Zach's News Digest

Meet Rovio (Creative Generalist)

Creative Generalist — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:56:59+0100

Something I've been working on over the past several months: the launch of Rovio, a WiFi-enabled robotic webcam from WowWee. You can drive this little omni-directional 3-wheeled guy using an intuitive interface in your web browser. Give it a try. Through mid-December you can book a fun 5-minute test drive around a specially constructed loft. Meet Rovio test drive.

[Demo video and microsite by Montreal's Twist Image]

Chiefs CWO Feeds Under-Served (Kansas City Chiefs)

Kansas City Chiefs — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:57:00+0100

Those eating lunch at Cross-Lines Cooperative Council were in for quite a special treat this week. That's because Lia Edwards and other members of the CWO where there in full force to help prepare and serve them lunch. With the calendar quickly

eHarmony Changes Its Tune? (The Republic of T.)

Five Years Ago — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:21:36+0100

Wow. I’ve been busy with daily, detail-oriented, deadline-driven work until just now. So, I missed this. It probably isn’t news to anyone else, but half the day goes by before I get to catch up news, etc.

eHarmony has changed its tune on queers. Sorta.

The California-based company will begin providing same-sex matches under as part of a settlement with New Jersey’s Civil Rights Division.

Garden State resident Eric McKinley filed a complaint against the online matchmaker in 2005.

Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for same-sex singles. The company can also post a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples.

Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit any liability.

In addition, eHarmony will pay the division $50,000 to cover administrative costs. It will pay McKinley $5,000 and give him a free one-year membership to its new service.

A separate site, huh? How, uh, Jim Crow-esque of them. (”We’ll just put those people over here, dear customers. So you can go right on pretending they don’t exist.”)

Granted there’s no dearth of personals sites that are open to gays & lesbians. In fact, the hubby and I met through the personals on what was then Love@AOL, but has since become Match.Com. (I answered his ad. The rest, as they say, is history.)

And my guess is that they probably won’t get any great rush of people signing up for their segregated service for queers. But I’m glad that New Jersey stood on principle on this one.

Still. I wonder what the The Big Gay Sketch Show on Logo will make of this.

Find more videos like this on Sweet Homo Alabama Readers Parlor

I don’t know that they’ll have to get rid of this sketch, but I can only imagine what they will do with the idea of a separate site for gays…

The NAACP Gets It (The Republic of T.)

Six — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:46:05+0100

Well, the NAACP has shut my mouth on this one. I was pretty hard on them this summer, when I got wind of a PFOX exhibit at an NAACP event. But it looks like the outcome off the proposition 8 vote has raised some alarm with civil rights groups, including the NAACP. [Via Kip.]

Meanwhile, five civil rights groups asked California’s highest court Friday to annul the ban on the grounds that Proposition 8 threatens the legal standing of all minority groups, not just gays.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and two other groups petitioned the state Supreme Court to prevent the change from taking effect.

The petition is the fourth seeking to have the measure invalidated. But it’s the first to argue that the court should step in because the gay marriage ban, which overturned the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay unions, sets a precedent that could be used to undermine the rights of racial minorities.

Eva Paterson, president of the San Francisco-based Equal Justice Society, said the election raises the specter of voters deciding to bar illegal immigrants from public schools, disenfranchising black voters or otherwise using the ballot box to promote segregation.

“The court ruled that to discriminate in the area of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and violated our guaranteed equality,” Paterson said. “Why should a slim majority of Californians be able to put discrimination back into the California Constitution?”

OK. there’s one thing that bears repeating here.

Next time you go to a protest, somebody please put these words from a previous post on a protest sign or poster. You have my express permission to use these words over and over and over again on as many signs, flyers, buttons, etc. you want.

You may not be gay, but you may be next.

The NAACP, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and those other civil rights groups probably get that they may not be gay, but if what happened in California on proposition 8 stands, they may be next. You may not be able to fit the next part on a sign, but it’s the rest of the argument.

Remember that we used to live in a country where civil rights weren?t decided by majority vote. Remember that we used to live in a country whose founding documents cite ?inallienable rights.? Remember that we?re may not be living in that country anymore, and even if your rights were not up for a vote this time around, they are almost certain on someone?s hit list.

Better yet, put this question on a sign.

Which of your civil rights do you want put to a majority vote?

Or this.

Which of your civil rights do we get to vote on?

Or this.

Who gets to vote on your civil rights?

Or this. [Via Woodmoor Village.]

If you think for one minute that the people who have been against civil rights from the beginning will stop with same-sex marriage or with gay people, you may be surprised. What they did in California was to establish a beachhead as a basis for overruling almost any established civil right on nothing more than a simple majority vote. In other words, they got a foothold for establishing majoritarianism.

What?s unsaid and unquestioned in all of the arguments above is the increasing conservative push for majoritarianism. Or, to put it plainly, absolute majority rule. Might, in other words, makes right. The majority is automatically right , no matter what it wants or doesn?t, because it?s the majority. Only the current crop of Republicans and religious conservatives go a step further than traditional majoritarianism, by seeking to bar a future majority from disagreeing with the (perceived) current majority.

What?s scary is that the creeping support for majoritarianism may result in a situation where no one has any “unalienable rights,” that the majority can?t take away, because the two avenues minorities have traditionally had to access justice that the majority withholds ? the courts and the legislature? will have been delegitimized fo that purpose.They?ll henceforth exist only for the purpose of enforcing the will of the majority because, as noted above, the majority can?t be wrong.

What?s scarier is that some pretty smart people either don?t seem to realize this, or just don?t question it.

Kip put it better than I did by simply placing two significant quotes next to each other.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

–Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Who’s going to tell us what a civil right is and what’s not? Well, the people will.

–Massachusetts Governor, Harvard Law School graduate (and Christian), Mitt Romney, June 28, 2006

Who? The people?

Like maybe Gladys? Or any of the rest of these folks?

Kaltura

Think about it for a second. If they had a shot at it, which civil rights court rulings would these people like to see overturned? And not just the people in the video, but the far more politically savvy people who get them “angried-up” and out at the polls? The people whose founders, favored politicians, and spokespersons have a peculiar habit of defending America’s peculiar institution? The people who could conceivably mount a campaign to repeal civil rights rulings that they are “not against” but that are “no longer necessary”? (I’m just guessing how they might spin it.

Which would you like to see up for a vote:

Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation, major blow against “separate but equal”) Roe v. Wade (reproductive freedom) Shelley v. Kramer (racially restrictive “covenants” in real estate - This one’s definitely on Glady’s list) Bailey v. Patterson (segregation in intrastate and interstate transportation) Batson v. Kentucky (basically says you can’t put, say, a Black person on trial and exclude Black people from the jury) Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (defined “hostile work environment” as sexual harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. Inc. (same-sex harassment can be the basis for a sexual harassment claim) Romer v. Evans (overturned Colorado amendment prohibiting protection of LGBT rights) Lawrence v. Texas (decriminalized sodomy, overturned sodomy laws) Grisswold v. Connecticut (overturned law banning contraception, right to “marital privacy”) And of course the major civil rights acts of 1957 (established the Civil Rights Commission) 1960 (federal inspection of voter registration polls) 1964 (prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, and national origin) 1968 (Fair Housing Act)

You could almost line them up chronologically and figure out how far people would like to turn back the clock if they could. In a very real sense, even if you’re not gay, you could be “next” on their list.

