groups expect to see returns on their ‘investment’. They’ve developed an unscrupulous habit of co-opting our voice, our media, our victims and raising the lion's share of funds on trans issues. Rarely do they consult, much less physically bring on transgender community leaders. What hiring has been done in HRC at least, was tokenism done specifically with an eye toward circumventing trans leadership and still managing to retain the PR claim that “they worked with transgender leadership.”

Another benefit of their adopted "kingmaker" role is that by choosing brand new trans folks and making them automatic leaders, they indoctrinate them with the HRC version of trans history. It’s a clever effort to cleanse their own history and an attempt revise our own.

As time transpires, though, the very people they deign with "leadership" status end up becoming the newly burned and, once it becomes too obvious to stomach, they then become the newer voices repeating what we old-line leadership have known for the past fifteen years. Undaunted, they bring in even greener, more desperate or more starry-eyed folks who are in the process of learning what their other accommodating forebears learned.

We’re doing what we can to break this cycle.

The question must be asked and heard: why is it that gay and lesbian leadership take for granted such a vastly different reality, with more favorable treatment and an expected entitlement to deference and respect? It’s not something they’ve ever considered affording the trans community's leaders (not specifically the ones they appoint or have had hand in validating, but the leaders who've been at this over the decade plus all the while working on specific behalf of the transgender groups who have consistently been locked out, and shut up)?

In their parlance, we're nothing but "rabble," a bunch of “dumb” or "screaming trannies" who are “naïve” and “politically immature.” In the end this is one dumb transwoman that's not going away, regardless of how much diminution they foist upon me.

You can't fault the lack of leadership when leadership is consistently muzzled and smothered to death.

“Speak out in acts; the time for words has passed, and only deeds will suffice.” — John Greenleaf Whittier

Lost Without A Clue

It was one month ago today when we elected our newest President-elect, Barack Obama. And of course, with only a month and a half left, it’s now time to review our outgoing president’s legacy. I just happened to come across some excerpts of an interview on Whitehouse.gov of the current President George W. Bush, by Doro Bush Koch (his sister) and commissioned by StoryCorps.

Admittedly these were softballs, as you can imagine (it’s his little sis, after all). But the answers have to be seen to be believed!

STORYCORPS: How do you want to be remembered, and what are you most proud of?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: … I surrounded myself with good people. I carefully considered the advice of smart, capable people and made tough decisions.

Yes, he did say that. Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and of course, Donald Rumsfeld – all the good folks who gave us the lasting “victorious” legacy of the War in Iraq! Our decider continued ….

BUSH: I'd like to be a President (known) as somebody who liberated 50 million people and helped achieve peace; that focused on individuals rather than process … that helped elderly people get prescription drugs and Medicare as a part of the basic package; that came to Washington, D.C., with a set of political statements and worked as hard as I possibly could to do what I told the American people I would do.

… like reducing the size of government, reaching across the aisle and working in a bipartisan manner, not to engage America in nation-building or have a situation where two of America’s brigades were not ready for deployment (as under Bill Clinton), or capturing Osama bin Laden – dead or alive. Right ….

STORYCORPS: Mr. President, one of your education initiatives is the No Child Left Behind. Can you reflect on that a little bit?

BUSH: I think the No Child Left Behind Act is one of the significant achievements of my Administration because we said loud and clear to educators, parents, and children that we expect the best for every child, that we believe every child can learn, and that in return for Federal money we expect there to be an accountability system in place to determine whether every child is learning to read, write, and add and subtract.

But more importantly, it focused the country's attention on the fact that we had an achievement gap that – you know, white kids were reading better in the 4th grade than Latinos or African American kids. And I'm very proud of that accomplishment, and I appreciate all those here in Washington and around the country that have worked hard to see that the promise of No Child Left Behind has been fulfilled.

An unfunded mandate along with budget cuts to school systems across the country (thanks to the tax cuts), teachers giving up the profession in frustration and even schools being discredited and leaving students to crowd into to other still-open schools. Oh – high school drop out rates have risen too, can’t forget that! With all this, Bush’s promise has been fulfilled! Victory.

STORYCORPS: What role does faith play in your day-to-day life?

BUSH: I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the President ….

He’s been IN the Bible – must’ve missed those chapters. Yes, another instance of baffling President-speak.

BUSH: I would advise politicians, however, to be careful about faith in the public arena. ...In other words, politicians should not be judgmental people based upon their faith. They should recognize -- as least I have recognized I am a lowly sinner seeking redemption, and therefore have been very careful about saying (accept) my faith or you're bad. In other words, if you don't accept what I believe, you're a bad person.

And the greatness of America -- it really is -- is that you can worship or not worship and be equally American. And it doesn't matter how you choose to worship; you're equally American.

What country has he been living in? Just recently came the press note about an Egyptian-born physicist from Pittsburgh who was smeared by the Feds, lost his job and was jailed without ever seeing charges (which subsequently ended up being dropped), was then unable to find work in his profession and so now is moving with his American-born wife back to Egypt. A Muslim by faith, he was declared a security risk for unknown reasons and had his security risk stripped. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08336/931846-192.stm?cmpid=HBEHTML

According to a Boston physicist, also Muslim, who barely knew the scientist from Pittsburgh, he’s being questioned now.

Bush has stood by while anyone with an R next to their name have declared America being founded on “Christian principles” and made clear by actions if not words that all other faiths: whether Jewish or Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon or Muslim are treated as suspect and “lesser than” in this America where freedom of religion is supposed to be constitutional.

Presuming he’s not a pathological liar, how is it this guy can be so clueless and still have been President for the past eight years?

The above interview underscores the ABC News personal interview with Bush which was just as bat-shit crazy:

CHARLIE GIBSON: Mr. President, let's start with the economy because it's what's on everybody's mind. Your successor will inherit not just a troubled economy, but an economy in crisis. Did you miss any signals that this would –?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You know, we anticipated some issues revolving around Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and early in my administration called for a regulator…. I can remember sitting in the Roosevelt Room with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and others, and they said to me that if we don't act boldly, Mr. President, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression.

GIBSON: When was that?

BUSH: That was, I would say, five weeks, four weeks after we began to deal with some -- like AIG. And that was right before we went to Congress for the $700 billion.

Did you catch that? Direct from the transcript of the show, the Shrubber Duckling claims he caught issues about the financial meltdown “early in my administriation” and when asked when: “five weeks, four weeks after we began to deal with some – like AIG”! Right before everyone’s eyes, just good old ‘aw shucks’ duplicity and smiles! Bush continued on his answer:

BUSH: And my attitude is, is that if that’s the case, this administration will do everything we can to safeguard the financial system. And that’s what we’ve been doing.

And I’m sorry it’s happening, of course. Obviously I don’t like the idea of people losing jobs, or being worried about their 401Ks. On the other hand, the American people got to know that we will safeguard the system. …

And eventually, however, this economy will recover.

Bush kept repeating “on the other hand” in about half of his first six answers. He apparently had internal struggles between both hands, but it seems he was always listening to that “other hand.” It’s the other hand that seems to have gotten us in trouble.

GIBSON: But was there an "uh-oh" moment -- and I could probably use stronger language than that – when you thought this really could be bad –?

BUSH: … When you have the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed say, if we don't act boldly, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression, that's an "uh-oh" moment. But you got to understand, leading up to that we had been bailing water in this way: AIG was failing; other big houses on Wall Street needed to be merged, one failed –

GIBSON: When you add it all up, you've got about $7.5 trillion in funded and unfunded backing of securities now.

BUSH: Yes.

GIBSON: And that's about half of what our economy is in its whole. Does that scare the willikers out of you?

BUSH: What scared me is not doing anything, which would have caused there to be a huge financial meltdown and the conceivable scenario that we'd have been in a depression greater than the Great Depression.

On the other hand, a lot of the -- you know, these -- some of these are investments. I've got faith that the economy will recover. As a matter of fact, I'm confident it will recover. I can't tell you exactly the moment, but when it does recover, a lot of the assets now owned by the government will be sold. And I can't guarantee that we'll get all our money back, but it's conceivable we could.

There’s that other hand again. And whatever “willikers” are, yeah, they’re scared out of me ….

GIBSON: Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?

BUSH: You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.

… And when people review the history of this administration, people will say that this administration tried hard to get a regulator.

Huh?

GIBSON: How high do you think unemployment will go?

BUSH: Too high. I mean, anybody unemployed is too much. And I – I'm not a very good economic forecaster.

Using some Bushian logic: on one hand, Bush-baby did accurately predict that we were going into a recession after only the one final negative quarter of Clinton’s presidency. Sure enough, after Bush’s first quarter, he was spot on that we were then officially in a recession. On the other hand, Bush was noting last December how our economy was “fundamentally strong” … and we know as of yesterday that our economy has officially been in a recession (after the fact) since last December. That troubling other hand ended up being right again!

BUSH: I do know that we are taking steps to make sure -- see, the most difficult thing about this is that a lot of people out there in Main Street wonder why the government is having to act because Wall Street went on a binge. And I'm one, frankly -- at first. …

And on the other hand, though, when you're the President and somebody says, we better move big, Mr. President, otherwise we could have a depression greater than the Great -- we're moving big. And it is hard for the average citizen to understand how frozen the system became and how over-leveraged the system became. And so what we're watching is the de-leveraging of our financial markets, which is obviously affecting the growth of the economy.

One wonders how “average” our C-student President is ….

GIBSON: What were you most unprepared for?

BUSH: Well, I think I was unprepared for war. In other words, I didn't campaign and say, "Please vote for me, I'll be able to handle an attack." In other words, I didn't anticipate war. Presidents -- one of the things about the modern presidency is that the unexpected will happen.

So sayeth the self-described “war president” after prosecuting the war on terror as per a blueprint drawn up in the mid-90’s by the Project for a New American Century (whose signateurs included folks like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and his own baby bubba, Jebby Bush). Who could’ve possibly foreseen that?

Well, in his presidential campaign against Al Gore in 2000, Bush-baby – ever the comedian – did utter this gem: “As President, I will protect America from America itself …from missiles and from blackmail.” Maybe that explains why he wasn’t prepared for an attack from outside the country. Seriously, he did say this. We elected him anyway!

