Trying to be the Good Son

I got a call at work from my mother today, and I thought it was weird because it was the 2nd call from her in an hour or so.  The first call was her telling me that she kept getting a message on her computer that her McAfee anti-virus was expiring.  I thought I might have to have the computer to re-up the subscription, but that was not the case.  I figured out how to do it through the McAfee website signed in as my mother. (Ain't technology grand!)  Sure enough, her anti-virus was going to expire a couple of days before her birthday, which is next Thursday.  It made the most sense for me to update her for 2 years, so that's what I did.  Money's tight for me right now, but I can make it work at the moment.  I told her it would be her birthday gift (and I still have to get a card for her and my Good Grandma, whose birthday is the day after my mom's) and left it at that.

So the second call had me perplexed as to why she would be calling.  As soon as I picked up the phone, I regretted it.  My mother was partially sobbing into the phone.  She started telling me how worthless she was, how I was going to dread it every time I saw her number come up on the phone, how she does nothing to add to my life and only takes, how all she does is ask me for money, and how that ain't right, and she's going to push me away because of it, and I work hard for my money, and it's not right for her to take it from me, and did she mention how worthless she was, how nothing she did was enough, no matter how hard she worked or tried, she couldn't escape needing to ask me for money, which was going to make me hate her, and she couldn't stand that, but she couldn't stand being a leech on my life.

I wrote that last sentence as a run-on on purpose, b/c that's how the whole conversation felt to me.  First, I HATE IT WHEN SHE CRIES.  I have always hated it when she cries.  There's nothing I can do when she cries, and I didn't understand why she was unburdening herself on me.  What was the point of calling me up to berate herself for the help I give her?  Did she think I wanted her to do that?  Did it make her feel better? (I did ask that question, and the answer was "no".)  Was it supposed to make me feel so bad about how my charity to her is making HER feel that I'll turn her down in the future?

I simply do not understand, and I resented it.  I resented her dumping this on me.  What was I supposed to do?  She's my MOTHER.  She is trying the best she can to make her ends meet, and it's not working.  The economy sucks ass, and no one wants to hire a nearly 60 year old woman anyway.  She's cut out every luxury from her life.   She applies to jobs, and she goes to hers every day, even when she doesn't want to.  This morning she said she was "sooooo tired" but she took every ounce of strength she had to come to work.  In my view, this is her contribution. She's doing the best she can.  I expect no more of her.  As long as I can meet my bills and help her, I will.  She's my mother, and we are really the only family each other has.  But goddamn it, don't dump your emotional shit on me that results from me trying to help you!  I don't need it.  Find a friend to weep and wail about this stuff.  I worry about her enough as it is; I can't take the burden of guilt that I'm making her feel worse about herself by the very act of behaving like a good son!

My Letter to Saxby on DADT Repeal

After watching today's hearing live on the web, I knew I had to write MY United States Senator Saxby Chambliss about his remarks. Whether he likes it or not, he has gay and lesbian constituents both in and out of the armed forces. On most controversial issues, my two senators are die-hard Republicans, and I know that my voice doesn't matter to them, so I don't bother to contact them. Why waste my breath? But today, I put aside the likelihood that I'm wasting my time to write Saxby through his website. The following is the body of my letter:

Dear Senator Chambliss:

I watched the live feed of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) hearing during today’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Your comments filled me with shame that my Senator would continue to belittle and demean the service of gay and lesbian service members, many of whom are based right here in Georgia. During the war on terror, we have fired over 300 talented linguists (many of them fluent in Arabic) and medics. This has been done at a time of two wars when many service members have been forced into 3 or 4 deployments thanks to “stop loss” provisions. We need the service of every qualified American who is willing to serve, including the gay and lesbian Americans. To continue to have this law on the books is un-American, costly to the taxpayer (all that training, especially for linguists, is lost), and makes no sense when virtually ALL of our allies have openly gay and lesbian service members serving along side our American troops without a problem.

I understand there is no “constitutional right to serve” in the military. It takes a special person to serve successfully in our military, and sexual orientation should not be a bar. Gay and lesbian people serve in the military now with varying degrees of openness. In most units, if you spoke them with assurances of confidentially, everyone knows who the gay and lesbians are in the unit. Most don’t care. Even without DADT, good order can be maintained with regular discipline. Our allies have shown us that it makes no difference in morale, retention, or recruitment when openly gay and lesbian service members are allowed to serve. They should be under the same behavior restraints as heterosexual service members.

The old stereotypes about showers, sleeping quarters, etc is a red herring, and I suspect you know that. The notion that drag queens would try to serve is equally ridiculous. You won’t find the gay stereotypes rushing to sign for military service. Even if they did, they would never make it out of basic training. Secretary Gates, who was originally appointed by President Bush, has realized how outdated this law is, and that is needs to be repealed. I understand you wish to play to the bigotry that is inherent in Georgia regarding anything to do with gay and lesbian citizens. I would urge you to ultimately support repealing the DADT law so that the military can find a way to rationally and systematically implement the honorable service, without the lies that DADT demands, of gay and lesbian Americans who are otherwise eligible to defend our freedoms.

I don’t expect you to openly support repeal of DADT as I am not that naïve. However, it would be nice if you wouldn’t embarrass yourself by making nonsensical and bigoted arguments in public on this issue. I would ask that you simply remain silent, push the military to consider all the issues of implementing repeal, and vote “Aye” on the Defense Authorization Bill when it comes to a vote with DADT repeal attached to it.

Thank you,

Jason A. Cecil
Decatur, GA

The Conundrum of Monogamy

I thought the phenomenon was fairly unique to Atlanta. With all the gay boys here from all over the Southeast, I figured the proverbial pond had too many fish. It seems like boys in relationships here always have one eye on the crowd to see if they might not be able to find someone "better". Rarely do you see people actually enjoying the person they are with. It's the most frustrating and depressing part about being single in Atlanta.

Yet, here comes a new study on gay monogamy (or lack thereof) from San Francisco State University, featured in the New York Times. The Gay Couples Study followed 556 male couples for three years, and about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. The study reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many same sex relationships. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships.

The key to success are rules. The rules agreed to by the couples vary, but one couple said their rules were: complete disclosure, honesty about all encounters, advance approval of partners, and no sex with strangers — they must both know the other men first. I guess for them, a trip to the sex club is out. The notion of interviews for potential playmates seems to me to be odd, but if it works for them, that's great. The only "cheating" that can occur is if the agreement is broken. The study found that open relationships were just as happy as monogamous ones.

I realize that as men, we think of sex differently. For most us, there's not a very long road to separating sex and love. You can deeply love someone and still have emotionless sex with another person. I don't think the situation is ideal, because there is something about sex with someone you love.

My other question for these couples is: Do you still have sex with each other? I've known several "open" couples who spend most of their free time together looking for playmates online. Personally, one of the of the benefits of a relationship is not having to waste all that time looking for the false intimacy of a trick. If you don't have sex with each other, then aren't you just glorified roommates? How's it different than living with your best friend? Is that a real romantic relationship?

I have very mixed feelings. The first emotion that came up was anger. Such a study is not helpful when we are trying to win gay marriage. That is why most couples contacted by the Times declined to be interviewed. Why anger? To me, it seemed greedy. These people have found love and companionship, and now they're still out playing the field, competing for attention with guys like me who are alone. Maybe some open couple becomes fuck buddies with a guy that would be perfect for me, but hey, he's getting regular sex, so why bother with an actual relationship with someone?

I have been struggling mightily over the last couple of years with my perpetual single state. I am 34 years old, and I thought by now I'd be settled down with someone. When my parents were my age, I was NINE. The fact that I'm single with no prospects makes me feel like a personal failure. Intellectually, I may know that's poppycock, but it is how I feel. I'd like to find a guy who will choose to love me like I'm family. I'm talking the kind of love that your parents have for you, or maybe your siblings...with a sexual flavor of course. But it's the kind of love that you can be totally secure in; no matter how badly you might fight over something, they are not going to stop loving you. They will stick with you through thick and thin, not because you are blood, but because they choose to love as if you are blood. There's no question about severing the relationship except under the most dire circumstances.

If I found a man to love me like that, would I agree to an open relationship? Not at first. I think it's crucial to have a period where you are monogamous as you build the love and trust between you. There has to be a period where it's just you. I'd love that period to last the life of the relationship, but if I found a guy who loved me as I have just decribed (and who I loved the same way in return), I don't know how how I'd feel 5-6 years into the relationship and he/I/we wanted to explore opening it up. I don't know what rules I'd need to feel comfortable with that arrangement. I do know that it could not include stopping sex with me. Openness should enhance, not replace the relationship you have already. Of course, if the guy who loved me the way I described wanted monogamy for life, I think I'd be fine with that. The hunt for physical intimacy is tiring.

But until I find my prince charming (I'm trying to keep hope alive that a match for me exists... and that is a very difficult fight for me to wage), I do have some resentment of the folks who have their cake, but would like to eat mine too.

