Home | About circa75 | Articles | Links | Contact Us

Welcome to c75.

Latest links:

• David Mixner: time to start calling separate but unequal US laws "Gay Apartheid" — 'As our elected officials search for new words, new institutions and new arrangements to avoid giving us full equality, it is important for people to remember that right now all we have amounts to basically a system of separate but unequal. We have a set of laws at the national, state and local levels that separates LGBT folks from the rest of America.
  
  'Let's call it what it is - Gay Apartheid.
  
  'Now some of you might think that is a loaded and unfair word. I have chosen the word very carefully and deliberately. Apartheid is when a group of citizens of a nation is by law separated from all other citizens and the rights, benefits and protections all others are granted.
  
  'Having DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as laws of the land are apartheid laws.'
  
  (davidmixner.com)
  
  I'm starting to like this guy. He's angry, and he's good at emotional framing of issues. Rock on.
  2009-07-01 16:55:02
• The more things change... — Homophobic cops allegedly raid and beat patrons commemorating Stonewall at a gay bar in Fort Worth:
  
  'Another patron, Chad Gibson, was slammed to the floor by the cops and his sister reported to the Voice that he was hospitalized and has bleeding in his brain.'
  
  (pamshouseblend.com)
  
  The news coming out of Texas lately about police behavior is shocking. Generally, this is yet another demonstration of why the LBTQ community needs federal laws protecting us from violence and discrimination.
  2009-06-29 10:48:45
• (old): Antigay Bias Killings Highest in 10 Years — 'The number of people murdered in anti-LGBT bias incidents increased by 28% in 2008 compared to the previous year, according to a report released on Tuesday by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. The 29 murders represent the highest number documented since 1999 and, when compared to statistics for other anti-LGBT crimes, suggest an increase in the severity of violence.'
  
  (from advocate.com)
  
  This is where statements from presidents, governors, and media figures can make a difference. If the president demonstrates he's afraid of the political consequences of supporting our equal rights, we know that Prop 8 supporters are going to use his words in their ads. Is it so much to believe that questioning youth will take that opportunity to take violent impulses out on gays? When there are millions of evil Baptist churches and whacked-out politicians and groups shouting about how I'm a "threat" to "traditional marriage," is it surprising that some people hear those as calls to violence? Particularly in the absence of anyone using his or her bully pulpit to point out, unabashed and uncowed, the absurdity, the immorality and un-Christian nature, of such claims?
  
  This is what I see as the gravity and responsibility of holding executive office. And I'm sad to say I don't think any president since Carter has understood it.
  2009-06-24 15:05:50
• (old): Barney Frank says Obama's odious DOJ brief was AOK. — '"Now that I have read the brief, I believe that the administration made a conscientious and largely successful effort to avoid inappropriate rhetoric. There are some cases where I wish they had been more explicit in disavowing their view that certain arguments were correct, and to make it clear that they were talking not about their own views of these issues, but rather what was appropriate in a constitutional case with a rational basis standard – which is the one that now prevails in the federal courts, although I think it should be upgraded."'
  
  (Boston Herald via towleroad.com)
  
  Because appropriate constitutional cases always involve comparing my marriage to pederastic incestuous ones.
  
  *sigh*
  
  Seriously, the litany of defenses I've seen for this brief is truly staggering, ranging from "oh, you're overreacting, when the DOJ said that gay marriage was like uncles marrying nieces, they didn't mean it in a negative way," to "Obama absolutely needed to defend this law as stridently as possible (just like he does the Geneva Conventions, or the Fourth Amendment, or... oh, never mind)" to "one comparison to incest isn't so bad in the scheme of things -- just think how bad it was under Bush," to "you greedy privileged white marriage-obsessed fags, that's not offensive at all," to the tired old "BUT THERE ARE SO MANY MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES FACING STRAIGHT PEOPLE THAT MR OBAMA NEEDS TO CONCENTRATE ON!" I guess people who say that last one are impatient or jealous -- they're not content to see only the gays and transgendered people get shat on, but want Obama to hurry up and finish collapsing America's industrial manufacturing sector (by bankrupting us with handouts to the banks so that we "can't afford" not to shaft autoworkers and pensioners), destroy our international manufacturing competitiveness (and bankrupt millions more Americans, straight and gay) by handicapping health-care, and push through his Stalinesque preventive rendition program.
  