But Bush did additionally pledge he’d, “protect American citizens and our allies from terrorism and attack,” as well as, “if they sponsor attacks against America our response will be devastating.” Iraq was indeed devastated. Too bad that it was Afghanistan that sponsored the attacks – sorry Iraq, mistaken identity. It’s what you get for hanging out in those bad sides of the globe next to the real sponsors … sometimes we retaliate against who’s closest, not the actual culprits.

GIBSON: You said you were not going to be in the business of nation-building. And so much of what you had to do was nation-building.

BUSH: Well, what I said was, in the course of a debate, I said the military shouldn't be used to build nations. In this case, it turns out the military, in my judgment, was needed to remove threats to our security, and after that removal, the military, as well as our diplomatic corps, needed to help rebuild after tyrannical situations.

GIBSON: That's the second time I've heard you use the word "joyful" about the presidency, and that might take people by surprise. Even in really tough times?

BUSH: Oh, yes. As I said, some times are happy, some not happy. I don't want people to misconstrue. It's not -- I don't feel joyful when somebody loses their life, nor do I feel joyful from somebody loses a job. That concerns me. And the President ends up carrying a lot of people's grief in his soul during a presidency. One of the things about the presidency is you deal with a lot of tragedy … and you spend time being the Comforter-in-Chief. But the idea of being able to serve a nation you love is -- has been joyful. In other words, my spirits have never been down. I have been sad, but the spirits are up.

“I’ve got a joy, joy, joy, joy down in my heart, down in my heart …!” And next time I feel those really dark, depressing days come in, I’ll simply duck my head under my Bedspread-In-Chief and think of Bush-Baby. Comforting ….

GIBSON: Was the election in any way a repudiation of the Bush administration?

BUSH: I think it was a repudiation of Republicans. And I'm sure some people voted for Barack Obama because of me.

Well there’s a little bit of honesty! But note he mostly dodges the bullet and foists it on all those hapless fools willing to drink the Kool-Aid and devotedly follow him these past eight years! Beware who you devoutly trust in politics! There’s a bullet with your name on it too….

GIBSON: Given the fact that you did start campaigning for change, said you were going to change the ways of Washington, do you feel you did in any way? Or did 9/11 really stand in the way of doing it?

BUSH: No, you know -- actually, 9/11 unified the country, and that was a moment where Washington decided to work together. I think one of the big disappointments of the presidency has been the fact that the tone in Washington got worse, not better.

Having said that, there were some moments of strong bipartisanship. I mean, No Child Left Behind Act, for example, or eventually funding our troops. … I mean, there were moments of bipartisanship. But the tone was rough. And I was obviously partially responsible because I was the President, although I tried hard not to call people names and bring the office down during my presidency.

“You’re either with us or you’re against us.” While the President himself declared this in regards to countries around the world regarding our war on terror, it was also used widely by conservative politicians, their campaigns against Democrats and neo-conservative punditry alike to divide America into Toby Keith support-the-President-right-or-wrong vs. Dixie Chicks free-speech-about-when-wrong-making-it-right. He should’ve known that his own Turdblossom Rove would use it widely in the Tom DeLay / Republican America Forever mindset.

GIBSON: I guess the bottom-line question I'm asking you is, do you feel you were in any way able to change Washington? Or do you feel --

BUSH: I think we did. I think we brought a results-oriented government, and we insisted that people focus on results, not process, and on a variety of reforms ….

Yes, it’s really his quote. He’s as sharp as a bag of ball-peen hammers! Sometimes you can find humor in the most unexpected places!

GIBSON: As you leave, what do you think the country's feeling is about George W. Bush?

BUSH: I don't know. I hope they feel that this is a guy that came, didn't sell his soul for politics, had to make some tough decisions, and did so in a principled way. I'll be frank with you. I don't spend a lot of time really worrying about short-term history. I guess I don't worry about long-term history, either, since I'm not going to be around to read it – (laughter) ….

Principled. So stealing from the poor and middle-class and giving to the rich wasn’t accident. This is a principled decision, and so what if everyone stops buying! Fundamentally strong economy ….

GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?

BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

Yeah … why speculate over things that never crossed your mind in the first place? It’s not like there was ever a notion not to invade Iraq ….

GIBSON: Greatest accomplishment? The one thing you're proudest of?

BUSH: I keep recognizing we're in a war against ideological thugs and keeping America safe.

GIBSON: How do you mentally adjust for life after January 20th?

BUSH: … obviously this financial situation makes it really hard to think about what life's going to be when we get out of here, because I've spent a lot of time thinking about people who are losing work, or watching their 401Ks go down.

Yeah, this free market stuff of shipping American jobs out to get the rock-bottom labor prices worked only for a bit. It’s not so good once America stops buying things (because they can’t afford them any more!) Now it’s affecting businesses bottom lines because they can’t move their product, affecting those Wall Street 401Ks!

GIBSON: So what do you anticipate the feeling will be? I'm always wondering what's going through the mind of that -- it's always been a man -- walking down the Capitol steps, getting on the helicopter, flying out for the last flight on Air Force One, and suddenly realizing his life has just changed totally.

BUSH: Well, first of all, no one will be more relieved than my mother and dad, because one of the things I learned during his presidency is being the son of the President is a lot tougher than being the President. I mean, it is really agonizing to have somebody you truly love get banged around in the political process. It was hard. And so, no doubt they're going to be relieved to have their boy out of the limelight. And I bet a lot of our friends will be relieved, too.

