A Publication by: The Michael W. Connett - LIVING Trust"
"If Liberty means anything at all,
It means the Right to tell People
What they do not want to Hear."
George Orwell
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
THE ELECTION IS OVER WE LOST
Now on to November 3rd
By Sam Smith
The Progressive Review http://www.prorev.com
The winner is a supporter of three of the worst government decisions of our time: the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the Bush education law. He is a Yale graduate and a member of a secret society of dubious values and influence. He is arrogant with the sense of self-entitlement of the fully privileged yet has done little in life to justify this self esteem. And he is a tenured and servile member of an establishment that has trashed the Constitution, badly weakened the economy, made us hated around the world, and effectively brought to the end of the First American Republic.
To be sure there will be a consolation runoff in which we get to decide who we would rather do battle against for the next four years. This choice of battleground is not an insignificant matter but neither is it what a democratic election is supposed to be about. It is more like a cancer patient choosing between surgery and chemotherapy. We don't have to wait for Katherine Harris; this election has already been fixed.
How people of democratic inclination react to this dismal fact will vary considerably. Some will go forth with the cry of "Anybody But Bush," some will stay home on election day, others will support Nader or a Green. There may even be a portion of this constituency that will argue forKerry's virtues beyond the gossamer assumption of 'electability' but this argument - usually central to any vigorous campaign - has so far been strangely muted.
The proponents of each of these positions will become increasingly insistent as the campaign progresses. Already the Anybody But Bush crowd has attacked Ralph Nader with vituperation usually reserved for the extreme right. You can expect more of such things because the story of the American left for the past three decades has been one of subdivision, fragmentation, and splitting into smaller and weaker cells of action and opinion with, of course, no diminution of certainty in the righteousness concerning each shard of what was once a movement.
The left has become somewhat similar to the three major factions of the Episcopal church: the high and crazy, the low and lazy, and the broad and hazy. You can no more define what it means to be a Democrat than it does to be an Episcopalian. And, as with that church, it is the last group - the broad and hazy - that predominates. These are people who energize themselves only at election time or during debates over judicial nominations, just like people who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. I am certain that over the next few months I will be strenuously lectured by persons who have not been involved in any issue since they started blaming Nader for Gore's defeat in 2000. If even a fraction of their energy had been devoted over the past four years to real issues such as national health care or a fair economy, we might not only have progress but a better choice at the ballot box.
As for the rest - those progressives who do believe in, and act upon, something - there is little to be gained by either arguing with the mushy middlers or with each other. I can't recall the last time I ever observed anyone win one of these arguments. We are all going to do what we are going to do, some wisely and some foolishly, and to the extent that these actions are taken honestly, we should respect them in the best tradition of ecumenism.
This is not an artifice. For example, while Ralph Nader may have made the wrong political decision, it is a sign of the corrupt, cynical nature of our times to look into the face of moral integrity and dismiss it as an act of ego.
While it is too much to ask that we not speak ill of others of our ilk, we can at least aspire to the order given to his troops by a 19th century general: "Elevate your guns a little lower."
Once having established a more generous and forgiving atmosphere on the left, we might then respond to our choice of chemotherapy or surgery in the manner of many normal mortals - by declaring that, having made such a difficult decision, we deserve a treat. And the best present progressives could give each other would be to find something they agreed about, better yet five or ten things. In other words, for the first time since the 1960s, treat themselves to a movement.
The movement could be launched the day after the election. On November 3 a broad coalition of groups and individuals could declare itself the real opposition to whoever ends up in the White House. Even those who work hard for Kerry could make clear their commitment ends with the closing of the polls, after which they will be with the November 3 Movement and the revival of the American republic.
There are many who might vote for Kerry but who would never include themselves among his 'supporters.' If those preaching so loudly about getting rid of Bush would quiet down for a minute, they might discover that the best way to achieve their end might be to hand out airplane barf bags with the inscription, "Vote for Kerry."
The November 3 Movement would not have to conflict with any of the election strategies of those on the left. It could, however, soften some of the anger and some of the potential damage progressives and liberals might otherwise do to each other.
Deanies, Kucinichistas, Greeners, Sharptonoids, and Naderites as well as folks from public interest groups could meet at the local and state level in the coming months to begin planning such a movement, thus easing present tension with future visions. Every state could name a member or two to the national steering committee as could national progressive and liberal organizations.
