This is hard for me. I am about to advocate for the passage of a federal Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, that strips gender identity from its protected classes but keeps sexual orientation. It is unfair to every hardworking transgender American who face uphill battles to live their lives openly. Social stigma, violence and abuse haunt our trans-brothers and sisters every day, and it's a scar on the face of America for having absolutely zero legal protections for them. If I could wave a magic wand and make law, ENDA, including protections for transpeople would be law yesterday. I'm gay. I'm not transgender. But I am also not black, a woman, Jewish, or married (although I'm not a member of a majority in any of these areas, except I am a male, which is not a majority but historically, it's not men that have been discriminated against in favor of women). I don't believe in discrimination based on race, sex, religion or marital status, either. I believe, without equivocation, that federal protections against employment discrimination must expand to include both sexual orientation and gender identity. The principle behind it is too important to leave the fight anywhere but at its desired conclusion. However, I'm a principled pragmatist. I do not believe in letting the perfect become the enemy of the good. Whenever progress can be made for GLBT rights, even in small steps, we should support and accept it. That does not mean we should ever stop pushing for full equality - not just in employment but in all areas of the law - but every small step of progress should help us redouble our efforts to pursue full equality. But it does mean that when legislative progress comes along that meets any of our goals, however partially, we should not discount it. On Friday, Congressman Barney Frank explained what was going on with the federal ENDA of 2007, which originally included protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity. The political reality is that while the Democratic leadership and a strong majority of Democrats back expanding protections to both gender identity and sexual orientation, but they (emphases mine)

... did a special official Whip count - a poll of the Members. There had been earlier informal counts that had showed significant support for a bill that included transgender, although even these informal checks never showed that we had a majority. But Members will sometimes be inclined to give people the answers they think the people who are asking the questions want until the crunch comes. In the crunch - the official Whip count taken in contemplation of the bill - it became very clear that while we would retain a significant majority of Democrats, we would lose enough so that a bill that included transgender protection would lose if not amended, and that an anti-transgender amendment would pass.

This sucks. But this is a fact, albeit an unpleasant, disgusting one. This fact shows that most members of Congress are still living in the dark ages and think either that it should be permissible to allow workplace discrimination against transgener people or that their districts won't stand for full employment equality. It absolutely sucks. The fact is the votes are not there in House presently to pass ENDA in its current form. But the whip count also found that a bill with only sexual orientation included would pass the House. The question then is a simple - do NOT confuse simple with easy - one: do we accept partial progress and allow for the unprecedented occasion of Congress speaking out against employment discrimination based on sexuality, or do we resist that partial progress because we could not get a more perfect bill to pass? To me, the answer, too, is simple - once again, not to be confused with easy. We cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We take any progress we can, and then keep pushing for broader change, greater progress and full equality. To that end, Frank has said that while the current ENDA will have protections for only sexuality, another bill with protections for gender identity will advance through committees and educational agendas on a speedy track. Besides, every passage of every civil rights legislation, however inadequate, takes us one step closer to the next one, because that passage, however imperfectly, re-establishes the principle of equality and fairness. And that basis is reason for hope, not cause for despair. So if we must take baby steps towards equality, let's. And let's never take our eye off the ball.

Yatra dot com is a travel website geared toward Indians who live abroad and visit home every so often. Yatra is a Hindi word meaning, literally, travel. So they thought they were being oh-so-clever when the released this ad, running on Zee TV, among other things. In it, all goes well, until this Indian lady visiting home from the west is disgusted to find out that her cousin, Kamal, has turned into Kamala, a transgender. The ad then ends with the message "Visit home more often." Hehe. Haha. Soooo funny! Yay! They made a funny ad at the expense of one of the most persecuted communities in the world, certainly in India, transgendered people. Wait. That's not funny. That's insensitive at best. That sucks. My outrage was expressed in my comment on the ad's Youtube page and in an email I sent them: My Comment on YouTube:

Yes. Funny! Hilarious! Wait. What if a member of your family was transgendered? Why is it ok to make fun of transpeople or lesbians, gays or bisexuals in the Indian community - which I might add is my community? Would this ad have still been funny if instead of becoming Kamala, a Hindu Kamal became a Muslim Kabir? Yeah, I didn't think so.

My Email to Yatra.com

To Whom It May Concern: I am writing with reference to the following ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75nkocSxyeo As an Indian-American, I am appalled that your ad stereotypes, pokes fun at, and marginalized not just the Indian transgender community, but also the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities across this globe. You may think it's funny, but in the 21st century, it is no longer acceptable to laugh at the struggles our communities live through, not to mention the threats to our lives in many parts of the world, including in India. The dignity of all people should be respected in your advertisements - regardless of their gender, race, color, creed, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity. So I urge you to take down that ad as soon as possible and issue a statement of apology to the affected communities. Open up your site and your services to people of all types and backgrounds. I am certain that you can come up with amusing advertisement without offending disenfranchised communities.

That's it, that's all I have to say about it. You can email them at support@yatra.com, too. Thank you.

In last year's elections, the American people gave the Democratic party control of Congress for one primary reason: the occupation in Iraq. The voters were frustrated with a war that has gone badly, and the stated reasons for which had been proven false one after the other. So they protested with the most influential weapon they had: their votes. But they also wanted a change in policy. They wanted Democrats in Congress to force change. Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it eloquently on election night 2006: "Nowhere did the American people make it more clear that we need a new direction than in the war in Iraq." Yet, the Democratic party has been in charge for 9 months now, and almost nothing has changed. George Bush still has the money to continue his occupation, an American general in Iraq just politicized the military conflict a week ago, and American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians are still dying while a civil war continues to erupt in that country. I don't blame the American people for growing restless, and demanding further action from the Democratic leadership in Congress. A common excuse from the Democratic leadership has been thus: We simply do not have the votes to designate funding only for a responsible withdrawal (cut off funding for combat roles) to force a change in course in Iraq. We have a slim majority in the House, and with Joe Lieberman an ardent backer of our disasterous Iraq policy, in fact a minority on the issue of Iraq in the Senate. Bullshit, we said. Well, it turns out the damned Democratic leadership was actually right - at least in the Senate's case. Recent developments have left no doubt of that. First, on September 21, Sens. Levin (D-MI) and Reed (D-RI) put a bill before the Senate that would have mandated a responsible redeployment of US troops out of Iraqi combat roles. Given the Senate rules require 60 votes to cut off unlimited debate, the cloture motion - the motion to cut off debate - failed, garnering 47 each of affirmative and negative votes. Then, also in the last week, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid introduced a bill with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) to cut off funding outright after next June for the current US combat role in Iraq. Cloture motion failed on that bill, too, this time only 28 Senators - all Democrats - voting in favor of it. 70 Senators voted against it. And at 56-44 vote - 4 shy of the 60 votes required to end debate, the measure introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) to give American soldiers equal time at home as they have spent on the battlefield fell to Republican obstructionism despite garnering majority support. All of these lead the the following inconvenient truth for the moment:

The Democratic leadership in Congress really do not have the votes to use the Congressional power of the purse to end the calamity in Iraq. We may not like it, folks, but it's the truth. They tried. Should they keep trying? Yes. But don't expect the Republicans to stop their obstructionism.

