Proceed at your own risk

SKIN COLOR AND OTHER AMERICAN DELUSIONS

What could possibly be more racist than electing a man to the Presidency just because of his skin color?

Perhaps pretending otherwise? 

After all, that's exactly what we did, bypassing a number of substantially more experienced and qualified candidates, one of whom happened to be a woman.  What fun, it seemed.  We can still have change without Hillary.  Hail sexism!

So today is MLK Jr. Day and at the risk of being condemned as a racist, I would suggest that the Obama presidency is not the fulfillment of King's dream but rather a parody.

We did not elect the most qualified candidate regardless of his skin color, we elected the least experienced candidate because of his skin color.  How does that honor Dr. King's dream?

And the net result of this national tragi-comedy may be that because of racism (and sexism), American progressivism will fade into memory for generations to come as November 2010 and 2012 seem increasingly likely to deliver a Christian Republican return to power.

Working hard to prove he can be just like a white man, our African American President turned his back on virtually every promise he made to progressive voters, now pandering his ass off to please conservative moderates, conservatives and right wing extremists.  How did we all fall for that?  Oh, right, blinded by the black.

From this mockery of health care reform to the wholesale betrayal of gay America, the Obama Presidency's promise of change seems to mean little more than the name plate on the White House mailbox.

The scary truth about American racism was recently yet again spotlighted by a sad CNN poll.  The vast racial divide not surprisingly exposed by the recent Obama approval polls tells us a number of things in an America wallowing in fundamentalist religion and jingoism.  First and foremost it reminds us that our national grasp on decency, common sense and reality continues to slip away at a precipitous rate.

Do black and white Americans truly see a man's job performance through radically different and yet discerning and informed philosophical and political eyes--or are black Americans not paying much attention to job performance and focusing primarily on the color of Obama's skin while progressive and liberal white Americans are struggling to sustain a democratic agenda without seeming to be racist?

The polls do have a "silver lining".

Even blacks are starting to see through Obama's game.   And while African-Americans remain extremely supportive of President Obama, their enthusiasm has dramatically dropped.

Obama's presidency appears to have made blacks more optimistic about race relations in America, but less than one in five believe the new president has ushered in a new era of race relations in the country.

More than nine in 10 blacks questioned in the poll approve of the job Obama's doing in the White House, far higher than 42 percent of whites who approve of his performance as president. But when asked how they personally feel about Obama's presidency, only 42 percent of black respondents say they're thrilled, with nearly half of those questioned saying they are happy but not thrilled. The 42 percent who are thrilled is down from 61 percent when Obama was inaugurated.

"African-Americans are still big fans of the first black president in U.S. history, but the thrill is gone," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.  According to the poll, 51 percent of African-Americans say Obama's presidency has brought some improvement in race relations in the U.S., but only 18 percent feel it's the start of a new era. Another 23 percent say they've seen a real change in race relations over the past 11 months and 7 percent say things have gotten worse.

"Whites take a dimmer view of Obama's effect on race relations, with a third believing that the new presidency has not changed race relations in the country and 15 percent of whites saying that Obama has made race relations worse," Holland added. "Not surprisingly, whites are less supportive of Obama, although for a notable number of whites, their negative view of the president is due to the perception that he's not been liberal enough."

One major assumption that could be made based on these poll numbers is that whites voted for Obama's agenda while most blacks voted skin color.  At the end of the day, we have all (black and white, gay and straight) been hoodwinked by another politician who wants to be reelected regardless of the promises, policies and people trashed along the way.

And we were all guilty of racism.  Blacks voted for Obama because he is black and progressive whites, gay and straight, voted for Obama because as a black man he represented the dream of MLK and promised to deliver equality and humanity to an America drowning in the muck of the Bush years.

At the end of the day skin color has nothing at all to do with who Obama is as a man or a President--and only those of us who are not racists seem able to realize that disappointing truth.

At the end of the day, we have just another gutless Democrat doing nothing but selling us down the river to Plantation owners.  All ironies in that statement intended.

A REAL LINE IN THE SAND

In the sometimes seemingly hopeless war against American bigotry and homophobia, the largest city in Bushland and the nation's fourth largest city drew a line in the sand this past weekend electing the first openly gay mayor of a major American metropolis.