That was a good belly laugh! It’s tougher being the son of the president than the President! Always thinking of others, isn’t he?

GIBSON: Is there one more deal in you? Is there one more thing you really want to achieve?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I'm confident -- look, first of all, you don't get to be President unless you're a "Type A" personality who's driven to do things. And I am confident I'll be driven to do something; I just can't tell you what it is yet.

GIBSON: Is the President too much in a bubble?

BUSH: This idea about how the President doesn't understand this, that, or the other, just simply is not the case. I mean, there's a lot of information that comes through the White House.

Does anyone get the impression that George W. Bush understands anything but George W. Bush? Anyone???

GIBSON: One thing you'll miss most?

BUSH: … and it's going to sound strange to you -- I'll miss meeting with the families whose son or daughter have fallen in combat, because the meetings I've had with the families are so inspirational. They -- I mean, obviously, there's a lot of sadness, and we cry, and we hug, and we occasionally laugh.… But the Comforter-in-Chief is always the comforted person.

Believe it or not, I'll miss going to the hospitals as the Commander-in-Chief, and looking a kid in the eye, and have him say, heal me up, Mr. President, I want to go back in. And so, there will be a lot of these special moments that we'll miss.

That spoke for itself ….

GIBSON: And final question, just to finish the sentence: I will leave the presidency with a feeling of?

BUSH: I will leave the presidency with my head held high.

Well, you have to give Bush-Baby credit for this: he’s consistent. I’ve never seen anyone in leadership so out of touch with the day to day reality of America. It’s beyond comprehension how he managed to live such an insular life and still impress enough ideologues and independents to re-elect him (much less elect him in the first place) to lead the greatest superpower on the planet!

Maybe the drugs have somehow ruined his short-term memory – it’s the only explanation. Even during the Gibson interview, you could see Bush-Baby doing the coke-freak jaw grind, a little too conspicuously. The only thing I can surmise is that his memory has all the long-term retain of an Etch-A-Sketch.

The gates are down and the lights are flashing … but the train’s not coming.

“[His] presidency was rife with attempts to expand the president's power against enemy-run institutions. He held a world view in which confrontation with implacable enemies was both necessary and proper. He lacked serious respect for procedural democracy in the sense of permitting opposition to exist as a legitimate alternative to his own exercise of power.” — Conclusion of ‘Richard Nixon & The Imperial Presidency’ by Russell Renka

Trans Rights Movement Is Disappearing Before Our Eyes

“It was that simple. With the vote on Proposition 8 (in California) the GLBT community lost the right to marry. And we immediately disappeared from our rights movement as we used to know it.”

This above was a quote by a transgender friend of mine, former-activist, later burned out in frustration and now closeted, and who wishes to remain anonymous. It’s a sentiment I gravitated to shortly after.


“Say I'm crying,
I'm looking at what's on TV.
Pain and suffering
and the struggle to be free.
It can't ever be denied and I
Never will ignore.” — Disappear, Inxs

For years, another trans activist from Houston, attorney Katrina Rose, had warned us all that the gay and lesbian movement (personified by HRC) was going to win their rights, then move to marriage and other issues while incrementally leaving trans people behind. Initially I was even skeptical of that, especially circa 2000. Something that brazen, that pointedly self-expedient seemed too unconscionable to be possible. The collective hue and cry that would draw would be deafening. At least then.

Two years hence, we had a new leader in the trans community put forth a bold idea that working with those historically incrementalist, gay-centric organizations like HRC would provide us a watershed of support and integration into the GLBT movement. Two years after, we saw the first public signs that this concept was failing. Five years after that new shift, the new GLBT world order was discovered to be an obvious ruse, with the concept now fully in the hands of, and exploited by HRC.

Those who proposed the new world order, suddenly became the negativity propagators they once belittled and marginalized. Yet there have been, and will always be new trans people that are either desperate, starry-eyed, or with what Helen Boyd (of My Husband Betty) termed as having “a messianic complex.” As a result, we’ll have pro-HRC pitted against the rest of us. Meanwhile we all stand on the shore and wave goodbye as “The New Civil Rights Movement: Gay Marriage and Gay Rights” (as the name of a new blog by David Badash accurately termed it) sails off into the sunset. Without us.

Even the recent messaging has attempted to sublimely imprint this in America’s collective psyche, as well as in Trans America. Just recently I and others have heard more than a couple comments at Prop 8 rallies that marriage equality’s passage would produce a domino effect, whereby all other rights like ENDA and hate crimes would then be won. Get it? Employment will have to wait until we can all marry first, so they’re instructing us.

The first time we heard it was in what seemed like a preposterous statement by NGLTF’s Lisa Mottet at a Transgender Leadership Roundtable in early 2004. Now it seems it’s become a knee-jerk talking point to force-feed the trannies.

The Advocate’s issue last week had a rather stark, eye-popping cover story title. “Gay Is The New Black: The Last Great Civil Rights Movement.” Note the last half of that title … the “last great civil rights movement.” They’re not even covering for that “domino effect” story. Last. As in “no más!”

“Because weddings are bliss, ignorance is not.” — David Badash, slogan from New Civil Rights Movement blog.


