Tag Archives: segregation

Is Ferguson a symptom of black American panic?

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Cowardly, bigoted Barack Obama defers the dream yet again

Gay rights advocates Sergio Llanos, left, of Queens, and Vito Hernovich, of Manhattan, chant slogans during a rally for same sex marriage outside the LGBT gala fundraiser where President Barack Obama

Protesters take part in a demonstration supporting same-sex marriages outside Sheraton Hotel where U.S. President Barack Obama was attending a function in New York

Associated Press and Reuters photos

My sentiments exactly: Actual gay-rights activists protest outside of the gala fundraiser that “LGBT” sellouts held for Barack Obama in Manhattan today. To continue to support Barack Obama’s perpetually deferred dream of equal (and not “separate but equal”) human and civil rights for non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals is treason against the cause.

I remember my visit to San Francisco for the Castro Street Fair in October 2007. (No, it wasn’t one of those San Francisco street fairs where you see any nudity or sexual activity — unfortunately…)

I remember being given, at the street fair, a sticker with the 2008 Obama presidential campaign logo on it, incorporating the rainbow that symbolizes the “LGBT” “community.”

(I use quotation marks around those because “LGBT” always sounded like a type of sandwich to me, and it always has struck me that we creative gay men and lesbians and other non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals — we queers — could have done much, much better than that, and “community” infers connections that, in my observation, don’t actually exist.)

I remember the Obama rainbow sticker from October 2007 not only because I actually put it on, which I usually don’t do when I’m handed stickers (but I did that time because at that time I actually had some hope for change), but also because the fucking sticker ruined my faux suede shirt, off of which the adhesive didn’t want to come.

I just did a search for the image, and I do believe that this is the image that I’m talking about:

2007-08-09-obamapridecol.jpg

Interestingly, the above image comes from a short August 2007 blog post in which gay author Dan Savage snarkily observes: “He was first out of the gate with a rainbow logo, so I guess I’m obligated to vote for this guy. Must… obey… rainbow…”

The sarcastic Savage had a point. The “Democratic Party” has devolved into a collection of identity groups at whom empty promises are thrown and whose financial support and votes are taken for fucking granted by the “Democratic” operatives who believe that they’re smarter than everyone else.

But I, for one of millions, took Obama’s 2008 campaign promises seriously. (No, those trusting souls who are lied to are not stupid or even naive. They are the victims of fucking liars.)

“I believe that gay couples deserve the same legal rights as every other couple in this country,” The Associated Press reports Obama said today at a swank “LGBT” fundraiser in Manhattan.

However, the AP also notes that, paradoxically, Obama’s official stance on the issue of same-sex marriage remains what it has been for a long time now: that he supports separate-but-unequal civil unions over same-sex marriage but that he nonetheless believes that it should be up to each state to determine whether or not it will have legalized same-sex marriage.

Wow.

Until 1967, it was up to each state to decide whether or not to outlaw mixed-race marriage — until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that year, in Loving vs. Virginia, that it is unconstitutional for any of the states to outlaw mixed-race marriage.

So the “states’ rights” “argument” that Obama still is using  just doesn’t fucking cut it for me, and do I really need to go there on the perverse irony of the nation’s first black president actually fucking advocating the idea of “separate but equal,” the bullshit justification that the segregationists used for racial segregation?

Also in October 2007, besides being introduced to the Obama rainbow sticker, I met my husband Tony (no, not at the Castro Street Fair [not that there would have been anything wrong with that…]).

I write “husband” because we are, where it really counts, married. October 13, 2011 will be our fourth anniversary of having been together in our monogamous relationship.

In those four years, we’ve had our ups and downs — just like a marriage. Sharing a bed, celebrating holidays and our anniversary and our birthdays together, dealing with unglamorous but necessary everyday tasks like shopping, laundry and doing the dishes, and my having taken care of him when he’s been sick — it sure the hell feels like a marriage to me.

But I can’t legally say that Tony is my “husband” because same-sex marriage is legally tied up here in California right now.

So here it is, almost four years later from when the fucking Obama ’08 rainbow sticker ruined my fucking shirt, and Obama very apparently still hasn’t budged a fucking inch from where he was then.