Poor, Sad Harry Reid

It appears that Mr. Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, really stepped in it when he told an author on the record that Obama could win the Presidency because he was "light skinned" and didn't speak with a "Negro dialect" unless he wanted to. The Republicans, digging up the corpse of Trent Lott from 2002, have been screaming for Reid's immediate resignation and/or ouster. It's only fair, they say. Trent was run out of town for saying less. If Reid isn't ousted, it proves there is a double standard! Reid's just shown he's a big ol' racist, and we can't have that!

First, I think Harry Reid's comments were impolitic, and his use of "Negro dialect" was idiotic. It's 2009, Harry; "Negro" as a term has long fallen from the American lexicon. It's not nearly as toxic as "n*gger", but it's awfully close. FYI, we also no longer use the word "colored" to describe people of African American descent.

Second, who in the Democratic race didn't wonder if a black man or a woman could be elected in 2008? We knew we stood an excellent chance with the disaster that was the Bush presidency, but no one was sure how the general election would go. There were people who didn't think Hillary could be seen as "tough enough" in an era of terrorism. Others thought she was "too hard". I'll never forget the night of the JJ Dinner in Atlanta on the day that Edwards ended his campaign when I heard *many* stalwart party members swear, "Well, I know one thing, I'll never vote for that fucking bitch!" (emphasis NOT mine) In my mind, that answered the question of which was stronger in Georgia: racism or sexism. Turns out, having a penis was more important than being white, at least when voting for President of the United States. I estimate that about 95% of Edwards' vote in Georgia went straight to Obama.

My point is that everyone was speculating about the role of race and gender in the 2008 election! Many black folks wouldn't give Obama a second look until he proved he could get white folks in Iowa to vote for him. To have a quote from Reid during that primary remarking on the strengths of being biracial or "light skinned" in presidential politics is not racist. It was a fact. In Georgia, we were forced to attempt overcoming racism in some of our voters by urging them to for Obama's "white half". That was a disgusting argument to be forced to make to voters who normally voted Democratic, but it was one we used. Whatever would earn their vote for Obama was what we'd use. If a racist has to comfort himself by voting for Obama's "white half", then so be it; at least he voted for Obama.

As for his speaking style, Obama's oratorical skills have been noted since he came on the national scene in 2004. Even Biden got in trouble during the primary by saying Obama was "well spoken" and "clean". I never did understand the "clean" part because I haven't found that African Americans are dirty unless they just got off a construction site where EVERYONE is filthy. If Obama had not been the articulate candidate he was and instead spoke in either Ebonics or another street vernacular favored by today's hard-core rap artists...would he have stood a chance? I'd love to hear a serious argument that he would have stood a chance in such a circumstance. As it is, if Obama ever trots out a rapper dialect, I'd dissolve in laughter because it just wouldn't be believable. Likewise, if Obama started wearing blue jeans so big that he showed us his underwear, I'd be convinced that: A) Michelle had left him, and B) he'd lost his mind. That was the argument that Reid was getting at with his "Negro dialect" remark. A better characterization is an "urban street" dialect because it spoken by white and black alike in the areas where it is used.

Finally, when thinking about the Lott comments that our nation would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been elected President in 1948 so we could have avoided "all these problems" over the years, I am struck by the truthfulness of those remarks versus Reid's comments. Lott was lamenting that an ardent segregationist had not won the White House in 1948, and "all those problems" could only be described as the dismanteling of the aparteid system in the United States at the time. It is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE that the United States would have been better off had Strom Thurmond been elected President in 1948. His election would have set our nation back DECADES, and likely have resulted in a much more violent civil rights movement. Anyone wistfully remembering segregation and wishing it could have been prolonged, and saying it would have been GOOD for the country is lying.

With Reid, who can say his statement was false? How would Obama's chances at election have changed if he had a darker skin color? What if he wasn't nearly as eloquent, and spoke instead in a general urban street dialect favored by hard core rappers? Who can seriously argue that making such a change would not have killed his chances at election? I don't know how his skin hue would have changed things, but I do know that skin tone is still a huge issue in the African American community, where lighter skinned folks are seen as "better" somehow in the media and by the public in general. We're trained to think "dark" is "sinister" and "bad". If we only changed his skin hue, would Obama have won? I don't know. I'd hope so, but I simply do not know. Reid did not speak a lie when he made his remarks, unlike Lott when he made his.

Finally, I think it does make a difference when a public official makes a stupid statement like Reid did with "negro dialect" to look at his public record. Harry Reid has been pro-diveristy and has worked on behalf of black Americans during his career. Trent Lott, on the other hand, did little to nothing for black people, and could be argued to have had a career that was outright hostile to them and their interests. Such a record DOES make a difference. Lott had a horrible record on helping black Americans, and his statement was an ugly, bald faced lie. Reid's statement was ignorant, but his assessment of the role of race in the election was a common one, and made by political people from the grassroots to the very highest levels. His assessment was also truthful, even if we find its discussion embarassing.

That's why the Reid and Lott situations are different, and why Reid does not need to step down.

IF Republicans Ruled

Let's pretend that the American people simply lose their collective minds, and completely hand over control of the US Government to Republicans. I'm talking 90-95 seats in the Senate, 90-95% of the seats in the House. Oh, and they would also need to control state legislatures in at least 36 states. Yes, that's an obscene majority that would not happen in reality, but IF it did happen, what would be the consequences? What would be the wet dream of Hannity, Faux News, Rush, the Tea Baggers, and all other "conservatives"? My take is based off all the crap we hear on talk radio, as well as the GOP platform, along with arguments I've had over the years with Republicans.

US CONSTITUTION

With this kind of majority, the Constitution could be amended at will. Here are the changes to look for:

1. Amendment XVI (Income Tax) - REPEALED
2. Amendment XVII (Direct election of Senators) - REPEALED. This would put us back to the system where state legislatures elected Senators.
3. AMENDMENT: Presidential Candidates must provide any evidence demanded by a member of the Electoral College as to qualifications for holding the Office of President. (sop to the birthers)
4. AMENDMENT: Human Life Amendment, which will give the status of personhood and US citizenship from the moment of conception. (Bye, bye Roe, hello rusty coat hangers!)
5. AMENDMENT: Balanced Budgeet Amendment, requiring balanced budgets every year but with a 75% vote required to waive this requirement in times of war ONLY (this is for you, Tea Baggers!)
6. AMENDMENT: Will require that the Constitution be interpreted using word definitions in place at the time of adoption. (Originalist dream... anything the founders could not have forseen in 1787 will be unconstitutional without amendment. Amendments will be interpreted only as they might have been understood at adoption. That means the 14th amendment can only be looked at through the lens of 1868.)
7. AMENDMENT: Federal Marriage Amendment that will adopt language of "Super DOMA" amendments of states banning same-sex marriage AND any benefits resembling marriage for same-sex couples nationwide. Amendment will also clearly undo any marriages that have already occurred.
8. AMENDMENT: Citizenship granted only at birth for children whose parents are already citizens.
9. AMENDMENT: Stating that the United States is based on Judeo-Christian tradition and values, and to protect our freedoms, no law may controvene that tradition.

LAWS AND AGENCIES

With their reconfiguring of the US Constitution finished, the GOP will then turn its eye on laws and agencies they hate.

1. Social Security Act - REPEALED (not in one swift act, but those not already on Social Security at time of passage will not have it available. They'll let seniors currently in the system stay in it until they die off.)
2. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education - ABOLISHED completely. All other departments, except Defense, will be seriously scaled down to about 10-20% current size.
3. Food and Drug Act - REPEALED. Oversight of food and drug production only hampers business and increases prices, after all. Caveat emptor bitches!
4. Health Reform - REPEALED. Whatever the Dems may pass this year will be repealed in its entirety. In its stead, the GOP will institute its "reforms": a) allow interstate sales of insurance (helps companies make more profit in low-cost areas by charging everyone as if they lived in NYC), b) BAN all medical lawsuits except in cases of gross negligence (to be fair, actual negliance could also be used, which is a lower threshhold), and that would be about it. Medicare/Medicaid REPEALED, although people currently in the system will be allowed to stay in until they die or are no longer eligible.
5. Immigration Reform - Build a fortified wall on the Mexican border. Order all people deported to their country of origin who cannot provide absolute proof of legal residency. Legal residency will have an English fluency requirement. All government communications will be in English only without any translation provided. All illegal immigrants will be banned from any public service whatsoever, including schools and hospitals, even emergency rooms.
6. Labor - All pro-labor laws and regulations will be REPEALED. The United States will become a "right to work" nation with the minimum wage also ABOLISHED.
7. Education - States will be mandated to provide vouchers, although there will be no requirement that private schools accept any children they don't want to accept, and will be free to charge any amount they wish above the voucher limit, which the parents must pay or their children will not be allowed to attend. Teachers unions ABOLISHED and BANNED.
8. Taxes - All income and inheritance taxes are REPEALED. Capital Gains Tax also repealed. Everything replaced with a 23% national sales tax.
9. Environment - Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, etc all REPEALED. EPA ABOSLISHED. All regulations repealed; they only interfere with private enterprise anyway.
10. Voter Reform: All "motor voter" laws REPEALED. Only people who prove that they have paid federal taxes may vote. No one on public assistance may vote until they are off public assistance. Felons banned from voting for life. Absolute proof of citizenship required to be shown before voting.

