A classic from WKRP: http://www.hulu.com/watch/322/…

(Probably one of the funniest things I have ever seen on television).

The First Stonewall Rebellion (or “riot,” depending on your point of view) was arguably the (ahem) seminal event in modern lgbt history. Queers, dykes, faggots, cross-dressers, and street kids for the first time fought back against the expectation that they would just allow themselves to be brutalized and arrested out of shame for who they were. No longer would we let electioneering prosecutors make their names by “cleaning up the streets” through closing down our gathering places.

And to the gay and lesbian communities’ credit, it’s happening again. The community is broader, and maybe older, but has lost none of its moxie. A group of bloggers and activists have followed the National Equality March (October 11) with a simple proposal:

Shut Down the gAyTM

The idea is this: lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans have been part of the Democratic Party’s constituency for decades. The Party has been promising movement toward equality for decades. In response to those promises, lgbt Americans have been giving money to the Democratic Party to help elect Democrats who will enact laws furthering our equality. Result? The Defense of Marriage Act. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (and the ignored third leg, Don’t Pursue). No count in the census. No clout for equality, no progress. No Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). We are the first constituency thrown under the bus, tossed to the lions, sacrificed for expediency’s sake, despite the national Democratic Party’s own rhetoric.

“It is not enough to look back in wonder at how far we have come; those who came before us did not strike a blow against injustice only so that we would allow injustice to fester in our time. That means removing the barriers of prejudice and misunderstanding that still exist in America.” – Democratic Party Platform, 2008

The gAyTM shut down movement says we’re not going to pay for our own oppression at the hands of politicians with pretty words and no action any more. Those who sign up pledge not to give money to the DNC  or the Democratic House or Senate Campaign funds until we see some actual progress. If you want to give money to your Senator or your Rep., fine. But send nothing to the organization that ignored the campaign to preserve marriage equality legislation in Maine and has decreased its lgbt-specific policy positions.

[Why Obama’s gAyTM PIN has been sequestered, too, after the jump]

Last year, lots and lots of us took President Obama at his word that he would be a “fierce advocate” for our concerns, fighting for our equality. Surely the first black American president would understand that we’re tired of waiting for equality, tired of waiting to make the same choices all other Americans can make: to marry the person we love, to share in more than a thousand rights and benefits derived from federal recognition of the legal status of marriage, to serve openly in the armed forces, to be treated as an equal worker by an employer and not subjected to harassment or dismissal for reasons having nothing to do with our job performance, to participate as full and equal citizens.

[N]o one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love.  No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are. ~ US President Barack Obama

Instead, with one significant exception (the Matthew Shepard and Robert Byrd, Jr. Violence Prevention Act, otherwise known as the “Hate Crimes Bill,”), there’ve been a lot of symbolic gestures with no real substance, and a whole lot of slaps in the face. So the gAyTM movement has also shut down donations to Organizing For America (formerly Obama for America, local Vermont organizer Jesse Bragg) and the Obama re-election campaign.

There’s a checklist here, with only a single item done – and very few of these items require cooperation from Congress.

You can read lots more about this issue here  (and Pam Spaulding has signed on to the pledge) and from Michelangelo Signorile.

The idea originated with Americablog’s John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay (be sure to read the FAQs). Aravosis has negatives both within the lgbt communities and outside it that may cause some natural allies to shy away. On the other hand, Jane Hamsher at firedoglake and Markos of Daily Kos have signed on, as have many other well-respected bloggers and activists. Some stress the idea that withholding funds from the DNC and its associated campaign committees and from OFA is simply a temporary measure, surely a short-term boycott, a “pause’ in giving  just until lgbt-and-allies’ contributions to the Party get some respect and some results.

Think Nationally, Give Locally. The VDP is deserving of your political dollars – having supported lgbt equality measures for years and providing support for the legislature’s Democratic majority in finally delivering the last state-enforced recognition in April of this year.

This is, amazingly enough, not a spam post.  

The title of this post is, in fact, a word for word quote from a recent request for proposals posted by the state of Vermont.

What are they looking for?  Well, let’s look at the RFP itself:

The Office of Purchasing & Contracting is seeking to establish purchasing agreements with one or more companies that can provide and manage eBay and Specialty on-line site sales.

The state expects to periodically have surplus item(s) available for sale via eBay or Specialty on-line listing site in an effort to realize the best possible return for each item(s).

Yes.  That’s right.  The state wants to hire an outside contractor whose sole job it is to list things on eBay.

Clearly, a job too specialized and sophisticated to hire a state employee for it.