In short, history was made--not for gay rights but for democracy.

Houston turned its community back on virulent Republican, Evangelical and Catholic homophobia.  And this city of more than 2.2 million Texans solidly defied the stereotypes of African American and Hispanic homophobia. 

According to official census figures, less than 3 percent of Houston's registered voters are gay.  Over 25 percent are African American and over 37 percent are Hispanic Catholics--and yet just over 53 percent of voters delivered victory to a gay woman over a Black man. 

According to one Houston pundit:  "Houston is the winner because Annise Parker's prior experience will serve her well as Mayor.  Parker, a native Houstonian, has already served the city for over a decade as a City Council Member and as the current City Controller.  Prior to entering public service Parker spent twenty years in the oil and gas industry. Parker will need to draw upon this experience to lead Houston through lean economic times and position the city to be a leader in new energy development.  Houston is the winner because it did not succumb to bigoted fear-mongering and homophobia.  Yes, Annise Parker will become the first openly-lesbian mayor of a major U.S. city. However, Houston voters demonstrated, for the 7th time in Parker's case, that they can elect candidates based on their experience, qualifications and abilities, without regard to their sexual orientation. Houston is the winner because it has elected an eminently qualified public servant as its next mayor. We are all winners because fear-mongering and homophobia lost."

I would echo that sentiment:  as Americans we are all winners because for the first time in a very long time American voters--and American voters in a very Red state, defeated "fear-mongering and homophobia."

Standing with her partner of 19 years, Kathy Hubbard, and their three adopted children, Mayor-elect Parker told the press on Saturday night:  “Tonight the voters of Houston have opened the door to history.  I acknowledge that.  I embrace that. I know what this win means to many of us who never thought we could achieve high office.”

Throughout the campaign, Ms. Parker tried to avoid making an issue of her sexual orientation and emphasized her experience in overseeing the city’s finances.  But she began her career as an advocate for gay rights in the 1980s, and it was lost on no one in Houston that her election marked a milestone for gay men and lesbians around the country.

Several smaller cities in other regions have chosen openly gay mayors, among them Providence, R.I., Portland, Ore., and Cambridge, Mass. But Ms. Parker’s success came in a conservative state where voters have outlawed gay marriage and a city where a referendum on granting benefits to same-sex partners of city employees was soundly defeated.

Furthermore, during the final weeks of the campaign, a group of African American pastors partly financed ($40,000) by Parker's Black opponent, viciously attacked Ms. Parker for what they called her gay agenda and two separate anti-gay advocates sent out fliers in the mail calling attention to her support from gay groups and to her relationship with her partner.

Political strategists said that to win, Mr. Locke needed to carry a large majority of the black vote, which is usually around a third of the turnout, and to attract significant support from conservative whites, many of them Republicans, who are also about a third of the voting mix here.

The crowd at Ms. Parker’s acceptance speech included dozens of young gay men and lesbians who had volunteered on her campaign. Many were elated with the sense of history being made. “It’s a huge step forward for Houston,” said one of the volunteers, Lindsey Dionne, who is lesbian. “It shows hate will not prevail in this city.” Robert Shipman, who is gay and worked long hours for Ms. Parker, said: “The diversity in this room, it’s not just gay people, it’s gay, straight, black, white, Jew, Christian, Muslim, every kind of person. It took all of us to get to this point.”

For his part, her opponent was gracious in defeat, calling for unity after what had sometimes been a heated campaign. “We have to all work together to bring our city closer and closer together,” he said. Ms. Parker appeared to have cobbled together a winning coalition of white liberals and gay people, who were expected to turn out in large numbers.

Regardless of who did turn out, it is noteworthy that the supposed throngs of homophobic blacks, Hispanics, Catholics, Evangelicals and Republicans that dominate Texas and Houston politics simply did not materialize. 

IT'S OFFICIAL: THE UNIFICATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

The Republican Party has officially confirmed that it has taken a great big dump on the First Amendment and set out on a course to make fundamentalist Christianity the official religion of the United Christian States of America.  Long Live the Holy Roman Empire.

