Rate this comment: 0  0

“I finally got the details on the new poll showing that nearly 70% of gays support moving ahead with ENDA even if it doesn’t include gender identity, whereas only 16% of gays support United ENDA’s position of killing ENDA until transgender people can be included too. You can read the details in the attached 3 page memo (click the image), but one thing the memo doesn’t include, and I got the answer from HRC (which got it from the polling firm) is that the margin of error is +/- 5%, which is pretty good for a poll of gay people (polls of gays are notoriously difficult because we don’t know how many members of our community are closeted, so it’s hard to do a fair sample since you can only sample those who are willing to be identified as gay). Having said that, this is important data because up until now there was no real data as to how the community itself, rather than activists, felt about the issue. Now we know. And when the number is nearing 70%, in our community, where divisiveness nears a virtue, that’s a pretty large mandate.”

Rate this comment: 0  0

So what’s the plan?

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

There are a lot of hurt feelings out there, I’d venture a guess that while this vote on Wednesday was painful for the transgender community and allies, it’s in a way anti-climactic since the real blow came when the decision was made to abandon Ts and “come back for them” later as a strategy.

Watching the subsequent vitriol and trans-bashing coming from some in the community was horrifying — the hurling of “trans-jacking LGB rights” around, claims Ts aren’t part of the LGB rights movement, barely veiled misogyny, insecure rants and ravings about whacking off genitalia, hysteria over passing something even if it isn’t going to be signed by the Chimperor — it was a sad spectacle that is now all floating out there on the Internet, It provides a catalog of quotes ready to be plucked by the Lou Sheldons and Don Wildmons of the world as further justification for bleating transfolk are undeserving of basic employment protections.

After all, if the Homosexual Agenda thinks Ts aren’t worthy, the professional right wing haters can continue to use trans-baiting ad infinitum. It makes it all the more difficult to effectively lobby the paranoid Blue Dog Dems who didn’t want to vote on trans inclusion. There hadn’t been the necessary effort expended by advocacy organizations to adequately respond to the questions about Ts teaching kids in schools or issues using public restrooms. The bill was rammed forward.

If the PR issue was an uphill battle before, the road just got steeper for Ts, even as LGBs can claim that symbolic civil rights victory. It certainly doesn’t settle well with me, given the community wreckage left in the wake of HR 3685′s passage. Others may think that this step marks an easier road to “come back” for Ts. No one really knows, and certainly doesn’t know a timeline.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

“Representative Heath Shuler voted against the latest unfair free trade agreement that would threaten American jobs when it was brought to the House floor today.

The Peru Free Trade Agreement, H.R. 3688, duplicates many of the core provisions and text of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). It includes provisions that promote the off-shoring of U.S. production and jobs and helps foreign corporations avoid longstanding Buy American and anti-offshoring policies.

“We in Western North Carolina have seen first-hand the results of unfair trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Rather than working for a truly fair trade agreement that protected American workers and the environments of the U.S. and Peru, this free trade agreement continued the CAFTA model,” Rep. Shuler said. “I will continue fighting for fair trade agreements that create jobs in the U.S. and protect America’s working families.”

As the U.S. faces increasing threats from imported foods, the Peru Free Trade Agreement also included CAFTA-like provisions that will limit food safety standards and border inspections on imported food.

“We need to be looking out for the safety of the American people,” Rep. Shuler said. “This bill will increase the risks we are facing from unchecked imported foods.”

The House of Representatives passed the Peru Free Trade Act despite these concerns. It now awaits action in the Senate.

“The people who support these CAFTA-like free trade agreements always say that there will be winners and losers, but the only people who have won are the big corporations. It is time for us to pass some trade agreements that allow the working families of Western North Carolina win,” Rep. Shuler concluded.”

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rep. Heath Shuler: “I was unable to support final passage of this bill because I believe there are still serious legal ambiguities in the legislation, which could lead to protracted and onerous legal challenges.”

…takes a lot more words to rationalize bigotry than it does to demonstrate character.

Rate this comment: 0  0

I believe there are still serious legal ambiguities in the legislation, which could lead to protracted and onerous legal challenges.

C’mon, Andrew, you’re killing me here. Is this what we’ve got to do to show that Heath’s not tied to Pelosi at the hip? And he’s one of only 25 Dems (out of 233) voicing any such concerns? Except for Republicans?

It’s just a good thing there were no legal ambiguities and troublesome lawyers around when the Supremes ruled on Brown v. Board, when Congress set up the EEOC, or to prevent Democrats from voting for the Civil Rights Acts, the Voting Rights Act, Public Accommodations Acts, the Equal Pay Act, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc., etc.

Only one thing to do:
“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” — Dick the Butcher, Henry VI, Part 2, act 4, scene 2.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

When Shuler said “homosexuality is wrong”, I thought he was speaking to his values. If he said, “Those homos are just going to have to deal with second-class citizenship”, that’d be honest. But to claim to oppose discrimination and bigotry in all its forms then fail to actually oppose discrimination when the opportunity presents itself?

That’s dishonest, and it’s not acceptable.

Mumpower’s a nightmare, but he’s an honest nightmare. If Shuler’s not careful, I won’t be the only one questioning his veracity.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

I love that video. Me particularly likey John Lewis. I could listen to him all day.

He had me at:

. . . our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters

I never get enough of hearing that phrase.

But he got on a roll with these:

Call it what you may, to discriminate against someone because they are gay — it is wrong, it is wrong. It is not right. There is not any room in our society for discrimination.

It is the right thing to do. It is the moral thing to do. Let us do it. Not just for this generation but for generations yet unborn.

Now is the time to do what is right, what is fair, what is just. The time is always right to do right. Let us pass this bill.

But you really need to hear it.

Rate this comment: 0  0

After Shuler’s statement last night about this though, I’m wondering if he’s the most honest man in the race.

Rate this comment: 0  0

I like your comment about “stars to steer by” and am frustrated that we have been beaten down to the point that our “stars” are basically the lesser of two evils or the best that we’ve got. While a vote on civil rights may not be suprising to you, there are a whole ‘nother slate of topics that run exactly the same way until you’re left with a representative who is too far away. I question whether or not he should be branded a hypocrite. I don’t side with him but I also don’t feel mislead by him.

This is all assuming that you actually listen to and quote the statements of poiticians. You have well proven the hypocrisy with his own quotes and actions; I guess I just wouldn’t listen to the quotes in the first place. That must be where the “suprised” part of my comment comes from.

It takes a lot less energy to say “Are you surprised by this?” than to properly phrase the question and ask “What is it about this guy that you were so enthusiastically supporting during the election?” ‘Cause now you’ve got to bring him down for basically voting his values. That’s a lot of energy coming and going.

Our seasoned council members now understand that they have to vote for these projects lest they be overturned in court for being arbitrary and capricious. You can’t simply vote against a project for posturing or because you feel like it. (Or I suppose you can, as Mumpower does, but he does it very carefully). We need a candidate who is going to start the onerous process of reworking the UDO. This was Elaine’s general idea but I think the call has already been made on whether this should have been announced in the form of a moratorium first – so I’ll shut up now.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 1  0