American Morning: Lt Dan Choi

June 29, 2009

Lt Choi posts/interviews

Lt Dan Choi was on CNN’s American Morning discussing the impending final decision as to whether he is dismissed from the Army simply because he said “I am gay.” A West Point Grad and Arab linguist, a man who served two combat tours in Iraq and wanted to do a third, is being thrown out of the Army for something that was born with him as much as heterosexuality was to the Commander in Chief.

How does the West Point code of honor square with the silence of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

More than 12,500 gays and lesbians – including dozens of Arabic linguists — have been forced to leave the military since DADT went into effect. And estimated 65,000 LGBT are actively serving in the Armed Forces.

Video courtesy of RAW REPLAY. First time a CNN video actually embedded. Thank you RR.

CNN Transcript [emphasis added]

JOHN ROBERTS: Well, this morning, an update to a story that we first brought you in AMERICAN MORNING. U.S. Army First Lieutenant Dan Choi, a West Point graduate, an Arab linguist who is being forced out of the military because he’s openly gay. And President Obama still has not moved on a campaign promise on getting rid of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military.
Tomorrow, Choi is scheduled to appear before an Army retention board to make his case on why he should not be discharged.

Joining us now from San Francisco is Lieutenant Dan Choi. Dan, it’s good to talk to you this morning. Thanks for the update. What do you plan to tell the retention board tomorrow?

LT. DAN CHOI, BEING DISCHARGED FOR BEING GAY:

Well, I originally thought that I would open up in Arabic. (Speaking in foreign language.) But I heard that they’re having a hard time retaining and recruiting Arabic linguists so that might not be very fair. But seriously, I do want to tell them, and I appreciate the opportunity to tell them, that the Army values and the lessons that I learned at West Point, honesty and courage and integrity, those are the things that we don’t just give those lip service. We actually act those out in our lives and in our duty and in our jobs. We can’t just talk about it like reading it in a book and that’s enough.

ROBERTS: Yes, that’s something I wanted to ask you about. Because you talked about this in Davis, California, the California Progress Report. It had some of the quotes of what you said there. One of them was “they are firing people from their units in a time of war when you need people to serve in their country. And these people are able, capable, willing, and trained. You’re firing them for the sole basis of who they are and the sole basis of their honesty. You learn that code of honor there at West Point.” And I’m wondering, how does the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy fit in with that code of honor that was instilled in you at West Point?

CHOI: It absolutely does not fit in. And one of the most disgusting things that we see is the kind of threats that don’t ask don’t tell imposes on some of the soldiers that are honest, that are telling the truth about who they are. I’m facing an other than honorable discharge tomorrow morning simply for being honorable and saying who I am in truth. And that can really strip away a lot of the veterans’ benefits to include an education, home loan, and even veterans’ hospital and medical benefits. These benefits that I’ve earned by being a combat veteran of the Iraq war.

And so really what we’re seeing is in the face of these threats and in the face of so many immoral things, we go back on our training. And we see that having honor and having integrity, those things are important as officers, as leaders, and as Americans.

ROBERTS: At the same time, Lieutenant, you’re a member of an organization that is based on stringent rules, you broke those rules as they were written. Regardless of whether you think they’re fair or not, if you break the rules, should you suffer the consequences?

CHOI: We all know the consequences. And if you look at the risks and you take a look at what you’re up against, of course. It’s an informed decision, but more important than the consequences, more important than punishments or those fears that we might have, we take courage and we take those things very seriously of the values that we were taught. And it’s more important that we be honest with ourselves, we have integrity, and we have courage. Those are American values and they’re under assault because of immoral policies like “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Don’t ask…

ROBERTS: I was just going to say, do you have any hope that you’re not going to be discharged? Or are you just going to go there tomorrow to make a point?

CHOI: Well, I have a huge hope and a desire to continue serving in the military and, of course, whatever the outcome tomorrow, I’m going to work as hard as I can and continue marching for equality and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and when that law does get repealed, I’ll raise my right hand one more time and I will say I’ll serve my country.

ROBERTS: All right. So just one more time, if you would for us, Lieutenant, the president has not moved on his campaign promise to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.” What do you have to say to the president this morning?

CHOI: Well, I think the time is now. We can’t wait to support our troops, we can’t wait to end immoral policies that really are an assault on everything that we stand for as Americans. So we shouldn’t wait one more day to stand up for American values.

