Sexual Harassment Made this Union drop New York Candidate

Earlier today the Executive Board of 32BJ SEIU unanimously voted to rescind their endorsement of Assembly Member Micah Kellner for a City Council seat.

It was the first time the union, which has 75,000 members in New York City, has ever rescinded an endorsement. The union's members include janitors, property maintenance workers, doormen, security officers, window cleaners, building engineers, and school and food service workers.

In a statement from the Union secretary-treasurer Kyle Bragg said, "Given the allegations against Kellner, we cannot in good conscience continue to support his candidacy, and call on him to withdraw from the race. We are deeply disappointed, and do this with a measure of sadness, but it is the right thing to do."

Kellner made news last month after previous reports of sexual harassment came to light in a NYTimes article. In the article excepts of Internet chats were revealed in which Kellner flirted with his female staffers.

While this report is not anywhere near as explicit as the actions of Anthony Weiner or San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, it is another troubling case of a Democratic politician abusing a position of public trust and making the workplace unwelcome for women. The union taking unprecedented action here in rescinding it's endorsement is a sign that they are not willing to take that risk, and that the personal and professional integrity of candidates needs to apply to women not just in policy, but in their daily lives if candidates want support.

This is what marriage equality looks like

Obama is Reading Your Email and other Memes about the NSA Scandal

While the NSA's scandal continues to dominate the news and with the leaker, Edward Snowden now publicly open with the reasons for leaking the documents, there's also humor in some of the reactions. Meme culture has some pretty humorous responses to the news.
There's a whole tumblr dedicated to the idea of Obama is checking your email.

But there's also plenty of one off images circulating around twitter. Such as Obama eavesdropping.

In reference to the famous New Yorker cartoon, we see the internet dog.


Buzzfeed targeted Verizon specifically with a series of re-imagined ads.
 
Other users focused on Snowden who gives Good Guy Greg some serious competition.

Campaign posters were also redesigned to include NSA references.


And we even had a TSA reference in the mix!

While the policies in question and the consequences of the government's activities are no laughing matter, once again we see Internet humor moves at an incredible pace and humor remains a way to quickly make a point or introduce and share an idea rapidly.

Divisiveness of SF Pride's Manning Decision is Nothing New for the LGBT Community

The LGBT rights movement is by no means a monolithic group, and the range of opinions was contextualized Wednesday night when famous activists Dan Nicoletta and Anne Kronenberg took the stage for an event discussing the impact of Harvey Milk at the Castro Theater hosted by Facing History and Ourselves.

During the Q&A the recent SF Pride controversy around Bradley Manning's nomination and subsequent removal from the grand marshal list was brought up, where Dan Nicoletta diplomatically supported SF Pride, the representation of Manning in the movement, as well as the process of debating and disagreeing with each other.

Replying to the question about what he thought about the controversy Nicoletta answered, "And you know I love Pride... and I've worked intimately with Pride... So the discourse is heartbreaking but I think Stuart Milk so eloquently always says that our differences are our strengths and we are going to have fights and we should fight... we'll figure it out, it's a complex issue and I think by giving that spokesperson for Bradley Manning a place to talk about those issues we're doing the right thing...
"Just like in Harvey Milk's Day... under the pressures from the rest of the world when Anita Bryant challenged us at the ballot box and John Briggs challenged us at the ballot box... there was a lot of scrambling to be something other than what we are. To have our arguments in public, I think that's a healthy thing and we will figure it out."

Dan Nicoletta's photography has done much to document Harvey Milk's life as a politician in San Francisco and both he and Anne Kronenberg, who got her start in politics working with Milk, spoke at length about how they think Milk would have lead today had it not been for his assassination.

Meanwhile in current San Francisco LGBT politics, Supervisor David Campus wrote a strong letter to SF Pride in which he said, "The decision to rescind this honor is unprecedented and the community has every right to be concerned about the consequences of this abrupt, top-down directive. Most importantly, however, is the obligation Pride has to be accountable, transparent and representative to the diverse LGBT community it serves. As an organization which receives City funding, Pride has a responsibility to operate with transparency and accountability, and to allow for timely appropriate discussions with the community as needed. The failure of Pride leadership to do so in this circumstance is contrary to this responsibility."

