Culture wars are a weight on the nation's soul

Sojourner's Magazine looks at issues from the viewpoint of progressive Christians. One of their postings says:

Want to know how to win a culture war? Don't fight one.

A culture war is weight on a nation's soul, especially one that has become perpetual. It also doesn't accomplish much except for those leading the charge. The leaders benefit because they raise money and wield (limited) power. But to do so, they must rouse the populace against an enemy (and if there isn't an enemy they make one).

Though a culture war tends not to make much progress, there are casualties. And the next casualty might be health care reform. The reason is that some are trying to tie reform to the abortion cause.

The way out of a culture war is to search for common ground rather than for emphasizing the differences. Naturally, those at the forefront of the war don't like such efforts because it undermines their fundraising ability. In the case of abortion, reframing the debate around abortion reduction appears to be making headway.

Banging on a larger pot

Apparently, Jimmy Carter left the Southern Baptist Convention 9 years ago. At the time he made his decision known only within the denomination. He was in the news recently about this action because he decided to bang on his pot more loudly. He wrote an editorial that appeared in Australia and Britain linking the position of the SBC with the subjugation of women in many other major religions.

The cause of his life

Two articles in the latest Newsweek about health care. The shorter one is by Jacob Weisberg and discusses how America's health system projects (or doesn't) its values. Yes, a country's values influence its health system -- a writer takes an old injury to doctors around the world and gets a variety of responses, from nothing (Britain) to one that works (India).

The current system doesn't match our morals, economics, and sociology. Morally, we accept inequality too easily, yet the unfairness of death caused by inadequate insurance is something that offends us. The bills in the House and Senate appear to deal with this issue well.

Economically, we have the most expensive system and the current bills don't have the incentives to deal with this issue.

Sociologically, we've missed the target completely -- we insist on sticking to a employer funded system. When people held lifetime jobs, this may have made sense, but we're now it a time when people change jobs every couple years. Yet, the proposal to change the source of funding is being ignored.

I'm personally puzzled why there are no loud voices talking about how health care funded by employers is an unseen tax on everything we buy. Tax people directly and the price of goods can drop -- and we get to see the true price of health care. Maybe that's what scares lawmakers.

The big article is by Sen. Ted Kennedy (and his speech writer). He talks about the times he needed health care -- his 1964 plane crash, his son Teddy's bout with cancer that took his leg -- and was glad his insurance covered all he needed. He became quite aware that other patients didn't have it so well. He also talks about the frequent battles over universal coverage starting with Teddy Roosevelt (!) and Harry Truman and on through the various efforts he had a hand in. He calls health care, "The cause of my life."

He also lists what he feels must be in a new bill. He is quite aware that he may not get it all in this round and new efforts can come every few years. Alas, I think that means some congressmen will say, "We've already solved that issue." Kennedy's requirements:

* Universal coverage.

* To accomplish this we must cut costs, and that requires a public option.

* Replace the system that rewards doctors for the number of tests with a system that rewards for the quality of outcome.

* Social justice and economics mean long term care that allows seniors to stay in their own homes.

* Don't disturb the coverage we already have (contradicting Weisberg above).

* Emphasize prevention over cure.

Kennedy ends by saying what we have now is not sustainable.

A few thoughts of my own. A lot of the stories about the GOP are about how racist the remaining party supporters are. The biggest roadblock currently is cost. That makes me think about one of the reasons GOP congressmen don't want to raise taxes and don't want programs that in any way help the poor -- we don't want any of our money going to help Those People.

The unpredictable is important

David Mixner, who worked in the Clinton Administration and has since become an activist, has a few things to say to those who believe the repeal of the Calif. marriage ban should wait until 2012.

The cabal of powerful decision makers wants everything to be safe, clean and perfect before moving. Don't upset anyone, don't jump ahead of ourselves and most of all don't deviate from a well-laid plan that hopefully will eventually lead to victory. Every one of our allies has to be comfortable, the polls have to show us way ahead, and proof of victory has to be assured before trying anything new. The unpredictable grassroots could be destructive and create instability.

Sounds pretty good doesn't it? Except that it doesn't fit any model of success that I have seen in my near 50 years of organizing.

He goes on to say they're fearful of defeat. They seek approval. In contrast, the unpredictable is sometimes what a movement needs to gain victory (such as the demonstrations after the Calif. ban was approved).

Much to admire in this former president

President Jimmy Carter has been a lifelong member of the Southern Baptist Convention. But he has now withdrawn his membership and severed ties, citing the SBC's subjugation of women. Carter wasn't a very good president, but I have great admiration of everything he's done since then. He has actually lived the Christianity of the Bible.

Showing Christ the right way

Showing Christ has lately meant showing arrogance, condemnation, and condescension to those who aren't a Christian or the right kind of Christian. These people haven't met Christ and give him a black name. I would much rather show Christ in the manner of Hadwen Park Congregational Church of Worcester County, Mass. Their ministry is to gays seeking asylum in USA due to persecution in their home country. Three of them are from Uganda, Jamaica, and Lebanon -- places where a crowd is likely to beat you if they find you're gay. The church's mission is very much hands-on. They've been feeding the men from their food pantry, paying rent and phone bills, taking them on clothes shopping trips, and even hosting them in their homes. That's showing Christ.

Who says gay relationships don't last?

Yesterday, I finished the book Homo Domesticus by David Valdes Greenwood. Back in 1995 David Valdes married Jason Greenwood. It wasn't a legal ceremony then even though it took place in Boston. The book recounts their meeting, his mother's disapproval, the wedding ceremony (he had to go home for his pants just before the service), the hassles of two people living together, house hunting, the string of misunderstandings that led to their separation (Jason's stepmom straightens David out), and their legal marriage in 2004 so they could adopt a baby girl. It is all done with excellent writing and a great deal of humor. In the end David and Jason have a marriage that has lasted longer than either of their parents and all of their siblings. Perhaps this can be seen as a companion book to The Kid and The Commitment by Dan Savage, who goes into the topics in much greater depth. Amazon, alas, only describes the hardcover edition. I read the paperback (and will be happy to loan it out).

Tranquility Base

Ever since the moon landing forty years ago today the phrase "Houston, this is Tranquility Base. The Eagle has landed." gives me goose bumps. Still does. I was newly a teenager that summer. I think our Heathkit color TV was working by then. I had a card table in the living room (where the TV was) and on it I was working on assembling parts of the electronic organ Dad had bought. I was disappointed that the moon program was over before I started college. It's been too long and Mars still beckons.

There were high quality videos taken of the moon mission. Alas, when the shuttle came along and various satellites sent back huge amounts of data, NASA reused all the magnetic tape they had. NASA did have a Hollywood production company restore the TV videos. Let this bring back memories or introduce you to one of the highlights of our species history. Alas, on the NASA site it is in a particular format and my browser says I need another plugin that it can't get, so I got audio only.

All is not lost. Here is a gay site with many of the videos from YouTube, though these versions seem more interested in comparing the original with the restored video.

The norm, inherently neutral, and objective

Why were so many GOP senators so concerned about Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment? Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post suggests that it's because straight white males perceive themselves as not having any ethnicity, they are the norm and inherently neutral. Anything else -- female, gay, brown, black, etc. -- must be compared against this "objective" standard. Farfetched? Alito was asked about his background and it was considered no consequence. Sotomayor's background, however, is fretted over because it might exert too much influence on her rulings.

Sowing poison pills

Let me see if I got this straight… The GOP had been blubbering about how they don't want the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes bill because it would be used to prosecute clergy who speak out against gays. Now they want to amend the bill so that those same clergy could be subject to the death penalty? In politics this is known as the poison pill. Add an amendment to something you don't like so that all the other congresscritters say, "Yuck!" and vote against it. I trust the Dems won't let this one and its cousins survive.

Watch out for those who ignore honesty and integrity

My friend and debate partner expanded on the three categories of politicians I proposed yesterday. I've lately used the word "enabler" as one who allows someone else to do their worst (such as making excuses for a drunk). I'm sure in this case an "enabler" is one who brings out the best in another.

Perhaps the three categories we seek are
Enablers = Humanists
Exploiters (I was tempted to write "thieves"; the wonderful Yiddish word is "gonif" = "thief".)
Controllers = Authoritarians

Actually, I think exploiters are really controllers of a problematic kind: Authority is always about the preservation of vested selfish interests. Many authoritarians, to their credit, seek to preserve useful structures for good reasons, honestly and with integrity. For example, they preserve the rule of law and social stability (generally forgetting that these must evolve). The exploiters are controllers who ignore honesty and integrity.