ROBERTS: Lieutenant Dan Choi, it’s good to talk you again. We’ll be watching you very closely tomorrow, and I think we’ll have you on afterwards and find out how it went. Lieutenant Dan Choi for us this morning from San Francisco.

CHOI: Thanks, John.

ROBERTS: Thanks very much, Lieutenant.

California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8

May 26, 2009

Not unexpectedly the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage.

A little history

• February 12 – March 11, 2004: San Francisco begins issuing same-sex marriage licenses
• August 12, 2004: California Supreme Court rules that the San Francisco marriages are void
• September 29, 2005: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage
• October 12, 2007: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoes same-sex marriage
• May 15, 2008: Supreme Court of California overturns the state’s ban on same-sex marriage
• June 16, 2008: Same-sex marriage legal.
• November 4, 2008: Proposition 8 passes, banning same sex marriage
• November 5, 2008: Proposition 8 takes effect, banning new same-sex marriage licenses from being issued
• May 26, 2009: The Supreme Court of California upheld Proposition 8, and the marriage rights of 18,000 same-sex couples.

CBS Poll: Same-sex marriage
Iowa
Vermont
Maine
New Hampshire
California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8
Illinois House approves measure to allow same-sex civil unions
States that allow civil unions/same-sex marriage

States allowing civil unions/same-sex marriage

May 27, 2009

Same-sex marriage:

• MASSACHUSETTS: 5/17/04: (1st state) to legalize same-sex marriage. 6/14/07: Legislature upheld the Supreme Court ruling — legal until at least 2012. 7/15/08: Out-of-Sate couples can marry.

• CONNECTICUT Supreme Court: 10/10/08: 4 to 3 decision, overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage (2rd state)

• IOWA: 8/31/07: Iowa District Court ruled same-sex couples could marry. 4/3/09: Iowa Supreme Court unanimously upheld ruling, making Iowa the (3rd state) to allow same-sex marriages.

• VERMONT: 2/20/99: (1st state) to grant civil unions under then Gov. Howard Dean. Went into effect July 1, 2000. 4/7/09: House 100 – 49 and Senate 25 – 5 overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto making it the (4th state) to allow same-sex marriage and the (1st state) to allow gay marriage through legislative action. Goes into effect September 1, 2009.

• MAINE: 5/6/09: House passed 89 – 57 and Senate 21 – 13. Gov. John Baldacci signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage. (5th state). Takes effect September 14

Same-sex civil unions:

• NEW HAMPSHIRE: 4/29/09: Passed in the Senate 13 – 11 and House 186-179. Needs to passed through the House again and signed by Gov Lynch.

• NEW YORK: 5/13/09: The State Assembly passed a bill 82 – 52 in favor of same-sex marriage. Pending Senate and Gov Paterson approval.

• NEW JERSEY: 12/21/96 Gov Corzine signs bill legalizing civil unions in New Jersey, Went into effect 2/19/07.

Domestic Partnerships

• OREGON: 5/9/07 Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the domestic partnership, which grants nearly all of the state-recognized rights of marriage to same-sex couples Went into effect 2/1/08. No need for a ceremony. Recognized only in Oregon.

• WASHINGTON: Domestic partnership 11 rights of marriage act (over 62 y/o) passed 4/10/07, signed by Governor Christine Gregoire 4/21//07, went into effect on 7/22/07. 2008 expanded to 160 rights: passed 3/4/08, signed 3/12/-08, took effect 6/12/08. 2009 expanded to “all areas, except marriage” signed 5/18/09.

• CALIFORNIA: 5/15/08: California Supreme Court overturns the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. 6/16/08: Same-sex marriage legal. 11/5/08: Proposition 8 takes effect in California, banning new same-sex marriage licenses from being issued. 5/26/9: California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, and upheld the marriage rights of 18,000 same-sex couples.

Recognizes same-sex marriages:

• DC: 4/7/09: The 13-member D.C. Council moved to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples married in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

In the process:

• HAWAII: 1997 Reciprocal beneficiary registration confers basic rights for any adults who are prohibited by state law from marrying: inheritance rights, workers compensation, the right to sue for wrongful death, health insurance and pension benefits for state employees, hospital visitation, and healthcare decisionmaking.

• ILLINOIS: 5/26/09House approves measure to allow same-sex civil unions.

