Dan Choi followup April 20, 2010 2:27 PM Subscribe
Followup to the recent Dan Choi thread. He's handcuffed himself to the White House gate again.
maybe i'm missing something - but it seems that both of these events were spurned by things barney frank said (one which he "clarified" later) - neither of these statements of his seem to be backed by anything besides "this is my impression". as far as i can tell, obama is still staunchly for the repeal (in fact, his own words back this up). so what is frank referring to when he says "His not being for it will give people an excuse to not vote for it. Thing is – we’ve done hate crimes. We do ENDA. It’s a big agenda all at once. At this point – the President’s refusal to call for repeal this year is a problem."?
posted by nadawi at 2:42 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by nadawi at 2:42 PM on April 20, 2010
We had this crazy reverend who would lie down in the middle of the main street of my home town to protest ... well, lots of things, I guess. It got to the point where the local police would just put traffic barricades around him.
He used a similar tactic to protest the Gay Freedom Train in '79.
I don't know if that's relevant or not, but fuck it, it's my contribution to this thread and if you don't like it that's too bad.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:44 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
He used a similar tactic to protest the Gay Freedom Train in '79.
I don't know if that's relevant or not, but fuck it, it's my contribution to this thread and if you don't like it that's too bad.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 2:44 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
to me the more interesting part of the story is the closing of the park and keeping the press away.
posted by nadawi at 2:50 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by nadawi at 2:50 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Good for him. Shame that he has to get the marks on his wrists...
posted by nevercalm at 2:53 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by nevercalm at 2:53 PM on April 20, 2010
I don't know if that's relevant or not, but fuck it, it's my contribution to this thread and if you don't like it that's too bad.
I would like a Greasemonkey script to append this sentiment to every one of my comments.
I don't know if that's relevant or not, but fuck it, it's my contribution to this thread and if you don't like it that's too bad.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:59 PM on April 20, 2010 [4 favorites]
I would like a Greasemonkey script to append this sentiment to every one of my comments.
I don't know if that's relevant or not, but fuck it, it's my contribution to this thread and if you don't like it that's too bad.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:59 PM on April 20, 2010 [4 favorites]
I have to wonder if the press would have been kept away if that had been a group of teabaggers or just about anyone else.
And why not continue to protest? Isn't it a good idea to keep the fire hot until the mission is really accomplished?
posted by snsranch at 3:25 PM on April 20, 2010
And why not continue to protest? Isn't it a good idea to keep the fire hot until the mission is really accomplished?
posted by snsranch at 3:25 PM on April 20, 2010
Well, at least it's taking a bit of attention away from the teabaggers. (I don't know if that's relevant or not, but fuck it, it's my contribution to this thread and if you don't like it that's too bad.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:25 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by Halloween Jack at 3:25 PM on April 20, 2010
Barney Frank on Protesting
IDKITRON, BFI, IMCTTTAIYDLITTB.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:33 PM on April 20, 2010
IDKITRON, BFI, IMCTTTAIYDLITTB.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:33 PM on April 20, 2010
obama is still staunchly for the repeal (in fact, his own words back this up).
Obama's word really helped out the public option, didn't it? More background on this issue.
posted by Craig at 3:45 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Obama's word really helped out the public option, didn't it? More background on this issue.
posted by Craig at 3:45 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
well, in both cases it is a congressional matter, not an executive matter. and if the issue is obama vocally giving support (which he did in the state of the union and at the barbara boxer fund raiser), then what does that have to do with the public option, which he did give his vocal support to?
also, in your more background - we still just have barney frank's opinion, which he waffles on and restates. to me it seems like he's just rabble rousing.
i very much support the repeal of DADT, but i don't think that choi should chain himself to the fence every time barney franks gives an interview devoid of any facts.
posted by nadawi at 3:52 PM on April 20, 2010
also, in your more background - we still just have barney frank's opinion, which he waffles on and restates. to me it seems like he's just rabble rousing.
i very much support the repeal of DADT, but i don't think that choi should chain himself to the fence every time barney franks gives an interview devoid of any facts.
posted by nadawi at 3:52 PM on April 20, 2010
mine was a pink with a lampshade, but fuck it, I'm going to bed, its 2am
posted by infini at 4:03 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by infini at 4:03 PM on April 20, 2010
DADT is not in the Defence authorization bill. Which means that it will not be repealed this year. Obama ordered a study which has delayed considering repeal until a week after the new congress is seated after midterms. Dems lose power and can't do anything. Dems get to say that they're working really hard on gay issues... 'yeah, we promise, now excuse us while we go fund raise off of your community.'
Except a lot of people have already caught onto this ploy and have launched, "Don't Ask, Don't Give." That's the only reason we're even talking about this issue.
Sorry if you don't find Barney Frank a reliable source - but he is in fact one of very few people that is in a position to know, that will actually comment to a gay publication. I think if you checked around you'd find that he's pretty solidly in Obama's camp and generally loathe to criticize the White House. Hence, his comments are being heavily quoted in the blogs/press, it's unusual that he's blunt about Obama's inaction.
But, whatever, I'm not here to convince you, it really doesn't matter what either of us thinks. A large vocal segment of the gay community doesn't believe Obama - the damage is there. We'll see what happens when the DADT study is completed and midterms are over. I'd love to be wrong! But, in the meantime, I think people chaining themselves to the White House and pointing a big giant spotlight on this issue is the only real way any movement is going to be won.
posted by Craig at 4:49 PM on April 20, 2010 [3 favorites]
Except a lot of people have already caught onto this ploy and have launched, "Don't Ask, Don't Give." That's the only reason we're even talking about this issue.
Sorry if you don't find Barney Frank a reliable source - but he is in fact one of very few people that is in a position to know, that will actually comment to a gay publication. I think if you checked around you'd find that he's pretty solidly in Obama's camp and generally loathe to criticize the White House. Hence, his comments are being heavily quoted in the blogs/press, it's unusual that he's blunt about Obama's inaction.
But, whatever, I'm not here to convince you, it really doesn't matter what either of us thinks. A large vocal segment of the gay community doesn't believe Obama - the damage is there. We'll see what happens when the DADT study is completed and midterms are over. I'd love to be wrong! But, in the meantime, I think people chaining themselves to the White House and pointing a big giant spotlight on this issue is the only real way any movement is going to be won.
posted by Craig at 4:49 PM on April 20, 2010 [3 favorites]
if barney frank would stick with one of his quotes and not back off and then reassert, i might be more inclined to listen. i'm glad there is someone there willing to talk about these issues and i generally really like him, but i don't think his statements about his impressions are enough to heckle the president over during a speech.
and really, the chaining to the fence i don't have a problem with. i think this one or the other one could have been better planned to be more effective and i think the people involved are saying things that conflate the issue (like having obama repeal DADT, while he has influence, it's congress's job).
to me, some of these antics remind me of PETA. i support the cause, i wish for the same things - but i think their methods drive a wedge and back people up against the wall and i don't think that is how effective change is brought.
i also have a bad taste in my mouth from this tweet, which has been stuck in my craw all day so i'm probably more frustrated by these methods than i'd normally be.
posted by nadawi at 5:05 PM on April 20, 2010
and really, the chaining to the fence i don't have a problem with. i think this one or the other one could have been better planned to be more effective and i think the people involved are saying things that conflate the issue (like having obama repeal DADT, while he has influence, it's congress's job).
to me, some of these antics remind me of PETA. i support the cause, i wish for the same things - but i think their methods drive a wedge and back people up against the wall and i don't think that is how effective change is brought.
i also have a bad taste in my mouth from this tweet, which has been stuck in my craw all day so i'm probably more frustrated by these methods than i'd normally be.
posted by nadawi at 5:05 PM on April 20, 2010
and with don't ask don't give - i so agree in theory - don't spend your money on those who don't support your issues. i just really hope it doesn't turn into don't ask, don't vote, because that will only hurt gay rights - as much as we would like the Dems to move faster, we can agree that we're better off with them than with the republicans, yeah?
posted by nadawi at 5:09 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by nadawi at 5:09 PM on April 20, 2010
That tweet is both hyperbolic *and* not-even-wrong. The phrase "re-enacting the Stonewall of our generation" makes... no sense at all.
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:12 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by fairytale of los angeles at 5:12 PM on April 20, 2010
A bit more quietly, I performed a same-sex marriage on the Capitol grounds this evening, right about the time this was posted.
posted by MrMoonPie at 5:40 PM on April 20, 2010 [5 favorites]
posted by MrMoonPie at 5:40 PM on April 20, 2010 [5 favorites]
I'd agree the tweet is complete hyperbole and disrespectful to Stonewall. But, I'd also assert we should be happy that they are around, given the attitude of HRC. Getequal is only a wanna-be ACT-UP though.
As far as heckling the president. I'd defend that. It wasn't a speech, it was a fundraiser for a local politician. A fundraiser in a gay area. He walked in knowing that he was going to raise money off gays when he hasn't done much to deserve the label of 'fierce advocate.' I think in this venue its appropriate (after all, how much $$ did they pay to get into that dinner, they SHOULD heckle).
to me, some of these antics remind me of PETA. i support the cause, i wish for the same things - but i think their methods drive a wedge and back people up against the wall and i don't think that is how effective change is brought.
Just got to get it on the news - y'know? Say what you will about PETA, but they get great coverage with pretty minimal participation, small groups. That big war protest a few years ago - in New York City.... yeah, I didn't hear anything about it either.
I think Barney Frank has conflicting loyalties. On the one hand is Obama and the White House, he wants to help them accomplish everything they want in the 'bigger picture.' But, he knows that they gay community isn't going to get the advocate that we really need. The interests clash and he can be a clumsy politician sometimes.
posted by Craig at 5:44 PM on April 20, 2010
As far as heckling the president. I'd defend that. It wasn't a speech, it was a fundraiser for a local politician. A fundraiser in a gay area. He walked in knowing that he was going to raise money off gays when he hasn't done much to deserve the label of 'fierce advocate.' I think in this venue its appropriate (after all, how much $$ did they pay to get into that dinner, they SHOULD heckle).
to me, some of these antics remind me of PETA. i support the cause, i wish for the same things - but i think their methods drive a wedge and back people up against the wall and i don't think that is how effective change is brought.
Just got to get it on the news - y'know? Say what you will about PETA, but they get great coverage with pretty minimal participation, small groups. That big war protest a few years ago - in New York City.... yeah, I didn't hear anything about it either.
I think Barney Frank has conflicting loyalties. On the one hand is Obama and the White House, he wants to help them accomplish everything they want in the 'bigger picture.' But, he knows that they gay community isn't going to get the advocate that we really need. The interests clash and he can be a clumsy politician sometimes.
posted by Craig at 5:44 PM on April 20, 2010
nadawi, the repeal is not in the Defense Authorization Bill, which is how it would have happened in order to happen this year. There are numerous reports from Capitol Hill (anonymously sourced, sadly) that the Obama White House asked Democrat leaders to not include repeal. You have to understand this in the context of many years of gay voters being taken for granted by centrist Dems (that Obama is clearly one of those shouldn't be up for discussion at this point, right?), mainly out of those Dems' fears that any gay-related commitment beyond mere words would hurt them at the polls. Seriously, Obama's people must know it's going to be harder to get repeal after the election, so you have to ask: Why is he waiting?
I'm curious what you think is the answer to that one.
The hesitance, remember, is despite 1) polls showing a fairly large majority of U.S. citizens (57% was the last number I read) support immediate repeal, and 2) the simple, clear national security benefits to be gained. At this point, since it's clear to many Obama is wavering in his commitment to repealing DADT when he has his best chance of doing so, civil disobedience and other direct action is *exactly* wha's needed to make him do the right thing. That Obama is annoyed about being forced to do the right thing doesn't mean shit.
posted by mediareport at 5:47 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm curious what you think is the answer to that one.
The hesitance, remember, is despite 1) polls showing a fairly large majority of U.S. citizens (57% was the last number I read) support immediate repeal, and 2) the simple, clear national security benefits to be gained. At this point, since it's clear to many Obama is wavering in his commitment to repealing DADT when he has his best chance of doing so, civil disobedience and other direct action is *exactly* wha's needed to make him do the right thing. That Obama is annoyed about being forced to do the right thing doesn't mean shit.
posted by mediareport at 5:47 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
will only hurt gay rights - as much as we would like the Dems to move faster, we can agree that we're better off with them than with the republicans, yeah?
Nope, that's where we disagree again. If the party won't support us even as we support it, let the party burn. I am only loyal to my issues/community, not the party. We can sit out an election cycle and let them try to woo us again. It sucks, but they are the ones not following through on their commitments to their constituencies. I fully expect you'd have different set of priorities or issues that are important to you - but this is my life. I don't. The fact that you'd side with the party over what is supposed to be a cornerstone issue (civil rights) for the Dems is symptomatic of the whole issue: we're not important enough to upset the party over. That's bull, so we walk (that's the idea anyway).
Stonewall Dems are in the party pretty deep, so it's not like gays are going to vote all republican or anything. But I suspect you'll see a drop off in assistance in terms of getting the vote out, phonebanking, and certainly in cash. I just hope that the Dems are hurt enough that they come looking for support so we can twist their arms far enough to break DOMA.
posted by Craig at 6:40 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Nope, that's where we disagree again. If the party won't support us even as we support it, let the party burn. I am only loyal to my issues/community, not the party. We can sit out an election cycle and let them try to woo us again. It sucks, but they are the ones not following through on their commitments to their constituencies. I fully expect you'd have different set of priorities or issues that are important to you - but this is my life. I don't. The fact that you'd side with the party over what is supposed to be a cornerstone issue (civil rights) for the Dems is symptomatic of the whole issue: we're not important enough to upset the party over. That's bull, so we walk (that's the idea anyway).