  America is becoming seriously unhinged over teh gay, and the gay politicos in positions of power are starting to seem as much a part of the problem as the overt anti-gay bigots. Meanwhile, hate crimes are on the rise. I wonder why.
  2009-06-24 14:57:58
• The Universal Edition Mahler Blog — It's amazing how prolific a blogger ol' Gustav is.
  
  Seriously, I just read the transcript of the prickly Barenboim interview from earlier this month. It's fun to see what intelligent people have to say about this biggest of 20th-Century "projection" targets in music -- even if they're completely wrong.
  2009-06-24 14:42:46
• Riversimple announces affordable British hydrogen car, with infrastructure deal — ''The Riversimple car can go 80km/hr (50mph) and travels 322km (200mi) per re-fuelling [sic], with an efficiency equivalent to 300 miles to the gallon.
  
  ''The cars will be leased with fuel and repair costs included, at an estimated £200 ($315) per month.
  
  'The company hopes to have the vehicles in production by 2013.
  
  'Next year, it aims to release 10 prototypes in a UK city which has yet to be confirmed.
  Riversimple has partnered with gas supply company BOC to install hydrogen stations for the cars in the city where the prototypes are launched...
  
  'Its four motors are powered by a fuel cell rated at just six kilowatts, in contrast to current designs that are all in excess of 85 kilowatts - required because the acceleration from a standing start requires a great deal of power.
  
  'Riversimple's solution is to power the car also from so-called "ultracapacitors..."'
  
  (via news.bbc.co.uk)
  
  I eagerly await the arrival of our future hydrogen economy.
  2009-06-17 11:50:52
• GLAD wins DOMA suit over same-sex couples being allowed to change names on passports — 'A plaintiff in a lawsuit against the federal Defense of Marriage Act will be allowed to get a U.S. passport in his married name, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders announced on Wednesday. The victory is the result of a recent change in State Department policy for the issuance of passports to people who change their name after marrying someone of the same-sex...
  
  'The passport complaint involved Keith Toney, who was able to change his last name from Fitzpatrick on his Massachusetts driver’s license after he married Al Toney III in 2004. However, the federal government denied his request to change his name on his passport, citing DOMA, which resulted in a frustrating discrepancy in his legal identification.
  
  'According to a letter sent to GLAD by the Department of Justice, the State Department will now issue passports to all married same-sex couples based on the name on their marriage certificates, provided the state issuing the certificate recognizes the name change in law.'
  
  (from advocate.com)
  
  So it doesn't sound like this case actually got to court. Was this a Clinton decision? The article's a bit light on the details. Regardless, it's good news for Massachusetts residents, and a chip off the evil facade of DoMA.
  2009-06-17 11:48:31
• Obama via Sebelius: No single payer health care, ever — 'As lawmakers on Capitol Hill hammer out legislation to overhaul the nation's health care system this year, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says that a single-payer option is not on the table...
  
  '"[T]he president feels strongly, as I do, that dismantling private [profit-driven] health coverage for the 180 million Americans that have it [and screw the tens of millions who have none], discouraging more employers from coming into the marketplace, is really the bad, you know, is a bad direction to go."'
  
  (from npr.org)
  
  Obama, of course, never claimed to be pro-single-payer. But in the view of c75, tying a for-profit insurance system to employment is the very reason that health care costs in the U.S. -- which has the only non-single-payer health care system in the industrialized world -- are the highest in the world. It's also one of the profound competitive disadvantages for our domestic auto industry, and a reason G.M. is now bankrupt.
  
  The straw men arguments about socialized medicine resulting in denial of care don't take into account that denial of care is exactly what the insurance companies are in the business of offering. Ask anyone you know who's chronically ill, or has had major surgery lately. I've seen prescription co-pays triple in the last ten years, while my employer contribution gets more and more expensive -- and the insurance companies continue to profit.
  
  This is a handout to the profitable insurance business, plain and simple. It's not hope. It's not change. It's not progress. It's a greedy handout at the bequest of insurance industry lobbyists.
  