Many wonder why Evangelicals, Catholics, Mormons and the Republican Party seem so obsessed with civil rights for gay Americans and homosexuality in general.  The answer is that they are not.  In fact, homosexuality is nothing more than the Trojan Horse constructed to breach the barrier between Church and State.

The end game for these enemies of Democracy is not the criminalization of homosexuality, rather it is the legalization of Christianity as America's official state religion.

The latest GOP gambit in this regard is truly a breathtaking move--but no one is bothering to take it seriously.  And that is a very scary thing.

Sure, we're only talking about queers but at the end of the day the new Republican "Purity Test" designed last month by the Republican National Committee to weed out political moderates from the conservative ranks of the GOP includes agreement with the Defense of Marriage Act, the most offensive federal law since acceptance of human slavery.  And it is a law based exclusively on Christian fundamentalism.  It has no other legal grounding.  And the Republican Party has now put it on its top ten list of what qualifies a politician to be called a Republican.  This is one of our two major political parties officially making Christian doctrine part of its platform and membership criteria.

Titled, the "RNC Resolution on [Ronald] Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," the measure sets forth 10 "key policy positions" that define, in the opinion of the RNC, what it is to be a Republican.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has threatened to withhold campaign funds for candidates who do not assertively support the list.

The list, which some political observers have called a "purity test," reads as follows:

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama's "stimulus" bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; 

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated policy position [sic] of the Republican National Committee, as identified by voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support by the Republican National Committee.

So, three strikes and you're out of the running for party funds. While some of the items on the list have broad enough appeal that many Democrats might find themselves agreeing with them, putting together seven out of 10 might indeed distinguish a conservative from a moderate or liberal.

The list is a sweetly worded code for pathological corporate greed, imperialism and bigotry.  And it officially disenfranchises the poor, homeless children, the elderly, gay Americans and immigrants.   And it should also stand to remind us that if Obama fails to capture a second term, any further postponement of civil rights legislation extending protections based on sexual orientation will translate into a second age of criminalized homosexuality as of 2012.

THE AFRICAN EXPERIMENT & SAINT LWANGA

American Christians agree that putting homosexuals to death is a bit over-the-top.

Not a horrible thing but certainly a bit "over-the-top".

"Over-the-top" is making the rounds of the Christian media as a descriptive for genocide.  You might use words like "horror" or "Nazi-level crime against humanity"--but then that wouldn't be very Christian of you, now would it?

Not everyone agrees with American Christians.  For example, the Swedish government is so outraged by Uganda's intention to legalize mass murder, Stockholm is cutting off it's annual $50 million in foreign aid. 

The Obama Administration is still writing checks.

Self-proclaimed Christian "activist" John Henry Westen tells Lifesite News that Uganda's proposed death penalties for homosexuality and prison sentences for people who help hide homosexuals is "definitely too harsh" but completely understandable.

Westen is far from alone in this assessment. In fact, the Ugandan leader has the full and direct support of many American Evangelical and Catholic leaders, the Vatican, Obama's Inauguration pastor Rick Warren and any number of American politicians--including Congressmen Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts, Senator John Ensign, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, former Representative Chip Pickering and Senators Brownback and Inhofe--who agree that death penalties may be too severe a response to homosexuality but all out criminalization is both understandable and desirable.

In fact, if you can connect the obvious dots, American Conservatives seem to be masterminding a model in Uganda, a bold African experiment that will set precedents and create models for a similar push in a revived 2012 Republican America.

Uganda will set the bar, and American legislation that criminalizes homosexuality but does not impose death sentences of life imprisonment with hard labor will seem humane by comparison.

Too extreme an assumption?  If you doubt this then you are in complete denial about the 27 states that have since 2003 pushed through bans on legalized gay relationships. legally condemning gay love as inauthentic and second class.  Do you really think that's the end of the road, the ultimate goal of the Christian Republican Party?

Relationship bans are just the beginning of the re-criminalization of homosexuality in America.

