10 years after 9/11 - My Love Affair with New York City

In 1642, a Dutch ship owner named Bastiaen Van Kortrijk carried a group of settlers to the newly-found colony of Nieuw-Amsterdam. In return for helping to populate the new colony, he was awarded a land grant (or Manor) in what is today called “The Bronx.” His descendents would marry into the Corsa (or Corszen, or DeCoursey) family, who would occupy that land until after the American Revolution, when it was divided and sold off to pay debts (today these lands are better known as Fordham University, the Bronx Botanical Gardens, and the Bronx Zoo.)

The early days of New Amsterdam reflected a spirit of tolerance and diversity that was ground-breaking for its day. Within a decade of its founding, 18 different languages were being spoken in New Amsterdam. The Dutch, in fact, were a minority in their own colony, as Portuguese, free Africans, Germans, French, English, Swedes, Hispanics, native West Indians and Brazilians, Poles, and Bohemians settled the Colony...a far cry from modern nativist cries for an “English-Only!” country. Unlike the strict religious codes of Puritan New England, New Amsterdam guaranteed religious freedom for all, making it a favored destination for immigrating Jews and Quakers. And while the British Crown was guaranteeing a monopoly on all trans-Atlantic Trade for the British East India Company, free global trade was the norm for companies in New Amsterdam.

It’s no wonder that New York Times editorialist Russell Shorto called the people of New Amsterdam, the “UnPilgrims.” Tolerant, diverse, liberal, and commerce-oriented, these people were the founders of New York City…and are the deepest roots of my own family tree.

The Van Kortrijk - Corsa family and their descendents would live though more than 350 years of New York history. They would serve as local guides in George Washington’s army, as the first lithographers at South Street Seaport during the Civil War, and as blacksmiths on the Hyde Park Vanderbilt estate. Three centuries after landing on New York’s shore, my father would be born – where else, but in New York City. He would marry into another local New York family that had, in part, made its mark operating speakeasies during Prohibition – The Riviera, The Chop House, the Lafayette Grill – on Long Island’s south shore in the City of Long Beach. I would be raised not far from there, in Baldwin Harbor, growing up close to the bays and clam flats at a time when living near the canals meant you were on ‘the wrong side of the tracks.’ Accordingly, we were known as “Harbor Rats” and “Clamdiggers.”

One of the most enduring institutions on Long Island – the center of our social circle – were the volunteer Fire Departments. My great-grandfather would serve as Chief of Long Beach; my grandfather, Captain of Hose Company #1 in Baldwin; and my father, as Chief. My Uncle would follow him as Chief, and my cousin remains, to this day, an EMT in Brooklyn. The calendar of our lives was comprised of Parades (My sister and I were both in the Fire Department Drum & Bugle Corps), Tournaments, Department picnics and Christmas parties and installation dinners – and punctuated by the anguish of knowing that loved ones were in the middle of buildings aflame almost every day of the year. The sound of the fire alarm put us all on edge in a way that is hard to convey to those who have not lived with the daily risks to a firefighter’s life.

And so it is in that life-context that I watched in horror as the World Trade Center, one of the iconic symbols of New York City, began collapsing on itself – and on the firefighters and fellow New Yorkers trapped inside.

As one of my friends so poignantly reflected some weeks later in a letter, “Not a single neighborhood on Long Island has been untouched.” My best childhood friend would recount to me the horror of running through lower Manhattan – having been late for his appointment at the World Trade Center – as parts of bodies landed around him and on him. My brother-in-laws' (Bill) family, all New York City residents and workers, would take various routes home, including joining thousands walking over the Brooklyn Bridge. Bill, a hospital administrator, was supposed to be in New York City going over architectural plans...but to quote my sister, "..someone called to tell us Bill was back in the hospital preparing for what would never come---survivors." My cousin, the EMT, would lose six men from his company when the South Tower came down.

And I would stand with fellow New York natives where I worked, and watch, and feel helpless.

In the 10 years since that day, I figure that I have been back to NYC perhaps some 50 or 60 times. Each time, as I approach, I get a bit more animated, talk a little bit faster, and smile a little more broadly. Wo-Hops in Chinatown, concerts in Central Park, Ty's and Rockbar in The Village, Sici's in Soho, the pace of the Financial District, The Eagle in Chelsea, student hostels in Morningside Heights, Conways in the Garment District, Shows and Bubba Gumps in the Theater District, my old office and Saturday Night Live studios in Rockefeller Center, The Boilerroom and funky vintage shops of the Lower East Side & Alphabet City, taking in the Cloisters at Fort Tryon Park, outside dining and Tiramisu in Little Italy...and pizza everywhere. I can't get enough.

And in those 10 years, I have been back to Ground Zero at least half a dozen times. I cry each time, without fail, and I do not expect that will ever change. Actually, I do more than cry - I fall apart. Yes, it was an attack on the United States, on western civilization, on capitalism, and on freedom. But for me, it was more than that.

It was an attack on MY city. MY home. MY family. Almost 400 years of MY ancestor’s footprints on a city that outshines every other city in the world in its energy, its excellence, its diversity, its drive.

And while others felt they needed to flee New York in the aftermath of 9/11, I had the opposite reaction. Everything in me screamed, “No one can f*ck with my city like that and get away with it.!”

I may be currently living in New England, but I am wrapping that up. Someday – soon - I WILL return to my Home.

As Daddy Warbucks sings in “Annie,”

“What is it about you?
You're big - You're loud - You're tough
N.Y.C. - I go years without you
Then I can't get Enough!

Enough of the cab drivers answering back
In the language far from pure
Enough of frankfurters answering back
Brother, you know you're in NYC…

Too busy, Too crazy…
Too hot, Too cold, Too late, I'm sold
Again, On NYC

….Oh NYC
You make 'em all postcards
You crowd, You cramp…You're still the champ
Amen For NYC

The shimmer of Times Square
The pulse, The beat, The drive!

….Oh, NYC
The whole world keeps coming
By bus, By train, You can't explain
Their yen for NYC

NYC
You're standing room only
You crowd, You cramp
You're still the champ
Amen For NYC

"Labor Day" - or "Capital Day?"

[related, updated post at  Republicans, Democrats AWOL on Taft-Hartley]

The following editorial was written by E. J. Dionne, a native of Fall River, a senior fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution, a professor at Georgetown University, and an NPR commentator.

In a time when labor is under attack, it is worth a read on this Labor Day weekend....and worth our time, as we prepare to launch a new academic year, to recommit ourselves to support labor's voice and muscle

- Tully

Let’s get it over with and rename the holiday “Capital Day.” We may still celebrate Labor Day, but our culture has given up on honoring workers as the real creators of wealth and their honest toil — the phrase itself seems antique — as worthy of genuine respect.

Imagine a Republican saying this: “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

These heretical thoughts would inspire horror among our friends at Fox News or in the tea party. They’d likely label them as Marxist, socialist or Big Labor propaganda. Too bad for Abraham Lincoln, our first Republican president, who offered those words in his annual message to Congress in 1861. Will President Obama dare say anything like this in his jobs speech this week?

As for the unions, they are often treated in the media as advocates of arcane work rules, protectors of inefficient public employees and obstacles to the economic growth our bold entrepreneurs would let loose if only they were free from labor regulations.

So it would take a brave man to point out that unions “grew up from the struggle of the workers — workers in general but especially the industrial workers — to protect their just rights vis-a-vis the entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production,” or to insist that “the experience of history teaches that organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life.”

That’s what Pope John Paul II said (the italics are his) in the 1981 encyclical Laborem exercens. Like Lincoln, John Paul repeatedly asserted “the priority of labor over capital.”

That the language of Lincoln and John Paul is so distant from our experience is a sign of an enormous cultural shift. In scores of different ways, we paint investors as the heroes and workers as the sideshow. We tax the fruits of labor more vigorously than we tax the gains from capital — resistance to continuing the payroll tax cut is a case in point — and we hide workers away while lavishing attention on those who make their livings by moving money around.

Consider that what the media call economics reporting is largely finance reporting. Once upon a time, a lively band of labor reporters covered the world of work and the unions. If you stipulate that the decline of unions makes the old labor beat a bit less compelling, there are still tens of millions of workers who do their jobs every day. But when the labor beat withered, it was rarely replaced by a work beat. Workers have vanished.

But we are now inundated with news (and “news”) about the world of capital. CNBC and the other financial media are for investors what ESPN is for sports junkies. We cheer the markets, learn the obscure language of hedge fund managers, and get to know some of the big investors in off-field interviews. Workers are regarded as factors of production. At best, they’re consumers; at worst, they’re “labor costs” cutting into profits and the sacred stock price.

They have faded away in both high and popular culture, too. Can you point to someone “who makes art out of working-class lives by refusing to prettify them”?

The phrase comes from a 2006 essay by the critic William Deresiewicz who observed that we no longer have few novelists such as John Steinbeck or John Dos Passos who take the lives of working people seriously. Nor do we have television shows along the lines of “The Honeymooners” or even “All in the Family,” which were parodies of an affectionate sort. “First we stopped noticing members of the working class,” Deresiewicz wrote, “and now we’re convinced they don’t exist.”