Granted, we do not have anything like a national ballot initiative, yet. But there is a movement for one, supported by former presidential candidate Mike Gravel.

I don’t know if it would open the door to putting civil rights to a majority vote, and I don’t particulary want to find out. Neither, apparently, does the NAACP.

The Death of Duanna Johnson (The Republic of T.)

Cancel Those Orders — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 18:52:23+0100

In the time since I started the LGBT Hate Crimes Project, I don’t ever had a follow-up or an update in which the victim of an earlier attack is eventually murdered. Until now. Via the LGBTPOC listserve, I learned last night that Duanna Johnson ? whose case I wrote about in August ? has been murdered.

The videotaped beating of a transgender woman in police custody in Memphis last February led to charges against two officers and national condemnation from gay rights groups. The officers were fired, and the Police Department overhauled some of its procedures and began sensitivity training for the entire force.

But a week ago, the woman, Duanna Johnson, 43, was found fatally shot near downtown. Ms. Johnson?s death has revived scrutiny of the case as the department is under pressure to find the killer.

?Duanna Johnson?s case was tragic before, and now it?s an almost unimaginable loss,? said Jared Feuer, the Southern regional director of Amnesty International. ?Her treatment demonstrates a culture of violence against transgender people that must be addressed.?

Ms. Johnson sustained a gunshot wound to the head late on Nov. 9, the police said, and officers found her body after responding to a shooting call in North Memphis. Investigators said three men were seen near the crime scene before the officers arrived, but police officials say they have no suspects, have made no arrests and do not have a motive for the killing.

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation?s largest gay civil rights group, called for a federal investigation.

It’s a terribly sad ending to what was, by all reports, a hard life.

To say that 43 year-old Duanna Johnson leads a difficult life would be an understatement. At her small, rundown, North Memphis house you’ll find condom wrappers on the ground outside her door.

Her power meter is missing. Not that it matters because her electricity was turned off months ago after she stopped paying her utility bill.

She has one extension cord running from her bedroom window to the neighbor’s house. They charge her $20 a month to plug into their electricity. It powers the single fan Duanna uses to cool her house.

And because Johnson has no running water in her home, neighbors often let her use their bathrooms to wash up and take care of her personal hygiene.

And, as I posted before, her position is one that many transgender women face.

The D.C. media, in contrast, wants you to believe that it was the ?lifestyle? that Bella and Emonie were living that led to their deaths - as if their transgender status was a simple life choice, and that this choice somehow forced their killers? hands.

Being transgender can be a recipe for a difficult life. Many transgender people are cut off from the employment and education opportunities that are basic expectations in our culture, and discrimination leads many into sex work as their only means of survival. Such may well have been the experience of Emonie and Bella.

Some studies have put transgender unemployment as high as 70 percent, well above even the worst levels in these economically troubled times. While many places have enacted legislation to protect the rights of individuals seeking and keeping employment - regardless of their gender expression or identity - no such protections exist nationally, or in Washington, D.C.

And they still have to find a way to make a living.

During a press conference following Evengelista?s murder, Budd told how transgendered women informed her that they turned to prostitution only after they had been denied jobs because of their appearance.

?It?s a matter of simple survival,? Budd said. ?Some of the girls have no other choice but to turn to the streets for survival.?

? Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said about 50 people attending a transgender ?speakout? meeting in the District on Sept. 9, discussed a wide range of issues and problems faced by transgendered people, including the issue of prostitution.

?It?s about economic opportunity or the lack of opportunity,? Keisling said. ?I call it survival sex work, which is not the same as commercial sex work,? she said.

?If you were thrown out of your house at 10 and you didn?t finish school, what are your chances of going to college at Georgetown?? she said.

I don’t know much about Johnson’s story before the jailhouse beating that turned a spotlight on her life, but it probably took a course similar to other transgender women’s stories.

Add Channel T to your page

I won’t speculate about who might be responsible for Johnson’s murder at this point. But I hope the matter is thoroughly investigated, and every potential lead followed-up.

Most of all, I hope she can finally rest in peace.

Now that the election is over, and in light of Johnson’s murder, I’ll probably dedicate a bit more time to updating the hate crimes project.

Six (The Republic of T.)

Digest for November 9th through November 17th — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:30:17+0100

OK, I’ve gotta do this before I get all sappy and weepy, etc. But six years ago today, an incredible little person came into the world, just a couple of days before I even knew he was coming into my life, and every day since then he’s grown into and even more incredible, not-so-little person.

So, pardon me if I go all “proud, doting dad.

Six years. I can hardly believe it, but it’s true. The kid that I could almost hold in one hand as a newborn now comes past my waist when se stand together.

The kid who’s first words were toddler-speak for “thank you,” which came out as “dee doo,” is now a regular chatter box and is taking Spanish.

The kid I once recorded singing “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star,” now requests two songs per night from me when it’s my turn to put him to bed. (And makes up some rather interesting songs of his own.)

The kid whose first steps I witnessed how plays soccer and takes swimming lessons.

The kid whose boo-boos I kissed now comforts his little brother when he falls down, or catches him before he falls. The same kid felt bad when a friend of his was sick and couldn’t come to his birthday party, and wanted to send him a card or a present to make him feel better.

I could go on, but suffice it to say that as a parent and a human being, I feel indescribably lucky and blessed to have Parker as my son and to be his dad. In fact, every so often I think to myself “I’m someone’s dad,” and it blows my mind a little.

Every day I am more proud of his spirit, his compassion, his confidence, his intelligence, and so many other things that on a daily basis cause me to smile or shake my head with wonder.

Every night that I put Parker to bed, before I close his door I say to him “Daddy and Papa love you.” Because I want that to be the last thing he hears at night, but also because we do.

The greatest gift of parenthood, for me, has been the discovery of a capacity to love I didn’t know I had, and the depth of which I never imagined.

When Parker was a toddler, I got down on the floor and looked at him and asked, “Do you know how much Daddy loves you?” And he’s open his arms and I’d say “more than that,” and he’d open them wider and wider until he started laughing, and I’d say “you can’t open your arms wide enough to show how much I love you. I can’t either.

My hope as a parent, is that I my children grow up never doubting that they have my acceptance, support, and love, and I draw on that capacity every day, to give as much of that to them as I can.

So, thank you, Parker. For being. And happy birthday. Daddy loves you. Always will.

Wondering What the Hell Happened? Find Out. (The Republic of T.)

Conservatism?s Gut-Job on Government — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:57:51+0100

If you’re like me, and like a lot of other people, you probably woke upon November 5th wondering what the hell happened. The country appeared to take step forward. It looked like we were making progress. Unless you were gay, and maybe wanted to get married, now or someday.

In that sense, it was kind of a letdown. And though we’ve all had a chance to blog about it ad nauseam, until now most of us haven’t had a chance to pose questions to the leaders of the campaigns to defeat the initiatives. Until now.