Now, you might say that the leadership has the power to keep funding bills from coming to the floor. Will they do it? Probably not. But even if they did, it's unlikely to succeed. Why? The answer is both procedural and political. Procedurally, there's the discharge petition. In the Senate, it only takes 30 Senators to sign a petition to bring a bill directly on the floor for a vote. It takes 41 votes to block a measure from coming to a vote. As we can see from the above, there simply aren't enough senators to entirely cut off funding, because the same senators who voted against the measure to cut off funding will vote - ultimately, if no other compromise can be worked out - to continue funding. In the House, it takes a majority vote to bring a bill to the floor. Once again, the Republicans and a few Democrats - either lacking a spine or being Liebercrats - will help fund the war. And politically, these moves would be seen as a revolt by rank-and-file Democratic members of Congress against their leadership, turning the debate onto the viability of the Democratic leadership from that of the Iraqi occupation. Either way, the leadership will not simply block measures to fund the war, when there clearly aren't majority support for doing that outright. And the Senate Republicans won't even let American soldiers get rest at home. We cannot fault the Democratic leadership for not trying. They did try. So what do we do now? Well, another inconvenient truth is the answer: this war must be brought to an end by the art of politics and democracy. The Democratic leadership should bring up votes over and over, keeping the debate to the forefront, and exposing the Republicans for who they are to the American people. The truth is that there are three ways to end this occupation: scare the pants off of enough Republicans with the idea that if they stick with this war, they will lose their seats in Congress, elect a larger progressive Democratic majority in Congress in 2008, and elect a Democratic president in 2008. Luckily, none of these avenues exclude any other. In fact, those routes are complementary. Oh, and another thing: the Democrats who are voting to keep the war going need to be taken out in primaries whenever they are up for re-election. The fear of losing their seats mustn't just be instilled in Republicans - it should make the minority of the Democrats who support the war shake in their boots, too. But through it all, we shouldn't forget which party is trying to end the war and which one is trying to perpetuate it. A majority of Senate Democrats voted to end the war at every chance - including the one measure to cut off funding outright. And a vast majority of Republicans voted against even giving our troops the rest they need after deployment to a war zone. Don't you forget that the next time you Republican aunt brings up how her party "supports the troops" at the the next family gathering.

There has been a whole lot of hoopla over Moveon.org's recent New York Times ad calling Gen. David Patreus - the US Commander in Iraq - "General Betray Us." Hell, the political firestorm was so intense, the Democratically controlled United States Senate passed a resolution condemning that ad by a vote of 72-25. 22 Democrats voted with all of the Senate's Republicans. Of the current Democratic Presidential candidates who are also Senators, Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd, to their great credit voted against the measure. Barack Obama voted on the Senate floor earlier that day, but was nowhere to be found for this vote. Good for Clinton. Shame on Obama. And I'm not even a Clinton supporter.

Anyway, back to the topic. The much vaunted ad looks like the image on the right and was released right ahead of General Betray-Us's testimony in front of the US Congress on September 10-11. So, given the conservative uproar and the Senate's condemnation, did the ad work?

The answer: an astounding and unequivocal yes. But for a different reason than you might think. From a framing and messaging point of view for us progressives, this was sheer genius. Sure, the merits of the ad itself are solid, as Moveon.org's research is published and open to the public, but that's perhaps even less than half the story of the success of the ad. And a lot of people focused on that in the blogosphere already. I want to focus on the genius of the ad - the framing of the debate. The debate was framed in the first 3 lines of the ad: General Patraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the Books for the White House. One primary concept about framing is you want to keep the debate on your terms - more precisely, in your frame - instead of in the other team's frame. Moveon.org set up the frame and ran with it. This put conservative supporters of the Iraqi occupation on the offensive. Constantly - even today - they and the media continue saying something along the lines of "They called General Patraeus General Betray-Us!" Then the conservatives go about explaining why that's so wrong. But by the vary nature of that attack, they are repeating - and thus reinforcing - the General Betray-Us frame. Here are the frames they reinforce every time they repeat those mere words:

1. Betraying the American People: The General is supposed to be a military commander, and tell the unvarnished truth, regardless of what's politically convenient for his boss, President Bush. General Patraeus is repeating the political hack-lines of the White House, or "cooking the books" for them, and thus betraying the trust the American people put in him. He is also betraying the American spirit by giving into President Bush's desire to politicize war, peace, and the military itself.
2. Betraying the Military: When you politicize the military, you undermine the service of our troops, who serve a great nation, not a political agenda. By propping up the White House line contrary to the truth on the ground, the General is dishonoring and betraying the sacrifice of our troops.
3. Politicizing War: This is a derivative of the first two points. Cooking the books for political purposes by a military general isn't just disgusting, it threatens the fabric of our democracy. When a military commander spins matters of conflict, the country and the Congress has an impediment in our way of learning the truth - so that we may govern ourselves. Cooking the political books, therefore, by a military commander, is immoral.

But, you say, aren't the conservatives actually trying to reframe by saying it is Moveon.org that's politicizing the military by maligning the service of a decorated general? Trying, yes. But failing. Failing because every time they try to bring up the matter, either they themselves, or the media, in order to report the context, bring that ad back, reinforcing our frame. So their very attempts to reframe are backfiring. They cannot make their framing take hold if MoveOn's framing is in there every step of the way. And that's the brilliance of MoveOn.org.

