It's Marriage Mania In Maniacal America

"I'm goin' coconuts but least I'm goin' my way.
I'll probably be here when that sun goes down.
Goin' crazy, ooh, from the heat!" — Goin' Crazy, David Lee Roth

Maybe it's just the unending heatwave in Texas, where any day below triple digits actually feels slightly chilly, but it seems to my overcooked brain that both sides on this same-sex marriage tug-of-war are coming down with a chronic case of the wackies. Or maybe it's just a sizzling hot summer everywhere and it's not just me – everyone's losing it.

Marriage mania is in full bloom, and Pennsylvania joined the litany of states pushing for marriage recognition for same-sex couples. Amazingly marriage didn't get forced down the throat of President Barack Obama when the 300 some-odd LGBT leaders and their partners were invited to the White House for a private reception. However, just this week both Massachusetts and Oregon filed suit claiming the Feds violate their federalist states' rights by DOMA's effect on their states' ability to make independent decisions on marriage rights.

Meanwhile the California suit against the Feds has gotten interesting. Initially when this was filed (including one attorney who offered to press the issue who was also part of the Bush legal team who filed suit successfully to place Bush in the presidency post-Florida 2000 election results!) it was thought that things were looking rather rosy. Even LGBT organization heads from groups such as Lambda Legal, the ACLU's LGBT Rights Project and the National Center for Lesbian Rights all stepped up and encouraged all other groups to take a back seat in order not to complicate or jeopardize the pending suit. "Ill-timed lawsuits could set the fight for marriage back."

Well that was then. This is now. It seems these same three groups are now filing amicus briefs to intervene to allow PFLAG, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay and Our Family Coalition to file suit with the Supreme Court as well. (And they all thought we Trans folk couldn't get on the same page or being politically "realistic"!

The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), who was leading the charge in Federal Court, wrote a pointed letter back to the three above mentioned groups, noting how they had all initially worked collaboratively on the project and anguishing over actions and quotes in the media from these other players that they felt "undermine" the case and the goal which they were all working towards.

Not only were they there first on this suit, AFER worries that this case "could be mired in procedurally convoluted pre-trial maneuvering for years—while and gay and lesbian individuals in California continue to suffer the daily indignity of being denied their federal constitutional right to marry the person of their choosing." I've attached a photocopy of the full letter from AFER to the parties below. It's, um, interesting:


So what are they trying to do here – out-compete each other for top attention and ego strokes? Or maybe bog it down in order to slow the process (and maybe milk more donations while it continues?) No matter! At least everyone's on the same page and it's all in the firm capable hands of our professionals in leadership of the gay and lesbian community! Lord knows if Trans people got a hold of it, it'd be a confusing mess, hmmm? Yeah, that's what they say ....

"What is important in life is life, and not the result of life." — German playwright, Johann von Goethe

Of course, not to be outdone on trying to conspicuously blunder and lose, the opposition is also working hard to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory! It was bad enough that a FOX commentator compared the same-sex marriage issue to bestiality a la Pat Robertson and so many others. That's actually old-hat stuff now! Get the latest on the intra-species marriage issue from FOX (again)!

This was actually reporting on a story of a Swedish study that found that marriage was good for couples in that it kept them from dementia and Alzheimer's disease with absolutely not connotations on same-sex couplings at all. Yet their own Freudian mentality just keeps slipping out as on FOX & Friends morning show, we heard this from one of their triad of morning hosts, Brian Kilmeade:

BRIAN KILMEADE: I'm just amazed that they thought about doing this study in the – by interviewing people in the 1970s and the 1980s.

DAVE BRIGGS: A little dated, you think?

KILMEADE: The average is 50, and they see that they keep it together. I find this – I find this somewhat ....

BRIGGS: Go ahead.

KILMEADE: Different. Leave it to the Finns and Swedes to some up with something. They literally –

GRETCHEN CARLSON: Don't look at me, pal.

KILMEADE: Because that's a – we are – we're – we're a – we're – we keep marrying other species and other ethnics and other....

CARLSON: Are you sure they're not suffering from some of the causes of dementia right now?

KILMEADE: I mean, the Swedes ....

BRIGGS: What are you getting at?

KILMEADE: See, the problem is, the Swedes have pure genes.

BRIGGS: OK.

KILMEADE: Because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland – Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody.

That's right folks! Intra-species marriage is already here in America! As Kilmeade noted: "we keep marrying other species and other ethnics ... the problem is the Swedes have pure genes (ah! gotta watch them! the Master Race people!) ... Because they marry other Swedes because that's the rule. Finland – Finns marry other Finns, so they have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody." This is rife with alarmist xenophobia!

And marrying "other species"? Really? Are they buying that Georgia freak's Obama-as-Curious-George-the-Chimp T-shirt fetish as scientific fact? What a serious media outlet FOX has turned out to be, huh? It sure sorta hearkens back to the old miscenegation days from what I can see, all this concern about America's "intra-species" marriage and breeding! Wow.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it with faulty arguments." — Friedrich Nietzsche

But if that's not wacky enough, it gets crazier! From no less than Washington DC, home of Marion Barry who supports everything EXCEPT for his staunch disapproval of same-sex marriage (and subsequent arrest this week for stalking – way to drive home the point of morals, Mr. Ex-Mayor!), we have testimony on the DC consideration of accepting same-sex marriage as law of the district from Rev. Leroy Swailes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFFYYjWjVuE


This one has to be seen to be believed. I can't make this stuff up, folks! Some of the reverend's philosophical proferrings are:

"You have human rights and you have inhuman rights. When a man dealing with a man and a woman dealing with another man, that's inhuman." Make sense of that logic!

Discrimination's a negative and a postive. ... I came out of my mama's womb like I didn't have a choice. That was a negative discrimination." Yeah, I guess you didn't have a choice ... unless you managed to self-abort! Is this an advertisement for abortion?

"If you discriminate against a homosexual that's a positive. Why? Because of children. You've got people they call pedophiles.... When you look in the eyes of a child and tell them "sex is between Adam and Adam, and Eve and Eve," that's a pedophile." Wow, it's that simple? And all this time I thought it was about something physical, like molestation or at least child nudity. What was I thinking!

"This book here talk [sic] about 'All Families Are Different' has to do with what? You have God's family, which is a natural family, and you have Antichrist's family." Yeah, all Godly families have to "be like us." That's exactly what the racist white families used to think during the days of Jim Crow, too, and they believed that the Bible told them where everyone else's family fell. It must be said that Rev. Swailes is African-American though his logic is eerily familiar, harkening back to those bad old days.

One child grows up to be
Somebody that just loves to learn.
And another child grows up to be
Somebody you'd just love to burn.
Mom loves the both of them.
You see it's in the blood.
Both kids are good to Mom:
'Blood's thicker than mud'
It's a family affair...." — Family Affair, Sly & The Family Stone

"Everybody should have human rights, but you have to be human! Human means you deal with the opposite sex...." Meaning that, what? All Trans people have tails? All gays are sick little monkeys? And I'm sure he meant it in the best way possible, no offense and all!

"Homosexuality destroys (life), it'll be the extinction of the human race.... Eighty-six civilized cultures, it was the death of their cultures why? Because they gave into ... strange flesh: the same sex, which is a form of bestiality. Why is that a form of bestiality? Because a beast has four legs and one gender! If you put two men together, you have four legs and two penises. That's one gender. That's a form of bestiality." Ah! Well that explains it! Four legs and one gender is animal! So if there's a three-legged dog, or a couple who are same-sex, but one partner only has one leg, then they'd be semi-bestial, right? Or if both partners are one-legged, then same-sex marriage would be okay because they'd be human! I recalled a show on Oprah once that showed a dog born with no front legs, and it literally taught itself to walk on it's hind legs, upright! That would make him human, not animal! So then a woman could then marry that dog and not be engaging in bestiality per Swailesian logic! But what about "eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb?" Vexing! Or for that matter, how about "eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men?" Hmm ... clear as mud!

"When you separate something, you have discrimination. When I put a glass of water here and a glass of poison, which one are you going to choose? You're going to choose a glass of water. That's a form of discrimination!" Ah! I'm getting it! We discriminate against poison every time there's a glass of it on the table and we avoid drinking it! Shame on us anti-poison bigots!

"I cannot look into the eyes of a child and tell them "you have a choice to be heterosexual or homosexual." That would make me a sadist! So what is a sadist? A sadist is the one who destroyed sex! ... and I don't practice Satanism." Not sure where the satanism thing came into play – a Freudian slip? And all this time I thought sadism, named after the Marquis De Sade, was all about inflicting physical or mental cruelty! Then again, I can see how some would get confused and think it cruel to tell kids they have choices in life. Better to eliminate all choices and just pre-destine everyone's life for them from inception! It eliminates all the guesswork! Just hand them an assignment sheet saying "here is your life – don't think, just live what we tell you." Hey look, I'm supposed to be a garbageman ...!