These are the top initiatives I believe would be swifly enacted with a GOP dominance of our government. I'm sure it would make the tea-baggers and other frothing conservatives very happy to see all these policies enacted. However, as we have seen time and again with legislation, unintended consequences would be a bitch. This America is not one that I would recognize, and if the people of this country approved of such changes, I would no longer feel welcome in my own country. I'd have two choices before me in such a scenario: join an armed rebellion to allow more liberal states to secede, or find another country in which to live. Neither option is palatable for me.

I hope this horror scenario will inspire you to not sit on your hands this year. We need to RETURN to the polls, no matter how disappointed we may be in this Congress and President Obama. It's important to remember that even with our large majorities, the Republicans have been dedicated to obstruction and forcing failure on all of our initiatives. We Democrats certainly have played our part in helping them out, but we've never been a party like the GOP that has sought to impose the absolute iron discipline on all of our members. It leads to problems, but I prefer it over the command and control style of the Republicans.

Libertarian Solutions for Health Care

The Libertarian Party issued a press release entitled "How Liberty Makes Healthcare Virtually Universal". By themselves, the 5 ideas are interesting, but I have some concerns, especially since there are no studies or other data to back up any of the claims. I will present the 5 arguments and my thoughts about each.

1. Allowing individuals, as well as businesses, full tax credits/deductions for medical insurance and/or medical expenditures. In the interim, encourage the use of HSAs by increasing the amount of tax-deductible contributions (currently $3000) that a person can make each year.

Yes, I am aware of how insurance has masked the true cost of healthcare, thus driving up the costs. There are many studies to show how this has happened. Yet, the Health Savings Account (HSA) is not a pancea since you cannot get enough people to adopt them to make a dint in prices. HSAs only work currently if you never go to the doctor for anything. If you have a chronic condition, you are SOL.

The current tax code does allow you to deduct your medical expenses, so long as those expenses are more than 7.5% of your income (it could be 7%...my point is not the actual number but that such a deductibility currently exists). Perhaps it's that 7.5% threshold that Libertarians are objecting to. I admit that I don't know if businesses are able to deduct 100% of their health costs from their tax liability. If that's the case, then I would support individuals doing the same.

I also love my Health FSA (Flexible Spending Account), which is like an HSA, except I use pre-tax dollars to pay for health-related items, including all co-pays. The downside is that in a FSA, unlike the HSA, at the end of the year, you lose any money you haven't spent.

I don't see how this proposal will reduce costs OR increase coverage. I understand the economic theory behind it, but I don't see how it works in real life.

2. Ending insurance mandates that states impose. As an interim measure, allow insurance sales across state lines so that consumers can choose the insurance plan that best fits their needs, rather than be limited to what state legislatures allow.

The idea that selling insurance across state lines would somehow be a panacea to the cost of insurance is attractive on its face. What I don't understand is how you prevent the insurance companies from simply raising the rates to cover the cost of the most expensive areas of the country. If selling a NY resident AL insurance is a money loser, then how do you stop the insurer from simply raising the price of AL insurance? Wouldn't truly national policies price themselves up to the most expensive market and therefore create an increase in the uninsured?

This brings up the idea of the nature of health care. It is not a commodity like clothing, tires, or any other widgit you could name. People generally do not DIE because they can't afford a certain car or brand of clothing. Health care, however, touches at our ability to survive, our right to life, if you will. If there is not some basic standard of health care, then you doom the poor to a shorter life by denying them treatment of diseases or conditions that could extend their lives. You are saying only the wealthy truly deserve to have good health care. Only the wealthy have lives "worth" saving. The very life of a rich man is worth more than the life of a poor man. The poor are disposable, and the rich are not. That is the underlying message of those who say health care is nothing more than a commodity like clothing. One reform I'd love to see is requirement that all health care entities be non-profit. They still have to survive, but their goal should be to provide quality health care to customers, not to get rich. The current bills touch on this idea with the requirement that a certain percentage of premiums MUST be spent on health care.

It's also useful to look at why states created mandates in the first place. Mostly, it was because of blatant discrimination against certain groups. I especially think of women, whose needs were certainly NOT covered. Women couldn't get basic preventative measures like mammograms or pap smears covered. That is what drove people to the legislature to REQUIRE such coverage. The insurers wouldn't do the right thing until they were forced. Again, the result of repealing all state mandates would be to say that only the wealthy should be able to get certain services covered. In the realm of a person's health, that seems wrong.


3. Making doctors and their insurers liable only for actual negligence and malpractice. In the interim, caps on non-economic damages, such as those in California and Texas, lower insurance costs, but may prevent victims of actual malpractice from being appropriately compensated.

Over 30 states have caps on liability in medical malpractice, but the cost of malpractice insurance keeps going up. Why is that? Making physicians liable for actual negligence is not a bad compromise with the usual plan to basically ban all medical malpratice suits through a standard of GROSS negligence. If I actually believed that conservatives gave two shits about peoples' health care, I'd strongly support including malpractice reform like this to gain their support for other, more liberal measures. However, in the end, conservatives have shown they'd tell us to "fuck off" in the end while they filibuster.

4. Ending the regulation of medical professionals and employing a system of voluntary certification instead. Studies show that certification increases the amount of quality care delivered, especially to the poor. Since practitioners are usually certified on the basis of competence, rather than on politically-correct regulations, their number and quality increases, while prices decrease.

I'm not sure where this proposal is coming from. I am guessing they'd like to take away the authority of the state of license medical professionals period. "Voluntary" certification is a joke. How do you stop any tom-dick-or-harry from saying they are an MD? The "market" won't catch these fools until it's too late, and people are already dead or maimed. There's safety issues here. Unless you require certification, how can you ensure any kind of quality? And if you require certifcation for insurance coverage, etc, how is that different than the system we have now? I am not aware of any "politically correct" regulations in the licensing of doctors. I'd like to have those pointed out if they exist. I know for a fact that neither Virginia nor Georgia has any "politically correct" regulations when it comes to the licensing of lawyers. You don't get any bonus points on your bar exam for being a minority. I'm confused by this proposal.

5. Ending FDA regulation of pharmaceuticals and employing a system of third-party certification instead. The FDA doesn’t test any drugs, but simply looks over the data provided by manufacturers. Underwriters’ Laboratory (UL), which certifies electrical appliances, actually tests the products that bear its “Seal of Approval.” Such third-party testing is an excellent model for drug certification.

Oh yes, let's turn the clock back to the late 1800s when there was no FDA, and any charlatan could roll into town with his concocation of the day and make whatever claims he/she wanted in order to sell to an unsuspecting public. I do not think we should set the standard as "claim what you want until someone can prove it's false". Not for pharmaceuticals or for supplements (which is what the regime that supplements currently fall under). I am not opposed to setting up an independent entity like UL that would do independent testing and certification of safety and claims. Such an entity could be set up by fees paid by drug companies who develop these drugs. Somehow, I don't think that's what the libertarians have in mind. They seem to want no penalty at all for companies that put drugs on the market that don't have certification that it actually works. They think the "market" will take care of that. Again, the market probably would, but not until people die.

The GOP Purity Test

The proposed GOP Purity test, which the GOP swears is not really a purity test, could marginalize the party even more. This is especially true with the mandate that a "real" Republican must agree with 8 out of 10 propostions. Of course, like our Constitution, the GOP Purity test has flexible language you could drive a truck through. The key is how one defines certain words.

I will try to present the GOP Purity Test as proposed and then divine what they REALLY mean by it:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

We believe that only the Department of Defense should exist. All other departments need to be dismantled. Stop all social spending, especially anything for the lazy poor. Also, ban all taxes. Government should pass a collection plate, like in church. Of course, if the community I happen to live in has a government funded project, that is money well spent.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

We love Jesus and Capitalism. Health care is not a right. Letting poor people die is God's way of weeding out the lazy. If you can't afford healthcare, it's because you haven't pulled yourself up by the bootstraps and tried hard enough. All government regulation should be banned.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

The private market has done a great job of taking care of our energy needs. Gas is so much cheaper here than in Commie, Freedom-Hating, Godless Europe as a result. If we just let energy companies drill wherever, whenever, and however they wanted, we'd be fine. The Endangered Species Act needs to be repealed too. No regulations! No Rules! Let companies do what they need to do!

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

We like how companies can stack the deck in a union election, forcing employees to sit through hours of lectures of how evil the unions are, firing union organizers, and such. We want to go back to a real capitalist economy circa 1890 when there was no rules to get in the way of profit like minimum wage, safety regulations, and the like. Unions should be crushed, not allowed to bully people into signing some card!

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

We're all for people coming to America. But there are rules. First, learn FLUENT G-D English! I don't want to hear no accent from a foreign land. Second, you better learn to accept Christ. We won't tolerate no terrorist-loving towel-heads here! Not in OUR country! Third, learn to dress like we do. None of this wearing veils or other
non-American clothing. You came here because we're free! If you don't like how we do things, go home! We also need to build a big wall on the southern border to keep those brown people out. Canada's OK...they talk like us. Dress like us in the winter too. After all, a wall worked in Berlin!

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

We love our servicemen, so long as they aren't our sons and daughters! Other peoples' kids are fine. Whatever our generals say they need, they get, no questions!!!! Why can't we nuke the terrorists?