And how much is the state willing to pay to avoid having an actual employee handle this?

The estimated annual value of this contract is $50,000.00.  The annual value and quantities are estimated only based on prior usage; actual purchases may be higher or lower depending on the state’s needs.

Odd sidenote: for whatever reason, this is a sealed bid, issued on the day of a Holiday weekend, distributed at 2:30 am.  Something about that seems a little… odd… to me.

It's almost two years ago now that Anthony Pollina started his campaign to try to get the state's Democratic Party to support him in his run for governor. What he heard from me, and presumably others, was that there was one straightforward way to get the support of the Party: enter the Democratic primary and win.

Of course we know that he didn't do that, but he didn't run as a Progressive, either. Instead he ran as an Independent, polled a lower percentage of the vote than he received in his last statewide race, but counted that as a win because he didn't come in last.

It's another year, both the governor's and lite gov's seats are open, and liberals and progressives across the state are hoping to avoid the mistakes of years past, including setting up three-way races likely to lead to a minority Republican win. Part of this strategy involves focussing on winnable races. For instance, while the D's were scrambling for a candidate against Douglas two years ago, this year there are five announced candidates

For the Lite Gov seat there are multiple declared or possible candidates, but with a twist: David Zuckerman, a Progressive State Rep. from Burlington, has announced that he's thinking of a Lite Gov run in the Democratic primary.

Exactly the strategy some of us were urging on Pollina two years ago. While Vermont law says you can't appear on the ballot in two party primaries, there is no impediment to running on the primary of one party and launching a write-in campaign in another. Naturally, the only way this can possibly work is to run in the D primary and persuade your Prog supporters to write your name in. A few hundred write-ins and you're on the ballot as the fusion D-P (or P-D) candidate, going head to head against the Republican.

Last night Zuckerman took the first step down this path, meeting with the Washington County Democratic Committee. While making it clear that he hadn't decided whether to run, and what office he might run for (either Lite Gov or State Senate), Zuckerman laid out the key issues that would form the basis of his campaign, tok questions, and directly addressed the issue of electability.

The reaction of this favorably disposed observer was that Zuckerman was well received by the Democratic activists in attendance. His key issues of health care, agriculture and rural economic development, and environmental protection are all well within the Vermont Democratic mainstream. The answers he gave to the questions from the committee were detailed, fluent, and showed a good command of the issues. 

What may be more important is that he was open and approachable, emphasized the importance of looking at the future and on where we can work together, and explicitly called for both sides to drop the old fights of who did who wrong in the last election, or the one before that, or the one before that, or  . . . You get the picture.

This is Step One. He's met with one county committee, talked directly about how he would overcome the obstacles that any Prog would have in getting Democrats and Republicans to vote for him, and came away with good feelings on both sides. Over the next month or two Democrats in other counties can expect a visit. How those visits go will  tell us a lot about our chances in November.

Today I stumbled across a great article by Christian Parenti (What Nuclear Renaissance? The Nation, 2008) at The Nation, who examines the culture of reciprocity between the federal government, the NRC and the nuclear industry. Not surprisingly, Vermont Yankee was given a tip of the hat as an almost comical example (as far as the intersection of comedy and nuclear reactors go…) of the decaying state of the nuclear fleet in America.

The piece points out the repercussions of a revolving door regulatory regime and highlights a couple examples of plants that are in various stages of the attempted relicensing process. I imagine that we can learn from other struggles against decrepit nuclear plants (as this is becoming a nationwide trend) and, in the upcoming legislative battle, cite the radioactive relapses of these plants after they were relicensed.

A little peek:

Indian Point, forty miles north of Times Square, is also applying for a new license. It too leaks radioactive water like a sieve: tens of thousands of gallons of radioactive, tritium- and strontium 90-laced water from one of its spent fuel pools have polluted groundwater and the Hudson River. The first of several leaks was discovered in 2005, but the plant’s owner, Entergy, failed to report the problem for almost a month.

Vermont Yankee, also owned by Entergy, has one of the worst operating records in the country, runs at 120 percent capacity because of a 2006 power up-rate, and is well on its way to being relicensed. As detailed in these pages last year, Vermont Yankee has recently suffered a number of almost comical problems: a fire set off emergency mobilizations in three states; a cooling tower collapsed; a crane dropped a cask of atomic waste; parts of a fuel rod even went missing. To save money Entergy has been caught skipping routine maintenance and not hiring needed staff. This year the plant has been battling what seem to be unending leaks: in February the water cleanup system leaked, in May a condenser tube leak was identified but not repaired, in June there was a leak in a service water pipe. Then a recirculation pump unexpectedly reduced power and locked up, preventing the operators from changing its speed. And in August Entergy announced that it was not doing all of the required monthly radiological monitoring of its spent fuel.

