How doesn't like a parade? Well, for the most part, me. However, I could not pass up the opportunity to witness the DC Gay Pride. I was fully expecting to see what these sorts of events are known for: hot guys, drag queens, Lady Gaga music, and a whole mess of inappropriate displays that would probably be illegal any other day of the year. That all occurred.
However, the begin of the parade began much differently. For the first 45 minutes, there were a flurry of politicians marching. Now, I have participated in a few parades in my life with politicians, but this experience was a little different. Why? Because as parades should be, this was truly a celebration that these politicians actually deserved to be in.
Most politicians who march in parades are doing it just for visibility. Period. And these local DC politicians were doing the same thing, but they also stepped up and delivered marriage to the LGBT community. I honestly believe for most of these DC councilmen and women they were enjoying the celebration first and campaigning second.
It's a breathe of fresh air since I sometimes feel that the National Democratic party uses the LGBT community for votes. But these officials actually delivered, and it was nice to see them with the shirtless guys and drag queens.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Bad Analysis, Worse Views
The Huffington Post recently reported on a poll conducted by the University of Washington that supposedly sheds some light into the Tea Party movement. I use the words supposedly because Huff Post, like so many other organizations, over hypes the poll and expands the result more than is appropriate. However, some of the results, even though a skeptics lens, are startling.
First, let's start out with how the poll was conducted and how it was interpreted. The poll was done specifically with residents of the state of Washington only. It might sound stupid to say this, but, therefore, the results are only pertaining to Washingtonian Tea Partiers, not Tea Partiers from across the country. Simple, right? Not for the Huffington Post. Not once in their article about this poll mention that this was for Washington residents only. You cannot interpret this as national, when it isn't. C'mon Huff Po.!
Now, in saying that, there are still some awful feelings who people that "strongly agree with the Tea Party" (which is how this poll figured out who Tea Party people were) believe. According to the Huffington Post (this is accurate), "Fifty-two percent of respondents also said that 'compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power.' "
Now that is plus or minus the margin off error, which is higher than the overall poll's (2.3) since this is a subgroup. However, lets say that even 45% believe this, that is ridiculous.
What power do we have? I mean honestly. When we lobbied to end discrimination in the military, what did we get? Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Wow, what a victory. Even in this current struggle to end DADT, which we have made a ton of progress in, we are not even close to finishing the job. See Politico article.
I mean I guess being able to have sex (Lawrence v. Texas) and not be thrown in jail was a victory. (I tried to put sarcasm in there, but this pisses me off so much, I couldn't). The Bush years were a real victory lap.
President Obama has done a lot to help the community. His support against DADT is welcomed, and he did sign Hate Crimes legislation. Furthermore, he has extended benefits to federal employers of same-sex partners (has he done it enough? no), and he has urged Health and Human Services to extend health benefits. But all of those victories are something every American should enjoy, not just our hetero friends. I hardly count that as a result of us being "too powerful."
But too say we are too powerful makes my blood boil. For years we have been spending and working our asses off to get Dems elected... and for what? Gay marriage is still a pipe dream, and a DADT is far from guaranteed.
If anything we need to be more powerful and actually listened to.
First, let's start out with how the poll was conducted and how it was interpreted. The poll was done specifically with residents of the state of Washington only. It might sound stupid to say this, but, therefore, the results are only pertaining to Washingtonian Tea Partiers, not Tea Partiers from across the country. Simple, right? Not for the Huffington Post. Not once in their article about this poll mention that this was for Washington residents only. You cannot interpret this as national, when it isn't. C'mon Huff Po.!
Now, in saying that, there are still some awful feelings who people that "strongly agree with the Tea Party" (which is how this poll figured out who Tea Party people were) believe. According to the Huffington Post (this is accurate), "Fifty-two percent of respondents also said that 'compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power.' "
Now that is plus or minus the margin off error, which is higher than the overall poll's (2.3) since this is a subgroup. However, lets say that even 45% believe this, that is ridiculous.
What power do we have? I mean honestly. When we lobbied to end discrimination in the military, what did we get? Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Wow, what a victory. Even in this current struggle to end DADT, which we have made a ton of progress in, we are not even close to finishing the job. See Politico article.
I mean I guess being able to have sex (Lawrence v. Texas) and not be thrown in jail was a victory. (I tried to put sarcasm in there, but this pisses me off so much, I couldn't). The Bush years were a real victory lap.
President Obama has done a lot to help the community. His support against DADT is welcomed, and he did sign Hate Crimes legislation. Furthermore, he has extended benefits to federal employers of same-sex partners (has he done it enough? no), and he has urged Health and Human Services to extend health benefits. But all of those victories are something every American should enjoy, not just our hetero friends. I hardly count that as a result of us being "too powerful."
