California progress

"Equality California" was formed to fight Prop8, and they continue to be a force in California for the fight for gay rights. Yesterday, they put out this notice:

A total of 25 pieces of Equality California-sponsored legislation passed the California Legislature during the 2009-2010 legislative session, thanks to the amazing leadership of the legislators who authored these bills, the LGBT Caucus and each of you [contributors]. This is the greatest amount of pro-equality legislation to pass anywhere, anytime in history. We created Harvey Milk Day. We made it easier for all youth to access mental health services. We closed some of the gap between domestic partnership and marriage. We protected the marriages of same-sex couples who married out of state prior to Prop. 8 and ensured equal rights for those who were married or who get married after Prop. 8. We purged California’s codes of dangerous, discriminatory language about researching “the causes and cures of homosexuality.” And these accomplishments are only a few highlights.

Bravo for California and for enlightened legislators. If the courts don't overturn Prop8 first, I'm confident it will be reversed by vote in 2012.

Ralph

The pope and condoms . . . again

About 18 months ago, the AJC published the following piece of mine as a "guest opinion" column.

"Pope's condom message is out of touch, unrealistic"

By Ralph Roughton

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

It really does come down to a basic difference in a future-in-heaven perspective and a current-life-on-earth perspective.

The pope obviously takes the former; I take the latter. But it does seem to me his is an unconscionable position, given the authoritative influence he has on such a large percentage of the world’s people.

I could even make the case that the pope is guilty of aiding and abetting genocide — because, from his position as the ultimate religious authority to billions of people, he is telling his followers not to use a simple means of protecting their wives and unborn children from a deadly disease.

What I’m referring to is the pope’s statement that relying on the use of condoms increases the risk of HIV transmission. And to say this, as he embarks on his historic tour of Africa where HIV/AIDS is decimating the population, further marks him as out of touch with the world we live in.

The pope’s point: the most effective way to prevent HIV spread is through sexual abstinence or monogamous sexuality with an uninfected partner.

But he goes further and says using condoms actually increases the risk. It’s true that condoms are not 100 percent effective, largely because they are often not properly or consistently used.

The solution to that is education, however, not condemnation. Statistics show that, properly used, condoms are effective in the high 90 percent range.

The pope is correct — if the only two options are abstinence and monogamy.

But people are not going to stop having sex outside marriage.

History has tried everything from public shaming to public stoning, and sex just keeps on happening.

So the correct use of condoms can make the difference between an epidemic of HIV/AIDS that has left millions of orphans in some African nations, many of them HIV positive themselves — and a very effective program that has greatly reduced the spread of HIV, as in Uganda.

I can even accept the A-B-C approach that some religious groups advocate: Be abstinent, be faithful or use condoms.

This extols the abstinent-if-single/faithful-if-married approach but also recognizes that many will not — and they should use condoms.

The pope’s plan might get you into heaven — after you die from AIDS. I would rather we focus on saving your life, and that of your children, here on Earth.

Now Benedict has issued another statement in a book-length interview by a German journalist in which he makes another rather incomprehensible statement about condoms.

What he says is that the use of condoms can sometimes be justified; for example, for a male prostitute who is trying to prevent the spread of disease. Huh???

I think this is what he's saying: The church's problem with condoms is that they are used as contraception. Anything that interferes with the possibility of pregnancy is sinful. But male prostitutes are not concerned with preventing pregnancy, just with preventing disease. So it's sort of, like, . . . maybe . . . ok?

Does he know what he saying? Or am I just totally unable to understand the catholic reasoning? I mean, I think I understand the reasoning; it's the misplaced values that give me trouble.

It's better for an infected husband to come home and give his wife HIV than to use a condom; but it's ok for a male prostitute to use condoms to keep from getting HIV???

I assume he's talking about male prostitutes with male clients. Otherwise, the question of pregnancy would come into it. By that reasoning, then, a man whose wife is beyond the age when she could get pregnant, or who was otherwise infertile, could use condoms to prevent from infecting her with HIV?

Making more babies is the most important thing of all, regardless of poverty, lack of resources to care for another child, illness of the mother, etc. Married couples are not supposed to have sex just for pleasure. But if you're gay and not married, it's ok to have sex for pleasure -- although gay sex is of course a sin. But if you're going to do it, it's ok to use a condom?

Man, this guy baffles me with his phony values. And he is the spiritual father and infallible figure for 1,135,729,000 Roman Catholics worldwide?

Does anybody get this? I know Richard, who is catholic, says the pope is irrelevant and don't bother listening to him; but I'm sure there are many who do listen to him. I think it's appalling to let him run around spouting off like this, with the moral authority endowed upon him.

Ralph

Who knew ?

I find these stats amazing -- and very gratifying. According to an article in the New York Review of Books, Rush Limbaugh pulls in the most listeners of any radio show.

But who is second and third?

NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered, those morning and afternoon news and commentary reports that can be as long and in depth as taking 20 minutes on one subject.

I find this very reassuring about the sanity and intelligence of the American people. Both of them have far larger listening audiences than any cable news program. "Fresh Air," Terry Gross's always intelligent, always interesting interview show has been running for 35 years, is carried by 450 stations, and attracts nearly 4.5 million listeners.

In polls, public radio is the most trusted source of news. The article also dispels the myth that it is way left in slant. Unlike the right-wing rant shows, they regularly have guests from a wide spectrum of political and cultural positions. The difference is that they will have either an interviewer or another guest who will discuss intelligently their differences. The main thing that sets NPR apart is intelligence, rational argument, and good taste.

No wonder the Republicans want to defund them over any trumped up excuse. Let them rant. NPR receives only 6% of its funding from direct federal funding and another 10% in the form of grants.

Ralph

What a great idea

Let's hope this is another example of new, good things originating in California and spreading. In 2008 voters approved an initiative that took redistricting of congressional districts away from politicians and set up a system to have it done by ordinary citizens, creating the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Using a bingo ball kind of selection process, the state auditor drew random names from three pools of applicants to select three Democrats, three Republicans, and two people without party affiliation. Those eight people will then select six more from the same pool but with the object of making sure that the panel reflects the state's ethnic and geographic diversity.

Now that seems like getting back to basic democracy, instead of letting whichever party happens to be in control of the legislature and governorship at the time gerrymander the districts in secret backroom deals. And of course they manipulate the system to the utmost to enhance their power and ensure their reelection.

A good idea whose time has come.

Ralph

DADT is dead #10

Joe Lieberman says that they have the votes to repeal DADT if only they allow Republicans enough debate time to feel they have been given fair opportunity to make amendments.

Lieberman names Susan Collins and Richard Lugar as Republicans who will vote for it, and another blurb quotes Lisa Murkowski as saying she will vote for it. I'd be surprised if Scott Brown from liberal Massachusetts doesn't also vote for it. Maybe not all the Democrats will vote yes, but if they do that's well more than the 60 required to move the legislation to vote.

But can we trust Joe?

Ralph

Another harbinger of spring ??

It won't happen, of course, but at least one prominent senator is speaking out about the low quality of TV "news." I object to his putting MSNBC (Rachel Maddow) in the same category as FoxNews -- but at least Jay Rockefeller is saying what I feel about the low state of journalism.

Here's what he said:

When it comes to developing content, our entertainment machine is too often in a race to the bottom. In fact, it is in a race to the bottom. Getting close. Even worse, our news media has all but surrendered to the forces of entertainment. And much of our news media is entertainment as opposed to news. Instead of a watchdog that is a check on the excesses of government and business, we have the endless barking of a 24-hour news cycle. We have journalism that is always ravenous for the next rumor, but insufficiently hungry for the facts that can nourish something called our democracy. As citizens, we are paying one heck of a price in the dumbing down of America. You're probably responsible for that.

We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming. I hunger for quality news. I'm tired of the right and the left. There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It'd be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.

Wouldn't it be great if something could actually be done about it. But -- free speech, and all that. The only solution would be for government to beef up subsidizing NPR, but instead the Repubs in Congress are talking about de-funding NPR because of their firing of Juan Williams -- for just that: not keeping separate his opinion from his job as news analyst.

Ralph

DADT is dead #9

Harry Reid has made a strong commitment to a full vote on the repeal of DADT during this lame duck session, some time in December. Quoting him:

"Our Defense Department supports repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' as a way to build our all-volunteer armed forces. . . .We need to repeal this discriminatory policy so that any American who wants to defend our country can do so."

There was a meeting with "a strong White House presence," including Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina and Legislative Affairs Director Phil Schiliro. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama considers repeal "a priority."

Joe Lieberman has planned a press conference for Thursday morning with other Democrats "to show broad support" for the repeal, according to reports. Let's hope so -- Lieberman needs to redeem himself and breaking with his buddy McCain would help.

Stay tuned.

Ralph

Two weeks on . . .

Obama has had two weeks now since the election. So far there's not much indication of what his response is going to be. Screaming headlines from Huffington Post (which tends to sensationalize, much as I like it as a general source) proclaimed yesterday that he was going to try to make amends with the Chamber of Commerce. My question is: Why?

There's more talk of bipartisanship -- didn't we go that route? Haven't the Repubs already said it loud and clear that their #1 priority is to see that Obama is a one-term president?

On the other hand, there are some hopeful signs -- and I hope I'm not just being wildly idealistic, as I've been known to be.

1. According to Eric Alterman writing in The Nation: Obama is still the most popular practicing politician in American, and his polls remain roughly where Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagen were during their mid-term elections.

2. A New York Times poll shows that while Obama's approval rating is around 43%, about 60% say they are optimistic about the second half of his term, and almost 70% predict that the current downturn will be temporary.