It's a wonderful world out there, kiddies. Yes indeed, batshit crazy.

Meanwhile, halfway across the globe, Iranians are protesting and taking to the streets, risking incarceration and even their lives for defying the Ahmadinejad Administration! And here in the U.S, that saga sure fell off of the radar screen fast! What's a country got to do to get a little media time over life-and-death issues like marriage? Iran's free people need a strong advocate here – someone like Mary Cheney: she who couldn't be bothered to bring up same-sex marriage or gay rights issues in her dad & Bush's campaign, and supported her daddy and the GOP (even with the antagonistic approach the Bush Admin took on her issues) because "there are terrorists who will stop at nothing to hurt this country ... I had to support the candidate who was going to do the best job to protect this country. And no offense to John Kerry, but it wasn't him."


So now that the people of Iran are trying to oust one of the heads of Bush's Axis of Evil, and folks in America are focusing on that less important stuff like same-sex marriage, where is Mary Cheney these days?

"...things get confused out there: power, ideals, the old morality...." — G. D. Spradlin as Gen. Corman from "Apocalypse Now."

... Fear Itself

After posting my most recent diary on Daily Kos on Civil Rights not existing for transgenders, it elicited quite a bit of commentary (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/9/153647/7370/255/682170). Most of it was refreshingly supportive, and quite a few were surprisingly very knowledgeable on trans issues. Of course, there’s always the others who take issue.

One of those inevitable detractors started off with the hackneyed “I support and love my transgendered brothers and sisters … but ….” – followed by the backhand. As the other respondents replied to him, the ire rose and his anger continued swelling until his anger let some unguarded sentiment through. Ultimately his beef boiled down with a special focus on trans people who were unpassable – “big, hulking trannies,” who “latch themselves into [sic] the gay and lesbian fight [for rights]” and how he "never knew what violence was, however, until I saw a lesbian and a drag queen get into a fight about 3 years ago in Toronto. Even the cops were afraid to break that one up...and it took FIVE of them to do it!”

The respondent was gay and expressed an understanding of transgenders in his initial post. Yet despite the words, he didn’t know us as much as purported. He had encountered us and developed a cursory conclusion: if you looked passable, you deserved transition while the rest did not.

“I don't care if you approve.
What the f*ck is that gonna do?
‘Cause I ain't got nothing better to do
Than piss off motherf*ckers like you!” — Crossdressing G*ddamned Son Of A Bitch, the Frankenstein Drag Queens From Planet 13

But buried within some of the comments about ‘latching onto his rights’ or even the violence factor from ‘battling drag queens,’ something else was communicated – fear. There’s a fear of violence at the hands of these tough gender transgressors, a fear losing his rights (as an extension of his community) and even a fear of public embarrassment per the story that started his string: an unattractive trans person who made a scene in a restaurant due to disrespectful pronoun usage by her waiter.

I wouldn’t doubt that if I brought this up to the particular detractor, he would persistently deny there’s any fear at all, yada, yada. But it is fear of something he doesn’t know and feels would put him in a situation he couldn’t control.

One thing I’ve discovered throughout the years is this: Fear of the unknown is the greatest fear of all. Some will argue it’s fear of death. But really, the fear of death is fear of the unknown as well since many who've gone through near-death experiences don't have that same fear after.

Ultimately it boils down to this: the human mind has an incessant obsession with "knowing". Whatever the new discovery is, we want to know what it is -- thus, our never-ending quest for learning, inventing, etc. Even if we don’t fully know, we take what facts are available and connect the dots in order to flesh out the entire picture. Surety breeds familiarity and ease of mind.

On the flip side, when our ability to know is obstructed, our minds still try to estimate what it is that we're trying to know based upon what limited facts are available to us, if any. When we have that big gap between available facts and what results in our confidently "knowing" or comprehending, we then estimate the rest: i.e. “filling in the blanks.”

This allows our imaginations and our mind’s unease with “not knowing” come into play. We fill in the blanks with whatever our mind conjures up, which is often unease compounded and embellished, maybe even tossed around the echo chamber to other like minds and increased. The end result of this lack of surety is that you come up with full-fledged fear (think "fear of the Evil Empire" in USSR fanned by Reagan and our lack of intelligence until the walls came down and we saw it was all a paper lion with little of what we feared it would be. Replay this with Bush/Cheney and Saddam Hussein).

This isn’t to be confused with healthy fears. There are fears that are stable, and are fully correct due to aberrant experience – but only when applied to that one item known to be harmful or detrimental. When it then bleeds over into fear of other things, it’s superimposing or misplacing fear to the point of paranoia.

Misplaced fears notwithstanding, all phobias and insecurities and most paranoias, along with the aggressive actions tied to them all, can be traced back to a lack of surety which is itself due to an absence of true comprehension.

As he doesn’t know us, he fears the potential we pose. This is the core of virtually all of the long-term prejudices held over the years. It’s the reason why religious fundamentalists fear GLBT people, and mutually why GLBT people fear them in return, the kernel at the center of class-based aversion in societies around the world and the nucleus of hate toward ethnically different people such as racism rampant in America and around the globe. It’s also the core of what creates the wars, the likes of which we seeing in the Middle East, particularly at this moment between Israel and Palestine.

This fear of the unknown dehumanizes the object. It creates a scenario allowing one to avoid seeing another as a human being. This desensitizes the objector, as well as validating what they subsequently do to this object of their fear.

“I get confused, 'cause I don't know where I stand,
And then you smile, and hold my hand.” — Spooky, the Classics IV

“If we fear the unknown then surely we fear ourselves.” — poet, Bryant H. McGill


Once you know that what was previously feared, then suddenly it’s no longer the monster we had imagined. These monstrous beings become human, and you privately kick yourself wondering why so much energy was placed into the fear in the first place. Fear is the underlying premise of nearly all aggression, save for schoolyard tit-for-tat style retribution.

One truly frightening possibility is that fear in the hands of those in power can be manipulated by keeping the truth or the real knowledge away from those in which you wish to instill fear. When the facts are kept hidden and awareness restricted, it becomes yeast to feed the rising fear. This foments the subsequent phobic or exaggerated actions. Once attacked, it also typically draws the retributive action, which only self-fulfills the original paranoia.

As we’ve seen over the past few decades, there are those who utilize this unawareness/fear/aggression model to drive their enterprise. It occurs as a result of full-blown war with its recently witnessed “no-bid” contracting boon.

But it also finds sanctuary in simple social aggression, where churches warn of the impending “gay war against families and marriage” – or conversely, the gay advocacy organizations warn of the “right wing persecution” – and draw quite a profitable windfall for their respective non-profits.

Neither side really understands the other, much less truly wants to know the other. It’s preferable to their industries that they keep the opponents as feared and dehumanized as possible. It makes the job of attacking them more palatable and easier to sell to those they wish to support it. With mainstream media being bought into this perpetuation (they’re businesses too, and selling advertising to the very people who wish to continue the knowledge-restriction in order to profit), it’s now become the province of the internet to get the truth out.

Trite as it sounds, knowledge is power – the power to end hate. So many of the fears, whether transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia or racism, fear of other cultures or religions or other differences, can be taken down by simply getting real knowledge out to people, finding the commonalities between the disparate parties, and ultimately see the other party as a human being. The key is to find ways to get knowledge around the obstacles in its way: inaccessibility, apathy or laziness, fear of what one might discover and intent restriction from it.

Knowing the truth abates fear. Avoiding or suppressing truth generates and fuels it.

“There is not a truth existing which I fear... or would wish unknown to the whole world.” — Pres. Thomas Jefferson

“Get to know me!” — Jon Lovitz from his skit on Saturday Night Live

“My only fear is the unknown.” — magician, David Blaine

Presidential Debate II: The Tipping Point

"Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn't need no welfare states.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!" — Those Were The Days (Theme From All In The Family), Carroll O'Connor & Jean Stapleton

"It takes skill to be real, time to heal each other
And although it seems heaven sent
We ain't ready, to see a black President...." — Changes, Tupac Shakur

Unless I’m mistaken or if something really catastrophic occurs between now and election day, I believe we may have just seen the tipping point with last night’s debate. At one point, I felt like I was watching a caricature performance between Don Rickles’ Mr. Warmth and Lionel Jefferson of All In The Family.

Even though this was the so-desired “town hall” format that John McCain had been begging for throughout this campaign, this was not McCain’s night and really undistinguishable from his last debate performance. His body language was robotic and forced unless he was sitting on the stool, at which point he had an unusual, almost-feminine posture (which was a little unnerving). Most of the latter part of the evening he didn't sit much, seeming uncomfortable or maybe nervous.