But too say we are too powerful makes my blood boil. For years we have been spending and working our asses off to get Dems elected... and for what? Gay marriage is still a pipe dream, and a DADT is far from guaranteed.
If anything we need to be more powerful and actually listened to.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Everything and the Kitchen Sink
In between jobs, I had the "pleasure" to work a lovely establishment called Bob Evans. If you are not familiar with the restaurant, it was an eatery that labeled itself as "country home-cooking." You know the type. Over-sized entrees include country fried steak, biscuits and sausage gravy, chicken pot pie, and the like. Combine that with a tacky store in the front selling jars of gravy, cheap picture frames with apples on them, and discontinued Beenie Babies from 10 years ago, and you are immediate transported to a cheap knock-off of Little House on the Prairie as soon as you step foot in the door. The purpose of this blog is not to knock Bob Evans (their chicken pot pie and biscuit dinners are deadly but delicious), but to make a ridiculous, far-out analogy.
While working on "The Farm" (my pet name for Bob Evans), I would be astonished when patrons would order the stir-fry dinner. Why? Because do you honestly believe a restaurant that serves a massive bowl of mashed potatoes with chicken noodles soup on top to hundreds of customers a night would make a good stir-fry? Of course not.
This leads me to my analogy (well kinda an analogy). As I would not trust Bob Evans to make an Asian stir-fry, why would anyone trust the American Family Association to analyze health reform? You are just setting yourself up for an embarrassing failure.
I have monitored the AFAs opposition to HCR for a while, but this reason to be against "MussoliniCare" is the desperate of the desperate. Now, there are many legitimate reasons why groups would be still against the newly enacted health reform law. The costs, increased government regulation on private industry, and changes to the Medicare Advantage program. But, as the Huffington Post reported, although a majority of Americans are still against the HCR bill, a majority are willing to give it a chance.
So what has the AFA concocted to convince readers HCR is going to cause the destruction of America? Health reform penalizes marriage and encourages "fornication" and an "immoral lifestyle."
How? Because youths under 26 who are married are not permitted to be on their parents insurance plans while those who are not married are allowed. According to Brian Fischer (the genius who said Hitler used gays in his armies because we are so savage and would kill people without remorse. Click here for that masterpiece), "If you'd prefer to just shack up, however, and engage in fornication, well, that's just dandy. Mom and Dad can continue to pick up the tab for you with our full blessing and subsidize your health care and your immoral lifestyle."
It goes on. The blog by Fischer quotes someone named Wendy Lynn who starts out by saying "Yup, that's right. If you were fired up about the gay marriage issue, you should be mad as heck at this." No clue why gay marriage was brought into to this, but hey, if you have no argument, just blame the gays. She then asks (wink wink) whether HCR will cause couples to not to get married (heaven forbid).
Essentially, the AFA has run out of ideas to criticize HCR, and has made a "claim" that one provision in the bill will lead to unmarried couples. Oh yeah, and through the gays under the bus too.
First, it is true that married couples who are under 26 cannot be placed on their parents' health insurance plans. However, that changes in 2014 when ANYONE under 26 can use their parents' plan. That, conveniently, was not mentioned in the AFA piece.
So yes, we have 4 years of a fornication and immoral lifestyle bonanza ahead of us!
While working on "The Farm" (my pet name for Bob Evans), I would be astonished when patrons would order the stir-fry dinner. Why? Because do you honestly believe a restaurant that serves a massive bowl of mashed potatoes with chicken noodles soup on top to hundreds of customers a night would make a good stir-fry? Of course not.
This leads me to my analogy (well kinda an analogy). As I would not trust Bob Evans to make an Asian stir-fry, why would anyone trust the American Family Association to analyze health reform? You are just setting yourself up for an embarrassing failure.
I have monitored the AFAs opposition to HCR for a while, but this reason to be against "MussoliniCare" is the desperate of the desperate. Now, there are many legitimate reasons why groups would be still against the newly enacted health reform law. The costs, increased government regulation on private industry, and changes to the Medicare Advantage program. But, as the Huffington Post reported, although a majority of Americans are still against the HCR bill, a majority are willing to give it a chance.
So what has the AFA concocted to convince readers HCR is going to cause the destruction of America? Health reform penalizes marriage and encourages "fornication" and an "immoral lifestyle."
How? Because youths under 26 who are married are not permitted to be on their parents insurance plans while those who are not married are allowed. According to Brian Fischer (the genius who said Hitler used gays in his armies because we are so savage and would kill people without remorse. Click here for that masterpiece), "If you'd prefer to just shack up, however, and engage in fornication, well, that's just dandy. Mom and Dad can continue to pick up the tab for you with our full blessing and subsidize your health care and your immoral lifestyle."