The only ground rule would be that no one is allowed to argue over election strategy. The morning after the election a news conference would be held declaring the November 3 Movement the official opposition of the newly elected president. A national conference would also be announced, at which delegates would select the issues to guide the movement. This is what should have happened at the beginning of the Clinton administration, which is one reason we face someone as bad as Bush today.
Two unusual rules could prevent this from turning into the sort of internecine blood bath that progressives seem to love. The first would be that the only issues discussed would be those about which there was a reasonable opportunity of agreement. The second would be that agreement would not be expressed by majority vote but by some form of census.
This is not a fantasy. One of the steps taken that led to the creation of the national Green Party - out of state groups and factions that had plenty of differences with each other - was a national conference attended by 125 members of over 20 third parties ranging from the socialists and one of the last members of the American Labor Party to Greens, Libertarians and members of Perot's Reform party. At the end of the weekend we had full consensus on 17 issues and a high degree of agreement on others. Even some of us who had organized the conference were stunned.
Great movements are not created by arguing over Roberts Rules of Order, by winning narrow parliamentary victories by dubious means against natural allies, by publicly scolding those who don't agree with you, and by excoriating those whose view of virtue diverges from your own. They are created by the realization that there is something far greater that we all dream about and that we can only turn the dream into reality by compromising, sharing, and talking honestly with others - recognizing that that each of us will be more powerful by marching with others than if we continue to walk alone.
And November 3 is only eight months away.
Push To Stop Gay Marriage Hurting Economic Growth
by Doug Windsor 365Gay.com Newscenter New York Bureau
(New York City) The United States is losing its technological edge over Europe because policies such as a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage has put the nation at a disadvantage in competing for creative workers, according to a new economic study from a major university.
The report, prepared for the Software Industry Center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, says that outsourcing jobs to third world countries is not as serious a long term problem is the country's failure to attract "creative class" workers to the US.
The study by Richard Florida a Carnegie Mellon professor and a the author of the report says America has more to fear from Sweden and Finland than from China or India.
Florida says that instead of worrying about large countries with low-cost manufacturing and business processing the U.S. government needs to pay attention to places that are attracting and mobilizing the talent needed for knowledge-based industries.
"For years the United States possessed an unchallenged competitive advantage in its ability to attract the best and brightest from Europe, Scandinavia and around the world," Florida writes. "For the first time, that advantage seems to be imperiled."
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands "have considerable technological capabilities, have invested and continue to invest in developing creative talent and also appear to have the values and attitudes that are associated with the ability to attract creative people from the outside," Florida says. His study also identifies Ireland as "up-and-coming."
But, America is no long attracting creative workers from abroad because it is seen as an intolerant society. He cites the lack of recognition of same-sex couples and the battle over gay marriage, and policies restricting stem cell research and the tightening of visa requirements as reasons the world's brightest are no longer seeking to come to the US to work.
"The ability to compete and prosper in the global economy goes beyond trade in goods and services and flows of capital and investment. Instead, it increasingly turns on the ability of nations to attract, retain and develop creative people," Florida writes.
In a ranking of states Florida found those with DOMA or which did not offer civil rights protections for gays at the bottom of the productivity list.
ACLU Survey Reveals Massive Civil Rights Violations Against People With HIV/AIDS
19-Year-Old HIV-Positive Nebraska Woman Brings Lawsuit Against Former Employer for Discrimination
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union today released a survey, HIV & Civil Rights: A Report from the Frontlines of the HIV/AIDS Epidemic, which details widespread civil rights violations throughout the U.S. against people with HIV/AIDS. The survey was compiled from interviews over the past two years with community-based AIDS service providers from across the country.
The ACLU will also file a lawsuit today on behalf of an HIV-positive 19-year-old Nebraska woman against a local restaurant for illegal discrimination. Priscilla Doe, who is suing under a pseudonym to protect her privacy, was fired from her job as a hostess at a restaurant in the small town where she lives when the owner learned that she was HIV-positive.
“Unfortunately, Priscilla’s story is all too common among people with HIV,” said Leslie Cooper, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s AIDS Project. “Stigma and ignorance continue to hound people with this disease, even though we now know you can’t get HIV through casual contact. Fortunately our laws make it clear that you can’t discriminate against someone because they have HIV.”
