Sinister

Monday loldog

2009-07-20T08:46:00.001-07:00

I've been inconsistent about doing these every Monday - sorry about that. :-)

see more dog and puppy pictures

Happy Friday!

2009-07-17T08:44:00.000-07:00

Lewis Black breaks it down. NSFW.

...between you and your doctor?

2009-07-16T22:46:00.001-07:00

One of the primary arguments made by right wingers opposed to public health care is that they don't want the government getting between you and your doctor. The idea is that if you allow the government to run health care, suddenly health care will become this big bureaucratic nightmare, and it'll take forever to get, say, something as simple as a prescription for antibiotics for a sinus infection, let alone to get approved for a major surgery.

God forbid, right?

Here's the thing. We have that level of bureaucratic nightmare already. The for profit health industry, made up of HMOs, insurance companies, for-profit hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and the army of lobbyists they send to Capitol Hill, already stand between you and your doctor. We're always hearing horror stories of an insurance company that refuses to approve a major and necessary surgery. We're always hearing about people with employer-provided health plans that still leave them with huge out of pocket costs. We're always hearing about people being bankrupted by hospital bills because they either don't have health insurance or their policies are so full of holes that they really aren't covered for anything. Not to mention the thousands of Americans who literally can't get health insurance because they had the nerve to get a “pre-existing” chronic condition, like cancer.

But what about the other end of that “don't want the government getting between you and your doctor” argument? The side that says that simple things, like, say, getting antibiotics for a sinus infection, would become a nightmare?

Three weeks ago, I went to see my doctor because I had a head cold of some sort. That went pretty smoothly. I have an HMO. I called the central office, they called my doctor, and somehow the layers of administrative staff figured everything out and I got my appointment. Fine. My doctor said that I probably had a virus and he didn't want to prescribe me antibiotics at that point, but – and this is the critical bit – if I were to develop symptoms of a bacterial sinus infection, I should call him and he would call me in a prescription for antibiotics.

Cut to three days ago. My partner and I had been kind of passing the bugs back and forth between each other, and they had finally decided to settle directly in my sinus cavity, causing one side of my head to throb like the dickens.

I called my doctor. Ok, no, I didn't call my doctor, because I can't. I called the phone number on the back of my insurance card, and spoke to a medical receptionist...somewhere. Since it was after hours, the only person I could really speak to was a medical advice nurse, which would mean spending 18 minutes on hold. Or I could get a call back the next day. I asked them to call me back.

In what was to be the last pleasant surprise of the whole ordeal, I did get a call back from a nurse the same night. I don't know who this nurse was, or what connection she had to my doctor, but she did call me back, ask me about my symptoms, and promise to pass a message to my doctor's office to get me some antibiotics. But it certainly wouldn't be until the next day, and since my doctor was going to be out of the office the next day, it might not be then either.

The next day, I got no call from anyone at the HMO. I decided that if I wasn't going to get any antibiotics, I should at least get some pseudoephedrine from the pharmacy down the street from my work. It was at that point that I realized that I live in the only state in the union where pseudoephedrine requires a prescription from a doctor.

So I called back the HMO, spoke to another medical receptionist, who passed me to another nurse, who promised to send a message to my doctor's office. We're now 48 hours since I tried to use my insurance to get something as simple as antibiotics, and now – pseudoephedrine. And I have neither.

This morning, after suffering through another night of having a sinus infection, and breathing in steam, and shooting salt water up my nose, and taking ibuprofen, I decided that I'd had bloody well enough. I called the HMO back, spoke to several people, all of whom promised to send an urgent message to my doctor, and promised to call me back. Finally, somehow, I got through to my doctor's office, and I basically complained at the woman until she told me that there was a prescription for pseudoephedrine waiting for me at the pharmacy down the street.

Oh, here's another layer of bureaucracy. Because I have an HMO, I can only get my prescriptions filled (if I want my insurance to pay for them) at one of several facilities controlled by my health plan. If they send the prescription to a different pharmacy, it's not covered.