What of the Senate condemnation, you say. Sure, it would have been better if the Democrats in the Senate didn't become so spineless, but look at it from the framing and message point of view. The Senate cannot actually do anything about the ad, since it is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The only thing they can do is pass non-binding resolutions condemning it. What happens when the US Senate condemns an ad? You guessed it. It becomes news! That means it gets on newspapers, TV, the Internet, everywhere. And there is no way to report the condemnation without actually repeating the ad, and thus spreading the reach of the message and reinforcing the frame. So all the Republicans really did was shoot themselves in the foot and make the MoveOn frame perpetuate in the public consciousness. To that end, we should almost be thankful to them.

So early this morning - really early this morning (considering I'm on the west coast) - I wrote about my outrage about a University of Florida student being arrested at a John Kerry event, even if he acted like an ass. I thought the arrest was completely unfair and unprovoked. After all, you don't arrest somebody because they took too long at the microphone or yelled at a politician. I demanded that John Kerry apologize to the student - who, now from news reports, we know is named Andrew Meyer. Well, it turns out I was wrong. There's more to the story than that. John Kerry's Online Communications Director responded to the blogging community - who first brought the video to people's attention - on Daily Kos earlier today. From the accounts he's heard, he gives us this version of the story:

Now, to the narrative as I got it from JK and a couple others who were there ... First, the preamble to the video (much of this closely tracks to this diary) ... there was a long line of people waiting to ask questions, and Meyer was near the back. He rushed up to the mic, butting up past many, many kids and making a scene. Apparently he’d been talking with the police and they were arguing long before Meyer ever got to the mic (reports from Florida are that they threatened him with arrest already).

This account seems to be confirmed by Kerry's own statement (emphasis mine)

In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way. I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention. I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody. I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured. I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.

The formal account from the University also seems to indicate that part of the reason for him being taken away was that he had run out of his allotted time to ask a question, and would not willingly surrender his microphone:

"He apparently asked several questions - he went on for quite awhile - then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."

All of this is actually true. If you look at the full video - submitted via YouTube for a CNN iReport - this is actually taken from a much better angle than the other videos - you will see his time running out, and then the police trying to remove him You can also see other students there clapping for his arrest, which probably confirms the account that he jumped in line, in front of other students waiting to ask their questions. Now that, and then hanging onto your microphone after you've been warned and then cut off, that's disorderly enough conduct for his removal from there, which was what the cops were trying to do. You can even see them give him a warning during his rant. So, yes, mea culpa time for me. I apologize to Sen. Kerry for accusing of standing by and watching police state action. I should have waited for a more complete account to come out. It was my impatience and I am not going to make any excuses for it. However, this does also raise the question of tasers. There were 4 or 5 police officers on Meyer. Why did they need a taser to subdue him? This warrants serious investigation. And according to university, two officers have been placed on administrative leave and the use of force is being investigated. We'll see what happens.

UPDATE: Apparently, I got it entirely wrong on John Kerry. My apologies and mea culpa posted here. This diary was posted on Daily Kos. I was shocked. Appalled. This is nazi-style police-state behavior of the Florida campus police, and the person who stood by and watched silently like nothing had happened was, yes, John Kerry. Yes, our 2004 nominee - John Kerry. A student just got done asking him a question, and somebody gave the order to arrest him. Why? Beats me. But what happened? Take a look Here is a more complete video - showing that that guy was, actually, being kind of an ass. So, the college student asked Kerry a question, granted, not in the best of tones. And the cops just wanted to get him out? Worse, they tasered him when he was begging to not be tasered? And John Kerry - a United States Senator and once a nominee for President of the Untied States, stood idly by as this travesty of justice took place. Yes, John Kerry was the Democratic nominee for president. And today, he has hung the heads of all true Democrats in shame. As police abuse and physical brutality took place, John Kerry stood by and did nothing, not even speak up to release this student. I am ashamed for my party, I am ashamed for my country. John Kerry ought to be ashamed of himself, and that police department needs to have sued the crap out of them. I am calling on John Kerry to issue a public apology to that student for his inaction, and to provide the funding for the student to sue the police, from Kerry's own campaign coffers. Join me. Here's Kerry's contact information: John Kerry for Senate Campaign Contact page. And if you are a MA resident, contact one of his offices: Washington D.C. 304 Russell Bldg. Third Floor Washington D.C. 20510 (202) 224-2742 - Phone (202) 224-8525 - Fax Boston One Bowdoin Square Tenth Floor Boston, MA 02114 (617) 565-8519 - Phone (617) 248-3870 - Fax Springfield Springfield Federal Building 1550 Main Street Suite 304 Springfield, MA 01101 (413) 785-4610 - Phone (413) 736-1049 - Fax Fall River 222 Milliken Place Suite 312 Fall River, Ma 02721 (508) 677-0522 - Phone (508) 677-0275 - Fax