Bil, at BIlerico is hosting a liveblog today at 7 p.m. with Kate Kendal, Nadine Smith, and Barbara McCullough Jones. They’ll take your questions about Prop 8, Amendment 2, and Prop 102.

You can sign up below to get an email reminder of the liveblog.

What It?s Like For Our Children (The Republic of T.)

The Death of Duanna Johnson — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:41:54+0100

Parenting, for those don’t know first hand, has many heartbreaking moments built in. Some of them are the same for almost all families, and some of them are different.

As an African American parent, I experience it as the moment I know is coming and that I dread, when both my sons will find out what it’s like to be held suspect because of their race. (For, though much has changed, much has remained the same.)

As a gay dad, I experience it in those moment when we have to explain to our son that some people don’t like his family, because his family is different. Particularly when we had to explain (because we’re always honest with our sons, in an age-appropriate manner) that “according to the rules” Daddy and Papa aren’t really married.

It?s not something we ever really discussed with him until recently, when we went to Annapolis for Equality Maryland?s Lobby Day. Our job was relatively easy, as our delegates are very supportive, and our state senator is a gay dad, but we felt it was important to take part.

When we explained to Parker why we were going, the hubby put it this way. ?We?re going to see the people who make the rules, and ask them to change the rules so that Daddy and Papa can get married, because Daddy and Papa love each other very much.?

And when Parker asked if we were married I answered, ?Daddy and Papa are married in our hearts, because we love each other very much, but someday we hope we can get married in front of everyone else too.?

A couple of days later, Parker turned to me and asked, ?Did they change the rules yet so you can get married??

I had to tell him no, but we were still married in our hearts, and someday soon the rules will change so that we can get married in front of everyone else. As much as it hurt me to have to say that, Parker seemed to understand, and wasn?t that bothered by it. (Why should he be? He?s happy and safe at home, and he?s got Daddy and Papa to love and care for him?) But it became even more important to me that our son know that his parents are married to each other, and what that means to us and for him.

Even as we were having the conversation with Parker, the hubby and I exchanged looks that wordlessly expressed our concern. Would he worry about something happening to our family? Would he worry about being taken away from us? Would he feel less secure?

Fortunately, I think the love and honestly we’ve tried to raise him with have gone a long way towards preventing that. But what if we’d lived in a state where one day we were legally married, and the next day w weren’t because that was taken away from us.

What’s that like a child, to find out that an awful lot of people voted that your family can’t be a family any more? Not legally, anyway.

Ed Swanson couldn?t move on.

The day after the election, the San Francisco lawyer and his husband, Paul Herman, a stay-at-home dad, had had to face the fact that Proposition 8 could mean that their marriage would be invalidated. They?d also had to go to parent conferences and tell the teachers that their five-year-old daughter, Liza, might be struggling in school because she was scared that her family might fall apart.

Liza, who has a twin sister, Katie, had peppered Swanson and Herman with questions once she?d realized that marriages uniting ?a boy and a boy? were no longer allowed.

?They can?t take yours away, right?? she?d asked her parents. ?They can?t take yours away when you have children, can they??

?That?s when we realized she was afraid something would happen to us,? Swanson told me by phone on Wednesday. ?We said, ?They can?t take us away from you. We will be here for you forever.??

?It?s difficult to explain to a five-year-old why it is people don?t want your parents to be married,? he continued. ?They?re young enough that there was a chance they could have grown up thinking all their lives that their family was equal and accepted. Now they?re not going to have that chance. They?ll have to spend at least part of their lives knowing that their family is something that people don?t feel is acceptable.?

The Yes on 8 campaign made a great deal of political hay telling outright lies about what legal same-sex marriage could mean for children in schools, etc., and scaring people into thinking the purpose of proposition 8 was to “protect the children.” When the truth is they did a great deal of harm to a great many children. Dana points out that the 52,000 children being raised by 26,100 same-sex couples in California, or the 125,000 children being raised by LGB Californians (including single parents) were in the bullseye of the Yes on 8 campaign along with their families.

Would it have made a difference for parents to think about their children?s friends and classmates waking up on Nov. 5, feeling like their families were torn apart by the state? Having their self-confidence shaken when they were told their families were second-class? Hearing the hateful rhetoric from the right? Questioning the values that our country stands for? Would it have made a difference if parents knew that regardless of the curriculum, their children would learn about same-sex parents and relationships because they shared classrooms and playgrounds with the children of LGBT parents?

Yes, parenthood comes with many moments of heartbreak built in. But some of us get extras moments of heartbreak installed.

Five Years Ago (The Republic of T.)

Wondering What the Hell Happened? Find Out. — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:40:21+0100

Gay people in Massachusetts won marriage equality. Five years later, the sun still rises and and sets, the mountains haven’t crumbled, the oceans haven’t boiled, and ? most shocking of all ? heterosexual marriage appears to be doing just fine.

Over 11,000 same-sex marriages later, neither has happened.

Massachusetts has yet to become, as former governor Mitt Romney predicted, the “Las Vegas of same-sex marriage.” Gay marriage rates leveled off at about 1,500 a year - about 4 percent of all state marriages - in 2006 and 2007. The divorce rate in Massachusetts has remained the same - and the lowest in the country.

…What’s really changed is more subtle than cosmic, more about the everyday lives of gay couples in Massachusetts than about a national transformation. Gay and lesbian couples here said they are attracting fewer startled looks when they rent cars, less consternation when they hold hands, fewer awkward questions when they visit spouses in hospital rooms.

“When we’re out together as a couple, it really doesn’t come up; we’re never challenged anymore,” said David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the 2003 SJC case and the current chairman of MassEquality, a gay-rights advocacy group. “It’s now considered normal.”

And that’s what the other side is afraid of. That people might see us as human beings who laugh, love, and live our lives pretty much the same way they do.

If you lived on our street, we’d look about as boring as any other family. You’d see the hubby leaving for work in the morning and taking Dylan to daycare. You’d see me walk to the corner with Parker, give him a hug and a kiss, and put him on the school bus before running off to catch my own bus.

You’d see us come home, and you’d see the lights come on as inside we caught up on each other’s day, played with Dylan, heard what Parker learned in school that day, and played with Dylan and Parker until bedtime. You’d notice the house get quiet. Maybe you’d see one of us run out to the grocery store or the drug store.

On weekends, you’d see us leaving to take Parker and Dylan to their swimming lessons, and later to take Parker to his soccer game. If it’s a nice day, you might see one of us outside with Dylan, or taking Parker bike riding (a trip that usually involves a stop for ice cream before cycling home), or taking the family out for a walk.

You might see us out on the deck, watching Parker and Dylan play outside. If your kid came outside and saw Parker and Dylan, they’d probably want to come over and play just like our neighbors kids do. If you were a neighbor and Parker saw your kid outside, he’d probably ask us if he could go out and play, and one of us would go out with him.

As you were coming and going in the course of your family’s life, as we were coming and going in the course of ours, you’d probably wave across the street, and we’d wave back. Once in a while, we might stop to chat. If you have kids too, we’d probably inevitably end up talking about our children, while also keeping one eye on them if they’re playing near by, and occasionally stopping our conversation to call out to them to get out of the street, or put down that stick, or let the other kid have a turn with whatever toy was the focus of the moment. We might come to one another’s parties or invite one another over for dinner or a play date once in a while.