It goes on. The blog by Fischer quotes someone named Wendy Lynn who starts out by saying "Yup, that's right. If you were fired up about the gay marriage issue, you should be mad as heck at this." No clue why gay marriage was brought into to this, but hey, if you have no argument, just blame the gays. She then asks (wink wink) whether HCR will cause couples to not to get married (heaven forbid).
Essentially, the AFA has run out of ideas to criticize HCR, and has made a "claim" that one provision in the bill will lead to unmarried couples. Oh yeah, and through the gays under the bus too.
First, it is true that married couples who are under 26 cannot be placed on their parents' health insurance plans. However, that changes in 2014 when ANYONE under 26 can use their parents' plan. That, conveniently, was not mentioned in the AFA piece.
So yes, we have 4 years of a fornication and immoral lifestyle bonanza ahead of us!
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Website Follies
Being a former campaign staffer, I love to see what campaigns are coming in the next year. Examining campaign websites is always fun, and both democrats and republicans have equally bad websites. Here is a collection of some of the low-lights of some of the newer sites.
1. Give to Pat Toomey and the world will end
I have no idea of Pat meant to make is sound like this, but Toomey started a money raising campaign, and he calls is "Toomsday." Click here and see that from the name, apparently if Pat Toomey reaches his goal, the world will end. What an awful name for a fund raising campaign.
2. Free candy kids!
Staying in Pennsylvania and the Senate race, Democratic Challenger Bill Kortz thought that using a scary mini-van to travel around would be more appealing than a tradition campaign bus. "Coming to a town near you!" I hope this comes with free candy for the kids!
3. Help Wanted
If you cannot get Senior Staff on your campaign, that might tell you that no one believe is you as a candidate. Democratic candidate for Governor in Florida, Michael E. Arth, prominately displays that he is hiring campaign staff. Oh, and below it, there is an ask to donate. Yes, I really want to donate to a campaign, that can't even PAY people to work on it. I assuming that he has not hired a PR director yet.
4. Hey, let's take a picture in fron of some dead trees.
Staying in the sunshine state Alex Sink is running for governor, and has a nice looking website. But as the pictures rotate behind her image, there is a picture of the Everglades. Instead of looking full of life, they look like dead trees. I really get motivated seeing dead trees. Now I know, these trees are not dead, but the imagery is still there, and bad.
5. Glamor shot
Missouri U.S. Senate Candidate, Chuck Purgason, has the best image oh himself on his website.
1. Give to Pat Toomey and the world will end
I have no idea of Pat meant to make is sound like this, but Toomey started a money raising campaign, and he calls is "Toomsday." Click here and see that from the name, apparently if Pat Toomey reaches his goal, the world will end. What an awful name for a fund raising campaign.
2. Free candy kids!
Staying in Pennsylvania and the Senate race, Democratic Challenger Bill Kortz thought that using a scary mini-van to travel around would be more appealing than a tradition campaign bus. "Coming to a town near you!" I hope this comes with free candy for the kids!
3. Help Wanted
If you cannot get Senior Staff on your campaign, that might tell you that no one believe is you as a candidate. Democratic candidate for Governor in Florida, Michael E. Arth, prominately displays that he is hiring campaign staff. Oh, and below it, there is an ask to donate. Yes, I really want to donate to a campaign, that can't even PAY people to work on it. I assuming that he has not hired a PR director yet.
4. Hey, let's take a picture in fron of some dead trees.
Staying in the sunshine state Alex Sink is running for governor, and has a nice looking website. But as the pictures rotate behind her image, there is a picture of the Everglades. Instead of looking full of life, they look like dead trees. I really get motivated seeing dead trees. Now I know, these trees are not dead, but the imagery is still there, and bad.
5. Glamor shot
Missouri U.S. Senate Candidate, Chuck Purgason, has the best image oh himself on his website.
Friday, September 11, 2009
What The Other Side Offers
I don’t want to call the Republican response to President Obama’s health care speech a train wreck, but it was at least a derailment. As tradition states, the opposing party to the President gives an response, and Rep. Boustany’s attempt to rebut the President shows what the Republicans offer to this matter: nothing.
The
Sounds familiar right? Apparently Boustany and the GOP did not listen to a word President Obama said, because of the five solutions that Boustany presented, four of them were specifically included in Obama’s speech. But somehow there version is much better and bolder.
Does these similarities in the two platforms mean that the Republicans will work the President to get health care passed? He even said that, “Republicans have been ready for reform.” I would say hardly, especially after the actions that the GOP displayed during Obama’s speech.