Another way to view this is that people are defined by what they know. Enablers know that much is still to be discovered and understood, so they focus on questions, tolerate diverse answers and want people to freely realize their potential. Controllers know the answers and don't want anyone asking questions, which are likely to embarrass them. (I guess exploiters limit their questions to finding the ore in every mine; life is just a matter of getting it out and refined and any answers are fine so long as they address the preferred questions.)

Now, I am not disdainful of self-interest -- it makes the world go 'round. Altruism is generally based in self-interest in some way. A renowned rabbi from the Middle Ages said "If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?" This has always been my guide on the subject of selfishness and self-interest.

That comment about honesty and integrity made me think that some who we consider authoritarians -- the Fundies who want to impose their religion on the rest of us -- are really exploiters because they do so with so little of those good qualities. I've ranted often about those who want to display the Ten Commandments and are so willing to defy the 9th to do so.

Don't be afraid to lose on the way to victory

I recently wrote about the reasons why some gay organizations in Calif. say it is better to wait until 2012 before attempting to repeal the gay marriage ban. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has come down on the side of waiting, giving much better reasons than listed in my previous post:

* Build a strong majority before the vote. It is easier to win while defending a majority than trying to build a majority in the heat of the campaign.

* Before attempting a vote, demonstrate a proven ability to change people's minds.

* Develop persuasive messages that can withstand the opposition's vigorous campaign.

* Before the attempt, prove that a campaign infrastructure is in place and volunteers are recruited.

Commenters, of course, have a few things to say:

* Split the campaign infrastructure from all other candidates and issues so our cause isn't held hostage to a candidate's position or a party's lack of spine. Note to my friend and debate partner -- yes it is good to have allies in other progressive causes (such as women's rights), but our cause suffers when we try to jump on the coattails of a promising candidate (such as Obama).

* The best persuasive message is living an out life.

* It's annoying to hear gay groups become impatient with Obama's speed in taking on our issues, yet to tell us to be patient and wait until 2012.

In a separate post, a responder to NGLTF explains why he doesn't agree:

* We must keep fighting if simply to keep own hearts healthy. Waiting will erode us from the inside.

* We must keep fighting to keep our inequalities before the public.

* The court opinion that allowed the marriage ban to stand essentially said that Equal Protection is not a core concept, that it can be easily thrown out. We must show that we noticed that and do not agree.

* Don't campaign until we're sure to win? That's working from fear. Don't be afraid to lose 2010 on the way to 2012. Our loss in 2008 prompted gains in New England. A loss will keep the issue alive.

* Discrimination causes death. While we wait, people die.

There are also many replies to this position:

* Don't confuse the benefits of winning with a strategy for winning.

* Living an out life isn't that much of a help -- half of those who voted against us knew a gay person. The moveable middle is only about 5% of voters. Anti-gay voters are consistently more motivated than our friends. They won't run out of money any time soon. Even our friends will vote against us if they become convinced our marriage hurts theirs.

* A campaign in 2010 will motivate volunteers now. A campaign in 2012 will leave potential volunteers doing nothing until 2011.

At least Detroit is starting the size discussion

The Detroit Free Press had a full-page article on right-sizing the city, something I've written about before. The reason for the story now is the new mayor (elected in May to serve out a term that is up for a vote in November) has started to publicly talk about the idea. There is also a primary for city council in two weeks which has an astonishing 167 people on the ballot for 9 seats. The Freep has given its endorsements to 15 people, encouraging replacement of 7 of the current dysfunctional 9 (well, 8, one just went to prison). What Mayor Bing is saying is that it is time to admit that though 60 years ago Detroit had about twice the population it does now, those people are not coming back. It is time for city planning to take that into account.

Experts are saying right-sizing is possible, though it may take 25-50 years to execute a plan. The biggest reason for the slow pace is money. Detroit has very little of it. But if it doesn't start the city will go bankrupt, with a tax base that can't pay expenses.

In amongst the details of how a plan might work (or at least how to get one started), are the reasons why the effort hasn't been made before now. (1) Detroit has been seriously crumbling for 20 years. Most of the time the city gov't is swamped with the problem of the day. (2) Any such plan will have backlash from residents who are told their neighborhood can't be sustained. Elected officials don't have the spine for backlash. (3) No matter the plan, executing it requires money. (4) The last development plan for the city (1992) counted on the city regaining much of its lost population.

I don't live in the city. However, I venture into it frequently to visit cultural institutions. Detroit has some top-notch gems in art, music, theater, and cinema. I want the area to succeed.

Here's a map of the city showing areas of health and urban prairie. It was created a couple years ago when a Freep journalist drove down every street in the city. The areas in red and green are top candidates for being developed into urban farming.

The big health care question

As the health care debate rages in Congress and the current tussle is over cost, let's for a minute go back to the basic question: Do congressmen believe every person in the country is entitled to the same health care choices as the congressmen themselves? This question is not about cost, so don't say it is too expensive. Do congressmen instead believe that our current 3 (at least) tiered system -- where some deserve A+ care, some get somewhat less, and the poor/uninsured get the crumbs?

This brings to mind a discussion I had over lunch with my friend and debate partner (and this seems to be a good time to bring it up). He no longer categorizes politicians by their Democrat/GOP labels. While he is very much anti-GOP, the Dems aren't exactly thrilling him lately. Instead the categories that work best are Humanist/Authoritarian. That puts him as anti-Authoritarian. My example of a humanist is Ted Kennedy (who, alas, we won't have around much longer). All of the GOP comes under the Authoritarian category and, alas, many Dems do too. We need more Humanists in Congress. I'm sure they don't make up the majority there.

I agree with my friend's view of Congress, though I would add one more category. These members are definitely not Humanists, but aren't really Authoritarian either because they don't care to impose their rules on society. Their goal is to use their office as a way to fatten their wallets and those of their friends. Alas, I doubt this category fits on only one side of the Dem/GOP divide.

We're just folks

I wrote about a gay mayor asked to officiate at a wedding where his own marriage is not legal. Here is the story of how it went. Though it was in a conservative Midwest area, most of the people, over the course of the weekend, began to see the gay couple as just folks. There was one Evangelical who either made snide remarks or avoided them. The ceremony, which was wonderful, included vows modified from the gay couple's own wedding. A surprise afterward: the Evangelical came up to the gay mayor after the ceremony and asked to use those same words to renew his own marriage vows. He wanted the mayor to conduct the renewal right then. One less bigot in the world.

Disagree without being disagreeable

I hope to convince my church to adopt a Vision Statement that explicitly says we welcome all people (including gays). So far the response has been mostly yawns. However, I will soon start talking about specifics -- actually talking about gay people -- and I may have to disagree and I don't want to be disagreeable. Here's ideas on how to do that.

* People may think they are trying to help. Acknowledge the help then gently explain why it isn't helping.

* People may be oblivious to the damage they are causing. Gently point out why their actions aren't as benign as they think. Watch out for when people are acting from a position of privilege because they get defensive. Note the privilege only means benefiting from outside sources.

* Others goals may be opposition to mine. Acknowledge which goals remain in common.

* Only then consider the response as antagonistic. It usually isn't.

Be aware in ways the conversation can be misunderstood.

* What is said may not be what is meant.

* What is heard may not be what is said. This includes physical problems in speaking and hearing along with mismatch between words, tone of voice, and body language. It also includes the recipients mental state and how well attention is being paid.

* The conclusion reached may not be what is heard. The message may be incomplete and the listener fills in the gaps based on personal experience, including past experience with the same speaker.

* There is an emotional response to the conclusion, including whether the listener allows that emotion to be felt.

* All that, plus personal rules, guide possible responses.

Most of the time this process works just fine and happens almost instantly. But discussions get heated usually because a step in this chain breaks. Time to take a step back.

What is the speaker (including myself) trying to accomplish? Pass on information? Prove I'm right? Convince? Simply vent? If venting, let it get out of the way and do it in a manner appropriate.

If to convince, one needs to sell arguments in a way the other person can understand.

I've encountered the person who thinks that if I don't agree with them it means that if they keep at it they might convince me. Sometimes it means I don't agree with them. That point should be acknowledged if each side can accurately summarize the other's arguments. Further discussion is only annoying.

If you are convinced, acknowledge it.

A possible way out of a disagreement is to reframe the issue, to state it from another perspective.

Know your audience. It may be more than the person sitting in front of you.

