The DNC Kicking Ass blog has had a wonderful post about a groundbreaking study in New Jersey about gender identity and the struggle that transgendered people go through every day. There, somebody named Rebecca Juro has been of the opinion that Dean has sold out his inclusive vision - especially when it comes to standing up for transgender Americans - in order to accomodate the Washington inside establishment of the Democratic party in his role as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I profoundly disagree with her charges, and have been responding. I believe I have remained objective, and yes, I have challenged Rebecca in strong words, which I think is perfectly fine. You can read all the comments and everything at that blog entry. I started my first comment addressing Rebecca by quoting her:

Becky said: "The best example of this political cowardice is Howard Dean himself. While running for President, Dean told a packed house at NYC's Gay and Lesbian Center that as President he would not support an ENDA that did not include protections for Transgender-Americans. Now, as DNC Chair, Dean can't even bring himself to even say the "T-word", not even in a statement on behalf of the Party in celebration of Pride Month."

True, Howard Dean did not mention the word "transgender" in there. But he also didn't mention "bisexual", and only mentioned "gay" and "lesbian" once each. The rest of the document referred to "LGBT" which we all fall under. I don't see anything wrong with that. But before you say, Dean can't bring himself to say the "T-word", I respectfully suggest you check out his statement on the National Coming Out Day.

I'm with you about Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy's opportunism (add in the DLC crowd here), but to lay blanket attacks on Democratic leaders including Howard Dean is utterly unfair. Yes, the Democratic party is not yet entirely where we want it to be in terms of supporting LGBT rights. But this is the party that has again and again stood up for the rights of minorities. In doing so, it has shown that it can be made to stand for the rights of the oppressed. But that has to happen through grassroots Democratic activism, not through the abandoning the party.

As I already said, I'm a gay man, not transgender. I fully and unequivocally support equal treatment under the law and in society for all persons, including transgendered people. But we in the LGBT community have to get organized, lead the party in its path to supporting full equality, and realize that this is the party of our friends, not of our enemies. They may not all be publicly supporting transgender rights this very moment, but Democrats are people predisposed to social justice, equal rights and fair treatment. That's why this is the party which you and I can transform, and this is the party that will lead in the battle for justice.

Posted by dean_kicks_butt on December 24, 2005 at 05:29 AM

The link to Dean's statement on the National Coming Out Day didn't work, so I posted it following:

The link didn't work. here's Dean's statement on the National Coming Out Day:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/10/dean_on_nationa_1.php

Posted by dean_kicks_butt on December 24, 2005 at 05:30 AM

Rebecca responded by restating herself, claiming the right to critic (which I wasn't depriving her of), and leveling what I believe to be unfounded charges. Again you can read her comments and all others on the blog. I responded rather bluntly:

Becky,

I am going to be blunt. Nobody is asking you not to criticize Howard Dean when he, to quote you, "fails to exemplify the ideals he ran on while campaigning for President because we were believers." I am contending that this charge is simply untrue. Howard Dean brought me to the political movement, and he showed me that I, along with other people, can change the course of history. "The power to change this country rests in your hands, not mine," was and is still what I have seen him believing at his core. I think it's simply inaccurate at the very least to say that Howard Dean is not exemplifying the ideals he ran on when he was campaigning for president.

Furthermore, in your last post, you simply level charges against Gov. Dean, without presenting a shred of evidence to back yourself up. At least before you made a substantial, verifiable claim, that Dean cannot bring himself to say the word "transgender"; a charge that proved to be also false, as I pointed out above. Let's also not forget that this very entry we are commenting on, which deals specifically with gender identity, was posted on the DNC website, and Howard Dean is still the chairman. Had his sense of justice was diminished at all, this thread would not be here.

I simply cannot fathom how you see Dean turning his back on his principles, or how you say that Dean has become more like the "party leadership", by which I assume you mean the Washington establishment of the party. In fact there is evidence to show that the party leadership is turning Dean's way. Consider what has happened since he became chairman. The party leadership has grown more coherent and more unified in their opposition to Bush's endless war in Iraq. Harry Reid shut down the senate so use of pre-war intelligence can be investigated. CAFTA failed to gather even a majority of the House members voting in favor of it (217-215 it passed, and majority of 435 total members is 218). Bush's social security destruction plan is on a traini to nowhere. Democratic leaders in the Senate blocked the renewal of the PATRIOT Act without civil liberties safeguards. That, to me, means - pardon the pun- that Democratic leaders are growing balls. Democrats even blocked Ted Steven's evil attempt to open ANWR for oil drilling. In the House, the Republican plan to gut the ethics rules fell apart. There are billboards going around in Ohio's 2nd district taking on Jean Shmidt for calling John Murtha a coward. In November, Democrats won big time in California, Virginia and New Jersey (ok, so Corzine isn't that good on GLBT issues, but you have to look at the win on the Democratic side). Dick Chenney had to cut his trip abroad short so their cut on the services for the poor could clear the Senate - Democrats were unanimous in their opposition. What all of this explain is this: in a long time for the first time, Democrats are hitting back. And to think that Howard Dean did not have a hand in these things would be naive.