“So, yes, we have more work to do,” Obama said today at his little fundraiser, according to the AP. “Yes, we have more progress to make. Yes, I expect continued impatience with me on occasion.”

That Obama has acknowledged our “impatience” isn’t nearly fucking enough for me. His acknowledgment of our “impatience” is a scrap of a scrap of a scrap to me, but apparently we of the “LGBT” “community” are to be in such fucking awe of The Great Obama that we’re just supposed to shut the fuck up now because Hey, he has acknowledged our “impatience”!

I gave Obama hundreds of dollars in Round One. In Round Two, he gets not a fucking penny from me.

And in November 2008, when I walked into my neighborhood polling place, I still wasn’t certain who, in the end, would get my vote for U.S. president. I had it narrowed down to Barack Obama or Ralph Nader.

I filled in the oval next to “Barack Obama.”

That’s a mistake that I won’t make again in 2012.

Barack Obama can continue to claim that he is still “evolving” until his lips are even bluer. If I stated that my views on racial segregation or the legality of mixed-race marriage were still “evolving,” I — appropriately — would be called a racist and a white supremacist.

Yet it’s supposed to be perfectly fucking acceptable that Barack Obama allegedly is still pondering the morality of any of the states refusing to legally allow any two consenting adults to marry each other, giving them the same legal rights, benefits and responsibilities as any other couples who legally may marry.

Gay indeed is the new black, and I’m one faggot who isn’t going to take it up the ass from the “Democratic Party” anymore.

At least the majority of the traitors who comprise the Repugnican Tea Party are up front about wanting to keep non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals in third-class-citizen status.

The “Democratic Party,” on the other hand, tells us non-heterosexuals and non-gender-conforming individuals that it wuvs us and it wants our money and our votes (which for the most part it takes for granted — where else are we going to go, right?), but tells us that we have to keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting, keep waiting…

This dream perpetually deferred is fucking bullshit, and until and unless Obama the coward and his cowardly cohorts decide to man up and join the rest of us who are fully evolved, the “Democrats” can kiss my fucking ass.

I’d rather the Repugnican Tea Party traitors win elections than to continue to have the “Democrats” as my frenemies.

I’m gay, but that doesn’t mean that I have no fucking self-esteem and that I can be punk’d forfuckingever.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Harry Reid is NO Trent Lott

So race and racism continue to dominate the national dialogue, such as the national dialogue is. (Hey, at least it got me off of the topic of how much I hate the fucking baby boomers…)

The Repugnicans are now asserting that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s private comments about Barack Obama’s race — that Obama is light-skinned (true) and that Obama doesn’t speak with a “Negro” dialect (also true) — are equivalent to Repugnican former Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott’s public comment that the nation would have been a lot better off had segregationist Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948. Lott, of Mississippi, which never has been known for racism, stepped down as Senate minority leader in 2002 because of his controversial remark. Repugnicans are calling for Reid to step down, too, and are asserting that if he doesn’t, it’s indicative of a double standard.

Gee, there’s no difference there at all! One guy said that Obama is a light-skinned black guy and that he talks like a white guy, both of which are, um, true, and the other guy said that the nation would have taken a much better course had a segregationist from Mississippi been made president in 1948. Presumedly, had we had a President Thurmond instead of a President Truman in January 1949, that whole stupid, unnecessary Civil Rights Movement thing might have been avoided, and Negroes today would still know their place! 

Oh, puhfuckinglease. There’s no valid comparison between Reid’s comments and Lott’s.

Harry Reid, who was born in 1939, for fuck’s sake, is as old as dirt and was born and raised in the very lily-white state of Utah, for fuck’s sake, and so he’s still saying “Negro.”

The word “Negro” grates on these much younger white ears, but, as Rachel Maddow recently discussed on her show, as “Negro” routinely was used by blacks themselves during the Civil Rights Movement, some blacks, especially older blacks, still embrace the term. So I’ll leave it to blacks to decide whether or not they find the term “Negro” offensive. (Personally, I find it at least antiquated if not offensive.)

Then you have Trent Lott, born in 1941 — more or less Reid’s contemporary — but he hails from the former slave state of Mississippi, where he was born and raised. In December 2002, at segregationist Mississippi Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday gathering (Thurmond would die the following year, thank God), Lott said this:

“When Strom Thurmond ran for president [on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948], we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either.”