Because we’d just be people, not “the gay couple” next door, but the family next door who don’t seem all that different from yours.

And not just to you, but to your kids too.

That’s why we chose to live in a community progressive enough where that’s not likely to happen. So far, so good. We haven’t had any problems being recognized as a family in our community. The parents and kids at Parker’s day care all know he has a Daddy and a Papa, and on Father’s day he makes two cards. The families in our new neighborhood are just as accepting. When we lived in D.C., nobody in our babysitting co-op batted an eye at us or the three other sets of same-sex parents. None of the kids appeared to think anything of it. One little girl did ask me about it when I was babysitting her, and it was a pretty easy conversation.

?Where?s Parker??

?He?s at home with his Papa??

?His other daddy??

?Yes.?

?How come Parker has two Daddies??

?Well, there are lots of different kinds of families. Some have a mommy and a daddy. But some have two mommies or two daddies, or even just one mommy or just one daddy. It?s kind of like ice cream. There?s lots of flavors, like vanilla or chocolate, but it?s all still ice cream.?

?You forgot strawberry ice cream.?

?Well, then, there?s strawberry ice cream too.?

?My birthday is coming up, and I?m going to have strawberry ice cream and vanilla cake.?

And that was it. If kids learn homophobia as early as three, my experience suggests they learn it from their parents. If the parents are cool with it, so will the kids be.

More than that, your kid would grow up living on the same street with our kids and going to the same schools as our kid, and all the time see us just being a family.

If David Parker?s kid was in Parker?s pre-school class, I wonder how he would have reacted to the hubby and I coming to the performance on Friday, sitting together and beaming at Parker. How would he have reacted when Parker sat in my lap and even planted a kiss on my cheek? How would he have reacted to our family walking down the hall on our way to the car afterwards, and being stopped by parents and teachers who congratulated us and took a minute to admire Dylan and compliment Parker?

How would David Parker have reacted over the years, if his child was in Parker?s class, to us being introduced to his child as Parker?s Daddy and Papa? How would he react to the school and the teachers recognizing us as a family and treating us like any other family? How would he react to seeing our family at the birthday parties of the kids in Parker?s class? How would he react to us taking turns going along on class field trips?

On Mondays, during circle time, the kids in Parker?s class share their ?weekend news,? in which they say what they did during the weekend. Their stories inevitably involve some activities with their families, and Parker is no different. His weekend news might be ?I helped Papa make a blueberry pie,? or ?Daddy took me out to ride my bike,? or ?I went to IHOP with Daddy, Papa, and Dylan.?

How would David Parker react to that? Would it, in his opinion count as ?affirmation and normalization? of what he considers our ?lifestyle?? What would he have the teachers do? Stop circle time and call him to make sure it was OK for my son to talk about his family? Tell my son not to talk about his family, or what terms he can use to talk about his family? Would he require advance warning that the hubby and I are coming to the class performance together, or that we?re both picking Parker up from school? What would he have the school do?

…When the hubby and I are introduced to the class or a classmate as Parker?s Daddy and Papa, is this having ?same-sex partners discussed? or ?affirming and normalizing? our family? When Parker talks about his family, during ?weekend news? or every day banter and play with his classmates, does that count as having ?same-sex partners discussed? or ?affirming and normalizing? our family?

Inevitably, by our family?s presence and Parker?s attendance at his pre-school, his classmates have learned something about same-sex parents, if only that we exist. In the five years they?ve grown up with Parker, they?ve seen our family again and again. They?ve seen their parents welcome us into their homes. They?ve seen parents and teachers treat us as they do all the other parents and every other family. They know their parents and teachers trust us to keep an eye on the kids on class field trips. They?ve seen us both relate to Parker as parents, and they relate to us as Parker?s parents and Parker?s family.

Is that ?affirmation and normalization??

Only if recognizing someone else’s equal humanity is “affirmation and normalizing.” Chances are they will witness all that and think that our family should be treated just like theirs. And when the grow up to learn all the ways our families are treated differently than theirs, they won’t want to see their neighbors treated like that. They won’t want to see their friend’s family treated like that. And one day they’ll be old enough to do something about it.

Voters ages 18 to 29 — who cast nearly one in five ballots — favored Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain by 66 percent to 32 percent.

In contrast, voters ages 65 and older — about 16 percent of the 2008 vote — favored McCain 53 percent to 45 percent, exit polls show.

…While establishment Republicans are soul-searching, they’d be wise to realize that, simultaneously, young voters are watching TV, where they see openly gay Rep. Barney Frank trying to save U.S. capitalism and openly gay Suze Orman explaining how early investing in 401ks will make them rich.

TiVo-generation voters, while fast-forwarding through commercials, could suggest what an appealing, youthful elephant would look like. That cuddly — yes, cuddly — party animal would appeal to young people’s desire to enrich their hearts as well as their wallets, offering a combo deal of fiscal policies that raise all boats and “values” policies that address the needs of all families as well as single Americans.

To become that attractive elephant, Republicans will have to embrace gay people — even if, in the short term, that costs them some social conservative votes.

That’s what the Conservative Party did in Great Britain, turning itself from a big-time loser in 1997 to an ultramodern brand that’s fast becoming a political head-turner.

When we are able to live our lives as openly and honestly as any other family, without fear of harassment, discrimination or worse ? something we do every day, despite the threat of harassment, discrimination, or worse ? we push our communities and pull our country closer to the day when, “Gay and lesbian couples … are attracting fewer startled looks when they rent cars, less consternation when they hold hands, fewer awkward questions when they visit spouses in hospital rooms.”

Because we’re neighbors, friends, just people, and just citizens. Equal citizens. Every time we and anyone else stands for equality, we’re taking a step towards that unknown also known as “the world as it should be.”

That’s what the other side is afraid of.

But now there’s at least one example that we ? as neighbors, friends, people and citizens, equal citizens ? can walk into that unknown “world as it should be” without fear. And there will be more; more examples, and as those examples show the obsolescence fear, more people walking into that future, together.

Digest for November 9th through November 17th (The Republic of T.)

What It?s Like For Our Children — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:13+0100

Here are some of the people writing about some of the stuff I wish I had time to write about, for November 9th through November 17th:

Citizen Crain: Prop 8 and common sense (II) - Conceivably pro-same sex marriage advocates could put the question on the ballot again in 2010. This time for numerous reasons, including that it is not a presidential election year, same sex marriage may win by the same narrow margin by which it just lost. Same sex marriage would once again be legal. That of course would provoke the anti-same sex marriage folks, including the Mormons, who would redouble their efforts in the presidential election year of 2012 to once again outlaw same sex marriage. They might be able to win again in 2012. I think you get the picture. With the margin of victory or loss being so close, there could be a ridiculous back and forth legal mess. The Supreme Court should consider the possibility of on again, off again civil rights and all that implies before they validate Prop 8. Civil rights by a simple majority that could change every couple of years would be a disaster.

Citizen Crain: Prop 8 and common sense - Jump forward to Prop 8. It was the exact same wording as Prop 22, only this time they labeled it a constitutional amendment. It passed by only 52% to 48% — much much less support support than Prop 22. But this time they called it a constitutional amendment instead of a ballot initiative. The same wording passed with less support. Does it make sense in any legal scheme that simply changing what it is labeled on the ballot (and getting fewer votes) should allow it to "stick" this time? Not in my law book of common sense.

Yet Another Reason the GOP Failed | AlterNet - As Republicans sift through the ashes of their latest defeat, the data shard that Democrats probably most hope their battered rivals ignore is this one: Voters ages 18 to 29 — who cast nearly one in five ballots — favored Democrat Barack Obama over Republican John McCain by 66 percent to 32 percent. In contrast, voters ages 65 and older — about 16 percent of the 2008 vote — favored McCain 53 percent to 45 percent, exit polls show.

Zakaria: GOP bereft of ideas or trapped by wrong ones - CNN.com - The Republican Party has become a party bereft of ideas or trapped by the wrong ones. The Reagan-Thatcher revolution of low taxes, deregulation and tight money isn't relevant to the problems of under-regulated financial products, huge deficits and a deepening recession. Add to that the Republican Party's social program is out of tune with an increasingly young, diverse and tolerant electorate. Something similar has happened in foreign policy. Voters have seemed to sense that there is a new world out there and that the solutions presented by McCain in his campaign didn't address the change.

The GOP’s last chance: Become Democrats | Salon - The right's love affair with the feckless Palin indicates it has learned nothing from the Bush and McCain debacles. Bush's presidency was a decisive refutation of the idea that Republicans can win by playing only to true believers. And McCain's fateful decision to embrace the Bush-Rove play-to-the-base strategy cost him any chance he had at winning the election. Right-wing ideologues are suffering from massive cognitive dissonance (not to mention a healthy helping of denial). They can't grasp why their party imploded because the vast majority of them always supported Bush and his policies and still do. A few conservative critics have blasted him for lacking fiscal discipline, but most right-wing pundits liked Bush's policies just fine — until the public turned on him and on McCain.

Protect Gay Married Couples: Three Suggestions | New America Blogs - Lost in all the publicity about post-election No on 8 protests is the question of whether the 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot this year in California will see their marriages voided by the courts. Protecting these marriages is essential as a matter of humanity, of avoiding a bigger legal mess. Here's how to respond.

Mombian » Blog Archive » LGBT Parents: the Forgotten Voices of Prop. 8 - What both sides made invisible by their actions were the 52,000 children being raised by 26,100 same-sex couples in California. The total number of children affected by the prejudice of Prop 8 is even higher, as 125,000 LGB Californians, including single parents, are raising children, according to the Williams Institute of UCLA, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2005/2006 American Community Survey. LGBT parents are raising children in every California county, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Interestingly, though, among the counties with the most same-sex couples raising children, the top six, and eight of the top 10, all voted in favor of Prop 8.

WoodMoor Village: Can I Vote on Your Marriage? - Check out the T-Shirt for sale at Zazzle.com. That is a great line, but I wonder if folks that wear it will get verbally assaulted or worse. You can also get it as a bumper sticker. Neat perspective by incongruity example for my Dramatism class next semester.

On the Castro Confrontation Incident - 1. If these soulless cretins went into an insular Hasidic community in Brooklyn and tried to tell the residents — who had been minding their own business — that they were sinners, that Jesus is the only way to Heaven and that God abhors their “lifestyle choices,” the response would have been quite uglier than this. 2. When the peaceable gay Christians of the Soulforce Equality Ride visit Evangelical colleges, seeking only to have a respectful dialog with students, the colleges’ theocratic Christianist administrators’ response is almost always the same: Set one foot on our campus and you will be arrested.

Stop…Obama time - starobserver.com.au - Not only the first black president of the United States of America, last Tuesday Barack Obama also became its first president to specifically acknowledge gays in an acceptance speech, thanking Americans both straight and gay. Four major pieces of pro-gay legislation should be passed within Obama’s first term.

On What “Closing Guantanamo” Does and Does Not Mean - In a post-Bush, post-Boumediene Washington, closing “Guantanamo the Base” (i.e., while merely transferring the remaining detainees to a military prison on U.S. soil, to face a prosecution that comports with due process) is a simple, uncomplicated yet important symbolic step that by itself would represent a tremendous step back from the brink, for it would repudiate, finally, the notion that we as a nation are ever entitled to behave lawlessly.

An Open Letter to L. Whitney Clayton - If someone were to walk up to me, hit me in the face for no legitimate reason and walk away, then I would probably not chase him down just to hit him back. But when someone walks up to me, hits me in the face for no legitimate reason and then tells me it’s “time to heal” — well, then I’m going to hit back.

Conservatism?s Gut-Job on Government (The Republic of T.)

The Republic of T. — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:48:03+0100

Reading the headlines over the past week, I’m beginning to wonder if there’s a single agency in the United States government that conservatives haven’t left in worse shape than they found it. I’ve been reading about demoralized government employees, under-resourced departments, and agencies left in shambles after eight years of Republican rule.

A few days after the election I participated in a telephone survey about the outcome. The surveyor, at one point, asked me how I felt about the Bush administration and the congressional Republicans. After a couple of tries at explaining conservative failure, I finally blurted out, “People hate government, and don’t believe it can do any good, just can’t govern effectively.”

After this week, I think I’d probably amend that statement. Conservatives don’t believe government doesn’t work. They believe it shouldn’t. And when they get elected they make damn sure it can’t.

In the middle of a financial crisis, we find out that Homeland Security has failed to oversee billions of dollars in equipment purchases.

The Homeland Security Department has done a poor job overseeing the purchase of billions of dollars of equipment and technology since the agency was created five years ago, according to a federal report scheduled for release today.

Senior department officials have “not provided the oversight needed” to ensure that purchases “with important national security objectives” function properly and stay on budget, according to Congress’ Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The GAO report is the latest to raise questions about the Homeland Security Department, which Congress has criticized for gaps in aviation security, a faltering response to Hurricane Katrina and slow progress in securing land borders.

The new report levels criticism at a complex process Homeland Security has used to beef up the nation’s defenses by purchasing security equipment, including machines that scan suitcases for bombs.

In many cases, programs were delayed or went over budget, including planned improvements in Coast Guard rescues, luggage screening and the capture and removal of illegal migrants.

In the middle of a housing crisis, we find out that HUD has been neglected these past eight years.

The Obama administration will soon inherit a $35 billion federal housing agency that was a weak backbencher during the housing crisis and moved too late to do much to keep millions of families from going into foreclosure.

Beyond the pressing crisis, the Department of Housing and Urban Development also has dramatically retreated in the past eight years from its mission of fostering affordable housing. Pushing homeownership has been the agency’s top priority under the Bush administration, and HUD’s budget for public housing for low-income families has been cut year after year.

In a pre-election letter sent to HUD employees through their union, Barack Obama wrote: “As we tackle the effects of the current fiscal crisis on Americans, HUD must be part of the solution. The Department’s mission — to promote affordable quality housing and community development available to all without discrimination — is critical to the well-being of millions of working families.”

Experts on housing finance and poverty cheer the sentiments but warn the president-elect’s advisers that the long-neglected agency will require hefty amounts of taxpayer money, aggressive leadership and a culture shift of sorts.

That cultural shift will be needed across several agencies, given that federal employees have been demoralized by eight years of conservative rule. (Well, wouldn’t you be demoralized working for people who hate the very idea that your job even exists?)

As The Washington Post reported this week, President-elect Barack Obama wrote American Federation of Government Employees in October promising that he would do everything in his power to rebuild the federal service. He also promised to protect collective bargaining rights and to restore funding cuts that have eviscerated the federal government’s ability to faithfully execute the laws.

The past eight years have been a horror to many federal employees. The Bush administration has rarely missed an opportunity to criticize, cut and meddle, and it dismissed the notion that federal employees need more freedom to innovate and learn. As former vice president Al Gore rightly argued, federal employees are not the problem in poor performance. It is the bureaucracy in which they are trapped.

The Bush administration, however, decided that the best way to reform government was to outsource it. From 2001 to 2005, civilian employment remained at 1.8 million, more or less, while the estimated number of contractor jobs surged from 4.4 million to 7.6 million.

Contractors are now responsible for tasks that include writing requests for proposals, monitoring contract performance and providing management analysis. Contractors are also front and center in disbursing the $700 billion bailout, in no small measure because the Bush administration made no effort to strengthen the government’s core capacity to monitor the complicated instruments that caused the financial meltdown.

And meddle the Bush administration has. Bush’s EPA, most recently, has changed air quality rules for national parks, over the dissent of regional administrators. At the FDA scientists charge top health officials with “serious misconduct” in ignoring scientists’ concerns about approving for sale unsafe or ineffective medical devices. Meanwhile, despite its claims to the contrary, the Bush administration is moving to move as many of its political appointees into career positions as possible, making it harder for the incoming administration to appoint its own people.

And whoever ends up appointed as Secretary of State is going to face an under-resourced department on day one.

The next secretary of state not only will face the challenge of repairing the nation’s tattered image and grappling with an array of global crises and hot spots, but also must solve a problem closer to home: reforming an under-resourced State Department to handle its growing duties, such as rebuilding war-torn societies, coping with worldwide pandemics and working with other countries to curb global warming.

“In the last eight years, we have significantly reinvented and transformed every national security agency except the Department of State,” said Philip D. Zelikow, who served as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “Our core Foreign Service officers and aid officers are not large enough to play the role that’s been cast for them, nor do we have the training establishment to prepare them for their roles.”

…”The next president and the next secretary come into office at a time when our economy is in recession, our military is tied down and our reputation is tarnished,” said Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Diplomatic tools are arguably the one set of instruments that are available. It’s a natural moment for American diplomacy.”

But the past two years have brought a flurry of testimony and reports questioning the capacity of the U.S. government to carry out its foreign policy. They cite the relative underfunding of State Department personnel, especially compared with the resources that have poured into the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security in the years following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. They have criticized State’s efforts to convey a positive U.S. image abroad. And they have questioned the training and readiness of the Foreign Service to carry out functions beyond traditional diplomacy, such as advising Third World governments on training police officers, setting up judicial systems and holding fair and free elections.

The secretary of state “lacks the tools — people, competencies, authorities, program and funding — to execute the President’s foreign policies,” according to a report last month from the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Henry L. Stimson Center.

Take all that in while you consider the $600 billion the Pentagon paid for reconstruction projects in Iraq that were shoddily done or unfinished (and the way-behind-schedule sewage treatment plant that’s over its $100 million budget, and the auditors who go easy on military contractors), the $185,481 we’re replacing for a contractor who abandoned it while fleeing Iraq, the $13 billion wasted or stolen in Iraq, the $6 billion spent on private security in Iraq (since we fired the Iraqi police), the utter lack of oversight on the bailout (with $290 billion already spent, and a huge windfall for banks hidden inside), millions wasted on no-bid contracts after Katrina, etc., and you’d be forgiven for wondering there’s an effort underway to drain the treasury as much as possible and trash the place on their way out.

(Of course, not without making last minute changes to regulations, and leaving enough of their people behind to make sure it stays trashed.)

This is all being reported just under two months before inauguration. It makes you wonder what we’ll learn after the Obama administration moves in.

Never mind rescuing the economy, the next administration may have to rebuild the government at the same time.

Cancel Those Orders (The Republic of T.)

eHarmony Changes Its Tune? — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:43:42+0100

An Australian blogger has laid out an ambitious first-term agenda for the Obama administration.

Four major pieces of pro-gay legislation should be passed within Obama?s first term.
First will be the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Act and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which will protect gays from hate crimes and discrimination in the workplace for the first time at a federal level. With a Democratic majority in both houses, transgendered protections removed from ENDA before the election will most likely be reinserted.

Later should come bills to repeal the Don?t Ask, Don?t Tell policy responsible for the sacking of over twelve thousand gay military personnel over the last 15 years, and the Defense of Marriage Act that bans any kind of recognition of same-sex couples at a federal level.

Well, yeah. I’d go along with all of the above. However, beyond using the bully pulpit of the presidency to oppose discrimination and support equality, there’s little the president can do on any of the above until or unless Congress sends passes a hate crimes bill, ENDA, a repeal of DOMA.

That doesn’t mean there can’t be some changes made right away, tho’.

It’s already been reported that Obama’s transition is reviewing about 200 Bush executive orders that can be eighty-sixed toot sweet. He’s already said to be drafting a repeal of one Bush’s worse executive orders.

Among a slew of executive orders Barack Obama is said to be drafting, observers believe one may lift a ban on US funding for overseas family planning groups that even dare mention abortion.

…US funds to the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) have been blocked since 2002, with the State Department saying the UN agency supports China’s one-child policy, which is says amounts to coercive abortion.

“The Bush administration has said the UNFPA supports coercive birth control methods and that’s why they’re blocking money to it,” said Tait Sye, a spokesman for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA).

“The problem is that UNFPA money goes towards things like family planning and contraception, too,” vital services in developing countries, he added.

A World Bank report published in July said women in developing countries, where access to contraception is poor, often turn to abortion as a means of birth control.

Abortion is more costly than providing contraceptive services, and around half the 42 million abortions performed annually are unsafe, the report said.

wUNFPA senior culture adviser Azza Karam stressed at the launch of the UN agency’s annual State of World Population report in Washington this week that family planning is “not a luxury of whether or not you’re going to have premarital sex” but a service that women must have access to.

One woman dies every minute somewhere in the world because of complications during birth, she said.

It’s kind of ironic that Bush and the folks who keep his approval rating in the double digits to cut the funding of a program that might prevent abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies. At least until you remember that these are the same people who define contraception as abortion (another rule change that didn’t require congressional approval and one that Obama may have in his sights).

Bush’s UNFPA policy has had devastating consequences for women around the world, something I blogged about a couple of years ago, after seeing an Anderson Cooper piece on problem of women in Africa suffering fistulas as a result of violent, multiple rapes.

You see, women like those mentioned in the article were getting help, from an organization called the United Nations Population Fund (UNFP) and its campaign to end fistula, until the Bush administration blocked those efforts in 2001 and has continued to stand in the way.

… Nevermind that Bush sent a hand-picked State Department delegation to investigate the claims. Their findings, namely that the UNFP didn?t support forced abortions or sterilizations and thus should have its funding restored, didn?t jibe with the administration?s ideology. There are a couple of things about Heal Africa that do jibe with the Bush ideology, though.

The post goes on to cover how the money that might have gone to UNFPA was instead funneled to religious organizations that ran clinics and also advocated an “abstinence only” approach to HIV/AIDS prevention. (Another policy whose days may be numbered in an Obama administration.)

So, it makes my top ten lists of Bush’s executive orders that should be circling the bowl on or shortly after January 20, 2009. Salon has a top ten list of their own, compiled from reader suggestions, that would also be a good place to start. In fact, I’d sign off on all ten, with this one at the top of the stack.

No. 8: Letting Religious Groups Call the Hiring Shots
Executive Order 13279 (PDF)
Dec. 12, 2002

What the order says: Adding to the pair of 2001 executive orders that encouraged religious groups to apply for federal money for social services, Bush’s December 2002 order made it easier for churches and synagogues to take the money by letting them skirt certain anti-discrimination laws. Because of this order, the faith-based groups can take federal funds while refusing to hire people who aren’t of the faith the groups espouse.

Why it should go: As Timothy Noah pointed out in Slate at the time, this seems sensible enough at first: “Why shouldn’t government-funded religious charities be allowed to favor members of their own religion when hiring, firing, and promoting?” But there are a couple of problems here. The first is that the groups get to define for themselves who counts as a good Baptist or a good Jew?and what if they decide someone is out because he or she is gay, for example? The second problem is that it’s not really clear why Catholic charities should be able to hire only Catholics to serve meals to the homeless, if that work is being funded by the government. In a debate on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, Christopher Anders of the ACLU framed the order this way: “What this is about is creating a special right for some organizations that don’t want to comply with the civil rights protections.” James Towey, then director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said, “The question is, ‘Do they lose right to hire according to religious beliefs when they take federal money?’ ” Either way you frame it, the order is a bad idea. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have pledged to continue federal funding of faith-based programs, but Obama has promised that groups taking the money won’t be able to make social-services hires on the basis of religion.

But why stop there? Why is the government funding religious organizations to do, well, anything? As I wrote two years ago, there are inherent problems in giving the church access to the state’s purse.

Leaving aside whether or not Bush is more of a ?dry drunk? than a recovering alcoholic, and whether he wanted votes at least as much as he wanted souls (if not more) it?s clear that he and the ?peer-review panelist? wear the same blinders Kuo wears and miss the same point he comes close to reaching in the book, but ultimately doesn?t get either: that the government should not be in the business of ?saving souls? or helping people to ?know Jesus,? nor should it pay anyone else to do so.

The inherent danger in that is evidenced in the kind of discrimination Kuo writes about, that was an ingrained part of the thinking of the most ardent supporters of the initiative. Combined with the lack of oversight (which perhaps has its origin in what Kuo describes as evangelical Christians willingness to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt even with it seemed to ignore or short change their issues) creates situations like the one I noted before, where an organization like the Salvation Army gets nearly all of its budget from the government, and then uses it to purge Jews and homosexuals from its staff; Jewish and homosexual taxpayers, that is, whose taxes now supply the organization?s budget. (Not to mention Buddhist, Muslim, and non-religious taxpayers who would probably also be out of a job, courtesy of their tax dollars.)

It?s a danger only enhanced by the Bush administration?s efforts to weaken rules that were intended to protect the separation of church and state. The danger becomes even more apparent when you consider that the ?soul-saving? mission is combined with belief that it?s an it is an ??error? to judge federally-funded social service programs by the effectiveness of the services they provide, instead of judging them by religious ?long-term ends?,? because it creates an atmosphere where effectiveness doesn?t matter in a situation where lives are literally at stake.

It leads to an HIV prevention educator in Africa being told, ?Just remember, whatever you do, don?t mention condoms,? just before he stepped out onto a stage to talk HIV prevention to Ugandans, because he was hosted by a faith-based ?abstinence-only? program. Never mind that advances against HIV in Uganda have withered away under the Bush administration, because anti-condom propaganda has effectively decreased condom use, but hasn?t affected the practice of unprotected sex. Because the effectiveness of the services offered is not important, and neither is any increase in the rate of HIV infection among Africans. That?s a short-term goal after all. The long term goal is ?salvation,? which is still possible after and HIV infection, but unquantifiable.

…And, really, it couldn?t happen any other way. The problem with the faith-based initiative that Kuo misses, isn?t that it wasn?t done right. The problem is that it can?t be done right. Or that it?s almost impossible to do right, simply given human nature, the fact that the U.S. is overwhelmingly Christian, the tendency of the major faiths ? Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ? to reject the legitimacy of any other faith (unless practiced by the kind of moderates Sam Harris talks about, which still leaves the door open for their extremist co-religionists), and the tendency to one?s co-religionists (or in Bush?s case ?a brother in Christ?) the benefit of the doubt.

By the time someone like Kuo pulls the curtain aside, much of the damage has been done already. And cleaning it up will end up being someone else?s job.

For those reasons, I would add to the list of executive orders that need to go Executive Order 13199.

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Faith-based and other community organizations are indispensable in meeting the needs of poor Americans and distressed neighborhoods. Government cannot be replaced by such organizations, but it can and should welcome them as partners. The paramount goal is compassionate results, and private and charitable community groups, including religious ones, should have the fullest opportunity permitted by law to compete on a level playing field, so long as they achieve valid public purposes, such as curbing crime, conquering addiction, strengthening families and neighborhoods, and overcoming poverty. This delivery of social services must be results oriented and should value the bedrock principles of pluralism, nondiscrimination, evenhandedness, and neutrality.

Sec. 2. Establishment. There is established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President that will have lead responsibility in the executive branch to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the Federal Government’s comprehensive effort to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the work of faith-based and other community organizations to the extent permitted by law.

Sec. 3. Functions. The principal functions of the White House OFBCI are, to the extent permitted by law: (a) to develop, lead, and coordinate the Administration’s policy agenda affecting faith-based and other community programs and initiatives, expand the role of such efforts in communities, and increase their capacity through executive action, legislation, Federal and private funding, and regulatory relief;

(b)
    to ensure that Administration and Federal Government policy decisions and programs are consistent with the President’s stated goals with respect to faith-based and other community initiatives;
(c)
    to help integrate the President’s policy agenda affecting faith-based and other community organizations across the Federal Government;
(d)
    to coordinate public education activities designed to mobilize public support for faith-based and community nonprofit initiatives through volunteerism, special projects, demonstration pilots, and public-private partnerships;
(e)
    to encourage private charitable giving to support faith-based and community initiatives;
(f)
    to bring concerns, ideas, and policy options to the President for assisting, strengthening, and replicating successful faith-based and other community programs;
(g)
    to provide policy and legal education to State, local, and community policymakers and public officials seeking ways to empower faith-based and other community organizations and to improve the opportunities, capacity, and expertise of such groups;
(h)
    to develop and implement strategic initiatives under the President’s agenda to strengthen the institutions of civil society and America’s families and communities;
(i)
    to showcase and herald innovative grassroots nonprofit organizations and civic initiatives;

(j)
to eliminate unnecessary legislative, regulatory, and other bureaucratic barriers that impede effective faith-based and other community efforts to solve social problems;
(k)
to monitor implementation of the President’s agenda affecting faith-based and other community organizations; and

    (l)
        to ensure that the efforts of faith-based and other community organizations meet high standards of excellence and accountability.
    Sec. 4. Administration. (a) The White House OFBCI may function through established or ad hoc committees, task forces, or interagency groups.