So anyway, I had them send the pseudoephedrine to the pharmacy down the street (because how much could a bottle of Sudafed cost), and the antibiotic to one of the HMO's facilities that's convenient for my partner to swing by on his lunch break (because I didn't know how much that would cost, and I wanted it covered if it was going to be expensive).

Three days. Three days to get a prescription for antibiotics and pseudoephedrine, after already having seen my doctor and having him tell me to do exactly what I did – call him if I develop symptoms of a sinus infection so he can call me in some antibiotics.

So riddle me this, right wing loons who trumpet the “freedom” of market-based health care. What freedom do I have right now with regard to my health care that will be removed if I go to a government-run system?

The illusion of “market-driven” health care rests upon the fallacy that the consumer has a real choice in where they get their health insurance. The reality is that, for most Americans, if they have health insurance, it's the health insurance that their jobs offer them, take it or leave it. They can't really shop around, because the open market is prohibitively expensive, which is why the employer system exists in the first place. Because consumers have no real choice in the matter, there's no real incentive to provide good service, beyond that necessary for the insurance companies to turn a tidy profit. And the bureaucratic nightmare of multiple payers and payees in the system means that nobody is properly served, really.

We have a system right now where people are not getting necessary procedures, tests, and where health care is rationed based on arcane insurance rules that create loopholes in coverage and bankrupt people and destroy lives. We have a system right now where something as simple as getting a prescription for antibiotics and pseudoephedrine takes three days and countless phone calls and headaches.

So how is this better?

In honor of Bastille Day

2009-07-14T07:18:00.001-07:00

here's this:

This ain't your daddy's communism

2009-07-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

I've gone through a lot of political phases in my life. However, ever since I first started looking at the world and became what I would consider a "politically aware" person, I've gravitated toward the ideas of Karl Marx.

The reason I have done so is because Karl Marx crystallizes the fundamental structure and history of global economic systems in a way that clearly defines the historical dynamics that define each era. Marx's dialectical materialism sees global economics, and, by extension, global politics, as a series of arguments. For example, the "thesis" of feudalism is challenged by the "antithesis" of bourgeois capitalism, thus precipitating a political revolution in France that overthrows the feudal monarchy and places the bourgeoisie, or small trades people, in control.

Now, of course, it's a heck of a lot more complicated than that. The French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror and ultimately collapsed, leading to the rise of Napoleon and the reinstatement of a new generation of aristocracy, which was again challenged and, well, French history happened.

Still, though, when you peel away the layers, the fundamental forces at work are driven by a conflict between those who control the economic structure, and those who have no control. That's absolutely incontrovertible. The outcomes may not be as neat and clean as Marx might have thought, but the conflict is there, and it's real, and it drives what happens.

To put it another way, Marx was not correct in his predictions about how history would unfold over the 150 years since he published the Communist Manifesto. Marx would have thought that we'd be well on our way to communism by now. Clearly, that's not the case.

However, I believe Marx did get the fundamentals right. The idea of history as a series of arguments makes a lot of sense, and we can apply it to where we are today.

So let's take a look at where we are today and apply Marx's ideas to it.

Global capitalism is at a very interesting point right now. A great majority of countries have stripped away barriers that formerly restricted the movement of capitalist businesses across borders, and we've got what everyone calls a "global economy." Trade between countries is largely free of restrictions, and global businesses can basically base themselves wherever they want to and do business with anyone they want to, with a few notable exceptions.

This new freedom for capital comes at a great cost. While capital is free to move around the globe, labor is not. Workers are largely restricted to seeking work in their home countries, and have to live by the rules and restrictions of their home governments. This fundamental contradiction of global capitalism is a real problem that will only get worse with time.

Thus, a country with lax labor laws, like Malaysia, is great for business, because companies like Nike can plop down there, build what amounts to a prison camp for their workers, and pay them slave wages to make sneakers that American consumers will pay $100 for.

Let's look at India, and the growing tech industry there. American (and international) companies are outsourcing call center operations to cities like Guragon, because labor is a hell of a lot cheaper there than it is here.