Holdout Democrats Still Opposed to the ‘Public Option’ Should Heed This Warning: Any Health-Reform Bill Without It Won’t Be Worth the Paper It’s Printed On for Those Who Can’t Afford Health Insurance; The Time Has Come for Majority Leader Reid to End ‘Tyranny of the Intransigent Minority’ and Choke Off GOP Filibuster by Invoking Reconciliation — or the ‘Nuclear Option’ — to Ensure the Bill’s Passage

The bill put forward by Senate Democrats to reform the American health-care system passed a key procedural hurdle Saturday. But the 60-39 party-line vote, while choking off a Republican filibuster to prevent the bill from reaching the floor, doesn’t guarantee that the measure will win final passage. At least one conservative Democrat, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, made it clear that she still opposes the so-called “public option” and has threatened to vote against the bill if the public option isn’t removed from it. But removing the public option from the bill will render the measure totally worthless — so Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid may have no choice but to invoke either reconciliation or the so-called “nuclear option” to ensure the bill’s passage with the public option intact. (Photo courtesy Senate.gov)

NOTE TO READERS: Due to the Thanksgiving holiday, there will be no Thursday edition of The ‘Skeeter Bites Report on November 26. The next regularly scheduled edition will be published next Monday, November 30. Happy Thanksgiving!

==================================

A ‘SKEETER BITES REPORT EDITORIAL

==================================

It’s crunch time for health-care reform.

With new opinion polls showing the American public sharply divided — and time running out before election-year pressure begins to bear down on lawmakers — Senate Democrats secured just enough support Saturday night to bring the massive, 2,000-plus-page health reform bill to the Senate floor for what is expected to be a long, emotional and acrimonious debate.

The 60-39 party-line vote — all 58 Democrats and two independents voting yes and all of the chamber’s Republicans except the absent Senator George Voinovich of Ohio voting no — cut off a GOP filibuster preventing the measure from coming to the floor.

But there’s no guarantee that the bill will muster the 60 votes required to overcome another GOP filibuster against the measure’s final passage.

That the measure — aimed at making health insurance coverage available to an estimated 31 million Americans who can’t afford it — still faces an uncertain future was made crystal clear shortly after the vote, when one Democrat, Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, bluntly warned her colleagues that she remained adamantly opposed to the so-called “public option” — a government-run health insurance plan that would compete directly with private insurers.

‘PUBLIC OPTION’ MUST STAY IN REFORM BILL; MEASURE IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT IT

Lincoln vowed to vote against the measure unless the public option is removed. She agreed to vote for the bill in the procedural vote only to move it forward for debate. “Although I don’t agree with everything in this bill,” she said, “I believe it is more important that we begin debate on how to improve the health care system for all Americans.”

Lincoln is not alone. Other moderate-to-conservative Democrats also oppose the public option, most notably Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Max Baucus of Montana and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Independent Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut vowed to join the GOP filibuster of the bill if the public option remains in it.

But liberal Democrats — especially in the House — are equally adamant that a public option is absolutely vital to making health insurance affordable for all Americans. They have drawn a line in the sand, making the public option a “non-negotiable” item that must stay in the bill.

With significant differences between the House and Senate versions, an agreement on the final bill must be reached in the House-Senate Conference Committee. The final bill must then be approved by each chamber before it goes to President Obama for his signature.

Without the public option, the House liberals warn, they won’t allow the measure to reach Obama’s desk. And The ‘Skeeter Bites Report emphatically agrees. Without the public option, no health-reform bill will be worth the paper it’s printed on.

WHY PUBLIC OPTION IS VITAL TO ANY REAL HEALTH REFORM

Too many Americans are literally going broke because they cannot afford the skyrocketing cost of health care.

A growing number of businesses — both large and small — are being forced to stop offering health-care plans to their employees because they can no longer afford the soaring cost, either.

That threatens to prolong the recession for months — even years — by slamming the door on job creation. Consumer spending, which accounts for two-thirds of the U.S. economy, cannot and will not grow back to its pre-recession levels as long as 15 to 20 million Americans remain out of work and another five to ten million fear losing their jobs.

And for Americans in potentially life-threatening situations, the increasing unaffordability of health care can literally be a matter of life or death.

The bottom line is that health-care reform must pass — and it must pass THIS year, WITH a public option — or else.