In his extraordinary book “Stayin’ Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class,” Jefferson Cowie spoke of how little we identify working-class people with their labor. “Workers occasionally reappeared in public discourse as ‘Reagan Democrats’ — later as ‘NASCAR Dads,’” he wrote, “or the victims of another plant shutdown or as irrational protectionist and protesters of free trade, but rarely did they appear as workers.”

With the worker disappearing from our media and our consciousness, isn’t it only a matter of time before Labor Day falls off the calendar? As long as it’s there, it should shame us about our cool indifference to the heroism of those who go to work every day.

Copyright 2011 The Herald News.

What Democrats can do about Obama

A liberal argues that the 2012 Democratic nomination should be debated -- with all options open

(This article by Matt Stoller first appeared 2 hours ago on salon.com)
From the debt ceiling fiasco to the recent rescheduling of a jobs speech at the behest of Speaker Boehner, it has not been a good summer for President Obama. Like Chinese water torture, Gallup's daily tracking poll has shown a steady and unrelenting drip of bad news. He has been in and out of the high 30s for his approval, and in the low to mid-50s for his disapproval.

George W. Bush's approval rating didn't drop this low until Katrina hit. And on the economy, 71 percent of Americans disapprove of how Obama is doing his job. Even among reliably Democratic groups -- union households, women and young people -- he's now unpopular.

No one, not even the president's defenders, expect his coming jobs speech to mean anything. When the president spoke during a recent market swoon, the market dropped another 100 points. Democrats may soon have to confront an uncomfortable truth, and ask whether Obama is a suitable choice at the top of the ticket in 2012. They may then have to ask themselves if there's any way they can push him off the top of the ticket.

That these questions have not yet been asked in any serious way shows how weak the Democratic Party is as a political organization. Yet this political weakness is not inevitable, it can be changed through courage and collective action by a few party insiders smart and principled enough to understand the value of a public debate, and by activists who are courageous enough to face the real legacy of the Obama years.

Obama has ruined the Democratic Party. The 2010 wipeout was an electoral catastrophe so bad you'd have to go back to 1894 to find comparable losses. From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low.

Of course, there are many rationalizations for Obama to remain the nominee. He's faced difficult opposition. He's passed major legislation. His presidency is historic. The economy is hard to resuscitate. But all such rationalizations evade the party's responsibilities to actually choose the nominee best suited to win votes. If Obama looks unlikely to get enough votes to win, he should not get the nomination.

If would be one thing if Obama were failing because he was too close to party orthodoxy. Yet his failures have come precisely because Obama has not listened to Democratic Party voters. He continued idiotic wars, bailed out banks, ignored luminaries like Paul Krugman, and generally did whatever he could to repudiate the New Deal. The Democratic Party should be the party of pay raises and homes, but under Obama it has become the party of pay cuts and foreclosures. Getting rid of Obama as the head of the party is the first step in reverting to form.

So why isn't there a legitimate primary challenger to Obama to make this case? Forty years ago, primaries were instituted in the Democratic Party as a response to party insiders having too much influence over nominations. These reforms were implemented before the prevalence of money in politics was as extreme as it is now. At this point, primary challenges are so expensive that a serious 2012 campaign would ironically require support of party insiders for viability. The party, inflexible as it was in 1968, is perhaps even more rigid today. As a result, no candidate has stepped up to challenge Obama in a primary, even though 32 percent of Democratic voters want one.

This is an institutional crisis for Democrats. The groups that fund and organize the party -- an uneasy alliance of financiers, conservative technology interests, the telecommunications industry, healthcare industries, labor unions, feminists, elite foundations, African-American church networks, academic elites, liberals at groups like MoveOn, the ACLU and the blogosphere -- are frustrated, but not one of them has broken from the pack. In remaining silent, they give their assent to the right-wing policy framework that first George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama, cemented in place. It will be nearly impossible to dislodge such a framework without starting within the Democratic Party itself.

In other words, party inflexibility has a price. If the economy worsens going into the fall, and the president continues as he has to attempt to cut Social Security, Democrats might be facing a Carter-Reagan scenario. Reagan, at first considered a lightweight candidate, ended up winning a landslide victory that devastated the Democratic Party in 1980. Carter wasn't the only loss; many significant liberal senators, such as George McGovern, John Culver and Birch Bayh, fell that year.

Today, it's clear that certain Democratic constituency groups -- unions especially -- are on their deathbed. A reinvigoration of debate over the nature of the American workplace is desperately needed, yet labor leaders seem to prefer supplicating quietly to politicians who betray them. This is not inevitable. People can show dignity.

So what can party leaders do? History offers one model. In 1892, the Democratic Party nominated Grover Cleveland, and with sweeping majorities in both houses, Democrats had control of the federal government for the first time since before the Civil War. Then a financial crisis, plus Cleveland's stubborn allegiance to banking interests, turned his presidency into a catastrophe for Democrats.

When taking state candidates into account, the 1894 midterm elections were comparable to the 2010 wipeout; Cleveland was disliked so ardently that party leaders pushed him out of running for reelection. Instead the Democrats nominated William Jennings Bryan, who introduced many populist themes into the party and began the ideological transformation that would culminate with the election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. If a few of the key constituency groups in the Democratic Party publicly wondered whether Obama should run for reelection, rumblings would start. Some organized constituency groups -- say some components of the AFL-CIO -- would need to announce that their support is up for grabs, based on a clear set of criteria. Given the Obama administration's rampant anti-labor policies, this wouldn't be an unreasonable posture. And then a senior politician, like, say, a Tom Harkin, would need to decide that he would want to encourage robust intra-party debate about the party's future.

Harkin could run as a "favorite son" of Iowa, and encourage people in the caucuses to send a message to the party and to Obama by choosing him. Other candidates could then emerge in early primary and caucus states, as a way of repudiating Obama's leadership. Candidates wouldn't have to pretend to be running for president or be presidential quality; they could simply stand in as favorite sons or daughters of their own geographic area. This would immediately fire up a highly aggressive and needed debate about the direction of the Democratic Party and the country at large. It would build a new set of leaders, and elevate others who would like to distance themselves from the Obama policy agenda.

In a few months, we'll know better if Obama still looks like a loser next year. If he does, that does not mean the Democratic Party must follow him down the path to oblivion.

For Obama, the die is cast. He has put forward his economic program, and it will work to return jobs and income, and get the votes, or it won't. Knocking on doors won't change that, nor will a donation in a $6 billion election season. What can change the reality of 2012 is if Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO, begins to take his job of representing workers seriously, and one or two establishment Democrats who remember liberalism decide to model courage for the younger generation. Then a robust debate can happen. Only by shaking up the current political order will solutions emerge.

Such debates tend to create institutional reforms -- the vibrant antiwar blogosphere of 2002-2006, and eventually the Obama campaign itself, emerged out of such a series of debates. Such a debate would also force the Obama campaign to come up with some answers to questions it would prefer to defer until after the election: Where are the jobs, and what is the plan to stop foreclosures? It would allow millions of Americans who have been hurt -- and who have benefited -- from administration policies, to have their say.

I wish I could say I was optimistic that party leaders will step forward and start the debate Democratic voters need. As for many, the last few years have shattered my faith in the political process. Obama has basically endorsed every major plank of George Bush's administration, yet Democrats still grant their approval. What we're finding out is that Obama's pathologically pro-establishment and conflict-averse DNA was funded by party insiders and embraced by liberal constituency groups in 2008 for a reason.

Political parties need to be flexible enough to allow for new ideas to come into the process, or else third parties or civil disorder are inevitable. All it would take to provide this flexibility are well-known Democratic elders who understand that rank and file Democrats deserve a choice, and a few political insiders who realize that they can increase their own power by encouraging a robust debate. I don't think this will happen. But just imagine if it did.

Matt Stoller is a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. His twitter feed is @matthewstoller and he can be reached at stoller at gmail.com.

The Fed has been the Problem, not the Answer...

Investors, bankers, economists, politicians, and media sources around the world are looking to “The Fed” today for a response to the collapsing world economy. Like Munchkins running to see what The Wizard says about the evil in the sky, one wonders if they will be comforted for long by the grandiose display of smoke and mirrors to which they will be treated.

The Federal Reserve System (“The Fed”) is, inarguably, the single most powerful institution in the American economy. Almost completely removed from accountability to democratic processes, the Fed’s manipulation of the nation’s money supply is believed by many to have been a prime cause of the 1929 stock crash and depression…and here we have history repeating itself. Rather than being the economy’s savior, it has painted itself into a corner. It will make soothing announcements this afternoon as to how it is on the job, but the reality is that it is out of options.

The Federal Open Market Committee (or “FOMC”) of the Federal Reserve System is a committee comprised of the 7 Governors of the System, the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, and 4 other rotating Regional Fed Bank Presidents. Traditionally, they have authority in three areas:

1) The Discount Rate. This is the interest rate that the Fed charges member banks to borrow money. By lowering the Discount rate, local banks are able to borrow money cheaply, and then lend it out to consumers at fairly reasonable rates. By making loan money available, this stimulates borrowing, and spending, and it is hoped, begins to prop up the economy. However, the Discount Rate has already been lowered to one quarter of one percent...and banks are not lowering the rates they charge consumers, nor are they even making loans to consumers, and few businesses are borrowing in order to expand. The Fed is at the end of their rope with this tool, with nowhere to go.