The argument, then, is clear. It is a conflict between the global freedom of business essentially to do what it wants, and the political realities that prevent labor from having that same freedom.

If you look at the situation more closely, however, you see that it is untenable.

Capitalism is a system that evolves based on the relative education and organization of a labor force and the pressure that labor force puts on its government. The United States used to be as lax with its labor laws as countries like Malaysia and India. It was only because of the difficult and dangerous work of union organizers and labor activists that the United States gained some semblance of a respect for the rights of workers.

Unfortunately, much of that work has been undone or thwarted by the opening of global markets. It is precisely because of our labor laws that so many countries are outsourcing - because if they can get their labor cheaper elsewhere, why should they bother to follow our laws?

Again, I know that it's a hell of a lot more complex than that, but if you peel away the layers, only this conflict remains.

Now, what happens when Malaysian and Indian workers become more educated, better organized, and begin to demand the same things that American workers take for granted? Hell, forget American workers - we're much more oppressed than many workers in Europe, who are much better organized and enjoy the protections of a generous social safety net.

The fundamental question - and where this particular historical argument will come to a head - is this: what happens when the power of global labor is equalized - when all countries reach a similar level of development, and capital can't find anywhere else to outsource?

Or maybe the fundamental question is this: if capital, which means jobs, keeps moving overseas, and workers keep being paid a tiny fraction of the value of their labor, and companies keep charging massive retail markups for their products - who, exactly, are they going to sell their products to?

If you pay a worker 13 cents an hour to make a sneaker, and then turn around and try to sell that sneaker for $100, who's going to buy it?

That's the argument. That's the question that will define this era of global capitalism - the fundamental conflict between the freedom of business to run roughshod over the globe, and the inability of workers to do the same.

Alright, so if that's the argument, what's the counter-argument? What's the antithesis to global capitalism?

Communism?

In a word: eventually. In two words: eventually. Maybe.

Capitalism is a fundamentally unstable and unsustainable system, predicated on a belief that private business has unlimited power to control almost everything in society. It's an economic dictatorship disguised as economic freedom.

I was having an argument with a friend of mine a while ago. There was a major discussion here about what to do with this big commercial sign that has become an icon of the city. He made the point that whoever bought the sign and owned the property on which the sign was placed had the right to do whatever they wanted with the sign. Period. And we, as residents of the city, who have to look at the sign every day as we cross a certain bridge, would have no say in any decisions regarding the sign.

How is that freedom? Sure, it's freedom for whoever can raise enough money to buy the sign and then rub their hands together like Mr. Burns and say "eeeexcellent" as they turn the sign into something horrendous. But what about the rest of us? Why don't we get a say?

Let's look at it from another angle. When you go to work, do you have any control over your job, or are you just selling your labor to the highest bidder and doing what they ask you to do without question, because in this economic climate, you don't dare rock the boat?

When you buy toothpaste, do you have any say in what goes into it? Can you be absolutely sure that it won't kill you? Without strict government scrutiny, what assurance would you have that your toothpaste was anything more than mint-flavored sugar paste? Is that freedom?

How can we square the idea of living in a political democracy while at the same time living in an economic tyranny in which we have absolutely no say in some of the most important aspects of our lives?

This economic crisis that we're dealing with now has really crystallized this fundamental contradiction. We as workers and consumers had absolutely no say in what Wall Street and the banks did. Yet what they did affected us in profound and disturbing ways. Because of their crookedness and ineptitude, the economy crashed. Millions lost their jobs. Millions more lost their homes. And we couldn't do a damned thing about it.

Sure, the government acted. It gave the perpetrators billions of dollars in loans, while giving us very very little.

The economic crisis should have proven to everyone watching the fallacy of laissez-faire capitalism - because we saw the result. Without strict controls on their actions, the Wall Street execs and the banks went nuts and blew up the system.

In order to function, capitalism requires a huge scaffolding of rules and regulations and controls set up by the government to prevent it from just completely blowing up. Even then, it still blows up.

