Claiming a Capitol in “The New Holy War”

In 1992, a majority of Colorado’s voters passed Amendment 2 to the state’s constitution, which would have denied gays and lesbians the right to claim discrimination at the local level in jobs, housing, and public accommodations. Bill Moyers travels to Colorado Springs, the town that gave birth to Amendment 2 that has become ground zero of a “holy war” between conservative Christian values and homosexual rights.

Bill Moyers from 20 years ago. I remember Amendment 2 like it was yesterday. It was a slap in the face to AIDS activists and gay people like me. But that slap would not go un-answered.

The tide started turning.

The very issue of Amendment 2 ultimately became Romer v. Evans and on May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado’s Amendment 2 was unconstitutional. I moved back here from my long sojourn away from this part of the world at the end of that summer. It just felt like it was time to come home and reclaim the Rockies.

Still, it’s been a long trip. Two years later in 1998, Matthew Shepard was murdered, left on the type of a lonely stretch of Wyoming backroad near Laramie that I am all too familiar with. For those keeping count, that’s 15 years ago.

Moyers next talks with Reverent Ted Haggard, pastor of the 4,500-member, non-denominational New Life Church, who explains why he believes that “homosexual behavior is immoral”

Well, 7 years ago Mike Jones put an end to Ted Haggard’s hypocrisy:

Claiming a Capitol in “The New Holy War”

In 1992, a majority of Colorado’s voters passed Amendment 2 to the state’s constitution, which would have denied gays and lesbians the right to claim discrimination at the local level in jobs, housing, and public accommodations. Bill Moyers travels to Colorado Springs, the town that gave birth to Amendment 2 that has become ground zero of a “holy war” between conservative Christian values and homosexual rights.

Bill Moyers from 20 years ago. I remember Amendment 2 like it was yesterday. It was a slap in the face to AIDS activists and gay people like me. But that slap would not go un-answered.

The tide started turning.

The very issue of Amendment 2 ultimately became Romer v. Evans and on May 20, 1996, the court ruled 6-3 that Colorado’s Amendment 2 was unconstitutional. I moved back here from my long sojourn away from this part of the world at the end of that summer. It just felt like it was time to come home and reclaim the Rockies.

Still, it’s been a long trip. Two years later in 1998, Matthew Shepard was murdered, left on the type of a lonely stretch of Wyoming backroad near Laramie that I am all too familiar with. For those keeping count, that’s 15 years ago.

Moyers next talks with Reverent Ted Haggard, pastor of the 4,500-member, non-denominational New Life Church, who explains why he believes that “homosexual behavior is immoral”

Well, 7 years ago Mike Jones put an end to Ted Haggard’s hypocrisy:

Mike Jones: Yes, when I exposed Ted Haggard I exposed myself. There’s no doubt about it. I also had death threats, and I risked being arrested, also. But you know, this man was such a hypocrite. This was a man who talked to Bush once a week. This was a man who actively campaigned against gay marriage. And he could not even abide by his own marriage vows. This is so strong for me, and it hurt me so deeply, that I simply reached the point where I had to say something.

I’m glad you did, Mike. You helped put the hypocrites in this alleged Holy War on the run, because 3 years ago, the Archdiocese of Denver settled 18 sex abuse claims for $5.5 million. Even though Equal Marriage became against the law in Colorado via Amendment 43 in 2006, the tide still kept turning.

Mark Ferrandino kept bringing civil unions up. And now he’s Speaker of the Colorado State House.

And who has threats against his family, since last week Bill O’Reilly and his goon squad painted a target on him?

Mark Ferrandino.

House Speaker Mark Ferrandino — described by O’Reilly as a “villain” — said not a single Coloradan testified in favor of Jessica’s Law.

“What shocks me is for the two years Republicans had the majority, they didn’t introduce this bill,” said Ferrandino, a Denver Democrat who took over the speaker’s post after Republicans lost the majority in the 2012 election. “This is all about politics and not good policy.

Ferrandino added that after the O’Reilly show aired, he received nasty e-mails, including one that he said was from a viewer telling him he hoped Ferrandino’s 14-month-old foster daughter gets raped.

[Emphasis added]

That’s one of the sounds of the last gasps of allegedly holy bigotry. Here’s another – today, the House voted out its initial approval of Senate Bill 11 after a heated debate, lead by Ferrandino:

(more…)

Existential Question for Conservatives: Why Not Own the Sequester?

Question to Conservatives: If “government spending is the problem” shouldn’t conservatives loudly crow and simultaneously own the looming sequester, which cuts spending?

Which Speaker of the House do you believe?

“SEQUESTER: I got 98% Of What I wanted”
“SEQUESTER:We Hates Teh Meat Axes”

I sort of don’t believe either of those two faces. Because this same face should “get off his ass” and learn that spending bills originate in the House:

But perhaps Boehner is confused since the Budget Control Act came to conference in the House via the Senate in vehicle S. 365 [PDF].  And curiosity leads me to look for a rule that was promulgated amongst the GOP bretheren for the 112th Congress:

COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED RULE: When a Member presents a bill or joint resolution for introduction and referral (when it is dropped in the “hopper”), the bill must be accompanied by a separate sheet of paper citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed bill or joint resolution. Below is the suggested format for the citation: ___________ (Bill Number) Member Signature:____________________ CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution. ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________. The blanks are to be filled in by the sponsor.

[Emphases added] I would like to see such an authority in this case, which would be coming from David Dreier of the RULES COMMITTEE. Oh wait – he’s not in congress anymore.

Nonetheless, the House voted on it, and it included Boehner’s aye vote (see We Hates Teh Meat Axes video above.) All this fact business aside…

I really want to know why Conservatives are doing anything but chest beating about the sequester. Isn’t it a signature accomplishment from the “starve the beast” and “drown it in a bathtub” set?

Because it is. Read the enforcement section of S. 365. Here’s a keeper:

    (2) ELIMINATING A BREACH- Each non-exempt account within a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary resources in that account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that category.

 

ELIMINATE BREACHES,  BITCHEZ!

Ain’t this all gonna be a laff riot when SuperStorm Sandy assistance gets reigned in by the sequester, and then the upcoming tornadoes begin to twist…

Existential Question For Conservatives: Why Not Own The Sequester?

Question to Conservatives: If “government spending is the problem” shouldn’t conservatives loudly crow and simultaneously own the looming sequester, which cuts spending?

Which Speaker of the House do you believe?

“SEQUESTER: I got 98% Of What I wanted”
“SEQUESTER:We Hates Teh Meat Axes”

I sort of don’t believe either of those two faces. Because this same face should “get off his ass” and learn that spending bills originate in the House:

But perhaps Boehner is confused since the Budget Control Act came to conference in the House via the Senate in vehicle S. 365 [PDF].  And curiosity leads me to look for a rule that was promulgated amongst the GOP bretheren for the 112th Congress:

COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED RULE: When a Member presents a bill or joint resolution for introduction and referral (when it is dropped in the “hopper”), the bill must be accompanied by a separate sheet of paper citing the constitutional authority to enact the proposed bill or joint resolution. Below is the suggested format for the citation: ___________ (Bill Number) Member Signature:____________________ CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted regarding the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the accompanying bill or joint resolution. ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________. The blanks are to be filled in by the sponsor.

[Emphases added] I would like to see such an authority in this case, which would be coming from David Dreier of the RULES COMMITTEE. Oh wait – he’s not in congress anymore.

Nonetheless, the House voted on it, and it included Boehner’s aye vote (see We Hates Teh Meat Axes video above.) All this fact business aside…

I really want to know why Conservatives are doing anything but chest beating about the sequester. Isn’t it a signature accomplishment from the “starve the beast” and “drown it in a bathtub” set?

Because it is. Read the enforcement section of S. 365. Here’s a keeper:

      (2) ELIMINATING A BREACH- Each non-exempt account within a category shall be reduced by a dollar amount calculated by multiplying the enacted level of sequestrable budgetary resources in that account at that time by the uniform percentage necessary to eliminate a breach within that category.

 

ELIMINATE BREACHES,  BITCHEZ!

Ain’t this all gonna be a laff riot when SuperStorm Sandy assistance gets reigned in by the sequester, and then the upcoming tornadoes begin to twist…

Late Night: Debussy – “The Beauty of a Work of Art Cannot Exist Without Mystery”

One hundred years ago this month, Claude Debussy wrote an article for Etude Magazine titled “Musical Taste in Modern Times”. Some snips:

The sense for the mysterious is gradually disappearing in these days in consequence of the irrepressible desire to prove everything, to explain everything; yet there is something which will always remain mysterious—and that is Taste. Be it understood that here “taste” is used only in its application to music—a subject already difficult enough, for the question of taste enters into close contact with innumerable feelings and nuances in feelings which are one with, and inseparable from, the word “Taste.” In most cases the question is evaded with the usual assurance that “about taste and color it is impossible to argue.” This argument is just as vain as when someone pounds his fist on the table in support of his pet view.

