Fire Geithner and Summers? FINALLY!!!

Right now, I am totally loving Rep. Peter DeFazio. Citing the dubious connections to Wall Street that Obama's two top economic appointees have (not to mention Summers role in decimating Great Depression era restrictions that kept the economy in good stead for decades, while he was under the Clinton administration), DeFazio is calling for increasing the unemployment numbers by two.

I've registered my complaints with these two in the past (see here), and I have yet to believe that they are beneficial to our economy. I know that there are those who feel that Obama has all of these long range, chess strategy based moves that he will make over the course of his administration, but the appointments of these two have always just left me cold. Always. The bizarre ties with Goldman Sachs, an organization that Matt Taibbi has been eviscerating with each new blog post, are only the beginning. And it seems that Rep. DeFazio has had enough.

I hope that there is a groundswell of support for dumping these two men from the Obama economic team. Paul Volker, Robert Reich and/or Paul Krugman would be much better choices for dealing with this economy. And God knows that Elizabeth Warren has been doing everything but self-flagellation to bring attention to the problems that are not changing under these men.

It's time for change we can believe in, and I will not believe that change is beginning to come economically until Geithner and Summers are out of work, and some people with genuine concern and empathy for Main Street are devising economic policy for the Obama administration.

Love of Palin: Is It a White Thing, and I Just Don't Understand?

Remember that annoying tag line from the '80s: "It's a black thing; you wouldn't understand?" Well, I feel like Sarah Palin is a phenomenon that really is a kind of "white thing," because whites seem to be the only demographic group that really likes her. I want to hear from white folks (well really anyone who wants to chime in, but....). In the past, I've tried to explain Marion Barry for a white buddy of mine. Now, I am asking for help understanding the appeal of Palin. The best I've heard thus far, from conservative friends of mine, is that she reminds them of themselves.

Is that really it? I think of myself as a smart guy, but I can tell you that I want someone as POTUS who is beyond smarter than I am. I want someone who is, at the very least, curious about the world. Palin is not that person. She strikes me as someone I would see at Target who somehow managed to do well in politics, sort of.

After I watched this installment of "Countdown," I was just lost regarding the appeal that she continues to have. And, it is clear that she has some real difficulty with the truth.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Furthermore, there is no substance to much of anything that she has to say. If this post really is quoting Palin from her appearance on Rush Limbaugh's show, then I am mortified for her supporters. Asked a series of policy-like questions by Limbaugh, Palin provided nothing that could even be construed as substantive in her answers.

So, I am asking for help here. Help me understand Palin's appeal, because it just makes no sense to me.

The Washington Blade Shutting Down?

If the report that I just saw on Towleroad is correct (and I don't have any reason to doubt it), then the venerable "Washington Blade" will be shutting down.

I am in shock frankly. This is the 40th anniversary of the publication, and the Blade is a total institution here in Washington. I hope that the Blade will manage to weather this storm. Perhaps someone(s) with deep pockets here in DC can help to save it.

UPDATE: Here is another story coming in about the closing of Window Media. And here is a segment of NPR's show "Tell Me More" on the Blade journalist Lou Chibarro, Jr. (a 2009 Community Pioneer recognized by the Rainbow History Project). This is really sad.

Overreach by the Archdiocese of Washington

We have a very interesting situation developing here in Washington, DC.

For all intents and purposes, the city is poised to approve civil marriage equality next month. The majority of the City Council supports the measure, and Mayor Adrian Fenty is prepared to sign the legislation when it reaches his desk. Of course, there is that pesky little 30 Congressional review period for all of the District's laws. Barring any real problems there (and it is far from guaranteed that there will not be problems during the review period), then Washington should have civil marriage equality in early 2010.

However, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington has issued a full on threat to the city. If civil marriage equality comes to Washington, then the all social service programs administered by the Catholic Church in the city will have to come to an end; so they say. The Church is concerned that the Human Rights Act of 1977, and the religious exceptions within it, do not provide it with sufficient coverage to discriminate against GLBT residents of the city who may want to use some of the social services that the church provides. Therefore, if the Church cannot secure an exemption from the civil marriage legislation, which is essentially an exemption from the Human Rights Act of 1977, then it is prepared to abandon all of those individuals (gay, straight and all in between) aided by its programs.

The Human Rights Act of 1977 is quite comprehensive in terms of who is covered. It even bars discrimination based on appearance. I, however, am more interested in the exceptions. Section 2-1401.03 (b) states the following:

"Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to bar any religious or political organization, or any organization operated for charitable or educational purposes, which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious or political organization, from limiting employment, or admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or political persuasion as is calculated by the organization to promote the religious or political principles for which it is established or maintained."

Section 2-1401.03 (d) states the following:

"Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit any religious organization, association, or society or non-profit organization which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society from limiting sales, rental or occupancy of housing accommodations which it owns and operates for other than a commercial purpose to members of the same religion or organization, or from giving preference to these persons, unless the entity restricts its membership on the basis of race, color, or national origin. This chapter does not prohibit a private club, not open to the public, which incident to its primary purpose, provides lodgings which it owns and operates for other than a commercial purpose, from limiting the rental or occupancy of these lodgings to its members or from giving preference to its members."