So what do we have? We have a system that has a natural tendency to blow itself up in control of the world in a completely unaccountable regime of global economic tyranny.

Clearly, the situation is untenable, and there will be a point where this conflict will come to a head. The thesis of capitalism will meet the antithesis of ____, and a new dynamic will emerge.

It is my opinion, or rather, my hope, that the ____ in that scenario will be a massive, global organization of the working class that will demand that the economic dictatorship of capitalism come to an end and will begin to institute a system of economic democracy - in other words, a transition from capitalism to socialism, and eventually, I hope, to the stateless utopia of pure communism.

Will it happen in my lifetime? Hell, will it ever happen?

Who knows? Somehow, I doubt that I'll live to see it. But huge changes in the way society is structured have happened before - again, look at the French Revolution. Look at the end of slavery in the United States - another class conflict that came to a head - a class of people labeled as property rising up and demanding to be treated as human beings. That was a huge restructuring of the fundamental economics of a huge part of the United States.

So what's a poor communist to do? Should I hide in a corner somewhere reading Marx, not giving my money to the evil capitalist institutions I so despise? Should I write an ideologically pure newspaper and shove it in the face of every worker I see, hoping to convert a few to my cause and thereby precipitate global revolution?

Or should I participate in society, live in it, enjoy some of the nice things that capitalism has to offer, while at the same time working within progressive and labor organizations to improve the lot of the working class, because I recognize that it's going to be a while before we can even begin to talk about fundamentally changing the way things are done in the world?

The Communist Party chooses the latter option. The CPUSA supported Obama in the last election. It works within progressive organizations, championing the cause of labor, of peace groups, of minority rights groups, while at the same time providing a crucial Marxist voice that would otherwise be missing from these movements. It takes a practical, realistic view of the situation, realizing that the fundamental truth of Marx's analysis is that capitalism must (and will) eventually fail on its own, with or without the assistance of an organized worker's movement, and that any communist movement that tries to "jump start" the revolution will cause more problems than it solves.

Now, I don't agree with everything the CPUSA says, and I find its continued emphasis on Marxism-Leninism to be troubling. I'm a Marxist-nothing-ist, and I'm not too fond of what Lenin did during the Bolshevik revolution. To be honest, I think the whole issue of the USSR should be put to rest, because it belongs to a different era, though there are things we can learn from it - like, again, a society that tries to jump-start a revolution when the rest of the world isn't ready for it is doomed to failure. You cannot have a socialist revolution in one country - especially not in a global economy.

Still, the CPUSA is the most sensible and practical of the Marxist groupings in the United States, and I'm proud of its history of resisting oppression and scapegoating by the McCarthyists. I'm going to be getting more involved with the Communist Party now that I live in a state with at least one local club, and I won't shy away from people who think it's ridiculous to be a communist in this day and age. I'll argue my convictions with anyone.

After all, we have nothing to lose but our chains. We have a world to win.

Happy Friday

2009-07-09T23:07:00.000-07:00

Or not. Apparently Disney doesn't like people posting their animations on YouTube.

So, appropriately, I present instead, "How to Irritate People."

MA sues Federal Government over DOMA

2009-07-08T12:57:00.000-07:00

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law." It says the approximately 16,000 same-sex couples who have married in Massachusetts since the state began performing gay marriages in 2004 are being unfairly denied federal benefits given to heterosexual couples.

This is fantastic news. Let's hope the Homophobama Administration doesn't stomp this one into the ground like they did the last one.

Hi

2009-07-07T23:17:00.000-07:00

Is anything happening in the world? I just really haven't heard anything. Except, that, apparently some singer died, and that's more important than, well, anything else that's happening anywhere else.

I could swear we were still involved in two wars. I guess not, though, since the news stations can take an entire day to talk about a dead musician's extremely overblown memorial service.

Monday loldog

2009-07-06T08:05:00.000-07:00

see more dog and puppy pictures

Prescient quote of the day.