Actually the story by Michael Gross was inspired writing. But if you’re trans, there were also numerous portions of it that were infuriatingly clueless. Examples:

At present we are the most socially acceptable targets for the kind of casual hatred that American society once approved for habitual use against black people. …

This one’s arguable. True enough gays and lesbians are targeted for hatred pretty frequently, though I might also add that those numbers aren’t quite to the levels seen – nor some of the extreme overkill – exhibited in transgender hate murders.

But it’s more commonly OK to caricature and demean us in politics and the media in ways from which blacks are now largely exempt.

Again another arguable statement that’s probably less true than the previous. There are still more sublime ways the black community is demeaned, mostly with coded wording. Nevertheless, I’ve seen some of the media demeaning of the gay community, though that’s also much more subdued than years past (save for religiopolitical punditry on Faux News shows.) Even when those incidents occur, there is always a high-profile rejoinders, typically from organizations like HRC or GLAAD (Gay Lesbian Alliance for Anti Defamation) that is swift, severe in tone and most often draws contrition.

Compare that to trans people in politics and media. Not only are we demeaned, it’s open, it’s unapologetic, it’s much more blatantly dehumanizing and openly laughed about by the offending parties. Rare is it that GLAAD (who claims coverage over GLB and T defamatory incidents) will chide the offending party.

Some trans folks have been critical of the lethargic responses whenever these organizations do respond, rather than the vigorous and unrelenting defenses they’ll give on gay or lesbian slams. On a rare occasion, we even get some of that defamation from the gay and lesbian community from folks such as Rep. Barney Frank, gay media icons such as Jim Fouratt, Chris Crain, Michael Alvear or Julie Bindel. Even the Gay Comedy Showcase from some years back displayed four of their five comments offering up … tranny jokes. “Where are the tranny hookers? I miss my tranny hookers ….”

Gay people have more resources than blacks had in the 1960s. We are embedded in the power structures of every institution of this society. Almost all gay people have the choice of passing.

This is where the trans movement and the gay and lesbian movement diverge strongly. Pretty clearly the trans community is on the opposite end of that spectrum, and I’d venture without even the resources and community infrastructure of even the black community in the 1960s. Clearly not all trans people have the choice of passing, and of those who do pass, with recent bills such as the Real ID Act, and the advent of the internet search engines, it’s near impossible for even stealth transsexuals to stay hidden forever. Only the most security-conscious and closeted of crossdressers can claim 100% passing in their non-trans selves. And trans people are not embedded in any of the power structures of society, much less elected to office save for rare local instances.

On a deeper level, though, the gay civil rights struggle is about preventing discrimination based on our proclivity to love ... [it’s] unambiguously the heart of the matter.

Again, distinctly different than the trans community’s struggle (even though some of us do additionally share the same fight as above). Our primary struggle is simply being who we are, being allowed to identify as we are without repercussions. For some of us, who we love never even factors into our struggle. We’re simply unemployed or attacked because of our visual presentation.

We are close to winning everything we want. We are so close that we do not have time to rehash the Malcolm/Martin struggle between anger and peace, force and nonviolence…. Whoever you are, it’s time to come out. Because, as I was reminded the morning after the election, it’s faces -- not arguments -- that will close the deal on marriage equality.

“We liken some of the experiences that we have had and will have to the (black) civil rights struggle. We also are enormously respectful of the differences. What we are best served doing is when we take lessons from the civil rights experience and apply them to our work.” — HRC Exec. Dir, Joe Solmonese in AP article, 11/30/08

I’m happy for Mr. Gross and his community, and commend them on taking an issue that wasn’t even part of the struggle six years ago and progressing it this far in lightning fashion. For the gay and lesbian community the struggle will be won and they will be done. The “faces” on the movement will always be the Michael Grosses or other similarly entitled, “made men and women” of the gay and lesbian community. Meanwhile Gross or HRC and whichever trans quislings they may employ to plaster over this will merrily work to bury any unaddressed inequalities from public view – all the better to cleanse their legacies.

However, the trans community’s movement – simply the essential desire of being able to survive and earn a living – is currently being overwritten, completely occluded from public sight and vanishing before our very eyes.

[W]e are angry, probably not least at ourselves for our own complacency and cowardice, for not working as hard as we could, for not giving as much as we could, and for letting so much slip from our grasp.

Nearly forty years after the late Marsha P. Johnson, former NTAC member Sylvia Rivera and others created this current popular movement’s flashpoint at Stonewall, the trans community anger will not be quelled, nor will we be sated. Will we simply allow ourselves to disappear? Those of us who’ve had virtually nothing to begin with will not relinquish our grasp on what little we do have. There are far too many of us that remember, far too many of us that are still left out.

We will not go quietly into that dark night. Enter the Retributive Era.

“All of the problems …
All the fears …
And the world seems to disappear.” — Disappear, Inxs

“Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life; define yourself.” — actor, Harvey Fierstein

‘Tis The Season To Stay Home, Stop Spending

Hello America, you’re in a Depression. Not the emotional one (although that’s likely to follow) but an economic one. In short everyone’s broke. It’s not going to get better any time soon, so you better act accordingly. Stay home, stop spending.

Seriously, this economy’s been hurting a sizable portion of the country – the working class and poor – for quite a number of years (at least since 9/11). It’s worked it’s way up the food chain through the middle class as Bush’s Economic Recovery was in full steam and quarterly profits and stock markets were soaring to all-time highs.