In fact, the resounding defeat last week of same sex marriage by New York Democrats and the initiation of campaigns to reverse same sex marriage in New Hampshire and Vermont makes it very clear to all but the most stupid (Joe Solmonese and any queer who supports HRC or the DNC) that this nation is well on its way to the criminalization of homosexuality with what is now openly bipartisan support.  The DNC and Obama made it very clear to gay Americans and gay wallets: you give us a majority and we'll give you equality.  It was not just an empty promise, it was an outright lie.

Westen writes:  "While a proposed and much-criticized anti-homosexuality law in Uganda is definitely too harsh, the law comes as a direct response to the heavy-handed pressure from international gay-activist politicians on Uganda to accept homosexuality as normal.

"In fact, as Dr. Scott Lively, the President of Defend the Family pointed out, the preamble to the bill, and the bill itself contain numerous references to stopping international pressure on Uganda to accept Western sexual values that are abhorrent to Ugandan culture. The bill states explicitly that it aims "at providing a comprehensive and enhanced legislation to protect the cherished culture of the people of Uganda." The goal is to protect the "legal, religious, and traditional family values of the people of Uganda against the attempts of sexual rights activists seeking to impose their values of sexual promiscuity on the people of Uganda."

Sound familiar?  Indeed, it is as American as fundamentalist Christian apple pie.

Dr. Lively, a pro-family activist and attorney based in California was in Uganda in March to testify before Ugandan legislators now considering the legislation.   Dr. Lively is one of dozens of American "Christians" and right wing politicians who have played a direct role in drafting the Ugandan legislation that would legalize mass murder of gay Ugandans.

Can you spell "dress rehearsal"?

Dr. Lively recently told the Christian press that the impetus for the bill was "a lot of external interference from European and American gay activists attempting to do in Uganda what they've done around the world--homosexualize that society." One of their main concerns, explained Lively, "are the many male homosexuals coming in to the country and abusing boys who are on the streets."

Lively explained that the bill, as it is currently worded, is definitely too harsh. The law would impose the death penalty on those who would homosexually rape, and engage in homosexual intercourse with minors, and someone who would knowingly commit homosexual sex acts while having AIDS.

Those found guilty of willingly engaging in homosexual sex acts would face life in prison. The law, as written, may also conflict with the rights of religious leaders to hear confessions and not reveal them, said Lively, since the bill states that those in authority who do not disclose to the police knowledge of homosexual activity within 24 hours face a fine of up to three years in jail.

While the Catholic leadership in the nation has not yet responded publicly to the proposed bill, they have consistently expressed outrage at the attempts of the West to impose acceptance of homosexuality on the country. Last month at the Synod for Africa at the Vatican, bishops from all over the continent noted their grave concerns over the international anti-family pressure. Summing up the discussions, the Cardinal Archbishop of Cape Coast, Ghana, Peter Turkson, said that the Synod had "described in various ways a ferocious onslaught on the family and the related fundamental institution of marriage from outside Africa and attributed it to diverse sources." The bishops, he said, "vigorously denounced the ideology and international programs which are imposed on African countries under false pretexts or as conditions for development assistance."

Lively said he went to Uganda "with the purpose of liberating the law and getting them to liberalize the law making it more oriented toward therapy." He testified to lawmakers in the Ugandan Assembly Hall that having legislation against homosexuality on the books is important since it protects against those who would advocate in public and in schools that homosexuality is positive. He noted however that the current bill has gone "way too far."

Lively lamented that even the Christian leadership of the "homosexualized" nations of the West have "fallen back to the last line of defense which is to defend the traditional definition of marriage." He suggested that it is important that "homosexuality should be actively discouraged in public policy. But only as aggressively as necessary to prevent it from being advocated in society." "Sort of the way that Oregon treats marijuana," he explained. "The law is on the books, it's very rarely enforce, but because it's enforced, because it's illegal, no one is allowed to go into the schools and say smoking dope is a good thing."

And there it is, the emerging American argument to re-criminalize homosexuality, playing out in Africa under the direction of the same folks who gave us Prop 8 and 31 state bans against gay rights.

But it is being said in Africa, the "Dark Continent" so it doesn't really apply to "us."

At least not yet.

Lively, playing the moderate, told the Uganda legislature:  "...if you go too far, and start enforcing the law and throwing people in jail you will end up doing more harm than good," he concluded.