• RHODE ISLAND : 1/29/09 bill introduced to legalize same-sex marriage at the same time as one prohibiting same-sex marriage and one creating Reciprocal Beneficiary Agreement.

How do you say “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in Arabic?

May 8, 2009

I ran across the first chapter of Nathaniel Frank’s book: “UNFRIENDLY FIRE How the Gay Ban Undermines the Military and Weakens America” in the NY Times. Fascinating reading. Excellent writing. I have to wonder if Lt Choi’s speaking out was somehow linked to Frank’s book excerpt. The excerpt was published March 18th and Lt Choi first appeared on Rachel Maddow on the 19th. Maybe that’s why he was on. I don’t recall.

This is how Nathaniel Frank’s book begins. Emphasis added.

On September 10th, 2001, the United States government intercepted two phone calls placed from Afghanistan between Al Qaeda operatives. “Tomorrow is zero hour,” said one of the voices. “The match is about to begin,” came another ominous line. The National Security Agency intercepts millions of messages every hour, but these calls came from sources deemed to be high priority. They were, of course, spoken in Arabic, so they made their way to a translator’s queue, waiting to be interpreted. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2001 our government did not have enough Arabic linguists to translate the messages quickly. The phone calls were not translated until two days later, on September 12, 2001. It was two days too late.

How many gay linguists have been fired?

The firing of gay Arabic language specialists during America’s war on terrorism is a particularly stark illustration of the gay ban’s costs to national security. And so it’s no surprise that the Pentagon has not been forthcoming about the number of linguists fired. In 2004, when Palm Center researchers asked the Pentagon for the total discharge figures of gay linguists (including all foreign language specialties), they were told that figures only existed since 1998. It took a Freedom of Information Act request and pressure from members of the House Armed Services Committee to force the Pentagon to release even these incomplete figures, which landed at 73 discharges of language specialists from the Defense Language Institute between 1998 and 2004. Of these, 17 were Arabic speakers, 11 spoke Russian, 18 studied Korean, 6 were training in Persian-Farsi, and the rest studied other languages.

Thing is the records did go back further than 1998.

Then in February, 2005, a GAO report was released that included figures dating back to 1994 – the period when data was not supposed to have existed. Those figures were even more troubling. According to the GAO report, 757 troops with “critical occupations” were fired under the policy. These included voice interceptors, interrogators, translators, Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialists, signal intelligence analysts, and missile and cryptologic technicians. Three hundred twenty-two fired service members had skills in what the military deems “an important foreign language.” Fifty-four of them spoke Arabic. Ian Finkenbinder makes fifty-five. And counting.

What the Army says themselves. Lt Choi is/was a member of the NY Army Guard:

An Army report released that year by the Center for Army Lessons Learned at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, found that “the lack of competent interpreters throughout the theater impeded operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The US Army does not have a fraction of the linguists required.” The 9/11 Commission Report concluded that the government “lacked sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key languages, resulting in significant backlog of untranslated intercepts” and the secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, pleaded that “we need more Arabic-speaking analysts.” A Pentagon advisory panel reported in 2004 that the U.S. “is without a working channel of communications to the world of Muslims and Islam.” A Justice Department Inspector General Report that same year found that the government “cannot translate all the foreign language counterterrorism and counterintelligence material it collects,” due largely to inadequate translation capabilities in “languages primarily related to counterterrorism activities” such as Arabic and Farsi.

Learning Arabic is not easy and is not something anyone with an ear for foreign language can pick up.

Arabic is what DLI calls a “category 4″ language. Along with Chinese, Japanese and Korean, Arabic is the hardest for English-speakers to learn, and the course lasts 63 weeks for basic knowledge. Because it’s not a “cognate” language for English-speakers — not one that shares the roots of the Germanic or Romantic family language trees — most American students hit the books for several hours each night, after taking up to seven hours of class every day. Arabic reads from right to left, has no capital letters and its characters run together like cursive, making it difficult for the untrained to distinguish them without months of practice. The year after 9/11, the number of students graduating from all American colleges and universities with an undergraduate degree in Arabic was a whopping six. Six.