So blacks are a “problem,” I guess, not too much unlike the Nazis’ “Jewish problem.”

Repugnicans: When you compare Reid’s comments to Lott’s, are you lying, as usual, or are you actually that fucking stupid?

Continuing on the topic of race, the racist Repugnicans (I know, redundant) are also having major buyer’s remorse over their knee-jerk, racist selection of Michael Steele as the head of the Repugnican Party in January 2009 in reaction to Obama’s election to the White House a couple of months before.

Just as the stupidly impulsive selection of Sarah Palin-Quayle as John McCainosaurus’ running mate was the Repugnicans’ knee-jerk reaction to Obama’s having choosen a male running mate over Billary Clinton — and cynically was meant to tell the nation, “See? We Repugnicans love women even more than the Democrats do!” — Steele’s stupidly impulsive selection apparently cynically was meant to tell the nation, “See? The Repugnicans love black people, too! (Nevermind that whole Hurricane Katrina thing…)”

Regardless of his skin color, the self-serving, book-promoting Steele (it’s not surprising that he’s self-serving, since he is, after all a baby boomer, and, true to his boomer self, Steele must have figured: Why take a big job if you can’t further personally profit from it by writing a book?) has been a fuck-up for the Repugnicans, but, as Politico notes, should the Repugnicans dump him, as many if not most of them want to do, it could make the Repugnicans look like the racists that they are. Reports Politico:

Among top GOP operatives in Washington, there is overwhelming majority sentiment that the Republican National Committee blundered a year ago when it tapped Michael Steele as its chairman.

There is equally strong sentiment among members of the RNC about what Republicans can do it about it now: nothing.

Steele’s status as a high-profile African-American at a time when Republicans are facing serious headwind because of their weakness among non-white voters was a big part of his appeal a year ago. And it is a part of the reason many GOP strategists lament that he is untouchable even though they think the party would be better off to make a change from someone they regard as an unfocused and gaffe-prone leader.

 “I don’t think there is any chance he’s going to be dumped before the next election for the obvious reason,” said one of the party’s most influential strategists and a key player on presidential campaigns.

Asked why that would be, the Republican, who is not on the party committee, shot back: “You’re not going to dump the first African-American chairman. That’s the only reason. Otherwise, he’d be gone.”

A longtime member of the party committee added: “The optics of pushing any chairman out don’t look very good, but [Steele’s race] puts a much finer point on it.”

Those optics are fairly straightforward.

The perception of an overwhelmingly white party launching a coup to take out a black leader when the country has its first African-American in the White House would be disastrous, say senior Republicans — a bigger distraction to the party than Steele’s frequent off-message detours are now.

As always, the politics of race is a delicate matter. Few in the party’s ranks want to discuss the matter openly. But in recent days the volume of the on-background second-guessing over the original pick of Steele has reached new levels.

Just in the past month, he’s drawn fire for giving paid speeches, not calling major donors, writing a book that criticizes the GOP, not alerting members of Congress about the book, promoting the book and, worst of all, saying in a national television interview that his party couldn’t retake the House this fall….

While it’s true that Jesus Christ himself couldn’t perform the miracle of making the Repugnican Party look good, again, regardless of his race, it seems to me that the bumbling Steele should be canned. His ouster wouldn’t make me believe now that the Repugnican Party is racist, since it was his selection in the first place that demonstrated how racist the Repugnican Party is.

To me, it’s racist to make any hiring decision regarding a person primarily because of his or her race (with very few exceptions, such as, say, casting a movie or a play). I see little difference between hiring a man because he’s black and not hiring him because he’s black. In either case, if race is your main criterion, you’re a fucking racist.

Anyway, Politico notes of Steele:

Still, barring a major revelation that would prompt the votes of the two-thirds of committee members necessary to get rid of a party chair, Steele will almost certainly serve out his two-year term, which ends a year from now. But should he decide to pursue re-election, the same dilemma will probably loom in January 2011…. 

Note that in all of this discussion over race, President Obama is, as usual, for whatever reason or reasons, keeping out of it…

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized