Some poking at Massachusettes and confusions rising from it

I wasn’t going to comment on this in general because I’m very much an outsider but seeing it storm up and down the net there is one refrain that just bugs me so much watching American politics:

“NOOOOO the health care bill and all future legislation is doooooooooooooom!!”

Yes, you expect some gloom and doom... but why are the Democrats so damn WET? They’ve had a super majority for a year now but they always seem to be wrestling with the Republicans. Why? You think the Republicans would be compromising and meeting you half way if it were the other way around? I just really don’t get this and I’m curious how things work in the US that this has happened?

George W Bush didn’t have a supermajority - yet still managed some to push through some of the worst hair-whitening legislation you could have the displeasure to see defiling paper. The Dems certainly stopped some of the vileness, but they let a lot of unpleasantness pass. So why, even with the majority, did the Dems seem to struggle and fight?

I once assumed that American politics just had more of a culture of bipartisanship than UK politic. It seems committees et al regularly contain members from both parties even when one is solidly in power (would never happen over here. You win an election decisively? You do things your war). But, if there is a culture of reaching across the aisle, well, maybe someone should tell the Republicans? Because they don’t seem to realise. And I don’t think a system based on compromise and meeting each other in the middle when one side isn’t shifting an inch.


I’ve heard the republicans declared to be the party of “no.” And it’s a great summation. But when did the Democrats become the party of whining, cowering in the corner and folding?

What did I miss? What am I missing?






And, for the record, my outsider’s view on why it was lost (because I have to stick my oar in I just do)

( Read more... )

And in the “Oh you did not?!” files

Both mjules and dharma_slut pointed out this particular fail of epic proportions and I’ve also seen it floating around. At the time I put it on the back burner because of the random stuff of stuffness to deal with that would have been better handled without seething anger. And, really, after Lambda (with cries of segregation, pink triangles, and closeted straight people) I thought I had seen privilege at record breaking ickiness.

But, having some mental space, and needing some righteous anger to clear away some vague depression I opened the link and read in detail. No, the people who sent me the link were not mistaken. It really is as bad as they said.

It seems that author, S. J. Pennington (ohhh, lookie there, an initialled name to hide gender. And they have scrupulously avoided any use of any kind of gendered pronoun. I dearly dearly hope this person is genderqueer and doesn‘t identify as either gender because the language they have used on their website is grossly appropriative if not and even a little dubious if they are) has decided that they know how to be gay better than... Adam Lambert. An actual gay man.

Now, best case scenario - SJ is a gay man and is engaging in some very unpleasant policing of his fellows That I don’t approve of and think we should all be very careful before trying to force our fellows to conform to tight standards to be ‘acceptable’ to heteronormative culture.

The middle ground would be that SJ is a member of the GBLT community but not a gay man - still extra fail for telling a gay man how to be a gay man and deciding they are the one to tell a “gay man’s story” but not as bad as the worst since saying what is damaging to the GBLT community is within their remit.

The worst case scenario? SJ is a straight person - who thinks they can give us a “love story for all gay
men” and “get our story out into the public awareness…” Who has written this book because “Gay men don't get their stories told often enough.” and is telling a gay man he’s doing it wrong AND deciding what is best for the GBLT community. I hope this isn't the case, because, yeah, that would be privilege on such an epic scale.




(Can I also add how much I don’t like the term “sexual preference?” It’s such a vague term, implying slight inclination. “I have a preference for beef, but am happy to eat pork.” “Do you want this car?” “No I’d prefer that one.” It implies choice, it implies something vague and unimportant, it implies something you can pass over or work through, it implies an ideal but not a requirement. It bothers me it does.

And because we need a hit of good news

Nepal is including GBLT rights in their charter. Their constitution will expressly protect the rights of GBLT people.

I love to see something like this. Unflinching complete and utter declaration that bigotry against GBLT people is wrong in all cases without exception, without mitigation, no waffling. It’s bloody WRONG and should not happen in any instance for any reason.


And while we’re on the international subject - here is a handy dandy little map to tell us who has signed the UN declaration on LGBT rights. Who hasn’t, and who has signed the counter resolution opposing it. I use similar maps to consider which countries are safe for travel (albeit the red on my map is way way more extensive). I’m debating whether I should rethink charitable contributions on that basis as well.