I've been busier with another blog this year, publishing poetry at least once a week. I was kinda surprised how long it had been since I'd given this page any attention... Reckon that's how life works, though, at least in this great demockeryacy.
Joe Lieberman killed the public option. Oral Roberts died. The Buddha sez you can only get to transcendent ex-stasis by putting yourself in another's situation and practicing compassion for their position.
Hmmm.
Funny. I can do that much easier with Oral Roberts. Joe Lieberman, not so much. Guess I have a lot to learn. Or something.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Share Far and Wide My Friends
AT&T's Net neutrality doublethink
By Bill Snyder
Created 2009-12-10 03:00AM
George Orwell would be proud of AT&T's latest series of ads.
The company is attempting to convince us that it favors Net neutrality and an open Internet, when in fact it is lobbying hard for the opposite result. The strategy was foreshadowed in October when Sen. John McCain, the recipient of more telco money [1] in the last two years than anybody in the U.S. Senate, authored a bill disingenuously labeled "The Internet Freedom Act of 2009." But if McCain and AT&T were being honest, they would have called it "The Internet Robber Baron Act."
More than semantics are at stake here. The new chairman of the FCC is moving to put teeth into a series of rules [2] that would do much to guarantee real Net neutrality. Naturally, the big carriers oppose this. But given the political climate in the country and their companies' record of alienating consumers and businesses that need an open Internet, AT&T's spinmeisters know that it can't just come out and say what it really means.
[ Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [3] at InfoWorld. | Paul Venezia reveals "Digital tyranny in the U.K. -- is the U.S. next? [4]" ]
Instead, the company cleverly disguises its real intent with a campaign aimed at convincing the public that, as Orwell put it in "1984," ignorance is strength. OK, that's a bit harsh. But there is going to be a big fight about this in 2010, and whether we are IT professionals, consumers, or both, we need to know exactly what's going on.
What Net neutrality really means
Early on, the debate about Net neutrality centered on the issue of tiered or metered pricing. Carriers argued with some justification that customers who use more bandwidth -- and, thus, more network resources -- should pay accordingly. That's not too different than charging by the gallon for water service or by the kilowatt-hour for electricity.
That debate is largely over, though it's not clear which carriers will implement tiered pricing and how much it will cost consumers. (AT&T recently moved to start such tiered pricing for data services [5].)
The argument now is much more complex and centers on control of content and applications on both the wired and wireless Internet. If a carrier can pick and choose among different types of content and different types of applications, its competitors (and, ultimately, the users) are severely disadvantaged.
The FCC has for some time favored Net neutrality in principle, but it has never turned those principles into enforceable rules. But in October, Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, proposed to codify the four existing principles and added two more. (Here's a complete list of the six pending rules [6].)
Most significantly, rule no. 5 says broadband service providers "would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner." The other new rule would make ISPs disclose relevant information concerning network management and other practices.
It's probably easier to understand what Net neutrality means by looking at its opposite. Suppose AT&T decided that customers who want to reach their Gmail accounts would get slower connection speeds than customers who were using its own U-verse service or its partner's Yahoo Mail. Or what if AT&T had a partnership with say, Amazon.com, and allowed its transactions to move faster than those on the Barnes & Noble site? Talk about anticompetitive. If rule no. 5 takes effect, those scenarios are illegal.
Two years ago, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and backed down only when the FCC started making noises about new rules. Comcast may indeed have been experiencing network issues because of the heavy BitTorrent traffic. But instead of acting openly, it acted like a hacker, using a technique called packet forgery [7] to slow the traffic. Such behavior would be stopped by rule No. 6.
When AT&T, Verizon, and other carriers say they want the Internet to be free and competitive, what they really want to do is maintain the status quo: They want to be free of regulation so that they can set the rules, not let you be free to do what you want. As long as Net neutrality is upheld by unenforceable "principles" instead of actual rules with consequences for violation, life is good -- for them.
At the same time and in the same misleading ads, AT&T trumpets its desire to extend broadband to everyone in the country. Sure, that sounds great, but read the fine print. AT&T is asking asking the government to define broadband as anything over 768Kbps downstream and 200Kbps upstream [8]. That low-speed level hasn't been considered "broadband" in years. Comcast reportedly set the bar even lower, defining broadband as 256Kbps upstream or downstream. So much for VoIP, streaming video, or any new applications that may need relatively high speeds. And did I mention there would likely be a whopping subsidy to carriers that provide this crippled version of "broadband" service?
McCain's bill would stifle innovation
When the FCC was in Republican hands, McCain and friends had no need to push a legislative agenda. Now that Genachowski and other Obama appointees are in the majority, the carriers' buddies have to do something.
That something was the Internet Freedom Act McCain sponsored in the fall. The bill says the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
Aside from the utterly misleading title of the bill, there's a rather large irony here. Conservatives generally believe, or at least claim to believe, that the market works best when competition is allowed to flourish. And they argue that government regulation will stifle innovation.
But the McCain bill would do exactly the opposite. It would give the largest players -- the biggest service providers -- an even greater advantage over new and potentially more innovative competitors. After all, if a startup faces especially high tariffs because its application is seen as competitive with that of a carrier or its partner, it's likely to fail. That sounds like the robber-baron era of the late 1800s and early 1900s to me.
By contrast, the FCC's new rules would keep the Internet open for consumers, businesses, and innovators. AT&T, Verizon, and the politicians carrying their water want to lock it up, in the name of freedom. It's not hard to see who's on the right side of this one.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here so all our readers can share them; or reach me at bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net [9].
This article, "AT&T's Net neutrality doublethink [10]," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [11]. Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [12] at InfoWorld.com.
By Bill Snyder
Created 2009-12-10 03:00AM
George Orwell would be proud of AT&T's latest series of ads.
The company is attempting to convince us that it favors Net neutrality and an open Internet, when in fact it is lobbying hard for the opposite result. The strategy was foreshadowed in October when Sen. John McCain, the recipient of more telco money [1] in the last two years than anybody in the U.S. Senate, authored a bill disingenuously labeled "The Internet Freedom Act of 2009." But if McCain and AT&T were being honest, they would have called it "The Internet Robber Baron Act."
More than semantics are at stake here. The new chairman of the FCC is moving to put teeth into a series of rules [2] that would do much to guarantee real Net neutrality. Naturally, the big carriers oppose this. But given the political climate in the country and their companies' record of alienating consumers and businesses that need an open Internet, AT&T's spinmeisters know that it can't just come out and say what it really means.
[ Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [3] at InfoWorld. | Paul Venezia reveals "Digital tyranny in the U.K. -- is the U.S. next? [4]" ]
Instead, the company cleverly disguises its real intent with a campaign aimed at convincing the public that, as Orwell put it in "1984," ignorance is strength. OK, that's a bit harsh. But there is going to be a big fight about this in 2010, and whether we are IT professionals, consumers, or both, we need to know exactly what's going on.
What Net neutrality really means
Early on, the debate about Net neutrality centered on the issue of tiered or metered pricing. Carriers argued with some justification that customers who use more bandwidth -- and, thus, more network resources -- should pay accordingly. That's not too different than charging by the gallon for water service or by the kilowatt-hour for electricity.
That debate is largely over, though it's not clear which carriers will implement tiered pricing and how much it will cost consumers. (AT&T recently moved to start such tiered pricing for data services [5].)
The argument now is much more complex and centers on control of content and applications on both the wired and wireless Internet. If a carrier can pick and choose among different types of content and different types of applications, its competitors (and, ultimately, the users) are severely disadvantaged.
The FCC has for some time favored Net neutrality in principle, but it has never turned those principles into enforceable rules. But in October, Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, proposed to codify the four existing principles and added two more. (Here's a complete list of the six pending rules [6].)
Most significantly, rule no. 5 says broadband service providers "would be required to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner." The other new rule would make ISPs disclose relevant information concerning network management and other practices.
It's probably easier to understand what Net neutrality means by looking at its opposite. Suppose AT&T decided that customers who want to reach their Gmail accounts would get slower connection speeds than customers who were using its own U-verse service or its partner's Yahoo Mail. Or what if AT&T had a partnership with say, Amazon.com, and allowed its transactions to move faster than those on the Barnes & Noble site? Talk about anticompetitive. If rule no. 5 takes effect, those scenarios are illegal.
Two years ago, Comcast tried to throttle peer-to-peer networking traffic and backed down only when the FCC started making noises about new rules. Comcast may indeed have been experiencing network issues because of the heavy BitTorrent traffic. But instead of acting openly, it acted like a hacker, using a technique called packet forgery [7] to slow the traffic. Such behavior would be stopped by rule No. 6.
When AT&T, Verizon, and other carriers say they want the Internet to be free and competitive, what they really want to do is maintain the status quo: They want to be free of regulation so that they can set the rules, not let you be free to do what you want. As long as Net neutrality is upheld by unenforceable "principles" instead of actual rules with consequences for violation, life is good -- for them.
At the same time and in the same misleading ads, AT&T trumpets its desire to extend broadband to everyone in the country. Sure, that sounds great, but read the fine print. AT&T is asking asking the government to define broadband as anything over 768Kbps downstream and 200Kbps upstream [8]. That low-speed level hasn't been considered "broadband" in years. Comcast reportedly set the bar even lower, defining broadband as 256Kbps upstream or downstream. So much for VoIP, streaming video, or any new applications that may need relatively high speeds. And did I mention there would likely be a whopping subsidy to carriers that provide this crippled version of "broadband" service?
McCain's bill would stifle innovation
When the FCC was in Republican hands, McCain and friends had no need to push a legislative agenda. Now that Genachowski and other Obama appointees are in the majority, the carriers' buddies have to do something.
That something was the Internet Freedom Act McCain sponsored in the fall. The bill says the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
Aside from the utterly misleading title of the bill, there's a rather large irony here. Conservatives generally believe, or at least claim to believe, that the market works best when competition is allowed to flourish. And they argue that government regulation will stifle innovation.
But the McCain bill would do exactly the opposite. It would give the largest players -- the biggest service providers -- an even greater advantage over new and potentially more innovative competitors. After all, if a startup faces especially high tariffs because its application is seen as competitive with that of a carrier or its partner, it's likely to fail. That sounds like the robber-baron era of the late 1800s and early 1900s to me.
By contrast, the FCC's new rules would keep the Internet open for consumers, businesses, and innovators. AT&T, Verizon, and the politicians carrying their water want to lock it up, in the name of freedom. It's not hard to see who's on the right side of this one.
I welcome your comments, tips, and suggestions. Post them here so all our readers can share them; or reach me at bill.snyder@sbcglobal.net [9].
This article, "AT&T's Net neutrality doublethink [10]," was originally published at InfoWorld.com [11]. Follow the latest developments in Net neutrality [12] at InfoWorld.com.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
How Pharma and Insurance Intend to Kill the Public Option, And What Obama and the Rest of Us Must Do
By Robert Reich
June 5, 2009, 10:19PM
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)
Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime.
What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, "years from now" in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere.
Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's "trigger" is already buzzing among members.
All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's "trigger" or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well.
This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle.
AWD writes: I've only copied and pasted this from a link via Facebook. We need to reverse Kaiser Permanente and Nixon's policies. Healthcare for all!
June 5, 2009, 10:19PM
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.
You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
So they're pulling out all the stops -- pushing Democrats and a handful of so-called "moderate" Republicans who say they're in favor of a public option to support legislation that would include it in name only. One of their proposals is to break up the public option into small pieces under multiple regional third-party administrators that would have little or no bargaining leverage. A second is to give the public option to the states where Big Pharma and Big Insurance can easily buy off legislators and officials, as they've been doing for years. A third is bind the public plan to the same rules private insurers have already wangled, thereby making it impossible for the public plan to put competitive pressure on the insurers.
Max Baucus, Chair of Senate Finance (now exactly why does the Senate Finance Committee have so much say over health care?) hasn't shown his cards but staffers tell me he's more than happy to sign on to any one of these. But Baucus is waiting for more support from his colleagues, and none of the three proposals has emerged as the leading candidate for those who want to kill the public option without showing they're killing it. Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy and his staff are still pushing for a full public option, but with Kennedy ailing, he might not be able to round up the votes. (Kennedy's health committee released a draft of a bill today, which contains the full public option.)
Enter Olympia Snowe. Her move is important, not because she's Republican (the Senate needs only 51 votes to pass this) but because she's well-respected and considered non-partisan, and therefore offers some cover to Democrats who may need it. Last night Snowe hosted a private meeting between members and staffers about a new proposal Pharma and Insurance are floating, and apparently she's already gained the tentative support of several Democrats (including Ron Wyden and Thomas Carper). Under Snowe's proposal, the public option would kick in years from now, but it would be triggered only if insurance companies fail to bring down healthcare costs and expand coverage in he meantime.
What's the catch? First, these conditions are likely to be achieved by other pieces of the emerging legislation; for example, computerized records will bring down costs a tad, and a mandate requiring everyone to have coverage will automatically expand coverage. If it ever comes to it, Pharma and Insurance can argue that their mere participation fulfills their part of the bargain, so no public option will need to be triggered. Second, as Pharma and Insurance well know, "years from now" in legislative terms means never. There will never be a better time than now to enact a public option. If it's not included, in a few years the public's attention will be elsewhere.
Much the same dynamic is occurring in the House. Two members who had originally supported single payer told me that Pharma and Insurance have launched the same strategy there, and many House members are looking to see what happens in the Senate. Snowe's "trigger" is already buzzing among members.
All this will be decided within days or weeks. And once those who want to kill the public option without their fingerprints on the murder weapon begin to agree on a proposal -- Snowe's "trigger" or any other -- the public option will be very hard to revive. The White House must now insist on a genuine public option. And you, dear reader, must insist as well.
This is it, folks. The concrete is being mixed and about to be poured. And after it's poured and hardens, universal health care will be with us for years to come in whatever form it now takes. Let your representative and senators know you want a public option without conditions or triggers -- one that gives the public insurer bargaining leverage over drug companies, and pushes insurers to do what they've promised to do. Don't wait until the concrete hardens and we've lost this battle.
AWD writes: I've only copied and pasted this from a link via Facebook. We need to reverse Kaiser Permanente and Nixon's policies. Healthcare for all!
Thursday, May 28, 2009
From Puggle's Diary
Daily Kos-- Puggle's Diary
AWD writes: I couldn't have expressed this sentiment any better myself. Until we all understand that the shit sandwiches we eat are from the same fucking asshole, this world will not be a better place. Article is copied and pasted in full. I didn't have anything to do with the writing- all due credit to Puggle. And my thanks for the sublime eloquence.
So you want to get married. Guess what - me too. I know just how much state recognition makes our relationships seem 'more real' to our families and str8 friends. And I want to adopt kids and, you know, the adoption laws not only suck - with many states and countries around the world making it difficult for 'single men' to adopt, not to mention openly LGBT folks - but the whole process makes it really difficult to adopt unless you have a lot of extra cash, whereas str8 folks can just have an accident one night and a baby shows up, even without parenting classes and home inspections. So I get it.
But I'm pissed - at you, young gay activists, who are coming out of the woodwork now for Gay Marriage rights. I know, cause I've had you in my classes, when I teach queer studies to college students. Its sexy to appear beaten down by the man, and then go shopping for Burberry. But when I try to teach you a text on Latina Lesbians that's half in Spanglish, you get pissed off that you can't understand all of it.
But we're gonna get our marriage rights, its just a matter of time. And I worry that you're not going to have learned anything from all this. So many of you all, even during the worst of the Bush years, would say things like, 'oh, I'm not into politics.' But you are into America's Next Top Model, or Ani DiFranco. And I admit, this is more the gay guys than the girls, to be honest. Gay men are the center of the gay dollar, and in the gay cities within cities throughout the West, we have more disposable income than most women - queer or otherwise, could ever get. Cause we're men. You forget that sometimes, living in NYC or SF. And let's not forget DC, where half of the Repubs have gay men on their staff. So generally, the queer women 'get' it more than the guys, who are now so politically conscious because they're pissed about gay marriage.
How fucking easy. But when Bush invaded Iraq, it was all, 'oh, I'm not political.' But now you like protests! But where were you during the protests against that war, but all of a sudden you're at marriage equality rallies? Those of you who were too young get a free pass, but if you're slightly older, well, where were you?
And don't get me wrong, I KNOW how much marriage would mean to my family. But you know, the 'illegal' immigrant who works 90 hour weeks to send money home to his family in Central America, and who has no medical coverage, and who can't speak a word of English but built your house or cooked your food -when was the last time you said anything in support of him or her?
And you didn't grow up in the ghetto, did you? I mean, you had to move to the city, likely from boring suburbia, because nobody else in middle America understood you, and now you live in a 'gay ghetto' - full of gay boutique stores. But did you grow up in a neighborhood with drug dealers on every corner, a school that the government selectively didn't give a shit about, in a neighborhood they 'forgot' to plant trees in, only selectively police, with crappy social services that republicans keep cutting to make sure you're not being 'lazy,' while they get huge bonuses for playing with numbers in front of a computer all day, while your mom slaves doing food service just so you can try to get to college without the benefit of the SAT prep courses all the gay kids in the suburbs get? I didn't think so. So, you're into marriage rights - but have you ever talked to your friends about why they need to agitate for prison reform, or more pell grants, or funding head start, or repealing drug laws?
Granted, if your parents threw you out of the house for being queer, you get a free pass. If you've ever been homeless for being queer, you get a free pass. If you have to deal with all sorts of emotional and anxiety issues for being queer, you get a free pass. And which of us doesn't have that. And if you're a queer of color, you sure had a ton more to deal with.
I didn't say its easy being queer. But its a lot easier than it used to be. Our parents generation had it HARD. They fought for what we have now. So you could have your Burberry and Ani.
But if all you give a shit about now is marriage equality, you're not an activist. You lose nothing, cause its sexy now to be for marriage equality, its cool now to be 'political' - when its in your immediate best interest, and doesn't cost too much.
But there were lots of whites who went down on the buses to the south to fight for civil rights when it wasn't their fight. THEY understood what you don't. THOSE were activists, who put their own bodies on the line for someone ELSE's freedom.
You know who gets marriage equality? Charlize Theron. Cause she's marrying her MALE fiance, and is coming out for marriage equality. Y'all could learn a thing or two from the str8s sometimes. But for all you str8s reading this (and I don't mean heteros allies, I mean str8s) who haven't joined the marriage equality, yeah, you could all learn a thing from Charlize. But I'm talking to the young gays and lesbians right now (though my point is bigger than that too).
But what if a million screaming queers showed up at immigrant rights rallies? And yes, in some places, the immigrant and queer communities have worked together - particularly in the Bay Area. But if we start showing up to 'their' protests, guess who might start showing up to 'ours'? Cross-activism is what I call it. Or just simply solidarity, as they called it in the old days. The right wins every time we're divided.
Boohoo, you can't get married. You know, I wanna get married too. But I think the guy from Ecuador doing the dishes for peanuts at my local restaurant has it a hell of a lot harder. And I think he deserves healthcare and social services for all the work he does in this country. I think he deserves those things BEFORE WE GET MARRIAGE. Or at least, I think that's where our priorities should be. And what if this immigrant is queer? Can't even legally drive a car. And you just wanna pick out matching place settings for the reception.
I'm glad you're all political now. Its a real improvement. But any idiot can march for their own cause - at least when there's nothing to lose. Heck, take something away from G.W. Bush, and I bet he'd be at some protests too! But you ain't no Rosa Parks or Cesar Chavez, I'll tell you that.
So until you raise awareness about the plight of our 'illegal immigrants' - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you draw attention to conditions people of color are subjected to continually in this country - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start talking to your friends about what global capital does to the poor around the world, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start working to get transgender folks some rights too, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you try to get your family to see how American military might fucks up other countries in the world, or how our penal system and drug laws work to create a cycle of perpetual poverty and disempowerment to whole swaths of our society, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And until you see this fight as yours, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Cause you ain't political, and you haven't learned a damn thing from being oppressed.
AWD writes: I couldn't have expressed this sentiment any better myself. Until we all understand that the shit sandwiches we eat are from the same fucking asshole, this world will not be a better place. Article is copied and pasted in full. I didn't have anything to do with the writing- all due credit to Puggle. And my thanks for the sublime eloquence.
So you want to get married. Guess what - me too. I know just how much state recognition makes our relationships seem 'more real' to our families and str8 friends. And I want to adopt kids and, you know, the adoption laws not only suck - with many states and countries around the world making it difficult for 'single men' to adopt, not to mention openly LGBT folks - but the whole process makes it really difficult to adopt unless you have a lot of extra cash, whereas str8 folks can just have an accident one night and a baby shows up, even without parenting classes and home inspections. So I get it.
But I'm pissed - at you, young gay activists, who are coming out of the woodwork now for Gay Marriage rights. I know, cause I've had you in my classes, when I teach queer studies to college students. Its sexy to appear beaten down by the man, and then go shopping for Burberry. But when I try to teach you a text on Latina Lesbians that's half in Spanglish, you get pissed off that you can't understand all of it.
But we're gonna get our marriage rights, its just a matter of time. And I worry that you're not going to have learned anything from all this. So many of you all, even during the worst of the Bush years, would say things like, 'oh, I'm not into politics.' But you are into America's Next Top Model, or Ani DiFranco. And I admit, this is more the gay guys than the girls, to be honest. Gay men are the center of the gay dollar, and in the gay cities within cities throughout the West, we have more disposable income than most women - queer or otherwise, could ever get. Cause we're men. You forget that sometimes, living in NYC or SF. And let's not forget DC, where half of the Repubs have gay men on their staff. So generally, the queer women 'get' it more than the guys, who are now so politically conscious because they're pissed about gay marriage.
How fucking easy. But when Bush invaded Iraq, it was all, 'oh, I'm not political.' But now you like protests! But where were you during the protests against that war, but all of a sudden you're at marriage equality rallies? Those of you who were too young get a free pass, but if you're slightly older, well, where were you?
And don't get me wrong, I KNOW how much marriage would mean to my family. But you know, the 'illegal' immigrant who works 90 hour weeks to send money home to his family in Central America, and who has no medical coverage, and who can't speak a word of English but built your house or cooked your food -when was the last time you said anything in support of him or her?
And you didn't grow up in the ghetto, did you? I mean, you had to move to the city, likely from boring suburbia, because nobody else in middle America understood you, and now you live in a 'gay ghetto' - full of gay boutique stores. But did you grow up in a neighborhood with drug dealers on every corner, a school that the government selectively didn't give a shit about, in a neighborhood they 'forgot' to plant trees in, only selectively police, with crappy social services that republicans keep cutting to make sure you're not being 'lazy,' while they get huge bonuses for playing with numbers in front of a computer all day, while your mom slaves doing food service just so you can try to get to college without the benefit of the SAT prep courses all the gay kids in the suburbs get? I didn't think so. So, you're into marriage rights - but have you ever talked to your friends about why they need to agitate for prison reform, or more pell grants, or funding head start, or repealing drug laws?
Granted, if your parents threw you out of the house for being queer, you get a free pass. If you've ever been homeless for being queer, you get a free pass. If you have to deal with all sorts of emotional and anxiety issues for being queer, you get a free pass. And which of us doesn't have that. And if you're a queer of color, you sure had a ton more to deal with.
I didn't say its easy being queer. But its a lot easier than it used to be. Our parents generation had it HARD. They fought for what we have now. So you could have your Burberry and Ani.
But if all you give a shit about now is marriage equality, you're not an activist. You lose nothing, cause its sexy now to be for marriage equality, its cool now to be 'political' - when its in your immediate best interest, and doesn't cost too much.
But there were lots of whites who went down on the buses to the south to fight for civil rights when it wasn't their fight. THEY understood what you don't. THOSE were activists, who put their own bodies on the line for someone ELSE's freedom.
You know who gets marriage equality? Charlize Theron. Cause she's marrying her MALE fiance, and is coming out for marriage equality. Y'all could learn a thing or two from the str8s sometimes. But for all you str8s reading this (and I don't mean heteros allies, I mean str8s) who haven't joined the marriage equality, yeah, you could all learn a thing from Charlize. But I'm talking to the young gays and lesbians right now (though my point is bigger than that too).
But what if a million screaming queers showed up at immigrant rights rallies? And yes, in some places, the immigrant and queer communities have worked together - particularly in the Bay Area. But if we start showing up to 'their' protests, guess who might start showing up to 'ours'? Cross-activism is what I call it. Or just simply solidarity, as they called it in the old days. The right wins every time we're divided.
Boohoo, you can't get married. You know, I wanna get married too. But I think the guy from Ecuador doing the dishes for peanuts at my local restaurant has it a hell of a lot harder. And I think he deserves healthcare and social services for all the work he does in this country. I think he deserves those things BEFORE WE GET MARRIAGE. Or at least, I think that's where our priorities should be. And what if this immigrant is queer? Can't even legally drive a car. And you just wanna pick out matching place settings for the reception.
I'm glad you're all political now. Its a real improvement. But any idiot can march for their own cause - at least when there's nothing to lose. Heck, take something away from G.W. Bush, and I bet he'd be at some protests too! But you ain't no Rosa Parks or Cesar Chavez, I'll tell you that.
So until you raise awareness about the plight of our 'illegal immigrants' - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you draw attention to conditions people of color are subjected to continually in this country - SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start talking to your friends about what global capital does to the poor around the world, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you start working to get transgender folks some rights too, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Until you try to get your family to see how American military might fucks up other countries in the world, or how our penal system and drug laws work to create a cycle of perpetual poverty and disempowerment to whole swaths of our society, SHUT THE FUCK UP. And until you see this fight as yours, SHUT THE FUCK UP. Cause you ain't political, and you haven't learned a damn thing from being oppressed.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
An Evil Inc. Sample...
This is from one of my fave online comics, Evil Inc. I just dig his message today...
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
LMGDMFAO
It's about time someone finally made this picture..... This asshole is a fucking hypocrite. I am happy that his rants are killing the GOP. Keep up the good work, Ru$h!
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Better Hurry Up and Blog...
Just posting something to post something. Haven't logged in here in a couppla weeks and thought it would be nice to show some love to the Blogger Community.
Bought a new bike- I'm very happy to have it. Wish I could afford a Harley, but looks like I'm on my 4th Zook. It's a pretty bike, silver and white, and a cruiser. Should be fun to ride for a couple of years, anyway. Gonna go on a group ride Sunday. Praying (to whatever deity will listen and can control the elements) for good weather.
Looks like Blogger will be going down at 4pm, PDT. Still some time away, so I guess my title might be somewhat un-appropriate. Very glad to see spring return! Guess it was another successful trip around the sun; hope to have a whole bunch more of 'em.
Take care of yourself and each other. I'm off to find (or make) another cup of coffee to see me through this afternoon of Web 2.0 addiction.
Bought a new bike- I'm very happy to have it. Wish I could afford a Harley, but looks like I'm on my 4th Zook. It's a pretty bike, silver and white, and a cruiser. Should be fun to ride for a couple of years, anyway. Gonna go on a group ride Sunday. Praying (to whatever deity will listen and can control the elements) for good weather.
Looks like Blogger will be going down at 4pm, PDT. Still some time away, so I guess my title might be somewhat un-appropriate. Very glad to see spring return! Guess it was another successful trip around the sun; hope to have a whole bunch more of 'em.
Take care of yourself and each other. I'm off to find (or make) another cup of coffee to see me through this afternoon of Web 2.0 addiction.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
EXCLUSIVE: Senator Buttars compares some gays to radical Muslims
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Utah state senator Chris Buttars is now comparing some in the gay community to radical Muslims.
Buttars makes this strong comment in an upcoming documentary about Prop 8.
And they come just a year after remarks by Buttars greatly offended many African-Americans.