Contrast this to Barack Obama's posture which was more relaxed but attentive, legs akimbo, almost resembling one of the early-60's Kingston Trio sitting on the stool (I don't know why I got that visual). He was his usual unflappable self, and it became clear that even though this was McCain’s element, Obama was beating him on his home court.
For his part, McCain stalked around the forum floor in a stiff awkward fashion, tossing out barely-veiled insults in wisecrack fashion, replete with feintly audible septuagenarian grunts and breathing. His movements, his speech and even his appearance resembled Don Rickles walking the stage in his HBO special Mr. Warmth. It’s the type of thing you expect when you plop down $25 for a ticket to sit and watch epithet-laden comedy with a top-notch comic. McCain’s humor (if that’s what it was) just didn’t come close to matching Rickles’ timing, much less his joke material.

McCain was the only one chuckling at his too-subtle witticisms. It was the caustic tongue of Rickles without the humor, rather hard to watch.

Obama meanwhile was on point throughout most of the debate, with a few lapses into generalities. As for substance, it was a hands-down win for Obama. He was thoughtful and specific on responses and plans to address the issues brought up in question. He sat smiling through the entire evening, listening (or at least appearing to listen) intently a la Lionel Jefferson to McCain playing Rickles portraying the Archie Bunker role. Unlike the last debate though, this version of “Lionel” Obama had more of an edge and sparred with “Archie” McCain. In the end though, he was still abundantly patient and polite, complete with the headshakes and incredulous smiles with a few smirks as well.

McCain had very little in specifics, sticking mostly to his campaign talking points. While his town hall format didn’t fit his desire to come out swinging on character issues by association, he still took every instance he could to take swipes at Obama’s judgment and inexperience. McCain’s performance even seemed a bit contrived. If anything, for the man who accused Obama of not knowing the difference between tactics and strategy, McCain didn’t appear to have much thought given to strategy.

At one point, when moderator Tom Brokaw asked McCain if he was in favor of Manhattan Project styled approach to new energy technology, McCain gave a one sentence response to it and then launched into defense on Obama’s charges that McCain didn’t support legislation for new technology development. To prove it, he pointed out a billion-dollar bill for Big Oil urged by Bush and Cheney that McCain himself voted against (way to play to your base, Mac!) but for which “That one” – pointing to Obama – voted in favor.

Media and viewers seized upon “That one” across the country – a very objectifying move on McCain’s part. It was a too-sublime attempt at humor that came off very dismissive instead.

The tipping point came nearer the end of the debate when the issue turned to foreign relations, specifically Pakistan. Again McCain ridiculed Obama’s mention of crossing into Pakistan if actionable intelligence had pinpointed Bin Laden, and compared his plan to Teddy Roosevelt’s “walk softly [sic] … but carry a big stick.”

Obama pushed for opportunity to respond to McCain and again explained his position on going into Afghanistan, then added, “Sen. McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I'm green behind the ears and, you know, I'm just spouting off, and he's somber and responsible,” to which a smug McCain smiled broadly and replied “thank you very much!”

Then Obama made a masterful play, noting of McCain: “this is the guy who sang, "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," who called for the annihilation of North Korea. That, I don't think is an example of "speaking softly." This is the person who, after we had – we hadn't even finished Afghanistan, where he said, "Next up, Baghdad."

McCain’s smile fell off immediately, and he glared straight ahead. He walked right into that trap and got shot with his own weaponry. Check and mate! McCain’s attempt to address Obama ended up in a stuttering, diffuse attempt at explaining himself and explaining away his gaffe – “I was joking with a veteran” – and ended up with an almost pleading repetitions of “I’ll act responsibly” and “I’ll get Bin Laden”.

In a sense it was sad to see what he’s devolved into. Yet after all of his initial promises of “running a respectable campaign” and then later rescinding it since “Obama wouldn’t meet as he promised in a town hall format,” now that Obama was meeting with him in a town hall format it was the same old ugly, combative McCain – no change. And he wasn't even an effective combatant. Obama deuced him on his own game, and McCain was helpless.

Worse still, even with the economy plummeting like a boulder over Yosemite Falls, John McCain once again failed to mention the middle class, the working class or the poor even once. He's now just playing to save his base and his base isn't big enough to get him into the White House.

We’ve now come to the point where it’s truly Obama’s game to lose. Seeing how he’s played to date, he won’t! Now we need to ensure he has all the down-ballot support in Congress that he's going to need instead of the obstructionist Republicans!

"High time we made a stand and shook up the views of the common man,
And the lovetrain rides from coast to coast.
D.J's the man we love the most.
Could you be, could you be squeaky clean
And smash any hope of democracy?
As the headline says you're free to choose
Theres egg on your face and mud on your shoes." — Sowing The Seeds Of Love, Tears For Fears

Did Bush Threaten Congress With Martial Law?

It was mystifying to see how the House, after voting and defeating the previous non-pork laden Economic Rescue bill (or Wall Street Welfare State bill), managed to vote through the bill on Friday. Unsurprisingly, an overeager President Bush signed the bill into law less than two hours later (record time!)

I just could not fathom how this occurred until I saw this, from Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) in his speech on the House Floor urging prudence and issuing warning about this bailout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

Indeed, I'd noticed something a couple weeks back and issued a blog on it coinciding with the October 1 deployment of the Army for potential "crowd control" and other sundry reasons here in America

http://transpolitical.blogspot.com/2008/10/american-militarys-next-deployment.html

based upon an article culled from the online September edition of Army Times.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Considering the Army brigade noted in the article had been training during the month of September in preparation for this October 1 deployment, it begs some questions:

How long before this recent "crisis" on Wall Street did the White House know of the impending Wall Street crash of major institutions?

How were they able to keep this off the radar screen and keep these failing institutions together until they could put the plans in place (both military and the bailout plan)?

Did the Bush Administration use this domestic deployment as a method to ramrod this draining of the Taxpayers' collective fund for Wall Street through Congress?

This is highly unprecedented: using the threat of suspending the Constitution and going to Martial Law in order to hijack Congress or the will of the people. This borders on a coup d'etat by our own head of state.

I fear we've just witnessed a sublime, yet watershed metamorphosis of American democracy as we've known it.

American Military’s Next Deployment: America!!!

So you thought it was crazy enough that we’ve had runs on the bank induced by Wall Street institutions financially built on a house of cards? You think it’s beyond belief the our illustrious president was brazen enough to ask Congress for a $700 billion check, payable by the taxpayers for this financial fiasco he’s allowed to run rampant after all these years of lies about the economy being “fundamentally strong”? You reckon this insanity will end when the people have their say, only to realize Bush is going to yet again strong-arm Congress-critters of both parties into force feeding this to us with a front-loader?

It’s enough to cause a citizen’s revolt – and a lot of people are emotionally there, now!

Well, here’s a little comforting thought for all you Wall Streeters (provided you weren’t already informed of this well before hand). U.S. Army troops will be on guard, here in America, to help patrol our cities! True.

Our Armed Forces will be deployed right here in the good old U.S.A.! Coincidental, eh?

“Now the first thing I noticed when we hit the street was the seventh fleet
They was cruisin' through the center of town. (Quite peculiar.)
No one seemed real clear 'bout who’d sent them there
But they sure looked grand with the band, the balloons and the clowns. (I love a parade.)
And the played "Anchors Aweigh" for the rest of the day
'cept the times that they'd lower their guns and shoot some renegade down.” — The Ballad Of The Night The Clocks All Quit (And The Government Failed), Tonio K.

Beginning October 1, 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team “will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command (NorthCom), as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.” There was a nice, breezy article on it in the September edition of Army Times: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

For the next sixteen months or so, they “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack.” They’ve been training for this new “domestic deployment” for the past month in Fort Stewart, GA, and will even be coordinating with other branches of the Armed Services, including National Guard.

Indeed our soldiers will be utilizing “the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded,” 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier was quoted in the article. This refers to “crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them” according to the article.

“I don’t know what America’s overall plan is – I just know that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are standing by to come and help if they’re called,” Col. Cloutier said. “It makes me feel good as an American to know that my country has dedicated a force to come in and help the people at home.”

If you can’t remember when we last deployed a brigade here in the U.S., don’t feel bad. I can’t remember it either. There’s a good reason, too.

The article notes that the deployment “marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.” Thanks, Patriot Act!

"Yes it was lookin' real bad, any luck that we'd had
Had been lost in the park after dark when the army arrived.
They was sweeping the town chasing renegades down
There were no friends to be found, there was no place at all left to hide.
And the Austrian son he was having some fun
He'd been put in command of all the camps and his prisoners all died.” — The Ballad Of The Night The Clocks All Quit (And The Government Failed), Tonio K.