Now, yes, these things don't specifically deal with LGBT rights. But as you pointed out, all issues of the day affect us. If the transgender community is relatively poor, then poverty and social safety nets to help the poor should be of profound concern to us. We, like other Americans, care about issues of war and peace, healthcare, education, and the environment. I agree with you that ENDA and other legislation that advance the cause of LGBT equal rights should be advancecd more aggressively. But to say that Dean has turned his back on his principles is simply wrong.

Also in the past year, the California Democratic Party, infused with Dean activists, included in its platform the full inclusion of LGBT Americans including non discrimination based on sexual orientation or *gender identity*, as well as full legal marital status and rights. Howard Dean is not just a person. Howard Dean is a movement. That movement is not only alive and kicking, but is gaining momentum.

Posted by dean_kicks_butt on December 25, 2005 at 08:02 PM

Rebecca again responded by reiterating her charges, calling Dean a liar for using the term "LGBT", and accusing him from running away from this issue, as well as by saying that she can't afford to worry about issues like Iraq. By this point, I had had enough, and laid it out as straightforwardly as I could:

Becky, since you started leveling accusation of lying, let me say this:

(1) You again, provide zero evidence to support your charges. All you are doing now is rant. Nothing to back yo your feelings, as deep as they may be. Once again, if you can find specific, verifiable accusations to make, do so, and present your evidence for it. Then we can maybe get somewhere. Right now, this is becoming a "is too, is not" childish argument.

(2) Howard Dean advocated very vocally for the California Marriage Equality bill by openly calling on Schwarzenegger to sign it. It did directly affect transgender people, as it defined marriage between two persons.

(3) I remind you again that this very post we are commenting on deals specifically with gender identity and discrimination against transgender persons. Here the DNC leadership is obviously openly advocating for the rights of transgender people.

(4) If you do not believe issues other than specifically transgender rights legislation affect you, you are fooling yourself. If poverty doesn't affect you, why were you complaining about transgenders being a poorer community than the rest of Americans? And while you demand that others stand up for transgender rights - as they should - how about you standing up for the rights of others? For example, the right of students to be able to get an education without mortgaging an arm and a leg. The right of a sick child to be able to see the doctor without her parents having to worry how to pay for it. The right of all of us to breathe clean air and drink clean water. The right of our soldiers not be used as cannon fodder for a war of greed and choice, not necessity. The right of workers to earn a living wage and to unionize. The right of voters in Ohio and Florida to be able to vote without fear, intimidation or fraud. If you do not care about other issues, then you NEVER fundamentally understood Howard Dean, who is about community, where we care about each other, and what affects one affects all. If your illusion was that Dean and the DNC would - or even should - fight for LGBT rights at the price of fighting for others in our progressive community, it's better that your illusion was broken. Nonetheless, I do not believe you have to choose, and I don't think Dean does, either.

(5) I'll just restate myself: Howard Dean IS a movement. I'm a part of it. You cannot tell me that this is not a movement.

(6) As a member of the LGBT community, I do not find leaders using the term "LGBT" instead of stating each word offensive, and it's definitely not a lie. If I were like you, I would call your assertion that it is itself a lie. I'll also let you in on a little secret. I'm Indian American - that is I'm of Indian decent (India the country). As such, I fall under the general minority category of "people of color." I do not feel that I am being excluded when a political leader refers to simply "people of color" instead of going through each. I am not offended when a leader refers to "people of color" and then mentions African Americans and Latinos by name. I don't get up in arms going "Oh my God, I can't believe he didn't say "Indian American!!!" " Umbrella terms are used all the time. Don't forget that the term "transgender" itself is an umbrella term for several distinct categories of gender identity and expression.

(7) Again, point to evidence where Howard Dean has been an "excuse-maker" for any Democratic shrills. By that I mean specifically defended their refusal to include transgenders or any other issues. Please give us links (transcript, if you are speaking of an interview, or what not). Otherwise, frankly, you saying so is not going to make it so.

Posted by dean_kicks_butt on December 27, 2005 at 03:13 AM

That was the last one I posted. If there's more discussion on this that's substantial, I will post that here again. But I am not going to be playing "is too, is not". If Becky comes up with something substantial, and I see that we can get anywhere, I will continue it, otherwise, I have no interest in a shouting match.

