Month: January 2009

Dissent Of The Day

by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

Did someone change the definition of the Moore Award?  The glossary still says "divisive, bitter and intemperate rhetoric."  That video was gooey, wide-eyed and probably insincere, but this is the first time I’ve heard volunteers talking about volunteerism called intemperate.  Was it bitter from the perspective of plastic bottle and bag manufacturers?

If sappiness is the new standard for the Moore Award, I nominate the United Way for its NFL commercials.

It fits the spirit of the award. I’m no originalist.

How To Ruin The Times, Ctd.

by Patrick Appel
James Surowiecki joins Felix Salmon in bashing Blodget:

…the problem with Blodget’s plan isn’t just the obvious one—namely, that it’ll reduce the Times to a collection of stories about sex and cute animals. It’s also that it’ll leave the newspaper ill equipped to cover stories that suddenly become popular. Take the obvious current example: business. I assume that the number of hits that the Times’ business stories get these days is much greater than it was two years ago. Yet if the paper had been following Blodget’s counsel, any number of the people writing about business for the Times today would have been fired, leaving the Times without the resources to cover today’s news in the detail it deserves. Part of what makes the Times great is that it has the resources to cover stories in depth when the need arises, and that’s only possible if there’s a cushion built into the system.

The Distinguished Senator From New York, Ctd.

by Patrick Appel
Brad Luna, Communications Director for HRC, emails to correct the record:

There has been some discussion about the record of Kirsten Gillibrand, New York Governor David Paterson’s pick to replace Hillary Clinton, regarding her stance on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and additional LGBT issues.  In particular, we’d like to clarify references to the Human Rights Campaign Scorecard for the 110th Congress.  Although Kirsten Gillibrand did not co-sponsor legislation to repeal DADT, non-cosponsorship does not mean support for the policy or opposition to repeal.  In fact, in conversations with her office the Human Rights Campaign has confirmed Gillibrand is in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and supports full marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples.

  • Additionally, HRC confirmed with Gillibran’s staff additional points regarding her LGBT record:
  • Supports marriage equality
  • Cosponsored and voted in favor of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act
  • Cosponsored inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and supports enactment of inclusive bill
  • Voted in favor of ENDA
  • Supports repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
  • Supports repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act
  • Supports equal tax treatment of employer provided domestic partnership benefits
  • Voted against allowing discrimination in hiring for the Head Start program
  • Voted in favor of allowing Washington, DC to fund needle exchange programs with local funds
  • Supports the Early Treatment of HIV/AIDS Act (ETHA) to allow states to provide Medicaid coverage for HIV-positive persons
  • Voted against procedural attempts to derail ENDA and hate crimes
  • Endorsed by HRC PAC in 2008

In Defense Of Civil Unions

by Patrick Appel
Don George on repealing DOMA and stressing civil unions:

I realize that the screams from our own left will say "marriage or nothing." Here’s a counter argument. By setting up such a clearly "separate but equal system" (there is no debate on this, right?), that separate but equal system, as a half step, will…become full marriage equality sooner, than the purer route of going from nothing at the federal level to full marriage equality in one step. Anyone who thinks that going from nothing to full marriage equality at the federal level all in one step is coming soon is fooling themselves. That is a much harder, bigger, and more time consuming route.

I wish I could say my thinking is original on this, but it is based on my discussions with a prominent LGBT Obama campaign official and a prominent ACLU attorney neither of whom wishes to go on record at this time.

Google-pedia

by Patrick Appel
Nick Carr worries about the Google-Wikipedia axis:

…what we seem to have here is evidence of a fundamental failure of the Web as an information-delivery service. Three things have happened, in a blink of history’s eye: (1) a single medium, the Web, has come to dominate the storage and supply of information, (2) a single search engine, Google, has come to dominate the navigation of that medium, and (3) a single information source, Wikipedia, has come to dominate the results served up by that search engine. Even if you adore the Web, Google, and Wikipedia – and I admit there’s much to adore – you have to wonder if the transformation of the Net from a radically heterogeneous information source to a radically homogeneous one is a good thing. Is culture best served by an information triumvirate?

Gillibrand On Marriage Equality

by Patrick Appel
Empire State Pride Agenda’s executive director, Alan Van Capelle says Gillibrand has changed her mind:

“After talking to Kirsten Gillibrand, I am very happy to say that New York is poised to have its first U.S. Senator who supports marriage equality for same-sex couples,” Van Capelle said in a statement released by the organization. “She also supports the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people. While we had a productive    discussion about a whole range of LGBT concerns, I was particularly happy to hear where she stands on these issues.”    

Censored

by Patrick Appel
A Los Angeles TV station refused to air pro marriage equality ads (above). David Schmader summarizes the conflict:

Earlier this month, the group GetToKnowUsFirst.org produced a series of (sweet and smart) pro-gay family ads to be aired in California during Tuesday’s inauguration. As Towleroad reports, "The group aired the spot in 42 of California’s 58 counties (everywhere Prop 8 passed by more than 50%) during Tuesday’s coverage," but the ad was conspicuously absent from the L.A. ABC affiliate KABC, which refused to air the ad, deeming it "too controversial" for the inauguration, when "many families will be watching."

More Voices From Leavenworth

by Chris Bodenner
Contra Geraghty, the Kansas City Star reports:

An informal survey Thursday on the streets of Leavenworth found reactions ranging from confidence that the Army would continue to keep the community safe, to concerns that the city would be visited by new dangers and its name become synonymous with terrorist incarceration.

“The question that comes to my mind is how secure it will be,” said Timothy Swan, the owner of Alpha Geek Computers in downtown Leavenworth.

Anita Maynard, owner of the Queen’s Pantry shop, feared the transfer of prisoners might too strongly reinforce Leavenworth’s image as simply a prison town at the expense of its other attributes — such as being home to a college for mid-career Army officers.

Dianne Hawkins, a homemaker married to a soldier, said she had confidence that if the detainees came, the Army could keep things safe.

But that security question was key for Brendan Sheehan, who runs a bicycle shop in Leavenworth. If he were assured that the town would stay safe, Sheehan said he could imagine an economic boon. “That’s that many more workers here in town,” he said. “That could mean more customers.”