It also defies the Constitution. Per Section 1385 of the Posse Comitatus Act:

“Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Basically, the Army is not supposed to be utilized for national policing actions: the National Guard is. Keep in mind though, individual governors are the responsible parties who make the decision to use National Guard troops – not “the Decider.” They’re also deployed intrastate, as a rule, so Louisiana’s governor’s National Guard don’t just patrol the entire Gulf Coast on police actions in Florida, for instance.

Now there is one instance where the President can deploy troop, per the Insurrection Act of 1807. But for this to occur, there must be existing conditions in a state or region where “any part or class of a people is deprived of its right, privilege, immunity or protection” per the Constitution and where the states “are unable, fail, or refuse to protect them.” Basically this means the states have to be overrun to the point where the police at local and state levels are overwhelmed to the point where the governor must call the National Guard out, which then also becomes overwhelmed. If it gets to that point, and there is an insurrection involved (again which neither the local law enforcement or National Guard can deal with), only then can the President order the Armed Forces in.

Republicans did water down the Insurrection Act with a bill introduced by Sen. John Warner, and enacted in 2006. This was rescinded a year later as Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Kit Bond (R-MO) as they noted it made it easier for the President to simply declare Martial Law.

So, here we are, with America’s Armed Forces now on the new front: America. And just in time for … the Government’s nationalizing Wall Street and using our tax money to pay for it! I guess Bush-baby figured we weren’t gonna be very happy about the Wall Street Welfare State (WSWS) Bill. We gotta protect that “part or class of a people” that’s “deprived of its right or privilege,” ya know? Like the corporate, upper class ….

Or maybe there are other reasons Bush-baby brought them in. Maybe they sense what’s about to happen here! What could it be? More bank failures and runs on the banks even after the WSWS Bill? Stolen elections? Maybe ratcheting up the race-baiting thing they’ve been working on? Maybe even a terror attack on the country? (This is October, month of the “surprises” in RNC-land.)

What do they have in mind for us? Even Col. Cloutier, the brigade’s commander doesn’t know. All I know is it’s another one of those “number” days (10/9/08) next Thursday, and I know how these planners like their numbers. Just be careful and stay safe.

This may well be a very harrowing month. They’ve already planned on it.

"The terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm our country. And neither do we." — President, George W. Bush

"Bright and early next morning without any warning
The sky opened up and the Boss stuck his head through the clouds.
The Army and Navy they opened up fire
But he grabbed him that lightning and laid them all under the ground.
Sam jumped up to salute; the Boss said "that's real cute,
But it's a little bit late 'cause I've seen what's been going down." — The Ballad Of The Night The Clocks All Quit (And The Government Failed), Tonio K.

Bank Bailout Bill Echoes Iraq War and Patriot Act

[American Goths: Fork Over The Money -- Or You're Doomed!]

This past week’s economic hangover has really stunned me. I can’t determine yet whether it was better that we in Houston were unaware of it the first days, or whether it would’ve been better to know immediately. The one thing that has struck me is that this doesn’t seem right. There’s a strange, unreal feel to it – not much unlike after 9/11 and the attacks.

Slowly, as the fog has cleared my mind gradually, I’m starting to determine the lay of the land. Watching the President’s speech just now, and earlier the Katie Couric interviews with both John McCain and Sarah Palin, it’s become clear: they’re pushing this new order, and they’re pushing it on us with urgency. This is not only abnormal, it distinctly smacks of what happened immediately after 9/11 – the rapid push, heavy pressure and comprehensive change to Americans’ civil liberties vis a vis the Patriot Act, and presidential powers a la Iraq.

We’re revisiting the Patriot Act and the case for Iraq all over again!

“There was a time I would have cried.
But those days have all gone by.
You always walked a crooked line.” — It Only Hurts When I Breathe, Cop Shoot Cop

This time, the sugar bullet will make sweeping changes to business, our economy and possibly expose our tax base in the same way Patriot Act did with our privacy, our country’s conduct in that brand new war on terror and Iraq did on powers and accountability. They came to Congress and scared the bejesus out of them – both parties (save for whatever few they kept “in the loop,” as McCain now is). Then they went on TV news, and now on prime time for a speech to drive home the same fear to us.

I’ve seen this movie plot before. It didn’t turn out like we thought the first times either, but by the time we figured it out, we’d already given them the go-ahead and all the artillery they needed.

None of this stuff makes logical sense. Republicans are all about free market, keep government from restricting business, no giveaways, etc. But think back: Republicans used to also be against creating and giving blank checks for endless wars … before Iraq. Republicans also used to be against big brother restricting their liberties and snooping into their lives … before 9/11.

Afterwards, they were cool on it. They just gave them tax breaks and that kept them quiet. (Besides, anyone who didn’t salute their GOP leader even after the tax break was just downright unpatriotic!)

“You read my thoughts, you knew my fears.
You weren't as old as you appeared,
But so much wiser than your years
And I was blind.” — It Only Hurts When I Breathe, Cop Shoot Cop

Don’t get me wrong: we need some major comprehensive changes on Wall Street and vigilant oversight over all corporate America. I’m certainly in favor of tamping out these wildly overstretched income disparities, most especially from CEO’s who produce nothing but losses for investors. Transparency is imperative after what we’ve just witnessed from Wall Street and from our government and the financial wing of this administration’s cabinet!

But writing a check for $700 billion dollars – more than we’ve spent to date on the Iraq War – in one fell swoop? And doing this when we have the largest budget deficit in American history? And to bail out failed banks, who just a few years ago were the ones pushing through changes to bankruptcy laws to make it difficult for individuals financially going under to file and recover? And to do this with no guarantee that we taxpayers will be able to recoup the cash outlay in full? And to have this request come from self-described fiscal conservatives like George W. Bush (and it seems likely John McCain) who want to make permanent the Bush tax cuts and even increase tax cuts for corporate America?
And to have this plan pushed so zealously and so urgently?

Something stinks to high heaven.

“All you little kids seem to think you know just where it's at.
Oh, I think I smell a rat!” — I Smell A Rat, the White Stripes

The day Wall Street dropped 500 points and Henry Paulson address the President and Congress, Sen. John McCain was initially trumpeting the old Bush chestnut: “the economy is fundamentally strong.” Apparently Bush-baby didn’t get the talking point out to him quick enough, and McCain later that day began the new repeating point: “the economy is at risk.” (He attempted to cover with the bullshit excuse that the fundamentals meant our workforce, worker’s innovation and productivity – which means absolutely zero when their jobs are so streamlined that they offshore or automate themselves out of jobs!)

Now this proposal goes through Congress and both parties’ critters are angry, demanding transparency in the dealings, severe restrictions on these executives’ pay, guarantees for taxpayers, additional money to help imperiled individual homeowners and oversight of this new “czar” position that the Treasury Secretary will suddenly be granted. Meanwhile, the Bush mantra, and in the echo chamber, the Paulson mantra, the Ben Bernanke mantra and the John McCain mantra are: “we are in economic crisis, we need a simple bill, and it needs to be passed as it is immediately!”

This is all we’re going to hear from the architects and backers of this bill from now until they wear down Congress into acquiescence: “The economy is in danger, we need a simple bill, and it needs to be passed as it is immediately!”

There’s a bigger plan with this than what we’re seeing on the surface. Something is amiss, and we’ll pay the price for not ferreting out and cleansing this proposal of this before enacting it. Yet in typical Bush/Cheney fashion, the proposal is foisted as a fully completed work on Congress critters’ laps and they have mere days to “pass it or else (have the Bush Crime family foist blame on them and ruin their careers)! This is exactly what they did with the Patriot Act, remember?

And like the Patriot Act and even the Iraq War which were designed and fully written well before they were submitted to Congress, this proposed bail out was as well. This proposal began when Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were announced insolvent and in need of bailouts. Rather than alerting the country to the rest of the reality of our banking system, Paulson and the Bush Administration chose to keep it under wraps and spend the time writing up what we see now – the biggest new deal since, well, the New Deal.

It’s depressing that we’ve come to this: staring into the abyss of what Sarah Palin admitted in her Couric interview was possibly another Depression. (Palin’s interview was precious, worthy of it’s own column!)

If Congress and the American public is not vigilant and ensures there are very conservative restraints put on this Bush plan, and that we have absolute fidelity and forthrightness from both the Treasury and this new government banking behemoth with all due checks and balances, we’re buying another round of Patriot Act and the case for war in Iraq. We gave this President, and his party, trust once before. Just keep in mind how that turned out.

Beware of the Trojan Horse ....