(b)
    The White House OFBCI shall have a staff to be headed by the Assistant to the President for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The White House OFBCI shall have such staff and other assistance, to the extent permitted by law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this order. The White House OFBCI operations shall begin no later than 30 days from the date of this order.
(c)
    The White House OFBCI shall coordinate with the liaison and point of contact designated by each executive department and agency with respect to this initiative.
(d)
    All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall cooperate with the White House OFBCI and provide such information, support, and assistance to the White House OFBCI as it may request, to the extent permitted by law.
(e)
    The agencies’ actions directed by this Executive Order shall be carried out subject to the availability of appropriations and to the extent permitted by law.

Sec. 5. Judicial Review. This order does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person. GEORGE W. BUSH
The White House,
January 29, 2001.

And Executive Order 13198.

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faithbased and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Establishment of Executive Department Centers for FaithBased and Community Initiatives. (a) The Attorney General, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall each establish within their respective departments a Center for FaithBased and Community Initiatives (Center).

This one should be the first in the shredder, and the offices occupied by the “Centers for Faith Based and Community Initiatives” returns to something resembling the proper function of government.

As some have suggested where regulation in the financial sector is concerned, the first step is to go back to what we had before, when religious organizations were already eligible to receive federal dollars, and were simply required to meet the same standards and requirements as any other organization applying for funding, to comply with all the same regulations regarding licensing, professional staff, training, and to have proper “firewalls” between government funded services, and the religious services of the organization.

In other words, let them play by the same rules as everyone else. Or not at all.

Underwater Car Loan BailOut ? (blog maverick)

The Hedge Fund Disconnect — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:32:42+0100

Got your attention didn’t I ?

You all do realize that anyone who buys a new car is UNDERWATER the minute you sign the papers and drive off the lot ? That you get further and further underwater every single day ? Maybe thats why so few are� buying new cars ?� We havent instituted a bailout for their underwater car loans.

ShareThis

The Stock Market: The New Normal ? (blog maverick)

A Classic Post on Public Hedge Funds — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:46:47+0100

“Past Performance is No Indication of Future Results”. Its a statement attached to every financial salespitch ever offered.� So why is it no one believes it ?

Turn on CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg, and every other comment from the “experts” mouths are “historically when the Dow ….fill in the blank….” or “for the last X years, every time the market did X, then Y has happened within Z months”

Folks, it is different this time. Until this past year, at no other time in the history of the US Markets has there been Investment Banks investing for their own accounts to the tune of 30 or more to 1 leverage.

At no other time in the history of the Markets are there 17k mutual funds and more than 10k hedge funds. All competing with each other for the right to make a ton of money off of your money.

At no other time in the history of this country did savings fall as far below zero pct of income

At no other� time in the history of this country were net effective interest rates as far below zero

At no other time in the history of our markets have the words “blue chip” completely lost their meaning.

At no other time in the history of our markets has the money of consumers been so portable and movable between hedge funds and mutual funds. Which means that at no other time have mutual funds and hedge funds been so susceptible to redemption runs.

At no other time have consumers been so in the dark about what is happening with our funds. At least George Bailey could see the line at the bank and know what was happening. We as consumers have zero transparency as to whether or not there is a run on our funds, so we run to take out our money first, just in case. The result is a virtual run on the fund where we hold our money, except that no one knows about it but the fund itself, and they aren’t going to say a word for fear of making it worse.

At no other times have financial engineers and investors been so in the dark about how bad the runs on funds have been, so we sit on the sidelines, dribbling in cash, not wanting hedge and mutual funds to dump their shares into our bids.

At no other time have their been 3 financial news networks and thousands of websites providing so much financial information and opinion. The sum of which� has definitely lead us into a situation of� “Paralysis by Bullshitalysis”.� Everyone is afraid to buy. Everyone is afraid to sell or short.� Sales forced by de-leveraging is the catalyst for the market.� However, there are so few buyers, the de-leveraging sales are taking forever.

Who knows what the new normal is. No one has any idea what is going to happen in this market. NO ONE.� Personally, I am completely hedged. I bought puts, sold them. Sold Puts, bought them back, then decided to hedge every long dollar and then some with big puts on the market. This allowed me to be protected on the down side, and tip toe on the long side. As stocks go down, my hedge allows me to buy more of the stocks I like. If the market takes off on the up side, hopefully my longs will more than cover the cost of my puts. If the market does nothing. I’m stuck right where I am, with my puts losing time value every day.

Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t.� What I do know is this, everyone is a genius in a bullmarket. The last 5 years, that wasn’t a stock market. THIS is a stockmarket. This time it is different. This may just be the new normal.

ShareThis

The SEC (blog maverick)

SEC P2 — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:20:57+0100

I wish I could say more, but I will have to leave it to this, and let the judicial process do its job.
November 17, 2008
RE: SEC Civil Action in the United States District

for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division

Mark Cuban today responded to a civil complaint filed by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States District for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. In its complaint, the Commission charges that Mr. Cuban engaged in violations of the federal securities laws in connection with transactions in the securities of Mamma.com Inc.

This matter, which has been pending before the Commission for nearly two years, has no merit and is a product of gross abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Mr. Cuban intends to contest the allegations and to demonstrate that the Commission?s claims are infected by the misconduct of the staff of its Enforcement Division.

Mr. Cuban stated, ?I am disappointed that the Commission chose to bring this case based upon its Enforcement staff?s win-at-any-cost ambitions. The staff?s process was result-oriented, facts be damned. The government?s claims are false and they will be proven to be so.?
——————————

——————————

Ralph C. Ferrara, Esq.

Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP

1101 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100

Washington, D.C. 20005

ShareThis

The Hedge Fund Disconnect (blog maverick)

I Hate to Lose — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:31:40+0100

As I watch and read about the Hedge Fund testimony currently going on, its obvious that the right question has not been asked.

1. Those who give money to hedge funds rarely if ever have a 1 year investment term. In fact, the contracts for investment do everything possible to lock up your money for as long as possible.

Hedge Fund Managers pay themselves on an annual basis.

That is a huge disconnect and there in lies the rub. While it is true that the managers are paid on a performance basis (plus their 2pct of assets) and some even have clawback provisions, that is not enough. If a fund can get big enough, all they have to do is max out in a single year and the managers are set for life. They put hundreds of millions of dollars EACH in their pocket.

The investors on the other hand, can not max out returns in a single year. They are locked in. So there is a huge disconnect. Managers think short term, investors long term.� Managers should be paid on their performance over a much longer period.

If you made the minimum period for managers 36 months, you would see wholesale changes in how investments are made by Hedge Funds.

So, back to the Testimony today. The questions I would ask ?

How long does the average investor stay in your funds ? Why arent you paid based on the same term rather than annually ?

ShareThis