Answer calmly and with facts. Never respond to an insult with another one. Respect your opponent. They may be a good person trying to do what's right. And if they aren't, responding with utmost politeness (but not condescension) can be a lot of fun.

Don't confuse civility with weakness.

Don't project your experiences on the other person. Let them talk about their own experiences.

I don't want to be like that

The Southern Baptist Convention has been the driving force of much of the attempted Fundie takeover of American government over the last couple decades. Yet, this second largest Christian denomination (16 million, behind Catholics) is worried about decline. They could lose half their membership by 2050. Along with that they would lose (are losing) their strong influence on Southern politics and culture. This probably also means a decline in the GOP. The SBC is known for well run youth programs, yet the big reason for the decline is that the kids are not staying.

The reason seems obvious to me. Say nasty, illogical, and downright wrong things about people (especially gays) and the people you want to attract will say, "I don't want to be like that."

There are reasons why I'm not a politician

The Senate has passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill! I think it has already passed the House. On to Obama for an expected signature and a return of our "fierce advocate!" Um …

It isn't that Obama doesn't want to sign it. He does.

It's that the vote to approve it was a vote to attach it to a defense spending bill. And that defense bill has a big pile of money for more F-22 military planes. So what, you might say. Well, the Pentagon doesn't want those planes and neither does the Prez. They were designed for dogfights with Soviet planes and are quite inappropriate for the wars we now face as well as expensive. Yet, the maker of the plane has cannily worked it out so its supplier base is in 44 states -- cancel the plane and 88 senators are upset about job losses in their state, not to mention leaving our nation undefended at a critical time (see above about inappropriate). To force the issue, Obama has said if the bill contains F-22 funding he will veto it. And the hate crimes bill too.

It ain't over yet. A lot can happen with the bill before Congress approves the final package. The F-22 funding could be taken out. The hate crimes amendment could be taken out. Or both. Or neither. Confused yet?

However, it has left a lot of gay groups wondering why Senate Dems insisted the only way to get hate crimes protection passed was to attach it to the defense bill. There was that vote to attach it as an amendment which passed by 62 votes. Isn't that an indication that it would pass on its own? But what do I know about politics? Or timidity?

The Fundie furor over the Matthew Shepard law is still going strong and is still as absurd as before. Top of the list of false claims is that the law trumps the 1st Amendment and will silence pastors preaching against gays. As one loudmouth put it:

Those who publically [sic] express medical, moral or religious opposition to the homosexual lifestyle are tagged by the government as “homophobic bigots” to be treated no differently by law enforcement, the courts or larger society than the KKK or neo-Nazis.

I'm pleased to see the larger society has pretty much ignored the KKK and neo-Nazis lately (though that may change if these groups turn violent). However, has either group been silenced by law enforcement or the courts? Um … no. White Supremacist groups have conducted over 100 rallies and demonstrations across the country so far this year. So you were saying?

Until they get tired of their own bigotry

Organizations for gays of color in Calif. say don't rush to put the marriage issue back on the ballot in 2010. The margin of victory will be too small. Here are some of the issues they raise:

* The entire gay-and-ally community needs to be onboard, and many color allies (and non-English speakers) aren't there yet. Work must be done to make gays of color feel it is their fight too.
* Public support hasn't changed much since the days after the election. Don't proceed with another vote until you're sure of a win. Note that polls can overstate support.
* It will be tougher to raise the money in a recession (and it will be expensive).
* Changing the minds of voters will take a while and that action needs to begin now.
* We don't yet have the robust infrastructure for a get-out-the-vote campaign. We were caught off guard last time.
* More time is necessary to forge relationships with labor and religious allies.

Commenters add a few more reasons.

* If it fails it will be harder to raise money for a third attempt.
* There's already an immigration bill set for 2010, which will draw out the Fundies.
* 2012 means two more years of old people dying off and young people becoming eligible to vote.

Put it in numerical terms this way: One estimate says that it takes 350 volunteer-hours to change 50 votes (basis for the claim is not given). That means to insure victory 2.1 million volunteer-hours are needed. What is the plan to make that happen in the mere 475 days until the 2010 election? What is the plan to raise the needed money?

However, not everyone agrees with the need for a two year delay. The Courage Campaign, which has been working since the last election didn't go our way, asked its members when the repeat campaign should be held. Over 80% chose 2010 over 2012. It has already been hard at work training volunteers and building campaign infrastructure.

Besides, 2012 is a presidential year and that will suck a lot of volunteers away from the marriage efforts. If we don't aim for 2010 are people going to contribute the necessary money for all that groundwork? It won't be front-page news and donors may not give if "nothing" is happening. Better to harness the existing anger and frustration. Our current debate over date is being hailed by the Fundies as a fatal split which will allow them to avoid financing another vote.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin says the major groups that issued the plea to wait have ulterior motives. Some of them are:

* One is an organization that combats HIV (more prevalent in gays of color) and they fear donations to a campaign mean smaller donations to them.
* One is the group that ran the last campaign (badly) and they don't want to be blamed for a second loss.

Meaning, they are working from fear. We should instead fear that our enemies will define the battleground.

So far when we've lost the marriage battle in a state, we've given up that state. We should have been gathering signatures to put the question back on the ballot every year even if we don't spend much time and money for passage in our favor. Voters need to face the question repeatedly until they get tired of their own bigotry. Don't worry about spending $40 million each time the question comes up in Calif. Run a grass-roots campaign (without the wimpy scripts) until it passes, no matter how many times it takes. Put it on the Calif. ballot in 2010? Yes. And get it on the ballot in Oregon, Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, Arkansas, Alabama, and the rest of the 30 states with a ban in their constitution. And do it again in 2012, 2014, and 2016 or until all of the bans are gone.

As for Calif. it will be on the ballot in 2010. Enough people are committed to gather signatures to make it happen. Once it is on the ballot, are you going to help or not?

Inclusion in the face of exclusion

I commented a couple days ago that the Episcopal Church, in their national convention, chose to allow gays to be bishops. That means they chose inclusion of gays at the risk of their exclusion from the Anglican Communion. The House of Bishops have taken the next step in asking for the collection and development of liturgies for blessing same-sex couples.

I'm not the only one who has concluded various denominations are losing members primarily because of their stance on gay issues (and many who are gay friendly get tarred by the same brush wielded against our loudest opponents). Opposing gays is not a survival trait. That means it's just as well the Episcopalians allow the ties to be severed while the Anglicans die away. Who wants a church leader who believes in the right thing yet won't do it for political expediency?

How do I distort thee? Let me count the ways

The Fundie's distortion of gays has been going on so long it is possible to list such things as Top 6 Distortion Techniques and Top 17 Lies. The distortion techniques are:

* Use old studies (from when being gay was classified as an illness), studies that weren't meant to generalize, or drawing homosexual conclusions from studies that didn't include gays (children need Mom and Dad, so gays can't adopt). There are long lists of researchers saying their work is misused.

* Repetition. In spite of complaints of distortion, the citations are not removed.

* Conspiracy Theory. That dratted Homosexual Agenda.

* Dire Consequences (always without proof). We'll be the downfall of Western Civilization.

* Phony Experts. Making claims in an area in which they have no expertise.

* Dehumanizing Semantics. All that indoctrinating of innocent kids.

Many of the lies have been spouted so often we know most of them by heart, so I won't list them all. A selection:

* The homosexual lifestyle is more harmful than cigarette smoking.

* Gays want to silence Christians.

* All gays are pedophiles.

* A judge who rules in our favor is an "activist."

* Homosexuals can change their orientation.

Such distortions are, of course, institutionalized. Since the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly supports gays, Fundie groups have created the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) to trumpet their distorted research. This posting explores the first distortion technique in more detail. One of the commenters adds a supporting detail: get the "research" published in a journal and claim it has been properly peer-reviewed (but only by people who are also anti-gay, not necessarily with proper expertise).

Here is a list of articles and books in which the authors complain that their work has been distorted by Fundies. A responder notes they distort the bible, why do we expect something different with science?

Use sunscreen anyway

I post this article because my mother has had to deal with skin cancer (that was 20-30 years ago and she's still alive). Because of her experience I am much more likely to use sunscreen. In an article in the Nature Genetics journal says that sunshine does not contribute to the deadliest form of skin cancer, known as melanoma, unless a person also has a large number of moles. With these people it is possible for the moles to become cancerous. But other people don't have such risk.

However, that does not mean one should stop using sunscreen, because the sun can cause several other problems, including sunburn, other kinds of skin cancers (which aren't as deadly), and wrinkles. Sunlight is bad, it just isn't likely to kill you. Balance that with a person's need for vitamin D, which a body makes from sunshine. Just keep in mind that one doesn't need a whole lot of sun to get enough vitamin D (which also comes in tablet form).