For instance, many members could be seen texting during the address. Finding out what bar their colleagues were going to after the speech was more surely important than making sure insurance premiums are affordable to Americans. Some members were twittering during the address. Apparently finding out the latest news from Perez Hilton is more important than covering the uninsured. Finally, many Republicans looked like they were day dreaming. I guess pondering whether they were going to have steak or chicken when they returned home was more pressing than improving the quality of health care for Americans.
Furthermore, during the response, Rep. Boustany could not help but spread some of the lies we heard in August in his response Wednesday night. He tried to scare seniors into thinking that their Medicare benefits would be cut to pay for this plan. He said, “Replacing your family care with government care is not the answer.” Clearly not listening to the President’s speech about the public option, Boustany was attempting to, once again, put fear in the minds of the public.
Luckily, as with most responses to the President, this speech feel flat. It seemed as if Rep. Boustany did not even listen to the speech at all, and from the actions of his fellow colleagues, he probably didn’t.
Even though his speech was not a complete train wreck in itself, the performance of the Republican party was.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
D.C. is like a giant high school
Oh, Glenn Beck. The more I hear about him, the more unbelievable he becomes. As reported, President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar" (Van Jones) has resigned because he called Republicans assholes, and over comments seemingly to be in favor of those 9/11 Conspiracy. No other station, except for Fox News, cared about this topic, but guess who started this story to get rid of the 'czar'? Glenn Beck.
No, Beck and Co. pushing for the removal of Van Jones is not that interesting. I am sure they will try to remove everyone in the Obama Administration. That is just a given and it seems that Beck and Co. have won. So why am I writing about this? Because of a little story written by Michael Calderone of The Politico .
Remember when I posted about Beck losing advertisers on his show? Well one of the main groups who was leading this charge to stop advertisers from support Beck's show was ColorofChange. Here is when it gets good. Who was the co-founder of ColorofChange? You guessed it, Van Jones!
No, Beck and Co. pushing for the removal of Van Jones is not that interesting. I am sure they will try to remove everyone in the Obama Administration. That is just a given and it seems that Beck and Co. have won. So why am I writing about this? Because of a little story written by Michael Calderone of The Politico .
Remember when I posted about Beck losing advertisers on his show? Well one of the main groups who was leading this charge to stop advertisers from support Beck's show was ColorofChange. Here is when it gets good. Who was the co-founder of ColorofChange? You guessed it, Van Jones!
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Did These People Graduate High School?
I am not sure why I am shocked by the current states of things. I do not understand why my jaw drops when I read things like this. And I wish I would stop getting upset when I hear these stories.
I am talking about conservatives being upset about President Obama's planned speech to children in schools next year. They claim that the President is going to "indoctrinate" students with a political message. Of course, they through out the "socialism," "marxist," and Hitler claims.
Here is what the speech is supposed to be about according to Mediamatters.com:
In a recent interview with student reporter, Damon Weaver, President Obama announced that on September 8 -- the first day of school for many children across America -- he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.
Doesn't seem too bad? Right? To be perfectly honest, that is not where the people are wigging out about. It was about and OPTIONAL set of activities that teachers could CHOOSE to do. One of the most controversial activities was "How can you help out the President?" Now, if the speech was about health care, taxes, or some sort of political issues, then that question would be inappropriate. But I have a sense that these people who are upset by this question did not do well in school, because they did not have the mindset to figure out what the answer to aquestion like "How you could help the President" in a speech about STAYING IN SCHOOL and WORKING HARD IN SCHOOL could be about.
Abortion? no, Health care? that does not make sense. Taxes? Unlikely. Maybe the answer has do with making sure you work hard in school, stay in school, and value your education.
I really want to meet these idiots sometimes.
I am talking about conservatives being upset about President Obama's planned speech to children in schools next year. They claim that the President is going to "indoctrinate" students with a political message. Of course, they through out the "socialism," "marxist," and Hitler claims.
Here is what the speech is supposed to be about according to Mediamatters.com:
In a recent interview with student reporter, Damon Weaver, President Obama announced that on September 8 -- the first day of school for many children across America -- he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.
Doesn't seem too bad? Right? To be perfectly honest, that is not where the people are wigging out about. It was about and OPTIONAL set of activities that teachers could CHOOSE to do. One of the most controversial activities was "How can you help out the President?" Now, if the speech was about health care, taxes, or some sort of political issues, then that question would be inappropriate. But I have a sense that these people who are upset by this question did not do well in school, because they did not have the mindset to figure out what the answer to aquestion like "How you could help the President" in a speech about STAYING IN SCHOOL and WORKING HARD IN SCHOOL could be about.
Abortion? no, Health care? that does not make sense. Taxes? Unlikely. Maybe the answer has do with making sure you work hard in school, stay in school, and value your education.
I really want to meet these idiots sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)