It seems there’s a way around not discharging gay soldiers:

The week after the twin towers were felled, the Pentagon looked around and noticed it would need as many soldiers as it could get its hands on for the wars it was about to wage. Under the authority of President George W. Bush, the Defense Department issued an order giving each military service the authority to suspend administrative discharges (called “stop-loss” in military speak). In explaining the decision, the folks in the Pentagon’s public affairs office showed that no one was more confused than they were about how to retain badly needed gay troops while reassuring the public that the military was abiding by the law that required their discharge. “Stop loss has been authorized,” spokesperson Maj. James P. Cassella told the San Francisco Chronicle, referring to the status of the gay discharge policy. “However, consistent with past practices, administrative discharges could continue under stop-loss.” To clarify what the military really intended to do, Cassella said that “Commanders would be given enough latitude in this area to apply good judgment and balance the best interests of the service, the unit and the individual involved.”

Bottom line:

As we struggle against an enemy whose world most American can scarcely begin to comprehend, the few men and women in the military conversant in that world would seem an invaluable asset. Instead, more than 55 Arabic language specialists are no longer working for the U.S. military because they are gay.

And it appears Lt Choi will be the 56th.

Nathaniel Frank’s closing paragraph:

Running through all these reasons is a commitment not to face the truth. And this, every bit as much as the wasted Arabic linguists, counterintelligence officers, artillery operators, pilots and surgeons, is the insidious nature of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” There is something deeply embarrassing about the most powerful nation in the world imposing a gag rule on itself; we have voluntarily shackled ourselves in order to deny what we know to be true, all in the name of protecting our supposedly fragile soldiers from a phantom gay menace. The gay ban marks no less than the stalling of the Enlightenment project. The last three centuries of Western civilization have celebrated the ideals of freedom, truth, reason and self-understanding. In America, we often consider ourselves to be a world beacon for these efforts. We hallow our Constitution for its use and protection of these traits; we broadcast and praise our commitment to liberty and free speech.; and we have framed our war on terrorism as a struggle against sectarian, anti-intellectual and illiberal forces who are trying to overturn all we hold sacred. Yet “don’t ask, don’t tell” demonstrates that the American government is helping these forces along, to our own detriment. Americans should be asking themselves: what is gained and what is lost by sticking our collective head in the sand?

[Source: NY Times "Excerpted from Unfriendly Fire by Nathaniel Frank. Copyright © 2009 by the author and reprinted by permission of Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martin's Press, LLC."]

————

3-19 Conspiracy at the Rachel Maddow show involving Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
3-21 Lt Dan Choi: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has got to go
5-6 Lt Dan Choi kicked out of Guard b/c he’s gay
5-7 Rachel Maddow: Lt Dan Choi re: his dismissal from the Army
5-8 Lt Choi on CNN’s American Morning

Lt Dan Choi on CNN’s American Morning

May 8, 2009

Lt Dan Choi, who was ousted from the Army because he outed himself on Rachel Maddow on March 19th, appeared on American Morning to discuss his situation. Just saying “I am gay” is considered homosexual behavior.

Whatever your views, whatever the rules – how many American servicemembers are West Point grads, fluent in Arabic, have been in combat in Iraq (twice) and are willing to return?

Seriously. How many?

He has the choice to resign and get an honorable discharge or go in front of a board and present his case. All he has to do is ask them if the Army has enough Arab linguists.

TRANSCRIPT & VIDEO

CAROL COSTELLO: He’s an Iraq war veteran, ready to serve. He is fluent in Arabic. But the military says he’s got to go because he admitted he’s gay. Coming up, you’ll meet Lieutenant Dan Choi and hear his message to the Obama administration.

You know, with two wars being fought and the military stretched thin, one West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard was just told to go home because he has admitted he’s gay. Lieutenant Dan Choi is an Iraq war veteran, he is fluent in Arabic and he just received word that the military is discharging him under the don’t ask, don’t tell policy. That’s been the law since 1993 and still is today under the Obama administration.

Joining us now is Lieutenant Dan Choi. Thanks for being with us today.

LT. DAN CHOI, OPENLY GAY MEMBER OF THE MILITARY: Wonderful to be here.

COSTELLO: So the reason the military found out that you were gay is because you announced it on national television.

CHOI: Right. Well, I publicly admitted who I was. I refused to lie and to hide my identity. And because of that, they said, it doesn’t matter that you graduated from West Point. It doesn’t matter that you’re fluent in Arabic. It doesn’t matter that you went to Iraq and that want to deploy again. You know, pack your stuff and go home. You’re fired.

COSTELLO: And you got a letter in the mail, right? Is that how it happened?

CHOI: Right.