Priscilla was hired as a hostess at a Nebraska restaurant in August 2002. She got along well with the owners until May 9, 2003, when she was called just before she was to report to work and fired over the phone. She later learned from other employees that the owners fired her because they found out that she was HIV-positive.
“When I tested positive, my whole world turned upside down, and I had to reevaluate everything,” said Priscilla. “I knew that living with HIV wasn’t going to be easy, but I wasn’t prepared for people to be so mean and ignorant. I have dreams and ambitions just like everyone else. I shouldn’t have to worry that I’m going to get fired every time someone learns I’m positive.”
The lawsuit against the local restaurant, which was filed in state court, charges that the owner violated a Nebraska law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of HIV infection in employment, housing, schools and public accommodations.
According to the ACLU’s survey, Priscilla’s story illustrates just one of many of the ways in which people with HIV and AIDS continue to be discriminated against across the country. Denial of medical treatment, violations of privacy, deprivation of parental rights, discrimination in the workplace, and refusal of admittance into nursing homes and residential facilities top the list of common hardships experienced by people with HIV/AIDS. All of the 43 providers surveyed reported numerous violations.
“It’s shocking that more than 20 years into this epidemic so many people continue to be discriminated against and stigmatized because of their HIV status,” said Cooper. “We knew that these kinds of violations were happening but we had no idea of the magnitude. It shows how much education is still necessary not only to prevent the spread of the disease, but also to ensure basic humanity for those living with it.”
Some of the more startling violations included:
“Many people are still completely clueless about HIV/AIDS and about their legal obligations for dealing with people with the disease,” added Cooper. “By exposing these violations, we hope more people will think twice before firing someone or turning them out onto the street because of HIV.”
The results of the survey will be distributed to HIV/AIDS community-based service providers throughout the country, in order to educate people with HIV/AIDS about their rights and encourage them to take advantage of their legal protections to end HIV-based discrimination. Along with the report, the ACLU has released brochures and posters addressing common forms of discrimination and asking people to contact the ACLU AIDS project if they think their rights have been violated. To receive free copies of these materials, e-mail HIV@aclu.org or download printable versions at www.aclu.org/hivaids.
The ACLU is being assisted in the Nebraska case by Corey Stull, an attorney with Perry, Guthery, Haase & Gessford of Lincoln, NE.
The complaint can be read online at http://www.aclu.org/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS.cfm?ID=14375&c=89
Republican Bill Targets Medicinal
Marijuana
A bill being developed by Republican U.S. representative Mark Souder aimed at increasing penalties for federal marijuana laws violations includes a provision forbidding judges from imposing light sentences on people who use or grow marijuana to treat the symptoms of such diseases as cancer, glaucoma, and AIDS. The Drug Sentencing Reform Act would limit the ability of federal judges to adopt “downward departures” in sentencing guidelines, such as the one-day prison sentence given in
June 2003 to Ed Rosenthal, who was convicted of growing 100 marijuana plants designed for medicinal use in an Oakland warehouse. Federal officials had asked for a five-year sentence.
The bill also would boost penalties for marijuana growers based on the level of THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, in the plants. “This bill is a direct threat to the health of patients and to the caregivers and loved ones who assist them,” says Steve Fox, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project. Calls to Souder’s officer were not returned. It’s unclear whether Souder will officially introduce the measure when Congress begins a new session in January.
Four large panels from the AIDS Quilt were displayed from January 12th to 16th at Simon Kenton High School in Independence, KY. The memorial display was organized by students from the school. At the opening ceremony, senior John Mains said, "We hope to bring awareness to our peers about the real danger of HIV infection which leads to AIDS deaths. A lot of youth look at AIDS as a disease that attacks only gays."
Mass. Court: Only Marriage Will Do!
by Michael J. Meade
365Gay.com Newscenter
Boston Bureau
(Boston, Massachusetts) The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Wednesday declared that civil unions will not suffice for the full right of marriage for same-sex couples.
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in their opinion released Wednesday morning.
The court ruled that a draft bill submitted by the Senate that would give gay couples civil unions with many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage does not meet the terms of its landmark ruling last November that the state could not prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
"The bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, is makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples," the justices said.
"This is once again an affirmation by the court that gays and lesbians have the fundamental right to marry," Josh Friedes of the Freedom to Marry Coalition told 365Gay.com.
