Dear political robocallers of various ilk ("live" included):

I am currently registered Apathetic. I am going to vote for (or against, respectively) the people and measures who/which seem least likely to fuck shit over even more than the alternative(s), based on what I READ from sources I trust, and that is It. No donations, no forwarding the emails to four thousand of my best friends, no joining your zombie blob campaign for no remuneration so that I can feel like Lucy with the football when you inevitably break the promises about the issues I most care about.

No, calling me twenty times a day and leaving long messages on my crap answering machine which doesn't fast forward do NOT make me more likely to want to vote for you, much less do anything else. Likewise, filling up my email box with spam about races I have not the slightest interest in/candidates I couldn't vote for anyway on account of I do not live in those places. They do make me more likely wish you into the fucking cornfield. Hope for your sakes I do not, in fact, have that ability. Thank you and piss off.

Addendum: WHY IN THE NAME OF BABY CTHULHU IS THERE A CARLY FIORINA AD TACKED ONTO ALL THE YOUTUBE BLACK BOOKS VIDEOS IS THIS SOME KIND OF SICK JOKE

Oh joy, just what we all needed: PUMA 2.0

aka: "Shut up, Hamster."

Srsly okai.

Or, I guess, I had a long sit, as my partner drove. I read Deoliver47's post about 'Ms. Hamsher' and it rather annoyed me. I've lived for most of my life amongst those people who now go by "tea baggers" (their own moniker) and I knew that no matter what happened in politics, I could never accept an alliance with such hate-filled individuals and I couldn't understand a progressive that might advocate such a move. Then I read a diary that said Ms. Hamsher had gone on Faux and Friends to appeal to their audience to 'kill the bill'. It wasn't much of a diary (sorry diarist!), so I checked the Fox site itself and damned if it wasn't true. Not only had she gone on Faux, she'd not even asserted herself to decry what the party of "no" had done to decimate the hcr bill. She talked about how the bill would increase costs to the middle class and would effect your current coverage and "causes it to be worse"; it sounded like right-wing talking points.

So, despite my struggle to remain objective, I was getting a lil subjective. When I logged on tonight, the first diary I saw was about Ms. Hamsher joining forces with Grover Norquist to force Rahm Emmanuel to resign. Grover Norquist? Really? I'm sure readers here know who Norquist is...founder, supported by President Reagan, of American's For Tax Reform; opposition of President Clinton's attempt at health care reform; Contra and North supporter; co-author, with Messr. Gingrich, of the "Contract with America; Abramoff aficionado; supporter and promoter of President G. W. Bush. Need I say more? That sort of perked my ears.

But it wasn't until a poster noted that Ms. Hamsher had tweeted about Senator Bernie Sanders losing his seat unless he killed the bill. Losing his seat. The only self-professed socialist in the political spectrum. Losing his seat because he wasn't progressive enough? Bernie Sanders, promoter of single-payer health care? That guy who passionately argued for, and offered an amendment that would provide health care and dental coverage for every American? I almost couldn't believe it. But I clicked the linky, and sure enough...there it was, in all its glory...

moar:

Grover Norquist is a lifelong Right-Wing warrior. Destroying all progressives and any progressive/liberal agenda is his life’s work. He is very good at and has been finding useful idiots to help him divide and conquer progressives for over thirty years.

Norquist started this work with Jack Abramoff at his side. One party rule has always been their goal and Democrats and liberals have always been their blood enemies. Destroying progressives and everything we believe is their life's work. It is what they do.

Grover is deeply connected to Abramoff. Perhaps nobody goes back as far with Jack as Norquist...

...These two created Ralph Reed and inflicted him upon the world and they spawned a host of other lobbyists, activists, media whores, think tankers, staffers and politicians that make up the extreme conservative movement in America. Jack Abramoff’s ability to lobby and be successful as the point of the spear for the K Street Project depended upon Norquist and his weekly gathering of DC conservatives (Jack’s in jail, but these weekly meetings go on—perhaps Ms. Hamsher will be Grover’s featured guest at a future meeting). The sweatshops, sexshops, human trafficking and systematic labor abuse on the Marianas Islands have Grover Norquist to thank for their protection by Republicans just as much as they have Abramoff to thank (and Jack kicked back funds to Grover as part of the circle of "thank yous"). Norquist should be in jail, but he was protected by McCain, Rove, Bush and Congress. Now he is still out on the streets of DC and making fresh "alliances" with gullible and foolish people within the progressive movement. Sadly, Jane Hamsher is one of those foolish people.

...And the heart of her alliance with Norquist is the fact that she is lending her support and credibility to the conservative conspiracy theory that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending money to poor people through the Community Investment Act and Community Banks. It is an article of faith among conservatives that Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama forced Freddie and Fannie to engaged in risky loans and that these two mortgage giants forced the big banks to do the same. And then the system crashed. See, in wing-nut world everything bad that happened to the economy was caused by poor people taking advantage of the system. This is a scandal that the wing-nuts want exposed just like they want that whole birth certificate thing exposed, and the ACORN thing exposed, and the death panel thing exposed, and the government’s dirty hands on your Medicare thing exposed, and the socialist takeover of America exposed, and the...

...If you want to fight with Rahm Emanuel, fine. If you want to pretend that he is your chosen personification of evil on this earth, go ahead. Whatever. But, if you decide that your hatred of Rahm is stronger than common sense, if you decide that you must join Jane Hamsher in making common cause with a shitbag like Norquist to attack Democrats, the President and his agenda, well then—and I mean this in the most civil way possible—go to hell. You have let your anger and your desire to piss farther and harder than you think Rahm can piss cloud your judgment.

Honestly? I'm listening to people on the left who are against the hcr bill as it stands now, even though I'm leaning toward the "hold your nose and support it, after making it as good as possible till the very end, because whatever that is is as good as we're going to get." But, joining up with Grover "drown the vulnerable anyone who gets in my way the government in a bathtub" Norquist to try to unseat Bernie Sanders because Sanders isn't progressive or aggressive enough in upholding progressive values. Because the guy who's been actually doing work, even brought up a bill for single-payer, has said this bill is worth supporting; and you think you know better, so you're gonna go side with the people who don't think we should have health care (reform) *at all*. Ooooookayy.