Stonewall Dems are in the party pretty deep, so it's not like gays are going to vote all republican or anything. But I suspect you'll see a drop off in assistance in terms of getting the vote out, phonebanking, and certainly in cash. I just hope that the Dems are hurt enough that they come looking for support so we can twist their arms far enough to break DOMA.
posted by Craig at 6:40 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
Well, I'm not *hoping* they're hurt enough. But it is clear most observers see big Republican gains this year, as in most non-Presidential election years. This is common knowledge, right? So the thinking in the White House seems to be "If we avoid gay issues, we can keep the damage they do to us to a minimum, since gay issues inflame the far right so much."
That seems stupid to me. You don't sit and wait while your opponent mobilizes its base. You galvanize yours. And anyone who thinks ignoring DADT is going to somehow soothe the feathers of the homophobic right so a significant chunk of them stays home next November is a near-sighted fool. Given that, and given it's clear things will be harder next year for one of your core constituencies, then you goddamn help them while you can *because your core constituency deserves no less.* Anything else is dismissing that constituency for what you wrongly perceive as your own political protection.
And the stupidest thing gay and lesbian voters can do is encourage that behavior by rewarding it with money and time.
posted by mediareport at 6:53 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
That seems stupid to me. You don't sit and wait while your opponent mobilizes its base. You galvanize yours. And anyone who thinks ignoring DADT is going to somehow soothe the feathers of the homophobic right so a significant chunk of them stays home next November is a near-sighted fool. Given that, and given it's clear things will be harder next year for one of your core constituencies, then you goddamn help them while you can *because your core constituency deserves no less.* Anything else is dismissing that constituency for what you wrongly perceive as your own political protection.
And the stupidest thing gay and lesbian voters can do is encourage that behavior by rewarding it with money and time.
posted by mediareport at 6:53 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
i feel like some words are being put in my mouth that i neither said nor indicated. what i will say is that i got more from this thread than i've gotten from listening to franks or any of those at getEQUAL (seriously, mediareport, you should be writing their copy - never have they said anything so concise and to the point). ultimately i'm discussing and disagreeing with the rhetorical devices getEQUAL employs to reach their ends. i'm fully eager for DADT to get repealed, i just don't agree with "anything to get on tv" protesting for any cause.
posted by nadawi at 7:14 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by nadawi at 7:14 PM on April 20, 2010
i just don't agree with "anything to get on tv" protesting for any cause.
Good thing that's not what the hecklers were doing, then. They're pressuring Obama directly, in person and on the White House lawn. Guess what? It works.
posted by mediareport at 7:23 PM on April 20, 2010
Good thing that's not what the hecklers were doing, then. They're pressuring Obama directly, in person and on the White House lawn. Guess what? It works.
posted by mediareport at 7:23 PM on April 20, 2010
Remember this when your right-wing friends (you know you have them) point out that the President only has a 48% approval rating. It's because about a quarter to a third of the country think he's not liberal enough.
posted by yhbc at 7:34 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by yhbc at 7:34 PM on April 20, 2010 [1 favorite]
mediareport - i was responding to this from craig - Just got to get it on the news - y'know?
Guess what? It works.
in this case, i really, really hope so.
posted by nadawi at 7:36 PM on April 20, 2010
Guess what? It works.
in this case, i really, really hope so.
posted by nadawi at 7:36 PM on April 20, 2010
Well, nadawi, doing nothing sure won't get DADT repeal into that Defense Appropriations Bill. Do you have another suggestion?
posted by mediareport at 8:21 PM on April 20, 2010
posted by mediareport at 8:21 PM on April 20, 2010
i can only think you're being hyperbolic and not arguing in good faith - or do you really think that getEQUAL is the only group doing anything to get DADT repealed?
posted by nadawi at 12:15 PM on April 21, 2010
posted by nadawi at 12:15 PM on April 21, 2010
The thing that bothers me about this is that the park police got all crazy and refused to let the press in to cover the story. What happened to freedom of speech? This is really disturbing.
posted by garnetgirl at 1:11 PM on April 21, 2010
posted by garnetgirl at 1:11 PM on April 21, 2010
« Older The harmonic relationship between chords that this... | A quick note from an askme beneficiary. Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:40 PM on April 20, 2010 [11 favorites]