After reading these two exceptions to the Human Rights Act of 1977, it seems to me that the Catholic Church will be well within the law if it stopped taking money from the city, and generated its revenue from its members, and if it simply restricted its services to practicing Catholics. Yes, there would be thousands of people who would temporarily be in trouble because of the loss of services currently provided. However, Rev. Dennis W. Wiley (co-chairman of D.C. Clergy United for Marriage Equality) made it clear to the "Washington Post" that "[t]here are others who can step up to the plate who would love to have the contracts [that the Catholic Church currently holds]."

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington wants to have its cake and eat it too. It has no intention of operating within the existing laws of the District. It did not have to seek public money to do its charitable work. The Church can continue to provide all of the services that it currently provides, but it will need to do it within the confines of the Human Rights Act of 1977. I don't think that is too much to ask.

This whole situation is essentially a power play. As D.C. Councilman Tommy Wells stated in an article in the "Washington Post," [i]t's a dangerous thing when the Catholic Church starts writing and determining the legislation and laws of the District of Columbia...."

I agree.

Abolish Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions II

I just finished reading this post over at Towleroad about the Archdiocese of DC threatening to sever its ties with DC government over the possibility of civil marriage equality coming to the District.

Once again, if religious institutions want to play politics, and try to dictate policy, then have at it. Just make sure you make that check out to the IRS. Regarding DC, I pay taxes here, so should I start demanding that the city not direct its funds to the various church services? Should I begin a campaign to pass legislation forbidding religious institutions from seeking government funds of any sort?

This issue needs a genuine remedy. I think that if you accept public funds, then you need to adhere to the public laws. David Catania crafted the legislation for marriage equality in a way that affords religious institutions real breathing room. The Archdiocese of DC, on the other hand, is indeed trying to strike fear into the city council. Catania's response that the city should end its relationship with the Catholic church was the right one.

If churches really want to jump into the political fray, from either the left or the right, then have at it. But they also need to have those tax exemptions abolished. We still need that money, and the new revenue would be most welcome.

Everybody wins, right?

Regarding the Black Church II: On Gay Youth and Vampires

I want to give credit to the blog Rod 2.0 for posting this bit of sad information about gospel singer and "ex-gay" Donnie McClurkin, a man whom the Obama campaign asked to help out in the South Carolina primary back in 2008 (raising the ire of the GLBT community generally). Apparently, McClurkin felt the need to attack gay youth last week. He blasted fem boys and butch girls, and chastised another gospel singer (someone called Tonex) who recently decided to be honest and come out of the closet, which seems like a minor miracle in that world.

As I read the post, I could not help but think about the young people who have been struggling with their sexuality having to be subjected to nothing short of psychological child abuse. Gays as vampires? Really? I think the gentleman doth protest too much, if the comments on Rod 2.0 are even close to correct. And let's not start on the completely mixed signals most likely coming from all of the closet cases that abound.

It was just another reminder of why I'd stated before that I am glad I was not raised within the church; I would have been a mess. How many of those children, who had to listen to the propagandist crap put forth by McClurkin, will end up like that kid "Jeffrey" from the "Tyra Banks Show" who was subjected to an "exorcism" to cast out the "gay demon?"

For every one of those children struggling and suffering within their faith communities, there are other children who are coming out to welcoming families and communities. Those children will be able to develop into healthy and happy adults. I pray that those children in that hall in Memphis last Saturday who continue to struggle with being honest about who they are will find their way from the real vampires in their paths (closeted and so called "ex-gay" church folks, and their straight enablers) toward their own happiness. Amen.

Adolescent Music Flashback: Frankie Goes to Hollywood

I was one of those kids who would stay up late on Friday nights to see if I could catch a racy music video that a television show like "Night Flight" would play on occasion. One of those racy videos that I remember seeing one late night was "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood (FGTH).

"Relax"

Now I'd seen the non-banned concert style video of the song, but the racy version was a revelation to me. I also realized that I totally had the hots for the openly gay Paul Rutherford (in his leather gear at the beginning of the video).

Of course growing up in the era of the Cold War (albeit the end of the Cold War, which was unbeknownst to any of us at the time), there was always the concern that the Russians might launch a nuclear attack, so FGTH's single "Two Tribes" was not only a cool song, but culturally appropriate.

"Two Tribes"

The only other song (and video) of FGTH that I really liked was "Welcome to the Pleasuredome." I just thought it was an interesting conceptual video in the tradition of the others that they'd done.

"Welcome to the Pleasuredome"

It seemed back then that saying you were a fan of FGTH was like a badge of coolness. Clearly, one stayed up late at night to catch the racy "Relax" vid, or one was quasi-intellectual for embracing the meaning behind "Two Tribes." For me, FGTH represented another link in the chain toward my acknowledging being gay. And I would like personally to thank Paul Rutherford for his part in that process.