"Controversy is not a new phenomenon to Pride festivities, nor is it a valid reason for Pride not to fulfill its responsibilities to the broader LGBT community. The recent statement made by Pride that the discussion on this matter is “closed” is disturbing, and may serve to further divide the community and foster long-lasting resentments."

Tuesday this week activists also held a "mock Pride board meeting" with a row of empty chairs to represent the absence of SF Pride in the discussion.

Whether or not SF Pride takes the time to respond to the community outcry or Supervisor Campos, the vigorous debate is nothing new in LGBT politics, though it certainly seems to have become reinvigorated thanks to the Manning nomination.

Immigration Reform 2013: Mark Zuckerberg's Lobbying Group Has Already Lost Key Donors

Mark Zuckerburg's forays into political action aren't proving to be successful. After launching on Aprill 11, Zuckerberg's lobbying group FWD.us has managed to quickly anger allies and lose support from key donors.

As the organization defines itself, "FWD.us is an organization started by key leaders in the tech community to promote policies to keep the United States and its citizens competitive in a global economy — including comprehensive immigration reform and education reform."

While that idea has been quick to garner support from techies, the reality of how that policy has come into play has been problematic. In order to get support from key Republicans, FWD.us has already waded into other issues, putting out TV ads supporting the Keystone XL Pipeline and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge much to the anger of progressives.

Former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) commented on FWD.us' actions, saying, "Leaders in the technology community have every right to talk about how immigration reform will benefit their businesses, but instead, FWD.us has chosen a strategy that’s condescending to voters and counterproductive to the cause of reform."

The former senator was part of a broader coalition of progressive organizers including Progressives United, MoveOn.Org, Democracy for America, CREDO, Daily Kos, The Sierra Club, The League of Conservation Voters, 350.org, and Presente.org. Although many of these organizations are allied with the cause of immigration reform, they have had their interested hurt by FWD.us's organizing tactics.

Even some FWD.us donors have left the cause, including Elon Musk and David Sacks. Musk said regarding his departure, "I agreed to support Fwd.us because there is a genuine need to reform immigration. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important causes. I have spent a lot of time fighting far larger lobbying organizations in D.C. and believe that the right way to win on a cause is to argue the merits of that cause."

In its blatant support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, FWD.us illustrates that Silicon Valley successes are not always the best qualified when it comes to policy, as they managed to not only divide both progressives and their own donors within a month of launch, but did so for a cause that the scientific community is largely against, despite FWD.us's lip service to STEM education.

In addition, the demographics of FWD.us illustrate that the Silicon Valley idea of a diverse group is rather stereotypically male-dominated. Out of their 13 listed founders, there is only one woman. Our of their 23 listed supporters, there are only four women. Despite that obvious gender gap they describe themselves as, "A diverse group of leading innovators, job creators, business owners, and founders from the tech community."

While Silicon Valley loves to talk about a meritocracy where the best product or solution wins, FWD.us looks much more like an old boys club engaging in politics as usual, and much less like an innovative solution to a tough political problem. While they repeatedly state on their Facebook page that the "the tech community is uniting around immigration reform," they lack policy specifics, can't boast any type of coalition work outside the tech community, and speak in generalities that don't indicate where they stand on rights for undocumented students (some of whom studied in the STEM fields FWD.us also supports), bi-national LGBT couples, the low income workers who support our food industry (techies gotta eat too, right?), families of immigrants (does that engineer have a mom who wants to live closer?), and more.

Maybe FWD.us will internalize these lessons and pivot to a better strategy like many of their supporters' companies, but if not Mark Zuckerburg's current work in the political arena seems to be causing more problems than it's fixing.

Originally Posted Here.