As for Obama and (some of) the Congresscritters supporting this bill (Lieberman can also be devoured by roving wolverines, yes, that goes without saying):

Listen, if I'm going to be supporting actual moderate-to-conservatives/self-aggrandizing cynical corporate sellouts going under the progressive flag whose "help" in this case not only doesn't much but may (*may*) even make things worse, I'm at least going to stick with the ones who aren't complete fucking boneheaded losers. That would be the ones who got elected into office, have some proven ability to find their ass with both hands, and are at least *trying* to make some kind of useful policy that will *help* *some* actual people be better able to not, you know, die. Hint: P.R. disasters like the Lieberman blackface stunt do not count as "progressive activism." They do count as "boneheaded loser moves."

p.s. how the hell did I get on Hamster's mailing list, anyway? No, I'm not signing your stupid petition. GOE AWAY.

Damn.

p.p.s. This, dammit.

If anyone thought that Obama's language about bipartisanship and compromise were just a ploy to get elected, and the fierce passionate liberal would then pull away the mask, they were deluded.

To me, Obama's open, bipartisan and cross-ideological tone was never just a pose. It was how he intended to govern, defining a mild, modified liberalism as centrism and putting the opposition on the defensive. A fierce, aggressive liberalism, the counterpart to the high point of conservative exercise of institutional power in the middle of this decade, was not going to succeed. Recall, that such an approach ultimately failed conservatism.

However, Republican senators' refusal to participate in any meaningful way in the health-care conversation, with the small and notable exception of Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe's single, hesitating vote when the bill was before the Finance Committee, is a painful revelation that Obama can't govern the way he campaigned. And that revelation is in itself a kind of cost, a useful illusion now lost. As recently as a few weeks ago, every savvy Hill insider would tell you that health reform might get 58 votes and fail, or it might get 61 or 62 votes. But it wouldn't, couldn't get exactly 60 votes, just because some Democrats -- Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu -- would insist on Republican cover. The biggest surprise of the last week is that health reform had to hit that target 60-vote target exactly, and that it did.

Health care's passage shows exactly how small the target is for any future Obama initiative, from cap-and-trade to financial reform. With no room for bipartisan compromise, and also no room to tell Joe Lieberman what everyone surely wants to tell Lieberman, the path forward is hard to see. As long as Republican opposition holds, even with the occasional press-release exception such as Sen. Lindsay Graham on cap-and-trade, there will be no room to the right and even less room to the left..

Flying while transgendered: no match, no flight.

And this, friends and neighbors, is a terrific example of how -systemic- transphobia works. Via Helen of Bird of Paradox:

The fixation that every citizen is a potential terrorist has gained so much ground in recent years that any concerns about implications for international travellers whose documentation might not match their gender presentation have been swept aside.

Now, via The Wall Street Journal Online (link here) I see that the paranoia about “suspected terrorists” has been extended to domestic air travel too:

Airlines this week will begin requiring some people making reservations for domestic flights to submit their dates of birth and genders as part of a screening process aimed at keeping boarding passes out of the hands of suspected terrorists, the Transportation Security Administration said.

[...]

The government’s goal is to vet all passengers on domestic commercial flights by early next year.

Of concern is that the TSA appears to be relying on the judgement of commercial airlines to make these decisions; and these decisions can also be applied to people who aren’t actually flying, but just accompanying a passenger to the boarding gate:

The TSA said it would be up to individual airlines or travel agents to decide how to collect the required information at the time a reservation is made.

[...]

People who receive gate passes, which allow them to proceed into secure areas of airports without boarding passes so they can assist other passengers, also could be required to furnish the additional data.

In other words, if the airline staff don’t like the look of you – or the friend who’s come to wave you off – you may well find that you miss your flight simply because you wore that comfy dress, even though the gender marker in your official documentation dictates that you should have been wearing a collar and tie. It’s absolute nonsense, of course – and trans-misogynistic nonsense, to boot.

...[M]y y point is that being required to provide information about one’s date of birth and gender seems unlikely to deter a committed attacker from hir objective.

It’s hard to see how this measure would have prevented, for instance, the attackers on 9/11 from boarding their planes – and, once again, the people most likely to be adversely affected are trans and gender variant people...

No-match has other implications too, of course, for being hired and fired, for medical care, for being arrested, for any number of situations where "your papers, please:" unless there are specific legal protections for trans folk in place (which there aren't in most states and cities, and even then, what's on the books is not exactly stringently enforced when it comes to civil rights, particularly if you're talking about already-very disenfranchised people), for not presenting or identifying according to your legally identified sex. And if there's a situation where you need to disrobe and your body either doesn't match what the "M" or the "F' on your paper is supposed to represent, or doesn't fully resemble what "M" or "F" is supposed to look like regardless of paperwork, well...you're not supposed to exist, and can be treated accordingly with no recourse.

See, the papers represent more than national citizenship, date of birth, basic stats: it's a way of declaring -personhood-. Which boundaries hold you? What nation, what sex? Are you a citizen of Manland or Womanland? Are you where we think you belong? Are you God forbid attempting to straddle a line that's supposed to be a wall? Are you "real?" Prove to us that you deserve to get on this airplane, work in this job, get that emergency medical care, step on this land, breathe this air. That box you need to check tells us whether you're human or not. Your papers, please.

This is of course not unrelated to the paranoia over "illegal" immigrants, or even American citizens suspected of being such: no papers? Too foreign? Too brown? Wrong time, wrong place? You, too, are a non-citizen, guilty until proven innocent. You're in the wrong box, and we don't have space. You fall in the crevice between the box outlines. Too bad, so sad; just trying to keep the rest of us safe from our formless, nameless terror; we need names, we need faces, and if yours doesn't match any of the acceptable ones, why, we'll stamp it with our fears and lock you away, overtly or covertly. Denied, delayed, detained, deported. De-legitimized. Your papers, please.

This under-the-radar scapegoating is not anything like "hope and change." This is not keeping anyone safe. This is, in fact, killing people. This is wrong, and it needs to stop.

Mommy, make the stupid STOP now, please.

I can't even watch:

Is this a great country, or what? Even though Alabama's Jeff Sessions was blocked from a federal judgeship because of kooky statements about the NAACP and the Ku Klux Klan, he could still go on to become a U.S. senator, and lead a racially tinged charge against the first Latina Supreme Court nominee. Equal opportunity, indeed!

I thought that Sessions' bullying and blundering in the first two days of the Sonia Sotomayor hearings might get the GOP to ask him to hide his light under a bushel for a bit, but there he was on Wednesday, holding a quick press conference in the hearing break to announce he continues to be "troubled" by Sotomayor's views on race, as if there was any doubt about that.

Not to be outdone by Sessions, though, Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn shamed himself with an unbelievable reference to Desi Arnaz's ancient Cuban stereotype, Ricky Ricardo, husband of Lucille Ball on "I Love Lucy." During a surreal exchange on gun rights, in which the theoretical example was what might happen to Sotomayor if she (wrongly, illegally, but maybe understandably) got a gun and shot Coburn, the right-wing senator told her, "You'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do," referring to Arnaz's refrain when Lucy got in trouble with one of her crazy schemes.

It should be shocking that in 2009, a U.S. senator would be inspired to relate to an eminent jurist who happens to be Puerto Rican with half-century-old Latino stereotypes (as well as a sort of sexist comparison to wacky Lucy) but after these last few days, it isn't shocking. The way Republicans have shellacked Sotomayor over her "wise Latina" remarks shows they really, really want to be the party of aggrieved white men. No others need apply.

Seriously; it's like instead of going up on a bell tower, they just dragged out their total meltdown over the airwaves and Senate floor and so on. For, how many years has it been? And, they just keep getting worse. I mean, Michelle Bachmann still has a job. Her lips, they keep moving.

I suppose something like Autotune the News has the best response in some ways:




Just make a fucking musical. Puppets. Origami. Topiary. I mean...I realize there's some elemental physics law that you can't actually get -rid- of the stupid, just transmute it into something. But godDAM. That's a lot of stupid.

ETA: Go git 'em Maddow.

Personally, no, I honestly don't think that's it.

Over at the Moderate Voice, speculation--far from the first I've seen along these lines-- that Palin's appeal is her "regular folks"-ness. That the same lack of polish and grace and knowledge that earned her derision is what attracted a lot of people to her in the first place. And, by the same token, why the people who execrate her feel so very strongly about her. Snobbery; classism, even, maybe.

Now that she's gone (please God), I can address this feeling a bit less...fraught. But yeah, still firmly of the same opinion as before:

1) Being "regular" is not, as the author of this piece seems pretty clear on at least, a qualification in itself to hold the highest office in the country, especially if part of the "regular" is not knowing what the fuck you're doing. There are some jobs that take actual skills besides likable folksiness. Airplane pilot. Surgeon. And yep, President of the United States.

2) Yeah, I do actually feel -that strongly- about a number of the religio-political positions that she'd espoused. "Oh, she doesn't really mean it" isn't much of a comfort, somehow, when you've got the religious right baying their approval and no reason to suspect she -doesn't- mean it. Yes, I'd feel at least as strongly and express at least as much fear and loathing if she'd been, o, I dunno, Ralph Reed?

3) Even besides that, though: look, your "regular" may not be everyone's "regular." I get that Palin reminds a number of people of their Auntie Betty back home or whomever. Goes to church, hockey mom, PTA in the small town/suburb... This is not my "back home," okay. This is not a -number- of Americans' back home. For some of us, "regular" -is- life in the big city; some of us laugh at old Woody Allen movies because -that- reminds us of our aunties and grannies. Have a different but equally authentic idea of homespun family values. Different but equally valid homespun -families.- A lot of people see themselves reflected better by the Obama family than anyone who came before, and no, it isn't because they love arugula so much.

This in itself wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for the not-at-all subtle dog whistles coming from Palin and a fair chunk of her hardcore fans that -any- reminder that their "regular" isn't everyone's "regular" is tantamount to a declaration of war.

4) Even assuming Palin did remind us of regular folks back home, not all of have the same positive transference to this particular personality.

"Yeah, she does kind of put me in mind of my parents' next door neighbor, now you mention. Known her since I was a kid; she's at all the PTA meetings, even still, I think. Keep running into her at the grocery store every time I'm back home for a visit. God, is she ever tiresome. Never could stand her annoying ass. She's like the Pointy Haired Boss, only perky."

But back to the first point, which I think is the most important in this particular framing:

When exactly did running for political office become a reality show? And when are we going to figure out that no, giving any and every camera-hungry yutz their requisite fifteen seconds (not even minutes anymore) and then tearing them down again isn't of itself a sign of healthy democracy?

Seriously, I doubt we've ever seen so many "regular folk" get their time in the media spotlight as now. It doesn't mean jack except that we're a bunch of exhibitionists and voyeurs. And that we have a -lot- to work out, collectively, about what exactly this whole notion of "all created equal, life, liberty, happiness, yadda" actually -means- for us. Because, what with the apparently intractable ginormous wealth gap, somehow? Whatever else? Ego-salving and nicely distracting though it may be in the short run, I don't think living vicariously through "Political D-Listed" is gonna fix the problem.

"Mediocre people need representation too." --Roman Hruska

ETA: Interesting post now, also at The Moderate Voice, on how Palin is essentially channeling the same vibe as Nixon. Others had said much the same about Dubya, wealth or no wealth.

In a word, Richard Nixon mastered the art of self-pity and resentment. From his famous Checkers speech, through his “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” to his cultivation of the “Silent Majority”, to his paranoia about liberal (and often Jewish) media elites, to his selection of arch-culture warriors Spiro Agnew and Pat Buchanan as his right-hand men, Richard Nixon mastered the politics of resentment. He exploited the sneers and mockery of educated elites and made himself - and his followers - martyrs of normalcy. He was the true defender of Joe Six-Pack, who only understand the world in simple terms and distrusted all the intellectuals. Like Joe McCarthy, Nixon mastered the art of cultural paranoia and expertly pitted the mass voting bloc of middle and working class white America against various and assorted “freaks.”
...

But no politician has better embodied the Orthogonian spirit better than Sarah Palin. Like Nixon, Palin was driven by a sense that the elites were out to get her. Those elites could be the mainstream Alaska Republican Party. They could be Ivy League graduates. They could be national media figures who mock her use of platitudes. They could be secularist elements that see the world in more complicated moral and theological terms than the Assembly of God. Sarah Palin played on the paranoid dimension of Orthogonianism - Obama palling around with terrorists, etc. - better than any Republican in years.

That explains her appeal to the “GOP base.” It wasn’t her religion or pro-life views per se. It was her willingness to “fight back” against the Franklins - the “know-it-all” liberal elites who, like their 1960s forbears, sneer at the unironically religious and patriotic and rural and non-college educated. She was a battler, never as articulate as a Romney or, God forbid, an Obama, but with far more grit than any other “career politician.”

Well. And then you have the rather amazing spectacle of people then trying to turn -Obama- into the "elite." Because he does have the education, the smooth eloquence and style (surely a "natural" gift to be appreciated and cultivated to one's advantage at least as much as Palin's good looks, no?) and apparently has a penchant for the fancy lettuce-in-a-bag. The whole, "and he -couldn't- have possibly -earned- any of that, what's he/the Party hiding?" wasn't remotely racist, nope.

Because what this article doesn't say explicitly, although it's clearly there in the allusion to Nixon's well-known anti-Semitism: the resentment in question isn't just about being relatively "have-not." It's about people who think that they -deserve- to be, not just living well, but -on top-, and--for some reason--aren't. Hence the railing at both the Powers and Principalities and at "freaks" and assorted minorities who are taking their rightful pottage away from them. Hence the rather sig heilish zeitgeist at the McCain/Palin rallies (and in the post-election Tea Parties and so forth). Hence, a lot of us feeling just a tad wary of these people.

Yessir, that's our Gubernator

Meanwhile, back in sunny Cali:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not get the election results he sought. Now he seems determined to show California voters the consequences.

In a special election on May 19, voters rejected a batch of measures on increasing taxes, borrowing funds and reapportioning state money that were designed to close a multibillion-dollar budget gap. The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed.

Nearly all of the billions of dollars in cuts the administration has proposed would affect programs for poor Californians, although prisons and schools would take hits, as well.

All his cuts target the poor and the disenfranchised, but, well, gosh, there's a good reason for that:

“Government doesn’t provide services to rich people,” Mike Genest, the state’s finance director, said on a conference call with reporters on Friday. “It doesn’t even really provide services to the middle class.” He added: “You have to cut where the money is.”

Blinded. I'm blinded. Fucking brilliant.

"Enlarge the Gap"

Sadly, the main way you can tell this is satire is that it sounds a lot more toned-down and reasonable than the actual spew coming from the likes of Luddite, Limblargh, Gangrene, Torquemada, and the rest of the Living Dead. Just this modest proposal:

We must fight. Today, a white male child will be born into an oppressive society where the color of his skin will only be a great advantage, not an incomprehensibly powerful advantage. That child will see that there is now extra competition out there between himself and his dreams. That child will be born into a society that - while understanding his cultural values and belief systems - will no longer automatically fearfully submit to them. That child will be destined for a life of dreams and promises that will only very likely be fulfilled. The guarantee is now gone, and we must get it back.

My white male friends, we shall overcome. We are a theoretically oppressed majority, but our voices can be heard. White men, spit the imperceptibly less silver spoon from your mouths and yell to the skies “The White Man will rise again! Power to the white male.”

Thank you, and I have retained counsel, several bodyguards, a maid, hairstylist and personal valet on this matter.”

All I have the energy for today

in light of the decision that is not a surprise:

At what point do the reactionaries notice that the couples who've been and continue to be married legally haven't destroyed the institution or sent the state sinking into the sea? Is there an exact number it needs to hit before the tipping point? Or was Traditional Marriage (tm) -already- destroyed during those few months and we just didn't notice? Is it -partly- destroyed, now? Did we turn straight marriages into a newt? Awful sorry.

"I got better."

Should be busy around this neck of the woods today.

More later, probably.

ETA: Oh, I lied, adrenaline's already going again, people are out in force and they're arresting, including clergy and a 19 year old trans kid...following it on Twitter, not even outside right now. #prop8protests, don't think you can link directly.

"Cos you know, so what if you can get married if you can be legally discriminated against for employment, housing, and going to the bloody toilet?"

.

Per Queen Emily. GENDA is in the New York Senate right now. Read it, pass it on, and if you're in New York, you can call your senator today.

ETA: but, also, read this comment from Holly, Wrt the hate crimes provenance, why Sylvia Rivera Law Project is sitting this one out.

but, also, too, read voz' testimony before the Rhode Island General Assembly arguing for passage of a hate crimes bill.

Good idea, "rebranding."

As in, the Republicans are "rebranding" the Democrats "Democrat Socialists." Which apparently requires a special meeting, and funny hats, and a special dispensation from Godwin agreeing that they are Exempt from the Law as they are officially Post Irony. not from Steele, though, cos no one cares what he thinks.

As I understand it, the Democrats were considering holding a meeting to redub the Republicans "the Epic Fail Party," but it seemed a tad redundant.

ETA: Wait. I hadn’t realized we’d reached "pell mell." Crap. Oh, sure, I knew we weren’t hunky dory, and things have been decidedly higgledy piggledy for years now. But pell mell? Ipso facto, that’s bad news, yo.

"Once again, we had to choose between our neglect and our persecution."

Yeah, basically.

The sad thing is, I and a lot of other people knew -exactly- what the deal was signing up; it's -still- worth a fierce battle even to avoid outright persecution, and the Democrats damn well know it. Way out? Ain't pining after Hillary (also at least as disappointing during her senate term, would've been exactly the damn same, just like her husband); ain't Nader; ain't McKinney; and certainly ain't throwing ourselves on the tender mercies of the Republicans. So. Right on schedule, here we are:

[can't c & p the chart, it's in the comments. a Kossack diarist]

Calendar of When it is Acceptable to Bring up the Topic of Gay Rights:


1. He just got into office for f*ck's sake. Just STFU for now!

2. It's still early and he has a lot more important things to deal with. Just wait your turn and we'll get around to it later.

3. We've got midterm elections to win. You can't expect us to address gay rights and run for office at the same time so just STFU! We'll get get to gay rights after the election.

4. We're exhausted. We just had an election. The new Congress hasn't even started yet. Just lay off on the "gay rights" stuff til later.

5. We have to get Obama re-elected. Presidential elections take up the full two years of the cycle and you can't expect Obama to kowtow to left wing GLBT activist extremists and expect win moderate votes, so just STFU!

6.We just won re-election. Can you please just let us bask in the glow of that until after the inauguration?

7. This is Obama's last chance to really govern. We have real issues to deal with without making it seem we're beholden to some fringe special interest extremists like the GLBT community.

8. Why are y'all just bringing up gay rights now in the 6th year of President Obama's term? You guys didn't work for it and don't deserve to have your issues addressed on your terms. Besides, we haven't yet had a blue ribbon commission that will examine the issue for a year and issue a report, which will be followed by a peer reviewed study of the ramifications, which will be followed by a another commission which will examine the differences between the first commission report and the study. After that commission's report is studied, we'll make a recommendation to the President who will then have to have his advisors study the issue for a while. At that point, the President may add the recommendation to his State of the Union address. So give us another three years even though we're only here only have one left.

9. The commission is still doing its work behind closed doors, so don't talk about gay rights at all. We have another Presidential election to win and we can't be seen as being for gay rights in a Presidential election. Just STFU!

10. Hey GLBT activists, we're on our way out. Half the President's advisors have already left for jobs in the private sector, Congress has adjourned until the new Congress begins. We are complete and utterly powerless lame ducks. What can the Obama Administration do for you? We're here to help.