COSTELLO: I want to read a bit of the letter because it sounds so cold. The title is – well, this is what it says. I’m going to read a bit to our audience. “This is to inform you that a sufficient basis exists to initiate action for the withdrawal of federal recognition in the Army National Guard for moral or professional dereliction.” And I won’t go on. But it seems so cold and business- like. So when you received that letter, how did you feel?

CHOI: A big slap in the face, really. It’s an insult to me. I mean, I raised my right hand and said I want to serve. The president, my commander in chief is going to send 21,000 troops overseas. I want to be one of those. So they slapped me in the face. But I’m really angry because they’re slapping my unit in the face and they’re saying, you know, you’re not professional enough to deal with somebody who has capabilities to serve with you.

COSTELLO: So it condemned your whole unit?

CHOI: Right. Basically, by me saying I am gay, they’re saying that that ruined the good order and discipline of the entire New York Army National Guard which is very ridiculous. From what I’ve seen, my unit has been very professional. I’m very proud of my unit. They respect all soldiers, what they can do as members of their team.

COSTELLO: Now, some people might say, you know, if you wanted to serve your country, you know, President Obama has said he does – he wants the don’t ask, don’t tell policy to go away. Why didn’t you wait -

CHOI: Right. Why didn’t I just shut up and not say anything?

COSTELLO: Exactly.

CHOI: Well, the Army values teach us, have courage, take personal courage, stand up, don’t lie, be honest about who you are. In addition, you got to trust the people that are in your unit. I trusted my unit so much that they should know who I am. And they respected the fact that I trusted them that much. It actually strengthened the unit, because now we’re – hey, we’re trusting each other enough that we’re a family. We support each other. And no soldier should be isolated. No leader allows their soldier to be alone.

COSTELLO: Now, I know that your unit has been great toward you. I mean, they really get it. But you said you’re going to fight this tooth and nail.

CHOI: Right.

COSTELLO: How can you fight this when, you know, it’s moving slowly through Congress and the president is not exactly moving forward on this at lightning speed.

CHOI: I have a lot – I have a couple of options. They said that you can just resign and we’ll give you an honorable discharge. You can just be quiet and go away. Or you can go up before a board and argue why you should stay in. With help from a group of legal experts, service members, legal defense network. They’ve helped a lot of soldiers go through these legal proceedings.

And I said, no, I want to prove that being in the military is something that’s good for all Americans. And I’m just one of them. There’s so many thousands of them out there. And taking a stand and being a leader is more important. Doing the right thing is more important than following a law that says, don’t ask, don’t tell. You got to hide, you got to lie.

COSTELLO: Then getting an honorable discharge.

CHOI: Right. You take the consequences. And it’s more about what your responsibilities are than what you want or what you’re comfortable with.

COSTELLO: Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate it, lieutenant.

CHOI: Thank you.

—————–

3-19 Conspiracy at the Rachel Maddow show involving Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?
3-21 Lt Dan Choi: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has got to go
5-6 Lt Dan Choi kicked out of Guard b/c he’s gay
5-7 Rachel Maddow: Lt Dan Choi re: his dismissal from the Army

Larry King: Joel and Victoria Osteen

April 8, 2009

The Osteens were on Larry King Live weighing in on same-sex marriage. Joel and his wife Victoria Osteen co-pastor Lakewood Church in Houston, TX, which is the largest congregation in the US. Wonder why barry didn't pick them for optimal panderment. I find them disturbing in that they have that glazed over look of religious cult figures - just the same as obamessiah's followers.

They weigh in on their fellow cult leader, barry. From the CNN transcript.

Larry King: Since you were last on, we have sworn in our first African-American president. What are your impressions [of Barack Obama]?

Joel Osteen: Well, I think he's doing a great job. I'm impressed with his skill, his calmness, his just strength under pressure. These are tough times for him.

King: And you, Victoria?

Victoria Osteen: I've been really impressed. In fact, I've been impressed [with] the first lady. She stepped up, and she's done a remarkable job.

King: Recent polls show 12 percent of Americans still believe Obama is a Muslim, and 35 percent say they don't know his religion, but to most of them it don't matter. Should it matter?

It matters in that when barry's in front of the Arab world, he's barry hussein and yet on the campaign trail that was considered racist. Par for the course. Whatever is politically expedient is what barry will do. And here's the question folks seem to leave out: Why should it matter? The fact that it is still being asked leaves the impression that it is a bad thing to be Muslim. Was the electorate polled as to what religion folks thought Secretary Hillary Clinton or Senator John McCain practiced, if any?