SINGLE-PAYER WON’T PASS — AND MAY BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANYWAY

There are, of course, many liberals who are continuing to insist that only a government-run single-payer system will constitute real health reform. But a single-payer system is simply not in the cards.

Even if the votes were there in Congress to pass single-payer, it likely would face a constitutional challenge by the private health insurance industry on the grounds that a single-payer system would drive them out of business, in violation of the Commerce Clause — and possibly the Fifth Amendment — of the Constitution.

With the constitutionality of a single-payer system in doubt, the public option — direct competition between public and private health-insurance providers — is the only practical way to force down the cost of health insurance.

It’s also the only way that low and moderate-income Americans can afford to buy health insurance if carrying such coverage is made mandatory, as automotive insurance is now. If you’re going to make health insurance mandatory for everyone, then just like auto insurance, it must be affordable for everyone.

REID MAY BE FORCED TO INVOKE ‘RECONCILIATION’ — OR ‘GO NUCLEAR’

With Republicans determined to defeat the bill, the standoff within the Democratic ranks may force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) to invoke “reconciliation” — the process allowing a contentious bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster — to ensure the measure’s passage.

Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party by enabling it to pass the bill by a simple majority. But the process is usually employed only on budget bills, and it’s not clear whether reconciliation can be invoked to pass the health-reform bill.

When Bill Clinton was president, he wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. Sixteen years later, however, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), a member of the Senate Finance Committee working on the current health reform bill, said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

Reid may have little choice. The only alternative — as The ‘Skeeter Bites Report pointed out in a previous editorial on October 29 — would be to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” — a change in Senate rules that would do away with the filibuster altogether.

When the Republicans controlled the Senate in 2005, they threatened to employ the “nuclear option” to stop Democratic filibusters of then-President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

WHY THE FILIBUSTER IS ANTI-DEMOCRACY — AND MUST GO

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report believes that the filibuster has long outlived its usefulness and has degenerated into a tyranny of the intransigent minority, an affront to the democratic principle of majority rule — and is especially despicable given its long history of being used repeatedly and immorally against civil-rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

It was used in the 1940s — and again as recently as 2008 — to block the passage of vitally needed legislation to end employment discrimination. It was used in the 1950s against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was used in the 1960s against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Democrats were just as wrong in employing the filibuster against President Bush’s judicial nominees in 2005 as the Republicans were in filibustering against President Obama’s first judicial nominee, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana, to the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals — a filibuster that was crushed by a 70-29 vote earlier this month.

The judicial filibusters are clearly an unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government and should have been struck down.

IF HEALTH REFORM BILL FAILS, REPUBLICANS LIKELY TO GET MOST OF THE BLAME

As the Senate prepares for what is expected to be a weeks-long debate on the health reform bill when it returns from its Thanksgiving recess on November 30, a new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Americans remain deeply divided over the measure.

But while a majority of respondents voiced deep concerns about the cost of the reform package that is still being worked out, the Republicans have largely failed to turn public opinion against it, the poll found.

The Post/ABC News poll found that a majority of 53 percent still supports the public option, although that’s down from a 57 percent majority a month ago.

However, support for the public option soars to 72 percent — although down from 76 percent last month — if it is administered by the states, rather than by the federal government, and if it is targeted specifically to Americans who can’t afford private health insurance or who lack access to Medicare or Medicaid.

More bad news for Republicans: a solid 61 percent of respondents found fault with the GOP for “mainly criticizing” and fighting against the Democrats’ plan without putting forth any viable alternative health reform plan of their own.

The Post/ABC News poll differs little from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll from last month that showed a nearly two-thirds majority disapproving of how congressional Republicans are handling the issue of health care overhaul.

The same poll also found that nearly four times as many Americans would blame the GOP than would blame the Democrats if the health reform bill failed to pass.

There is no more time for dilly-dallying. As I concluded in my previous editorial on this subject last month, Americans cannot wait another generation for health reform. It must pass, with a public option, this year — or else there will be hell to pay in next year’s midterm elections.

Sincerely,

Skeeter Sanders

Editor & Publisher

The ‘Skeeter Bites Report

Copyright 2009, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

 Loading ...

When I’d begun hearing last week about self-identified Christians circulating signs and tee-shirts reading “Pray for Obama Psalm 109.8,” I shrugged it off as more birther-style nonsense.

The a friend called me in a major outrage underlain by fear and depression. “Have you heard about this?!” she asked. “These are Christians! Supposedly, anyway.” Psalm 109 is about praying for the death of an evil person. Verse 8 reads (in one common translation), “Let his days be few, let another take his office.”