I understand it very well; not only is it similar to the HRC's pattern with trans rights, for instance, it's also remarkably similar to my own work habits. Bit different when the only results of my half-assery and procrastination and excuses are on my own head, mind you.

Oh yeah, if there's one thing I think of when I think of Obama, it's "Shaft."

.

Sort of in the same way that Jimmy Carter reminds me of Elvis Presley.

And Kyra Phillips puts me in mind of** Xena, Warrior Princess. AIYIYIYIYIYI!!



"This is like my favorite subject matter, especially with you."

h/t matttbastard


**Actually.

.

Specter jumps the shark to the Dem side of the aisle, and...

Pat Buchanan sez that the Republican Party is "heavily white," and that this is "problematic."

Next up: Focus on the Family acknowledges that the church may be having some trouble holding onto gay folk.

And the Catholic Church notes they've been having some problems with the ol' glass ceiling.

Uh...

Buh bye, Blago

Srsly.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. – Gov. Rod Blagojevich was thrown out of office Thursday without a single lawmaker coming to his defense, brought down by a government-for-sale scandal that stretched from Chicago to Capitol Hill and turned the foul-mouthed politician into a national punchline.

Blagojevich, accused of trying to sell Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.

After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically ousting the second-term Democrat. In a second, identical vote, lawmakers further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in the state again.

"He failed the test of character. He is beneath the dignity of the state of Illinois. He is no longer worthy to be our governor," said Sen. Matt Murphy, a Republican from suburban Chicago.

Blagojevich's troubles are not over. Federal prosecutors are drawing up an indictment against him on corruption charges...

Question: what made this guy so special, as far as corruption goes? Is the real difference mostly that he was more of a blatant asshole about it than, well, *koff* a bunch of government officials who somehow managed to avoid impeachment?

Not that I don't think he deserves it, I hasten to add. Just: wow, he's special, isn't he...

Maybe it's the hair.

I voted for Obama, and THIS -is- what I voted for:

Three days in, thus far, concrete things he's already doing/done:

Obama Lifts Global Abortion "Gag Rule"

President Barack Obama today signed an executive order lifting a ban on U.S. funding for international family planning groups that perform abortions or provide counseling about the procedure.

The order rescinds the Mexico City Policy, also known as the "gag rule," which President Ronald Reagan originally instituted in 1984 and President Bill Clinton rescinded and President George W. Bush revived in 2001.

The decision had been eagerly expected by family planning groups, women's health advocates and others, who hoped it would restore millions of dollars of funding to programs providing health care, contraceptive services, HIV prevention and other care around the world.

"For eight long years the global gag rule has been used by the Bush administration to play politics with the lives of poor women across the world," said Gill Greer of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in London. "In rescinding this disastrous and unjust policy, President Obama has returned the United States to the international consensus on women's health."...

...The lifting of the Mexico City Policy does not permit U.S. funding to be used to provide abortions but allows funding to resume to groups that provide other services, including counseling and referrals for abortions. Critics argued the policy resulted in more abortions by denying women access to contraceptives.

Obama Reverses Bush Policies On Detention and Interrogation

President Obama took dramatic steps yesterday to reverse Bush administration policies on the detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists, ordering the closure of the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and banning the use of controversial CIA interrogation techniques. But he left open the question of how his administration will deal with any detainees it concludes are too dangerous to be released.

Flanked by 16 retired generals and admirals, Obama signed executive orders fulfilling his pledge to end what he has called torture and to abolish a facility that became a lightning rod for international criticism. His action drew praise from human rights groups as well as politicians and statesmen around the globe.

Obama insisted that the overarching message of his first national security orders was unequivocal: "The United States will not torture."

...The four executive orders signed by Obama in the White House's Oval Office had been largely telegraphed in advance and were in keeping with major campaign promises. The one closing Guantanamo Bay called for moving out all prisoners "no later than one year from now," after the case-by-case review.

...Obama's executive order on CIA interrogations mandated a permanent halt to the agency's use of secret prisons as well as coercive measures such as waterboarding. The order essentially puts the CIA out of the incarceration business and imposes strict limits on how the agency handles suspected terrorists who may be held temporarily for questioning.

The CIA -- together with all other government agencies -- would have to rely on the same 16 interrogation techniques approved for military interrogators in a guidebook known as the Army Field Manual.

...CIA renditions would continue to be permitted during the task force review, an official said. Renditions, he said, could be both useful and justifiable in some cases, but "there will not be renditions to any country that engages in torture."

Ready to sign Lily Ledbetter/Fair Wage Bill

A wage-discrimination bill that narrowly failed less than a year ago moved closer to becoming law last night, when the Senate passed the legislation and sent it back to the House for final consideration.

The measure, approved 61 to 36, would overturn a Supreme Court decision to make it easier for women to sue employers for pay inequity, regardless of when the discrepancies took place. It may become the first legislation signed by President Obama, who campaigned in favor of it.

The bill, dubbed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was introduced after a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 rejected a $360,000 award in back pay to Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama woman who worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber. Ledbetter had discovered a large gap between her salary and that of her male colleagues, stretching back years.

The discrepancy cost her lost wages and also lowered her retirement earnings because her Social Security and 401(k) contributions were based on her salary. But the court ruled that Ledbetter's case was not allowed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act because the statute of limitations on claims was 180 days after the alleged discrimination took place.

...Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), a main sponsor, noted that all 16 female senators voted in favor of the measure last night. "We've had an enormous victory," she declared...

I'm not going to address foreign policy, esp. wrt the Mideast and/or "the Muslim world" (not an ideal choice of words, there); a lot of people aren't best pleased at this point, and I can see why. I guess all I will say at this point is that the people who were having kittens about him being some sort of seekrit radical Islamic anti-Israel sympathizer ought to check into their nearest Reality Adjustment Center.

But not, please note, before the people who're -calling- themselves feminists and Democrats yet decided that -somehow-, McCain/Palin would be a preferable option. The above three stories? Any of it? Would not be happening. If you are stringently anti-abortion, think Gitmo serves a good purpose and waterboarding is just fine when it comes to terrorists and "bad people," are less concerned about employees getting fair pay than "frivolous lawsuits," then you are at least being logically consistent in continuing to think Obama is the ruination of this fair land, and wring hands and gnash teeth accordingly.

If not, however...well...-waves merrily-

And yes, I still think Favreau's a sexist dick. A good speechwriter, but a sexist dick. Execrate Rick Warren. Don't like some of the rhetoric, even still. Etc.