“You left a trail of rubber checks
And broken hearts and busted necks.
What the fuck did I expect?
I don't know.” — It Only Hurts When I Breathe, Cop Shoot Cop

Song: Pledge Your Allegiance -- New American Century

This is an admittedly strange blog post for me. On the side (when the mood strikes) I will sit and write poetry, even songs. While I play very little guitar, I couldn't tell you one note from another -- I don't read music. I wrote these as two pieces -- the first a march-like intro, the second more an emotive ballad-rocker suited for a duet (think Bruce Springsteen / Patti Scialfa typed pairing).

These were things I'd written in the summer of 2006 and just squirreled away with all the others, but drug these two out as they seem appropriate today. With what we just witnessed with the major bank failures, and now a $700 billion dollar bailout pending -- and with no guarantee that won't bankrupt the tax fund if other countries decide they want out of our little Wall Street / Get-Rich-Quick scheme. What happened to their preciously guarded "free market economy" and "no welfare state"?

What really depresses me (now after getting online and seeing news, post Hurricane Ike) is how after all this economic disaster, the geopolitical morass, and the cumulative erosion of sustaining our previous "strong middle class" economy, the Republican candidate is actually tied or slightly ahead of the Democrat!
Even though it's been Republican leaders and Republican Social Experiments vis a vis laws that make business irreproachable and unlimited, Democrats are doing no better than a tie. People are so afraid of Obama's color or name or whatever urban legend they try to affix to him that they will vote in another four years of what we've just suffered through for the last eight.

I just don't get it.

Hell, the McCain campaign and RNC in general is so "values-oriented" they misappropriate other people's voices (like Katie Couric, and some Faux News guy's voice for a commercial), and even steal songs from artists for their speeches or news bites when they come on stage (e.g. Heart's Barracuda for Sarah Palin, or John Mellencamp's Little Pink Houses for McCain). I still recall hearing "Running on Empty" as background for one of McCain's "Drill, Baby, Drill" speeches and was depressed as hell that Jackson Browne had turned and supported conservative philosophy! Thankfully, I found out different a few weeks later when he filed suit to have them "cease and desist."

No, McCain didn't start it. President Reagan did when he misappropriated Bruce Springsteen's Born In The U.S.A. for his re-election speeches.

So these are songs that I know wouldn't be appropriated by Republicans -- they're not into self-deprecation. Who knows, maybe the Springsteens would pick it up and record it? (I highly doubt it) If they do, I'll donate my proceeds (until the cut-off time) to the Democratic Election Fund, or 527's to ensure they are elected.

This is partisan, I'll admit. When have they ever not been? Ultimately, I just can't sit idly by and take this crap any more. At least this is a release.

Pledge Your Allegiance

I Pledge ... Allegiance
To ... the Flag
Of the United States
of Corporate America,
And to the Republicans
For which we vote.
One corporation,
Equal ... to God,
In-VIN-cible,
With Liberties ... and Profits
For all the top execs!
Hey!

The New American Century

Remember liberty?
Remember freedom of speech?
Remember those innocent days of our youth
Back when teachers would teach,
Before the pastors
Took their jobs away?
Remember De-mo-cra-cy
Before it became … “Pay to Play”?
Elections weren’t suspect –
No shill partisan mobs.
Remember Dads going to work in the morning?
They all could find jobs!
Now there’s outsourcing, onshoring, productivity
And the race to the bottom.
And nothing’s domestically owned here anymore –
Foreign countries all have bought ‘em.

Now we build K Street Projects,
Tear down housing projects,
Hedge low on stock futures,
Indebt grandkids’ futures,
Find time in our homes less,
Rid cities of homeless,
Insure companies' health,
Choose between food or health.
Welcome to … the New … American Century

Recall summer vacations?
Kids had twelve weeks to play …
Before global competition made those
Days of leisure passé?
And before censorship,
Profit, greed and control
Killed innovation, the challenge and
Spirit of ... Rock & Roll?
Remember equality?
How we once felt empowered?
Remember how we felt anything's possible
Before those dreams soured?
It was a brave new world in those days of our past,
But our leaders all now run scared.
We slept while they gave away our golden years,
Now we should’ve been better prepared.

Congress votes themselves raises.
Child poverty rises.
Rich pundits cry “vengeance!”
While the poor get no vengeance.
Business begs “education!”
Feds slash education
And they meld church and state
Health care’s in the worst state
Welcome to … the New … American Century

Remember the choices
Before market monopoly?
We believed in the American Dream,
Now we know oligopoly.
Remember when media
Broadcast truth and decorum,
Before money ensured only privileged views
Worthy a forum?
Remember government
Accountability –
No demands to expand President’s powers,
Just open civility?
Remember days before terror became our new pastime
And the long, endless wars?
Common goals, humane minds, days of so much less ego,
No hubris, no settling scores?

Bankroll national security.
Kill Social Security.
Nation shoved to the right
Rescinds all civil rights.
Leaders treated like prophets.
Fire workers, raise profits.
Sweetened deals before closed.
Watch our dreams be foreclosed.
Yes it’s true … it’s the New … American Century
Vanessa Edwards Foster © June 2006

Transgender Delegate Blog: Day One In Denver

Actually I arrived in Denver last night and got a good walk around the neighborhood where I'm staying with a good, longtime friend of mine, Sally Anne. Cherry Creek is a really cool neighborhood, and she's in the heart of it: very artsy, tony clothing and furniture shops, haute cuisine in numerous "bistro" type eateries, and of course a number of neighborhood and a smattering of in-crowd nightspots! And they're all within an easy walk!

The weather is astonishingly cool as well! I'm more acclimated to the un-air-conditioned environs of the ever-humid blast furnace of Houston. I'm used to 70's and 80's at night -- not in the day time! This is a welcome respite from South Texas summer!

Onto the super-chat: Vice President Joe Biden. An excellent (and expectedly safe) choice! Once the Georgia conflict hit, and it became crystal clear to America that we are in an extremely vulnerable geopolitical environment with our overstretched and armament-depleted military, it was obvious Obama would be mandated to choose someone with foreign and/or military experience. This knocked Kaine out of logical contention, and helped folks like Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh as well as Biden.


From my perspective, I thought Biden was the best choice of them. However, I also feared that the national geopolitics (i.e. countering your opponent with a red state resident) would trump Biden in favor of Bayh. Bayh acquitted himself quite well on last Sunday's talk shows. But in the overall scheme, as things play out in the Bush/Cheney years, it's necessary to have your Veep be the "barking dog" a la Dickless Cheney.

Hands down, Biden knows how to parry with the best of the GOPpers. He's also very good at the "soundbite" press-worthy quotes.

There has been some chatter on the blogs. From a GLBT perspective, some within the gay and lesbian community are disappointed in Hillary not getting the VP nod. They manifest it by saying they're not "enthused" with the choice of Biden. I haven't heard any qualms from the trans community on Biden, however it must be noted that Biden in the Senate has never been asked, nor ever had to deal with anything transgender-related. He's an unknown quantity on his support for trans issues, at least to my limited experience. He's not been known, though, as a great vocal supporter of the Human Rights Campaign, nor their incremantalist philosophy (i.e. you trannies don't deserve rights now).

Electability-wise, though, Joe is a go! Anything that gets Obama elected is a go in my book!

Meanwhile McCain is showing his utter disconnect with the vast majority of America. Politico.com asked him how many homes does he own. He actually didn't know (or certainly wanted us to believe that). That's incredulous. Even if you have multiple holdings, no matter how wealthy you are, unless you're an active real estate-flipper, you know how many homes you own! If he's really that clueless on keep track of how many homes he owns, how does he expect us to have confidence in his ability to keep track of the military in the threatening world? How does he expect us to believe he will keep track of and hold down spending? How does he expect us to think he will know best what is hurting the American economy? At the end, he mumbled around and tossed out an answer: "four". The correct answer, Sen. McCain, was "nine." That wasn't close!

It also brings up another issue: the imperious factor. Being transgendered, I'm on the front lines of getting hammered relentlessly by this Bush Economic Recovery. The majority of all Americans, GLBT or not, are hurting badly. Beyond his lack of anything specific to address this issue, Mr. McCain seems oblivious to how vastly different his life is from the lower 98% of us. How many "regular Americans" do you know that own nine homes? And how many do you know in "regular America" that have so many that they don't even know the answer to that question?

Every time he tries to paint himself as a "regular guy" just like most of us in "regular America," and paints Sen. Obama as an "elitist" it's a slap in the face! Of the two of them, Sen. McCain is the elitist! And he wants -- no, expects -- we in the American public to be brain-dead dupes and just go along with this political marketing message because we're supposed to be stupid! That's our role in neo-con America: all the rest of us "regular" citizens are stupid and should just belive him, no questions asked.