In late January of this year, Senator Buttars sat down for an interview with documentary maker and former ABC 4 reporter Reed Cowan.
Cowan’s documentary is called, "8: The Mormon Proposition. "
In it, Buttars not only makes the comparison to radical Muslims, but also suggests that gays could pose the greatest threat to America.
Because the documentary has not yet aired, we can't show you the video of senator Buttars speaking.
But ABC 4 has seen it.
And in the audio clips which ABC 4 received permission to broadcast from Reed Cowan Productions, Buttars makes several equally strong comments.
Sen. Chris Buttars: "Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care."
Just one year ago, Buttars found himself in hot water locally and nationally for this comment on the senate floor.
"This baby is black...this is a dark, ugly thing."
And even though Buttars says in the documentary interview,..."the ACLU - bless their black hearts...," it’s his other comments which may get the strongest reaction.
Like this one which the documentary maker confirms is about gays.
"They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen."
And just seconds later, Buttars draws a comparison between some gays and radical Muslims.
“It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side.”
Buttars also claims he's "killed" every gay rights bill in the legislature for the last 8 years.
He also talks about gay marriage being the beginning of the end.
Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes."
And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement."
"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."
Now, in the interview, senator Buttars also talks about a certain type of reported gay sexual activity which he claims is taking place.
But ABC 4 does not consider that appropriate for its news content.
(All audio copyrighted by Reed Cowan Productions)
Copyright 2009 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved.
AWD writes: Yeah, all of us queer folks are out to make sure that Buttars doesn't get to have a productive, peaceful life with constitutional rights. This guy is stupid. Really fucking stupid, and he makes me angry with his narrow-minded viewpoints. What I can't really understand is why people are still (ALLEGEDLY) voting his stupid ass into office???
Buttars makes this strong comment in an upcoming documentary about Prop 8.
And they come just a year after remarks by Buttars greatly offended many African-Americans.
In late January of this year, Senator Buttars sat down for an interview with documentary maker and former ABC 4 reporter Reed Cowan.
Cowan’s documentary is called, "8: The Mormon Proposition. "
In it, Buttars not only makes the comparison to radical Muslims, but also suggests that gays could pose the greatest threat to America.
Because the documentary has not yet aired, we can't show you the video of senator Buttars speaking.
But ABC 4 has seen it.
And in the audio clips which ABC 4 received permission to broadcast from Reed Cowan Productions, Buttars makes several equally strong comments.
Sen. Chris Buttars: "Homosexuality will always be a sexual perversion. And you say that around here now and everybody goes nuts. But I don't care."
Just one year ago, Buttars found himself in hot water locally and nationally for this comment on the senate floor.
"This baby is black...this is a dark, ugly thing."
And even though Buttars says in the documentary interview,..."the ACLU - bless their black hearts...," it’s his other comments which may get the strongest reaction.
Like this one which the documentary maker confirms is about gays.
"They're mean. They want to talk about being nice. They're the meanest buggers I have ever seen."
And just seconds later, Buttars draws a comparison between some gays and radical Muslims.
“It's just like the Muslims. Muslims are good people and their religion is anti-war. But it’s been taken over by the radical side.”
Buttars also claims he's "killed" every gay rights bill in the legislature for the last 8 years.
He also talks about gay marriage being the beginning of the end.
Buttars: "What is the morals of a gay person? You can't answer that because anything goes."
And finally, this is how senator Buttars refers to the "radical gay movement."
"They're probably the greatest threat to America going down I know of."
Now, in the interview, senator Buttars also talks about a certain type of reported gay sexual activity which he claims is taking place.
But ABC 4 does not consider that appropriate for its news content.
(All audio copyrighted by Reed Cowan Productions)
Copyright 2009 Newport Television LLC All rights reserved.
AWD writes: Yeah, all of us queer folks are out to make sure that Buttars doesn't get to have a productive, peaceful life with constitutional rights. This guy is stupid. Really fucking stupid, and he makes me angry with his narrow-minded viewpoints. What I can't really understand is why people are still (ALLEGEDLY) voting his stupid ass into office???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
