GLAAD has no right to be mad at WTHR for not following a journalistic standard like the AP stylebook. And I’m not transphobic because I supported the Human Rights Ordinance and I helped a screaming tranny lose a case for free.

From the 2006 edition of the AP stylebook:

transgender Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics of the opposite sex or present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth.

If there preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.

What really bothered me more than anything else was his insinuation that since he supported the HRO and helped a transwoman, that he can’t be transphobic. That seems pretty close to “I can’t be racist, because I have black friends.”

There are some things in Indianapolis I don’t miss….

 If you have an account already, you can see that no one has been able to comment on Jim’s “blog” since July. 

Shorter Abdul Hakim-Shabazz: Big penises make for good politics!

I’m sure Abdul’s attitude has nothing to do with the fact that Marion County Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy called Abdul’s show a “POS”.

When Treacy denied him an interview, Abdul came back with this gem:

“Now I don’t blame Ed for not wanting to face me and engage in a discussion. I’d be hesitant if if I were going head-to-head with someone who was my intellectual superior. I’d also be worried about throwing verbal grenades at someone who would just pick them up, pull the pin and throw them back.And I’d probably sweat like a Girl Scout at R. Kelly’s house if I had to argue on the merits and couldn’t just talk out of my rear.”

First of all, who is Abdul? He runs a fairly popular show on a puny little radio station that can’t be heard very far outside of metro Indianapolis. He serves as an “of counsel” for Lewis and Wilkins LLP. According to Wikipedia, an “of counsel” is:

“the title of an attorney who is employed by a law firm or an organization, but is not an associate or a partner. According to ABA Formal Opinion 90-357 the term ‘of counsel’ is to describe ‘a close, regular, personal relationship.’”

According to their bio of Abdul, after law school (in 2003) he served as an aide to then Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan. He served in a media, policy, and public affairs role. The bio also states that he:

has extensive political and public policy experience. He has covered politics in both Indiana and Illinois.

One has to wonder how he got that “extensive political and public policy experience” working as AN AIDE! And if I’m not mistaken, Jim Ryan was Attorney General till 2004. Abdul worked for WMAY in June of 2004, so where’s all this so called “legislative experience” coming from? Working for Jim Ryan as an aide for a year or so makes Abdul a “superior intellect” politically?

He’s compared himself to the Economist, in terms of where he fits into the Indiana blogosphere. But last time I checked, I didn’t see many articles in the Economist that mentioned a lawmaker’s penis or used statutory rape of Girl Scouts as a vehicle for a joke. I have seen that in Hustler cartoons though….

Someone’s good at blowing smoke out their ass, but it’s not Ed Treacy.

P.S.

The Economist usually proofreads their commentary:

It seems she’s trying to cover for her untruths about Bosnia.

Not that I’m proud of it, but in my twenties I became a very conservative Republican. I remember all the nasty things that the right wing threw at the Clinton family. The fact that Hillary would engage in the same type of smearing, is exactly why I don’t support her.

I have to wonder how many Democrats in Indiana are swayed by either of these stories. The Howey-Gauge Poll in February showed Obama leading Hillary 40% to 20%, with 36% undecided.
Do you think either controversy will change these numbers? I’m skeptical.

Conservatives will settle on personal attacks because they don’t have a plan. Their “trickle down” economics has trickled down poverty, job losses, consolidation of power, and the destroyed America’s manufacturing sector. The gap between the rich and poor is verging on 1920’s proportions. Amazingly, the Republican’s answer to these problems is free market capitalism. Einstein’s definition of insanity rings in my ears when I hear them talk this line of shit. Unfettered capitalism has brought unfettered greed and unfettered corruption.

That all being said, I’m not shocked that the Republicans are attacking both Obama and Carson with islamophobic rhetoric and fear, it’s all they have.

The Democratic candidate for Indiana’s 7th Congressional District is in law enforcement, sits on the City-County Council, and is the grandson of an Indiana political legend, Julia Carson. Andre Carson wants to end the Iraq War, is against privatizing Social Security, and supports strengthening homeland security against another terrorist attack. Andre’s link to the national party is strong, so much so that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has targeted Carson for financial support.

With all these positives, where is Carson’s Achilles’ heel? The headline this morning answers the question: ” ‘I am multifaceted’ Carson’s Muslim faith, Farrakhan’s funeral speech raise questions for congressional candidate. “ The Associated Press states it even more bluntly: “Muslim has eye on Congress”. I wonder if the Associated Press has ever written a story entitled “Baptist minister (or Mormon) runs for President” or  “Methodist runs against Andre Carson”? It seems that Andre’s religion only matters because of what religion it is.