Have we not had enough of this imperiousness in America? Like the old TV sitcom, eight is enough ... eight years is more than enough.

We need change. We need Obama/Biden.

Senator McCain: Define "Free Nations"

“Georgia, Georgia, no peace – no peace I find
Just this old, sweet song keeps Georgia on my mind” — Georgia On My Mind, Ray Charles

"But the Americans have no extra money. They have their own problems. They can provide financial assistance for two, three, four, or six months at most.” — Eduard Shevardnadze, former President of Georgia

Today Sen. John McCain enjoyed his own small Berlin moment with his “Ich bin ein Georgian” press confab.

It wasn’t as glorious as the Brandenburg gate. It also wasn’t even uttered in Georgia – whether in Europe or (as McCain would normally do a la his Obama Euro-trip shadowing, e.g. going to Berlin NH) whether in the U.S. in, say, Atlanta, Georgia. During a press statement made on the campaign trail in York PA, McCain said, “I speak for every American when I say … ‘Today we are all Georgians.’”

“My friends, we learned a great cost of the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked,” McCain added.

The last statement got me to wondering, in this world of nuanced politic-speak, what does Sen. McCain mean by free nations? How is that defined?

Does this mean nations that hold free elections? Before we get too far along, realize that Iraq used to hold elections as well, pre-American invasion. Did that imply that America was an aggressor on a free nation? Should that have gone “unchecked?”



“I don't want to go down in history as a man who allowed blood to be shed. ... I couldn't stand the idea of bloodshed, casualties.” — Eduard Shevardnadze, former President of Georgia

Obviously, I don’t think that was a true, openly democratic society. Unsurprisingly, Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party won every election and won them by landslide. That kind of gives signs that perhaps it wasn’t free will, but a coerced “free election.” Perhaps that aggression was warranted. Perhaps the same might be said if such aggression happened in other coerced democracies like Zimbabwe (home to Robert Mugabe, leader for life – elections be damned).

Sure, we’re all aware of official dictatorships and their immediate exclusion from the “free nation” club. But what about others that have “free elections” (quotation marks intended, not quoted), but whose “elections” are mere predisposed farce? Some of the U.S. allies have democracies that aren’t, really. Strategic places like Egypt or Uzbekistan, for instance. Would we be similarly blithe in ignoring aggression in those strategic, but pathetically contrived democratic sovereignties the way we expected others to do with Iraq when we went in?

If not, why not? We’ve established the precedent to aggression with these pseudo-democracies. Will we stand by if the people succeeded in unelecting Pervez Musharraf, are unsuccessful in ousting him, and encourage – say India – to come in and assist in their “humanitarian effort” (as we once referred to the Iraq incursion)? Or will we call that aggression?

Israel holds democratic elections, and any attack on them would be rightly viewed as aggression and not go unchecked. Gaza held open democratic elections as well, and in fact, so did Iran. In both cases, the people spoke – and surprised a lot of the conventional wisdom here in the U.S. No predictable dictatorships there.

So what would our response be to aggression in Gaza? What would our response be to aggression in Iran?

What would we expect from the rest of the world if the U.S. (under Bush/Cheney or whomever succeeds them) decides without provocation beyond intelligence reports (which defy the National Intelligence Estimate date, I might add) that we should declare war against Iran? Will that not be viewed as “aggression against a free nation?” If not, what is the distinction a free nation and a “free nation”?

If it’s simply “friends of the United States” that are “free nations,” and any unfriendly country – regardless of electoral politics – are declared “not free nations,” then it is arbitrary policy.

And if the United States expects to be so arbitrary in our consideration, then Russia will expect the same. This is not a thoroughly considered precedent from someone hoping to be president of the United States, the storied arbiter of fairness and humanitarianism on the planet.

“You know, to address crowds and make promises does not require very much brains. … I believe politicians should always remain realistic.” — Eduard Shevardnadze, former President of Georgia

Shock And Awe, Five Years Hence

“It is better, to fight against inflation (war only brings destruction)
And to build … build a better nation (war only brings destruction)
Everybody must have a place (war only brings destruction)
All this hate must become a memory (war only brings destruction)” — War In The East, D.O.A.

Shock! It went by so fast, and snuck up with no warning. Suddenly, it hit.

It’s been five years since the Iraq War began.

Five and a half years ago, I was arguing strenuously with those agreeing with going into Iraq – even my own dad (a blue-dog Dem, no less) who thought it was a good idea. Former CIA estimates, Sec. of State Colin Powell’s statements at the beginning of Bush-baby’s presidency, and first-hand accounts of former Gen. Scott Ritter – one of America’s own who was a weapons inspector in Iraq for years – none of it made one good damn bit of difference. There was just enough of a majority for Bush/Cheney to self-justify war, and off we lemmings went.

The months and weeks leading up to the war were like the twilight zone: surreal. I couldn’t believe that so many people, and virtually the entire media empire were bought into this “threat” from Saddam Hussein as vengeance for 9/11. Ironically, the only news that was showing the deceit and duplicity in all its glory, the only news reporting the real story was the Daily Show with Jon Stewart … from Comedy Central! It floored me that no one but the comedians could see truth – similar to medieval days when only the court jesters dared speak truth to the king. And, of course, it was always laughed off by all – it’s from a joker, what could they know?

Indeed.

The week before the War, we held a war protest here in Houston – one of the largest in the country with well over 10,000 joining. Yet, even with this, and the few American cities that actually drew more than us here in Bush’s back yard, nowhere did our numbers come close to European cities which drew totals in the hundreds of thousands – and it wasn’t even their president leading them off a cliff!

“Had a dream, it was war,
And they couldn’t tell me what it was for.
But it was something they could lie about,
Something we could die about ….” — Had A Dream, Roger Hodgson

With all of the delays in the war, I was hopeful that somehow we would just bluff our way around and never follow it into Iraq. Right before the date given for the beginning of the Iraq War, I’d scheduled a trip to Philadelphia for the IFGE conference, with two side trips to Washington DC – one for the National LGBT Health Coalition Lobby Days (NTAC, the group I chaired, was one of its original members) and after a two-day return to Philly, a second trip for the National Policy Roundtable at NGLTF headquarters. Between all the aforementioned, plus an NTAC Board meeting at IFGE on its final day before I flew back home from Philly, I really didn’t have much time to watch the war unfold.

On the night it was supposed to take place, I stayed with a dear friend, Kathy Padilla, and we talked about the war and the general direction this country was headed. Waking up Monday morning, I was hopeful – war hadn’t begun that previous night as was advertised. It seemed I was overanxious over what was going to be nothing after all.

After checking in and parking my rental car at Mara Keisling’s apartment in DC, I grabbed a Metro train and headed directly to the Health Coalition’s pre-lobby day conference at the Press Club in downtown DC. Sitting at the “tranny table” with friends Jessica Xavier, Lorraine Sade Baskerville and Ben Singer, as the day went on I began putting thoughts of this new war further out of mind. It wasn’t happening – we were safe after all!

At 4:15, one of the speakers came up to the podium for a brief interruption: America had just begun the bombing in Iraq. An uneasy numbness set in as the last hour of the meeting wound down. I think it’s safe to say I wasn’t the only person who’s interest level in subjects at hand dropped a few notches.

After the conference ended, I had an hour to waste before walking the two blocks south to our reception. Just downstairs from the conference banquet room, I stood transfixed before the bank of large-screen TVs. Each was turned to a different network, all were showing the same live shots of bombs blasting Baghdad. I could not believe our country was actually doing this! For all the Republicans specious claims about Clinton imitating the movie Wag The Dog (premise of which was an administration creating conditions for a war for political gain and avoiding scandal), here we were watching Wag The Dog unfold before our very eyes by these very same Republicans!

And in Orwellian fashion, the press bought it hook, line and sinker and helped sell it to the masses! I stood there alone watching the images, knowing what was true, and what apparently very few in the nation saw. I watched America bomb a country that had nothing to do with the reason we were engaging in this same war. And I was watching it in the Press Club – national symbol of the very institution who did a marvelous job helping to sell it to America’s Barnum Babies! No checks or balances, no keeping government honest this time … just peddling the canned message and giving it the hard-sell.

For the next hour or so, watching the bombs on TV then later walking to the Thomas Building for the reception and even the beginning of the reception, I felt very detached.

“Newspaper lies and government cries
Of war in the east and war in the west –
Fighting one another, killing for big brother,
The Mideast and Africa too ….” War In The East — D.O.A.

Arriving at the Thomas Building, I was vaguely aware of where it was located – just a block east of the White House. One block east was the very man who had his finger figuratively on “the button”, and who was “stable” enough to push for this elective war. Who knew what he was capable of doing?