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

Bomb the shit out Iran and North Korea! Teach them to cross us!

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

Homosexuals are against God's Plan. Revoke all "special rights" that name homos. We shouldn't have to live near them, work with them, or have anything to do with them. We should never give them any recognition for their so-called "relationships" which are based on nothing but blasphemous fornication.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

The private sector and the church can give out charity care. Those institutions will provide everything that the too-stupid-or-lazy-to-get-a-GOOD-job need. We definitely think all abortion should be banned. Birth control too.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

All current gun regulations should be repealed. The 2nd Amendment is absolute. No restrictions on gun ownership of any kind. If I want an Uzi, I should have one, even if I'm a felon.

Wrestling with the Darkness

On November 8, Georgia Speaker of the House Glenn Richardson (R-Hiram) tried to commit suicide. The Speaker released a statement that a deep depression had led to his suicide attempt. Two days after the story broke, and eight days after he tried to take his life, the 911 tape of his mother calling for help was released. Apparently, the Speaker took sleeping pills, and then decided he'd call his mother to say good-bye. That indicates to me that a part of him wanted to be stopped, or he wouldn't have called.



My immediate reaction upon hearing the news, followed seconds later by deep shame, was that it was a pity Richardson did not succeed in his suicide attempt. The immediate shame came from being someone who knows exactly what kind of anguish would lead a person to contemplate suicide, and someone who knows what's its like for loved ones left behind. As despicable as I find Glenn Richardson to be as a politician, and no matter how much I think his ideas on how the world should work disgusting, mean spirited and cruel, he is still a human being in a tremendous amount of pain. He is arguably the 2nd most powerful man in state government after the governor, but even he felt life was not worth it.



The police report states that they found him in the master bath, sitting on the edge of the tub, with a .357 Magnum in front of him on the sink. He was semi-conscious and unresponsive to commands. The Speaker had written two suicide notes which were beside him as well.



To be filed in the category of "Maybe Republicans Do Have a Human Heart", there has been no move to force Richardson out of the Speaker's chair. The comments from the public, though, have not been so kind. There have been many people who say that running the State House of Representatives at a time of budget crisis is too much for someone who is depressed and has suicidal tendencies. They have spoken of depression as disqualifying mental disorder for any significant public trust.



These people commenting obviously have no idea what it's like to suffer from depression.



When you are depressed, it's like a heavy blanket is surrounding you every moment you are awake. Your heart FEELS heavier, and the thought of actually going out, interacting with people, getting out of bed, getting dressed, etc just seems to require way too much energy. Everything looks gray. Sometimes your body can ache. It's nothing like growing pains, or aches you have when you're sick with the flu. It's a very subtle ache, but it's very real, and the burden of it is oppressive. Much of the time, it feels like you are moving in slow motion. Your thoughts are slower, your movements are slower. People around you may not notice these things, but in your depressed mind, that is what you experience.



The depressed mind stops caring about things. You begin to not care what you look like, smell like, or when you'll eat. The future looks bleak, and all you can see on the road ahead of you is more of the same. This whole cycle will feed on itself unless you get help. Of course, even getting help does not guarantee you will get better, but it does give you the tools to fight the encroaching emotional darkness. This may be the step that Glenn Richardson did not take. As the GOP House Speaker, seeking psychiatric help would probably not go over well in the "Daddy Party" where everyone tries to outshine each other with their jingoistic patriotism, Godliness, and general "manhood". Of course, now that he's attempted suicide, there's not a decent human being who would argue the Speaker shouldn't get help.

Another irony is that the Speaker brought on the circumstances surrounding his descent into depression and despair himself. He is the one who is rumored to have had a notorious affair with the chief lobbyist of Georgia Power. If he's like other Georgia power-brokers, he was chasing tail all over Atlanta just because he could. Unlike most political wives, the former Mrs. Richardson wouldn't tolerate it, and divorced him. It was this divorce that started his spiral into despair.

My father's birthday was yesterday. Had he not committed suicide in 2001, he would have been 59 years old. His birthday had me thinking about Speaker Richardson, and how my dad planned an attempt on his life that I foiled before he succeeded. My hope is that Richardson, his friends, family, and coworkers, don't think this is over for him. Just because everyone will be watching him more closely now that he's actually attempted to take his life doesn't mean the danger has passed. My father fooled not only his family, but his psychiatrist and counselor into thinking he'd turned a corner. That corner, represented by a sense of peace and greater levity of spirit, turned out to be nothing more than a final decision and foolproof plan to kill himself. Most people who commit suicide seem to get better right before they end their life, mostly because they see a certain end to their anguish.

My dad's birthday, and Speaker Richardson's suicide attempt have made me think of my own struggles with depression. It's been a cyclical thing with me, with a major depression appearing about every 10 years. According to my psychiatrist, that kind of cycling is highly unusual. Usually, people with depression see their cycles get more intense and closer to one another, especially without treatment. Having a pattern of a major depression every 10 years is unusual, and it figures that I'd be the exception to some kind of rule.

One thing that frustrates me is that I'm very aware of what's going on when I have a little depressive cycle, or when I slide into a major depression. I've learned enough over the years to see the signs. I had hoped that taking anti-depressants would break the cycle, but no such luck. First, there's the insomnia which wreaks havoc with your mental capabilities over time even without depression. Then there is the lethargy, related to the exhaustion of not getting enough sleep. Then the feeling of heaviness, darkness, and approaching gloom followed by despair. Even when you know the things you feel are irrational and not true, it doesn't stop you from feeling them. At least that is my experience. I've always had the "talent" (not sure this is the right word for it) of being quite aware intellectually of my emotions. I've been able to largely name them, describe them (at least to myself), and even know when the emotions are irrational, unfounded, and not based in reality. Yet, I have not been able to control those emotions. Usually, I have to wait for them to pass.

Depression is not quite so easily dispatched. You have to force yourself out of bed. You have to force yourself to do the things you know you NEED to be doing. Living alone doesn't make that task easy. Even having two wonderful dogs that depend on me doesn't make it easier. It also doesn't help that my depression (in its current form) has fixated on my inability to find a boyfriend, let alone a partner to build a life with. Intellectually, I know this is silly. I'm only 34, and while I would have thought I'd be long settled down by now, I'm far from being without hope. Yet that is the very place I find myself desperately trying to not reach...a place of hopelessness that I'll ever find someone. Intellectually, I know it's silly, and I haven't met the right guy yet. Intellectually, I'm pretty sure it will happen. Emotionally, though, doubt, panic, despair, longing, loneliness, and hopelessness have all conspired together in one big ball of Depression Nasty to try to bring me down.

Some days are better than others, and on some days the beast seems to have gone into hibernation. Usually, when I'm around friends or at work, the monster sleeps. Although people can say something to awaken him at any time. But make no mistake - it is a struggle. Like every person with depression, I wrestle with the darkness because I refuse to let it overtake me. I've been lucky that I've learned some skills in conducting this fight. Most importantly, the experience of my father's suicide has taken such a path off the proverbial table for me. I can't imagine forgetting what it does to friends and family when a person commits suicide. I hope things never do get that bad. My father got to a place where he believed that everyone was truly better off without him. He was blind to the pain he was about to inflict on us all. He gave into the darkness.

I never will because I can't.

Atlanta Stonewall Democrats 2009 Endorsements

As a board member of the Atlanta Stonewall Democrats, I wanted to share our press release regarding endorsements in Atlanta city elections, along with the special election in State House District 58 and Decatur City Commission. I believe the release speaks for itself.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009 – ATLANTA – Atlanta Stonewall Democrats announces endorsed candidates in Atlanta Mayor and City Council races as well as State House District 58.

Our Process: Candidates for Mayor, City Council President, City Council, Decatur Commission, School Board and State House District 58 were sent an email upon closing of qualifying for their respective offices directing them to www.atlantastonewall.org where they could find the 2009 Endorsement Questionnaire from Atlanta Stonewall Democrats (ASD). While some candidates chose not to seek our support, many others did. The answers to our questions revealed a broad spectrum of responses, not only on LGBT Equality issues, but also on questions regarding knowledge of their district, the problems to be solved, and what they as an elected official would and could do to address the needs o f their constituents.

Atlanta Stonewall Democrats was generally pleased with the candidate responses. Indeed, in some races there was more than one excellent candidate. The focus among almost all candidates seemed to be on Public Safety/Crime and Economic Development/Jobs. Although responses and approaches to these two areas varied, there was a general feeling that nearly all candidates in the various races understand the overwhelming pressure and influence these two issues are placing on our city’s residents, elected officials and civil service employees.

Some candidates did falter on an overall understanding of the LGBT communities and the fact that our communities share a common interest with other Atlanta communities. Focusing solely on LGBT issues would be appropriate if LGBT issues were ASD’s only mission. But it is important to know that the members of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats not only advocate for LGBT Equality inside the Democratic Party, we are also involved in matters of equality and fairness for all. We are actively connected to the Democratic Party and to the diverse coalitions that make up the Atlanta Progressive Community. Some of the candidates recognized this connection and addressed their responses in a way that showed ASD’s board that they clearly understood the overall mission of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats. Sadly, other candidates did not.

