Detroit Shows Up For A Hand OUt

So Detroit showed up in Washington today with their hands out and their private jets waiting on the runways. OK, so that is a slightly unfair thing to say, but it was a bad image to give for their poor-house story.

Detroit is suffering from lots of problems, most of which are a lack of imagination and poor management. Granted there are expenses for wages, pensions and health care, but the biggest problem is that they don’t make cars people want. The big 3 have continued to make big gas guzzlers when America wants small efficient cars like the Toyota Prius. Detroit makes small cars, but in general they suck. They feel cheap and drive crummy and look worse.

There is a lot of hope and fortune tied up in the Chevy Volt, but if it premiers at $40,000 it won’t go anywhere. A luxury price for an electric car is silly. For the rich who want an electric car, there already is the Tesla. For the common man, a reasonably priced electric is the answer. Why Detroit can’t figure out how to do that is a mystery. Fewer moving parts, less assembly, what’s the problem?

Well, electric cars have been around for a while. The EV1 was a hit with consumers but failed for the company since dealers hated it. Not enough service money. Besides it was done at gunpoint for California only. Why couldn’t they just roll out a larger production version? It could be on the market right now!

My hope is the automakers return to Washington with a real plan to save the industry. I feel sure the Senate and House will support them if they come with more than their hands out.

Why Protest Prop 8?

It would seem ironic and slightly pointless to hold a protest this Saturday to the passage of Proposition 8 in California here in Dallas, but it’s happening anyway. Why should it matter? After all Texas has already passed a discriminatory “Protection of Marriage” bill so what happens in California should be of little interest to us.

Well first off, let me get this out of the way, in my opinion the fight for gay marriage is the wrong fight. We would have a much easier time fighting for “equal rights” than the right to marry. If we actually had equal rights, marriage would be a given. So why is there so much resistance to “gay marriage”? A lot of straight people would agree with the LGBT community when it comes to having equal rights under the law. Most Americans have a sense of fairness that says everyone should be treated equally. When you throw the word “marriage” in the mix a couple of things happen.

First “marriage” is really a religious sacrament and therefore having the state involved in it crosses a clear line in the constitution separating church and state. If any thing the state should perform “civil unions” for everyone. Let people get a “marriage” in their church and leave the state out of it. The real sanctity of marriage is far more a moral and religious pledge than a legal one. For the purposes of the law, a civil union would assure couples the rights needed to conduct business under the law as a couple, including visitation rights, etc. The marriage would be a solemn church ceremony dedicating the union to God or however else people saw fit.

Secondly, when you mention “marriage” to most people it carries a secondary implication and that is sex. After a marriage comes the honeymoon and that means bedroom activities. For a lot of non-LGBT people that is the “ick” factor. Marriage equals sex and imagining gay or lesbian or any kind of sex but whatever they practice gives them the creeps. Quite frankly that is where a lot of the resistance comes from.

The whole canard about gay marriage destroying the sanctity of marriage is bogus. What it may destroy is the image of married sex in some people’s minds, but my having the right to marry my partner does nothing to your marriage except in a quasi-religious context. Again, another reason the government should be out of the marrying business.

Now aside from the marriage problem, the Prop 8 problem highlights a real deficit in the LGBT rights movement. We have not done enough to educate the public about discrimination against LGBT people and how that discrimination damages the fabric of society. That education will take more than marches and protests, it will take time and the building of alliances.

Politically the LGBT movement has done a lot to campaign for candidates on the national and local level who are friendly to our cause. What we have often ignored is the growing number of minority candidates are sympathetic and could be assets in our struggle. We can bring them on-board by showing our power and willingness to help their cause. As we do more to advance the cause of other minorities, we will be seen as partners in the overall struggle against discrimination.

Prop 8 was passed in California for several reasons. One was that most LGBT activists were busy trying to elect a president who would be more sympathetic to our cause. We assumed that people who voted for Obama would naturally vote against Prop 8. We were wrong. Also, the massive influx of money from outside the state, and particularly form the Mormon Church and its members in Utah was a big factor. Their funds changed the narrative of the battle from equal rights and marriage to “education”. Those last minute commercials featuring kids coming home and telling their parents that they learned in school it was “OK for princes to marry other princes”, made the issue seem like it was about kids and school. It was not, but again the lie worked. It scared enough people to vote against Prop 8 to save the children. Does anyone remember Anita Bryant?

Now we must pick up the pieces and forge ahead and that is why protesting here in Texas makes sense. Just as during the Civil Rights movement the public began to take the fight for the rights of African Americans seriously when they were awakened by the growing numbers of protestors in the streets, it is once again time to wake up America. Part of that awakening will be for our community as well. For too long many in the LGBT movement have become inactive or worse have worked actively to support candidates and causes that would deny our rights. I am talking to you, Log Cabin Republicans.

We need to take to the streets and let the country know that we are still here and we are still demanding full rights as citizens of the United States. We need to peacefully protest to assert ourselves and to let not only the people of Texas but of the whole country know that there is still a group of citizens who are actively being denied equal rights. The fight against Prop 8 needs to become a fight for full inclusion in our society.

Now as to the sanctity of marriage, how about we really protect that and outlaw divorce? Push for that and watch how fast the government gets out of the marriage business!

Where Are the Queer Think Tanks?

A few months ago I was reading the a diatribe from the Family Research Council I realized that even though this group, founded by James Dobson, is blatantly fundamentalist and far right, they continue to get lots of press both in print and broadcast. Early on in the primary season, on MSNBC, arguably not the most liberal news source, I listened to a discussion between Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell and former MSNBC host Dan Abrams. They were discussing Mike Huckabee’s stump speech and specifically the part where he says, “But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other, and how we treat their families."