In the greater scheme of things, at the -moment-, I can't say I'm all that arsed.

Policy. Remember policy? Yeah, I sure do, and I can't wait to keep talking about more changes being made, and that need to be made, so pressure needs to be put on the new administration to make it happen. Fuck knows there's a lot to cover.

Some news is good news

Via the New York Times opinion section:

President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress are already signaling a welcome new seriousness in Washington about protecting civil rights after eight years of erosion.

They are planning swift action on legislation to overturn an unjust 2007 Supreme Court decision that has made it much harder for people to challenge illegal discrimination in employment, education, housing and other fields.

The 5-to-4 ruling in 2007 involved Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company plant in Alabama. She received much smaller raises over several years than men in comparable positions.

Tossing aside longstanding legal precedents, government practice and a jury verdict in Ms. Ledbetter’s favor, the narrow Supreme Court majority decided that she was entitled to nothing. They ruled that Ms. Ledbetter should have filed her claim within 180 days of the very first decision to pay her less. The justices rejected the argument that each subsequent discriminatory paycheck was a new violation of the law.

The impact of the Ledbetter decision has been broad injustice. As Robert Pear reported in The Times on Monday, courts around the country have cited the decision hundreds of times as a reason for rejecting lawsuits claiming discrimination based on race, sex, age and disability, without regard to the underlying merits of the individual cases.

The House is expected to vote this week on a legislative fix that would restore the law’s original intent. The measure would state that a violation occurs each time a person receives a paycheck resulting from “a discriminatory compensation decision.” The Senate is expected to take up the bill soon after. It merits passage, along with a related bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which contains other useful steps for combating gender-based wage discrimination.

More from the Robert Pear article mentioned above:

Mr. Obama describes the bill as part of a broader effort by his incoming administration to “update the social contract,” reinvigorate civil rights and close the pay gap between men and women.

At issue in the Ledbetter case was the deadline for filing charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court did not deny that Ms. Ledbetter had suffered discrimination, but said she should have filed her claim within 180 days of “the alleged unlawful employment practice” — the initial decision to pay her less than men performing similar work.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that each paycheck was a violation of the law.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the statute of limitations must be strictly interpreted to protect employers against “stale claims” and “tardy lawsuits.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Ms. Ledbetter’s pay fell behind that of men because of “a long series of decisions reflecting Goodyear’s pervasive discrimination against women managers in general and Ledbetter in particular.”

Justice Ginsburg invited Congress to correct the court’s “cramped interpretation” of the law.

That is exactly what Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say they plan to do...

...In the last 19 months, federal judges have cited the Ledbetter decision in more than 300 cases involving not only Title VII, but also the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Fair Housing Act; a law known as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges; and even the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects prisoners’ rights.

Lower-court judges have been influenced by two particular aspects of the Ledbetter decision. The Supreme Court drew a sharp distinction between “discrete acts” of discrimination and the continuing effects of past violations. Employers, it said, do not necessarily violate the law when their recent actions have no discriminatory purpose, but perpetuate the adverse effects of pay decisions made in the past.

The Ledbetter precedent has stymied a wide range of civil rights plaintiffs.

...The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit extended this logic to a housing discrimination case in Idaho. The ruling significantly limits the ability of plaintiffs to enforce their rights under the Fair Housing Act.

The Idaho plaintiff, Noll Garcia, uses a wheelchair. He said his apartment violated federal standards because it was not readily accessible. Under the law, he had two years to challenge a “discriminatory housing practice” in court.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, writing for the majority, said this two-year period began when construction of the building was complete. Mr. Garcia lost out because he filed suit in 2003 — within two years of renting the apartment, but 10 years after it was built.

Three dissenting judges said the decision showed how “statutes of limitations have been twisted by courts to limit the scope and thrust of civil rights laws.”

And then, just in case you'd forgotten for -one second- why the outgoing administration sucks beyond black hole levels of sucking:

Look at this fresh pile of steaming shit:

The Bush administration today issued a sweeping new regulation that protects a broad range of health-care workers -- from doctors to janitors -- who refuse to participate in providing services that they believe violate their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The controversial rule empowers federal health officials to cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, clinic, health plan, doctor's office or other entity if it does not accommodate employees who exercise their "right of conscience." It would apply to more than 584,000 health-care facilities.

"Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said in a statement.

The regulation, which was issued just in time to take effect in the 30 days before the change of administrations, was sought by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways.

Women's health advocates, family planning proponents, abortion rights activists, members of Congress and others condemned the regulation, saying it would create major obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research.

Among other things. Hey, this has got to be wonderful news wrt standards of care for trans folk, amirite?

I'm just curious: say my personal, moral beliefs insist that "thou shalt not suffer someone who has cut me off in traffic to live..." no, you know, I can't even do this right now. Not funny. Not amused. Too mad and disgusted.

Oh, look, and that's a shocker, too, isn't it:

The 127-page rule is the latest in a flurry of federal regulations that the administration is implementing before President Bush's term ends, including a number that would weaken government protections for consumers and the environment.

Shoes are too good for you, you POS.

Although the Obama administration could reverse the rule, it would require a lengthy process. Last month, however, Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) introduced a bill to repeal the regulation legislatively.

...The rule will go into effect in 30 days and gives entities until Oct. 1, 2009, to provide written certification of their compliance. Those that do not comply face having their funding cut off or being required to return funding they already received.

Whee.

ETA: Feministe has more.

In one more blow to women’s health and rights, the Bush Administration has issued a sweeping new regulation giving just about anyone the right to refuse to offer basic women’s health services. It’s being framed as about abortion, but here’s the thing: There are existing laws that protect health care workers from performing or assisting with abortion. Under current U.S. law, no one can be forced to partake in an abortion procedure if they have a moral objection.

This is about birth control.

...

No, really, some of -my- best friends...

In which, to begin with, we learn that PUMA solidarity extends even unto poor martyred little Anita Bryant.

At least a few of the commenters get it, but really, Tennessee Tea Party Guerilla Women....

In light of this week's historic decision finding that the 30 year old bigoted Florida law -- barring gays and lesbians from adopting children -- is unconstitutional (duh), it seems like a good time to recall the Florida Sunshine Girl.

Anita Bryant's legendary homophobic campaign ruined her career and inspired gay rights activists across the nation to work that much harder for justice. Unfortunately, Anita Bryant was just a clueless pawn, a young and naive woman who was conned by the Church Fathers to use her celebrity status for their bigoted cause.

The Florida Sunshine Girl lost her popularity, her career, and her marriage. The Church Fathers lost nothing.