When George W. Bush ordered spying on Americans via the National Security Agency without a court order, he violated U.S. law. The Department of Justice and the White House has claimed that the President has "Constitutional and Statutory" authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps of Americans on American soil. That is a lie, and they know it full well. Bush, in his press conference, was practically yelling in anger at the official who disclosed this secret program to the media (whose identity has not been released). Why? Because Bush is genuinely angry. But not because of national security being compromised, like he claimed. He was mad because he was violating the law and he got caught. But let's explore the Constitutional and Statutory authority Bush claims. The Constitution is not a complicated document. The arguments on the president's constitutional authority have been based on two principle points: the 'granting' clause, and the president's Commander in Chief powers. The 'granting' clause is the clause that grants the president executive powers of the United States. Nothing more. The Constitution is clear as daylight that executive power is checked by legislative and judicial oversight. Executive power is the power to execute the laws of the United States, NOT the power to break the laws of the United States. The president cannot simply choose to ignore the laws by his position as the executive. He is not a monarch. And the President is the commander in chief of the US Armed forces. That means he has the power to conduct military operations in emergencies, by law, or when authorized by Congress (Congress has the power to declare war). That position as the Commander in Chief has absolutely nothing to do with his audacity to break the law and spy on Americans. The president's war-making power is not a blank check for him to become a dictator, not even in war time. So the Constitutional argument is thinner than any piece of paper it might be written on. In fact, in doing this, Bush may well be violating the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects persons in the US against unreasonable searches and seizures, since "presidential whim" is not a qualified reason for search or seizure. Now, the statutory authority. There are two exclusive ways, provided in the law, that people on American soil can be wiretapped or searched. One, the usual way of going to a criminal court in an open proceeding and obtaining a warrant. Second, in cases where confidentiality is required for national security purposes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created a secret FISA court to approve wiretaps expediently for intelligence collection purposes. This court routinely acts within hours of a request being filed, and these requests are rarely denied. It is in place to strike a delicate balance between national security and our essential Constitutional liberties. If there is an emergency, FISA authorizes the president to start surveillance immediately without first notifying the court, so long as the Administration obtains consent from the court within 72 hours of starting the surveillance. Some shrills from the administration claim that they have to wait for 72 hours before the FISA court acts, which is a bold faced lie. It is, rather, the president could wiretap for 72 hours without the court, so long he goes back after the wiretap starts and gets that consent. And as I said, the court acts within hours of a request on a regular basis. Barring these two, there are no other provisions in the law providing any president any authority to spy on people within the United States. The Administration claims that the Afghan war authorization, in granting all necessary force to defeat the enemies who attacked us on 9/11, granted the president unchecked spying authority. That is also a bold faced lie. Nowhere in that authorization does it say a word about domestic spying. And those powers specifically applied to states and groups not inside the US. In fact Bush sought broad powers within the US, and Congress specifically refused, only granting the power against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" in the 9/11 attacks. It did not grant any powers of domestic spying. For literal interpreters of laws and the Constitution, this claim of broad powers where none existed in the law would be hilarious, if it weren't so serious. Bush did not go to any court before he used the NSA to spy on Americans. He had no statutory authority. Ergo, George W. Bush violated the law. It could not be clearer. Spying on Americans in violation of US law, violating Americans' 4th Amendment rights, and trampling on the Constitutional and statutory check of his executive power are individually and together qualify him of committing "high crimes and misdemeanors", the Constitutional justification for impeachment. It is high time Congress acted to protect Americans and the Constitution by invoking the Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush.

Today's is a technology blog. See, I told you this blog wasn't going to be all politics! The title makes no bones about it: I think you should switch to Firefox. Right this moment. Ready? Awesome! Go and download Firefox 1.5 from Getfirefox.com. And then start enjoying your web experience like you have never imagined before. I don't care if you are using Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, or another platform. Get Fireox. Now.

Anyway, here I will try and do three things: (1) for those of you who don't yet know, I will describe what, exactly, Firefox is, (2) lay out the case why Firefox is the best web browser, and (3) show you some really cool add-ons tools on Firefox that will make your web experience the most fantastic ever. If you are not already using Firefox, you have no idea what you are missing out on.