2. The Reserve Ratio. This is the amount of money that the Fed requires banks to physically have on-hand, in each members vaults, in case of a bank run by the public (This is currently 10%). Lowering the Ratio means that banks have more to lend…but if no one’s borrowing, and banks aren’t willing to lend, it has no effect. And lowering the ratio only puts banks in a more precarious position if the public gets nervous and decided to withdraw cash. This could be an even larger problem in Europe, where the Eurozone Reserve Ratio is a paltry 2%. No option here.

3. And then there’s “Open Market Operations,” routinely paired of late with operations called “Quantitative Easing.” In 2008 the Fed engaged in large-scale purchases of bonds from their member banks, which amounted to printing money to replace the ‘paper’ that their own member banks held. This was the first round, called “QE 1,” which was quickly followed by a second round (“QE2.”) .

Neither effort helped the economy at large. Of course, that was not the point: The Fed was trying to bail out banks that had lost trillions due to their gambling on junk mortgage derivatives. In other words, the Fed created money to replace what the banks lost. None of this had any effect in funding business expansion or employment or consumption.

So what did happen to the money infused into the banks under QE1 and QE2? Businesses that can’t sell products can’t borrow. People who are out of work can’t borrow.

The US government has been cash-strapped as a result of a huge loss in revenues – tax revenues lost because of Republican demands to protect the wealthy from taxes, combined with 20% of the American workforce having no income, or less income, than before the recession began. So the US government decided it would borrow the money back from the banks, and pay them between 3 and 4 percent. Banks made a rational decision to make these loans. For the government and the banks, it was a win-win situation: the government raised the cash it needed, and banks had a profitable investment.

So, the banks received money printed by the Fed, and then used that money to lend it back to the US Government at 4%...paid for by the American taxpayer. In essence, you, my friends, are paying interest on the money you loaned your own government. Quite a racket, eh? How much money are we talking about here? 23 TRILLION dollars. Hence, a problem of having more debt than we can reasonably foresee paying back.

No, the Fed can not dig us out of the hole they dug us into. They will give reassuring comments this afternoon, but the man behind the curtain is a charlatan.

Politicians on the Left and the Right share blame in this mess. From the left, there has been a call to spend even more, while the right screams about cutting spending. And on that note, we are in a catch-22.

The first round of Stimulus Spending was a failure. Government can not pour money into an economy, cross its fingers, and “hope it all works out.” We have heard that the economy has been slowly improving, though some inthe last few days raised the fears of another recession. Well I have news for you: we never exited the first recession.

The amount of ‘growth’ in our nations GDP the last few quarters has been less than what is needed simply to keep up with deferred maintenance; we have not stopped falling behind since the 2008 crash.

Banks and Wall Street may be sighing a bit of relief because they got through the days when Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and Countrywide and AIG were melting down – but their restructuring did little to affect the national employment situation. The glimmer of hope we thought we saw was merely a brief ‘blip’ when the stimulus money hit the banks – and now its gone. Gone to pay debt, gone to overseas markets, gone everywhere except American jobs.

But the right's answer of slashing spending at every turn is just as wreckless. Unwilling to cease spending trillions of dollars on overseas adventures, slashing domestic spending means people here at home get hurt. Unemployed, sick, hungry, homeless, and hurting people do not create a vibrant economy. In my home state of New Hampshire, we are watching as over 500 jobs are being cut from hospitals as a result of budget slashing…this, in an industry (health care) that has the best prospects for job growth in the years ahead as our population ages. In Wisconisin and New Hampshire, we see efforts to end union benefits: not to prop up the economy, but to impoverish and punish and reduce the compensation that workers get. That's not a way to instill consumer confidence and stimulate purchases from hurting businesses.

Has anyone else noticed the explosion of home auctions, homes for sale, and "Business Closed" signs around? I sure have, and here in NH we are told that our unemloyment rate is only half that of the rest of the nation!

There are no easy answers ahead. Unless and until corporate profits are required to be shared with the labor producing them rather than hoarded by 6- and 7-figure paycheck Executives....and unless and until banks are forced to engage in lending to consumers and businesses rather than the government...unless and until the government matches revenues with expenditures…we are in for a long period – perhaps an entire generation – of economic unrest.

Iowa's Ignorance and HIV

In 1998, Iowa politicians enacted a law that criminalized potential HIV transmission as a Class B felony. The sentence designates the ‘carrier’ as a felon, imposes a sentence of up to 25 years in prison, and assigns him lifelong sex-offender status, even if the contact was consensual. Under the law, a person aware of his or her positive HIV status does not actually have to transmit the HIV virus, they only have to engage in intimate contact with another person.

The penalty exceeds that for manslaughter.

Since the law was enacted, 26 people have been convicted under the law; nine people currently sit behind bars. The cost to taxpayers is an estimated annual cost of $31,500 per inmate, plus medical costs of $24,000 annually per inmate.

The cost to the incarcerated is the destruction of their life for the crime of being human and having an illness.

Last year, the Iowa legislature defeated an effort to repeal the law, considered the most backwards and punitive (I would add ‘medieval’) in the country. Of course, this is Iowa, a state where right-wing fundamentalists are well-organized in the electoral processes and have handed presidential caucus victories to Pat Robertson in 1988 and Mike Huckabee just four years ago. Reason and Science need not apply...

Supporters of the law have a well-honed mantra that follows this general pattern:

“HIV/AIDs is a deadly disease that is a death sentence. When you know you have it and you are intimate with someone, you are infecting them, and committing an assault on them that is as dangerous as any other form of slow murder.”

In reality, much of the support for this law comes from those who look down on all sexual activity in general, and consider homosexuality in particular to be an abomination. Puritanical theology is the root of their desire to punish these people, not health. Nonetheless, in the battle of legislative processes, and insuring under the US Constitution that no excessive punishments be imposed for ‘crimes,’ it is important to address their stated reasoning above…and certainly time to educate the legislators and the public. I have been wanting to post this for a while, and the Iowa law was the tipping point.

1. HIV is not AIDs. Say that out loud. Again. HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) is a virus that attacks the immune system, as do thousands of viruses. The HIV virus may lead to AIDs as a long-term complication of the viral attack, but HIV is not AIDs any more than blindness or neuropathy is the same thing as diabetes. One may cause the other, but they are not the same thing.

2. HIV is not a death sentence. Gay activists often (appropriately) refer to the 1980s as a health holocaust, as entire neighborhoods were decimated. But times have changed significantly, and thousands of men and women live normal healthy lives for decades with the HIV virus under control. In other words, HIV is now a manageable medical condition, not the end of life.

3. As viruses go, transmission of the HIV virus is very, very difficult. It is not transmitted by close contact, or sharing food or drinking glasses, or by breathing on each other, or by kissing (unlike many other viruses). It is not transmitted through saliva, sweat, or urine. Unlike many prevalent STDs such as syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, HPV, and genital warts (none of which carry the penalties imposed in Iowa), it is not transmitted through oral sex.

Repeat: in the 30+ year history of HIV, there is not one single scientific case study that has documented transmission via fellatio. Period. In order to be on the ‘safe side,’ many doctors and government-funded clinics will publicly state that this is a ‘hypothetical’ route of transmission. But as for documenting a single case – it doesn’t exist…and privately, the medical community knows this. In July 2002 a study was concluded in Spain of serodiscordant couples (one HIV positive, One HIV Negative), where they evaluated for risks of HIV transmission through unprotected oral sex. In over 19,000 unprotected oral-genital contacts with HIV-infected partners, there was not a single case of seroconversion to HIV. (http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/insite?page=pr-rr-05)

Even vaginal and anal transmission of the virus is unlikely. According to the Guidelines for the Management and Post Exposure Prophylaxis of Individuals who Sustain Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV, ANCAHRD/CTARC Bulletin, February 2001, the risk of transmission as a result of receptive anal sex is approximately three per cent. Other experts place the risk as low as 1 in 1300. (http://aids.about.com/od/hivaidsstats/f/infectionrisk.htm)

4. HIV positive individuals who have their virus controlled with medication can not transmit the HIV virus. (http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1429357/)

“…Swiss HIV experts have produced the first-ever consensus statement to say that HIV-positive individuals on effective antiretroviral therapy…are sexually non-infectious… After review of the medical literature and extensive discussion [the] Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS resolves that, “An HIV-infected person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia (“effective ART”) is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV through sexual contact.”

The statement officially defines a ‘suppressed viraemia’ (or “Undetectable Viral Load,” the common US parlance) as a viral load that has been suppressed to less than < 40 copies/ml for at least six months. (For comparison, someone not controlled on medication may have a viral load of 500,000 to over 1 million copies/ml). At the time this statement was made, that was the most sensitive that HIV tests could detect; today, these tests can detect viral loads of only 20 copies/ml, which means someone declared to have an Undetectable Viral Load has even fewer copies of the virus in their system than the limit established by the original Swiss statement. Finally, the Commission specifically stated that “courts will have to take into account the fact that HIV-positive people on antiretroviral treatment…cannot transmit HIV sexually in criminal HIV exposure and transmission cases….Unprotected sex between a positive person on antiretroviral treatment…and an HIV-negative person, does not comply with the criteria for an “attempt at propagation of a dangerous disease” according to section 231 of the Swiss penal code nor for “an attempt to engender grievous bodily harm” according to section122, 123 or 125.”