It’s bad enough that the mainstream media thinks Andre’s religion is fair game, but the right wing blogosphere takes it to a whole new level:

“Farrakhan Endorsed Muslim Makes Run For US Congress”

“Muslim with ties to Farrakhan may be headed to Congress”

“Muslims Seek Break Through In Carson Candidacy”

The last post is from the blog Advance Indiana. The blogger behind Advance Indiana is local gay Republican attorney, Gary Welsh. Welsh can’t seem to blog enough about Andre Carson. A google search of his blog reveals 11 pages (157 posts ) that mention Andre Carson. Worst of all, many of his Carson posts are misleading. Example: “Carson Blames Grandmother For Farrakhan Ties.” Welsh says:

Carson stuck to his story of blaming his grandmother for Farrakhan’s presence at her funeral, saying the family simply respected one of her dying wishes. He also passed up another opportunity to repudiate what amounted to an endorsement of his candidacy by Farrakhan during his eulogy at her funeral.

This is the kind of journalism/blogging that would have made William Randolph Hearst proud. Carson “stuck to his story”? Welsh has NO PROOF that Andre was lying, but he frames it as a “story“?

Later Welsh says:

Despite his claims of inclusion, Carson saw no reason to apologize for Louis Farrakhan’s eulogy at his grandmother’s funeral or the bigoted and anti-Semitic religious leader’s endorsement of his candidacy to succeed his grandmother in Congress.

Why in the hell would Andre Carson have to apologize for following his grandmother’s wishes? Furthermore, why would he have to apologize for Farrakhan at all? I’ve read Welsh’s blog for quite a while, but I’ve never heard him say that Rudy Gulliani should have apologized for Pat “we ought to assassinate Hugo Chavez” Robertson endorsing him.

Lastly, listen to this horrible diatribe that Farrakhan goes on:

I’m not sure what part of Louis Farrakhan’s beautiful eulogy Welsh thinks that Carson should apologize for. The Indianapolis Star’s article reported that Julia Carson and Louis Farrakhan “go way back” and that Andre was only following through with her wishes.The connection between Julia Carson and Louis Farrakhan brings up some very interesting questions. Could it be that Carson was like Obama, in that she could bridge the gaps between different parts of her constituency? Carson was a staunch supporter of GLBT issues in Indiana. Farrakhan is not the most queer friendly person in the world.

When the Human Rights Ordinance didn’t pass the City County Council the first time around, it was Julia Carson who was highly critical of Ron Gibson, Steve Talley, Sherron Franklin, and Patrice Abdullah for not supporting the HRO (at a Democratic Dinner, no less).

Julia also stated on Bilerico in 2006 that :

I am opposed to efforts to amend the Constitution to limit the rights of our people–this contradicts our entire history and our basic values as a nation.

I have long been an active and energetic supporter of funding for HIV/AIDS services, prevention programs and research. Many who have followed the history of the effort in Indiana will recall that, as Ryan White lay hospitalized at Riley Children’s Hospital, I battled in our State Senate to help the General Assembly understand that our state and our nation faced a very real health crisis, by calling attention to Ryan’s situation and taking Elton John, Willie Nelson and Kris Kristofferson, along with state legislators, to his bedside. In Congress I have worked hard to increase funding for efforts to address and turn back this terrible disease. This fight is not over.

I am a sworn enemy of discrimination on account of race, gender and sexual orientation and have long worked in that cause. Here in Indianapolis those who followed the matter will recall that I worked hard to see to it that our City-County Council understood the importance–the fundamental fairness–of protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. I was gratified when the council finally voted correctly, against bigotry, a familiar old enemy.

Indianapolis is my home. The treatment of our people and the improvement of their lives has always been vitally important to me. I worked hard for the passage of the ordinance, helping individual counselors to understand its importance as a matter of basic democratic and human values, and would do it again to make our city a better place. In Congress I work to support efforts to advance human rights and oppose efforts to erode those rights.

Andre has assured me that he will continue his grandmother’s legacy as an advocate for the GLBT community, regardless of who his friends are, or what religion they are.

If Mr Welsh would like to play the blame by association game, he need only go as far as his candidate. Jon Elrod’s website design team has connections to anti-gay activists.

For once, I agree with Abdul:

To not vote for Carson because he is a Muslim is the same as not voting for Mitt Romney because he was a Mormon. The founding fathers were pretty sharp guys with not wanting a religious test for anyone to hold public office. To solely judge an individual based on their faith is a bad idea. Religion can gives us an idea about the candidate, but it is just a facet.

It is their position on issues and the leadership they can provide should be the true test of whether they are worthy of your vote.

But in the end that’s exactly what supporters of Elrod fear. Talking about the issues might shed light on the fact that Elrod mirrors George W. Bush on just about every major issue.

