Funny…

February 22, 2012

HRC head Solmonese to join Obama campaign. Hmm…

Did HRC under Solmonese try to curry favor with the White House so that the President would speak at their dinners (i.e., help them fundraise) and, ultimately, offer Solmonese a cushy job in the campaign, and then the administration?  Well, it’s certainly a concern a number of us have expressed publicly before, and now it seems to be playing out just as we feared.

Whether it’s appearance or reality….

…but when trans people connect these sorts of dots (five gay male bloggers – including that one – as well as the zombie quasi-publication that used to be the Advocate lying about what a news report said, seemingly doing the lying for no other reason than to churn the existing anti-trans sentiment among the dregs of the already-overly-privileged gay elite?) we’re branded as paranoid and, even worse, not-team-players.

No appletini-laden HRC water bottles for us, eh?


Confessions of an ObamaBot

July 12, 2010

Perhaps the title is too declarative.  I’m still not sure.  

Perhaps this image is a bit too harsh.  

 

Again – I’m still not sure. 

What am I sure of?  

Its July 2010.  

Someone with less credibility than Joe Solmonese declared me to be an idiot some weeks back.  The orifice of origin of that declaration speaks for itself, so I’m not as concerned about it as I am about something else. 

Was I an ObamaBot? 

Why does that matter? 

Well, the recent anger – at Pam’s (here, here, here, here and here) and Bilerico – directed against pleas not to stop giving money to the DNC, not to mention the reality that, as I type, ENDA is like the four-headed, man-eating haddock fish-beast of Aberdeen, makes me wonder about what led to this reality. 

A comment on one of the threads at Pam’s: 

That might be a very solid case that people who supported Obama over CLINTON were wrong, but not that McCain/Palin would have been a better choice than Obama. 

Ah yes…Barack vs. Hilary. 

Remember that?  The question of which of the two was more LGB(T)-friendly? 

Plenty of people insisted that the woman I referred to as HRC’s HRC was the only one who could be trusted.  Plenty of people said it was Obama.

How to decide?

Well, I focused on this, the trans-inclusive Illinois version of ENDA, which was passed early in 2005, during the final days of the 2003-04 legislativbe session: 

Public Act 093-1078 

SB3186 Enrolled     LRB093 20455 WGH 46241 b 

AN ACT concerning human rights.  

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: 

... 

(O-1) Sexual orientation. “Sexual orientation” means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or gender-related identity, whether or not traditionally associated with the person's designated sex at birth. "Sexual orientation" does not include a physical or sexual attraction to a minor by an adult. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barack Obama was still in the Illinois Senate during that session. 

However, by the time that that bill took its whirlwing trip through the Illinois Senate and Illinois House – and on to the shadow of Rod Blagojevich’s hair – Obama had left the Illinois Senate for the U.S. Senate. 

So, that bill did not stand as evidence of his feelings about LGBT matters one way or the other.  However, earlier that same session there had been SB 101

093_SB0101 

                                     LRB093 04011 WGH 04050 b 

1        AN ACT concerning human rights. 

2        Be  it  enacted  by  the People of the State of Illinois,
3    represented in the General Assembly: 

4        Section 5.  The Illinois Human Rights Act is  amended  by
5    changing  Sections  1-102,  1-103,  3-103,  and 3-106 and the
6    heading of Article 1 and adding Section 1-101.1 as follows: 

… 

 9        (O-1)  Sexual  orientation.   “Sexual  orientation” means
10    having or being perceived as having an  emotional,  physical,
11    or  sexual attraction to another person without regard to the
12    sex of that person or having or being perceived as having  an
13    orientation for such attraction, or having or being perceived
14    as   having   a   gender-related  self-identity,  appearance,
15    expression,  or  behavior,  whether  or   not   traditionally
16    associated with the person’s designated sex at birth. 

And, perhaps most importantly, there is that bill’s official history

 

Senator Obama did not cast a vote on SB 101, but he did sign on as a co-sponsor of it – which, for purposes of determining the gay-friendliness (not to mention the trans-friendliness) of presidential candidate Obama, should have been even better than a record vote. 

And it should have been indicative of the future.

Yet, here we are in July of 2010, and the federal ENDA still is like the four-headed, man-eating haddock fish-beast of Aberdeen

Is President Barack Obama the one to blame? 

I still can’t bring myself to heap upon him the derision that I rightfully direct at those such as the Rhode Island Avenue Cesspool, St. Barney, The John, Gramma Frumpp, The Shamvocate, the Luna-Tick, Queer Channel Media and the entirety of the overpaid, underworked transphobic gay mafia. 

I will, however, deride the term “fierce advocate,” because I simply do not see any fierce advocacy in favor of anything that will alter the legal status quo that allows this multiple-degreed, multiple-law-licensed, frequently-published-in-scholarly-journals, 45-year-old woman to be professionally marginalized into economic oblivion – and which allows me no legal recourse against those who take advantage of that status quo. 

And look, I get it – there are no absolute guarantees.  Moreover, we can’t say ‘our money bought ENDA.’  That would be, well… You know what that would be. 

But I do think that, even if there were no campaign dollars at issue, in light of just how much noxious shit that George W. Bush wanted and was able to ram through far-lesser-majority Republican Congresses than that which Obama saw on Capitol Hill in January 2009 (What did he not get?  The FMA and total privitization of Social Security, but what else?), I think all of us had a right to expect at least a vote – a committee vote – on a real ENDA (and I won’t even talk about DADT, DOMA, et. al.)  So I think we had a right to expect that our Democratic president – even taking into account that his name is Barack Obama and not Lyndon Johnson – could at least cause some movement on ENDA in Congress. 

Did Rahm – or someone else – convince him that that would be ‘spending political capital’, and too much of it? 

Well, I think  the votes of the LGBT  populace counts as ‘political capital.’ 

And I think that that ‘political capital’  has definitely been lost – not spent, but flushed. 

We have nothing to show for it – and congressional Democrats can’t expect to end up with anything to show for it in November. 

Can they? 

I hope not. 

Maybe I was an ObamaBot, but I still don’t think so.  My support for him was based on a verifiable track record – a verifiable pro-LGBT history not then shared by either Bill or Hillary (she had been in the Senate for over a full term; where was the more-than-the-nothing-we-were-getting-from-Ted-Kennedy support for T-inclusion in ENDA?).  I stand by it: My support for him then was justified.  The next-to-nothing that has happened since then doesn’t change that. 

It does, however, make me very sad.

I assume we all remember Animal House?  And what happened to a certain car that Flounder was responsible for?

Otter: Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up… you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.
Flounder: [crying] That’s easy for you to say! What am I going to tell Fred?
Otter: I’ll tell you what. We’ll tell Fred you were doing a great job taking care of his car, but you parked it out back last night and this morning… it was gone. We report it as stolen to the police. D-Day takes care of the wreck. Your brother’s insurance company buys him a new car.
Flounder: Will that work?
Otter: Hey, it’s gotta work better than the truth.
Bluto: [thrusting six-pack into Flounder’s hands] My advice to you is to start drinking heavily.

The truth is that the Democratic control of Congress is only going to be less come January – if not completely gone, converted into a Boehner-orange blur of corporate-christianist psychosis (Majority Whip Michele Bachmann, anyone?).

The truth is that that Democrat fate was sealed the instant that Nancy Pelosi and/or Harry Reid and/or Barack Obama made the calculation to play nice with the radioactive sludge that calls itself the GOP – and the truth is that the point of no possible turnaround on that fate became clear when the DC Dems decided not to make hay while the Democratic sun was shining.  (The hate-crime law?  That’s not enough hay to keep even a single cow alive.)

Was trusting the Dems – whether led by Obama or Hillary – in 2008 a Flounder-esque fuck up?

No.  It was the choice we had against the specter of President Fakey McMaverick and V.P. Milfy McMooseburger.

However, believing any promise that Dem, Inc., makes to appease our anger between now and November would be the equivalent of giving the keys to our car not to Otter but to Bluto (John Belushi may have died, but never forget what became of John Blutarsky – and, likely, whatever trustworthiness he may have had.)

No ENDA, no support – of any kind.

Period.


How Close Can a Shoe be to the Floor Without Having Officially Dropped?

April 18, 2010

From what used to be The Advocate:

“We have an agreed-upon bill,” [St. Barney] Frank said. “We’re going to get the bill voted on this spring — what people really ought to focus on is helping us get the vote. I think we’re pretty close, but it’s not a done deal.”

Is it just me?  Or is this going to be a ghost of ‘agreements’ past?  Take a look at the comments to that piece:

It’s going to be hard enough to get ENDA passed with Transgenders included in it….

And:

As feared, the inclusion of trangenders in the ENDA bill threatens to have it crash and burn! The right-wing can no longer use it’s rhetoric against gays and lesbians to derail the bill so instead they focus on the fear of transexuals to flame hysteria and scare Congressmen and women from voting on it!

Think none of that equates to shoe leather meeting concrete?  Add it to this previous gem from Steny Hoyer:

[M]ost lawmakers already are on the record on the issue because the House passed similar legislation in 2007 to bar employment discrimination based on sexual preference. “So it’s not like this is a new issue for the members,” said Hoyer, D-Md.

If all of the above plus a ‘newness’ excuse re: trans-inclusion doesn’t add up to the extinguishing of all space between shoe and floor, then I don’t know what does.

2010.

Its the new 2007.


The Death of The Advocate

January 18, 2010

In an item online now and apparently in the Feb. 2010 issue of a magazine (which, because of the ridiculousness of the item, I’m refusing even to link to here) that, believe it or not, actually once was relevant:

Intrepid amateur sociologist Mike Albo searches for America’s 15 gayest burgs—based on a finely tuned (if totally arbitrary) calculus.

No, not gayest burgers, but gayest cities.  I’m not concerned about the cities that actually ended up on the list – which are:

1. Atlanta.

2. Burlington, Vt.

3. Iowa City

4. Bloomington, Ind.

5. Madison, Wis.

6. New Orleans

7. Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

8. Portland, Maine

9. Austin

10. Seattle

11. Gainesville, Fla.

12. Asheville, N.C.

13. Springfield, Mass.

14. San Diego

15. Albuquerque, N.M.

Sure, some people might be surprised at Iowa City being there – but that’s legit.  I’m not so sure about third-gayest in the nation, but I digress.

What is problematic here – and what proves that The Advocate should dig a hole for itself and perform a Chinese execution on itself – is the criteria that went into the creation of the list:

The ‘per capita’ thing does make sense; in fact, it seems to be one of the things that really helped propel Iowa City.

But, look at the second one.  In case, its not coming in clear graphically, here’s the text:

Full marriage equality: +4; recognizes out of state marriages: +3; statewide civil unions or domestic partnerships: +2; some statewide benefits +1; no marriage laws: 0; statewide ban: -1; constitutional ban: -2

Now – among the rest of the criteria, do you see anything about laws that protect gays (much less trans people) against employment discrimination? 

You know – employment?

A job?

The thing that, apparently, the readership of The Advocate does not have to worry about because, apparently, they have so much wealth that jobs are now just a concern of ‘those people’? 

Yes, it would appear that the ‘rich white gay male’ demographic of The Advocate has completely washed over what began as a legitimate cultural and political publication in Los Angeles two years before Stonewall.

Jobs?  What are those?

Crusing spots?  Gotta have ’em.  (I wonder if the Minneapolis Hyatt was factored in regarding whatever ranking was attained by the city that was the first in the nation with a trans-inclusive civil rights law?  I’m just askin’….)

So, here’s a practical upshot of how rigged this thing was:

  • Sioux City, Iowa – stronghold of notable rightwing christianist psychopath congressman Steve King – has +4 because of a court decision mandating gay marriage for the state.
  • Madison, Wisconsin – stronghold of Tammy Baldwin (who, yes, isn’t anywhere near as trans-friendly as our ‘friends’ and quislings want us to believe, but she damn sure ain’t Steve King) – has -2 because of an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment and despite a local trans-inclusive ordinance (and – now, here, you might want to take note because its probably the only time I’ll speak of it in any way positively – despite a statewide gay-only rights law.)  Its on the list, but….

If anti-discrimination law was factored in, Madison might be No. 3 – and Iowa City might be No. 1.

But that doesn’t matter.  Instead, its………………………

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

All gay marriage, all the time.

Forget the motions of the Chinese execution self-performance, I’ll just call it: The Advocate is dead.


…Because What We Really Need is a Dying Magazine Acting as Surrogate for the Exclusionist Fantasies of the Permanent-Activist Class of Employed Gay Elites

November 27, 2009

What’s left of The Advocate is at it again:

Would you support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act if gender identity protections were again taken out of the bill?

In the comments section to that ‘poll’, Jill Weiss asks some salient questions:

Why is the Advocate suggesting that such a thing is even being considered? LGBT leaders in both the House and Senate have assured us that no such idea would be considered. The main objections to the bill have nothing to do with gender identity, but are focused on concerns about protecting pedophiles and other sexual deviants, and religious freedom. What is with this poll? Do you think this is up for a vote?

The reality, of course, is that it is.

No, Jill is right in that none of it is officially on the table….

Yet.

But its always actually on the table – because the people who are (allegedly) on our side who actually drive ‘the agenda’ have no more use for the concept of the indignity of being nationally equal to trans people than they did two years ago…or four years ago…or ten years ago…yadda, yadda, yadda….

All of this kum ba yah crap we’ve been hearing from St. Barney?  Did anyone actually believe it?  Did anyone actually believe that the hiring of a trans man meant that a transphobic gay leopard had changed his transphobic gay spots?  (You notice he didn’t hire a trans woman?  Besides, despite the appalling apartheid-esque dearth of trans women holding positions of gainful employment from our ‘friends’, what the entire process needed far more than a yet another trans man being hired for a policy position was the excision of one particular trans St. woman from the process – but I digress.)

Another comment to the likely-soon-to-be-late Advocate ‘poll’, this one from Tobi Hill-Meyer:

The Advocate should be boycotted for suggesting this. Additionally, why do folks always assume that leaving trans folks behind would help? In this case, it would cause huge infighting, and split our legislative support. The chances of anything getting passed would plummet.

All one needs to do is look at the discord that has already erupted on a thread discussing this ‘poll’ over at Pam’s House Blend.

That’s what they want even more than enactment of a gay-only bill.

Infighting.

With enough infighing, nothing will happen – and that way, the permanent activist class of Hilary Rosen acolytes and Joe Solmonese wannabees will maintain their undeserved current positions, undeserved current and future paychecks and undeserved future positions in academia…

and Joe Solmonese’s wet dream of nothing substantive happening before 2017 will come to fruition – meaning that the Repub-to-Dem merry-go-round will begin anew on Jan. 20, 2017, and the current Hilary Rosen acolytes and Joe Solmonese wannabees, and a new generation thereof, will be able to continue to bleed the LGBT working classes dry by plying them with Jim Bakker-esque dreams of a fake future of an LGBT equality that the permanently-employed acolytes and wannabees don’t really want because (cue up the Ferengi voice) its not profitable. (Back to Kat voice.)

A comment from Kris to the soon-to-be-late Advocate:

I think it’s horribly transphobic that you even thought to ask this.

But horribly typical…

at least since 1974.

Per Betsy Billet:

Once again, The Advocate demonstrates that it centers the interests of upper class white gender-normative heaumeausexuals at heart by even making this a polling question. Trickle-down social justice doesn’t work. Incrementalism doesn’t work. Period.

But, you see, it does work.  The problem is that, just as the Bush junta always spoke of ‘spreading democracy,’ they never said – because the mainstream media never asked – what their definition of ‘democracy’ actually was.  If its what most people think of as the definition of that word – men and women being avble to vote for their leaders – then, of course, the Bush junta’s policies were abject failures.  But, by using what the Bush junta’s definition actually was – corporations controlling people and government – then it was a smashing success.

Same for American LGB(T) politics.

Trickle-down social justice does work – for those who get to do the trickling down…

and the tinkling on.

From the David Goodstein era forward, The Advocate has been a tool of the tinkle-on-ers among the LG(BT)s.

Anger at The Advocate for this ‘poll’?

Fine.

Surprise?

You’ve got to be kidding.


Advocating……But What?

August 19, 2009

Because I had never heard of South African runner Caster Semenya prior to the following item from the website of the ‘Advocate‘, I am forced to refrain from taking a position on the probability/possibility of anything regarding Caster’s sex.

Two things, though…

One: For some reason, when seeing the person’s name spelled out – particularly the surname – I’m being bombarded with memories of the SNL skit from immediately after the end of the Sex and the City TV series.  Cristina Aguilera portrayed Amanda and came out as being ‘a dude’ and wondered why no one had guessed – given that her name was Amanda.  Here, I’m simply noticing what the surname would be without the “ya.”

Two: A comment.

No – not from me, but from one of Advocate.com‘s legion of highbrow readers, presumably representative of the demographic it seeks.  Pam from Dallas declared:

no woman looks like that

Funny – with respect to the word “man,” I have a similar reaction when I see Perez Hilton.


.500

May 28, 2009

I’ll be nice.  First – a sentiment from The John with which I agree:

I don’t know a single effective political organizer or advocate who thinks that marching on Washington accomplishes anything other than wasting millions of dollars, creating a big donor list for ineffective groups to milk later on, and making the marchers feel like they’ve done something when they haven’t.

There’s talk about having yet another gay March on Washington. Stop it now, please.

Now – one from him that is entirely predictable, and equally laughable.  Regarding DADT:

[M]an it’s going to be ugly out there, very soon.

In short, he’s riding the ‘marriage is numner one, DADT is number two’ wave…

over the hypocrisy cliff.

Trans people not only have no clue as to the history of our own place in the LGB(T) movement but, additionally, cannot possibly have any clue as to whether trans-inclusion is politically possible and cannot legitimately question what certain elected officials say is politically possible at any particular point in time.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut……………..

When it comes to issues that they want dealt with now – RIGHT NOW! – non-trans gays have the absolute right to question what people who actually hold elective office say is politically possible at any particular point in time.