The landmark case which has resulted in Massachusetts becoming the first state in the country to legalize gay marriage began in 2001 when seven gay couples went to their city and town halls to obtain marriage licenses. All were denied, leading them to sue the state Department of Public Health, which administers the state's marriage laws.
A Suffolk Superior Court judge threw out the case in 2002, ruling that nothing in state law gives gay couples the right to marry. The couples immediately appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in March, but did not rule until November 2003.
The Legislature has been at odds since the court ruling. Gov. Romney and other Republicans in the state are opposed to marriage but would be willing to grant some domestic partner rights. Last week the state Democrats voted to back same-sex marriage (story) although the vote was non-binding.
The high court's ruling comes exactly one week before members of both houses meet in a Constitutional Convention to consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Friedes called on the Legislature not to make any hasty decisions.
"We are hopeful the Legislature will take the time to digest the ruling and realize only civil marriage rights represents full equality to which every citizen is entitled," Friedes said.
If approved by a majority of lawmakers, the amendment would then have to be approved again during the 2005-06 legislative session before going on the ballot in November 2006.
The court, in its November ruling gave the Legislature until spring to rewrite the laws legalizing gay marriage. As a result, thousands of same-sex couples could be legally married before any referendum could be held.
Bush: No New AIDS Money
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Washington, D.C.) President Bush's proposed a $2.4 trillion election-year budget stalls on HIV/AIDS initiatives the nation's largest LGBT civil rights group charged Monday.
While the budget would boost defense spending, it would freeze spending for most AIDS programs.
The budget gives $696 million to programs at the National Center for HIV/STD and TB Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, $4 million less than in 2003, and funding for treatment programs within the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency Act would not be increased, despite a continuing rise in the number of new cases of HIV.
With approximately 40,000 new infections each year in our nation, we cannot go backward in our commitment to preventing new HIV/AIDS infections," said Human Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques.
Even though is less than the amount budgeted in 2003, the $696 million for prevention programs at the CDC for HIV/AIDS, is actually up $1 million from the current budget.
Funding for the Ryan White CARE Act was increased from $2.02 billion this year to $2.055 billion next year, including a $35 million increase being recommended for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). It means funding for the other critical programs within the CARE Act will remain flat.
While the Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA) program also received no increase, research at the National Institutes of Health saw a $100 million increase.
The president has also proposed doubling the amount of money available in his budget for scientifically unproven abstinence-only-until-marriage education programs to $273 million.
"A CDC report released last summer showed that the rate of HIV diagnoses for gay and bisexual men is rising steeply. And the CDC also reports that members of the gay and bisexual community - particularly within communities of color - are at significant risk without adequate prevention programs in place," said Jacques.
"This is no time to cut short our commitment to serious, science-based prevention programs while at the same time funding abstinence-only programs."
According to a CDC report released in July 2003, HIV infections among gay and bisexual men rose 7.1 percent from 2001 to 2002. HIV diagnoses for gay and bisexual men have increased by 17.7 percent since the lowest point in 1999.
Cinci Mayor Calls For Repeal
Of Nation's Most Repressive Anti-Gay Law
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Cincinnati, Ohio) Cincinnati mayor Charlie Luken Monday called for the repeal of a city charter amendment that forbids the enactment or enforcement of any laws to provide protections for gays and lesbians. No other U.S. city has such provision in its charter amendment in place.
Luken, in his annual "State of the City" speech, this morning urged voters to undo the amendment they approved 11 years ago
"Times and attitudes have changed, and that Cincinnati should rescind the amendment in the interests of showing tolerance and supporting diversity," Luken said.
The amendment was put forward in 1993 by "Equal Rights, Not Special Rights" a conservative action group that successfully convinced voters to back it in a referendum, overturning hard won gay rights protections under the city's human-rights ordinance.
Gay civil rights groups challenged the results of the referendum and U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel overturned it on constitutional grounds. In his ruling, Spiegel said that that gays and lesbians as a class deserve protected status similar to that afforded on the basis of gender and race.
The Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, overturned Judge Spiegel, saying that the referendum had been a proper exercise in local control.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene in the case.
Following Luken's speech today, Phil Burress the chair of Citizens for Community Values in Cincinnati, the conservative group that grew out of "Equal Rights, Not Special Rights", vowed fight any effort to repeal the amendment. Burress said he believes that any vote on the amendment would keep it intact, rather than repeal it.