What is Firefox: So first, what exactly is Firefox? For those of you who use Windows, you know that blue "e" icon on your desktop you click on to browse the web? Yeah, that one. That starts Internet Explorer, the browser that Microsoft bundles with its Windows Operating System. Firefox is also a browser (but this is where Firefox stops being at the same level as IE, and you will see why). It lets you browse the web. That is, go to websites, perform web searches, and so on, and so forth. Firefox, as opposed to IE, is available on all 3 major OS's - Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux - and a host of other OS's also. Firefox is free and open source. Firefox is fast, has a small footprint on your system, really easy to use, and secure. If you are using IE, and you do a scan of system with a spyware-adware detecting software, you will be surprised how much garbage your system has. Firefox does not use your system as its restroom.

By the way, if you want to know in more detail than below, why you should use Firefox, just go and visit Getfirefox.com. Anyway, let's continue.

Security: Now, you've already got IE, or in case of Mac OS X, Safari. So why should you go through downloading and installing Firefox? If you are on IE, any other browser is preferable because of IE's poor security. Keep using that blue "e" if you like adware and spyware on your computer and your system slowing down, or, at worst, have your system attacked because of IE's endless security holes. But if you want a more secure browsing experience, please please please stop using IE NOW. Any other browser is better. Firefox does not use IE's harmful ActiveX technology and it is not intricately rooted in your OS, meaning that even when a rare security problem may be discovered in Firefox, it does not have as much the potential of endangering your entire system. Mozilla, the company which makes Firefox, is also very fast to act when there is a security vulnerability, and to this date, not a single one of Firefox's security holes has been exploited before being patched. Microsoft takes forever to fix IE's security problems. Firefox automatically shows you a lock icon when you are visiting a secure site, so that you will know when a site is trying to extract sensitive information but is not encrypted. It is inherently secure, and there are other security tools offered by companies like Google in the form of add-ons. But, security is not the only reason you want Firefox. Here are some others:

Tabbed Browing: This is the feature that lets you open several web pages within the same Window. This saves your desktop and taskbar from being cluttered, and now with drag-and-drop functionality within these nested pages (known as "tabs"), it's heaven. Just start up Firefox, and click on the new tab button or press Ctrl+T or Command+T. Also go into your preferences/options and choose the option to force links opening in a new window in a new tab, and you are going to have the most amazing browsing experience ever. You can even bookmark entire groups of tabs. Imagine the 5 webpages you visit every morning. Now imagine bookmarking all those together and being able to open them in 5 tabs with just a single click, or even setting those as your home pages! Do you do online research? Then tabbed browsing is indispensible.

Live Bookmarking: More and more people are reading blogs. Reading news online. Do you? If you do, your favorite blog or news site, in all likelyhood, has a syndicated feed. This means it has a special code that can update you when new content is posted on the site. Firefox displays a little Live Bookmark icon in the URL bar when you visit a site like that, and you can click on there to add it as a Live Bookmark. And now, you don't need to go to the homepage of each blog or news site. You just point to your Live Bookmark and it tells you the recent headlines. If you find one interesting, click on it and you are taken straight to the page.

Add-ons: These are what sets Firefox apart from all the other run of the mill browsers out there. Just go to https://addons.mozilla.org/ and check out some of the Extensions. These are little pieces of attachments you can tag onto Firefox to make it sing, dance and serve you dinner. Ok, maybe it won't serve you dinner, but you can do almost anything else. You will see in a moment some really cool ones I use. There are also themes you can download and give your Firefox a look and feel you like.

MY FAVORITE ADD-ONS: and here are some of my favorite addons...

Adblock. This is one extension I could not do without. This is the extension that allows you to block advertisements on websites. However, I urge you to be judicious in its use. Websites rely on display of ads to keep their sites going. I only block the flashy and annoying ads. Still, enough sites use those ads to deserve to be punished like that. Use it judiciously, but use it. It will make your life on the web easier. When you are looking at content, you don't have to be constantly getting distracted from a banner flashing red, blue and green trying to get your attention.

CustomizeGoogle. If you do a lot of Google searches and want to be looking in other search engines, comparing your results, and remove results from sources you don't trust or like, get this. It's amazing how much easier it makes your Google searches.

PasswordMaker. If you don't want to be juggling a million passwords for all your different logins, nor want to risk security by setting the same password everywhere, PasswordMaker makes your job easier. You give it a master password, a site (and other information if you want) and it will generate a passowrd for you. You don't have to even remember this password, since PasswordMaker will fill in that field, but you will have random and separate passwords for all your logins. And you can use PasswordMaker on the web if you are away from your Firefox, too!

Now, I could go and write a book about Firefox's awesome awesome power and features. But you should try it for yourself. You are pretty much guaranteed to like it. Go check it out for yourself, give it a run, and decide for yourself if I'm telling you the truth. Get. Firefox. NOW.