Iowa politicians, take note.

The current law in Iowa, then, locks someone up in a cage for up to 25 years and brands them a sex offender for engaging in normal human activity that has no chance of endangering someone else…simply because of their ‘status’ as a branded individual. The law is not based in science or humanity or health, but expresses a punitive, uneducated, and fearful attitude towards what they do not wish to understand.

Right-wing sites blame Muslims for Norway Tragedy

In a fit of intentionally misleading hate, irresponsible journalists and at least one so-called "Christian" new service have attempted to spin yesterday's tragedy in Norway as an attack by Muslims.

A poll posted on World Net Daily asked the following question:

Do you think more Islamic terrorism of the kind that hit Norway today will visit U.S.?

No, this is an aberration and not reflective of true Islam

No, terrorists are afraid of attacking the U.S. because of Obama's superior Homeland Security approach

No, they will not hit America as long as Obama is in power because he is perceived as conciliatory

No, Obama put the fear of God in them by assassinating Bin Laden

No, I don't believe this was an Islamic attack. It was a false flag operation

Yes, this war has raged in the heart of Islam for 1,300 years. It's not over

Yes, the U.S. is the Great Satan. We need to be ready

Yes, this is a foretaste of what is coming and the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 is near

Yes, this is a monster that must be destroyed not appeased or fed

Yes, the U.S. must be eternally vigilant against its No. 1 foreign enemy

Other


The answers listed above are nothing more than an anti-Obama, anti-Muslim, pro-war indcotrination piece. The owner and editor-in-chief if WND is Joseph Farrah, whose claim to fame is demanding to see Obama's Long-Form birth certificate (a limelight stolen, briefly, by Donald Combover Trump.)

Sadly, World Net Daily was not alone in this pseudo-journalism. An article in today's London Telegraph about the bombing and shooting included the following paragraph:

"British security forces were immediately placed on alert amid fears that Norway’s worst terrorist outrage might be the first in a series of attacks on the West. The carnage followed repeated warnings that al-Qaeda was planning a Mumbai-style attack on countries involved in the war in Afghanistan, where Norway has about 500 troops."
(how many more references to the Islamic world could they have made in one paragraph of insinuation?)

Pamela Geller, publisher of the website Atlas Shrugs and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, wrote on her site: "You can ignore jihad, but you cannot avoid the consequences of ignoring jihad"

There is no doubt that the horror visited upon Norway yesterday was the work not of Muslims or al qaeda, but of Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing, neo-nazi, anti-immigrant, Christo-fascist who called for a new Crusade to wipe Muslims from Europe.


By joining in an anti-Muslim hysteria, World Net Daily and right-wing politicians and "journalists" have, in effect, joined the horrific campaign that Mr. Brevik initiated yesterday in Norway.

Shame on them, their allies, and supporters.

"Gay Marriage for NY" skewered by gay supporters for anti-straight article.

Around midnight, "Gay Marriage for New York"(GM4NY) chose to post to Facebook a letter by Dan Amira that first appeared in New York Magazine. The letter asked straight couples not to sign up for marriage licenses in New York on July 24, the first day on which gay couples can get married. Expecting a rush of marriages, NY officials have instituted a lottery system to award licenses on that day.

In promoting the letter, GM4NY chose to repeat and highlight a particularly offensive passage from the letter:

Hear this, straight people: Maybe it's convenient for you to get married over the weekend, or maybe you just like the novelty factor of tying the knot on a historic day. But the opportunity means a hell of a lot more for gay couples. Every spot in the lottery occupied by one of you means a gay couple misses out on an experience with much deeper personal significance."

Within an hour, 113 comments had been lodged on the Facebook site, with only two individuals supporting GM4NY's posting of the letter. All others took the organization to task. A representative sample of comments:

Chelle Panzica: I dont think its fair to ask heteros not to get married on the 24, weddings typically are planned way ahead of time and to even ask that is kind of rude. and im gay! and from ny

Denise Gibaldi: equality means EVERYONE should be able get married!

Shannon McNeece: You are just as ignorant as you claim "straight people" are. "Listen up straight people"? Really?


Todd Joseph: agreed, it is a day to celebrate EQUALity- for everyone, we must act within the constraints of what we demanded. lets the state rejoice together

Andrew Arslan: Kinda wrong...if they want to get married that same day let 'em. Without their support we wouldn't even have that day.

Penni Blizzard- McGrath: Seriously? "Listen?" We've been listening and we applaud equal rights - don't ask for "special" rights now. THAT attitude is why so many are clueless.

James Carter Giardina Jr.: I'm gonna have to agree, I do not feel comfortable asking (demanding) the right to marry, and than turning around and asking other couples not too. That date could have a very specific and special meaning to a heterosexual couple just as it will to gay ones. The day will mean no less, if it is shared with heterosexual couples. If anything it will mean so much more.

Alyssa Andrew: Rude, rude, RUDE.

Danny-Timothy Patrick Tyrell: Someone, please contact NYMag and let them know this is a big mistake to print. Gay Marriage for NY. I can't believe you even reposted this. Bad Form, very Bad Form.

Brittany Cable: I'm going to agree with everyone else -- straight people have just as much of a right to get married on that day as we do. To ask them not to because the day is somehow "more special" to us is rather rude and insensitive of us.

Matthew Mackey: I do not agree with this article one bit. Asking for straight ppl to wait to get married is exactly OPPOSITE of what we were fighting for. PPL who are fighting against our rights and equality are going to use this article against us. Their marriages are just as important as ours are.

As the hits came coming, GM4NY attempted to distance themselves from the letter with the excuse that they only were posting it "for discussion purposes." However, they never asked for discussion, comment, opinion, or input: instead, they simply quoted and posted the pointed paragraph above.

Let's be frank: GM4NY is not a 'discussion group' - it is an advocacy organization with over 140,000 followers that has used social media to pursue specific political agendas. Someone thought a bit too highly of themselves and chose to pursue an offensive agenda that is not supported by the GLBT community, and then found themselves backtracking and excuse-making.

In blunt terms: this is a freaking stupid-ass campaign. Who the hell at GM4NY thought that this idiocy was a good idea? Straight couples and legislators were our allies throughout the Marriage Equality process, and 'reserving' a date just for same-sex marriages is insulting and asinine. We ALL deserve to tie the knot if we want to - thats what Marriage Equality was all about! We argued we wanted Equality; our opponents argued that we wanted "special rights." Any effort to reserve a date as 'special' for gay marriages alone validates our opponents arguments that we wanted 'special rights.'

What we want is Equality, not special treatment. Someone at Gay Marriage for NY needs a swift kick in the ass for this...and for digging in its heels and refusing to accept the criticism of the vast majority of its followers - many of whom worked tirelessly for Marriage Equality - who were insulted, upset, and horrified by their position.

#LGBT #GM4NY

Is Drag becoming a Drag?

Yesterday, someone writing on behalf of the Waterworks Pub (a gay bar in Albany, New York) lamented on Facebook that yet again, no Drag Queens had stepped up to host their mid-week drag night. Apparently the bar was offering $50 to the performers in order to help them market their shows and draw in patrons. (My boyfriend remarked, “$50, that’s all? They’ll spend more than that in makeup!”) The comments that followed fell into two categories: those who were getting a little tired of the obsession with drag performances…and a defensive response from the bar that included the charge that ‘the community’ was complaining rather than supporting the bar’s efforts. The entire thread was then quickly deleted.

It reminded me of an incident a number of years ago, where some local Bears planned a fundraiser for a local New Hampshire AIDS Service agency. Drawing on their own natural interests, they began putting together a pool party at a local hotel, complete with a burgers-and-beer cookout. Unfortunately, some in the Agency immediately insisted on having their Drag friends do an Esther-Williams-styled, in-the-water Drag Show at the BBQ…and the entire event fell apart before it was held.

This brings me to the central (and controversial) question of this blog post:

“Has the GLBT community ignored its own members by having gone overboard in its obsession with Drag?”

I want to make it clear from the start that I appreciate a good Drag performer, especially one that actually sings rather than simply lip-synchs. I admit that Ru Paul’s Drag Show is a guilty pleasure of mine, and I’ve gone to Boston to see Jujube, Raven, and Pandora Boxx. For Mother’s Day, my sister, brother-in-law, and boyfriend took my mother to see Priscilla, Queen of the Desert on Broadway. Attending the annual Invasion of the Pines is on my personal bucket list. I have no objection to, and in fact enjoy, good Drag.

Having said that, there *is* such a thing as too much of a good thing, especially when that ‘good thing’ begins to become socially ‘required,’ ‘expected’ and ‘normative’ of the entire community.