So Gay… (in that 1950s way that actually means cheerful)

So this week I’ve got three pieces of LGBT news in the arts:

I saw La Otra Familia (The Other Family) at Cinequest in San Jose and WOW. Charming, nuanced, not cheesy, enough of a bite to be real and enough sweetness to tug at the heart strings. Basic plot is the son of drug addict is taken away from his mom after she has been missing for several days, and ends up being taken care of by a gay couple. We also see a lesbian couple go through the process of family planning, a couple that’s trying to adopt, and what family means to each of these characters. It is set in Mexico and thus is in Spanish, but if you see it at Cinequest it will have subtitles and the performances need no translation to be brilliant. If you have a chance – go see it!

I also saw No Look Pass, a documentary film about Asian American Harvard Basketball star (Not Jeremy Lin) Emily Tay as she works towards a professional basketball career, sharing her life with her family, and the process of coming out. While some of the shots were more the classic talking to the camera moments, the camera follows her through her senior year and the post-graduation period resulting in many touchingly honest moments when you forget about the camera and think only of the moments in her life. A unique sort of coming of age tale – I’d recommend it as well. It will be playing a few more times in the bay area at both Cinequest and the SF International Asian American Film Festival this month.

And this one I have not seen as it has not come out yet – but it’s a one day only play about Prop 8 titled “8″ presented by AFER. The one day show’s live presentation will be raising funds for the Prop 8 repeal efforts however it will also be live streamed on March 3rd, 2012, at 7:30pm Pacific Time at AFER.org With the likes of George Clooney, Brad Pitt, & Martin Sheen adding their star power – it should help both raise awareness of the case, and funds needed in the continued legal fight. It will also be on YouTube in case AFER’s site gets overloaded: http://YouTube.com/AmericanEqualRights

Prop 8 Update... to come tomorrow

Tomorrow's Prop 8 ruling will likely cover three parts to the case...
1) If former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-time partner with whom he was not married (and therefore might have an interest in marrying someday)


2) If the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when the state of California won't

3) If Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents DO have the right to appeal, whether Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution....

... So tired of this nonsense. More news to come - 10:30 am tomorrow. Most likely on twitter...

Why I'm not impressed with Komen (Despite changing their stance on PP)

Last night I was going to post about Komen and Planned Parenthood but today’s news changes that thought train but I still think it is worth commenting on.

For background see Rachel Maddow’s summary from last night.

Attacking Planned Parenthood is not new, so why is it so hugely different when The Susan G. Komen for the Cure removes support from Planned Parenthood than when Congress and State Legislators do?

I think it largely has to do with where expectations lie. With Congress – no matter when you look in the last few years and regardless of what side of almost any issue you have an opinion on – most Americans agree Congress is something we don’t approve of. Since 2009 the highest Congressional approval numbers were at 37%. So when congress does something I don’t approve of, like cutting support to Planned Parenthood, I can’t really do much to change that. My representatives in the House and Senate generally won’t be swayed by any one feedback mechanism and this is true of most representatives on hot button issues. I expect Republicans in congress to be anti-women’s health because they come in campaigning on it. They are “pro-life” until a child is born at which point they’re anti-healthcare, anti-women’s rights and autonomy of health decisions, anti-LGBT families, etc… I expect it from them to attack women’s rights. And on the left I expect Democrats to make non-binding resolutions and give lip service to those issues but that they will ultimately cave when push comes to shove. (See Obama’s record on parental notification or NDAA etc… if you want to know why my expectations are calibrated as such) Ultimately when it comes to the government while I think there is huge potential for good (I like clean air, roads without potholes, clean drinking water, schools, fire fighters etc…) the political process will not represent the best of that. So while individually Democrats and Republicans might support women in their lives, that support being embodied in programs extending to all is another issue.

Meanwhile over at The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation – my expectations are a bit different. While there have been many critiques of running the non-profit too much like a business and making partners with ill fitted groups, reducing information and packing itself in a corporate manner that doesn’t suit the cause (See Komen Watch) – fundamentally people believe in the brand. People believe that if they are aware of cancer risks, wear their pink ribbon to bring a dialog about cancer and talk about the need for early screenings – ultimately there will be less breast cancer. When people participate in the Race for the Cure events, while they know the events won’t be the cure, there is a general feeling that the money they raise, and the awareness they raise will help. So when Komen pulls support from a group who’s About Us page says, “Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.” – it shocks.