And if a definite stand is to be taken, and an opinion voiced, so that it does not seem as if one were simply juggling with subtly-colored words, then this can be said: The beauty of a work of art cannot exist without mystery. That is, it cannot be accurately ascertained in a work of art “how it is done.” …. Let us preserve this particular charm to music, at any cost. By the very nature of its art, music is more sensitive to this than any other form of art, for everything in it is mystery. We know nothing about its beginning. Learned savants claim that man sung before he spoke—that song existed before speech. This opinion seems too poetic—altogether too contrary to the barbarism of primitive ages. Let us rather accept the theory that it was the warbling of the birds which first gave man the thought of music.

Debussy, I think, quite literally meant that bit about the “warbling of the birds” as he wrote a set of Preludes this same year, 1912, and there are quite some mentions of birds, including this prelude Ondine or “The Swallow”. [cont’d.] (more…)

Saturday Art: Debussy – “The beauty of a work of art cannot exist without mystery”

One hundred years ago this month, Claude Debussy wrote an article for Etude Magazine titled “Musical Taste in Modern Times”. Some snips:

The sense for the mysterious is gradually disappearing in these days in consequence of the irrepressible desire to prove everything, to explain everything; yet there is something which will always remain mysterious—and that is Taste. Be it understood that here “taste” is used only in its application to music—a subject already difficult enough, for the question of taste enters into close contact with innumerable feelings and nuances in feelings which are one with, and inseparable from, the word “Taste.” In most cases the question is evaded with the usual assurance that “about taste and color it is impossible to argue.” This argument is just as vain as when someone pounds his fist on the table in support of his pet view.

And if a definite stand is to be taken, and an opinion voiced, so that it does not seem as if one were simply juggling with subtly-colored words, then this can be said: The beauty of a work of art cannot exist without mystery. That is, it cannot be accurately ascertained in a work of art “how it is done.” …. Let us preserve this particular charm to music, at any cost. By the very nature of its art, music is more sensitive to this than any other form of art, for everything in it is mystery. We know nothing about its beginning. Learned savants claim that man sung before he spoke—that song existed before speech. This opinion seems too poetic—altogether too contrary to the barbarism of primitive ages. Let us rather accept the theory that it was the warbling of the birds which first gave man the thought of music.

Debussy, I think, quite literally meant that bit about the “warbling of the birds” as he wrote a set of Preludes this same year, 1912, and there are quite some mentions of birds, including this prelude Ondine or “The Swallow”:

That ain’t Claire de Lune now, is it? (more…)

CO Civil Unions Bill Dies in Special Session

Which is exactly what I predicted privately on local e-mail lists.

The reason why I could be so confident of that prediction, is the goodies that were left over from the regular session were not addressed, as the reactionaries held their collective breath till they turned blue, and the alleged blue Hickenlooper let said reactionaries exhale (all emphases added):

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper had said the special session was needed to address a “fundamental question of fairness and civil rights.”

The bill’s demise was expected by Democrats, who have begun using the issue as a rallying cry to topple Republicans in the November elections. Republicans assigned the bill to the House State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee, which voted 5-4 along party lines to kill the measure.

panoramicview
With many thanks, photo courtesy Daniel Gonzales

(more…)

Saturday Art: Vivaldi Spring

Feels like Spring to me, so time to play the Vivaldi:

Now a little about the soloist, Jaap Van Zweden. He’s currently the conductor at the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. Conductors that get out from behind the baton and continue to perform are my kinda people – not many of them do that so  much. I really like it when conductors “put their money where there mouth is” so to say.

He came to Dallas after 16 years at the helm of  the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, which some people call the “Carnegie Hall of Europe” as it is acoustically a wonder to behold, like Carnegie. He’s not as well known here in the US yet, but he’s got quite the career going.

Hategroup on Facebook: “I Kill Gays For Fun”

A little reminder for people who call gay equality rights “a pet issue.”

It’s literally deadly serious if you’re gay, you know. Just look at this Facebook page that has been up since April 9th:

Facebook Hate Group
Facebook Hate Group

Has 151 likes as of this minute. Just absorb that. “Weeeee! We likes us killin sum fagz!” and not a jot of shame about clicking that “like” button. Literally gives me the chills.

Hategroup on Facebook: “I Kill Gays For Fun”

A little reminder for people who call gay equality rights “a pet issue.”

It’s literally deadly serious if you’re gay, you know. Just look at this Facebook page that has been up since April 9th:

Facebook Hate Group
Facebook Hate Group

Has 151 likes as of this minute. Just absorb that. “Weeeee! We likes us killin sum fagz!” and not a jot of shame about clicking that “like” button. Literally gives me the chills.