The gay male community has a seemingly reflexive ‘need’ to use Drag Queens as their ‘symbols and spokespersons.’ The result is that it conveys an image to the world, that Drag is, in fact, what all gay men are all about. As a younger man struggling with the coming out process, I told myself many times that I couldn’t possibly be gay, ‘because I’m not like that – I don’t want to dress up like that.” And unfortunately, I have discovered dozens upon dozens of men who were closeted for much of their lives because they felt the same conflict; in essence, the gay male community did not ‘communicate’ its muscle-bear-and-leather masculine role models to the general public the way it did with its Drag Performers.

Even in retelling the history of the Stonewall Riots, we have created a mythology surrounding Drag Queens: it is almost accepted without question in gay circles that the Stonewall Riots were begun by the Fierce Queens who took off their stiletto heels and began fighting back against the police. The objective reality is that the riots began when a lesbian, hit on the head with a billy club after complaining that the handcuffs they slapped on her were too tight, turned to the crowd and shouted, “Why aren’t you guys doing something?!” The crowd – largely anti-authority young people, hippies, and gay males (but not Queens) – erupted into the “riot.” The Stonewall was not full of Drag Queens – in fact, official Stonewall Policy was to limit the number of transvestites allowed to enter to less than a handful each night. But our Drag mythology remains…

It seems to me that there is a parallel between the Drag Art Form and the Black Minstrel Art Form of a century earlier.

In the late 1800s, many white performers donned black face and appeared in shows that lampooned black people. Using extreme forms of caricature and stereotype, blacks were characterized as simple, childish, lazy, and superstitious. It was, by its nature, "over the top" for its silliness. Eventually, the most successful minstrel artists were black performers themselves, who perfected this niche entertainment market: Billy Kersands, James A. Bland, Sam Lucas, and Wallace King became greater performers than whites in blackface.

The problem with the success of minstrel, of course, is that it perpetuated a stereotype of the entire black community: the art form that gave these men a voice and a safe place to make their way against all odds, also served to cement, in the public’s mind, a certain ‘image’ of Americans of African descent.

In much the same way, Drag has been the same type of double-edged sword. It has allowed talented performers to engage in outrageous caricatures, with seven-inch heels, four-foot hairdos, five pounds of make-up, three-inch lashes, sequined dresses and super bitchy, self-indulgent attitudes that elicit smiles and laughs from an entertained audience…and often, in its earliest days, it was performed in clubs where gay men could be considered relatively ‘safe.’

But, like minstrel, it also perpetuates the stereotype that gay men are effeminate, female-wannabes among the general heterosexual public. And the more I speak with gay men, the more I hear frustration and even resentment that GLBT community leaders continue to push the notion of the Drag Queen as the highest form of ‘community spokespersons.’

Most if us – quite frankly, more than 95% of us – are simply not personally into drag. But it is continually thrust upon us, and its adoration ‘required’ of us.

At last month’s Mariage Equality rally in Albany, NY, several hundred people – straight allies, lesbians, gay men – gathered to press for legislation in the Capital West Plaza. Among this crowd – which looked like it could have been any crowd at any political event – there was a single outrageously dressed Drag Queen. We watched a news reporter show up to get a scoop on the day’s events...and, as could have been predicted, she headed straight for the Drag Queen, conducted her interview, and filed her story.

There it was: 250-300 of your most average looking neighbors supporting marriage equality, and when the news hit the public airwaves, the public was left with the suggestion that we're all about cross-dressing queens.

And the Waterworks Pub still insists on its weekly drag nights, rather than listen to patrons who suggest it's not what they really want...

Government Stupidity: Outlawing Vegetable Gardens

This week's "Authority Running Amock" Prize goes to the city of Oak Park, Michigan, where homeowner Julie Bass faces 93 days in jail for the crime of growing tomatoes in her front yard.

The Bass's front yard was torn up after replacing a sewer line, and after the work was completed Julie Bass decided to grow a vegetable garden, planting basil, cabbage, carrots, tomatoes, and cucumbers in five raised beds and bringing down the wrath of the city's central planners.

Julie Bass said, “We thought we’re minding our own business, doing something not ostentatious and certainly not obnoxious or nothing that is a blight on the neighborhood, so we didn’t think people would care very much.”

In another day, the Basses would have been considered 'patriots' for planting a 'victory garden.' But some obnoxious neighbor complained about the aesthetics of cucumber blossoms, and called the city. The city then sent out code enforcement.

“They warned us at first that we had to move the vegetables from the front, that no vegetables were allowed in the front yard. We didn’t move them because we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong, even according to city code we didn’t think we were doing anything wrong. So they ticketed us and charged me with a misdemeanor,” Bass responded.

The Oak Park City code says that all unpaved portions of the site shall be planted with grass or ground cover or shrubbery or "other suitable live plant material." The code was clearly meant to insure vegetated ground cover, as opposed to expanses of bare, eroded dirt. But apparently, a power-triping city Planning and Technology Director Kevin Rulkowski has insisted that peppers are not suitable. He said, “If you look at the dictionary, suitable means common. You can look all throughout the city and you’ll never find another vegetable garden that consumes the entire front yard.”

Excuse me? I checked five dictionaries, and not one equated "suitable" with "common." Sounds like a petty official caught shooting his mouth off and now scrambling to defend himself.

He continued, "...if you look around and you look in any other community, what’s common to a front yard is a nice, grass yard with beautiful trees and bushes and flowers.”

Really? "Beautiful" trees and bushes? Just what is the legal criteria for deciding what is "beautiful?" Is a Weeping Willow beautiful, or a mess? Are a field of Black-Eyed Susans 'beautiful flowers,' or 'overgrown weeds?' Are bushes with red flowers preferable to bushes with small white ones?

As "The Agitator" reported, "God forbid your yard doesn’t include beautiful trees, bushes and flowers. It’s your job, Oak Park citizens, to give Kevin Rulkowski pretty things to look at."

Furthermore, Mr. Rulkowski is dead wrong: I have seen plenty of yards in multiple states in the Northeast that have planted vegetables in the front yard...and I myself, as I write, have green peppers, chives, and oregano planted in the front, alongside tall, grassy field daisies.

The city prosecutor intends on going all the way through a jury trial for this awful insult to the community...meaning 93 days in jail if he wins. What a waste of city money...what a waste of resources...what an abuse of the power to jail.

In a time when we are experiencing 10%+ unemployment - with Michigan at the top of the nations' jobless basket cases - discouraging anyone from growing vegetables because they are not 'pretty' enough is indefensible idiocy, and, quite frankly, neither the neighbors nor the city's business.

Oak Park wins our first "Authority Running Amock" Award. We hope that Bass's neighbors start planting beautiful flowering chives and flowering squash in their front yards, so that by becoming 'common,' they will also become 'suitable.'

Or, better yet, just ignore this stupid law altogether and ask the city to find Mr. Rulkowski something worthwhile to do.

Afghanistan: a combat medic's perspective and insights

[Today's post is a copy of an address given to the Rochester (NH) Knights of Columbus by combat medic Jeff Ballard, who was deployed in Afghanistan. It is a very worthwhile read by someone in the midst of the war...and who offers some compelling insights into our successes and shortcomings there. Towards the second half of the address, Mr. Ballard gets into some of these issues. Reprinted by express permnission of Mr Ballard]

Good Morning and Happy Birthday to the United States of America. This 4th of July has an extra special meaning as justice was recently served with the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Though his death does not bring back the victims it helps us to close the door on a horrible chapter of our nations history.

My name is Jeff Ballard and I am a combat medic in the Army National Guard. Last year I left my full time job as an RN in the Emergency Department at Wentworth Douglass Hospital to deploy to Afghanistan in hopes of using my medical skills wherever needed.

I would like to thank you all for joining us today. I'd like to thank Mayor T-J Jean, Joel Plante the New Hampshire State Deputy of the Knights of Columbus and all of the groups which comprise the Rochester Veterans Council who are with us today.

As I stand here in front of you this morning, I am deeply aware that I am just one of many in a long line, both men and women, that have been involved in defending our country against our enemies...We have always valued freedom and defended others around the world, as well as our families here at home ...hoping that peace and democracy can be brought to all of the people of the world.

We are Americans and we honor all that have made this country so great.

As we celebrate with our friends and family I ask that you remember those who are still in harms way fighting to ensure that America gets to celebrate another 235 birthdays.

With us today are my wife, Stephanie and son Tyler and I would like to publicly thank them and recognize the sacrifice that they made to keep our family running smoothly while I was away. For Stephanie this included us buying a new house and moving in by herself, her company moving from Wolfeboro to Pembroke which made her commute increase from 20 minutes to an hour and a half and her running my successful campaign for State Representative, though the other guy got more votes, so now we are waiting for 2012.

Let me start of by saying that my statements today are in no way endorsed by the Department of Defense. They are all my own independent thoughts based on my unique personal experiences.

I am happy to say that while in Afghanistan I had more positive experiences than negative ones. My company, Charlie Company 3/172 Infantry brought all of our soldiers home and only had one soldier who needed to be evacuated out of country due to a gun shot wound. Our soldiers did suffer a significant number of head injuries and concussions due to IED and mortar attacks. Many of these soldiers are still dealing with the effects of those injuries today.