But now those free-market chickens have come home to roost. Most of America has finally woken up: we’ve been priced out. We can’t afford to be Americans anymore – at least not the way we used to be. You know, the ‘consumer society’ thing? Flat wages, disappearing jobs and no safety nets finally sunk in to our collective psyche, and we had to severely slow our spending.

This, of course, sent ripples up the American corporate ladder as they saw revenues (even for their cheap foreign-produced items) trickle to a drip. They had to respond by even more labor cuts to protect their profitability. When we’re not working, and job prospects begin waning – even with cheaper wages – it begins to sink into even the thickest skulls that the pockets are empty. Stop spending.

“So your prophets of finance have fallen
On their collective proverbial face.
And you hear muffled voices callin’ …
Welcome to the human race.” — Welcome To The Human Race, Timbuk 3

Clearly we can’t stop spending altogether, but we can certainly cut it back to only the necessities, foremost of which is rent or housing, followed by utilities, followed by whatever transportation costs necessary to get to job (if we have one), or job interviews and to the stores where we buy the basic staples only.

The thing that worries me is that our idiots in the White House (and probably a large number in Congress as well) want us to keep buying stuff, and helping at least prop up their business friends. And yet, these are the same people who will blame the homeowners and creditors who took out loans they couldn’t afford, defaulted and (per the neo-con mindset) are fully to blame for where America finds itself economically at the moment.

Of course, the corporations who profiteered on this (remember the stratospheric profits in these past few years?) are somehow free of culpability. They’re victims that Bush, Cheney, Paulson and Co. whine that we need to bail out – and we have, now, to the tune of $1.5 trillion. Now that these economic leviathans are saved, they want regular America to go out and spend again to help create business again ….

Wait a minute, though. We’re not working or are under-employed, still economically flat, and the future’s looking really dicey at the moment for all of us. Didn’t these same folks in the White House, the RNC and FOX news and the like just finish railing against folks who couldn’t afford the credit to buy the things they had? Why again should we be buying?

“I've got a job waiting for my graduation.
Fifty thou a year’ll buy a lot of beer.
Things are going great, and they're only getting better.
I'm doing all right, getting good grades,
The future's so bright I gotta wear shades.” — The Future’s So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades, Timbuk 3

If you’ve got a job right now, thank your lucky stars. Nonetheless, I’m in full agreement with Thomas Friedman right now: save every penny you can. Nobody has any idea how long this “economic recovery” will last until we finish “recovering” from it. The one thing that we can all bank on is that the Federal bank account has already been siphoned dry by Wall Street’s Welfare State Act. We individual citizens must fend for our own, Bush Republicans will turn up the whine-o-meter every time commoners individually request help in order to squelch and scotch that idea. You’d better rely on yourself and save your money, lest you be sorry later.

Yes, retailers will entice you with heavy-rotation advertising and seemingly great sale prices (some of which are not the deals they’re advertising as being). Ultimately, it’s about scraping up what money they can out of your pockets and putting into theirs. It’ll be hard for business. It’s BEEN hard for us for quite some time. And you can safely bet Corporate America isn’t going to be helping America’s workforce any time in the next few years (at least!). Why be guilted or coerced into making yourself a little poorer?

Folks, to quote Public Enemy, “Don’t Believe The Hype!”

This is all about propping up Bush’s pals in Wall Street and Main Street. None of this means an extra dollar in your pocket, and is actually counterintuitive if this wage and labor-shedding bloodbath continues (and it will). Be smart, look out for yourself and save your money for those rainy days coming up (and take a good look at those thunderclouds on the horizon – they’re moving your way!)

You better believe the executive class is doing it. Think of it this way: the upper 2% of America has done very well during the Bush years. They’re scared and even they are hording their money. If those who can afford to buy are not buying, why should you?

Think like your grandparents and great-grandparents did when surviving the Great Depression: save every penny you can (even if you’re gainfully employed), be as resourceful and thrifty as possible and just hunker down and hope for the best. If you must buy food, buy cheap. If it’s not something critical to you surviving (such as your house payment, electricity or other utilities, minimal food, etc.) then you should not be spending the money on it.

If you’re house or rent payment ends up going delinquent next spring, you’re going to feel foolish with that “brand new, on-sale” flat screen TV or IPOD or new running shoes. Your new laptop won’t keep you from being evicted … though it may sure contribute to it.

“Life is hard. Ain't no escaping when the rent comes due.
Can't get to heaven on roller skates. Can't take a taxi cab to Timbuktu.” — Life Is Hard, Timbuk 3

Pro Linebacker’s Child Used As A Football In Tabloidesque “Gender Confusion” Custody Battle

Typically I must admit a slight bias towards moms in allowing their children to be who they are innately – who they were meant to be. Much of this comes from my upbringing and my own dad’s notice of my natural feminine tendencies and his insistence that I “be the man” from the age of five onward, urging me into football and other masculine pursuits. Men have a harder time dealing with anything resembling emasculation.

But in an unusual twist, Chicago Bears middle linebacker Brian Urlacher may well be doing the right thing, while his son’s mom, Tyna Robertson, is in the wrong. It’s Robertson who is claiming that Urlacher is feminizing his three year old son Kennedy, and seeking to remove Urlacher’s visitation rights.