Everyone, and I mean every single person, should read this report, published December 19, 2005, in the New York Times. Yes it's an 8-page story, but you need to read this. In short, it describes the story of one young boy who was exploited into performing sexual acts in front of his web camera by perverted sick adults who hunt for boys and girls like him on the web. The boy, Justin Berry, now 19, fell victim to these sick bastards (yeah, I'm calling them names, and I think I'm being way too nice to them) when he was 13. But I'm not here to narrate his story. That's why I gave you the link to the Times story to read. I am here to say what I think of this and who should be held accountable. Let me describe why this exploitation is entirely the responsibility of the perpetrating adults and not the kids who are victims, why the parents and guardians of these kids should be held accountable, and how a society can play a greater role in protecting these young children. First, though, let's get one thing clear: If you are placing your anger on the Internet, you're mistaken. Children have been sexually and otherwise exploited by adults since the beginning of mankind, and the Internet is by no means the root of this evil. The Internet makes it easier and faster to find vulnerable kids, and to exploit them in the "privacy" of their own homes, but the same Internet also makes it easy and fast to get the stories of these exploits out and Internet technologies (traces) help us catch these criminals. The Internet is, in the end, a tool. Like any tools, it can be used to done good or harm. But I believe it does more good than harm. There is often an excuse offered by the adult perpetrators of these sick crimes: the kids did it on their own accord. "Oh, we didn't hold a gun to their head." "Oh, we didn't rip their clothes off." "Oh we didn't make them build an illegal website." Bullshit. When kids are young and impressionable, they often are not aware what they're doing. You offer them money and things, in exchange for something you make look innocent. These adults know that full well. They also know explicitly how the psyche in a child's mind works, especially when the child does not get enough attention in school or at home and craves for attention, appreciation, a few "you're perfect"s. And they specifically exploit that helplessness in an innocent child, purporting to fill a void of friends, of companionship, of warmth in their lives, all the while only getting closer and closer to exploiting these children and use them as toys to masturbate to. Then they bring these children out of their homes and molest them time and time again. It is done entirely to satisfy these adults' pedophilic perverted sexual desires, where children become products to be traded (evident by their competition for ratings). These adults have no conscience, no humanity, no love. If they have their own children, what do they do to them? I don't even want to begin contemplating that. All I want to say is that these subhuman pieces of excretion belong in maximum security federal prison, and need to be locked up there for good. Speaking of the child psyche that is exploited in these cases - that is, a child's lack of having enough attention at home or at school - there is a great deal of responsibility that parents and guardians must bear. Too many parents believe that "parental control" software can take the place of direct parental supervision. Too many parents think computer and Internet games can take the place of a parent's company. Too many believe technology can replace the need for parents spending quality time with their children - whether at the dinner table, checking their homework, in a family board game, family outdoor activities and games, participating in the children's school(s) and PTAs and so on. Nothing can ever replace a parent's company, caring, love. Having children is a cause for celebrating the miracle of life and living, but it is not easy. Parenting is the most awesome responsibility anyone can ever have (and we all choose to have that responsibility), and it's the responsibility of the parents to find out if there's something wrong with their growth, and how to fix it. Parents play the most important role in shaping a child's life, and if as a parent, you let tools - remember I said Internet is a tool only - take over your children's lives, your children run the risk of becoming tools and toys for those who seek to do them harm. Parents must play an active role in their children's lives. If you don't protect them, no one will. But we cannot simply say that it's the parents' fault and stop at that. In a lot of the cases, parents are working too hard - two jobs in many cases - just to put food on the table. They are too tired when they come back home to spend time with their children or even have dinner with them. All they can do is crash. Too many, despite working hard, stand one paycheck away from the brink of disaster. Too many are worried sick about what's going to happen tomorrow. Too many cry themselves to sleep because they cannot take their child to the doctor because they lack health insurance. Too many cannot find work. Some are living with abusive spouses. Not that these parents don't have any responsibilities, but what they need is help, not blame. As a national community, if we care about our children, we must care about things like fair living wages, universal accessible healthcare, paid family leave, access to family planning services, and protection from losing one's life savings at the whim of the stock market. These are simple policies that our national leaders - right wingers - sometimes cringe at. But these are intricately related to our kids, their growth, and their safety. As a kind, caring nation, we need to use all our weapons to fight child sexual abuse and pornography. Strong law enforcement against the perpetrators is of paramount importance there, and so is social policies that help families protect their own children. We cannot succeed at solving this crisis by clinging to one of these weapons at the expense of the other. In conclusion, we are justly outraged and terrified at these criminals who harm our children. And at the same time, we have to look for solutions. The criminal justice system, parents and guardians, and our social policies must work in concert to eradicate these heinous crimes from the face of our society.