The Atlanta Stonewall Democrats is dedicated to engaging in conversation with traditionally Democratic constituency groups and potential allies of the LGBT community. We recognize that the road to equality must be paved by fair-minded Democrats.

The work of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats is based on a long-term strategy, rooted in coalition-building and grassroots organizing, to move us forward in building a fair-minded Democratic majority in Georgia.

We are an affiliate of National Stonewall Democrats, a nation-wide, grassroots federation of more than 90 other LGBT Democratic chapters. We are committed to working closely with other LGBT organizations, along with our allies in progressive communities and traditionally Democratic constituency groups to build a fair-minded Democratic majority in Georgia.

After much deliberation, and a thorough review of answers from candidates, the board of Atlanta Stonewall Democrats is pleased to offer the following endorsements in advance of elections to be held on November 3rd, 2009:

KASIM REED FOR MAYOR OF ATLANTA

ASD was impressed with the problem-solving ideas put forward by many of the candidates for Mayor, but one candidate stood out not only in presenting his forward-thinking solutions for the ills and concerns of the City of Atlanta, but in a knowledge of and past dedication to the LGBT Communities and concern for the greater good of all Georgians.

Kasim Reed has spent the last 11 years representing Atlanta in both houses of the Georgia General Assembly. During that time in office, he has a 100% voting record from Georgia Equality and other LGBT-advocacy organizations. He has delivered concrete results and advanced progressive policies to level the playing field and give more protections to the LGBT community. As a State Representative, he was the chief House sponsor for Georgia’s Hate Crimes Bill that included protections for LGBT individuals, and fought to keep those protections over the objections of a number of Republican and Democratic legislators. He secured state funding for an LGBT tourism study for the City of Atlanta, and feels that Atlanta needs to invest in more aggressive marketing to solidify Atlanta’s standing as an LGBT destination in light of strong competition from other cities. He also believes that Atlanta should have an entertainment district that would allow us to truly be a 24 hour international city.

We are aware that Kasim has stated his support of civil unions with full benefits. However, Kasim has proven his commitment to full legal equality for same sex couples when he led the effort in the State Senate against the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. He has also been a key ally working with Rep. Karla Drenner to stop attempts to ban gay adoption in Georgia. During the last legislative session, he sponsored and passed legislation that now requires Georgia to test prisoners exiting the state’s penal system for HIV/AIDS and to provide counseling. This will help prisoners know their health status and seek the help they need before they are released. Kasim’s statement on the Eagle raid made clear that he would not tolerate a police department that violates the civil rights of any citizen. He vows to continue to work equally as hard when Mayor to ensure that LGBT citizens are all treated fairly and equally.

What earns Kasim our endorsement in a race where nearly all the candidates voice support for LGBT equality is performance over promises. We value his strong record in the legislature, his status as one who can bring a fresh, outsider’s vision to a city government that has largely broken down, and his proven ability to establish productive relationships with a Republican state legislature and governor. As Atlanta attempts to recover from the current financial struggles, Kasim’s solid leadership, proven results and knowledge of all levels of government are what Atlanta needs in a Mayor.

Kasim has also received the endorsement of the Atlanta Progressive Firefighters; openly lesbian State Rep. Karla Drenner; State Representatives Kathy Ashe, Roger Bruce, Rashad Taylor, and Rahn Mayo; State Senators Horacena Tate, Nan Orrock, David Adelman, Valencia Seay, and Minority Leader Robert Brown; the Sunday Paper; Ambassador Andrew Young; and the Atlanta North Georgia Labor Council AFL-CIO.

CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT – Caesar Mitchell

Caesar Mitchell is currently a City Councilman At-Large. He has long worked to cultivate a strong relationship with LGBT Atlantans, promoting various non-profit and civic engagements devoted to civil rights. Caesar is strongly committed to protecting existing domestic-partner benefits for Atlanta city employees, while also working proactively to urge the state Legislature to pass anti-bullying legislation. Caesar also recognizes that the city has room for improvement in how it supports transgender Atlantans through municipal policies, and supports improving those policies as City Council President.

CITY COUNCIL POST-1 AT-LARGE – Adam Brackman

Adam brings a forward thinking, fresh outlook to City operations. Having organizational experience from his IBM career, he is already proposing ways to make the City Council and its operations more open, honest and transparent for city residents. A well qualified candidate, who happens to be gay, he is one of the more impressive and aggressive thinkers on the campaign trail. With his ear to the ground from neighborhood meetings and community involvement, he has focused on what people want: safer streets, a city government that can manage its finances, and productive, efficient and responsive services. His expertise in analyzing the efficiency of government service delivery will be a welcome addition to the Council.

Adam has received the endorsement of the Victory Fund.

ATLANTA CITY COUNCIL POST-2 AT-LARGE – Aaron Watson

Aaron has served on the Atlanta School Board both as a member and as Board President. He has proven his commitment to equality in this difficult arena as well as scored 100% on our survey. His Board service also included chairing the critical Finance Committee and overseeing an annual operating budget of $450 million and a capital improvement budget of $430 million, funds used to build new schools, renovate decaying ones, and install modern information technology for all students. Aaron’s elected office experience shows how he understands budgeting, the effective implementation of accountability standards and the need to fulfill a group leadership role. Since his school board service, Aaron has most recently been working on the challenges of establishing sensible transportation options. He seeks to link neighborhoods, promote smart land use, controlled housing density and establishing protected green space.

ATLANTA CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 4 – LaShawn Hoffman

LaShawn has received recognition as one of Atlanta's most distinguished young civic leaders. He is a consummate community advocate who also serves as the CEO of the Pittsburgh Community Improvement Association, one of the more successful neighborhood-based community development corporations. He is a former chair of Neighborhood Planning Unit-V and has served on numerous community boards in both Atlanta and Fulton County, including the local school council boards for C.L. Gideons Elementary School and W.L. Parks Middle School and the Atlanta Citizen Review Board. In addition to scoring 100% on our survey, LaShawn brings true grassroots energy and leadership abilitiesto a Council that could use a good dose of both.

COUNCIL DISTRICT 6 – Steve Brodie

Since the election of Cathy Woolard to this seat in 1997, District 6 has been known as the “Gay Seat” on City Council. With 6 candidates in the race, three of them gay, there is no guarantee that the seat will remain “gay”. LGBT voters need to consider not just the sexual orientation of a candidate, but who is qualified and can win. We believe Steve Brodie is the strongest candidate in this race, having run in 2005 and coming within a handful of votes of election. He is a gay candidate who has been actively involved in issues that directly affect the interest of the voters, gay and straight: public safety, zoning, land use, the BeltLine, and the budgeting process. He has worked to prioritize public safety for major events in Piedmont Park, fix miles of sidewalks, and he successfully represented the neighborhood positions on land use issues. Steve played a significant leadership role in the start-up of the Safety Committee and Neighborhood Watch Program in Candler Park, and was a leader and fundraiser for the Midtown “Light the Streets” program. Many candidates who run for public office and do not win often get discouraged and disappear. Steve Brodie has remained deeply engaged in the community and the District he seeks to represent.

Another issue of concern in the District is a vibrant nightlife. When Steve was first elected to the MNA Board of Directors and the NPU-E Board as the representative for Midtown, both boards had a strong contingency that were dedicated to the closure of gay bars. He was a forceful advocate for complete cessation of these actions and was able to create a majority to take all closure/harassment actions off the agendas of the organizations. He spoke out when anti-gay activists directly attacked African-American LGBT citizens in Piedmont Park on Sundays, even though some thought his position put him at political risk.

Although our constituency forms the heart of District 6, Steve is not just an LGBT advocate. He understands that the issue of crime affects all residents, and has a track record of working successfully on this issue. As a city council member, he will be best able to move the levers of city government to keep those issues on the front burner of the new Council and Mayor’s agenda. Of all the candidates, he has done the best job of laying out specific ideas on public safety and suggesting concrete actions needed to fund improvements.

Steve has received the endorsement of the Atlanta Police Union, and the Sunday Paper.

STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 58 – Simone Bell

Simone is running for the recently vacated District 58 seat that serves portions of incorporated east-central Atlanta in both Fulton and DeKalb counties, plus adjacent portions of unincorporated DeKalb County. She has been a resident of Atlanta for 20 years and of District 58 for 10 years. She is a graduate of Agnes Scott College and has spent the majority of her working life as a community organizer with local non-profit organizations.

Simone has worked as an activist and advocate in Atlanta and across the South for more than 20 years. Her education and work in health care, experience advocating for women’s health, African American and LGBT rights at ZAMI, the Atlanta Lesbian Health Initiative and Lambda Legal have all given her the tools and perspective to advocate on behalf of the residents of District 58. When elected, Simone will be the first openly gay African-American woman State Representative in the United States. Considering her experience, broad knowledge of quality of life issues, commitment to the under-represented and community involvement, Simone is uniquely ready for this position.

She has also received the endorsement of Georgia Equality and Victory Fund.