2009-07-05T23:31:00.000-07:00

"Is that to say we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a larger scale, upon the territory of the whole earth; and because from the uniting of all these contradictions in a single group, where they will stand face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the proletariat."

-K. Marx

We have a globalized economy. The contradictions are there. Governments around the world are scrambling to shore up the scaffolding to prop up this (metaphor comparing capitalism to an unstable structure), but financial crisis after financial crisis cause the (see previous metaphor) to crumble a little bit more every time.

Ask yourself: why was it that 50 years ago, General Motors could afford to pay its workers a decent wage, health benefits, and pensions, and today it can't even pay them a decent wage? It's not all about the quality of cars. It's not even entirely about alleged corruption or unreasonableness from the UAW. So what's the answer?

Ask yourself: why can't you find a pair of sneakers made in the United States by unionized workers?

Ask yourself: where are your Levi's jeans made?

In a globalized economy, capital can move around the world. Labor cannot. Thus, capital can plunk itself down in Malaysia and pay workers 13 cents an hour to make shoes that American consumers will pay $100 for. But if those American consumers don't have a job, because capital is going where the labor is cheapest, then what is our economy based on?

Is this kind of system sustainable?

Good God. This rambling lunatic was very nearly Vice President.

2009-07-05T10:16:00.000-07:00

Can you make any sense out of this? Does she even take a breath?

Also.

Happy Friday!

2009-07-03T09:55:00.001-07:00

Bonus Happy Friday

2009-06-25T22:39:00.000-07:00

Because Weird Al is funny.

Happy Friday

2009-06-25T22:15:00.001-07:00

For obvious reasons. This song is a major memory marker from my childhood.

Michael Jackson - Billie Jean
by hushhush112

Whatever else you say about the man, he was talented.

Monday Loldog.

2009-06-22T11:54:00.001-07:00

see more dog and puppy pictures

Ok, now I don't know what's happening in Iran.

2009-06-21T19:47:00.001-07:00

I just watched the horrifying video of the girl Neda who was shot and died on the street. There is clearly much, much, more going on here than a simple election protest. However, I don't think turning a website green in solidarity with the protesters or with Moussavi is really helpful - it's the digital equivalent of a "Free Tibet" sticker. It makes us feel better, but nobody in the Chinese government is going to look at our cars and have a change of heart about Tibet.

Like I said before, Moussavi is simply a government-approved candidate who, if he takes power, probably won't be any more of a reformer than Ahmadinejad. At this point, though, it looks like whatever is happening is bigger than Moussavi and has gone way beyond the disputed election. It seems like Iran is at a pivotal moment, where the people are clearly demanding significant change, possibly a major rethinking of their whole system of government. I hope something good comes of all of this, but I have no idea what that might be.

It makes me absolutely sick to see innocents being gunned down by government militias.

Happy Friday

2009-06-19T07:34:00.001-07:00

Just a really good song.

"Civil liberties under Obama" forum 6/17/09

2009-06-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

I wasn't able to attend this event, but it sounds like a lot of important topics were discussed. Here's a press release summarizing the forum. The forum itself will be broadcast on cable access, to be scheduled at a later date.

Overflow Crowd Attends Forum - Civil Liberties Under Obama: Are We Still At Risk?
By Mark Kramer, National Lawyers Guild

On June 17, an overflow crowd of 100 attended a forum - “Civil Liberties Under Obama: Are We Still At Risk?” at Portland State University. The event was sponsored by the Portland Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG), the ACLU of Oregon, Peace and Justice Works, the American Constitution Society, and others.

Participants included Steve Wilker (ACLU cooperating attorney), Tom Nelson (NLG attorney litigating against the NSA for warrantless wiretapping), Jo Ann Bowman (Executive Director of Oregon Action and former State Rep, co-host of KBOO FM community radio), Steven Wax (Federal Public Defender - author of Kafka Comes to America, Fighting for Justice in the War on Terror”), Ashlee Albies (NLG attorney litigating against the government over warrantless surveillance) and David Fidanque (Executive Director of the ACLU of Oregon).