3. A new poll released yesterday of voters in that uber-swing state Virginia give Obama an 11% advantage in 2012 matchups with Palin and Gingrich and a 5% advantage against either Romney or Huckabee. And that is Virginia !!

4. John Podesta of the Center for American Progress (and former Clinton aide) lists 10 things that Obama could do that will not require action by Congress, including: (a) using the new consumer protection agency to go after the banks; (b) focus on implementing provisions in the health care law (polls show that, although they think they are opposed to the reform, when asked about individual provisions, people actually favor them); (c) use the Small Business Jobs Act to create more jobs; (d) stop enforcing DADT by executive order, even if it is not repealed; (e) refocus the mission in Afghanistan on diplomatic progress; (f) promote automatic mediation in home foreclosure; and more.

5. My general feeling is that we have had a catharsis and that the sting is rapidly leaving the divisive rancor. People didn't so much elect Republicans or Tea Partiers as say: enough of this mess. Get something done -- jobs, jobs, jobs. High unemployment at mid-term is almost always an insurmountable factor.

Sure, the GOP leaders have to posture and the Tea Party/Constitution Party crowd have come with a mission. But the GOP leaders will have to face that problem for their future, and it seems to be as much a priority as stopping Obama. After all, if 3 more senate seats had flipped, they would control the Senate -- and you can count at least three cases where Tea Party candidates beat out more mainstream Republicans in the primaries, only to be beat by the Democrat in the general election. So some are saying they cost the GOP control of the Senate.

An early indication that the GOP leaders are not going to cave to the fringe is that Michelle Bachman's bid for a leadership position fell as flat a flatiron.

Of course, the crucial difference is going to be what Obama does and whether he can seize the moment. I am only very cautiously hopeful. What he does now will truly define his presidency.

Ralph

You go, Rachel . . .

Rachel Maddow, my most favorite news commentator, just endeared herself even more by exposing John McCain in all his flip-floppiness.

She frames it as a chastisement of the D. C. news media for continuing to focus on him and his opinions, saying that he has changed his positions on major issues so often that he's not worth paying attention to. Pointing out that Sunday marked his 59th appearance on "Meet the Press," she wrote:

John McCain's positions on every major policy issue that he has faced in the Senate are now utterly incoherent...and that makes it all the more remarkable that John McCain is such a perceived font of wisdom for the punditocracy in Washington. What John McCain says he thinks about something at any one moment carries this great weight in the Beltway and gets written up and pontificating over, despite the fact that if you wait five minutes, John McCain is likely to have a totally different stance on the same issue."

That is so obvious, even to a casual observer of the news, the latest being his forcing wife Cindy to mimic his bad behavior by "clarifying" her position on DADT after making a video appearance on a NOH8 ad opposing bullying gay teens, when she says "they can't even serve their country."

Jon Stewart did a hilarious lampooning of McCain in the same way, juxtaposing McCain's utterly ludicrous position(s) and self-contradictions. Ending with this about Cindy's switch: "Wait a minute. She's opposed to what DADT does, but she supports DADT?"

Stewart also got in a zinger when he said something like McCain wants another two years and another study to determine what the effect of repeal of DADT would be -- but he spent 30 minutes choosing a VP running mate (picture of Sarah Palin appears on screen).

These two are about the only thing worth watching on TV these days, IMHO.

Ralph

DADT is dead #8

Remember the 70s bumper sticker? "Won't it be great when the schools get the funds they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber?"

Try this one:

"Won't it be great when they keep the gays
and discharge the homophobes?"

Ralph

DADT is dead #7

On Wednesday, Cindy McCain added her voice in an ad opposing bullying of gay teens. In it, she blasted our country's policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving in the military, saying "Our political and religious leaders tell LGBT youth that they have no future." Later in the spot she adds "they can't serve our country openly."

On Friday, Cindy McCain released this statement:

"I fully support the NOH8 campaign and all it stands for and am proud to be a part of it. But I stand by my husband's stance on DADT."

But Cindy, which stance of your husband is it that you stand by? The one four years ago, when he said he would be open to repealing DADT if the military was in favor of it? Or his more recent position, when he says that he will filibuster any attempt to repeal DADT? That change, of course, came not because the military opposes it but because he needed the political support of the right who oppose it. Which position, Cindy?

Is anybody fooled even a smidgen by this? John McCain has no principles, no position. He's become an embarrassment to himself, just swinging in the wind like a weathervane.

Apparently Cindy has some capacity for independent thinking, but John must still have some control over her. Imagine the fight there must have been over this. Wonder what he called her this time? Alert the domestic violence police ! Don't expect her to appear in public for a while.

Meanwhile, leaks suggest that the report from the Obama-ordered survey of 400,000 troops and 150,000 spouses shows surprising support -- up to 70% saying it will be little or no problem. And there is a push on to get the Senate to pass the repeal before this session ends.

Stay tuned on this latter news.

Ralph