Why is the Uganda the target for this trial run of emerging laws to re-criminalize homosexuality in America?

Easy.  Uganda appears to be the only nation on earth that actually has a national religious holiday dedicated to homophobia.

Not kidding.

Westen explains that in order to understand opposition to homosexuality in Uganda it is necessary to recognize the importance of the June 3rd feast of the Ugandan martyrs Saint Charles Lwanga and companions, which is still celebrated in the nation every year.

The martyrs were killed in the 1800's in Uganda by then King Mwanga for interfering with the homosexual activities of the King. King Mwanga was a violent ruler and sexual abuser who forced himself on the young boys and men who served him as pages and attendants. The growing number of conversions among the King's pages infuriated the King since they would no longer participate in his immoral sexual acts. In all, 22 converts accepted death rather than renounce their Catholic faith.

It is in honor of these Catholic Saints that Uganda intends to implement a sort of African Saint Bartholomew's Day massacre of homosexuals.  And it is in honor of Saint Charles Lwanga that American Christians, Roman Catholics and Republicans intend to stop the American cousins of King Mwanga (that would be you and me) from imposing homosexuality on the Christian States of America.

The African Experiment sends a clear message--even if the American gay community refuses to listen.  The United States--and that includes the slippery con artist in the White House--is on a mission to criminalize homosexuality and it is up to the gay community alone to stand and deliver outrage, civil disobedience and political impact before today's progress hits its expiration date and the late 20th Century/early 21st Century Golden Age of Gay Rights becomes a distant memory.

THE RE-EMERGENCE OF MYTHOLOGY-BASED POLITICS

When the fuck are we going to face the fact that by legitimizing bigotry through religion and religious-based legislation, our government, our educational system and our society remain directly responsible for the steady relentless increase in gay bashing, child abuse directed at gay children, unsafe schools and global gay genocide?

Ironically, democracy and democratic principles are in and of themselves a "betrayal" of Biblical literalism. If one accepts Biblical literalism as it applies to sexual orientation, then participation in democracy itself is an even more abominable sin.

Shame on this nation, this self-proclaimed democracy, for allowing "religion" to be used as justification for willful and deliberate ignorance, a nationwide epidemic of human and civil rights crimes and the perversion and corruption of the United States Constitution.

As marriage equality hopes in New York are dashed by Obama Democrats, Michael E. Getnick, President of the New York State Bar Association recently reminded the people of New York that "marriage is the legal definition for the civil rights and obligations set forth in the Domestic Relations Law. It is the only word our state law uses to confer such rights and obligations. The law is not meant to be in favor of any religious belief, as the historic doctrine of separation of church and state is fundamental to our society."

In fact, there is no reason other than Christian fundamentalism for denying this "right" to gay Americans and that is the most profound and treacherous betrayal of our Constitution and democracy imaginable.

With each breath Obama takes that is not a condemnation of this core civil rights crime--religion based bans on civil rights for a targeted minority, he betrays his oath of office.  By any understanding of the law, Obama's continued support for religious primacy over constitutional law is an impeachable offense.

In 31 states, Americans have thus far rejected the United States Constitution, they have rejected separation of Church and State and they have steered this nation in a direction opposite to democracy and freedom.  And the fact that they use the First Amendment and the ballot box to do so is perhaps the greatest tragedy in American history; and far more threatening to our future than any civil war or Islamic terrorist threat.

All Americans have the right to assume that equal protection under the law is a constitutional right that should be available to all of us regardless of skin color, religious belief, gender, age or sexual orientation.

And no one is telling any member of the clergy that he must accept diversity in his individual congregation.  But when we allow clergy to dictate who is entitled and not entitled to constitutional civil rights and basic human rights, we undermine the very foundation of this nation.

In fact,  if our democracy is to survive, at some point we must acknowledge that Christianity has forfeited its status as a religion and backed by the economic and "moral" authority of the Roman Catholic, Mormon and Evangelical leadership has formed a de facto third political party, a political party intent on dissolving this union, the union that Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt fought so bravely to protect and nurture.

It is time to recognize this political movement for what it is and demand of it the same legal and funding transparency and obligations of any major American political party. If Americans truly want to vote away Constitutional governance and the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, then so be it.  But let us go down with honor and honesty and stop pretending that we're waging a cultural war over gay rights when in fact we are witnessing a direct political assault on the principles of democracy by an emerging Christian Nationalist Party that is worthy of the tradition long ago established by National Socialism and it's underlying mythology-based arrogance and chauvinism.

JACKIE HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE

One of democracy's great weaknesses is the breathtaking stupidity of some constituents.  We no longer impose literacy or any standards on the right to vote other than age and an ability to somehow make it to a ballot box.  Part of me treasures that absolute, but part of me feels that in allowing everyone the right to determine the fate of our nation is to some degree like living on the proverbial razor's edge.

A group of parents in a California school district are outraged that the school is attempting to protect kindergarten children who manifest non-conformist gender behavior (homosexual tendencies) from verbal and physical assault by their classmates.  These Christian parents contend that their 5 and 6-year-old children should be allowed to condemn sinful and perverse behavior as gay or fag rather than be encouraged by their teachers to tolerate an offense to Jesus.

An attorney representing the parents explains that schools must respect the rights of parents and not impose indoctrination and mandatory acceptance of such controversial, immoral lifestyles.  The attorney says, "It is important to remember that the children are kindergarten age, and many cannot even write their names -- yet they are being taught that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle."

Not only stupid, but cruel and immoral--condemning five year olds as sinners who have deliberately chosen to be gay and should be admonished and condemned by their Christian classmates for having done so?  Is that how these people think? 

In yet another California community, dozens of parents have filed a lawsuit against the school district for "teaching how-to classes in homosexuality."

The parents claim that a local lesbian pastor, an Arlene Nehring of the Eden Church of Hayward spoke at Castro Valley High during its annual Days of Diversity program providing "step-by-step instructions on how to become gay and transsexual."

That is the actual language of the lawsuit.

On a recent episode of Bravo's highly successful "Make Me A Supermodel", contestant Amanda of Banks, Oregon, a single mom of a one-year-old boy tells the camera that her biggest fear is that her son will grow up gay.  To prevent this, Amanda proudly explains, she is always naked around her son and intends to be so throughout his childhood.  Amanda believes that this will prevent Hunter from growing up gay.

Freud and Oedipus spinning in their graves aside, what will prevent Hunter from growing up stupid? 

And now meet Jackie:

All I can say is that if you don't think it matters to vote, think about these fellow voters deciding your future.

DUMP EVERYONE

American governance is based on a two party system, a system that has absolutely and clearly failed our democracy and the world.  It almost wouldn't matter if not for that huge nuclear arsenal thing and world-strangling global economic tentacles.

If the fall of Rome resulted in almost a thousand years of European darkness, what on earth will the fall of America produce?  A global Somalia?  It is not such a crazy fear.

We need to fix this.  Can Obama fix it?  This self-proclaimed great big engine of change needs to wake up and smell the stench of American Christianity, bigotry and hypocrisy if he is to do so.

We're given two choices, gutless wonders aka The Democrats and lunatic morons, aka The Republicans.

The Democrats were returned to power with solid majorities almost three years ago and have accomplished absolutely nothing--lots of grand words and promises--but absolutely nothing.  We're still debating whether or not torture is torture.  And the man who masterminded 9/ll is still sitting smugly in the catbird seat while we twiddle our thumbs in Iraq.

The Republicans are now led by a bunch of frightening images and voices of the worst dregs of human society.  Faces of illiteracy, stupidity, hate mongering and agonizingly relentless hypocrisy:  Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Carrie Prejean, Bill O"Reilly and Michael Steele.

American politics have primarily been reduced to a choice between well-meaning incompetence (I'm giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt) and thinly veiled mid-20th Century fascism backed by Ann Coulter "intellectualism".

The latest fiasco in this rush to self-destruction and global humiliation comes from no less a player than the Republican Party Chairman, Michael Steele who has once again focused the nation on the most important issue of the day:  The threat of love and growing families to national security.

Steele believes that Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits.

On Saturday, Steele told the national press that this new understanding of gay marriage is just one example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles.