Moderator (former US Senate Candidate) Steve Novick opened the session with a challenge to the panelists, questioning whether in light of recent events, President Bush was as much of a threat to civil liberties as we believed, whether President Obama had decisively turned the page on Bush’s abuses, or whether President Obama was equally bad as President Bush. While there was not unanimous agreement, there was a consensus that President Bush had fundamentally undermined civil liberties and that President Obama had made some substantial progress in curbing the abuses of the Bush regime, including a commitment to close down Guantanamo, reverse reactionary executive orders, stop referring to the “War on Terror” and a commitment to better respect the due process rights of detainees. At the same time, all agreed that President Obama had not gone far enough and was pursuing a number of troubling Bush policies, including

• Maintaining the “State Secrets Doctrine” as a shield against transparency and litigation to hold perpetrators of civil liberties abuses responsible;

• Maintaining the right to use preventive detention without adequate court oversight;

• Maintaining the right to use warrantless wiretaps, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); and

• Reserving for a select “few” detainees (both at Guantanamo and elsewhere) prosecution through military commissions or secret courts without adequate due process.

ACLU cooperating attorney Steve Wilker reminded the audience that American history is littered with sorry degradations to our civil liberties and that the responsibility for this lies with both political parties.

Jo Ann Bowman spoke about the parallels between racial profiling in Portland (against Blacks and Hispanics) and the preventive detention of Muslims and non-whites on sometimes bogus and other times flimsy or unreasonable grounds. She critiqued both the Oregon’s new Attorney General John Kroger and Bureau of Labor and Industries chief Brad Avakian for refusing to consider a class action suit to challenge racial profiling.

NLG attorney Tom Nelson spoke about a number of travesties of justice in which innocent citizens and organizations were wrongfully arrested, subject to secret rendition, and, in some cases, tortured, including one of his clients who still awaits justice in the courts. For Nelson, the critical inquiry is whether we will ever find out what was done in our names under the Bush regime. Until we find that out, he said, we are still at risk.

Steve Wax spoke of his personal experience representing an innocent Guantanamo detainee and the representation of other innocent detainees by the Federal Public Defender’s Office. He noted that Guantanamo was just the tip of the iceberg, that there were more than 500 detainees across the world (including at the Bagram Air Base in Iraq) languishing, many of them innocent, and many of them held on exaggerated charges or without any charge, and with little or no prospect of a due process trial. Wax challenged the Obama administration’s opposition to releasing evidence explaining why detainees are held by the government, even to the detainees or their attorneys. Wax forcefully challenged the claim that American courts are unable to handle alleged terrorists. He noted a number of cases in which the courts have adjudicated persons accused of terrorism, mass murder, war crimes, etc. Wax was open to using military commissions for a select few individuals accused of war crimes but only under the due process afforded by the Uniform Code of Justice, rather than the commissions set up by Congress (both Democrat and Republican), which still hid evidence from the accused.

NLG attorney Ashlee Albies spoke at length about her work on the Al Haramain case, where a Muslim charity is suing the government for secret and warrantless wiretaps. Despite vociferous attempts by the government to kick the case out of the courts, the judiciary has kept the case alive while at the same time keeping secret the document discovered by the charity apparently demonstrating the government’s illegal wiretaps.

ACLU Executive Director Dave Fidanque noted how the ACLU discovered through courageous whistle blowers and the Freedom of Information Act prolific evidence (available online at the ACLU website) demonstrating civil liberties abuses, including torture and secret rendition. He criticized both the Bush and Obama administrations and those members of Congress who were thwarting attempts for transparency and accountability. He called for a special prosecutor and independent inquiry to look into the origins of the policies (some of which began under Democratic administrations) to explore the justifications for such policies so that we can avoid abuses in the future.

All of the speakers agreed that we are still at risk and we will remain at risk until the history of recent civil liberties abuses is brought to light and the architects of those abuses are held accountable. The need for vigilance has not been reduced by the election of a somewhat more progressive President.