Komen describes themselves saying, “As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures.” – so when they put politics ahead of that mission and pull back support from Planned Parenthood who’s mission so clearly overlaps there is a natural and justified anger.

Today when Komen reversed that decision they said,

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

To which I’d like to call out – B*LL$HIT. As already pointed out by Mother Jones, Komen has not withdrawn support from Penn State which is under criminal investigations that are not political… Furthermore the timing of their withdrawn support does not correlate with the investigations, but it does follow the hiring of prominent Republican Karen Handel, a former GOP candidate who ran on a pro-life platform, (though not pro-life enough for Georgia where she took flak for being okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest). While she may not be responsible – an anonymous source claims she is and speculation began before the reversal of this choice. However she was stupid enough to tweet this (and promptly delete it when the internet exploded…) :

“Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.”

Regardless if she is directly responsible, she should be fired for that. She is Susan G. Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy, and to publicly put forward an insult like that to supporters of Planned Parenthood is not appropriate. “Cry me a freaking river?” That’s the VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY’S reaction to low income women losing access to life saving preventative care and screenings? Ignoring the politics of I disagree with her perspective – from a pure business standpoint as  someone who should be a good public face of the organization – she had failed. And while Komen’s statement said, ”We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”  - the reality is it does.

And for a lot of advocates of women’s health Komen’s brand has lost a huge amount of trust, been mocked by Komen’s VP of Public Policy for reacting to that, and no reversal of policy will change that. Because a reversal of one politically motivated decision due to political outcry is in itself a political reaction. Once Komen pulled support it put itself in a position where by not giving support it was playing to one political agenda, and by renewing support in the wake of activists, senators and supports reactions – it played to the damage control of another political stance. Trustworthy non-profits operating to provide care do not do such abrupt about-faces- and the damage to the brand will not be repaired overnight.

As the Economist  posted:

“It’s a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood.”

I agree.

If they were going to cut funding they should have also done so to Penn State. By not doing so they suggested that abortion is a worse crime than child rape. By cutting funding and doing a rapid about face they showed they’re operating in a political arena, and brought attention to their public policy, which is headed by someone who’s stance on the issue raises uncomfortable questions. And by allowing the news cycle to continue a full week – Planned Parenthood suddenly gained huge numbers of supporters, and people began to delve into what those pink ribbons actually mean. Which given the way they run their non-profit like a corporation is not a good thing to raise attention to. Things like the CEO making $481,704 in an annual salary… (I don’t believe non-profit workers should be paid so little they can’t lead a good life – but if one person’s salary is 70% the amount of grants you make to the largest provider of women’s health care in the country… HOW ARE YOU ALLOCATING YOUR RESOURCES? Seriously – that’s ridiculous.)

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. When I discussed this issue with her she said if it wasn’t reversed she wouldn’t participate in Race for the Cure. This is from someone who did 8 of the 3 day walks to raise funs for breast cancer research. Who has the keychain, a stuffed animal and lord knows how many pink products…  She is as much of Komen’s target market as you can get and an active part of their fundraising events- and this week she was disappointed and had lost interest in working with them.

I am glad to see they reversed their decision. But until they fire Karen Handle, reduce executive compensation in favor of allocating a greater chunk of their funds to actual preventative care and treatment – I’m done with the pink ribbon industry. For more reasons why you might want to do so too, further reading.

State of the Union gut reactions...

Personally I wasn't too impressed with the SOTU. It felt too focused on the military and banking without addressing the elephant in the room of #OccupyWallSt; there were too many military points without addressing increased militarization of civilian police. And given the number of on going battles on a state level against roe v. wade - to see the only points he made on women being about equal pay seemed very passive. I was about to be excited when he talked about distrust of congress and if he'd said campaign finance reform instead of insider trading I'd write a check to OFA right now, but elimination of insider trading won't change legislation. Definitely glad to see the Dream Act get a shout out - but beginning and ending with Bin Laden and not mentioning any civil liberties after passing NDAA makes it seem like the Dream Act will be the token part of the agenda for progressives and he'll be on a hard center right track till the election. 

Edit: How could I forget?!?! YAY TEACHERS!