Joel Osteen: Well, it matters to me. It matters to me that I know he loves the Lord, and I think it's important that he has convictions from his faith. So to me, it matters when I'm making my personal decisions.

King: Does it matter to you, Victoria?

Victoria Osteen: It does. It matters to me. ... I believe he is a Christian.

And here's wehre the glazed look comes into play - they wrote a Bible. Yes, a Bible. They wrote a book and had the audacity to title it "Bible". Worshipping false idols who create their own Bible that some might even call it a manifesto is a sin, isn't it? Wonder how much it costs. These folks in their search for optimism and spreading of the faith have no problem collecting money from the poor and depressed.

King: The "Hope for Today Bible." This is a new Bible [from you]. How is this different from other Bibles?

Joel Osteen: It's a living translation of the Bible, which is an easy version to read. And then it's got our notes besides certain passages. And it's just to help people maybe to understand the Bible a little bit easier.

In their own words. They are equating their words with those in the Bible. Now their version of love thy neighbor as thyself and do not judge lest ye be judged.

King: Do you think that eventually many more states are going to allow same-sex marriage?

Joel Osteen: You know, I don't know where it's all going ... I'd love to see it stay between a male and a female, not knocking [up haha] anybody else.

King: Supposing there were more states that had it. What would be the harm?

Victoria Osteen: We really want to see marriage between a man and a woman. There [are] going to be people who get together and have relationships and have what they call their families. But I just think marriage should be sanctified by the church. It should be between a man and a woman.

King: Should a gay couple be allowed to adopt?

Joel Osteen: I think that, again, it's best for a male and a female. I'm not saying that gay people aren't good people. ...

King: Or good parents. Watch Larry King's interview with the Osteens »

Joel Osteen: Yeah, exactly. But again, I like to shoot for God's best, and that is a father and a mother in the home. It doesn't always happen. I know a lot of people raised by single parents. And you know what? We bless them and pray for them as well. But I think God's best is a male and female.

God's best are parent(s) who don't abuse their child, who love them as they are and raise them in tolerance.

CBS Poll: Same-sex marriage
Iowa legalizes same-sex marriage
GOP reacts to Iowa’s same-sex marriage ruling
Iowa to become “gay marriage Mecca”?
Vermont legalizes same-sex marriage
Larry King: Joel and Victoria Osteen
Larry King: Pastor Rick Warren

Barnicle's insight into the Rick Warren issue

December 22, 2008

Hardball

Mike Barnicle really is clueless. He of the Hillary reminds everyone of their first wife standing outside probate court comment. See his lack of spine hosting Mike Rogers vs Rev Rivers.

courtesy of SwimmingPolarBear

BARNICLE: If you took Cambridge MA, Georgetown DC, the Upper West Side of NY, Santa Monica and San Francisco, CA out of the Rick Warren debate... There would be no debate. Do you agree with that?

BERNARD: [Laughs.] That is actually very true....

BARNICLE: [Derisively] Well. We're all going to get together over Rick Warren.

Shepard Fairey's thoughts on barry's choice of Warren

december 19, 2008

TIME Magazine named barry 2008 Person of the Year and used as its cover a poster made by Shepard Fairey. See his video interview on the making of the poster.

FAIREY: Tomorrow my illustration for Time Magazine’s “Person of The Year” hits the newsstands. While I’m very honored to be validated by a periodical that is nothing short of an American institution, the moment is bittersweet because I’m very disappointed by Obama’s appointment of Rick Warren to deliver his invocation during Obama’s inaugural address. Rick Warren is against gay marriage and reproductive rights, and he does not believe in evolution (maybe he offers himself as proof of lack of evolution). I understand that Obama is trying to appeal to conservatives and evangelicals, but this move is symbolically a slap in the face to many people.

Warren is not a uniter, but a divider… he is intolerant in many of his views. I still think Obama is the best choice for president, but I can’t condone Warren’s involvement in Obama’s inauguration, no matter how insignificant it is. While I’m on the subject of gay marriage, I will be donating a chunk of the proceeds from an inauguration poster of Obama I was asked to create to the movement to overturn Prop 8. At first I was considering pulling my inauguration poster, but I think re-directing funds from it to put into a cause I care about is actually more constructive. Plus, I wouldn’t want withdrawing the image to come across as a blanket boycott of Obama. I’m sure I will ultimately disagree with Obama about many things, but I think I will agree with him on more. I think it is important to speak one’s mind, but also to not let the narcissism of petty differences sabotage our unity and progress.