The trial balloon succeeded

The Episcopal Church has ended its moratorium on more gay bishops by passing a resolution allowing each diocese (district) to decide for itself whether to consider gay candidates. The head of the worldwide Anglican Church is (naturally) disappointed.


A gay mayor is asked to officiate at a straight friend's wedding. The mayor's husband (they were married in Calif. a year ago) ponders the situation in which the mayor can officiate at weddings, even out of state, but his own marriage is not recognized in the state where he now lives.


Gay marriages performed elsewhere are now recognized in DC. The time in which Congress could overrule the district has passed. Apparently, this was a trial balloon for allowing gay marriages to be performed in DC. Since so few in Congress made a stink (and no effort to repeal) next up on the city council's agenda is the real thing.

Pursuing happiness in the wrong places

What makes for happiness? The New Economic Foundation says it isn't economic growth. "Once our basic material needs are met, more consumption tends to make little difference in our well-being." The downside of growth is that more consumption is hard on the planet.

That, of course, can be turned into graphical and map terms. On one side is a combination of life expectancy and life satisfaction. On the other is the ecological footprint, a measure of resources needed to support a lifestyle. Maps in this posting show these two separate values in addition to the combination. If I interpret the color key correctly, if the whole world consumed like we do it would take more than 4 earths to provide enough resources. For the consumption rate of most countries it would take 2-3 earths.

That results in countries, mostly in Africa, with low scores in both life expectancy/satisfaction and in ecological footprint. They're not happy because of their need. Most of the Western countries have high scores in both categories. We're spending a great deal of the world's resources in pursuit of happiness and looking in the wrong places.

And then there are many countries, most in Latin America, in which they manage to have a high life expectancy/satisfaction and a low ecological footprint. They've found the balance (though still using more than 1 planetfull of resources).

My boss always wanted a trip report

Yes, I'm back from vacation. I got back yesterday afternoon, but between making a fruit salad for today's church picnic, unpacking, and catching up on some of my regular blogs I didn't feel like writing much.

The trip went well -- the weather cooperated wonderfully -- though not every aspect was a delight.

Pt. Pelee was nice, but not as wonderful as the opinion of my friend and debate partner. A major problem could have been that I waited until getting into the park before searching for lunch and the café there was inadequate. Even so, I got all the way to the tip of the point, the southern point of mainland Canada (two nearby islands are farther south). When I left, instead of going directly to the highway, I took the Lake Erie coastal road about halfway to London. Along the way I saw perhaps a hundred wind turbines (the terrain there is quite flat).

Since Hamilton, Ontario is surrounded by the Niagara Escarpment it has perhaps 30 waterfalls. I managed to hunt down 11 of them over parts of 3 days. I agree with my friend and debate partner that Hamilton does a very poor job of highlighting this natural asset. There is rarely a road sign, sometime not even one in the parking lot, and many view vantage points are obscured by trees. And when you do get a clear view it may be a case of the creek coming out of a culvert under a road before going over the cliff and the concrete around the culvert is full of graffiti.

Three more waterfalls bring the total to 14. Two of those are the big ones at Niagara. That whole area has become a dollar extraction system -- just to park was $20. The last waterfall was in the gorge in Elora.

I enjoyed a morning in Hamilton's Dundurn Castle (actually a house, though about 12 times larger than my own). At one point the owner of this big house was also landlord for 200 of Hamilton's 300 houses. Of interest to me were the servant's quarters and work areas in the basement of the house.

Of the three performances I attended my favorite was Sunday in the Park with George by Sondheim and Lapine at the Shaw Festival. The music was quite innovative and different from the typical musical, though the performers said in the Q&A session afterwards it is very tricky to learn. The best part was that I could relate to the main character, portraying painter Georges Seurat.

I have found that if I don't spend a minimal amount of time with music composition projects I feel that my schedule is just too crowded. So when George the painter tells his girlfriend, "I can't go to the Follies with you this evening. I have to finish painting the hat," (he later sings a whole song about it) I can relate. His problem is that he becomes so focused on the art he loses the girlfriend. There are lots of other wonderful things about the show, such as the comments from the couple who fancy themselves as art critics, and how each person in the painting becomes a full character. Act I ends with the characters forming the scene in the painting. Act II begins by the characters complaining about being stuck in this painting for a hundred years, a way of introducing us to the modern art scene and a song about all the other things an artist must do (like schmooze patrons) in addition to actually creating art.

My bed and breakfast hostess in Niagara on the Lake recommended a restaurant for dinner because she sensed I wanted to eat, not dine. According to her, the difference is 2 hours and I didn't have 3 hours before curtain time. Many years ago I had heard the difference is at least $10. Alas, that turned out to be a restaurant I would not recommend to anyone. The meal was edible and that's all I can say for it.

The second program I saw was Ever Yours, Oscar at the Stratford Festival. This was a one man show in which the actor reads many of Oscar Wilde's letters. While quite interesting, it was much too short, only 1:15. There was a notable change in the tone of the letters between those that were close to frivolous before his imprisonment for gross indecency (from charges brought by the father of his gay lover) and those afterwards in which he becomes an activist for conditions in prison, especially where children are concerned. Alas, the hard labor of prison broke his health and he died 3 years later. More on Wilde's life and works in Wikipedia plus a poem he wrote about a prisoner facing the death penalty in Wikisource. Quite a change in the man.

The third program was the opening concert of the 30th year of the Elora Festival in the tiny town of Elora. The performance was -- seriously now -- in the highway maintenance barn that houses road salt September through May. After intermission one of the Festival board members told about how concerts have been affected by storms and extreme heat (no AC here). The performance of the Berlioz Requiem was quite good, though not quite the overwhelming roster of performers that Berlioz requested -- the barn wasn't big enough for all that noise. The four extra brass ensembles had only a third of what Berlioz specified.

A vacation when one is retired?

By my definition a vacation means leaving home. And that's what I'm going to do for the rest of the week. I've taken many trips to far-flung locales. This trip isn't one of those. I'm only going across the Detroit River to southwest Ontario.

I intend to visit:
* Pt. Pelee National Park, which sticks into Lake Erie and is the southernmost point in Canada. My friend and debate partner highly recommends it.

* Waterfalls around Hamilton. This city is surrounded by the Niagara Escarpment, so has perhaps 30 waterfalls around it. I have a route that includes the top 9. There is also Dundurn Castle across the street from my hotel.

* A show -- Sunday in the Park with George -- at the Shaw Festival at Niagara on the Lake. It is about the artistic life of Georges-Pierre Seurat. His most famous painting (and the inspiration for the show) is about halfway down his Wikipedia page. You can see why in the show the painter's wife is named Dot.

* A play -- Ever Your's, Oscar -- at the Stratford Festival. It's about letters from Oscar Wilde.

* The opening night concert at the Elora Festival. This is a performance of Berlioz' Requiem. In addition to the gigantic orchestra, the score calls for 4 brass ensembles spread around the hall. In all there are supposed to be 50 players in these extra ensembles. We'll see if they use all 50. Since so many extra players must be hired this piece doesn't get performed all that much, so when a performance is so close to Detroit I just have to go.

Goodbye? We can hope

Sarah Palin announced today she is stepping down from her job as governor of Alaska, effective late July. She says she wants out of politics. Hard to tell exactly because reports of the press conference say she meandered more than usual. There is, naturally, a great deal of speculation of her real motive. Impending scandal? Wanting a head start on the 2012 presidential election? Those who aren't speculating are (like me) just glad to see her go.

With the world (at least Chicago) at your feet

I've written before about a challenge to the Calif. gay marriage ban heading to the US Supremes. The first step was today when the case appeared before the North California US District Court. Judge Vaughn Walker has said he will expedite the case.

Here is a description of how the case got started and where it is going.



Democrats, especially Rahm Emmanuel, are acting like political homophobes. In public they say they support our issues and rights. Behind closed doors they say there is no political benefit (and maybe political cost) in actually giving us those rights. Sorry, guys, this isn't 1993. We have (had) high hopes for Obama because he gave the impression he would do things because they were right, not because they were politically expedient.



Three steps to demonize your opponent: Remove complicating realities. Force atheist definition on opponents. Assign Lucifer to opponents views, your own view to God's. Close with ringing words of unearned authority. The actual textbook example is a typical rant.