After an hour, the gathering at the reception had loosened up a little with the snacks and wine. We half-joked about not being able to catch flights back home and shared our disbelief at what had just happened. One of our hosts grabbed our attention and asked if we were enjoying ourselves at the reception – polite applause afterwards. It was a nice distraction, all considered. Then he replied, “good, I hope you really enjoy it because you can’t leave.” Polite laughter.

Again he reiterated, “No, you really can’t leave – they’ve locked down all traffic in and out of downtown Washington. It seems we have a bomb threat in the reflecting pool just south of us and they’ve requested everyone to remain in place.”

Over the uneasy murmurs, I swear you could’ve heard my heart splattering on the floor at that moment. Here I was, right as the Iraq War starts, a block from the White House! Miles from my rental car, over a hundred miles from where I fly back home from, and over a thousand miles from home … what great fortune. I could get blown to bits with the same jerkweeds who decided to start a war “just because,” and I couldn’t even get away from these bozos to save my own life!

What little humor there was died at that moment. Lorraine Sade Baskerville and I just stood there staring at each other with the same stunned look on our faces. We put on our brave faces, but I could see the fear there … and would imagine my own was showing as well. It’s hard to describe that moment in time. Surreality isn’t even close to an apt descriptor. To those of us at that reception, we immediately knew this war would have stark consequences – even if indirectly so.

As it later turned out, that the bomb threat just happened to be a crazy coincidence which had nothing to do with the war – it was a disgruntled farmer pissed off about his tobacco farm subsidies being cut, and decided at that moment in time to drive his tractor into the reflecting pond in front of the White House and make empty threats of having a bomb. The next day, those stunned lobbyists did as I did: we worked our congressional offices in machine-like fashion, professional but emotionless. In every congressional office, the TV’s were on and tuned to the war. We’d watch along with the staff for a few minutes, shake our heads collectively, then break and head for the next appointed rounds – the strangest lobbying foray I’ve ever worked.

“I don’t care what the future brings,
Give a damn about anything,
I’d be fine if they’d only leave me alone.
But it’s time, gotta take a chance
‘Cause I won’t get a second chance.
And I know now I’ll have to make it alone.” — Had A Dream, Roger Hodgson

So now we find ourselves five years hence. Iraq is better than it has been the previous year, but it’s much worse off than it was shortly after the war began – or even before it. The war has created a geopolitical vacuum that’s created new threats unforeseen and largely not possible before it.

America’s additionally exacerbated our armed forces with over 100,000 on disability due to injuries and nearly 4,000 dead. Our fighter planes, artillery, vehicles and other materiel are wearing out much faster than expected, and certainly much quicker than for what budgets prepared. And oil, though stabilized and secured in Iraq, didn’t remain stable but has instead skyrocketed.

This has created much quicker need for fuel additives to stretch oil further, such as corn for ethanol. What wasn’t planned was the escalating cost to corn, causing a corn-growing boom that began supplanting previous wheat growth as corn became the new cash crop. With wheat farming reduced at the same time drought and global demand rose, wheat became both scarce and prices also began their climb.

In the midst of all of this, we had our own economic woes domestically. War in this iteration was outsourced as much as possible to maximize profit. Meanwhile, interest rates rose as did costs on virtually everything else while domestic wages went flat. As more people lost their homes and went bankrupt, the vast consumer base began fearing the future and holding onto their paychecks. And we now see the beginnings of the layoffs as Americans stop spending on anything but essentials.

While the Bush Administration struggles to search for a way out of this corner they’ve painted us into, there’s one fact that can’t be avoided. We can’t afford to bail ourselves out any more. Our money goes to Iraq for the war. Any stopgap loans like those to pay for the $600 economic stimulus tax rebates get borrowed from our dear friends, China. And all the borrowing America does only helps devalue the dollar further, making those same outsourced-job-produced imports even more expensive.

Five years. I’m in awe. I’m awestruck at how comprehensively this war has changed us all. I don’t look at our country the same way, I damn sure don’t look at our leaders the same way, and I’ve even learned not to simply dismiss conspiracies the way I did after hearing the conjectural rants in the previous decade. Maybe conspiracies aren’t there, but one thing that is for certain is the level and the stunning depth of manipulation has increased dramatically in the new millennium, and how deftly it’s played and how well it succeeds.

One might consider it … shocking. Shock and Awe indeed.

“There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor -- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.” — Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at a speech given exactly one year before his assassination

Is Another War Inevitable?

News Headlines 1/7/08: “Iranian Warships Menace Naval Ships”
News Headlines 1/9/08 “Bush calls Iran 'threat to world peace'”

After the way this millennium has begun, I’ve been increasingly relieved as we’re finally reaching the end of this “war presidency.” Nothing could be quite this bad, though there are a few on the GOP side of the ticket that could try to keep the war times rolling.

Out of the entire GOP presidential field, about the only one I could say had a chance at election is Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Not only is he not quite the firebrand of social discrimination as some of the others, but he at least has a firm understanding of the costs of war. Sadly, it was very disappointing to see how he buckled to the RNC party line during the 2004 election season by being a poster boy for the reelection campaign of George W. Bush (someone who knows nothing of war other than to start them).

Some pundits are even referring to him as the Republicans’ “candidate for change.”

However, with the distance from Bush/Cheney, and the impending end of their term in the White House rolling down the pike, I was hoping we’d find more independence, more sanity and more candor from McCain. This past Sunday McCain was on NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert and had this to say when asked about the Iraq invasion given faulty intelligence. Below is the transcript of this exchange:

MR. RUSSERT: If you had known then, if the intelligence came out and said, "We know that Saddam Hussein does not have biological or, or chemical or a nuclear program,” would you still have voted to authorize the war?”

SEN. McCAIN: Well, obviously, given information that we have changes your decision-making process. But Saddam Hussein was still a threat. The sanctions were breaking down. There was a multibillion dollar Oil for Food scandal in the United Nations. The – every day American airplanes were being shot at. Saddam Hussein had used and acquired weapons of mass destruction in the past, and there was no doubt there was going to be in the future. The problem in Iraq, my friend, was not whether we went in or not, it's the way it was mishandled after the initial invasion.

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah, but, Senator, it's an important question because President Bush... has said, "Even if I knew he did not have biological, chemical or nuclear program I still would go into Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein." Would you have?

SEN. McCAIN: I – yes. But the point is that if we had done it right, it's been well chronicled in many, in many books, you and I wouldn't be even discussing that now. The mishandling after the war. Look, I met with a high-ranking former al-Qaeda operative in Iraq recently. And I asked him, "How did you succeed?" He said, "The lawlessness after the initial invasion and Abu Ghraib." And so they were able to recruit people because of the disorder and the mishandling. So you would not be asking me if it hadn't been mishandled, you would've said because we succeeded in an established and stable Iraq, you would've said, "Aren't you glad we went in? Because Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal, most terrible dictators in history, who fought in several wars, used weapons of mass destruction, invaded his neighbor, is now gone from the world scene." That's what you'd be saying.

MR. RUSSERT: But I think there'd be a real debate with the, with the--amongst the American people if we were told he did not have biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

SEN. McCAIN: If frogs had wings--look, Tim, we can talk about lots of hypotheticals. Would we have, would we have stopped Saddam Hussein from going into Kuwait back in '91 when, when he went in? Would we have, would we have said that the Chinese aren't going to cross--would we have known--if we had known that the Chinese were going to cross the Yalu in the Korean War, would we have done it differently? I'd love to get into thousands of historical hypotheticals with us, but what we knew at the time and the information we had at the time that every single intelligence agency in the world believed he had weapons of mass destruction. So...

MR. RUSSERT: So bottom line, the war was not a mistake?

SEN. McCAIN: The war, the invasion was not a mistake.

There we have it, "if frogs had wings...." After a major attack on two of America’s most important cities by a terrorist group holed up in a completely different country, we were right to take down a totally unconnected player in that whole scenario just because we didn’t like him. America, without any needed act of clear aggression worthy of war, may simply invade and overthrow a leader because we believe he’s corrupt, contemptible and not compatible to our own leaders’ tastes.

"'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk or sober.'" — author, G. K. Chesterton

I’m reminded of the military slogan “My country, right or wrong” which has been an unspoken but unmistakable driving force behind a lot of the political fervor behind the recent move by conservatives towards embracing and validating hegemony. In 1881 it was Gen. Carl Schurz (who later became a senator) who uttered the quote: "Our country right or wrong,” but then followed up with “When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right."