Random Thoughts

I need to post about #OccupyOakland’s events from yesterday. But that would take a lot more mental energy than I currently have due to being out for so many hours yesterday, getting home late, watching the livestream deteriorate as things turned violent, waking up early for the first day of working at a new temp job with UPS and I think this deserves a much more nuanced analysis than what I’m seeing in written, broadcast, and grassroots citizen journalist coverage.

Earlier on Facebook I posted:

“There are agitators at #OccupyOakland. And the vast majority find them very frustrating. But as long as we're showing photos of some protesters breaking things, can we also share the photos of some protesters fixing things? Just to be you know... fair and balanced and all that jazz?”

Accompanying this is a link to the following photo (Originally posted by Susan Quinlan)

And I think that sums up a lot of my attitude without going into the 11 hours I photographed yesterday… Which I will do later. Though I can’t promise when as I’m also trying to upload and organize my photos from the event.

But the scale of the problem was revealed to me not only in Port of Oakland, but today at my UPS training for the season job as a driver helper. In the room we had a law student, recent business graduate, army reservist and veteran, retired postal worker of 27 years, laid off postal employee of 6 years, and a few others I didn’t get a chance to speak to in depth long enough to learn their backgrounds. This is for a manual labor job that starts at minimum wage, is seasonal, and only a pretty qualified pool of people was able to access. What does that mean for those who are not in the 30% of Americans who went to college?  

Scattered Thoughts on the Occupy Movement.

I seem to fall somewhere between the two main trains of thoughts I see up on facebook walls, peppering my twitter feed, dominating the opinion pages and otherwise publicly being declared. There are those saying the movement is a time waste and naïve – often based on economics, lack of political tactics, haphazard strategy, etc. And the other side is so refreshed by the sight of action that their perspectives are unapologetically bold in their support. Which isn’t to say there aren’t more nuanced perspectives out there – only that they aren’t the ones I seem to be encountering daily.

When the protests began I hoped the novelty would wear off soon and substance would come. The procedural running of meetings to achieve consensus complete with hand motions for a point of order, voting agreement or disapproval etc. reminded me of my first high school congress tournament with my Speech and Debate team – I could see the objective of rules to regulate the conversation but I found the dialog utterly disconnected from reality. So we all agree – now what? Consensus in general assemblies meant little in terms of future actions, just as the results meant little in my high school debates.

Later watching the police brutally attack protesters in New York with punches to the face, unprovoked pepper spray and kettling tactics it was surreal. The UC fee hikes had introduced me to those tactics and I must confess I am rather scared of pepper spray and batons as my encounters with them have not been pleasant. I’m sure activist friends who were with me when I was at such protests can attest – I’m a coward. I want to be close enough to the action to get the photos but I’m pretty useless when things are chaotic. I’m short enough to get lost in the shuffle and when I can’t see what’s happening I get worried. Regardless of my own dislike of chaotic situations, I went out to San Francisco again to see what the local movement looked like – did it have the same vibe as what I was observing remotely from video clips, photos and live streams from Wall Street?

I was disappointed. If you had told me the entire San Francisco contingent in those early days was simply the kids from the Haight who’d relocated I’d believe you. Several of the people I spoke to at the event had come out from Florida to go to the Blue Grass Festival and decided to stay on. This wasn’t a movement dominated by local San Franciscans asking to be heard. There were a handful out there – but it wasn’t a majority, and the loudest voices definitely weren’t locals (in the discussions I had.) I admit, I’ve gone out of state for a few days of GOTV work in proceeding elections, but there’s something different to me about being invited by campaign organizers to remind people their voices matter and physically occupying a space while claiming to represent the people in that space. The difference between co-opting versus supporting matters to me, especially in the early phases of a movement.