Sadly our battalion did lose two soldiers who were killed in combat. Sgt's Tristan Southworth and Steven Deluzio were killed in action on Aug 22, 2010 in the Jaji district of Paktia Province. They will always be remembered and honored.

We served in a mountainous region of Afghanistan called Paktia Province which is 3800 square miles or about a third the size of New Hampshire. The elevation ranged from 7000 to 8500 feet. The climate was very arid with average temperatures being in the 70's during the summer months.

Paktia province has a historical value both in ancient history as well as more recently as it is the area of the country where Osama Bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks and later escaped to Pakistan from.

Our journey to Afghanistan started in Oct 2009 with several months of training and supplying with thousands of dollars of new gear and flame resistant uniforms.

When the time came for us to leave the US in the first week of March we flew out of Louisiana in the middle of the night. Our first stop was in Bangor, Maine. We arrived around 6am in the morning and the Freeport Flag Ladies were all ready there to greet us. This is an amazing group of volunteers who partners with our own Pease Greeters to ensure every flight returning or departing is greeted. A lot of people have bumper stickers that say we support our troops, but very few people can say they do like these two groups.

Life in Afghanistan for us was surprisingly comfortable most of the time. We lived in B huts and almost all of us had private rooms which were about 8 by 8 and we were free to customize them however we wanted to based on the materials we could secure. There were some very creative rooms to say the least.

I quickly got to know a lot of the locals who worked on our base. I enjoyed the Afghans and their sense of humor. They joke around much like us and enjoy pulling pranks on one another. They are also the most generous people I have ever met. These people live in severe poverty, but they don't think twice of sharing anything they have, even with us Americans who make more in a day than most of them do in a year. With this years budget in Concord and the hits on the poor and mentally ill I think the legislatures in Concord could learn a lot from the Afghans. Frankly I believe most Afghans would be embarrassed by our budget and our lack of generosity for the less fortunate.

The first half of my tour I spent acting as a medic for a Military Police platoon. With them we worked closely with the Afghan Uniformed Police. We would conduct duel patrols and raids based on intel gathered by the AUP. Most of these raids would end with us finding small weapons caches which were more likely for self defense than attacking us, but it showed our presence and that we knew what was going on in the villages.

My very first mission in country was to conduct a cordon and search of a village suspected of harboring the Taliban. It had the potential of being a very dangerous raid as no Americans had been there for 4 years and the long road there was suspected of being heavily IED'd. Due to the hillside location of the village they would see us coming from miles away and would have time to place ambushes for us.

Luckily our large convoy of 30 or so trucks made it to the village with no IED's going off and once we started searching a few friendly villagers quickly gave up the location of the large caches. We found RPG's, Mortars, AK-47's, Machine Guns as well as hundreds of pounds of IED making materials. By taking these out of the enemies hands we saved countless lives that day without suffering a single injury.

My next major mission was a large combined Air Assault mission which was the largest since Operation Anaconda at the beginning of the war and also took place in some of the same villages. This mission ended up being a bust as the village we searched no longer appeared to be a safe haven for the Taliban as we had feared. None the less it was an exciting experience and one I will always remember.

After I returned from leave I was transferred to Zormat to be with 3rd Platoon Charlie Company 3/172. This was an exciting move for me as the majority of fighting had taken place in Zormat.

My first mission was to move to a village called Raymen Kheyl to help secure it while a new American combat outpost was being built. The Taliban had been launching daily mortar attacks at the new base from the village so we were there to stop them. It was an enjoyable two weeks as our daily routine involved getting to know the local children, sleeping in if you were not on guard duty and enjoying the Afghan summer. Of course we had no running water, no hot food, only had basic shelter which we built ourselves, but we were able to grow beards so we enjoyed it none the less.

It was here that I saw for the first time the effect of children growing up with war in their back yards. About a half a kilometer away a civilian vehicle hit an IED and exploded. The explosion was followed by AK-47 firing from a nearby AUP unit (they often shoot indiscriminately at the sound of any explosion). Despite an explosion close enough to feel the shock wave and automatic rifle fire the children did not miss a beat in the game they were playing. Sadly it has become that much of their everyday life.

Despite what you hear one the news we are doing a great job in Afghanistan and winning the people over. I feel the problem is in our approach. We are trying to do a top down recovery, trickle down, if you will. The people at the top are hoarding the money and moving off to places like Dubai while the work that is being down is shoddy at best since the money intended for the projects is not being spent on them. If we started a bottom up approach where Company Commanders went to the villagers and asked them what they needed and then provided it to them it would give them a reason to stop fighting us.

A lot of Taliban fighters have nothing against America, they just have no other way to provide for their families. While it would do little to stop the hard core fighters, providing real jobs would take away the fighters who fight because they have no other way to feed their families.

I enjoyed teaching the Afghan medics what I could. Their basic diet consists of almost everything being cooked in animal fat so indigestion is a common problem. Once they discovered Zantac I quickly became a hero as I always carried a bottle with 1000 pills so I could dispense a week or two's worth to every Afghan. I would always try to supply the medics with an extra supply of Zantac too.

Sadly we got to treat many children with injuries. Burns are very common since their food is boiled in animal fat over an open fire. It was rewarding to ease their pain and provide proper care to them to prevent infection and minimize scarring.

I had negative experiences too. I saw things done to a human body that no one should have to see. I had one Afghan Soldier so severely injured there was no way I thought he could be alive. He was literally a ball of flesh, yet somehow he managed to live for nearly an hour. We did what we could to keep him comfortable and to provide him dignity.

I'll end with sharing my personal story. When I arrived home I was not able to get the psychological help I needed right away due to some physical injuries that took precedent. It became much too easy to resort to alcohol instead. If you are a veteran suffering from PTSD I urge you to go to the Vet Center or any other resource to help you. In just a few visits I was able to identify my problems, and I was given coping mechanisms so now I can have a drink when I want one, but I never NEED one.

Thank you for giving me the chance to share my story today, as many of the vets here know there can be healing in opening up and sharing your experiences. I would encourage you to also share your story when you are ready and begin your own healing processes if you haven't already.

Thank You!

You Say You Want a Revolution?

What follows are the list of reasons contained in the American Declaration of Independence which compelled us to engage in revolution. One can only wonder where that fiery, rebellious spirit has gone:

"...He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands…

(Like the refusal of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform…and Arizona’s and Alabama’s requirements that immigrants show ‘papers’ in order to travel)

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers…

(Like removing terrorism trials from Judicial Review by calling them ‘military tribunals’)

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance...

(Need I start listing government regulations, offices, and rules?)

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures...

(Like a vague “war on terror” as a pretense for increased militarization and global adventures, and the use of our National Guard as an overseas military force)

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power...


(Like asking the Generals how they feel about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” rather than telling them what to do)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation…

(Like the World Trade Organization…)

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States…

(Like arresting citizens for videotaping police brutality incidents on their cell phones)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world…

(Like embargoes on Cuba and Iran)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent…

(Like Imputed Income Tax on same-sex spouses covered by health insurance)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury…

(Like confiscation of property in tax and drug cases prior to trial)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences…

(Like Guantanamo Bay)

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies…

(Like replacing Common Law remedies at law with statutory penalties)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments…

(Like suspending Writs of Habaeus corpus under The Patriot Act, and eliminating the need for a warrant to search cars, library records, and bank accounts)

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.


(Like gerrymandering districts to insure the outcomes of elections, making it almost impossible for third parties to get on the ballot, and passing laws against victimless crimes and regulating our private lives).

What will YOU do this year to continue the Spirit of the American Revolution?

ROLL CALL: New York Adopts Marriage Equality!

Four days after it had intended to adjourn for the season, the New York State Senate gave its approval to Marriage Equality by a larger-than expected margin of 33-29. All Democrats voted in favor of the bill, except for Bronx Homophobe Senator Ruben Diaz. The majority of Republicans opposed the measure, but three broke ranks to provide the margin of victory: Sen. Alesi (Rochester) and Sen. McDonald (Saratoga), both of whom announced support a few days ago, were joined by Poughkeepsie's Stephan Saland and North Buffalo's Mark Grisanti.

The Democratic-controlled Assembly has already approved the Senate's version earlier this evening, so it is now expected that Governor Andrew Cuomo's signature will be imminent, thus making New York the seventh - and most populous - American jurisdiction to enact equality (after Connecticut, DC, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont).

I am a New Yorker by birth, and never cease to be proud of the Greatest State in the Union. Below are the results of the roll call vote:

Adams (D) Yes
Addabbo (D) Yes
Alesi (R) Yes
Avella (D) Yes
Ball (R) No
Bonacic (R) No
Breslin (D) Yes
Carlucci (D) Yes
DeFrancisco (R) No
Diaz (D) No
Dilan (D) Yes
Duane (D) Yes
Espaillat (D) Yes
Farley (R) No
Flanagan (R) No
Fuschillo (R) No
Gallivan (R) No
Gianaris (D) Yes
Golden (R) No
Griffo (R) No
Grisanti (R) Yes
Hannon (R) No
Hassell-Thompson (D) Yes
Huntley (D) Yes
Johnson (R) No
Kennedy (D) Yes
Klein (D) Yes
Krueger (D) Yes
Kruger (D) Yes
Lanza (R) No
Larkin (R) No
LaValle (R) No
Libous (R) No
Little (R) No
Marcellino (R) No
Martins (R) No
Maziarz (R) No
McDonald (R) Yes
Montgomery (D) Yes
Nozzolio (R) No
O'Mara (R) No
Oppenheimer (D) Yes
Parker (D) Yes
Peralta (D) Yes
Perkins (D) Yes
Ranzenhofer (R) No
Ritchie (R) No
Rivera (D) Yes
Robach (R) No
Saland (R) Yes
Sampson (D) Yes
Savino (D) Yes
Serrano (D) Yes
Seward (R) No
Skelos (R) No
Smith (D) Yes
Squadron (D) Yes
Stavisky (D) Yes
Stweart-Cousins (D) Yes
Valesky (D) Yes
Young (R) No
Zeldin (R) No

Scorecard on NY Marriage Equality: The Players and the Numbers

With all the tweets and [contradictory] news reports, I thought it might be helpful to give Non-New Yorkers (as well as confused New Yorkers) a scorecard on where things stand.

New York's Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and the Democratically-controlled lower house (the Assembly) are in favor of Marriage Equality. In fact, the Assembly has passed a Marriage Equality bill three times.

The hang-up is in the Senate, which is controlled by the Republicans by a slim margin of 32 - 30. There are a total of 62 Senators; unlike the US Senate or other states, a 31-31 tie is *not* broken by the Lt. Governor or some other figure. Therefore, in order to pass the Senate, 32 votes are needed.

29 Democrats are on record in support of the bill; one (Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx) does not. That means supporters need to get three Republicans to support the Bill.

2 Republicans have, in fact, announced full support (Sen. Mark Alesi of Rochester, and Sen McDonald of Saratoga). That makes 31. One more is needed.

Who the 32nd vote could be is a matter of conjecture (and I offer my own conjectures below). The Senate was supposed to recess for the summer on Monday; Senate leaders have been meeting relentlessly with the Assembly leaders and the Governor in order to insure that religious institutions are protected from lawsuits if the bill is adopted. The discussions go beyond protecting churches from performing same-sex marriages (they are already protected under the US Constitution's First Amendment), but also protecting quasi-businesses (Catholic Knights of Columbus Halls renting their facilities for weddings) and sectarian Adoption Agencies that receive government grants to operate.

So, if these issues are resolved, and a 32nd vote is found, does that means Equality is won? NO.

The leader of the Republican Caucus in the Senate, Sen. Dean Skelos of Long Island, has the 'right' to place the bill on the Senate's agenda for a vote - or to refuse to place it on the agenda, thus killing the bill by thwarting a vote, even if a majority of the Senate favors the bill. Skelos has promised to make this decision based on his closed-door negotiations with the Republican Senators.

In other words, one or more Republican Senators can pledge support for the bill, but since the majority of Republicans oppose it, they can block it from even coming to the floor for a vote.

If it DOES come up on the floor for a vote, and if it DOES pass, it's not over: the Senate's version of the bill is already known to be different than the version passed by the Assembly; therefore, the Assembly will have to be called back into session to pass the Senate's version. Democratic Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver has pledged to do this. It is assumed that the Assembly will support any bill passed by the Senate, but if the religious 'protections' are too broad, there *could* be a revolt in that chamber.

The Main Players:

Mike Long, Chair of the Conservative Party of New York State. In New York, 'minor' parties are able to 'cross-endorse' major party candidates, so that a candidate may run for election as a Republican and as a Conservative. The votes from both 'lines' are combined to give the candidates their winning totals. Even though the Conservatives control only 5% of vote, that is enough to provide the margin of victory in many districts. Long has threatened to withhold Conservative Party endorsement from any Republican who votes for Marriage Equality...and has gone further in demanding that the Repubicans not even allow the issue to be voted on. Ironically, Republican candidates in tight re-election races are caught between a rock and a hard place: they may very well need the Conservative Party line to win, but if their district is that close, they risk losing independents and moderates who overwhleming support Marriage Equality.

Countering Mike Long is Frank McKay, Chair of the Independence Party of New York. Though the Party does not have a stance on the bill, McKay favors it...and the Independence Party often delivers three times the number of votes than the Conservatives do. Many Republican Senators run with the support of both the Conservative and the Independence Party - but after this vote, they may be forced to ally themselves with one over the other.

Long Island Senator Dean Skelos is the Republican leader of the Senate. He has run with Conservative Party cross-endorsement, and has been consistent in stating he opposes the bill. As the highest-ranking Republican legislator who controls the Senate chamber with a razor-thin margin, he could be expected to try and mollify Conservatives, and even block a vote...or at least use it for political horse-trading on other issues with the Governor. However, Skelos has also repeatedly stated that he will allow the Republican caucus to decide whether or not to allow a vote. It is not known whether this is his way of avoiding personal responsibility for the issue, or whether he is buying time to twist Republican arms to gather support for the vote. Interestingly, Skelos regularly refers to the issue as "Marriage Equality," a phrase that supporters use (opponents usually say "gay marriage.") In addition, at least one Albany-area GLBT activist close to legislative activities privately confided to this blogger that Skelos secretly supports the bill.

Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, the only Democrat who opposes the bill, and who once stated, "I AM the Church AND the State." He has actively fought the bill, and busloads of church groups from his home district have arrived in Albany over the last few days in an effort to pray and sing the bill away.

Sen. Mark Alesi of Rochester, the first Republican to break ranks and declare his support for the bill. Alesi not only declared support, but personally appeared and spoke at a pro-Equality rally on the West Capitol Plaza on Tuesday, to the cheers of the crowd.

Sen. Roy McDonald of Saratoga, the second Republican to break ranks, who did so with this colorful announcement:

"You get to the point where you evolve in your life where everything isn’t black and white, good and bad, and you try to do the right thing. You might not like that. You might be very cynical about that.

Well, fuck it, I don’t care what you think. I’m trying to do the right thing.

I’m tired of Republican-Democrat politics. They can take the job and shove it. I come from a blue-collar background. I’m trying to do the right thing, and that’s where I’m going with this.”

State Senator Greg Ball of the Lower Hudson Valley, long considered a swing Republican vote on the issue, who used his status to maximize media attention, including a well-publicized Twitter campaign asking for feedback. In spite of overwhelming support among responses, Ball announced two hours ago he was voting no, winning him the "Media-Whore-But-A-Thorough-Coward" award of the session. No real surprise: he had Conservative Party cross-endorsement last time, but not Independence Party support.

The Republican Swing Votes: Follow the votes of the following Senators, for the stated reasons: From Long Island, where polls show strong support for the bill: Senator Kemp Hannon , who has a fairly safe district with R-C-I support, who was involved in negotiations with the Governor on this bill, and who has been the beneficiary of numerous gay campaign workers, including this blogger; Sen. Chuck Fuschillo, who won without Conservative Party support; Sen. John J. Flanagan, who had both Conservative & Independence Party support and is officially "undecided"; and Sen. Jack Martins , who won without Conservative Party endorsement, and whose district includes heavily Democratic, liberal and Jewish neighborhoods in Great Neck, Lake Success, Roslyn, Manhasset and North Hills.

In addition, Sen. Andrew J. Lanza from Staten Island, who won without Conservative Party support in 2010; Sen. Stephen Saland an influential Senator from Poughkeepsie, who never had Conservative Party support to begin with, and who was involved in negotiations with Cuomo over religious protections on this bill; Sen. Patty Ritchie of Watertown, who did not have Conservative support but whose district is part of a Congressional District that elected a Democrat in last years special election; and Sen. Mark Grisanti, from North Buffalo, who ran on three lines last time (R, C, I) and won with significant support from organized labor. His law practice specializing in taking up the causes of the disenfranchised.

The Clock is ticking....

Rest in Peace, Finally, Mark

Mark Parsons was a big-hearted man, a philosopher, a theologian in his own right, a housemate for over a year, and, most of all, a wonderful man and a true friend.

He wrote the following last night, before taking his life this morning. The message is universal:

Hate creates Hate and here is proof

"I am a gay man with AIDS. I have been living with it for 27 years now. I always see bible thumping christians pontificating about the evils of homosexuality but did you know an even more incideous hate exitsts very close by where the people have access to you heart and Soul? Your sisters perhaps? You know, the "I love you but wish you weren't gay thing". Always a but.......Here is a quote from my Loving sweet sinister, [name ommitted by me]

You fucking AIDS faggot! I wish you would die fucking soon so me and the rest of our family can catch a break! Will you please fucking die and get it over with!

This is the woman I chose to be my health care proxy. I know, that is kind of like a jew asking hitler over for dinner. But i have a forgiving heart, but after all haven't I been forgiven by so many! But I thought this would be a good lesson for ME because now I will know the results of manifesting Hate in the world. I have always wondered what that was like and Now I will now. What I may do with the information I am not really sure. I will let you know in a follow up. I can't really recall ever manifesting hate before. I wonder if it will make me feel guilty. Probably not because guilt really only comes from judging doesnt it? Ulnimately the lesson will be mine. I wonder if all the "Loving" people in my life will turn on me. That would be interesting. Maybe I will get suid but thats no problem because i don't have anything. Or i guess I could go to jail but they at last will provide three hots and a cot."

Love you always, Mark....

Rally in Albany: Tues Jun 21, 12 Noon

If you are within a half day's drive of Albany, New York, you can be part of what could be one of the most important civil rights milestones of our generation.

Time: Tuesday, June 21 · 12:00pm - 1:00pm
Location Albany, NY -- West Capitol Park, outside the State Capitol

*Please join New Yorkers United for Marriage: Rally for Love and Marriage*

There are a number of issues still to be resolved in Albany, which means the Legislature will be staying beyond the original June 20th deadline.

We are heartened that there continues to be respectful and productive dialogue on the issue of marriage equality and believe we are getting close to a vote on the Governor's marriage bill.

New Yorkers United for Marriage asks you to join us at a Rally for Love and Marriage tomorrow --Tuesday June 21 -- at noon outside the Capitol in Albany. Together, we will make sure that all New Yorkers will soon be able to marry the person they love.

TRANSPORTATION INFO --

**Megabus:
Departs 7:00 AM New York, West Side of 9th Ave between 31st St and 33rd St
Arrives 9:45 AM Albany, Rensselaer Station
2hrs 45mins
1 seat = $12.00
www.megabus.com

NY Senate Republicans Stalling of Equality exposes Cowardice

According to Michael Gormley of the Associated Press, "Senate Republicans in New York say protecting religious groups that won't perform gay weddings or offer services to gay couples is a major factor in their refusal so far to bring same-sex marriage to a vote."

Marriage Equality in New York - which would probably pass if a vote was taken in the Senate - is being held up because the Republican-controlled Senate is (so far) not permitting the bill to be scheduled for a vote. The Senate adjourns on Monday.

Their reason? That religious institutions are not being protected in the bill.

A reason, that, in plain language, is a pure crap.

Religious institutions have ALWAYS been protected under the US Constitution to create their own rules for membership and marriage. Since our birth as a country, heterosexuals have had the right to marry; However, NO Roman Catholic Church has been forced to marry non-catholics. Synagogues have not been forced to marry non-Jews. Every religious institution has ALWAYS had the right to define who was eligible for marriage within that religious institution.

What the proposed law in New York State refers to is the legal right to be married in a CIVIL ceremony, as recognized by the STATE - it has NO effect on the right of religious institutions to conduct their own policy as they have seen fit, just as they have always done. This delay tactic by the GOP, presumably to protect religious institutions, has nothing to do with churches and everything to do with playing politics with peoples lives. And, quite frankly, not having the balls to stand up to the the RC Archbishop, Hassidic Jewish leaders, and the Conservative Party, which has threatened to withhold its endorsement from any Republican supporting the Marriage Equality Bill.

To be sure, the Conservative Party can deliver the margin of victory in a race, as it commands about 5% of the vote in many districts. However, the Conservative Party is notoriously weak and disorganized - if not entirely unorganized. When Conservative Party leaders are challenged by insurgents, it has been standard operating procedure for those leaders to call upon Republican operatives to step in and do their campaign leg-work for them...and yet, the NY GOP - once the most progressive in the nation - continues to allow itself to be emasculated as the Conservative Party becomes the very small tail that wags a once very large dog.

To be fair, in recent years, there have been two series of court decisions that, on their face, have seemed to require religious institutions to provide services to gay couples, and this may be part of the fear that some Senators have. It makes sense, then, to look at these two decisions.

The first is the Ocean Grove, New Jersey case, where the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association was stripped of its non-profit status because it would not allow gay couples to rent their oceanfront boardwalk pavilion for weddings. Conservatives immediately pointed to this as evidence that 'gay marriage' would force religious institutions to provide services against their beliefs. But a closer look at the Ocean Grove situation shows their fears to be empty.

The pavilion is not owned by the United Methodist Church (as is often claimed), but by an independent organization called the "Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association." (There are "Camp Meeting Associations" associated with revival meetings within Methodism all up and down the eastern seaboard). The OGCMA owns all the land in a 1 square mile section of Neptune Township, but leases most of it out to homeowners and businesses. The pavilion in question received its tax exemption NOT BY BEING A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, BUT THROUGH THE NEW JERSEY "GREEN ACRES" PROGRAM, whose purpose is to provide tax breaks for properties which help preserve open space for enjoyment and use by the public, without discrimination. The OGCMA never reserved the pavilion for Christian weddings or religious services of ANY kind, and received its tax exemption for preserving open green space. Thus, this case did NOT involve an infringement on religious rights, but on the terms of a state program exchanging tax relief for public access.

The second series of cases Conservatives point to involve adoption services offered through religious-oriented agencies such as Catholic Charities. In Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts, courts or legislatures have made it clear that these agencies can not discriminate against applicants, if they receive state tax money. In a number of jurisdictions, Catholic Charities has chosen to longer place children in foster care or adoption rather than comply with these rulings.

However, they had another choice: they could have stopped taking taxpayer funding. In each case, the agencies were prohibited from discriminating precisely because state governments were contracting with them to perform state functions - the placement of children into foster care or adoptive families. Catholic Charities can not claim to be both a private religious institution on one hand - and then stay afloat by using tax dollars paid for by Americans of all religious stripes on the other - and expect to be able to serve only those with their own religious viewpoint. (It should also be pointed out that these agencies were not only prohibited from discriminating against gays, but also against single moms and cohabiting heterosexuals).

Even though both of these cases turned on very specific, non-religious issues - tax exemption for open space, or state contractual duties using taxpayer money - Conservatives continue to claim that gay marriage will destroy religious groups' ability to practice their own faith. This, of course, is complete nonsense.

And the New York Republican Senate's efforts to avoid and stall Marriage Equality based on these arguments is shallow and cowardly.

Dean Skelos, Kemp Hannon, Chuck Fuschillo, John Flanagan, Mark Grisanti - your constituents deserve better than kowtowing to the Conservatives and throwing up religious smokescreens to avoid doing the right thing...

Open Letter to NYS Senators Hannon, Skelos & Fuschillo:

Dear Senators Hannon, Skelos, and Fuscillo:

As a former Baldwin resident and Past President of the Nassau County Young Republicans, who worked tirelessly on your campaigns for a decade, I am asking that you stand for what is right and support Marriage Equality in New York State.

Kemp, in the late 1970s, you ran for NYS Assembly for the first time. I met you daily, running ahead of you to make sure that we knocked on every door in South Hempstead for your first campaign. I spoke to voters, delivered literature, and worked phone banks on your behalf. While I certainly can’t claim credit for the victory that launched your life-long electoral career, I can recount the endless effort I put into your campaigns. You accepted that help gratefully. You didn’t ask whether I was gay or straight, and it didn’t seem to matter.

Dean and Charlie, your very electoral survival is due, in part, to the tireless efforts of gay men on your behalf. When Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1980 and again in 1984, there were serious concerns that he could not carry a state such as New York….and that his coattails (or lack thereof) might damage ‘local’ Republicans. None of you complained when Terry Dolan, a gay man, founded and operated NCPAC (the National Conservative Political Action Committee) out of a Greenwich Village rowhouse, to insure a lopsided Reagan victory in New York. Rolling into the 1990s, you all were nervous when Bill Clinton was polling double-digits ahead of George HW Bush, and, later, Bob Dole on Long Island….but that didn’t stop you from calling on the expertise of Art Finkelstein – another gay man – who had practically set up shop out of Nassau Co GOP Headquarters, beginning with his engineering of Al D’Amato to the statehouse. As Clinton steamrolled over the GOP in NY, Finkelstein coordinated media messages that resulted in victories from Pataki down to yourselves. And in spite of the Democratic wins in NY and nationally, you all managed to hang on to your seats for three decades.

All with the help – acknowledged or not – of gay men you on whom you were more than happy to rely.

I organized rallies, manned phone banks, coordinated enthusiastic youth for your events, ran local headquarter operations, and responded to every request.

And so now, as an “out,” gay man in his 50’s, I ask this of you: Do the right thing, and take this opportunity to end the apartheid treatment of your gay and lesbian constituents.

I now live in New Hampshire, arguably a far more conservative state than New York. We have had full Marriage Equality for a year and a half now. The sky has not fallen. Churches have not been forced to do anything contrary to their beliefs. Marriages across society have not suffered. Children have not been harmed.

Rather, people have avoided bankruptcy and unaddressed illness because they’ve been covered by their spouses health insurance. Children have been able to refer to their parents, rather than “mom and her friend.” Hospitals and banks have been able to afford spousal recognition on marital property. Couples have been afforded security and equality. And society has continued, stronger than ever.

Gay men and women are all around you. They have voted for you, strategized for you, and campaigned for you. They have the same dreams for their children, the same hopes and dreams for their future as any other of your constituents.

Do the right thing, and be a part of history in New York.

Sincerely,

T. Thomas Fitzsimmons
(f/k/a Thomas Simmons)

"Loving" and the Fight for Marriage Equality