Steele may be on to something.  His own people, blacks have a 4 times higher rate of diabetes than whites and should also be denied health insurance.  This would save the American economy billions of dollars.  Hispanics can't read signs quickly enough and reduce turnover at the checkout line.  They should be denied entry to businesses that depend on high volume.  Republican economics is a wonderul thing.

I hestitate to dignify Steele's position with any kind of rebuttle, but in fact every study conducted clearly shows that marriage equality is a boon to local and regional economies, as well as a tonic for struggling small businesses.

In fact, just yesterday a study was released by the UCLA School of Law demonstrating the over 12,000 same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts since 2004 have pumped over $111 million into the state's economy.

The Boston Globe reported that "allowing gay couples to marry has helped businesses in tough economic times."

How has American politics been reduced to this kind of idiocy and stupidity?  I do understand that the Republican Party had to find a counter balance for Obama; but Steele?  They would have done better with Count Chocula.

I'm actually embarrassed for Steele. I'm embarrassed for all of us.  How can we face our neighbors with any degree of dignity when the characters on Sesame Street are daily engaging in more sophisticated conversations that our national leaders?

Steele says he came up with this argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage. "Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for."

"So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

The chief of the Republican National Committee has been criticized by some social conservatives in recent weeks after GQ magazine quoted him as saying he opposed gay marriage but wasn't going to "beat people upside the head about it."

Steele has responded by launching a campaign that he believes will appeal to young conservatives as we fight our way through this nasty economy.  Gay marriage could be the straw that breaks the back of small businesses.

Of course, Steele forgets that since gays have no federal protections against discrimination in the workplace, no one is obliged to even hire them in the first place.  And if you do have some faggot on the payroll and he gets married? Just fire his sorry ass.  That's the American way, legally-speaking.

PATERSON'S GAY TRUMP CARD?

For those of you not following local New York politics and perhaps distracted by local Illinois politics, it may have escaped your notice that the fight for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat has turned into an American drama almost as compelling as the last presidential election--and, perhaps, equally as newsworthy.

Our relatively new governor, David Paterson, finds himself struggling through a political and dynastic competition of epic Olympian proportions.

Paterson must choose a new senator from New York State within a few short weeks--clearly no easy task.  Few states can boast of a senator with Hillary's influence and star power.  Who can stand in her shoes?  Who can fill the vacuum left by her ego?  (And I say that with love and respect.)

Media focus is almost exclusively on the son of Mario Cuomo, one of the most popular and influential governors in the history of New York, American politics and the Democratic Party, and the daughter of one of the most iconic and beloved Presidents in American history, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Does Paterson go with the political veteran, Andrew Cuomo, a New York political superstar and undisputed champion of all that is good and liberal or does Paterson go with American aristocrat and dream girl, Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of Marilyn Monroe's lover and Jackie Onassis--two of the most glamorous and admired women of the 20th Century?

Some pundits suggest that what Caroline wants, Caroline gets and that Paterson will be hard pressed to come up with an excuse to deny her ascendancy to the national stage.  Other pundits say Cuomo is the man who has earned this position and if Paterson denies him the U.S. Senate seat, Cuomo will turn around and unseat Paterson in the next gubernatorial election.

All the pundits agree that Paterson must choose one of these two superstars or "suffer the consequences".

But the pundits may be underestimating the poor little blind black governor from little old Albany--and it wouldn't be the first time.

After all, David Paterson has some extraordinary political currency of his own.  New York's first African American governor and America's first blind governor, Paterson is no stranger to legacy and game changing. 

Paterson's paternal grandmother was secretary to Marcus Garvey. His father, Basil Paterson, a celebrated figure in the American Civil Rights movement, was New York State's first black Secretary of State and for many years deputy mayor of New York under Ed Koch.

So, pundits aside, crafty Mr. Paterson is working on a third alternative, one that would blow everyone out of the water, a real game changer.  And, as I said, game changing is Paterson's stock in trade.  He charms, he listens, he defers, he jokes about his disability and then he changes the game on his own terms.

So how about the openly gay brother of a mega gay celebrity?  In turns out that while everyone else was wrapped up in their own inevitabilities and egos, Paterson was holding no-longer confidential meetings with Daniel O'Donnell, the out gay Democratic assemblyman from Manhattan's uber-liberal Upper West Side and brother to Rosie.  Yes, that Rosie.

In a history changing, course changing world, O'Donnell would become the first openly gay United States Senator in history.  It's a choice that both of the other socially progressive job candidates, Cuomo and Kennedy would have to rally behind with unbridled enthusiasm.  And in making this appointment, should he do so, Paterson delivers the ceiling-shattering breakthrough place at the table for gay America that has thus far alluded our gay-friendly President-elect.

The White House goes to Barack Obama. Secretary of State goes to Hillary Clinton.  And Hillary's job goes to an openly gay man.  It's poetry at the very least.

O'Donnell is a native New Yorker, born in Queens, as is John Banta, O'Donnell's "spouse" of 27 years.  O'Donnell and Banta are fighting for the right to marry in their own home state and city.  Banta is Director of Special Events for the world-famous American Ballet Theatre.  O'Donnell and Banta reside in Manhattan.

Elected to the New York State Assembly in 2002, O'Donnell was the first openly gay man in history to take office in Albany.  Born in Queens and raised in Commack, Long Island, with his four brothers and sisters, he worked his way through college and law school, graduating with a B.A. in Public Affairs from George Washington University and a law degree from CUNY Law School.

Throughout his life in public service, O’Donnell has fought to bring positive change to his community, which includes Manhattan Valley, Morningside Heights, and the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He was a founding member of the New York City Chapter of Citizen Action and the Morningside Heights Historic District Committee. He also held a leadership role as the former chair of the Community Board 9 Housing and Land Use Committee and was president of a local political club on the Upper West Side.

For seven years, he served as a public defender in the Brooklyn office of the Legal Aid Society before opening his own public interest law firm on the Upper West Side of Manhattan– a community practice that included tenant representation as well as civil rights litigation on issues ranging from employment discrimination to the First Amendment.

He continues to be a progressive voice for the West Side who advocates for fair and sensible legislation in the State Assembly. He currently serves as the Chair of the Subcommittee on Criminal Procedures. His Standing Committee Assignments include: Codes, Education, Judiciary, Environmental Conservation, Arts and Tourism, and Oversight, Analysis & Investigation.

In terms of change, he leaves Cuomo in the dust. In terms of credentials and experience, he makes Kennedy look like a job applicant with little more than a romantic family history.

A LETTER FROM MY 80-YEAR-OLD AUNT IN BROOKLYN

For my children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews and all the various wonderful and interesting people who make my life so full.

When I got back from voting today, I sat down with a cup of coffee on my front porch swing thinking of all of you and of this momentous day.

I remembered where I was when President Kennedy was assassinated, where I was when Bobby Kennedy and then Martin Luther King went down. I am old enough to remember the day the Nazis marched into Poland and when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I even remember crying in my classroom along with my teacher on the day FDR died. And, of course, I know exactly where I was on September 11th.

The sad days, the tragic days seem always to stand out.

But today is a joyful day and I wanted to make sure that I remember this day. As I sat swinging and sipping, I made note of the gorgeous colors of the different trees and the leaves falling slowly and drifting over the sidewalk. I watched the collection of birds on the lawn aggravating Sam because they were eating the grass seed he had just put down. I watched the crazy squirrels running back and forth and thought maybe they are also excited. I watched how the sun lit up my yellow mums and the two remaining pumpkins on which I have written “Stolen from 465 E. 18th St.” because someone swiped the other two. I watched an old leftist couple making their way to the polls hand in hand. I know they were lefties because his pants were too short and she wore a beret. I want to be able to recall this day in detail.

And though it may be presumptuous of me, I want to make sure you too remember the details of this day. Make this more than a television day. Go for a walk. Listen to how the birds sound today, how the air feels against your skin, how the traffic is quieter, how brilliant the sun is this morning. Make note of what you had for breakfast. Engrave this day so that when it’s your turn to sit on your front porch, you will have no trouble remembering where you were on election day when Barack Obama became President of The United States of America.

With all my love, Mom, Grandma, Aunt and Friend

GEORGE IS SO OVER. YOU WANNA FUCK?