As palinpumawatch acidly notes,

Anita Bryant was born in 1940 and started her anti-homosexuality crusade in 1977. I find it hard to buy a 37-year-old woman as a vulnerable girl-child — particularly when said woman was not plucked from obscurity but already had some experience with fame.

On the bright side, she now seems to have her very own ministry, does Bryant. You GO, sisterrrr!! Throw off those shackles of your oppressive Church Fathers! You SEIZE those tools in your very own paws! Grrrr!! Pounce!...

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me"

Oh lookie here, she has lots of pics of her glory days, past and present, as befits a comeback star. Press clippings, recent ones, too. Here's one by another woman--you see? conservative feminism at its finest! one woman supporting another! One Janet Folger, to be precise, says:

Last weekend I met a true hero. A woman I have long admired for a stand that cost her everything. In fact, I dedicated my book, "The Criminalization of Christianity," to her. The inscription reads:

"To all those with courage to speak the truth in the face of ridicule, blame, assault, censorship, and the threat of being criminalized: Including Anita Bryant …"

At a meeting of national leaders in New Orleans this weekend, Anita Bryant received an award and a standing ovation that lasted nearly 10 minutes. I clapped until my hands hurt.

A friend of mine who heard about the highlight of my weekend asked, "Who is Anita Bryant?" He said he had only heard me talk about Phyllis Schlafly with "such superlatives."

This beauty queen and orange juice spokeswoman was known for saying "a day without orange juice is like a day without sunshine." She had her own television show at the age of 12. She had a successful singing career and entertained the troops with Bob Hope. And when a candidate she had endorsed took a stand for the homosexual agenda in the public schools in Miami-Dade County, Anita Bryant took a stand against it.

Enter the real "hate speech": pies in the face, kidnapping threats, death threats, threats to her children, acts of violence to her home. Like a scene out of Sodom, homosexual activists surrounded her home screaming at the top of their lungs. Her mother was afraid to open the front door. She lost her marriage. She lost her jobs and any means of supporting herself and her four children. She was a sacrificial lamb to wake a sleeping nation. She stood alone. And yet she stood..

It goes on. Oh, it does go on. Hate crime laws for the sodomites and other, even worse travesties of justice followed in the wake of her defeat: terrible, terrible, poor martyred hero-lamb Bryant tried to stop them, but to no avail. And so forth.

Brings a god-dam tear to your eye, I tell you what.

But so yes, here's poor naif Anita Bryant at the peak of her gay-baiting career:

In 1977, Dade County, Florida (now Miami-Dade County) passed an ordinance sponsored by Bryant's former good friend Ruth Shack, that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Anita Bryant led a highly publicized campaign to repeal the ordinance as the leader of a coalition named Save Our Children. The campaign was waged based on what was labeled "Christian beliefs regarding the sinfulness of homosexuality and the perceived threat of homosexual recruitment of children and child molestation."

Her view was that "What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. [...] I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before." The campaign was called 'Save Our Children', the start of an organized opposition to gay rights that spread across the nation. Jerry Falwell went to Miami to help her.

Bryant made the following statements during the campaign:

"As a mother, I know that homosexuals cannot biologically reproduce children; therefore, they must recruit our children"

and

"If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail biters."

On June 7, 1977, Bryant's campaign led to a repeal of the anti-discrimination ordinance by a margin of 69 to 31 percent...

More details.

You know, all of this feels -awfully- familiar, but I can't think why.

...It's a familiar pattern: the Christian right often has its greatest triumphs just after it's been pronounced moribund. In 1999, just as the Christian right was about to achieve unprecedented power in the Bush administration, The Economist wrote, "The armies of righteousness, which once threatened to overwhelm the Republican Party, are downcast and despondent."

One could have written the same thing last month. Now, as then, the movement has been resurrected. At the recent Values Voter Summit, a religious-right gathering in Washington, DC, sponsored by the Family Research Council, attendees were ebullient. "The surge of energy is unbelievable," said Emily Buchanan, executive director of the Susan B. Anthony List, a PAC that supports antiabortion candidates and aims to mobilize antiabortion women. "Sarah Palin is going to be our poster woman," she said. "She represents exactly what we've been trying to do since we were founded in 1992."

And you fell for it, PUMAs. Hook, line, and sinker. And, apparently, are still falling for it, and prepared to fall for it again in the next election cycle(s). I can't wait to hear still more about the exciting confluences and new agendas and whatever the fuck else "feminism" it is where powerful rightwing women get to be Queen For A Day (one way or another), along with, vicariously I guess, their adoring fangirls; and this takes priority over...well, everyone and everything else, apparently, including civil rights for the rest of us plebes.

Anyway,

barring gays and lesbians from adopting children -- is unconstitutional (duh)

Yes indeed. NOW it is. Finally. Says Florida. Thirty-one years later. Good thing someone in Florida finally got the memo, because seems like with our current SCOTUS, it wasn't gonna happen on the federal level:

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the Florida law.

Also, too, lest we forget,

Some states, like Mississippi and Utah, effectively bar adoptions by same-sex couples through laws that prohibit adoption by unmarried couples. Arkansas voters passed a similar measure this month.

Along with, -snaps fingers,- o, what was that other measure that just passed...

With the passage of Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, the California constitution now defines marriage as “between a man and a woman,” excluding and thereby banning same-sex marriages. The proposition’s victory of 52 percent sparked protests statewide as well as nationwide. Now it seems that protesters have moved off the streets and into the courthouses.

On Nov. 19, the California Supreme Court agreed to listen to lawsuits charging that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Six of the seven justices agreed to hear the cases and required the parties involved to answer several questions pertaining to the proposition.

Whether Proposition 8 qualifies as a revision or an amendment to the California constitution, whether it violates the constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine by confining judges’ authority to protect gay couples, and if constitutional, whether it may nullify the some 18,000 gay marriages that occurred in California between June 16 and Nov. 4, are all questions facing the court.

It is a legal clusterfuck, I'll just sum up the rest of the piece helpfully, and the bottom line is: sooner or later, it's gonna have to go to SCOTUS. Now perhaps sooner rather than later. And while you, O gentle PUMAs, may think it's a "duh" that these laws have been unconstitutional, at -least- four of the sitting judges--the haler and healthier ones by far, on the whole--may not agree with you. And whatever they say, goes. You do understand this, right? I mean, you did? And that there was always more at stake than Roe alone? And that there are probably going to be at least three, maybe four, openings in the Court these next few years? Just checking.

A little background on the federal Defense Of Marriage Act, btw:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996...The law has two effects:

No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs...

...Several challenges to the law's constitutionality have been appealed to the United States Supreme Court since its enactment, but so far the Court has declined to review any such cases. Many states have still not decided whether to recognize other states' same-sex marriages or not, which is unsurprising as only Iowa[8], California, and Massachusetts have issued licenses for same-sex marriages...

As I said: legal clusterfuck. Bob Barr authored DOMA and has since apologized (!); Bill Clinton signed it, was adamant that he's for marriage as "between a man and a woman" (like who isn't, she said wearily). Very few people are happy with this state of affairs; the only exceptions are probably the people making filthy lucre and building their careers off the complex ongoing state-by-state battles. Some people--including, surprise! Obama--are for the repeal of DOMA altogether.

And then there are those--Sarah Palin, for one example--who are in support of this solution: a Federal Marriage Amendment.

The legal consensus is that the 2003 version of the FMA would have barred all governments from recognizing same-sex marriage from, civil union or domestic partnership status. It also might have prohibited the granting of any of the civil rights and responsibilities of marriages to any unmarried couple, including responsibilities regarding joint parenting, adoption, custody and child visitation rights, joint insurance policies, veteran's benefits, and domestic violence relief such as restraining and protection orders.
...

2004 and later versions

The first sentence of the 2004 FMA, and the effectively identical 2005/2006 and 2008 versions, would prevent any state from allowing same-sex marriage, even if the voters of that state amended the state's constitution to require recognition of same-sex marriages. Ratification of the amendment would have caused the dissolution of existing same-sex marriages recognized in Massachusetts.

As you can see by following the timeline, each run-through makes passage look increasingly remote; and this round, of course, between Obama and the heavily Democratic Congress, it seems unlikely anyone will even bother to try, unless as yet another rally-the-troops-for-the-sake-of-it gesture. Still, it really ain't over till it's over, and right now it's far from over.

Oh--also too by the way? That first, 2003 version of the FMA was penned by one Marilyn Musgrave. Thankfully, her defeat this year went to another woman, Betsy Markey, so the 30% solution is still as safe as it was -there-. Phew, right? I mean, what a loss it would've been otherwise, this fine woman who was--milestone! the first Republican woman elected to Congress from Colorado. She was also

an original cosponsor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. She has received the support of the Susan B. Anthony List, an pro-life PAC.[18]

Musgrave also opposes embryonic stem cell research on abortion-related grounds,[19] and was a vocal proponent of the 2005 congressional intervention into the Terri Schiavo case...

...Musgrave has also weighed in on the Emergency Contraception controversy. On July 25, 2005, Musgrave criticized a witness at a congressional subcommittee hearing who had claimed she was "humiliated and discriminated against" at a pharmacist's refusal to fill prescription of emergency contraception, claiming that it was only an issue of "inconvenience" to be denied emergency contraception.[21]

In 2003, a Musgrave submitted an amendment to the Runaway, Homeless, and Missing Children Protection Act, which would have prevented distribution of contraception to runaway teens. It was defeated. [22][23]

...In June 2005, Musgrave cited Coral Ridge Ministries founder D. James Kennedy, one of the leaders of the Dominionist movement, as one of her inspirations to enter politics:[11]

...Other political groups that Musgrave is allied with include Focus on the Family, Alliance for Marriage, the Family Research Council, the National Taxpayers Union, the Christian Coalition, and the Traditional Values Coalition.

And yet, look at this heartwarming picture of conservative feminism in action, before her sad defeat (I'm sure she's right not to have conceded or said anything to Betsy Markey even to this day):

Musgrave (left) receives a pro-life and pro-woman Susan B. Anthony Award from Jane Abraham.

See that? Once more, with feeling: it's a woman in politics, giving an award--named after a famous feminist, yet!-- to another woman in politics!! Look at that great big tent! Sisters, it just doesn't get any better than this.

And now, your moment of zen:

jenniforhillary 11.07.08 at 9:10 pm

...as a WHITE woman who as worked her entire life in social service mostly with people of color I am FUCKING offended by BO and his fucking ‘community organizer’ bs since I have done more in my life for blacks than he ever will.

Sixth, Blacks voted AGAINST gays and I laughed all the way home…you both deserve each other as voting blocks. Most of my friends of gay and NONE of them supported BO....The fact that blacks showed their hypocrisy and gays got hurt is KARMA since MOST local and the NATIONAL GLBT supported BO. I say you deserve each other.

Duh.

For the record

Dear Violet Socks,

In light of this admirable sentiment,

The attacks on Palin have been analogous to what horrible racist attacks on Obama would look like. I dislike Obama and don’t trust him politically, but that doesn’t give me the right to call him a n***r or a coon or a spade, or indulge in ugly racist stereotypes to demean him.

You may also wish to desist from referring to him as "Oppossum."

In other news, apparently Hillary will be Opossum’s Secretary of State...

Clever and original though that is.

The term coon did not originally appear as a racial slur term for a Black American, though over a short period of time it evolved into that. In early minstrel songs, the "coon" was reference to a raccoon, whose meat was supposedly preferred by plantation slaves. In many cases, for unknowing composers, the term "coon" became entangled with the 'possum, also thought to be a preferred food source. Apparently, many composers were not very familiar with American wildlife and could not tell the difference. As a result, "coon" and "possum" were often used in the same context.

Just putting it out there, friendly-like.

Alternately you could cheerfully ignore it as coming from an evil 'bot (of various sorts), apart from still more whining about how you can't say ANYTHING bad about Obama lest you be accused of being a RACIST, which you so ARE NOT so STOP SAYING THAT.

Btw, as for the rest of that post?

She’s certainly qualified and it’s a position almost worthy of her gifts, but I fear the worst. The last Secretary of State who was given credit for anything or treated as a hero was Henry Kissinger (which is not to say he deserved it). Ever since then the Secretary of State has been the designated fall guy for each administration’s missteps. Given that Hillary is already loathed by the men who run the government and the media, it’s hard to imagine her emerging unscathed.

What’s really interesting, though, is that Obama is willing to entrust such a position to a woman who, according to the Obama campaign, openly lusted for his assassination. A woman who is also, according to Obama, a corrupt plotter, a secretive and sinister agent of evil, and of course a racist.

Innit though.

And a lot of non-PUMA's didn't want Summers and said so, but don't let that ruin your "only us against the tide of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!" narrative or anything.

"Your life is about to get really, really horrible, and you know why? Because -Barack Obama was elected.-"

"I feel for, you, man. I really do."

via Plucky Punk.