Burress' group is also a leader of the national effort to stop same-sex marriage.
OLUMBIA, S.C.
Henry Fernandez, who had come down from Connecticut to join other activists from around the country, was giving instructions to the busload of volunteers.
He said: "The first thing you ask is, `Are you registered to vote?' If they answer yes, don't believe them."
The volunteers laughed. Mr. Fernandez smiled, but he hammered the point home: "Even if they think they're registered, they may have been purged. You can say, `We suggest you register again to make sure your registration is up to date.' "
One of the biggest reasons politicians continue to trample on issues of crucial importance to low-income Americans — issues like jobs, education and access to health care — is the traditionally poor voting habits of that segment of the population. The percentage of people who vote (and the level of attention they get from politicians) rises steadily as you scale the income ladder.
South Carolina is a state with plenty of poor people. The Bush recovery went right by the Palmetto State without even stopping to wave. "It's like a depression down here," said Wilbur Collins, an unemployed factory worker. "The plants are closing so fast, the workers don't have no place to go."
Parts of South Carolina are economic wastelands. The jobless rate in some counties is approaching 20 percent. The median income for blacks, statewide, is less than $15,000, and for whites, less than $30,000.
The anxiety over the absence of work is pervasive, and in some cases heartbreaking. At a forum attended by all of the Democratic presidential candidates except Joseph Lieberman, a woman named Elaine Johnson told
Ms. Johnson told Senator Edwards that young people should go into the military because they really want to, not because they've been unable to find a civilian job.
The candidates forum was sponsored by the Center for Community Change, an organization that was started more than three decades ago by the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Fund and that is now coordinating the activities of local groups from around the country in an effort to sharply increase the political clout of low-income people. The cornerstone of that effort is an ambitious national campaign to register and mobilize two million new voters.
The idea is to make low-income voters a force too strong to be ignored. A recent study commissioned by the center showed that small increases in voting by low-income people could be decisive in several strategically important states.
Most Americans are unaware of the extent of the suffering that has fallen on the bottom 20 percent or so of the population. Many low-income Americans are leading lives of grim and sometimes painful determination, struggling to survive from one day to the next. The contrast between the real lives of families sinking beneath the weight of economic distress and the headlines that continue to insist that the economy is doing famously is extraordinary.
"There are no jobs that can sustain you," said Fran Ruff, a Columbia resident who has three children and is trying to work her way to a college degree that she hopes will lead to a better life. "We're not living lavishly, but I'd like to be able to buy some snacks and go to a movie once in a while. All you can really get around here is a retail job, or maybe a job in an office. And just as a temp, with no benefits. It's awful."
The realization is growing rapidly among low-income Americans that their interests are not just being neglected but are under assault.
Deepak Bhargava, the center's director, said: "We want to convert the anger that people feel, and the pain, which is really extraordinary in this community, into a sustained campaign of political involvement. And that means registering people to vote and getting them to the polls."
I tagged along as the volunteers filed off the bus behind Mr. Fernandez. Filled with enthusiasm and good cheer, they began knocking on doors in a public housing project, doing their part in a difficult effort to coax enough people out of the shadows to bring change to a government that barely acknowledges their existence.
he contest that counts is not between the Patriots and the Panthers. As always, the Super Bowl's commercials will very likely prove the main event, and today's show features a high-stakes ad-agency bout: for the first time, two prescription drugs for erectile dysfunction, Levitra and Cialis, are squaring off in the quest to grab a piece of the Viagra action. Who doesn't want to Monday-morning quarterback their double
entendres? We've come a long way from Bob Dole, baby. Total sales for the three drugs approached $1.3 billion last year — a market that indexes not just erectile but marital dysfunction. The commercials we've seen thus far tend to depict vaguely forlorn middle-aged couples in need of a second honeymoon. One little pill and bingo! Suddenly the Levitra guy is tossing a football smack through the middle of a tire swing.
But American marriage may be beyond the redemption of GlaxoSmithKline or anyone else. We live in a country where the on-again, off-again J. Lo-Ben nuptials, now mercifully as kaput as "Gigli," got more attention than the Mideast road map. The reality TV craze, from "Joe Millionaire" to "Average Joe," works nightly to recalibrate the definition of marriage into a glitzy form of legalized prostitution. Britney Spears signs on to a 55-hour Vegas marriage "just for the hell of it," and someone else sells pictures of the festivities, including one of the groom sticking his hand down her pants, for up to $100,000 to supermarket tabloids. After the marriage was annulled, Ms. Spears told MTV, "I do believe in the sanctity of marriage, I totally do."