Other things also frustrated me. When there are only a few dozen people and you’ve made a rule through consensus I expect you to respect it. Seeing a man packing a bowl and getting high under the sign that set the rules No Drugs, No Alcohol, and No Smoking annoyed me. I have no problem with an 18 year old who’s legally allowed to serve in the military having a beer. I don’t think our government’s drug policy is logical at all and if you want to protest that – have at it! (I personally have chosen to respect it – and didn’t drink till 22, but my perspective doesn’t need to dictate your actions) But what frustrated me was that those in camp reached consensus that the camp would be drug and alcohol free, and yet some of those people who participated in making the rule didn’t respect it. This wasn’t a rule imposed by a higher power years before your birth, it was your community with your participation. If you’re going to do civil disobedience to change a law but can’t respect your own rules, why bother? If you’re going to ignore rules regardless of who makes them, why should the rules matter to you?

At Occupy San Jose I found much more to respect. It was a smaller delegation but rather than people asking me where to find a good cup of coffee and asking for directions – there was debate on whether the city ordinances should be respected as the protest was meant to target a national issue, however the ordinances would affect the action plan. The debate was much more nuanced and action oriented when I went – precedent of past protests was discussed as well as the cost in both public perception and use of time. It felt more concrete in how they were establishing their role, which to me is essential for being relevant. If you don’t have a concrete aim to be achieved – when will the fight be over? Are you planning on camping out forever?

When I made my way to Occupy Oakland I found it was like Occupy San Jose in the community being predominantly local, but as it was much larger it also had greater diversity. By diversity I’m refereeing to socio-economic status, racial representation, gender expression, orientation of couples holding hands etc- there was a much wider segment of society being represented. Like in San Francisco there were the occasional joints and drinks being served – but like San Jose they were being very methodical about running their General Assembly, and due to the size were breaking into groups of 20 for both discussions and voting to get an accurate headcount and make sure concerns were aired.

The day I came to Occupy Oakland was right after the camp had been forcefully disbanded by police, and after the tear gassing and pepper spraying of protesters who tried to return – so there was a much greater awareness of the cost of attendance and the possibility of force, even though the police were not present that evening.

However despite mostly agreeing with where protesters attitudes were coming from, still I found myself irked later in the evening when Mayor Quan came to address the assembly. When it came to being angry at her, I understand that. When it came to being physically assaulted by police I understand the anger. But far too many complained that she wasn’t listening, and when she came angry individuals ran towards her shouting she was not welcome. To me it meant the chance for a dialog was never made possible. If angry people run at me shouting, I’d leave – and I can’t blame Mayor Quan for doing as much.

Don’t get me wrong here, it was stupid of the city to use such violent tactics to clear the camp. It was even stupider to use tear gas in the name of public safety to clear a crowd that was mostly milling about (to be fair there were some trouble makers). That being said on the protesters side it was stupid to not stop other protesters from throwing paint canisters on police. They don’t know if you’re throwing water, paint or gasoline that you plan to follow with a match – so obviously they’re going to be more likely to use force when it seems like elements of the group are willing to fight. It was also stupid of protesters to not take advantage of the moment to engage with mayor and actually talk it out. Even if the protesters disagreed with everything she might have said, to let her talk would have made them the grown ups, the responsible ones. Undue force and irrationality would be pegged squarely on the city; but if a Mayor can’t walk into a public square without being verbally harassed with people chasing her – she’s got much more ground for future force.

That being said the evening ended on a much more peaceful note – live music being played, a community celebrating their presence, dancing, and I don’t recall the last time I felt so comfortable in a space. A man told me about his fears for his daughter who at age 5 had already seen several homicides in their neighborhood. I met young people who cheerfully invited me into their group. A woman made soup to hand out in cups – so when I stayed several hours longer than expected I was not hungry. I’ve been to a fair number of political spaces – but the common thread amongst most conventions and networking events is I’m miserable. I love the people I meet working phone banks, walking precincts etc – but political spaces always make me feel marginalized, so to see a movement so open armed is also a positive sign.

However as I see it the inability for the movement to self manage itself is the biggest hurdle to getting full support- because I’m not the only one that agrees that the problem of economic injustice is huge, that the government is being corrupted with money, that lobbyists exert too much control, that those in the financial industry who crashed the economy should be better regulated etc… a lot of the things being said in any of these three cities general assemblies I and many others agree with. And I like a lot of the people I’ve met. But if we’re talking about the principle of an idea not the implementation such agreement becomes meaningless to the larger issue.