It seems so many species of animals exhibit homosexual behavior that a species that doesn't is a rare exception. Perhaps we need more people reading Leviticus to the birds and the bees.



Nasa has created a more accurate elevation map of earth. It is interesting to read about the work that went into it. If sea levels rise, the purple areas are the places to avoid: Florida, Denmark, Bangladesh, northern Russia. It is also interesting to see some of the images that can be created from the data.



The Sears Tower in Chicago now has 5 glass bays on the 103rd floor Observation Deck that extend out from the building. You can see a clear view of traffic below your feet. But if you're afraid of heights…

A corrupt equivalence

Not content to preach about how America is a Christian nation, Fundies have put it in a new bible to "prove" it. You can now get an American Patriot's Bible. I'm not too keen on looking at the bible's website, so I only have an article in USA Today to go by. As far as I can tell, the actual text of the bible is unchanged (though they don't say which translation they use). What makes it a Patriot's Bible is the 300 articles sprinkled throughout on a wide variety of Fundie talking points -- the right to bear arms, religious broadcasting, the impact of Ronald Reagan.

Here's just a few things that are wrong with this bible:
* It equates patriotism with Christianity, corrupting both.
* It elevates Fundie talking points as having come from God (and most of them don't).
* It implies these articles are commentary on biblical passages.
* It promotes and "proves" the lie that America was founded as a Christian nation.
* It promotes the culture wars and partisan divide and implies the battle is blessed by God.
* It implies that to be a patriot one must be a Christian, and to be a Christian one must be a patriot.
* It drives those who aren't Christian Patriots farther away from the bible and the church.

Some commentators have used these words to describe it: heresy, corrupt, idolatrous. I strongly agree and would add one more descriptor: abomination.

Marking a notable date

The Stonewall Riots happened 40 years ago tonight. A happy birthday to the gay civil rights movement. We've made a lot of progress, with (sigh) a lot more to go.

A healthy conscience and compassion for the desperate

I've known about this series of articles on the shooting of Dr. Tiller, abortion doctor, for almost two weeks now. Alas, other interesting (and shorter) posts have gotten in the way.

If abortion of the unborn is murder -- as the pro-life side claims -- then Dr. Tiller was, indeed, a murderer -- one who would likely murder again if he wasn't stopped. Isn't it the duty of a conscientious citizen to stop a murderer?

Of course, that logic hangs on the original premise. And that premise is a huge simplification of a complex and heartbreaking situation. The Dr. Tiller's story shows that he has a healthy conscience with a strong dose of compassion and his opponents (and killer) have precious little of either.

The complexity and heartbreak is because these women (and, in some cases, children) find themselves in a desperate situation. Part 2 of this series describes a couple of these desperate situations (and properly contains a warning for disturbing words and images).

One of those cases is a 9-year-old girl who had been raped by her father. She was simply too small to give birth, which would have put her through a great deal of trauma and perhaps killed her. Why does the pro-life side insist she must carry the baby to term?

Why are there so few doctors willing and able to help a girl in that situation? Because if they turn her away cameramen, protesters, and gunmen don't show up at their door.

In addition to those who desperately don't want to be pregnant, there are many more who desperately do, yet late in the pregnancy find that nature has made a mistake and the fetus has devastating abnormalities, such as bones so brittle that life outside the womb is impossible. Some people do not have the inner resources to deal with that. Late-term abortions are never terminated on a whim. The women do not want to be there. But with problems this severe why wait a couple months for the tragic birth? The rhetoric rarely matches reality. These women are going through one of the most difficult situations a parent faces and they are being hounded and harassed.

The pro-life supporters have so completely cowed potential abortion doctors that a woman whose fetus has died sometimes cannot get a doctor to remove it. Why is refusing help the moral thing to do? All this ranting over late-term abortions when abortions after 9 weeks are only 1.1% of the total.

Don't agitate people needlessly

Back in 1966 conservative Englishman Henry Fairlie came to America. He tussled over the meaning of conservatism in various magazines until his death in 1990. Newsweek writer Jeremy McCarter edited an anthology of Fairlie's essays and found that many of Fairlie's predictions of American conservatism have come to pass.

In Fairlie's view, conservatism should follow the British Tory model in which government is to preserve tradition and social order, to protect the people against the capitalists. But, primarily under Reagan, American conservatism and especially the GOP rejected tradition in favor of embracing the free market and speeding the accumulation of wealth. Fairlie was appalled at that turn because the ugly aspects of capitalism tend to coarsen and destabilize society. They could not unite the country when they were so focused on supporting business.

Fairlie said that bedroom-snooping moralists were equally misguided. Government should not meddle in personal affairs and should not agitate people needlessly.

Both of these goals of the GOP led to the vulgar sight of the upper class pandering to the common man for votes. Describing the 1980 GOP convention Fairlie described them as:

Narrow minded, book banning, truth censoring, mean spirited; ungenerous, envious, intolerant, afraid; chicken, bullying; trivially moral, falsely patriotic; family cheapening, flag cheapening, God cheapening; the common man, shallow, small, sanctimonious.

No surprise that Sarah Palin came on the scene as the GOP hit bottom. Fairlie was also annoyed with the Reaganite hostility to Washington:

The Reaganite conservative does not trust the political system, and so is always trying to circumvent it; he does not trust the instincts of Congress, but places profound faith in the wisdom of the executive if he is in charge; he does not trust the deep religious instinct of a people, unless it is decked out in the tawdry costume of a minute of silent prayer in school. The only loyalty that eight years of Reaganite conservatism has inspired is of each to the country of his self.

Calling Dick Cheney. So how does the GOP get out of this mess? Conservatism needs a soul -- and needs to enjoy life.

Pruning a city in a sustainable way

Back in early January I wrote about a map that shows how big Detroit is compared to Boston, San Francisco, and Manhattan (all three fit within the space of Detroit with room to spare). Now come two more maps that compare population density of Detroit in the 1950 census (when the city population was just under 1.9 million) to the density in the 2000 census (when the city population was under 0.9 million). Top density dropped from 65,000 per square mile then to 17,000 now.

Dan Kildee of Flint, Mich. is the treasurer of Genesee County and has been pushing the idea that districts of that city should be razed and returned to nature. Kildee has been asked by Obama to spread that idea to 50 other cities around the country. It is good to hear there are plans for that idea in Detroit. The problem implementers face is that shrinking is equated with failing. We in America seem obsessed with growth. Instead, says Kildee it should be equated with "pruning an overgrown tree so it can bear fruit again."

"The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we're all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way," said Mr. Kildee. "Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity."

A lag in the legislature

I wrote recently about a chart of attitudes on various gay issues by state. Naturally, a map person turned that into a map. The chart had listed 7 issues: gay marriage, gay adoption, hate crimes protection, etc. The first map how many of those issues have majority support in each state. Two states (Oklahoma and Utah) have majority support for 2, all others states support 4 or more. Alas, the second map is discouraging. It shows how many of the 7 issues have actually been enacted. Only 18 states (by my count) have enacted more than 2 issues. The third map sums it up -- it shows the number of issues that have majority support that have not been enacted yet. Michigan has 4. Alaska is the worst at 5. Then there are Iowa, Maine, and Oregon who have enacted issues without majority support.

The question is: Why? Why are there so many states so far behind public opinion? Is it simply because legislatures need time to catch up? Or are they still afraid of the religious right? In Michigan I would say it is the fear -- the Michigan Senate is under GOP control and its members were not up for re-election in 2008. It looks like we need a chance to vote on our senators before we can get rid of the obstacles.

We really don't know each other

Wendy Gritter of New Directions wants better communication between the Christian and gay communities. Timothy Kincaid, who grew up in a conservative religious home, takes her up on the offer. Some of the things he says:

Much of the battle between these two groups is due to ignorance. Christians don't know gays and, because they've been burned so many times, gays don't know Christians. We also don't trust each other (with good reason) and we assume the worst about the other.

Reaching out to anti-gay forces helps because many at least try to be truthful. Many also try not to hate gays, even try to love them. They just don't have a clue that their love comes across as hateful.

A big problem with many Christian groups is thy come across as arrogant and patronizing. A big problem with gays is our victimhood -- disagreements are seen as attacks. A big problem on both sides is they assume the other side has no diversity, the whole group is just like the loudest and ugliest members.

We need to know each other, keep communications open and not assume the worst.

We need to believe each other, such as when gays tell Christians we're not trying to shut down the church (or at least most of us aren't) and when Christians tell gays the motivation isn't hate.

We must tolerate each other. Christians can't insist on public policy to punish gays. Gays can't insist Christians change their theology.