Cross posted to
Blue Indiana
Bilerico Indiana

Earlier in the week I wrote about how many in the Indy right wing blogosphere had chastised Andre Carson for a scheduling conflict, some even suggesting that he was afraid to debate Jon Elrod and Sean Shepard. Anyone that was in attendance last night knows just how much of a pipe dream that is. I don’t think that anyone that came in supporting one candidate, left supporting another. I was surprised at the directness of the Libertarian candidate, Sean Shepard. Even though I disagree with his positions (especially his comment saying that his position on abortion is based on science), I think he came off as confident and on point. As far as Elrod, I think Thomas over at BlueIndiana described Elrod perfectly:

A lot of folks — including Jon himself — love to pretend that Elrod is some strange variety of super-lovable moderate. But while he certainly takes a more respectable stance on some social issues, the fact remains that on bread-and-butter issues, he’s a GOP stalwart through and through.

Privatization of Social Security? Check!
Wants to maintain Bush’s tax cuts on the richest one percent? Check!
Against a woman’s right to choose? Check!

A vote for Elrod is a vote for a Republican Speaker of the House, and more importantly a vote for the exact kind of policy initiatives that have made George W. Bush the least popular leader in American history.

Elrod was asked SPECIFICALLY on his PERSONAL POSITION on marriage equality, and he gave his speech about how government should get out of the business of marriage. He didn’t say a word about his PERSONAL POSITION that he explained to Hoosier Access, saying “My church is very clear, that marriage is between a man and a woman” and went on to explain a scenario in which a marriage amendment would be needed.

As I’ve said previously, a vote for Jon Elrod is a vote for George W. Bush. Last night only served to highlight that.

Cross posted to Bilerico Indiana and Blue Indiana

An Open Letter to Senators Clinton and Obama
February 19th, 2008

Dear Senators Clinton and Obama-

You’re both talented, experienced, inspiring, accomplished individuals. However, as the last few months and few dozen primaries have shown, voters are divided about which one of you should be our presidential candidate. But we all agree: both of you are far better than the alternative.

We need a Democrat to take the White House. But if we spend the next months fighting each other over which of you is the best candidate, we’re going to lose this fall. That loss will be devastating not just for the next four years but for decades to come.

Don’t divide our party the way the last two elections have divided our country. Work together. Make the Democratic ticket as strong as it can be. Show us that you’re capable of leading the party — and the country — together.

Clinton-Obama. Obama-Clinton. We don’t all agree which ticket would be best, but what we do know is that our party and our nation will be much better united than divided.

Sincerely,

Your Party Members

Honestly, I don’t understand this kind of talk. A few things should be keep in mind:

1. Primary voters should have a chance to vote.

2. The primary voter totals show that:

With 99 percent of the vote (in Wisconsin), both Obama and Clinton received more votes
than ALL THE REPUBLICANS COMBINED! If it was only on votes and you stripped all party affiliation (of those that are still running), the order would go:

Obama 645,554
Clinton 452,590
McCain 224,122
Huckabee 151,114
Paul 19,129
Gravel 596

How is this election process ripping the Democratic Party apart?

I felt attacked by friend who is a supporter of Clinton, when it was obvious that Obama actually had a shot at winning. Other than that episode, I’ve not experienced any kind of hatred between the Clinton and Obama supporters (my friend and I are still on good terms). I think that her pain came more from frustration and shock, than actual disgust at me for being an Obama supporter.

There is hatred of Obama supporters in the media (we’ve been compared to followers of Charles Manson and Hare Krishna, we’ve been called cultish), but I’ve not felt that same hatred anywhere else.

As far as the money goes, the trends go along the same lines.

Jan 2008
Obama $31 million
Clinton $13 million.

October-December 2007
Clinton $26.5 million
Obama $22.8 million ]

Clinton and Obama raised almost as much together in January as they did in Oct, Nov, and Dec combined. There is absolutely NO proof that the primary elections are having ANY negative effect on the Democrats chances in November. In fact, both candidates are surging in voters and money.

Texas and Ohio are vital for Hillary. If she loses either state, I doubt she’ll be able to recover. If she loses both, it’s essentially game over. But if she wins (as she is projected to in both races), she’ll be on track to win the nomination. If they go into Denver essentially tied, Clinton will win. She is the establishment candidate, and has 30 some years of political ties to cash in.

Any movement to somehow neuter the voting process and pick a candidate now will do more harm to the party, than ANYTHING the primaries would do. Imagine if we “united the ticket” before Wisconsin! We would have disenfranchised more Democratic voters than ALL of the Republican voters combined. If you want to destroy the Democrats chances at victory in November, forcing a choice now would be the way to do it.