It’s the next verse that is the most troublesome: “Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.”

Think Progress reports that two online merchandizers, Zazzle and Cafe Press (which is where all that fabulous GMD swag comes from), have agreed to remove all merchandise with the Psalm 109 designs.

It took two changes of mind, but Cafe Press was apparently persuaded by the preponderance of  opinion against the slogan as “overly inflammatory and unfair.”

Hey, the customer is always right, right?

You can also check out the discussion on Beliefnet. Or go to the source at Cafe Press’s own blog

It should be plain to anyone with half a brain that the explosion of state “ratings” and “top ten” lists are often not designed to further discussion, so much as short circuit it. I’m not talking about lists of clearly quantifiable metrics – obesity, unemployment, etc. Obviously, such lists can and do inform meanngful debate.

I’m talking about top ten lists of more subjective values that are arrived at too often by ideological measures, rather than anything scientific. Which states have the most “freedom” or are the most “moral,” even (especially) the “best for business.” There’s been an explosion of such lists in recent years, and the press has generally leaped at the opportunity for a canned headline and eagerly regurgitated what can be misleading, or even partisan gobledeegook into uncritical headlines.

All of this is why Kevin O’Connor at the Times Argus/Rutland Herald deserves a big gold star this week. He used last week’s buch-ballyhooed United Health Foundation ranking of Vermont as the “healthiest state” as a springboard to discuss one major metric that any meaningful “healthy” index should have included – hunger.

As O’Connor reports, “a just-released U.S. Department of Agriculture report says more than 14,000 Vermont households (one in 20, or triple the number since 2000) face hunger so severe that adults frequently go without food, while one in 10 residents now relies on donations to eat.” That’s hardly an occasion for self-congratulation. But O’Connor even goes further, talking to local activists and describing for readers what they can do to help make a difference.

I don’t want to sound like I’m knocking the United Health Foundation (well… not much). As mass ratings go, theirs is pretty comprehensive. And it does include economic factors. But for states that end up on the top of such rankings, these sorts of lists are more often an occasion for self-congratulation than self-analysis – especially among the traditional media. As such, O’Connor and his editors deserve credit for looking beyond the numbers. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a trend in the coverage of the next such lists.

From a November 5th diary:

(Why is) Auditor Tom Salmon is still running around in decidedly un-Auditor-ial arenas still trying to make himself into a teabagger hero, when he (and his pals) have decided that Brian Dubie is the gubernatorial candidate and de facto Party leader?

One wonders if the two stories suggest a common, underlying theme, as articulated by (Potential Independent Candidate for Governor Michael) Bernhardt:

“While the lieutenant governor (Dubie) has a record, there are a lot of folks who haven’t heard him talk on how he’s going to handle (the economy). So it’s raised some concern.”

It’s still a long time to the full-on electoral season. Lots of things can still happen, especially if GOP insiders are feeling sketchy about their anointed (for now) candidate.

From the Vermont Press Bureau today:

Native Vermonter, businessman and former ambassador Rodolphe “Skip” Vallee said Friday he is thinking about running to replace Gov. James Douglas.

[…] “I know Brian Dubie, I like Brian Dubie, I respect Brian Dubie,” Vallee said. But, he added, “I learned a long time ago that elections are not anointments. My view, whether it is people reaching out to me or to anybody else, is that Vermonters really need to have a full range of choices both within their party and certainly in a general election.”

What’d I tellya? The big money fiscal conservative wing of the GOP is nervous about Dubie’s ability to win, and whether he can be reliably counted on to do what he’s told. Mark my words – there’s gonna be a primary, whether it’s Vallee or someone else.

Etiquette in the age of H1N1

Over the past six weeks, I have three times thought that I MIGHT be coming down with a bug.  On each occasion, I was just a day or two away from some event or meeting in which I felt an urgent obligation to participate.  Twice, I was wrong about the bug, but the suspicious symptoms didn’t pass until the day of the event or meeting. I wasn’t so lucky the third time.  Convinced it was once again a phantom complaint, I blithely dosed my head and body aches with acetaminophen and went about my business.  Around the second hour of the five-hour event, my throat turned scratchy and I knew I’d made the wrong decision.  I quietly left, feeling like Typhoid Mary.

Sound familiar?

As I nurse my tea with honey and lemon and suck on lozenges, I thought this might be a good time to poll this conscientious readership for their opinion: Under the same circumstances, would you have just sent your apologies and stayed home? Yes or no?

 Loading ...