More Scrubbing?

[Possibly not - UPDATE BELOW]

Apologies for the extraneous line breaks; my HTML skills are not quite on par with my archival researching skills.

Its been a hectic afternoon – two trips to the vet, the second to deal with a reaction that one of our pugs had to a vaccine she got during the first visit.

During the few  minutes I was at home before having to head back to the vet, I checked facebook – where I found a post about a statement from the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool regarding ENDA.

HRC Board ENDA Policy

3/25/2009

It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA. In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill. We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation. We will not support such a strategy again. We look forward to Congress sending President Obama a fully inclusive ENDA for his signature.

 

For the time being, I’ll simply echo Kelli Busey’s remark about the Scampaign’s statement:

I have a problem with this statement. HRC is still attempting to rewrite history.

But it gets better.  How much better at this moment still remains to be seen – though it is why I began this post with a mention of our dogs going to the vet (and one of them going twice.)

After I got back the second time and then grabbed a bite to eat, I sat down to make some remarks of my own.  However, look what I found:

What I found when I tried to re-access the HRC mea-semi-culpa statement

What I found when I tried to re-access the HRC mea-semi-culpa statement

Yes – the resolution could be better, but its an image snap of an error-404 page occupying the spot where that page had been.

So – had I been imagining it?

No.

 

 

 

 

 

 

HRC's own 'Way Back Machine' of sorts

HRC's own 'Way Back Machine' of sorts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I searched on HRC.org for the hardly-believable-for-HRC phrase “We made a one time exception” and there was one hit – the hit I was expecting.   However, the link took me back to error-404.

BTW – here is what the front page of HRC.org looked like when I did the search:

hrc-20090325-frontpage-no-enda1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what’s the deal?

Is there some innocent internal tinkering going on at HRC.org?  (If so, the URL in question is: http://www.hrc.org/news/12341.htm)  Or did my lesson on HRsCrubbing hit a nerve?  Or fall on deaf ears?

Or did the people at the Scampaign who themselves don’t really believe what they’re selling just decide to attempt to not even try that sort of ploy – yet again?

[UPDATE]

I looks as though it might have been door number one.  The statement – at some point – shifted over to a different URL:

http://www.hrc.org/issues/workplace/12346.htm

Of course, that doesn’t fully explain why – at some point (namely, when I was looking) – the search only turned up the first URL and that that URL was bad.

Lets now turn back to the substance of the statement:

It’s the policy of HRC that the organization will only support an inclusive ENDA.

Keep in mind that that, by itself, will not stop – and has never stopped – HRC from supporting non-inclusive legislation at the state and local level (Remember Topeka!).

In 2007 House leadership informed us that there were insufficient votes to pass an inclusive bill, so they decided to vote on a sexual orientation only bill.

This, of course, blows by the quality (or lack thereof) and quantity (or lack thereof) of the ‘education’ that HRC claims that it did over the course of the decade preceding what has been asserted to be the chain of events leading to ENDA 3685.

We made a one time exception to our policy in 2007 because we strongly believed that supporting this vote would do more to advance inclusive legislation.

I want everyone involved with the drafting and approval of this statement to be strapped to a lie detector and asked point-blank about this.

We will not support such a strategy again.

Ha! Ha!  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!  Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

This statement means one of several things:

(1) They’re just lying as usual and 2009 will equal 2007;

(2) They’ve been given a heads-up that the economy is so fucked that no ENDA of any sort is going to go anywhere, giving the Scampaign the cover to act like they give a shit about us because it won’t really matter; or

(3) They’ve been given a heads-up that the economy isn’t going to stop ENDA but that the deal has already been made – and the votes secured – to flush us and pass a 2009 version of 2007 ENDA 3685, giving the Scampaign the cover to act like they give a shit about us because it won’t really matter.

Stay tuned.

3 Responses to More Scrubbing?

  1. [...] further enlightenment? ENDAblog has plenty. I especially liked this bit: We will not support such a strategy [...]

  2. libhomo says:

    I think it is important to keep the pressure on the Champaign Fund. It’s even more important to pressure the politicians.

  3. GallingGalla says:

    it means *one* of several things? prolly all three.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers

%d bloggers like this: