Did you click on the link just now and sign up? Why not? That unreasoning reason that just jumped into your head - you know, the thing along the lines of "You expect meeee to....no thanks, I can't, someone else will do it, I'm just browsing, leave me alone" - that one?
We can have ENDA -- if we get smart and we get targeted.
Or not.
Why ENDA?
There are a dozen different items on our LGBT agenda. But only ENDA has an excellent chance of becoming US law this year, if the grassroots gets smart and gets targeted. The House is almost there, with 200 Representatives having taken a public position in favor, and 60 more likely yeses out there, bringing us well over the 218 needed for passage. The Senate is going to be more of a firefight because of the larger and more split constituencies that they represent, but there are probably (I emphasize probably) more than the 60 needed to preclude a filibuster. ENDA is also the greatest good for the most people, for it will have a direct impact on a larger segment of the LGBT community than any of the issues on our plate. Most of us work, and far fewer are hate crime victims, serve in the military or want to get married.
The right to discriminate against us is the right to keep us unemployed and underemployed and marginalize both our economic and personal lives. Furthermore, the House is very, very close to a clear and public majority on ENDA, and the Senate now has the power to shut down any filibuster after the seating of Senator Franken, with probably enough votes to do it.
We could have ENDA. We should have it. We would have it, if we take effective actions. But this may all be "coulda shoulda woulda" at the end of 2009.
So click here now to sign up for those August meetings with your Senators and Representatives.
The Grinch That Stole ENDA
There is a very persistent enemy, an enemy that threatens to deny us even the limited job fairness bill that is ENDA, and that is our reluctance to come together as a community to tell our Representatives and Senators with a clear voice: WE WANT THIS LAW.
Instead, we have a dozen different calls to action on different issues going around, people marching in a dozen different directions with their fists in the air and their brains firmly in the off position, and there is even a contingent that is opposing ENDA on the shortsighted ground that we don't want anything if we don't get everything right now - which is the legislative equivalent of a hissy fit. The small LGBT populations in the states where ENDA is most iffy and most in need of public contact with legislators are being split in a dozen different directions. Am I against petitions and marches and calling President Obama to task? Am I against free speech?
Yes, if it takes the form of crazy speech. I'm against anything that is going to fractionalize our community into a dozen different pieces, all speeding away from each other like the Big Bang. All heat and no light. I want ENDA and I'm not afraid to say so.
Desperately needed is an LGBT community signing up to meet with their Representatives and Senators on ENDA during the August recess when legislators control their own calendars, instead of the insane marching drumbeat that happens when Congress is in session.
Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, Representatives and Senators don't vote based on how mad you are or how long your petition, or how big your Facebook group or march is.
They vote based on how many people in their districts take the time and effort to explain their positions. There are too many things drowning out our voices otherwise - health care and immigration and taxes and whatnot. That is a pain in the butt, but that is reality. That is why lobbyists make so much money.
A meeting is so much more powerful than an email or a phone call. Emails and phone calls get marked down as numbers on a list, if they get marked down at all. They help, but much less than meetings.
So click here now to sign up for those August meetings with your Senators and Representatives.
Face-to-Face Meetings Will Get Us ENDA
Face to face meetings are what really make the difference for an undecided legislator. Think about yourself, and take some issue that you don't know a whole lot about, but are being asked to vote on.
Let's take as an example the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009. Pretty exciting, eh? It establishes a cleanup fund for reclamation of old mines by subjecting production of minerals from any mining claim to royalties and fees. Is it a good idea? Do we need this? Is this addressing a major problem or is it some legislator paying back a debt to a constituent on an issue no one else cares about? Is it going to drive marginal businesses under?
I don't know, I don't really care, and you probably don't either.
Which of these scenarios are most likely to get you to support the bill?
1) Your aide tells you some emails came in supporting the bill.
2) Your receptionist says you got some phone calls supporting the bill.
3) You meet with three constituents who vote in your district, nrict, nice people all of them, and they tell you how mine-damaged land is a major problem for them, and why this Act is needed to improve the quality of their lives. Each of them tells a story about what it's like living with these abandoned mines and why it's bad.
I don't know about you, but I'd go with number 3.
Now, number 3 doesn't happen all that often.
Why? Because, in fact, most people are too busy with their lives to stop and take the effort to set up a meeting and go and pitch their legislators. It's also a bit frightening. What will I say? How will they react? Will I be rejected? So a meeting of legislators with ordinary constituents happens once in a blue moon. Oh, the corporate constituents and the lobbying groups and the nonprofits are in there every day. But an ordinary person who experiences discrimination?
Rarely.
That's got to change.
The Facebook campaign for "Inclusive ENDA" (with over 2700 members, by the way, but who's counting?) is providing a service that allows those interested in passage of the bill to sign up for meetings scheduled with their U.S. Senators and Representatives in their local districts in August.
August is a time when no legislative session is scheduled, and legislators are in their home districts. They are not controlled by a tight meeting schedule. They have time to listen. And that time is now.
So click here now to sign up for those August meetings with your Senators and Representatives.
Why Are You Exempt?
Did you click and sign up?
Hmmm. This meeting signup site has been in place for a month and we have advertised it tirelessly. Do you know how many people visited the site?,About a 1000. Do you know how many signed up for meetings? About 50.
Do you see a disconnect here?
We are too busy with too many things. We have calls for petitions, and we have calls for marches, and we have rhetoric and bloggers' tough talk out the wazoo about DOMA briefs and DOJ and President Obama and a lot of things that, frankly, don't amount to a hill of beans.
I, for one, don't want to hear about petitions and I don't want to hear about marches and I certainly don't want to hear about whether President Obama is with us or against us - none of these will matter one whit when the ENDA vote comes down this fall.
President Obama can't do this for us. Barney Frank can't do this for us. Joe Solmonese can't do this for us.
The only thing that will matter is how many of your legislators say "aye" when their name is called.
If you want them to meet you on ENDA, you have got to meet them.
Forget signing some internet petition that's going to line the legislative bird cage, and marches that will fill newspapers with angry words and pictures but not produce a single legislative vote.
So click here now to sign up for those August meetings with your Senators and Representatives.
Or Bye-Bye ENDA.
Everyone out there has a theory -- the latest is that Sarah Palin stepped aside as governor of Alaska because she's about to get caught up in a scandal centered related to a building contractor, Spenard Building Supplies that has close ties to the Thrilla from Wasilla and her husband, Todd. Max Blumenthal at The Daily Beast explains.
Many political observers in Alaska are fixated on rumors that federal investigators have been seizing paperwork from SBS in recent months, searching for evidence that Palin and her husband Todd steered lucrative contracts to the well-connected company in exchange for gifts like the construction of their home on pristine Lake Lucille in 2002. The home was built just two months before Palin began campaigning for governor, a job which would have provided her enhanced power to grant building contracts in the wide-open state.
SBS has close ties to the Palins. The company has not only sponsored Todd Palin's snowmobile team, according to the Village Voice's Wayne Barrett, it hired Sarah Palin to do a statewide television commercial in 2004.
Though Todd Palin told Fox News he built his Lake Lucille home with the help of a few "buddies," according to Barrett’s report, public records revealed that SBS supplied the materials for the house. While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin blocked an initiative that would have required the public filing of building permits—thus momentarily preventing the revelation of such suspicious information.
Sounds like an Uncle Ted Stevens kind of deal, huh? This story has eclipsed the 2012 presidential run speculation a bit, but it's hard not to revel over Palin's decision and the consternation it has brought to GOP operatives, who are weighing whether this is a positive or negative for the party and Palin.
[L]iberation comes at a potentially steep price. These include brutal reviews from many Republicans, who believe that quitting mid-term in the fashion she did amounts to political suicide.
“There is just no good way to say quitting has made her more qualified to run for higher office,” said veteran GOP pollster Glen Bolger.
...“I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh,” quipped Republican media consultant Todd Harris.
Even those who were less critical of her choice were taken aback by Palin’s rambling, hard-to-follow news conference by the side of a lake outside her home. The performance had shades of Richard Nixon’s “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore” news promise in 1962, as well as Mark Sanford’s bizarre exercise in self-r self-revelation just last month.
Meanwhile, the Freepi watched Palin's news conference and apparently the swamps have turned into Bizarro land. She's about to take on the left and they are right behind her. See below the fold.
One Freeper put up a vanity post, "Sarah Palin just made a covert Declaration Of War":
Ever notice? When she’s angry, she starts talking a little faster, her eyes lids narrow a tad, and she talks through lips that are a bit closer together – and that faint frown of hers becomes almost permanent, yet a smile remains. She displayed all of those signs today. She didn’t say it in so many words, but if I don’t miss my bet, Sarah Palin just declared all-out war on the left – and believe me, she can wage that war like no other – as has been well demonstrated.
No, she’s not about to run off into seclusion – no, she isn’t tired of politics – and most definitely she isn’t going to join some third-party. This lady is a well-known fighter. She will gather resources, do research, write a book, and enlist an army to fight with her. When that army attacks, squish-GOP kooks and Democrats alike will run in fear, try to hide and cry for help from presstitutes and leftist media whores.
There are many on the right that think that Sarah Palin should go quietly off into the Alaskan outback to fish for salmon. Sorry about that – she will quite likely remain an Alaskan, and yes she’ll do a lot of fishing – a lot of it the political kind, and she’ll skin her political prey, barbeque and roast them – then serve them up for ridicule.
We’ve not seen the last of her – nor have those on the commie-left – all of us have only seen the beginning.
So sit back and wait – many of us will likely get a draft notice in the not distant future.
We have a population intent on fighting back hard – against criminal government, and its betrayal of America. The call to battle began weeks ago, and today as millions join in a revolution already well underway – an accomplish fighter just declared her intention to lead – full time.
Just my 2 cents...
Good lord, that's delusional. You can surf over and read the reaction to the battle cry...
Related:
* Palin Resignation: 11 Theories Why
* Breaking News: Sarah Palin is Stepping Down
But exactly what do we mean when we talk about "civility"? Which is to ask, where does disoes disagreement, even vigorous disagreement, become "uncivil"? I'd be the first one to argue, for instance, that claiming that Ann Coulter "looks like a man" is frivolous, insulting and, for that matter, beside the point. (If your biggest criticism of Coulter is that she "looks like a man," you're implicitly giving her a pass on all the detestable things she's said and written. If she looked like Grace Kelly, would everything else about her be okay?) But is it being uncivil to her? That strikes me as arguable, at best. She isn't even here.
But leaving aside the question of whether it's possible to be "uncivil" to someone who isn't even part of the conversation, there is another strain of argument we hear all the time: that disagreeing with Christians, criticizing or even examining their beliefs and finding them wanting, is in some way inherently "uncivil."
I contend that it isn't, for a lot of reasons.
First of all, to get the obvious out of the way, there is the long, bloody record of Christian history vis-?-vis gay people. The Christian church, in its various manifestations, has been actively persecuting us for as long as it's been in a position to do so. The first legal code in the Western world to criminalize gayness was the Theodosian Code in the 4th century (it called for imprisonment and torture)-which was composed by a panel of Christian bishops. The first law code to call for the death penalty for gays was the 6th century's Justinian Code-which was likewise the handiwork of bishops. And the persecutions continue to this day. In parts of Africa, the Christian church still imposes severe penalties for what the Church of England used to call "the abominable crime of buggery," and much of the Christian world still enforces sodomy laws. And I hardly have to detail all the Christian villainy we've faced in this country. The word sodomy itself has its roots in the Christian holy book.
Whether people want to admit it or not, the way Fred Phelps and Benedict XVI talk about us is consistent with the way we've been treated by the Christian church for 2,000 years. Anything pro-LGBT in Christianity is a recent development. I know there are people who are willing to give Christianity a pass on that. Many more of us are not.
It will be argued that "not all Christians are like that" and that "you shouldn't paint Christians with a broad brush." Well, I can't remember ever seeing a comment here (or anywhere else, for that matter) to the effect that every single Christian everywhere is a bad person. We are all perfectly aware that there are "affirming" and "accepting" congregations and a great many fine individual Christians. Comments tend to be about the Christian church at the institutional level and its supporters.
I've pointed out before that of the 30-odd state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, and the scores of anti-gay ballot initiatives and referenda across the country, every single one of them has been initiated or actively promoted by a Christian group. In contrast, I'm not aware of even one pro-gay measure that has come out of a Christian group. Not one.
Moreover, the "affirming" churches never seem to speak out against the language and behavior of the actively hateful ones. It's all very well for churches to claim to be "affirming," but that affirmation never seems to translate into action. The old phrase "all aid short of help" comes to mind.
I also have to point out that there are no known "ex-gay" groups that are not either sponsored by Christian churches or do not have active ties to them. And of the anti-gay groups that combined to form the "Freedom Foundation" earlier this week, at least 14 of the 24 are identifiably Christian, while a good many more have strong ties to the Christian right.
I've debated any number of homophobes over the years, both on and off the airthe air, and I can honestly say that there wasn't even one of them who at some point didn't try to justify his position by citing the Bible or the church's teaching. And of course there is no way of calculating the amount of damage being done to us by Obama's five anti-gay "spiritual advisers."
But let's leave aside for a moment Christianity's virulently anti LGBT past and present. There is a long, long philosophic position of unbelief, dating back to the pre-Christian era. I've always loved this, from the Greek philosopher Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Cicero famously declared, "The gods are forces and ideas made poetry for our instruction." But despite their skepticism about established religion, no one presumed to accuse them of "incivility".
That refusal to take anything about religion at face value has been more common than not among great thinkers. From Aristotle ("Men create gods after their own image, not only with regard to their form, but with regard to their mode of life") to Sir Francis Bacon ("Atheism leads a man to sense") to Voltaire ("Atheism is the voice of a few intelligent people") to Marx ("The first requisite of the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion"), atheism has been the rule rather than the exception. Were all those philosophers being "uncivil" by voicing their philosophies?
Even figures as unlikely as Charlie Chaplin voiced their disbelief and the reasons for it ("I am an atheist on the ground of common sense"). To argue that people who put forth their own unbelief are being uncivil is missing the point entirely and, quite frankly, it strikes me as a rather desperate argument.
And of course the tradition of criticizing Christianity, specifically, on various grounds is equally long and equally rich. Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva from the brain of Jupiter." There is this, from Nietzsche: "Christianity makes suffering contagious." And also this Nietzschean dictum: "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad." Even Christian leaders have, perhaps unintentionally, called their religion into question. Pope Leo X: "It has served us well, this myth of Christ."
(One complaint we frequently hear is about the use of the phrase "fairy tales" to describe the Bible. But if I were to express a belief that, say, the sun is really a flaming chariot driven across the sky each day by Apollo, would anyone hesitate to tell me I believe in a fairy tale? Fair's fair.)
It would be possible to cite scores more of such quotes, but why go on? The simple fact is that unbelief in general and severe skepticism about Christianity in particular constitute a long intellectual/philosophic tradition. Whether you agree with it or not, it is at least as valid as any other world view, and the proposition that expressing it inherently constitutes some sort of calculated insult to believers is petulant, passive-aggressive nonsense. To put it another way, I ask, along with Martin Luther, "Why should my freedom be taken away from me by someone else's superstition and ignorance?"
No comments:
Post a Comment