This is a slow-motion tragedy in the making from what I see in the news reports: “diaper dandy,” “…makes his son wear pink diapers,” “… puts his son in Cinderella diapers,” and “creating gender confusion for his son” are being bandied about in both straight news print, sports and the blogosphere. Only MSNBC sports had a more balanced note that Urlacher is “apparently pretty open-minded guy” in a story that was pulled down shortly after (so there’s no telling if that was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm).

All of this is playing out in what’s becoming a nasty and public custody battle. Robertson, the mother scorned, alleges that gridiron tough-guy Urlacher is deliberately “confusing” her son’s gender.

“My boy's gonna play in the Big League.
My boy's gonna turn some heads.” — Big League, Tom Cochrane

For those in the transgender community – especially those of us who’ve transitioned – read the below statements that Kennedy’s mom, Robertson, reports the interactions with her son:

"He pulls down his pants and says, 'Mommy, look how pretty they are,' " she said.

"He'd say, 'Mommy, I don't want to get my nails wet. I don't want to mess them up,'" she said. "It took two hours to get him in the bath."

Robertson said Kennedy refused to take a bath for two days to keep the blue polish on his nails from washing off, telling her "big boys paint their nails."

Sound familiar? If you’re someone like me who ‘discovered’ there were two genders only when I was four, and even then realized something was wrong … yeah, it’s all-too-familiar. And Kennedy’s mom is all too typical of most parents who are clueless as to what this sentiment truly is.

While Robertson claims Urlacher’s creating this gender-confused situation, it must be said that earlier on, Urlacher allegedly texted Robertson and claimed that she was “raising a little pussy.” That doesn't sound as if Urlacher was all that keen on such a concept early on.

Nowadays, the blue painted toenails and Cinderalla pull-up diapers are no longer a major issue with Urlacher. Robertson said her pleas to Kennedy’s dad to get him to cease the toenail painting and Cinderella diapering have gone unheeded.

Robertson told Urlacher, "You're confusing him, if he's a boy or a girl."

Now I know Brian Urlacher is a big, bad, Bear middle linebacker. What makes any rational person think it would strike someone from that macho a profession as a fun thing to ‘force’ his son into wearing pink diapers and painting his toenails? And how many folks think that a three year old would willingly allow that forced feminization – even proudly showing it off to his mom? To do that, Urlacher would have to be more than just an intimidating athlete. He’d have to be both an accomplished child psychologist and a damned good salesperson!

Somehow that just doesn’t seem plausible to me, especially when you consider Urlacher’s earlier text to Robertson about their son.

What appears to this outsider as being more likely is that Urlacher figured out that this is just what Kennedy wants, and it’s not something that physically harms anyone or steals or cheats anything from anyone else. So, where’s the beef?

"[Urlacher] says he can do whatever he wants," Robertson said. “'It doesn't make him feminine. It doesn't make him gay.'”

If indeed this is nothing but a passing phase, Urlacher’s exactly right. Painting toenails or wearing pink underwear will not make anyone either gay or transsexual unless they're already predisposed to that.

If indeed Kennedy has a penchant for femininity and has an innate gender identity already, then both Urlacher and Robertson can choose one of two options. They can force their child to repress who they really are (in order to save their own face with family, friends and peers) until Kennedy becomes an independent (possibly resentful) adult, hoping the depression or inner turmoil doesn’t result in behavioral problems, early use of alcohol or drugs, or in worst-cases either running away as a throwaway teen or ending it all by suicide. Or they could find out about what gender identity issues are now and learn from other parents who’ve learned to provide a positive and supportive environment, and work to keep Kennedy from becoming a sad statistic.

Barbara Walters' interviews with transgender children and their families might be a good first step if such is the case. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3088298)

And regardless of who Kennedy wants to be, if I were Brian Urlacher and anyone had problems with his child, I’d encourage them to keep their opinions to themselves or learn the fascinating discovery of digesting their own teeth.

Meanwhile, as long as the parents are using him as a child-custody football and the public gets to salaciously watch the whole trash-news soap opera unfold in tabloids and blogs, I worry that Kennedy may end up having a very sad life.

Enlightening Conversation With Bishop Gene Robinson

This past Saturday afternoon, a group of transgenders and a stand-in for one of our absent group members had the pleasure of meeting and asking Bishop Gene Robinson a series of questions – most gauging his knowledge and opinion on transgender issues.

In the trans panelist group were organizer Kelli Anne Busey of the Dallas Transgender Activists Alliance (DTAA), Tina Seitz from Detroit, Courtney Sharp from New Orleans, Lisa Scheps from Austin and myself from Houston. At the last minute we had to have a stand in. Kelli brought in Michael Robinson, a gay African American from Dallas who’d coordinated a local demonstration regarding a vicious hate-crime beating of a passing acquaintance that he’d witnessed in Dallas’ gayborhood.

The original format was a bit inquisition-like, which I didn’t understand originally. We would ask the Bishop a couple questions each. Some of the panelists’ questions though were admittedly to be softballs. Anyone who knows this writer knows what kind of questions mine were ….