  In a more general sense, it's become quite clear that Obama was, despite his campaign rhetoric, never a progressive. The clues to that came early and often (hagiographies to Reagan, opposition to gay marriage, courting misogyny and homophobia, and an inability to articulate a health-care plan during the primary) -- but self-proclaimed progressive voters ignored them. That was a profound mistake.
  
  Circa75 continues to believe that if you want to know how a politician will treat one disenfranchised group, you should look at how he treats others. Want to know how he'll treat the ill, the elderly, the poor, the wrongfully-imprisoned? Look at how he treats the gays and the Indians, and the "suspected" terrorists. Despite millennia of political lessons on this, primary voters last year still didn't get it.
  
  We're pleased that America, including the mainstream media, is finally waking up to the lies about gay rights that his campaign fed voters. However, I've seen very few put together the pieces of the puzzle -- the anti-nonprofit, anti-auto-industry health-care position, the anti-Constitutional positions for terrorist defendants' right to trial, the anti-Geneva Conventions positions on torture, the pro-big-business/big-government FISA vote, the continued anti-gay actions -- to see that Obama is a conservative, plain and simple.
  
  If it walks like a Bush, and talks like a Bush, and acts like a Bush, it's probably not a progressive Democrat.
  2009-06-17 11:44:02
• NY Times Editorial Slams Obama on DOJ DoMA Homophobia — 'The Obama administration, which came to office promising to protect gay rights but so far has not done much, actually struck a blow for the other side last week. It submitted a disturbing brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law that protects the right of states to not recognize same-sex marriages and denies same-sex married couples federal benefits. The administration needs a new direction on gay rights...
  
  'In arguing that other states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, the Justice Department cites decades-old cases ruling that states do not have to recognize marriages between cousins or an uncle and a niece...
  
  'The brief also maintains that the Defense of Marriage Act represents a “cautious policy of federal neutrality” — an odd assertion since the law clearly discriminates against gay couples...
  
  'If the administration does feel compelled to defend the act, it should do so in a less hurtful way. It could have crafted its legal arguments in general terms, as a simple description of where it believes the law now stands. There was no need to resort to specious arguments and inflammatory language to impugn same-sex marriage as an institution.'
  
  (nytimes.com)
  
  I'm not normally a fan of the Times, but kudos to the mainstream media for taking Obama to task on his administration's discriminatory, bigoted, hateful actions against gay people (the Wall Street Journal and CBS News also have pieces up about the DoMA briefs last week) -- and for having the courage to mention the incest comparisons Obama's DOJ made.
  2009-06-16 10:52:04
• The Obama DOJ brief comparing gay marriage to incest and pederasty — Just in case anyone's wondering what's got c75's knickers in a twist:
  
  'The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void").'
  
  (americablog.com)
  
  So, gay marriage is just the 'marriage of uncle to niece,' of '16-year-old female,' or of 'first cousins.'
  
  Keeping it classy, Obama. Way to go.
  2009-06-15 11:54:16
• More...

Latest articles:

• Proposition 8: The End of Liberty in California — It sounds increasingly as though the California Supreme Court will rule to let Proposition 8 stand. If this happens, it will mark the end of civil rights in the state. What this potential ruling means is that privileges of any group are not protected by a framework of rights -- for there are no longer any inalienable rights in California. Privileges like marriage, liberty, and freedom of speech are simply at the whim of a bare majority.
  2009-03-27 11:06:48
• Rails session_store/file_store bug — If you set the session_store in your environment file to use :file_store, and attempt to stick any non-string values in your session, you'll get an error. Either don't store non-string objects in session, or don't use file store.
  2009-01-30 12:16:08
• Protesting Proposition 8 — Along with several thousand other people, we attended the Prop 8 protest in Boston yesterday
  2008-11-16 11:30:19
• The 2008 Election and Ballot Propositions — Un-American and cynical vehicles for bigots to weaken constitutions; evidence that we've learned little from centuries of civil rights progress; and the failure of American progressives to build coalitions and protect their own interests
  2008-11-10 11:53:57
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Hate — My donations to the No on 8 campaign -- which used my money to coordinate its communication and "education" efforts about California ballot proposition 8 -- were not tax-deductible, because they were political in nature.
  2008-11-07 14:43:03
• More...

All content copyright © 2001-2009 the owners of http://www.circa75.com/