The political analyst and host were cautious with this claim. Tony Perkins, however, barged in with a ringing endorsement backed up by the old lie, “America…a Judeo-Christian nation, ought to bring its founding document in line with what he says is God's word, particularly on matters of a woman's right to choose and a couple's right to marry.”

I won’t belabor the rest of the conversation, but anyone who knows Dobson, Perkins and their organization knows where it was going. They dominated the conversation guiding the discussion toward their favorite topics, gay marriage and abortion. It’s not surprising, as that is their whole reason for existence. The Family Research Council, with its scientific sounding name is nothing more than a far right think tank, and as such its job is to disseminate information supporting its causes.

My question is this, why was there no one from a GLBT think tank on that panel? More specifically, as we faced defeat in the Prop 8 vote in California, why are there so few GLBT think tanks?

The answer I suspect lies in the same thinking that dominates most liberal and progressive thinking. That is, money spent on policy groups, think tanks and infrastructure could better be spent on good works, good causes and political support. That thinking is the Achilles heel of the liberal and progressive movement and the GLBT movement as well. Yes, there are a few groups like the Center for American Progress and Brookings Institution who regularly provide talking points and research papers for use by liberal and progressive policymakers, but they pale in light of their many right-wing counterparts.

Yes, there is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, but they are not represented in every discussion of marriage and GLBT rights in the media. One organization cannot do it alone. We need a number of very aggressive and quite frankly stealthy groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Institute for Policy Analysis to carry our cause forward. We need our own version of the Family Research Council to provide lawmakers and the press with research and well-crafted policy statements that can affect the lawmaking process.

Now before I am accused of using the same dirty tricks that the right-wing nuts use, let me clarify a little. My point is about a subject near and dear to my heart and that is framing. As George Lakhoff makes abundantly clear in his book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, the real secret of changing public perception is to change the way the issue is discussed. Allowing the right to frame the debate immediately puts us liberals on the defensive. Even our name, “liberal” has been so successfully demonized by the right, that many call themselves “progressives” instead.

Having a few GLBT issue think tanks that can successfully frame the issues without sounding like GLBT activists could really make a difference in our cause. If you don’t believe framing makes a difference, look at the issue of “gay marriage”. Had we pushed the issue of equal rights under law, rather than the right to marry, we might already have it. When we use the term “marriage” it is charged with a lot of issues, and for many heterosexuals it implies sex. Face it, a lot of people are homophobic, they do not like to think about what we do in the bedroom, and pushing the issue of marriage makes the bedroom front and center.

Those same people might very well be swayed with an issue of human rights, and the right to marry would follow as a natural legal embodiment of those rights, but they would not have to think about it. After all Human Rights is the real issue. Marriage is just a legal construct that reflects the inequality just as serving n the military. Framing the issues as a human rights issues avoids the “ick” factor for many people and is much harder to argue against. Consider if the civil rights movement had made interracial marriage their key issue? We would still be drinking from separate water fountains, at least in the South.

Now who is going to step forward and come up with the funding to create some of these think tanks? Well I suspect there are not a lot of GLBT billionaires that would come forward, but you never know. It will probably take the work and funds of a whole lot of people to make that idea a reality, still why not give it a try?

Why McCain Lost and Why I Care

Now that the votes are counted and I am positive Barack Obama is President Elect, I can relax. I was expecting last minute dirty tricks from the Republicans who ran one of the dirtiest and most vile campaigns in my memory.

Want proof? Look no further than the dozens of anonymous fliers and campaign material that appeared in the last days of the campaign. Fake dollar bills with Obama and watermelon on it, fake notices that the election had been moved to Wednesday for Democratic voters to avoid the long lines and many more.

Worse still were the openly racist and race baiting comments made by the McCain campaign themselves. And yet worse was the rabble rousing campaign speeches made by Sarah Palin where the crowds shouted death threats against the Democratic nominee while Palin smiled and ignored them.

Obama was accused of being a terrorist, a Marxist, a socialist, an analog to Hitler! The lies and accusations of the McCain campaign knew no limits and it reflected badly on them and their party.

I believe that kind of attack was one of the big reasons McCain lost. His "throw everything including the kitchen sink at Obama" tactics didn't play well at all with anyone but the most right-wing extremists. Most Americans were not amused or swayed by his outrageous arguments.

McCain went from a Senator who once looked like a straight shooter when it came to political realities and the real issues facing America to a Bush-Cheney sycophant and Americans saw it and understood it. He left his "maverick" credentials at home a long time ago and no matter how many times he repeated it, he still looked like the Bush lap-dog he had become.

And then there was Sarah Palin! She was another of McCain's famous "Hail Mary" moves and instead of scoring, it earned him a penalty. Voters, especially Hillary Clinton voters were not fooled by Palin. McCain insulted them by putting someone as profoundly unqualified as Palin up as VP. McCain calculated that she would win Hillary voters because she was a woman. He forgot that Hillary was a uniquely qualified woman with lots of experience and brains. Palin on the other hand is a pretty face in an empty Neiman-Marcus suit.

Lastly there was the whole McCain "narrative" problem. The GOP has embraced the concept of giving their candidates a good narrative that voters and the press can pick up on. McCain kept changing his narrative. For example, he ran on "experience" until he picked Palin who has no relevant experience. He ran as a "maverick" until he began agreeing with Bush on everything. He ran as a "straight-talker" until he began lying and twisting the truth about his opponent and snubbing the press. A good narrative should be string and consistent and that is McCain's weak point. He likes to be a :game-changer" far too often.

Lastly, McCain lost because Obama is a candidate who resonated with the American public, old and young, white and black, He embodied the hopes and dreams of what America really stands for and people realized that. Thank God they did!