Now comes the coup de grâce: in a campaign year likely to be poisoned by a culture war over same-sex marriage, politicians feel compelled to play marriage counselors. Last month the president from the small-government party proposed a $1.5 billion program that will mount its own advertising push, among other federal elixirs, to promote "healthy marriages." Some might argue that taxpayers' money would be better spent on drug plans that cover Viagra for husbands who leave their wives for the N.F.L., or, better still, on job programs that would increase the ranks of the potentially marriageable. Cynics might say that the president's "healthy marriage" initiative is merely political posturing anyway. Congress will never sign on to such a scheme — or so one might hope — and meanwhile the president can claim credit for, as he put it himself, taking "a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization."
But what civilization, exactly, is he talking about? Since 1970, the percentage of American adults in this enduring institution has dropped from 68 to 56, the percentage of households containing married couples with kids from 45 to 26. As Mr. Bush substituted Saddam Hussein for Osama bin Laden, so he seems confused about the enemy here. Even as he gets bogged down battling gay couples who want the same civil rights as other Americans, the real culprit goes about its business. That culprit is a heterosexual culture determined to reduce marriage to a voyeuristic spectator sport as brutal and commercial as pro football but not nearly so entertaining or harmless. It says a lot about how out of touch Mr. Bush and his speechwriters are with this culture that he repeated Britney Spears's "sanctity of marriage" language in the State of the Union only days after she had made the phrase a national joke.
It's against this backdrop that Diane Sawyer's "Primetime Thursday" interview with
Though I have no vested interest in Howard Dean, it was refreshing that he initially refrained from using his wife as a prop on the campaign trail. (Take Joe and Hadassah's shtick, please!) The Deans didn't want their marriage to be a proto-feminist, anti-feminist or even "Everybody Loves Raymond" role model. They simply refused to pose for the contrived and usually fictionalized marital snapshots that the political press demands and then analyzes to death. If I've learned anything from my own two marriages, it's that no one knows what goes on in another couple's marriage anyway — not even the Clintons'.
When post-Iowa panic drove Howard Dean to reverse himself, it was sad, even though his wife gave her assent. The Sawyer interview was painful to watch not just because it was one long chain of "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions on the subject of the candidate's temper, but because Judy Dean was clearly shy and unpracticed in the art of spin. The only image she cared about passionately was the one she projects to her children and her patients. She seemed genuinely ignorant of the whole media game. "I don't like watching TV that much," she told Ms. Sawyer. She hadn't even seen her husband's infamous "scream" until a friend gave her a tape of it the day after. Not watching TV — and not wanting to be on TV — has in itself become a form of virginity in America, rarer than the other kind, so rare as to be poignant. There was nothing fun about watching it being violated for public consumption, even if the Deans were wholly complicit in their own video deflowering. (So much so that the Dean campaign would soon distribute 120,000 videos of the show to New Hampshire voters.)
Like everyone else, Ms. Sawyer likened the Deans' joint appearance to the Clintons' Super Bowl Sunday "stand by your man interview" on "60 Minutes." (Celebrate its 12th anniversary tonight.) But the Deans were not defending themselves against charges of marital turbulence and infidelity. Quite the contrary: they were defending themselves against charges of having a marriage that was if anything too deficient in the melodrama that might lend it entertainment value and too private to be repackaged as a circus. Now
they found themselves damned if they defended their attempt to keep their marriage off the public stage and damned if they didn't. No sooner would they explain how they tried, as Judy Dean put it, to "balance" their careers with their personal lives than Ms. Sawyer would point out that the Clintons "had a young daughter at the time they campaigned" or that
The implication of the questions was clear: where do the Deans get off refusing to turn their marriage into a spectator sport? It was downright un-American. Why couldn't they display their marital bliss with the same polish as that other happy two-career political couple, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver?
As it happens, the Deans were not the only celebrity marriage that Ms. Sawyer covered for ABC News of late. Just two months ago she interviewed a couple far more famous, Trista Rehn and Ryan Sutter. On Dec. 10, Trista and Ryan, as they are known, were married in prime time on ABC in the most-watched American wedding in history, second in audience by only a hair to that of Diana and Charles. God knows it was something to see, an epic display of everything that's gone wrong with American marriage, all packaged and sold as "the wedding of your dreams."
For those who had the good fortune to miss it, Trista is a physical therapist and former Miami Heat dancer who had previously tried and failed to snare a guy on the ABC reality show "The Bachelor." ABC brought her back for "The Bachelorette," a gender-reversed retread of the same series, and after much prime-time deliberation she chose Ryan, a firefighter, as the winner over 24 other men seeking her hand. The network turned the marriage into a four-hour extravaganza (over three nights) in which the couple gleefully surrendered their privacy. According to Trista's "Bachelorette" contract, published by the Smoking Gun Web site, only one activity was off-limits: the producers promised that no hidden cameras would be "positioned to intentionally capture images of you urinating or defecating in the bathroom." (The consummation of the marriage also went unseen, but you never know what might be auctioned off on eBay.)
The betrothed were paid $1 million for allowing the cameras to facilitate our voyeurism. The wedding itself cost nearly $4 million, also paid for by the show. Much of the endless televised foreplay that preceded the ceremony was therefore devoted to shopping, with Trista taking to the wares of Rodeo Drive as joyously as the hooker played by Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman," another Disney entertainment. This, too, is in keeping with the present marital culture. As Rebecca Mead reported in The New Yorker last year, Americans now spend $40 billion annually on weddings, a bigger business than McDonald's or PepsiCo. Marriage may be in decline, but its value as a brand lingers on.
Yet neither the $1 million cash nor the $4 million ceremony that sealed their marital contract were mentioned when Trista and Ryan were interviewed by Ms. Sawyer on "Good Morning America." While the Deans were treated like freaks, the stars of "The Bachelorette" were treated as a perfectly normal all-American couple. And perhaps these days they are. Trista and Ryan's wedding broadcast was the top-rated show in virtually every major television market, the one exception being Washington, where it was beaten by a rerun of "Law and Order." If only more of our politicians had tuned in, maybe someone would have figured out that it could be harder to restore the sanctity of marriage than to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Bully Law Would Be 'Caving In To Homosexuals' Group Says
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Frankfort, Kentucky) A conservative political action group says that adding sexuality to an anti-bullying law is "ridiculous".
The Lexington-based Family Foundation has begun an intense lobby campaign against what it calls special rights.
Martin Cothran, a spokesperson for the group said if the bill became law, would usher "tolerance police" into school buildings and make it an offense to "express disagreement with homosexual behavior."
The bill is sponsored by two Louisville Senators, Lindy Casebier, a Republican who is chairman of the Education Committee, and Tim Shaughnessy, a Democrat.
The Committee approved the bill last week, sending to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
The legislation would require local school boards to adopt discipline codes that prohibit "harassment, intimidation or bullying of a student" for any reason, including "a characteristic" listed in Kentucky's statute on hate crimes.
Characteristics include a victim's sexual orientation. Others listed in the hate-crime law are race, gender, religion, ethnicity and disability.
"If we want to protect everybody from bullying, then why not say we're protecting everybody from bullying and not make a list?" Cothran said. "To us, this was an excuse to put certain sexual behaviors on a par with other characteristics. It's caving in to the homosexual agenda."
Casebier said listing specific groups, especially LGBT students is necessary because some school administrators only become diligent about enforcement when a rule is spelled out.
Phelps Clan Eyes Pennsylvania
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
(Lebanon, Pennsylvania) Anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps has applied to the city of Lebanon for permission to put up a monument condemning a gay teenager who killed himself after being taunted and bullied.
The 6-foot pink granite monument would read, in part: "In Loving Memory of Jim Wheeler, Entered Hell November 17, 1997, at age 19, A Suicide Who Defied God's Warning."
Jim Wheeler was a student at Cedar Crest High School where he was constantly harassed. The hate continued in the small community after he left school. Finally, Wheeler took his own life.
His story became the subject of the documentary film "Jim in Bold."
In a letter to Lebanon Mayor Robert Anspach and the City Council, suggests placing the statue in Monument Park, which has a Civil War memorial, or Fisher Park, which has a Vietnam veterans memorial.
"Mr. Wheeler was a fine resident of Lebanon County and an outstanding citizen. Let me assure you they will have to sue to get it up," vowed Lebanon County Commissioner Bill Carpenter.