Somehow or another, the last part of this phrase got mired in the swamps of ancient history and never made the trip with the first half. Standing alone as it does in modern America, it’s a very jingoistic phrase with a not-so-sublime connotation: “We’ve got the power to do whatever we damn well please – who cares if it’s wrong, or if we’re being hypocritical. We’ll just cover it up and keep going. Try to stop us!”

“Dogs of war won't negotiate.
Dogs of war don't capitulate.
They will take and you will give,
And you must die so that they may live” — Dogs of War, Pink Floyd

As America has long been the exemplary nation, an arbiter of human rights, a beacon of civil justice, and a shining demonstration of democracy to all other hopeful nations around the world, what message does this send? It’s not as if nobody else has seen this. In the age of information, revisionism of history becomes ever more difficult if not fully impossible.

It’s my worry that Russia or China will someday decide “if America can do this in such fashion, so can we!” How do we counter that, or try to convince them otherwise given our track record?

Sen. McCain has been distinguishing himself from the rest of the GOP field as a distinct choice, an independent choice that isn’t a tool of the neo-con RNC. And yet we see him laying cover for the neo-con Bush/Cheney doctrine. Keep in mind that administration is still seated and still trying everything possible to rattle the sabers and attempt to draw Iran offsides, just to give any reason. And Iran stupidly seems to be doing the same. Will Sen. McCain be the next to grab the saber and brandish?

Osama bin Laden is still on the loose more than six years later and terrorist groups are growing and continuing to plot against the “Imperialist Satans” or whatever name-calling they choose these days. Meanwhile the conservative set is more than willing to keep driving straight on down this road into the pitch black, afraid to look to either side to see the crumbling edges or the steep drops beside the precarious road they’ve taken. And the rest of the country’s along for Mr. Toad’s wild ride – uh, make that Mr. Frog-with-Wings’ wild ride, beating on the back window to stop it. Still, it’s eyes fixed forward, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead.

So much for change.

“With no cause, we don't discriminate.
Discovery is to be disowned.
Our currency is flesh and bone” — Dogs of War, Pink Floyd

Conventional Wisdom vs. Reality

“Stop! Hey, what’s that sound? Everybody look what’s going down.” — For What It’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield

An odd incident occurred this past Sunday. I went out to give my front yard what should be the final mowing of the year. No, that’s not the oddity – at least not down here in the southern half of Texas. This is the subtropics, after all. What was odd was that as I plowed through the freshly fallen leaves in the front yard, I hit what I initially thought was a stick until my lawnmower spit it out at me. Instead, I had a foot long snake (thankfully not of the poisonous variety) smack me on the ankle!

Yes, he was apparently alive – at least until shortly after I hit him.

My first thought was that I thankfully decided to mow instead of simply raking up the leaves and leaving the grass cutting for later. Then another thought struck: it’s autumn now, twelve days from winter solstice, and the snakes haven’t hibernated yet.

True, the calendar says it’s a couple weeks from Christmas. Trees are shedding leaves faster than a Persian cat sheds fur in June. Convention says animals hibernate in fall in preparation of winter.

However, in real-time, the days are almost sultry mid-80’s, and the nights are sticky and hovering above the 70-degree mark. Climatologically, this is very much like mid-spring. There’s nothing for creatures to hibernate for when the weather’s warm.

It's actually an apt metaphor for a lot of things recently. When textbook wisdom says that things should always be expected to produce a certain result, we in this day and age tend to accept this without question. Sometimes this leads us away from paying attention to our surroundings, which (as nature often does) throws us some pretty blatant curves from time to time.

“There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.” — For What It’s Worth, Buffalo Springfield

As a country, we’re probably in the most docile and accepting era we’ve ever been in – certainly in my lifetime. This may sound environmental alarmist a-la Al Gore, but we’re paying all our attention to the people telling us what reality is, and no attention at all to the contradicting real life environment displayed in front of our very eyes if we’ll only look. For the life of me, I can’t figure out why we don’t watch nature.

And I’m speaking on human nature, more than Mother Nature in this case.

For instance, after the bungled war in Iraq which was completely fabricated from inaccurate and slanted reading of intelligence, one would think that if intelligence found that Iran held no ongoing nuclear weapons development program, we’d immediately see the pattern and pull back from making the same mistake again. Most especially one would predict that during the run up to national elections. That’s conventional.

Yet when you look at the rhetoric still coming from Pres. George W. Bush and others in the GOP, especially the neo-con set, the bellicosity and brandish of sabers continue at full steam. The spin-meisters are doing their best to put Iran squarely back in the crosshairs and give wind to the sails of pre-emptive hegemony for world harmony.

Another example: the American economy. We’ve become one of the most severe debtor nations on the planet as wages throughout the lower ninety percentile have stagnated or slumped (thanks in large part to outsourcing and offshoring) while energy, food and medical costs have climbed steeply. More alarming, consumer-level credit has recently evaporated under the strain of a mortgage and real estate collapse that looks poised to dwarf the 80’s Reaganomics/Oil Bust Savings & Loan disaster. Convention says this would draw a substantial amount of political attention during presidential primary season, and that the government would preach austerity and saving to consumers while providing the bulk of what relief programs to the same.

Instead, the media still mouths bits about the “surprising strength” of this Bush League/Economic Recovery, the president helps bail out the banks and their investors with programs and lowered interest (which will never escape their tightened fists and into the consumers’ hands), and only one candidate – John Edwards – has even taken the economic disparity seriously in his campaign. There’s an enormous disgust in this nation that’s becoming more restive by the day, yet virtually no one in Washington notices the signs.

Closer to home, take political types who get pinned dead-to-rights on an issue when they’re in the wrong – whether it’s as small as NCTE feeding the transgender community false hopes in Rep. Barney Frank or LGBT politics as our El Dorado, or something as bald as HRC brazenly deceiving the transgender community while simultaneously culling funds and co-opting PR from transgender issues. If not outwardly contrite, one might surmise they’d keep a profile so low as to be virtually invisible ever after, lest they draw the sharpened attention of someone with a memory.

Instead, HRC has embarked upon a “listening tour” of the country (their words, not mine) with the transgender community and its supporters. Needless to say, reports from some locations such as with Pauline Park in New York note that it’s less about them listening as much as it’s them wanting those of us now mistrustful of HRC to listen to them. Even NCTE is getting into the act; with Mara Keisling deigning the oh-so-insider environs of Houston with her own meet-and-greet and stamp your feet tour. That should be an interesting show, to say the least! At this juncture we can only estimate what this will be about, but time will tell. While rivers twist and turn this way and that, they always flow downhill.

Rebecca Juro noted on her “Becky’s Blog” recently a “leaked internal memo” from HRC entitled “Project Win-Back.” Three guesses who they’re trying to win back.

Yes, it appears they feel we’ll give them yet another chance to make things right. Just like before, and the time before that, and … well, you see where this is going. They apparently met with “select transgender community leaders” about finding ways to win back the transgender community.

When a community has been betrayed and outright ditched you might not expect second chances, but they do happen. Then when a second chance has likewise been flaunted, you might expect that third chances are slim. In the rare instance those third chances occur, and when yet again a third deception happens, convention would dictate that the well of chances is dry, and the transgressors would make themselves very scarce.

Convention would also allow that those parties who’ve been transgressed – in this case, we the transgender people – would not be so inclined to be burned a second, a third, much less a fourth time, et. seq. As the old saw goes: there’s no fool like an old fool (speaking precisely to experiences rather than age). After all, who would want to be an “old fool”?

So now we’ll prepare for HRC’s Project Win-Back, we’ll have all the usual suspects out trying to corral the maverick trannies who bolted out of the pen, and bring us back into a trusting frame of mind again. Mind you, all of this comes from an organization and community that’s never really trusted transgenders– certainly not on the level of trust they’ve held and continue to seek, and even without the well-demonstrated (and quite ignominious) track record they themselves have on fidelity.

Will we buy the ploy again? Conventional wisdom would say “no”; the odds are stacked against it. Convention would’ve also dictated that we couldn’t have a Wag-The-Dog type of war unfold before our very eyes – to wit: Iraq. Convention would’ve shown that the arbiter nation of human rights and democracy on the planet would never support concepts such as hegemony, torture or corrupted elections. Convention would’ve declared that such a President could never be re-elected after such treachery.

Conventional logic would deduce that the transgender community would never be hoodwinked again, especially by the same types who have done it before. At least that’s what conventional logic would say ….

As for me, I’ll keep watching what happens in real-time. Let’s hope we’ve all finally learned. It may be mid-December, but I’m not pulling out my coat tomorrow – short sleeves again for me. It’s just another sultry December night … Merry Christmas, y’all!

“American democracy is now in danger—not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die. I do not mean the physical environment; I mean what is called the public sphere, or the marketplace of ideas.” — former Vice Pres. Al Gore