We must call off the culture war. It benefits only those who profit from the conflict.

We must denounce the haters and liars. We can't let ourselves be defined by the extremists within our ranks. While the lying obviously comes from the Christian side, the gay side has its own share of vicious attacks and mockery.

We must commit to civility, even if we can't agree.

Alas, emotions run deep and the pain won't be healed quickly.

Charting acceptance

Here's a chart about attitudes on various gay issues done by state and the states listed in order of most favorable (Massachusetts with 55% supporting gay marriage) to least (Alabama with less than 25% supporting gay marriage). Michigan is 25th. In almost all cases the issues have the same order of least favorable to most. In order, they are same-sex marriage, second parent (gay) adoption, civil unions, health benefits for partners, against job discrimination, hate crimes protections, against housing discrimination. There are even filled in circles to show if these opinions have made it into law. Iowa, 3 states below Michigan, has all circles filled while Michigan has none.

As low as Alabama is on gay marriage, more than 50% of respondents there are in favor of such things as outlawing job and housing discrimination, providing health benefits to partners, and enacting hate crime protections. And that pretty much says the nation as a whole is ready for at least those four. So where are our political leaders?

If blacks are disadvantaged, then whites are ... advantaged?

Back in 1990 Peggy McIntosh published an essay on White Privilege. While whites are taught to see blacks as disadvantaged, they rarely look at the reverse -- being white has advantages. Most of us whites just assume that's how the world works. She gives 50 examples of how whites are privileged over other races in America. Here are some of them:

* I can go shopping alone and be assured I won't be followed or harassed.
* I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own protection.
* I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.
* I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.
* I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.
* I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

B. Deutsch followed McIntosh's list with ways in which men are privileged. Some examples:

* The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low as to be negligible.
* If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
* If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.
* Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
* If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.

There is also a corresponding list for straight privilege (written by a college student).

* I can be pretty sure that my roommate, hallmates and classmates will be comfortable with my sexual orientation.
* I do not have to fear that if my family or friends find out about my sexual orientation there will be economic, emotional, physical or psychological consequences.
* I am not identified by my sexual orientation.
* I can walk in public with my significant other and not have people double-take or stare.
* My individual behavior does not reflect on people who identity as heterosexual.
* Nobody calls me straight with maliciousness.

Male is to masculine

Yesterday, in writing about how the gay rights movement doesn't have a national face, I wrote: "…our defining difference is sex…"

My friend and debate partner responded:

I read this short phrase -- and my sense of objection is immediate. Perhaps you meant "gender". (I frequently think reporters should say "gender" where they write "sex".)

If the LGBT rights movement is about sex acts between partners, the movement gets stuck on the "ick factor" you sometimes mention. But it's no one's business what goes on in private between partners. So long as people are legally free to participate, volunteer, and hurt no one else, I really don't care how they fulfill one another sexually. Ickiness is equally meaningful for heterosexuals.

I'd prefer to see LGBTs argue from high ground. LGBT rights are about human dignity, full citizenship, respect, and equality in the eyes of the law. The lack of those, first under the law and eventually in the full culture, is the defining difference. All lovers, having come to peace with their self-knowledge, values and principles, should feel free to walk the earth with head held high, answerable to no one else. LGBTs have deeply (at least in part, genetically) -held relationship preferences, entirely as worthy of respect as are the heterosexual. Societal issues about interracial and inter-ethnic marriage are entirely comparable in my mind to the issues facing LGBTs.

I used to also think that writers should use gender (as in same-gender marriage) instead of sex. I've read enough from various Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender people to understand a distinction between the terms. The short way to say it is: sex is to gender what male is to masculine. In more detail: sex refers to the form of the genitals, gender refers to a number of other things -- how one perceives him/herself, how society perceives a person, how society divides up what traits are appropriate (or not) for each sex. If we say a man is masculine we mean a biological male is acting in ways society expects a man to act, perhaps taking such actions to the extreme. A feminine male is one who acts in ways society expects a woman to act. Transgender people are those born with genitalia of one sex but think of themselves as being of the opposite gender. In these cases the self-perception wins out over plumbing.

There may be better ways -- more lofty ways -- of saying it, but basically the defining difference between a straight man and a gay man is sex. The loftier ways include talking of sexual orientation and of who we love. But no matter how we dress it up, our opponents are going to think about the act and experience the ick factor.

As for your last paragraph, I've known you long enough (at least 15 years now) that I know well your opinion about LGBT rights (and rights in general). It's still good to hear you say it.

Another blogger thought the original article in the New York Times (which I took at face value) about there not being a face to our movement was idiotic.

The original idea: We need someone to speak for us. Response: Millions speak for us. Don't get in their way by assuming we have to speak with one voice. We (unlike the GOP) don't march in lockstep. There's no way we're going to allow someone to stand in front of such a diverse community and say, "You must agree with me."

If there is one speaker for all of us the whole process will take a lot less time. Response: People forget that ML King didn't wrap up black civil rights in a few years. He built on a process that had been working for a century.

Back to my friend's complaint -- or defining difference is sex. Response: People don't think of the sex lives of our leaders anymore than they thought of the sex lives of other rights leaders, except for those on the extreme right we aren't going to influence anyway.

We focus our efforts on the local level and don't need a national leader. Response: There are a lot of national issues but we were stymied at the national level for 8 years so had to work locally. Besides, national leaders aren't self-appointed nor are they voted on. They arise (if they do) by putting in the effort at the local level. Like King did.

Perhaps the Times can't get a handle on how diverse our community is.

The face of our movement

Slavery abolition had Frederick Douglass. Black civil rights had Martin Luther King. Women's rights had Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Gay rights have … ? (Before you say Harvey Milk, he was not a national figure when he was shot.) Some historians think the average American doesn't empathize with us because there is no nationally known gay face.

Perhaps we don't need a national leader.

First, our defining difference is sex and many don't see that as a moral issue (on the contrary…). Second, for a good long time we haven't had a national issue we could take to the courts, the primary route for black and women's rights. Third, AIDS decimated a generation of leaders. Fourth, we have made a great deal of progress at the local and state level.

Setting a match to dynamite

With the rise of domestic terrorism comes attempts at spinning the story to deflect blame. Here are several myths and rebuttals from Sara Robinson, who keeps tabs on right extremist groups.

* These are lone wolf psychos. You can't hold anyone else responsible. Think of a lone wolf psycho as a stick of dynamite. They are drawn to extremist groups who provide a narrative to make sense of the world. Those groups and that narrative is the match to make the dynamite explode. And the match is lit with full knowledge of what the dynamite will do.

* These terrorists are really left-wingers, Liberal Fascists. Go back to the definitions of the words. Fascist is a force from the right. The corresponding word for the left is "communist." Both are flavors of "totalitarianism."

* Public right-wing groups don't advocate violence, so they can't be blamed. But their worldview of cosmic struggle of good/evil and us/them requiring world purification means (at least to the psychos) terrorism is an unavoidable conclusion.

* These are tiny groups we don't need to worry about. The number of hate groups has increased by 40% since 2000. The various groups are quite well connected. They're big enough to do real damage.

* It's not fair to hold right-wing talking heads responsible for their listeners actions. Advertisers will spend $50 billion on TV and $15 billion on radio this year. Why? Because it works. The right also complains that our national morals are being degraded by TV and radio content. The religious right came to power on the strength of cable TV shows. But talking heads have no effect? Right.

* Left-wing talking heads are just as bad. (So you admit that talking heads do have an effect, hmm?) Both left and right commenters can get out of hand. But none of the talking head leaders on the left has called for extermination, silencing, and harassment of conservatives. And all of the leaders on the right have said that of liberals. Some of them say it weekly. Besides, the targets for terrorism are not fundamentalist churches or organizations.

* Accusations that talking heads cause terrorism mean the left wants to use government censorship to shut them down. You accuse us of trampling free speech? After Bush? Nope, we know the value of the term. Besides, there is a better and more effective technique. First, we call you hypocrites. Then we tell your show's sponsors what you said and ask them if they want to be associated with such hate speech. Such language is really bad for PR.

* But that's also censorship! Nope, your free speech does not demand that I (or sponsors) pay to listen to it. Besides, aren't you champions of the free market?

* That guy who shot two military recruiters in Arkansas was a liberal! Not everyone who opposes the war is a liberal. The shooter is a Muslim from Yemen, nothing to do with the American left (or right).

It is only when we get the myths cleared away can we properly discuss the threats we face.



