Speaking Frankly (another article of mine)

On Monday November 14th Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) came to Brandeis to speak on issues of gay rights. Being the first and by far most prominent openly homosexual member of Congress, Frank is considered a pioneer in making it acceptable for public servants to be open about their sexuality, as well as an icon generally for the GLBT movement.

In a brief interview granted to The Hoot prior to the talk, Frank described the depths of homophobia that still infect the discourse of American life but declared himself encouraged by the monumental progress that has been made in recent years. Frank expressed disapproval of the current mania for portraying gay people as fashion-conscious and with a flair for decorating, calling TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy “a minstrel show” which depicts homosexuals as shallow and superfluous members of society.

When asked about whether support for gay rights (and gay marriage in particular) had hurt the Democrats in the 2004 election cycle, Frank admitted that this was so but urged a policy of pressing for gay rights while being realistic about it. He cautioned against treating insufficiently zealous supporters of gay rights exactly the same as fervent opponents of gay rights, stressing that while “politics is about values”, it does no good if your side never wins.

In the talk itself, Frank spoke on various homophobic aspects of US immigration law, which as recently as 1991 barred immigration and even tourist visas to gays and lesbians. As a way of illustrating how far the nation has come, Frank traced that law from its unanimous 1968 passage – in what was otherwise a very liberal and anti-discriminatory immigration bill – to its equally unanimous abolition in 1991.

The congressman also explained why what he considered the duplicity of the anti-homosexual faction to a hopeful sign. Frank reasoned that they wouldn’t have to be dishonest if they thought they could win with the truth, and so all the gay-rights side needs to do is be open and honest because “most people are not at heart homophobic”. One prime example of chicanery in Frank’s view was the argument that allowing gay unions would lead to social disorder. “It’s the same argument they had about women getting the vote and desegregation” he said “Always the predict chaos, and it never happens.”

In response to a question about the outing of closeted legislators and public figures who advocate anti-homosexual laws and rhetoric, Frank said that he supported such actions because it was a matter of hypocrisy, not privacy. “If [gun-control activist] Sarah Brady secretly carried an Uzi, people would write about it.” Frank said “This is no different.”

Frank also emphasized the need to not be discouraged by recent opposition to gay marriage. “If you’re not losing as many battles as you win, you’re not fighting enough battles.” On the subject of gay marriage, he described civil unions as “a step forward” and advised seizing on any and all concessions made by the anti-gay rights crowd. “Remember when we tried to get gays into the military, and the right-wing crowd said ‘We don’t care what you do in your bedrooms, so long as it’s not in the military’? Well, now whenever some new anti-gay measure that infringes on our private lives comes up, I ask them whether that stuff about staying out of our bedrooms was BS or what. It’s been very effective.”

The event was organized by Triskelion in collaboration with the Brandeis Democrats.



P.S. Hey, this blog has been going for over a year. Fancy that.

Democratic Gains, But A Slight Personal Loss

Well, the elections of 2005 are over, and Democrats have won big. I know what you're thinking: there are elections in 2005? Yes, there are; and some fairly important ones, such as the governorships of Virignia and New Jersey, not to mention a myriad of ballot initiatives and local elections. Let's go down the line:

In Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine beat Jerry Kilgore, in one of the closest and most expensive governor's races in history.

In Maine: An anti-gay initiative was defeated. The proposal would've repealed anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals.

In New jersey Former senator Jim Corzine won the governorship in the race against Republican Doug Forrester. Corzine is filthy rich, though, so this isn't too surprising.

In California: All of Governor Schwarzenegger's ballot intiatives failed, including one to take redistricting power away from the legislature, one to slow state spending, one to restrict how union money is spent for political purposes, and one to lengthen the time teachers needed to work to pass probation.

In Pennsylvania: A slate of 8 pro-ID (Intelligent Design) Republicans were all defeated in their bids for school board, while two supporters of the teaching of intelligent design lost their seats.

Alas, Leslie Byrne - for whom I toiled all those weeks in the summer - did not. To be fair, it was veyr close, and her opponent raised twice as much money as she did.

Still, all in all, a good day.

Senate Blackout

Yahoo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats accusing the ruling Republicans of stalling tactics imposed a rare closed session of the Senate on Tuesday to force the majority to complete a probe on whether the Bush administration misused intelligence before the
Iraq war.

Senate Republican leaders were livid about the tactic, which drew public attention back to Iraq as President George W. Bush faced the fall-out from an indictment of a senior aide related to the handling of pre-war intelligence.