The reality is we’re several weeks in and most of the general assemblies that I’ve been to are still working out group norms, talking about procedurals, and trying to figure out what the group stands for. To be fair – society hasn’t had a lot of these conversations in a long time, and it will take time to bring the discussion around, but I’m getting stir crazy. I want to see the movement DO something more than organize the tents and camp. At first I was impressed by having trash, compost and recycling separated and by having the first aid tents. But it’s been too long for that to feel good. It feels like the frustration I had with the congress tournaments in High School or the UN re-enactments at conferences, great dialog, what does it mean?

Last year I thought the Rally to Restore Sanity was an awesome way to bring together moderate Americans and those with a sense of humor to say the political machine was broken – but that was a feel good action that didn’t actually change anything but the media dialog. The dialog change was needed but it didn’t change any policies or the behavior of politicians. It made people aware that things had gotten too heated – but it wasn’t until Congresswoman Giffords was shot that the point was truly absorbed and the media coverage changed. My fear is that OccupyWallStreet could be something in those lines- a press event raising awareness for a serious issue that that despite it’s good intent needs a tragedy to make it’s point. The topic has been successfully raised (statistically we can prove this), the microphone (human or otherwise) is ready, but the elephant in the room is the lingering question, “Now what?”

I’ll be going to Oakland tomorrow to see what happens in the strike. Maybe my thoughts will change then… I’ll let you know.

Tear gas from the US being used against protesters in Eygpt...

Sorry Eygpt...

Seriously? "I'm the One Getting Bludgeoned..."

After LGBT activist David Kato was beaten to death, for Evangelical leaders who've supported legislation in Uganda that would kill or imprison gays, this is by far the least appropriate thing one could say:

“I spoke to help people,” he said, “and I’m getting bludgeoned from one end to the other.”

(Blog Source and Newspaper as well... )

Especially after Tuscon the question of blame after violence seems to come up more in media narratives than the idea that words have consequences.  Once again a right-wing cry for direct action against a group has lead to targeted violence and in the immediate aftermath the response is claiming to be the victim. In 2008 when US right-wing leaders and Evangelicals started pushing anti-gay legislation this was an obvious risk. When publications posted pictures outing gay men with the caption of "Hang Them" this was an obvious risk. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that it lead to an activist being brutally murdered...  It is tragic but expected. But for those who called for these action, the claim that they make calling themselves victims is unacceptable.

David Kato was considered the founding father of the gay rights movement in Uganda and his leadership is needed now more than ever. But leadership is also necessary here in the states given the amount of US leadership in escalating the targeted homophobia. Our LGBTQ citizens are certainly discriminated against, but we do have relative safety compared to those the right-wing has made all the more vulnerable, and as a movement we must consider not just the localized actions to secure our neighborhoods and states, but ensuring the safety of all those facing the same oppression. As Americans mourned the loss of one 9 year old in Arizona, the trial for the murder of another 9 year old in Arizona who also died in a political shooting is largely ignored. (Source) Except this time it was targeted by race. While I'm a fan of the idea of working together on issues that affect all Americans, we can't ignore the targeted attacks on minorities, those who call for them, or pretend such attacks are isolated incidents. Or that when internationally the same conclusions are reached after our right-wing activists work in collaboration with their governments, that it isn't tied to our own politics domestically. Whether it's Congresswoman Giffords or David Kato or 9 year old Brisenia Flores or any other of the many people who's suffered in hate crimes - the media narrative of shock must be abandoned. Only minimal research is needed to see warning signs in public speeches, published articles, active web forums spewing hate, and the accessibility of weapons to those who are being preached to or otherwise incited. I'm sad for the loss of David Kato, but I'm not surprised. And anyone who claims to be either has not been paying attention or is in denial, and both are unacceptable in our media.

Hot Dogs... go on.

The news is pretty depressing these days, if like me you'd like something less serious as a distraction for a little bit, this is for you.

Also interesting to note on Huffington Post the top stories right now are Giffords Breathing On Her Own followed by Natalie Portman's Topless New Miss Dior Cherie Perfume Ad...

An Olympic Protest