Phelps runs a church, that has been labeled a cult in Topeka, Kansas that is made up of mainly family members. The group regularly stages small but vocal protests throughout the country condemning homosexuality.
Lebanon is the latest community in which the group has proposed anti-gay monuments. Statues condemning Matthew Shepard have been rejected in Casper, Wyoming, Shepard's hometown, Topeka, and Boise, Idaho.
©365Gay.com® 2004
|
Posted: February 2, 2004 |
Democrats Seek to Change Medicare Law
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The much larger projected cost of the new Medicare law is giving an even more prominent place to an issue both parties already planned to highlight this election year.
Democrats said the dramatically increased estimate — from $395 billion to $534 billion over 10 years — adds to a mountain of evidence that the law needs to be changed, even before much of it has gone into effect.
Principal among their proposals is repealing the law's provision that bars the government from negotiating drug prices with manufacturers when seniors begin receiving Medicare prescription drug benefits in 2006.
"We must address the out-of-control cost of prescription drugs. If Republicans continue to defend the drug companies and the insurance industry, the cost of the bill will only increase," Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Friday.
Daschle and other Democrats demanded hearings on the new estimate. "If the administration possessed this analysis prior to final congressional action, its failure to share these figures would be both misleading and inexcusable," the senators wrote in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee.
President Bush (news - web sites) said Friday that he was given the higher number two weeks ago in the first detailed estimate of the new law's cost. Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee made public a June analysis of the Medicare overhaul's cost
that they said cast doubt on the president's assertion.
Republicans have said any changes to the law are unlikely this year as they have laid claim to an issue Democrats have long dominated. The president has said repeatedly in recent weeks that he will veto any efforts to change the Medicare law.
Allowing the government to negotiate drug prices got a boost Friday from Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Appropriations health subcommittee. "That provision, for example, is going to be revisited," he said.
The increased cost estimate is the latest in a series of bumps for the administration and congressional Republicans since the legislation won congressional approval two months ago.
Opponents of the bill have been troubled by the revelation that Tom Scully, the former top Medicare official, worked on the legislation while being courted by various law firms. Scully, who later took a job at Atlanta-based Alston & Bird's health care group, had a waiver from his agency's top ethics official to work on the bill.
The White House announced a change in the ethics policy after Scully's departure, saying the administration and not individual Cabinet departments would decide when to grant ethics waivers in the future.
Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., who was deeply involved in drafting the bill as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is reportedly being considered for a top lobbyist's job with the pharmaceutical industry.
Referring to Tauzin, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said: "Seniors who are wondering why pharmaceutical companies made out so well in this bill need only look at this example of abuse of power and conflict of interest."
Spokesman Ken Johnson replied that Tauzin has received no formal job offer and made no decision about leaving Congress.
Democrats also have criticized more than $1 billion in increased payments to managed care plans that begin this year, while seniors won't have drug insurance through Medicare until 2006.
Several conservative Republicans said that had the higher numbers been known before final and narrow congressional approval, the bill might have been defeated.
The House approved the Medicare overhaul, with its prescription drug benefit for older and disabled Americans, by a 220-215 vote, after a middle-of-the night, three-hour roll call during which GOP leaders pressed reluctant lawmakers to support the legislation. Roll call votes typically last 15 minutes.
Other lawmakers, though, said the administration's estimate of the cost, while higher than $400 billion, was not necessarily any more accurate than the $395 billion figure provided by the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) and relied on by the White House and top Republican lawmakers.
The CBO estimate remains below $400 billion, said Rep. David Vitter, R-La., one of nine Republicans who voted for the legislation after listing their conditions for support, including a price tag of no more than $400 billion.
Congressional sources said the $139 billion gap in the estimates reflects differing assumptions in the new law about how many older Americans would join managed-care plans and how many low-income seniors would take advantage of subsidized drug coverage.
Republicans point to health maintenance organizations and preferred provider networks as critical to helping hold down the costs of Medicare.
Yet the administration has all along assumed that more older Americans would join managed care plans than the CBO has estimated.
That prospect actually would make the law more expensive, not less, said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, because the government will pay HMOs fixed amounts, regardless of whether seniors use medical services.
The administration also believes that more low-income elderly will sign up for subsidized drug coverage, which will add to the cost, sources said.