Quote of the day: "What do you mean by 'my community'?"

December 22, 2008

Hardball

Barnicle, Rev Rivers and Mike Rogers are discussing barry's choice of Rick Warren and the impact on the LGBT community. Where is Keith Boykin hiding? How Warren is a divisive figure politically with his opposition to Prop 8 and the misinformation he promulgated. Rev Rivers thinks it's just a "pseudo-controversy". Listen to the righteous indignation in his voice and how he talks over Mike Rogers. His loud defensiveness and dismissive body language gives him away. He does not like gay folks. Why is there an extra stigma in the black "community" - especially for men? Mr Rogers sits there calmly explaining his position. Really quite remarkable. Kudos. I would have enjoyed watching him handle barama matthews.

courtesy of firedoglake

BARNICLE: What bothers you about Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren?

ROGERS:...In picking Rick Warren, [barry] picked somebody who has basically used gays in the cultural war by attacking gay relationships in the Prop 8 battle. And I think he was a bad choice, not again because of his religious beliefs, but because of his political activity. I think that the community has a right and in fact mandate and a need to stand up and object to theat behavior.

He mentions how Saddleback's website has toned down the previous openly homophobic language -- like Wright's did and barry did after Wright, Pfleger, New Black Panther Party...

BARNICLE: We're already making progress here. Rev Rivers, isn't tolerance a larger issue here than Mr Warren's appearance at the Inauguration?

RIVERS: Oh, absolutely! I think this is basically a pseudo-controversy that's been fabricated by the sorta anti-religious left. [Then he goes a'ranting - loud and angry.]...Anyone that has actually does their homework and researches what Rick in fact does...

BARNICLE: Gene, are you saying that Mr Rogers hasn't done his homework?

RIVERS: Obviously! Listen! Point of fact--

Slaps his hand in his palm (3:30) and talks louder and louder and continues talking over Rogers. Barnicle can't host a show. Eventually he lets Rogers speak but Rivers speaks over him again.

ROGERS: ...where you are forced to come on and defend Rick Warren- the very fact that this argument is happening shows the power if the gay community...

RIVERS (4:11) laughs dismissively, shrugs and turns his head to the right. Power, yeah right...who cares. This sure reveals a lot about him. He goes beyond defending warren and barry - he shows his obvious disdain for the gay community. And he does so freely without any attempt to hide it. I've watched him a lot of times starting when he came out against wright and was pist at barry - but this is the most agitated I've seen him.

Now this is absolutely ridiculous. Barnicle has spent the last two years referring to the African American *community*. They don't listen to their guests and it's clear not even to themselves. Don't they ever get embarrassed by their lunacy?

BARNICLE: Hey, Mr Rogers, let me ask you a question. You just referred in your response to - you used the phrase *my community*. What do you mean by my community? Aren't we all part of the one community in this country? Or ought we not to be part of one community?

RIVERS: Amen!

Amen is right. How many times have we hear Rev Rivers say that white America doesn't understand the black community? That wright isn't so bad because whites just don't understand black churches. And what barry's election is doing for the black community - African American if you like. Why don't these folks listen to themselves?

Rogers then makes his point that the gay community hasn't changed - but Warren has because he was confronted.

RIVERS: Mr Rogers. Listen! Mr Rogers, if YOU are happy and feel better, president-elect Obama, Rick Warrren and myself are happy. It's a great advent experience. If you're feeling better that's a good thing. Issue resolved!

What can you say to this? He interjects himself and puts himself on par with barry and Warren.

ROGERS: I think it is an improvement. What I would like to see, and I'd like to hear you agree with it, is that Rick Warren convenes and sits down, again, behind closed doors, none of the showmanship up on the stage, and trotting everybody out. But sits down with the leadership of our community--the gay leadership--and says I'd like to build a bridge. Sit down with the Human Rights Campaign, sit down with National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Religious Roundtable and show me that your speech is really about reaching out and that it's really about uniting America. And if you can't sit down, and have those meetings with the community, then I think that really shows what you're really about.

Barnicle tries to speak and Rivers cuts him off.