So I was watching the Emmy Awards tonight with a few of my friends.  Personally, I don't really care so much about the Emmy Awards, as I don't get much time to watch TV anyway.  The shows I religiously catch - thanks to my handy DVR - are Comedy Central's Daily Show with John Stewart, Colbert Report of the same network, and MSNBC's Keith Olberman, one of the very few reasoned voices left on air today in the corporate traditional media. But anyway, back to the Emmy Awards.  So I was watching.  And the time was for a Lead Actress for a Drama Series.  Who were the nominees?  I didn't pay attention.  But Sally Field won.  I was watching it on Fox television.  Sally Field's speech hardly captured anyone's imagination.  Certainly not mine.  Heck, it hardly captured my attention.  Hardly, that is, until suddenly she was cut off, just as soon as she had begun talking about, well, motherhood.  And a mother's agony of a child at war.  So of course, Fox, I think, knew where she was going with this.  Watch what happens (time about 1:58 in the clip), just as she is about to says, "if the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g-.."

Embedded Video

Boom.  She's cut off.  I believe she finished her sentence this way, while Fox was showing is nightlight being reflected off a dome-like structure in the hall: "If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no goddamn war."  They didn't just bleep out the expletive.  They cut off the message of protest in favor of peace in its entirety. Defenders of Fox will say that once an expletive was said, Fox had to do a standard delay.  Bullshit.  First of all, these things are broadcast even "live" on a time delayed mode.  So Fox had the ability to bleep out the expletive and then keep the rest of the speech intact.  But no, they didn't do that.  Instead, they prevented people from hearing a pro-motherhood, anti-war, pro-peace message. This was not keep-the-airwaves-clean thing.  Anyone who watches the venom spewed on Fox's own cable news station by conservative nutjobs like Bill O'Rielly and Sean Hannity knows that.  This wasn't a business decision.  This was political censorship, exercised by an entity owned by an arch-conservative media emperor. I say next time, the Emmy's deny TV networks access unless they agree to give uncensored coverage.  Instead, live broadcast over broadband, and put the whole thing on YouTube.  Take the power away from these blood-thirsty, war-mongering, power-hungry, conservo-nazis.

Blogged with Flock

In late 2003, the Republicans and the media were abuzz with condemnation when Howard Dean, the then-Democratic-frontrunner for President pronounced that Osama Bin Laden, if captured, should be given a fair trial. Oh the outrage we saw! Dean is soft on terrorism! Noooo! Somebody stop that maniac who believes in our system of justice and due process. CNN, the Most Trusted Name in News (TM) was [gasp] headlining: Dean: Bin Laden guilt best determined by jury. Never mind that Dean was actually talking about picking a sentence before a trial takes place. The White House and the conservative right couldn't stop taking potshots at Gov. Dean. The same people who claim the mantle of Rule of Law were absolutely shocked someone would apply it to America's most wanted. But today, it seems, the shoe is on the other foot. The conservative darling Fred Thompson - oh by the way, why do the darlings of these Hollywood haters always come out of Hollywood? - said, if you can believe it - cover your ears, children! - that Bin Laden deserves due process!!! Oh. My. Goodness. I am sure the right wing pundits will be outraged again! Outraged, I tell you! Right? Riiiiiight? [Crickets Chirping.] Hello? Hello??? [More crickets.]