What nobody seems to be saying about Iran

2009-06-17T12:39:00.000-07:00

Iran is not a democracy. The "election" they just had featured four government-approved candidates. The current kerfuffle is between two of those government-approved candidates.

All hopefuls for high elected office must be cleared by the Guardian Council, a 12-member body of clerics and scholars loyal to the ruling theocracy. The council often rejects potential candidates considered too liberal or critical of the Islamic system. For Friday's election, just four of more than 470 possible candidates were allowed.

Now, if this kerfuffle turns into a genuine movement to overthrow the clerical leadership that actually controls the government and institute real democratic reform, then I'll get behind it. But trumpeting the cause of one government-approved candidate over another government-approved candidate, neither of whom are actual reformers who are going to move Iran away from an oppressive, radical theocracy that threatens Israel and the West? I'll pass, thanks.

Beyond which, again, the real power in Iran rests not with the President, but with the clerical leadership. The President is little more than a figurehead with nominal constitutional powers.

Why do Republicans hate our troops?

2009-06-17T07:28:00.001-07:00

The House just passed a war funding bill, with all but five Republicans voting against it.

Why do Republicans hate our troops?

No excuses.

2009-06-12T18:54:00.000-07:00

Obama's "Justice" department crossed a line today by filing a hideously hateful brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. The brief contained legal arguments comparing gay marriage to incest and parroting far right homophobic viewpoints that would make Pat Robertson giddy. Worse, it said that DOMA is constitutional, and that denying gay people marriage equality is not the same thing as denying interracial couples the same equality that led to the Loving v. Virginia decision. Interestingly, today is the 42nd anniversary of that decision, which decriminalized interracial marriage nationwide. Obama sure has an odd way of celebrating that anniversary.

Obama has shown a consistent disregard, if not an open hostility, toward the GLBT community. During the campaign he hosted homophobic gospel singer Donnie McClurkin. He had the bigoted fundamentalist Rick Warren do the invocation at his inauguration. His stance opposing marriage equality was used by the hatemongers who helped pass Prop 8 in California.

Yet the GLBT community voted for him in droves. Why? Because he told us what we wanted to hear, and we were "realists" about the "fact" that he could "never support marriage equality" and still be a "viable candidate." We could still get him to overturn DOMA, we told ourselves, and pass the Matthew Shepard Act, and repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, etc. Marriage equality would have to wait until the bigots, overwhelmingly old and white, died off, and the new, progressive generation, could take full control of the political process.

You know what? Fuck that.

Fuck all of it.

Fuck political realism. Fuck expediency. Fuck it all to hell. And Fuck Obama.

Because we did all of that, we gave Obama the benefit of the doubt, we trusted the Democrats to do the right thing, and they shit all over us.

Not only that, but now Obama and his "Justice Department" are actively undermining us. At least the right wingers are honest about their intent to demonize us. The Democrats pretend to be our friends and then stab us in the back. Which is worse?

What's worse is that there are progressives today who are defending this atrocity of a legal brief supporting DOMA. Obama is a President who has to "uphold the law" and DOMA is "the law." The Justice Department is "legally required" to defend DOMA.

No. I'm sorry, but that's just not ok.

I work in family law. I spend my days working on divorce case after divorce case. Straight couples who have the right to marry, do so, and then rip each other to shreds when it doesn't work out. I don't even have that right, and sometimes it just kills me that I'm deconstructing marriages, when I can't legally enter into one.

This issue isn't about legalistic arguments or what someone is legally supposed to do. It's just not.

Marriage equality is an issue of moral outrage. It is legal discrimination against a class of people for no good reason.

By filing this hateful brief, the Obama administration has shown that they care more about the technicalities of the law than they do about correcting a civil rights injustice. Moreover, they've used every argument they can against marriage equality in such a brutally thorough manner that if their arguments succeed, they'll severely hurt anyone else's chances to get justice and equality through the courts.

If you support this opinion, or you believe Obama's Justice Department was right in writing it, then you are just as bad as the bigots who wrote it. I don't care what your reasoning is.