Once the Bishop arrived, he greeted everyone warmly and was quite open and engaging. There was a change requested in the format immediately before the panel began, to make it less structured and allow for follow-up questioning – which also allowed a bit more leeway in the questions themselves. That turned out to be pretty enlightening for us.

“God and I have been about this for quite a while now and I would be really surprised if God were to want me to stop now.” — Bishop Gene Robinson

One of the early questions from Courtney asked the Bishop’s position on clergy who marginalized members of the trans and other GLB community members. The Bishop took to task some of the congregations for being timid in not standing up more strongly, even though they support a welcoming, all-embracing congregation. He also acknowledged that there are those whose minds were going to remain closed and who would do anything possible in order to dishearten those they wanted to keep out of their church, but the Bishop cautioned to never give up and to do what was necessary to keep pushing forward until these churches were inclusive.

Michael’s question and story was especially poignant as a man he saved was beaten within an inch of his life (badly enough that the police could not identify him from his photo ID). Yet even in the face of this, there was no response – much less a protest – of any kind from Dallas’ gay community over this incident until Robinson began organizing the local gay community of color to collectively raise their voice. Michael asked what was necessary to bring the community together as one in caring and support for all in the GLBT realm.

The Bishop commiserated, noting there was a tendency to be focused on their own circles within GLBT, but not standing tough when they needed. He noted that the white gay community, particularly, was lacking in courage comparative to the civil rights movement before it, adding that they were afraid of the risk (comparative to the civil rights marchers who understood every time they walked out their doors that they might likely be assaulted or arrested – or both). He finished by instructing Michael to continue raising his voice and holding the leadership’s feet to the fire on what he said was fake incrementalism.

My inquiry to Bishop Robinson began with his own quote in the Dallas Voice: “I don’t think we always have to hold out for the full loaf before moving forward. You get what you can accomplish and then continue to work for the rest of it.” I asked if his position was based upon political expediency or if there a moral or scriptural basis in advocating for feeding only some with half a loaf? He replied that we should strive for what we could realistically achieve at the time, but then began ruminating about his own answer and ended up a bit stumped with that question. At least those of us on our side of the panel could see him mentally kneading this new conceptual lump of dough, questioning even his own stand on his original notions of what to make of this. On a follow up, he was reminded of his response to Michael that the community needed to be more courageous and forge ahead despite the risks, on which he concurred.

So I followed up noting Texas’ own incident of the “false incrementalism” with the James Byrd Hate Crimes Act and its broken promises (leaving behind transgenders), asking if we should be more assertive and how to possibly do so without being summarily marginalized afterward. Bishop Robinson was surprised and seemingly incredulous that we’d be marginalized for speaking out as such. Both Michael and I nodded affirmatively as we personally knew that marginalization. The Bishop responded that we should forge ahead and assert ourselves regardless, and to never give in.

When Lisa Scheps reminded him of his own quote to the Dallas Voice and his response to her question earlier, and asked if this meant that those given none of the incrementally won “half loaf” should hold everyone’s feet to the fire – including him – the Bishop agreed. He noted that if he wasn’t unwavering enough to stand behind what’s right, then he needed to be taken to task as much as other incrementalists, and we should be raising the issue and raising our voices.

As Kelli Busey noted in her blog on the panel, it was interesting to see the two philosophically very divergent sides in the transgender community actually hear the same advice from Rev. Robinson: that we should be more audacious in raising our voices. For all to see, they get to see NTAC wasn’t the heretics after all! Au contraire!

“It's not about me. It's about not having to be ashamed.” — Bishop Gene Robinson

After the panel wrapped, the documentary crew following the Bishop invited us up to his personal suite. The crew took turns interviewing Lisa, Kelli, Michael and Tina. While they were taping, I went downstairs with Michael when the Bishop decided to take a smoke break. Down there, we had a chance to talk about our personal lives a bit.

He’s very disarming in person. I found him quite candid and earthy.

To my surprise I found there were couple things I sort of had in common with the Bishop. He was born to a family of tobacco sharecroppers in Kentucky, my mom was born to a family of cotton sharecroppers in Texas while my dad as a child worked with his family as migrant farm labor, picking cotton, walnuts and various fruit in California for a period. As a young child, Robinson’s family lived in a home with well water and no indoor plumbing, and my dad (possibly my mom as well) lived in at least one home with well water and no indoor plumbing.


It was comfort to find the Bishop is someone who remembers well what life is like on the disadvantaged side of town, and privately agonizes over some in his own community who neglect to see it (or forget what it was like once they’ve climbed out). It’s a philosophy I share as well.

The Bishop’s got a number of people’s ears – and not just within the GLBT community. He and I also discussed another thing we had in common – working on getting Barack Obama elected. The President-Elect reportedly even visited with Bishop Robinson on three occasions. As we know now, the trans community has a powerful ally in the White House!

If we have Bishop Robinson with a possible avenue to influence the President on our issues, we may be able to effectively thwart most any obstacle either Barney Frank or HRC (our community’s political gatekeepers) can throw before us.

While we panelists may have come away with different impressions, I get the sense there’s a legitimate chance of having made a key ally in Dallas. Who better than someone of humble beginnings who understands the crush of powerlessness and voicelessness borne of his own past?

“So the question is can we still live together and hold on to one another while we resolve this issue?” — Bishop Gene Robinson