RIVERS: (INDIGNANT!) No. No. No. No. Mr Rogers. Mr Rogers, listen ...

ROGERS: (Calm) Sure.

RIVERS: Uhm, it would be presumptuous of you to suggest that if Reverend Warren doesn't sit down with your particular CREW [He sits forward and shakes his body in a dismissive manner], that somehow that's an act of bad faith. That's a political trick.

Imagine the black community being referred to as a "particular crew". Never happen. Nothing is taken seriously but race.

ROGERS: If Rev Rick Warren is a so-called leader in the evangelical movement who represents the evangelical movement on a national level--

RIVERS: White evangelical.

ROGERS:...certainly it's appropriate for him to sit down with the national leaders of the gay and lesbian movement -- let's not parse the exact phrases-

BARNICLE: We've got to wrap it up there.

RIVERS: We're all happy now! [laughs]

BARNICLE: We're all happy now.

Yeah because they did their bit. What are the chances warren is going to have such a meeting? And what's the likelihood of the proobamedia making sure it happens and Rev Rivers is there?

Quote of the day: "open homosexuality in the showers not a good thing for the discipline of the troops"

December 22, 2008

I am appalled at what gay code words folks use and get away with. The bashing that occurs right out in the open. Racism is the only prejudice that has been discussed. No other prejudice is taken seriously. First sexism - whining. Ageism - punchline. Homophobia - you can't be serious. How is this a step closer to a More Perfect Union? Bigotry is bigotry. Either all are offensive or none are.

This election cycle has been a farce. barry's transcending race and partisanship? Bringing people together? Uniting the cosmos and transforming the world! Kumbaya my Lord, what are you people drinking?

Hope is an individual choice. Change! is another sunrise. Reality requires action. barry has not yet made a single unilateral decision with personal consequence. The very first time he does it will be in the White House. You ok with that? At 3am or otherwise? Do you really believe he can make a decision in 15 seconds?

Here's Pat Robertson doing what he does best while discussing Don't Ask Don't Tell with Suzanne Malveaux on CNN after he says "he's very pleased so far" with barry. So far the operative words. So far he has done nothing but appoint people. His most important appointment - his Chief of Staff - may end up being subpoenaed. barry may too...just like he was named on Rezko's indictment.

Courtesy of SwimmingPolarBear

CNN Transcript

MALVEAUX: Are you looking forward to an Obama administration, a change?

ROBERTSON: You know, I am remarkably pleased with Obama. I had grave misgivings about him, but so help me, he's come in forcefully, intelligently. He's picked a middle-of-the-road cabinet. And so far, if he continues down this course, he has the makings of a great president. So I'm very pleased so far.

MALVEAUX: What do you think of the pick as Rick Warren, the evangelical leader, as the one to deliver the invocation at his inauguration? Obviously, a controversial pick. And there are some conservatives who believe that, perhaps, he's being used as a pawn. I want to give you this quote here by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He says, "Let's hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new president to press him for more pro-family policies, rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals." [One of the enlightened few.]

Do you think that Warren is being used by Mr. Obama?

ROBERTSON: I don't think so. I think Rick is an extraordinarily able person....He's a very dynamic individual. And I don't think he's going to be anybody's pawn. He has his own agenda and I think he'll stick to it. But after all, all he's been asked to do is give an invocation. He isn't asked to endorse Obama. He's going to stand up there on the steps of the Capitol and he's going to say, "God, please bless this country," and he will do that very well.

MALVEAUX: There are others who are upset by that pick. Obviously, there are some gay activists who have expressed concern about it because he's not for pro-gay marriage

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLIN POWELL, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: We definitely should reevaluate it. It's been 15 years since we put in "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which was a policy that became a law. I didn't want it to become a law, but it became a law. Congress felt that strongly about it. But it's been 15 years and attitudes have changed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MALVEAUX: Do you think it's time to put that policy aside and to let gays serve openly in the military?

ROBERTSON: Well, you know, I think I would leave that to the field commanders. And it seemed to be the unanimous decision of the military leadership that the question of open homosexuality in the barracks and showers and all the rest of it was not a good thing for the discipline of the troops...I'm not sure that we ought to change that. It's worked pretty well so far.

That may be - but not for women in the military. Female soldiers are more likely to be raped than killed by enemy fire in Iraq. Gay men in the shower is a blip on the radar, especially when it is consensual.