I want our community in the streets. This is Pride week in many cities. Let's put a little bit of moral outrage in our parades. Let's turn up the heat on Obama and show him that we won't take his homophobic bullshit sitting down.

And let's not give him or the Democrats the benefit of the doubt in the next elections. It's time to stop compromising. It's time to start organizing.

Happy Friday

2009-06-12T00:43:00.001-07:00

Possibly the funniest thing I've ever seen:

Language Nazi strikes.

2009-06-12T00:40:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm the language Nazi.

Two articles have pissed me off recently.

One: [Some American Idol dick] admits he's gay in an interview.

So is he gay outside of the interview?

Should be: "In an interview, [some American Idol dick] admits he's gay."

Two: "Lightning kills boy while fishing with Father."

Was the lightning fishing with the father, or was the kid?

Grr.

New poetry

2009-06-10T22:51:00.001-07:00

Ok, not exactly new.

But this is an excerpt from a collection of poetry I'm working on. Comments and criticism are welcome. This was written as a tribute to Allen Ginsberg on the 10th anniversary of his death.

4. America 2007

America I've given you all and now I'm nothing.
America two dollars and twentyseven cents won't even buy a gallon of gas June 12, 2007.
I can't stand my president's mind.
America when will we end war?
Go fuck yourself with your Guantanamo.
Your Patriot Acts like a fool.
I won't write my poem till you're in my right mind.
America when will you be rational?
When will you take off your mask?
I'm sick of your insane demands.
I refuse to be reasonable.
America pragmatism is a compromise between idealism and barbarity.
America realism is an excuse for barbarity.
Are you being barbaric?
I haven't read a newspaper for months every day another editorial tells me it's ok to torture.
America I feel sentimental about the Bill of Rights.
America I'm still a communist at heart I'm not sorry.
My mind is made up; there's going to be trouble.
You should have seen me reading Marx.
America are you going to let your emotional life be run by People Magazine?
I hate People Magazine.
I'm forced to read its insipid cover every time I go to the grocery store.
It's always telling me about famous people.
Actors are famous. Athletes are famous. Everybody's famous but me.
It occurs to me that I am America.
I am talking to myself again.

Asia is rising against me.
What chance do I have?
I'd better consider my national resources.
My national resources consist of two computers, millions of brain cells, an unpublishable train of thought that thunders at a zillion miles an hour and should be kept in a mental institution.
Not to mention my cat, or the millions of uninsured Americans who live paycheck to paycheck under the watchful eye of the credit reporting agencies.
My ambition is to be President despite the fact that I'm a left-handed gay Jew.

America how can I write a holy litany in Allen Ginsberg's silly mood?
My strophes are as individual as Allen's, more so they're all stolen from him.
America free the detainees in your secret CIA prisons.
America get the hell out of Iraq.
America constitutional rights must not die.
America when I was twenty I went to the biennial convention of the Socialist International in Paris I heard speeches by Tony Blair and Gerhardt Schroeder and Yasser Arafat walked right by me and everyone was angelic and sentimental about the workers even though none of them knew what it meant to be one we had this one party on a yacht in the Seine in fancy suits and got up on the roof and sang the Internationale clutching champagne flutes and million dollar smiles.
Everybody must have been a hypocrite.
America you really don't want to go to war again.
America it's them bad Arabs. Them Arabs them Arabs and them North Koreans. And them Arabs.
Them Arabs want to eat us alive.
Them Arabs want to take the crosses out of our churches.
Them Arabs want to blow themselves up in our synagogues.
Them Arabs are religion mad.
They want to fly planes into Chicago. Them want to blow up their shoes in Cleveland. Them need a copy of the Koran in all of our hotel rooms.
That no good.
America this is quite serious.
America this is the impression I get from watching cable news.
America is this correct?
I'd better get right down to the job.
It's true I don't want to join the Army or flip burgers at a fast food joint; I'm near-sighted and hyperactive anyway.
America I'm putting my own queer shoulder to the wheel.

Monday loldog

2009-06-08T07:46:00.001-07:00

see more dog and puppy pictures