...

Democrats invoked a little used rule to temporarily shut down television cameras in the chamber, clear galleries of reporters, tourists and other onlookers, force removal of staff members and recording devices and stop work on legislation.

SHUTTERED SENATE FLOOR

After 2-1/2 hours of negotiations on the shuttered Senate floor, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said work could be wrapped up next week on "phase two" of his committee's investigation of intelligence lapses before the Iraq war -- whether the administration twisted intelligence findings to justify the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

His committee has produced a report on the first part of its investigation into lapses on intelligence on Iraq weapons, none of which were found despite many U.S. and foreign reports saying they were a major threat.

The committee has not finished a follow-up on whether the administration exaggerated or misused the reports to justify going to war in March, 2003.

...

Reid said the Republican-led Congress did nothing to keep a check on the Bush administration. "This Republican Senate does no oversight. None. None. It is all part of a plan. They obstruct, they take orders from the White House," Reid said.

On one hand, it's nice to see the Democratic Party finally demand some explanation for what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.

On the other hand, it seems rather undemocratic that nobody is allowed to know what was actually said (senators are forbidden to speak of it, since it deals with classified national-security issues).

Even so, this ties in to the issue brought about by the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Those on the left geenrally accuse Bush of deliberately lying about this, while Bush's defenders claim he was merely incredibly incompetent or deluded, not dishonest.

I suppose the deciidng factor on that issue is: was the intelligence we had on Iraqi WMDs convincing? But, if it was ambiguous, how did Bush present it? Without being able to see what he's seen, it's impossible to tell.

Still, i want to hear people's opinons: Lying, incompetent, or deluded?

White Sox Miers, and... Those Twins

First the Red Sox, then the White Sox. This shaping up to be the Decade (or maybe the Century) of the Underdog. We'll see.

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has been withdrawn. This isn't too suprising; her views were unknown, her legal credentials flimsy, and her scholarship almost nonexistent. All that - plus cronyism - might not have been enough to upset the Republican majority, but then it turned out she might not be solidly pro-life. Out she went.

And lastly:

Lately alot of attention has been paid to Prussian Blue, a California-based pop duo comprising of adorable twins Lamb and Lynx Gaede. At first sight, they usually elicit the too-cute 'Awwwww!' response akin to what the Olsen twins evoked back when they were less frightening. Until people realize...

...THEY'RE INSANE NAZI BITCHES!!


From ABC:

Known as "Prussian Blue" — a nod to their German heritage and bright blue eyes — the girls from Bakersfield, Calif., have been performing songs about white nationalism before all-white crowds since they were nine.

"We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. "We want our people to stay white … we don't want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race."

Lynx and Lamb have been nurtured on racist beliefs since birth by their mother April. "They need to have the background to understand why certain things are happening," said April, a stay-at-home mom who no longer lives with the twins' father. "I'm going to give them, give them my opinion just like any, any parent would."

April home-schools the girls, teaching them her own unique perspective on everything from current to historical events.

Snip

Songs like "Sacrifice" — a tribute to Nazi Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy Fuhrer — clearly show the effect of the girls' upbringing. The lyrics praise Hess as a "man of peace who wouldn't give up."

About this, I have no 'insight' to add. I think people can figure this one out for themselves.

The World is Awash in Enemies of Humanity

It is always a joy to see vicious criminals brought to justice (assuming the trial is genuine), but ultimately it means nothing. History is not made by one person, and to claim that putting Saddam on trial is somehow an important victory shows how little we've learned.

Saddam isn't the first dictator to come to a bad end; it wasn't a lesson to him and it won't be a lesson to any would-be tyrants in the future. That's the thing about madmen: they're mad, and don't learn from the past. Even Saddam might've gotten away with it if Bush I hadn't given him permisison to invade Kuwait.

The victims of the Saddam regime know he couldn't have devastated the country alone; the hundreds of thousand of people who worked ceaselessly to enhance Saddam's power are mostly still at large, and many of them are either in the employ of the United States or running the US government.

Besides, what are the chances it'll be a real trial? Saddam knows too much about the workings of American foreign policy for him to be simply put in prison - who knows what his memoirs might reveal? My money is on either acquittal or that he'll be found strangled in his cell the day before the verdict is announced.

After WWII, the Nazi war criminals ought to have been tried for their crimes, and they were. But no one would say that is was anything more than the smallest fraction of the work that needed to be done.