CITY OF DECATUR COMMISSION DISTRICT 2 – Kyle Williams

At the age of 32, Kyle is already an accomplished community leader. He has held leadership positions in groups like the Red Clay Democrats and Generation Green. In addition, Kyle served on Georgia Equality’s Board of Directors from 2004 to 2007, eventually serving as president his final year. As an attorney, Kyle has been recognized three times as a Georgia “Rising Star” in Litigation, Land Use and Zoning by Georgia “Super Lawyer” and Atlanta Magazine. Southern Voice named him one of the top 20 young gay leaders in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Kyle hopes to advance his ideas to modernize Decatur and bring innovation to the City Commission. He is a candidate with solid credentials and is devoted to LGBT equality. The Commission is currently one of the more effective local governing bodies and it would take a lot for a new member to be quickly productive and contribute. We believe Kyle has the credentials and the vision necessary to not only serve but be a stand out.

Kyle has also received the endorsement of Georgia Equality, Victory Fund, and Log Cabin Republicans.

At this time there are some contested races where we found incomplete or unverifiable information and our decision was to not make an endorsement. This should not be interpreted as a positive or negative reflection on the candidates and we will continue to monitor these contests and assess any need to revisit evaluations.

Support LGBT Federal Employees! Support the New Definition of Family!

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has proposed a change to the definition of “Family” to include same sex domestic partners so that LGBT employees can use vacation and sick leave just as straight people can. These changes would implement Section 1 of President Obama's June 17, 2009 Memorandum on Federal Benefits and Non-Discrimination and ensure that agencies are considering the needs of a widely diverse workforce and providing the broadest support possible to employees to help them balance their increasing work, personal, and family obligations. I’m sure once the right learns that comments are open through 11:59 pm on November 13, they will be all over it. So we have to make sure our folks are writing in too!

You may submit comments, identified by RIN number ``3206-AL93,'' using either of the following methods:

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
2. US Mail: Jerome D. Mikowicz, Deputy Associate Director, Center for Pay and Leave Administration, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415-8200.

The text of the changes are below. If you go to http://www.regulations.gov and put in any of the following, it should get you there:

1. Document ID: OPM_FRDOC_0001-0338
2. Docket ID: OPM_FRDOC_0001
3. Document Type: proposed rules
4. “Absence and Leave; sick leave

If you choose to comment, you will be asked to fill in your name, etc. I filled it out as “citizen” since I am speaking for myself, but it does ask you to list an organization even if you are commenting as a citizen. I’m a bit confused by this, and wonder if it’s not a programming error on the site. However, I would propose for people who aren’t comfortable with putting “Young Democrats” , "Stonewall Democrats", or even "Democratic Party" as the organization, perhaps retype “Citizen” or “US Citizen” in the organization blank so that your comment goes through.

Please support the Obama Administration and leave positive comments supporting these changes. If you have ways to make the changes stronger, suggest them. Either way, we need to really support President Obama and openly-gay OPM Director John Berry for making this first step toward LGBT equality in the federal government.

OPM's proposed regulations would amend the definition of family member in
part 630, subparts B (Definitions and General Provisions for Annual Leave and
Sick Leave) and I (Voluntary Leave Transfer) and immediate relative in subpart H
(Funeral Leave); and include new definitions for committed relationship,
domestic partner, parent, and son or daughter. We are also making conforming
changes to subparts J (Voluntary Leave Bank Program) and K (Emergency Leave
Transfer Program) because both subparts reference the current definition of
family member. The definitions are being changed as follows.

The current definition of family member at 5 CFR 630.201 and 5 CFR 630.902
reads-- ``Family member means the following relatives of the
employee: (1) Spouse, and parents thereof; (2) Children, including adopted children and spouses thereof; (3) Parents; (4) Brothers and sisters, and spouses thereof; and (5) Any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.''

We are modifying the definition of family member to include domestic
partners, grandparents, and grandchildren.

Our proposed definition reads-- ``Family member means an
individual with any of the following relationships to the employee: ``(1) Spouse, and parents thereof; (2) Sons and daughters, and spouses thereof; (3) Parents,
and spouses thereof; (4) Brothers and sisters, and spouses thereof; (5) grandparents and grandchildren, and spouses thereof; (6) Domestic partner, including domestic partners of any individual in paragraphs (2)-(5) of this definition;
and (7) Any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.''

We are also defining the terms committed relationship, domestic partner,
parent, and son or daughter. The proposed definition of domestic partner
reads-- ``Domestic partner means an adult in a committed
relationship with another adult, including both same sex and opposite sex
relationships. Committed relationship means that the employee,
and the domestic partner of the employee, are each other's sole domestic partner
(and are not married to or domestic partners with anyone else); and share
responsibility for a significant measure of each other's common welfare and
financial obligations. This includes, but is not limited to, any relationship
between two individuals of the same or opposite sex that is granted legal
recognition by a state or by the District of Columbia as a marriage or analogous
relationship (including, but not limited to a civil union).

The proposed definition of parent reads-- ``Parent means-- (1) A biological, adoptive, step, or foster parent of the employee, or a person who was a foster parent of the employee when the employee was a minor; (2) A person who is the legal guardian of the employee or was the legal guardian of the employee when the employee was a minor or required a legal guardian; or (3) A person who stands in loco parentis to the employee or stood in loco parentis to the employee when the employee was a minor or required someone to stand in loco parentis. (4) A parent, as described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition, of an employee's domestic partner.''

Finally, we are also proposing a definition of son or daughter, which
reads-- ``Son or daughter means-- (1) A biological, adopted, step, or foster son or daughter of the employee; (2) A person who is a legal ward or was a legal
ward of the employee when that individual was a minor or required a legal
guardian; (3) A person for whom the employee stands in loco parentis or stood in loco parentis when that individual was a minor or required someone to stand in loco parentis; or (4) A son or daughter, as described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of this definition, of an employee's domestic partner.''

We are also proposing a new definition of immediate relative for the
purposes of funeral leave under subpart H, which uses the same categories of
relationship as the definition of family member. In order to be consistent with
the definition of family member of subparts B and I, we are also taking the
opportunity to write the definition of immediate relative in the present tense
and to define immediate relative by relationship to the employee rather that by
relationship to the deceased. The proposed definition reads--
``Immediate relative means an individual with any of the following relationships
to the employee: (1) Spouse, and parents thereof; (2) Sons and daughters, and spouses thereof; (3) Parents, and spouses thereof; (4) Brothers and sisters, and spouses thereof; (5) Grandparents and grandchildren and spouses thereof; (6)
Domestic partner, including domestic partners of any individual in paragraphs
(2)-(5) of this definition; and (7) Any individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.''

In the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program regulations in 5 CFR part 630,
subpart I, we are proposing the same change to the definition of family member
and the addition of the same definitions of committed relationship, domestic
partner, parent, and son or daughter as we are proposing in 5 CFR 630.201. In
the voluntary leave bank and emergency leave transfer programs, we are
referencing the changes we are making in the definitions section of the
voluntary leave transfer program.

What did Lesbians Ever Do to Atlanta Cotillion?!?

The Atlanta Cotillion has always been a fun event. For several years, the Young Democrats had an unofficial table organized by current DNC Member from Georgia Page Gleason. I chose to pay extra in order to wear a tux mostly because I make one ugly woman, and I wasn't sure that the sitting President of the Young Democrats of Georgia (2007-09) should be photographed in full on drag. The heterosexual men at our table all dressed as ladies for the occasion, to some hilarity as well as surprise at how pretty a woman some of them made! It was all for a good cause, supporting AID Atlanta in its work preventing HIV infection as well as supporting those who have HIV/AIDS.

This year, a very good friend of mine decided to become a Cotillion Debutante. Debutantes are generally "tapped" by a member of the previous year's class and are men who have not done drag before. They make up a name, a history, and then spend the late spring and summer hosting fundraisers for their "cause". There is a competition to raise the most money, as that Debutante is crowned Queen. My friend John Michael Roch chose the name Liberty Belle O'Hara as a nod to his heritage as a yankee from Philly, as well as a nod to his "drag mother" who tapped him for Cotillion, whose last name was O'Hara.

John not only set an ambitious goal for his fundraising, he spent many hours and a lot of his own money pursuing the fundraising parties that fuel the Atlanta Cotillion fundraising. He has made good headway in meeting his goal, with the last hurdle being getting people to buy tickets off of his fundraising page for the Cotillion itself on Sept 19. And for folks feeling the pinch of this recession, he's asked for them to just give whatever they could afford.

UPDATE:

I have been asked, in the strongest terms possible, to remove this post in its entirety. It turns out that the Cotillion board did not make the decision referred to the original post. The co-chairs did, and the "bylaws" which I suppose the mean the handbook, specifically state that "gentlemen" must be the escorts. So for now, I just ask you donate to John's deb page.

However, I am accurately quoted by Southern Voice:
http://www.sovo.com/blog/blog.cfm?blog_id=27103

A Difference Without a Real Distinction

Today, the proposition was laid before me that the consumer or collector of child pornography was a far lesser criminal than the actual child molester. After all, the consumer of child porn was not actually touching a child. My initial reaction was that this person was trying to split hairs where the difference in the two crimes was not that important. Quite frankly, his notion offended and angered me.

There was a rationality to his argument. After all, the consumer of child pornography is not actually TOUCHING a child. However, what that person is doing is just as bad. The consumer of child porn is still violating a child. It is his (I'm sure women can be child porn consumers too, but I'm going to stick with the male pronoun.) sexual desire for children that creates the market for actual child molesters to thrive. I believe that every time someone consumes a piece of child porn, they are violating that particular child all over again, even if they never physically touch that child. They are creating and expanding a demand for children to be victimized. After all, the child porn cannot be created without a child being TOUCHED by someone.

Just because he is not the one touching the child, he is not absolved of his involvement in the crime. Neither is his crime THAT much less severe than the actual child molester that it warrants a distinction. The child molester and the child porn consumer are two peas in a pod. Yes, they are different, but not different enough to make a real difference. Every piece of child porn that is consumed resulted in the physical violation of the child. It doesn't matter that he wasn't the one doing the touching. It's really only a matter of time until he does actually touch a child. That's the harsh reality.

Perhaps my vehemence is related to my own molestation by a stranger at age 11. I managed to overcome the shame and guilt, and the suspicion planted by my church at the time that it was God's punishment of me for having homosexual thoughts as my body plunged into puberty. My molester was never caught, although I'm pretty sure that had the internet been as developed then as it is now, he certainly would have had quite the collection of child porn.

My friend was dead wrong in his presumption. The child molester and the consumer of child porn are two sides of the same horrible coin.

Leaving YDG in Safe Hands

Contested elections can be an envigorating thing, but they always make me nervous. Perhaps it is because I usually lost contested elections in high school. The one exception was the year that I beat a basketball star for the post of Treasurer of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. (Yes, I can sense your snide remarks!) It could also be that the contested elections I've seen as an adult have usually descended into bitterness, acrimony, and recriminations that last long after the vote has been held.



The chance for nastiness in the race to succeed me as President of the Young Democrats of Georgia was particularly high because of the participation of Brad Barnes who I believe has shown on more than one occassion in his home town an ability and eagerness to play dirty to get what he wants. In Rome, his manipulations were more easily successful, although even there, the only thing he truly won was control of his local chapter. That he was trying to take his "show" statewide alarmed me more than I can ever relay.





What's so wrong with Brad? When he first came around, we were thrilled to just have someone up in Rome, GA working with young democrats. He provided us with membership lists and always talked about different activities going on. There was no reason to not believe him at the time. My biggest wake-up call came at the Macon convention last year when Brad tried to derail all the reforms I was attempting to pass in how YDG was structured and operated. He did this despite having been part of the management group that worked with our consultant as part of the GO Grant. He knew why the reforms were happening, and he'd never raised a single objection. He also had ample opportunity to provide feedback at a Charter and Bylaws Convention or even via emails since I made no secret of my intentions. Yet, there he was, having not even bothered to show up to the Charter and Bylaws committee meeting at convention, challenging me on the floor and trying his damnedest to derail carefully considered reforms.



His behavior infuriated me, especially after he lost the argument when I got the 2/3 vote I needed to pass the reforms and then turned around and got himself elected as the North GA Regional Representative, a position he had just fought so hard to stop. However, I was aware now that Brad was secretive, not a team player, and would work to undermine my administration for whatever personal reasons he had.



It did not take long for Brad's behavior in Rome to become known to me. I received an official complaint from the Floyd County Democratic Party about a smear campaign being run by my Vice President of Membership, complete with affidavits and evidence. The thing was, the smears were carried about by my VP of Membership, but the whole plan was put together by Brad, who was smart enough to give him plausible deniability by leaving his direct fingerprints off the whole matter. There were threats of lawsuits being filed, but I quietly issued a reprimand to my VP of Membership and let the matter drop. No lawsuits were filed. The whole scandal was over a race for Clerk of Court, and Brad was trying to flex his muscles with the county party after he'd tried and failed to take them over. So his campaign spread smears and rumors about this poor man (who turned out to be the uncle of another officer at Georgia Tech, and the father of the UGA Finance Chair) and defeated him on primary election day.



It was around this time that actual elections were held for the Rome YD chapter, and it ended up that Brad lost control. Yet, he cried foul, screamed bloody murder, and spread lies about the subversion of democracy to demand an election do-over. The person who had beat him agreed just to end the raging controversy. Brad, however, was not finished with him yet. Part of his smear campaign against this guy was to spread rumors that he not only had AIDS but was trying to spread it and other STDs around the Rome area. Rome, GA is not a large city. The people with roots there know each other well, and it's a conservative area. Spreading these kinds of false rumors is bad enough in Midtown Atlanta where there are enough HIV+ people around that you can feel safe just living your life. But to spread this in a rural, conservative town? That was reckless and dangerous. I even had someone write out by hand that Brad had told him this specific rumor personally in case I ever needed it.



The "redo" election happened, and Brad got his brother to bus in all of his GOP-leaning friends, none of whom paid dues that anyone can tell. Brad got the treasurer of his group to refuse to allow his opponent to pay dues in an attempt to claim he wasn't a member of the chapter. In the end, Brad won back his chapter...and then promptly skipped the STATE to go work for Obama in Pennsylvania. He disappeared for months, and left his chapter so divided and ruined that they were useless in our #1 targeted state house district. Our candidate lost in a year he should have won, and if Brad hadn't destroyed his chapter for personal gain, it's likely the work that needed to be done by the YDs would have made the difference.



After that episode, I was done with Brad. He cares only about personal power and aggrandizement, doesn't follow established rules and procedures, shows a willingness to destroy whatever he can't control, and lies with an ease and casualness that exposes a very dark soul. I am no Polyanna when it comes to politics. You often have to fight hard, and rough, to get your way. But there is an unspoken code of conduct that people are expected to honor. Brad shows no willingness to follow any code of conduct at all. In fact, during the whole dust-up with the Clerk of Court primary there, I had more than one person from Rome tell me that Brad "is a cancer on the body politic." That's pretty serious. Usually, you hear opponents derided as idiots, dolts, assclowns, etc. But calling someone a CANCER ON THE BODY POLITIC takes it to whole new level that sends shivers down my spine. However, I have come to agree with that assessment.



This was the person who was trying to succeed me. Of course, true to form, he had no intention of announcing until the last minute. I suppose he thinks that no one talks to me about anything, or that I don't reach out to many different people to know what's going on in my organization and state. I suppose he thought I'd be caught by surprise at his announcement, or the rumors that he was going to bus in 60 people to vote for him. He even refused to participate in our room block at the hotel to keep us guessing.



After many discussions with many different people, I had decided to support Jane Bradshaw, my National Committeewoman, to succeed me. She has deep Georgia roots (over 7 generations), has worked as a paid member of a campaign staff as well as a paid legal counsel for the state House Democrats. She's bright, hard working, and understands the organization. She gets what the Young Voter Revolution is all about... empowering our generation and turning them into Democrats! She was an Obama delegate to the DNC in Denver last year, and people in the party know and like her. I felt that she was a strong contender to responsibily take over from me, and I wasn't alone. So Jane announced after I opened nominations, and seemingly ran unopposed while Brad was scurrying around the state whispering the mantra of "change" to undo the "cabal" in Atlanta that I had formed. Or something equally stupid.



Sure enough, Brad announced the last day of qualifying. He actually emailed me his declaration with 3 hours to spare, which did surprise me because I fully expected him to wait until 5-10 minutes before the deadline. I suppose he did not want to chance something happening in cyberspace to delay his email. Also at the last minute, George Seaborough, who had been our paid staffer in Savannah for the fall 2008 campaign, announced for Executive Vice President (EVP). I found that declaration strange since he had not spoken to anyone about running for anything. Usually, people do not just come out of the blue and announce for something without at least talking to others first. Turns out, he had talked... to Brad.



The campaign was mostly one of whispers, but luckily, enough people had had interaction with Brad that there was no way they would vote to turn the organization over to him. Still, I worried. Despite our best organizational efforts, it was possible to legally come in and take over the convention and work your will. We had to outdo Brad, and that's what we did. True to form, he didn't even follow the simple rules we had for convention. He did not turn in any credentials until the last minute, and I'm betting a good number of the people listed are not legitmate members, let alone Democrats.



On Friday, April 17, the convention opened. We had a rules meeting where we passed rules that would have prevented Brad from disrupting the convention. I had a Parliamentarian and the Judicial Council ready to respond to any controversies that Brad might stir up. Knowing how he craves his own aggrandizement, I had to prepare for about anything. It was like preparing for a trial! My legal education came in handy.



The "candidate debates" became a social after it was clear no one wanted to listen to speeches, and the candidates present were mingling. Of course, Brad and George (who by this time were running mates), showed up very late, and handed out plastic cups with their pictures plastered on them. As usual, Brad showed up looking like a slob. His weight is not the issue, because I have known many people who are much heavier than he is who managed to still look neat and put together. More often than not, Brad's idea of dressing up is a new pair of "stretchy pants" and a dress shirt that's untucked and usually has food stains on it.



George looked good and campaigned hard. I liked a lot of his ideas, but by hitching his wagon to Brad, he had destroyed any chance that many of us might have considered his candidacy seriously. When you associate with trash, the stink inevitably rubs off on you. But his opponent, Katie, is not a natural campaigner (which I COMPLETELY relate to) so there was anxiety that people would vote for Jane and then for George.