The "lone wolf" way of spreading terrorism is one popularized by the Aryan Nation back in the 1980a -- and picked up by Al Qaeda. The parent organization only inspires individuals and small cells, allowing them to work on their own initiative. The organization can then claim leaderless resistance. The lone wolves usually declare their allegiances. The parent group works under the premise that the rest of the society will see what the lone wolves are doing for them and will join the resistance. This is a huge flaw because most of society and even most whites no longer support white supremacy.


In response to my posting about the rise of domestic terrorism and the opinion that a gruesome event will either end it or touch off a civil war, my friend and debate partner responded:

I have absolutely zero concern that a civil war will develop in this country, especially over hate crime issues. Political apathy is too entrenched and personal and family anxieties too widespread to take us even to civil skirmishes. Militia wannabees are more likely to feel pressure to feed their families than to take to the woods in rebellion. A public that is welcoming to LGBTs and blacks to degrees never before known will insist that the government stamp out organized actions by the tiny hate crime communities.

The real outcome of this sad crime wave will be beneficial: The public appetite for gun control will grow. Assault weapons should be the first ones banned and criminalized.

I hope he is correct about gun control, considering how pragmatic Obama is about it. Please note my friend responded promptly to my post. I'm the one who delayed in sharing it with you.

There are limits to pragmatism

I’m a pragmatist, a believer in doing whatever works. I work with church musicians (and worked with school musicians) and I understand that given constraints of time and the ability of performers I may not reach what a piece of music should sound like. I know a performer needs to learn a particular skill but may not learn it in the time available and I may need an alternate solution. I rant about church rules that have no basis in reality, that are unworkable.

It is good to know Obama is a pragmatist too. However, there are voices who think he doesn't know the difference between pragmatism and spinelessness. We're getting the mushy middle on gay rights, on health care, and on financial reform.

So what's the difference? Pragmatism is backed up by idealism or a moral conviction. I know what a piece of music is supposed to sound like and I do all I can to reach that. However, I don't worry about which particular technique gets me there and I don't berate my performers if they're not quite up to the task. In other matters I'm more interested in the goal, getting as close to it as I can, rather than the particular route of getting there or being too upset if I can't get there this time out.

There are too many times we don't see the idealism or conviction behind what Obama does. To be fair to the big guy, many Dems in Congress are not showing any more conviction. Sheesh, the GOP is in a rout. The Dems are essentially the only game in town. Someone with conviction would seize the lack of credible opposition and advance progressive causes. Instead, the Dems risk being seen as a party without conviction, who want power, but haven't the slightest idea what to do with it.

That was the reason why I voted against George the First when he was up for a second term.

The chaos in Iran show that some things are worth sacrificing -- and maybe even dying -- for. You wouldn't know it from Obama.

Professor, don't you think I deserve an A?

We've all seen computerized display boards that images made from colored light bulbs. Students at Wroclaw Polytechnic University took that idea to turn an 11 story dormitory hall into their light canvas. Each room became a pixel in their display. They wired up 4 colors of lights per room and programmed the computer for a 10 minute show. Alas, it all got recorded on a handheld camera. I doubt anyone stayed in their room during the show.

Leaving Democrats and into the arms of... ?

Some sources say the only group that has shown more loyalty to the Democratic Party than gays has been African Americans. Others say that we are the most reliable -- 70% of gays vote and 70% of gay voters vote Democratic. Yet, at least on the national level, what do we have to show for or time, money, effort, and loyalty? Law makers who are still spooked by the Fundies. Many checkbook activists are now donating only to candidates with a proven track record and not to the party as a whole.

The immediate answer as to why is the awful DOMA brief that I wrote about a couple days ago. But let's take a step back.

The GOP wooed religious conservatives promising everything and saying, "If you don't vote for us the Dems will be in power and they don't like you." But the GOP never delivered (and we're glad they didn't) and poisoned the public debate in the process.

Meanwhile Dems have been telling gays, "If you don't vote for us the GOP will stay in power and they don't like you." One way to keep us tied to the Dems is to not actually deliver on their promises. In the big Democratic coalition gays are unique in that when they come out we frequently have to construct new social supports -- we know we don't need what supported us in our youth. Perhaps we don't need the Dems anymore either.

The Dems now face a big problem. Not everyone in the Dem big tent likes gays. Doing things for gays might drive away other factions -- into the waiting arms of the GOP. Thus the Dems are looking to do the minimum to keep gays happy.

Are both major parties due for a realignment? Is this a way of saying a two-party system doesn't work? Some wonder if the Dems are the party of doing the minimum to keep voters happy. What's the minimum health care package we can pass and still win in 2010? What's the minimum number of troops we can withdraw from Iraq?

Here's another take on the gay / Democrat divorce. Unlike the GOP, the Dems have never had a purity test for membership (I hope you've figured out by now what the membership purity test for the GOP is. This reader claims it is married white Christian males). However, that means not all members of the Dem big tent are willing to help gays. Gays and Dems formed a relationship because many gays forgot that equality isn't a partisan issue. That's understandable because the GOP loudly announced how much they were against gay equality. But Dems, due to the nature of the big tent, will only do for us what they absolutely have to.

So keep pressuring the Dems. Also pressure the GOP -- we wouldn't have gotten gay marriage in nearly all of New England without the support of GOP lawmakers.

Obama's and Congress's inaction has led to calls to close the gayATM (now with a logo: gAyTM). Some gay activists are afraid that gays near the halls of power will want to retain access through continued giving, dismissing the rest of us as not knowing how Washington works.

The number of prominent voices who have pulled out of Joe Biden's LGBT fundraiser has left the White House scrambling (and stumbling). Which has led to an observation: Our voice is our wallet.

Now that our revolution is underway how might we urge it along? The comments in this posting offers suggestions. Perhaps fire employees for being straight? They're not protected anymore than gays are. One commenter offers this suggestion: One each of a gay couple and a lesbian couple, both couples legally married in another state, go for a marriage license. When the clerk asks if they are already married they say they are, but it shouldn't matter because this state doesn't recognize it. The tagline in a rejoinder says, "Marriage equality. Now with 50% more cake."

We're not going to let a pesky amendment stop us

Even though Wisconsin passed a marriage protection amendment in 2006 that also banned civil unions, the legislature has passed a domestic partnership registry. They feel they can get away with it because, unlike marriage, a DP registration doesn't require a license nor a ceremony. The law provides for inheritance rights, employment and wrongful death benefits, and rights of joint property. The bill isn't on the governor's desk yet because the DP provisions are part of a budget bill and that needs to go through a reconciling process first.


The DC City Council has approved recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. As expected, opponents sought to hold a referendum to overturn it. The DC Board of Elections refused to allow the referendum because if it passed it would authorize discrimination. The BoE said holding the vote would violate their Human Rights Act.

Naturally, a suit against the ruling was filed immediately.

Expect allowing gays to marry in DC by the end of the year.

I don't want to inconvenience you

I tried to "publish" a few of these posts yesterday, but the Blogger site apparently went down in the middle of my first attempt.

I mentioned in my previous postings that Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum to provide more benefits to gay federal employees. I also mentioned the exercise fell flat. Here are some reasons why:

* A Presidential Memorandum (different from an Executive Order) lasts only while that particular president is in office.

* This particular memo essentially tells the heads of various agencies, "Please, would you mind trying to find some benefits to give to gay employees, ones that don't run afoul of the Defense of Marriage Act? If it's not too much trouble…"

* Most department heads already grant all the benefits they can and have done so since the Clinton era.

* These benefits are mostly on the order of bereavement leave and relocation expenses.

* Those department heads that didn't (such as State) have already announced new benefits (gay partners of DoS employees can now use American medical facilities while overseas).

Falling flat again and again

I know it's only been a few days since I last posted to this blog, but it has been a busy few days. On Tuesday I had lunch with a friend to celebrate birthdays (his is the day after mine) and then I went off to an enjoyable movie. On Wednesday it was lunch with some former work colleagues, a visit to the doctor (sign a form to keep my "preferred" status for my health insurance), visit the campus library, stop at Eastern Market to stock up with tea, and then spend the evening at the Ruth Ellis Center.

That movie I went to see was Every Little Step. It documents the creation of the musical The Chorus Line back in the 1970s and follows several singer-dancers through auditions for the show's revival. Stay with me now. That means the movie is about auditioning for a show in which the show is about auditioning for a show. I enjoyed it, though wondered why the whole process took at least eight months.

Alas, these few days of not posting happened to be momentous. One blogger described it as the Stonewall of our time, though quickly admitted such a claim is best left for history to bestow. It is especially fitting that Stonewall was 40 years ago next month. If you don't remember gay history, the Stonewall Riots happened when the drag queens in Greenwich Village in NYC decided they'd had enough of police raids and decided to fight back.

This was a week in which gays had enough of Obama's slandering and dithering and decided to fight back. And they did so with enough volume and consistency that both Obama and Harry Reid in the Senate were thrown off message and left scrambling for a way to placate us, only to find their attempts fell flat.

The trigger for this rage is last week's nasty support for the Defense of Marriage Act written by the Department of Justice. At the very least Obama should explain whether he saw it before it was filed and whether or not he personally agrees with it. That hasn't happened yet.

The Human Rights Campaign, usually seen as a subsidiary of the Democratic Party and the gay ATM finally got a spine and blasted the DOMA brief.

A couple of bloggers wrote a speech that Obama could give to soothe gay rage. They did it by directly lifting from Obama's June Pride Proclamation and interpolating from campaign speeches that Obama gave. Obama didn't give that speech or any other.

Dan Savage offers a civil disobedience method to get Obama's ear. He and his husband are annoyed enough they are thinking of doing it themselves. Every day one gay couple goes to the White House and asks to speak to Obama. When they are denied a meeting they refuse to leave and only do so when arrested. The president would be faced with the issue daily. Drip, drip, drip.

Well, if the prez. isn't moving on DOMA, what about Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Obama has been saying it has to be done through legislative action. But Harry Reid said there were no plans to repeal DADT, that he's looking for an executive order instead.

That didn't go over well, so Reid tried to change his tune. Maybe he and the senate might be able to find the time for it if Obama submits a bill. That didn't go over well either, starting with too condescending.

In addition to sending letters, to writing scathing blog entries, and getting occasional newspaper coverage, gays are also fighting back where it hurts -- in the wallet. Joe Biden is to host a Democratic Party/LGBT fundraiser next week. In response to the DOMA mess many prominent gays are canceling.

Obama tried again. This time it was a big press conference to announce support for the Domestic Partners Benefits & Obligations Act, which would treat partners of federal employees to full spousal benefits. In the meantime Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum (somewhere one can find the difference between that and an Executive Order, but I haven't looked yet) to provide gay couples with the very few benefits available without changing the law. Health care was not one of them. Besides only 2% of Americans work for the government and perhaps only 5% of them are gay (probably, due to Bush, a lot fewer). What about the rest of us, Mr. Prez.? Another effort that fell flat.

A blog responder wonders if Obama is being fiendishly clever. Perhaps he is provoking us to becoming outraged to provide him with impetus and cover to do all we want him to do. Or maybe not. Maybe it doesn't matter because we are now outraged. Does it provide him with enough cover? Don't know yet.

U.S. Conference of mayors passed a resolution to support freedom to marry. Why is Obama silent?

A reason to clean the garage

Back at the end of March I reported on my city's new recycling program. Since then the program has been approved and they are starting to roll it out.

I woke up this morning to noise progressing down the street. I wasn't sure what it was but knew it wasn't trash day. When I got up and looked out the window my new blue recycling bin was at the end of the driveway. This thing is big -- about 2.5 foot square at the top and as high as my belt. It can hold 96 gallons.

That meant my afternoon project was to clean the garage. I needed someplace to put this monster. It needed cleaning anyway and the weather was sunny and got up to 78F.

I've got a lot to put into the bin. I had been collecting recyclables since last fall (who wants to visit the recycle dumpsters in winter?) and didn't go this spring since I knew I would get paid for what I put into the bin. I've pretty much filled the bin and will fill it twice more before my backlog is gone.

I didn't have the particulars of the program quite right when I described it in March. They take all kinds of paper (including phone books), cardboard, all kinds of recyclable plastic, clear glass, metal cans, and even old metal cookware. The bin doesn't have a bar code, but does have a long string of inch-high digits. The number is recorded to say I participated and at the end of the route the truck is weighed. I get credited for one share of the reward. The first pickup will probably be in early July.

Rosa Parks is watching

A gay pride participant, who is disappointed in Obama's inaction on our behalf, asked for suggestions for what he could put on a sign to carry at the pride parade. Responders came through.

Some of the best:

It's hard to see change from under the bus.

Marriage: Not just for Pregnant Evangelical Teens!

Obama: Rosa Parks is watching

Discrimination is SO 1950s

The Audacity of Nope

And click over to a well done graphic (even if it represents a disappointing situation).

Politics of ick?

Researchers at Cornell University measured levels of disgust when people were confronted with icky things. Those most likely to be grossed out were politically conservative -- and most likely to oppose same sex marriage. The ick factor reigns. This story is at the bottom of the first page and on into the second.

Restarting public discussion

Michigan state representative Pam Byrnes, who is House Speaker Pro Tem, is introducing a bill to overturn the state's constitution amendment banning gay marriage. She is attempting the route of passage by 2/3 of both house and senate before going to the people for a simple majority vote. Her chance of success, given that the state senate is controlled by the GOP (heavily under the influence of Gary Glenn and the American Family Association), is close to zero. Glenn is even smugly saying it won't get a majority of the Dem controlled house -- if it comes to a vote at all. At least the issue is back in public discussion.

The leading edge of the storm

Six weeks ago I wrote about a gathering storm from the militant right. That storm seems to have arrived.

The shooting at the Holocaust Museum brings the total shootings since Obama's inauguration to 8. It had been once a month, now down to about once every two weeks. This is how domestic terrorism begins. It is likely to increase. Some indications of that likelihood:

* The rate of incidence is dropping.
* They may be lone wolves now, but wolves join packs.
* Law enforcement researchers see an expansion of training operations.
* Separate extremist organizations are reaching out to each other.
* Bush dropped enlistment requirements, accepting any warm body (except gays). Militia types signed up for training on Uncle Sam's dime. Many are returning home now.

This will end one of two ways:

* An act of terrorism that is too gruesome for the more rational members of the militias and most lay down their arms. This is what happened after the Oklahoma City bombing.

* Much less likely, the general populace sees the government is too corrupt to protect them and a civil war ignites.

The people who wrote that above assessment have a question for the militia movement: Are you intentionally trying to start a civil war?

Yeah, you claim these lone wolves are not your responsibility, but forgive us for not believing you for a few reasons.

* The lone wolves themselves claim the right-wing extremist organizations, or just right-wing loud voices, are their inspiration.

* When the Department of Homeland Security said they were worried about domestic violence, practically every extremist organization trumpeted about how they were being slandered. Except the DHS report did not name names.

* By trying to gain political power through hate and fear these groups attract the crazies. They even train and arm them.

* The political discourse is being polluted and trust destroyed -- and people killed -- apparently only for political gain or profit.

So, is it civil war you want?

If yes, then have enough warrior honor to say so. Stop hiding behind the crazies.

If no, stop feeding the crazies, grow up, and join the civilized public discourse. You can't assassinate your way to power.

But you have to answer now before a catastrophe happens.

Seems our fierce advocate is a fierce opponent

A gay couple married in Calif. last year have filed a suit in the US Supreme Court saying they want their legal Calif. marriage recognized by federal law and by other states. In other words, they are seeking to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. This is not the famous case before the Supremes trying to get the current Calif. marriage ban overturned.

Alas, Obama's Department of Justice has written a legal brief asking the Supremes to dismiss the challenge to DOMA. It is filled with a great many of the Fundie talking points, such as the gov't will save money by denying marriage to gays (they’re worried about millions after spending 700 billion on banks?). Naturally, this has not gone down well with gay groups. Didn't Obama say he wanted to repeal DOMA? Where is our "fierce advocate?" Why is he supporting DOMA?

One of my sources, the Box Turtle Bulletin, is a bit more thoughtful and both the host and the commenters he attracts fill in a few holes.

* It seems the DoJ employee who is the author of the brief is a Mormon and a Bush era holdover, who wrote such briefs during that era.

* There is a debate on whether the DoJ is supposed to be independent from the president (knowing full well in the Bush years it wasn't). Does the Attorney General serve at the pleasure of the president and how should that affect his job? Should such briefs be reviewed by the prez. before being sent to the Supremes? Many gay blogs say the brief is Obama's personal rejection of us when it is likely he didn't see it before it hit the news.

* What is the difference between upholding the law (which the Constitution says is one of the jobs of the president and which Bush scoffed at) and defending the law before the Supremes (on which the Constitution is silent), especially if the law is seen as in conflict with the president's primary job of upholding and defending the Constitution?