Saturday morning, I discovered my Credentials Chair was not going to make it. She had suggested that I use someone from her chapter to replace her. That I would not do, because I knew that a challenge had been filed regarding the Rome Chapter's credentials, should they ever be turned in. I was upset at first until I realized that I could appoint my predecessor in the Presidency, Billy Joyner. He has experience working through difficult issues like this through committee, and it turned out to be my best appointment.



Billy had control of the meeting from the start. A crowd had gathered, knowing that something big was likely to go down at the meeting. He methodically went through all the credentials, and gave people chances to correct and update them. Then he pulled out the challenged that had been written up earlier in the week outlining all the charges I've discussed earlier. The challenge asked that Rome's credentials be denied, which basically strips them of their charter. That is when all hell broke loose.



Carry from Savannah State (who now lives in Chattanooga) rose up to decry the charges, the attack on democracy, our lack of love for fellow democrats, etc. It was a loud, bravado performance that turned most people off. At first, Brad tried his wide-eyed innocent routine, and then he tried to throw my VP Membership under the bus by claiming he was shocked SHOCKED that such an underhanded thing had been done. But then my VP Membership stood up and implicated Brad quite clearly. It was at this point where Brad started demanding evidence of wrongdoing. That's usually what happens when we catch him in a lie, he goes from the doe-eyed innocent to a calculated stare and some variation of "You don't have the proof." It's interesting that he never denies it, but just states you don't have the evidence to tie him to anything.



What was happening in that room was a very public political humiliation. We did have evidence, which was printed and circulated... and everyone knew in their hearts that Brad was guilty as sin. As it got more heated, eventually the challenge was withdrawn. But the damage was done. Brad was exposed for the fraud he is.



After the meeting, Brad, face flushed with rage, asked me when I had found out about the charges. I casually told him that we'd received the challenge earlier in the week. He retorted, "And you didn't think you should notify me?" I looked at him and responded, "The challenge was addressed to me and the committee. I saw no reason to act on it until the committee met." Privately, I thought, "And why would I give you a heads up so that you could just craft more lies?"



By this time, we were heading to the floor of convention for General Session. We started off with general announcements and then committee reports. One big surprise for me was a resolution that thanked me for my service as President. It was very nice and flattering, and touched my heart. As it was announced, the convention gave me a standing ovation. I never expected such a show of thanks and love. I've never felt more appreciated in all my life. I'm usually not speechless, but I was at that point. I'm luckily, I didn't cry.



We saved Charter and Bylaws for last since that was the most controversial. We had two proposals for maps. One was a 5 region map that created two HUGE South Georgia districts and the other was a more equitable 6 region map. However, to get 6 regions with votes on Exec, we had to eliminate one of the 15 Exec votes that existed. The management consultant was pretty clear that going above 15 exponentially decreased the effectiveness of your board, so I felt the one most easy to get rid of was the rotating caucus vote. That was the part I knew would be controversial, and it was. We managed to table the discussion to move on to elections.



Luckily, President was voted first. As the votes came in, it was obvious that Brad was going to lose, and lose badly. Georgia Tech's chapter put Jane over the top, and she ended up winning 147-45. The only reason Brad got that many votes was due to the distance weights for himself, University of West GA, Chatham County, and Savannah State. But the will of the convention was clearly to reject him and his politics.



The next office was EVP. Atlanta chapter had decided to throw nearly all their votes to George to "punish" Katie for not supporting their guy for Regional Director. UPDATE: Apparently, I was misinformed. While Katie told Nikema she was not going to vote for Nikema's finance for Metro Atlanta Region Director, Nikema did not discuss that with the chapter or engineer a "punishment." Therefore, I stand corrected! UGA then had an unusually high number of abstentions that resulted in Katie being ahead at the end, but not enough to win. UGA then amended its vote to put Katie over the top.



The next move was for George to throw Haley Shank under the bus. She had recruited him to run for EVP because she didn't think Katie was a strong enough leader for EVP. Haley, however, could not attend convention due to being in a community place and was having to campaign from afar. That did not go well. Stephen Ratner from Emory was also running, but he was relatively new. Atlanta opened the floor and nominated George. He had previously promised to support Haley even if he lost, but he saw his chance and took it. He squeaked through to victory over Stephen, draining all votes that might have gone to Haley.



Daniel was unopposed for his office, but Savannah State, Chatham, and Rome decided to be bitchy and deny the convention the ability to elect by acclamation. They didn't bother putting up even a token candidate. They just made everyone go through role call as a way to "punish" Daniel. Talk about not knowing how to win friends and influence people. First, the screaming fit in Credentials, and now needlessly dragging out elections. The body was NOT pleased, and showed it by moving to have 1 minute voting periods (eventually became 5 seconds) for the uncontested races. I suppose they got satisfaction out of it, but they sure left a bad impression with everyone else.



When it came to Secretary, we also had a bit of drama. We knew the two declared candidates were nonstarters. One was Brad's minion from Rome, and the other was absent. We fully intended to nominate and elect from the floor. A guy from UGA named Carter offered himself as Secretary and we went with it. The interesting thing was that Brad's minion came up for his speech and withdrew trying to mumble about dirty politics or something. The result was that Carter won all but 10 votes.



Treasurer, National Commiteeman and National Committeewoman were all uncontested, but we slated them and then had a 5 second vote before sending forth vote totals for all three offices. The Savannah State-Chatham-Rome petulant section offered up varying degrees of "abstentions" to show displeasure. Apparently, Nikema was the one they liked best because she got the fewest abstentions.



Then we returned to the maps. Everyone was all up in arms as we broke into regions to discuss the maps and getting rid of the rotating caucus vote on Exec. The compromise was to open the slippery slope of adding a vote without taking one away. So now Exec has 16 votes on it. I didn't care as much in the end, although I found the arguments of "disenfranchisement" and "robbing the voice" of the caucuses to be childish and immature. In a fit of pique when I was approached by the Women's Caucus Chair about adjourning in time for her program, I snapped, "I don't know! I don't care. You can suck it." Not my proudest moment.



Then, it was over. We adjourned, went into regional caucus, and elected Regional Directors. But I had made it, and the right people had largely been elected. The unmitigated disaster of a Brad Barnes presidency was averted.



At dinner that night, I could finally relax. Senator Max Cleland was our featured speaker, and he was magnificant. We got to eat dinner with him, although there wasn't much talking at the table. Jane Kidd, the Democratic Part of Georgia chair, gave a very nice speech too. We also got to hear from two of our declared gubernatorial candidates. All in all, a very nice dinner.



We ended with awards. We had a nice slate of winners this year. Jason Chitwood from Cobb County was named YD Male of the Year. Nikema Williams was named YD Woman of the Year. UGA was named Chapter of the Year. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College was named New Chapter of the Year. Cobb County was named Most Improved Chapter of the Year. Ed Hula won Jackass of the Year for an unprecedented 2nd time in a row, and the committee said he would not receive it again because it was unfair for "mere mortals to have to compete against a professional." Ed's not too happy about that. Finally, Democrat of the Year went to Juliana Illari, who was quite deserving of the honor.



I then started what I hoped would be a new tradition. I brought Jane up to the stage, and swore her in to office using the US Presidential oath as a template. People laughed when we got to the part about swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the charter and bylaws of the Young Democrats of Georgia", but the effect was just as I hoped. It was a clear and visible transition of power, and I ended it by bowing and saying, "Congratulations, Madam President" as I handed Jane the gavel, and gave her a bag with all the files, credit cards, IDs, etc that I had accumulated as President. I whispered that it was "the YDG Football". She got a kick out of that. Then Jane called up the other newly elected officers and swore them in too. I hope that tradition continues.



Tim had a surprise for me in his closing announcements when talking about the Leadership Academy. He talked about someone who had inspired him and had been not only a good friend but a good boss too. Then he and Jane presented me with a basket of goodies and a gorgeous, fabric bound book with a seal on it about Law in America that's largely legal history, but just the sort of thing I adore to read. I was completely touched by the gesture. I've never felt so good about myself in my whole life.



When I came into the Presidency two years ago at Jekyll Island, I simply wanted to continue the work we'd done in the last 5 years I'd been involved. Most of all, I wanted to NOT mess it up! I wanted to grow the Youth Voter Revolution as we planned. I tried to continue to run things by consensus without being afraid of acting on my own when necessary. If you were open and honest with me and worked as part of the team, things were good. For people like Brad, who wish to obstruct for the sake of obstruction, I had no tolerance. When you are a president, things you do will be questioned, and no one will be happy with you all the time. You'll even make a few enemies. I always acted with what I believed to be the best interests of the Young Democrats of Georgia. My needs or political ambitions did not matter. It was about building a youth political machine for Democrats....and we are starting to deliver. After two years, you'd expect many to be sick of me, but the honors they gave me with the gifts, the resolution, and the ovation, make me believe I did something right. I maybe even did a lot right, and I thank God for that. My worst nightmare would have been to disappoint everyone.



I have left the Young Democrats of Georgia in good hands. Our work will continue, and it will continue to succeed.