Blog Title: AmeriNZ

Australian crisis

New Zealanders and Australians love to mock each other. Sometimes I think it’s the leading trans-Tasman sport. From time to time, one or the other will make that mocking far too easy.

The Australian Opposition is attacking the Labor Government over Vegemite. The Opposition, together with the Australian Food and Grocery Council has said the Government’s proposed “fat tax” on unhealthy foods could force Vegemite off the shelves of grocery stores because of its high sodium content: "We are calling on the Labor government to rule out this absurdity, to make sure that Australian families won't have to pay a tax on Vegemite."

Earlier in the week, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who’s Acting Prime Minister while Kevin Rudd is away, said: "I am a very happy Vegemite eater and there is no way in the world that Vegemite would be banned in this country." Then, pandering as much as the Opposition just has, she added, "Vegemite is part of being Australian, part of our history, part of our future and I'll be continuing to wake up in the morning and having it on my toast."

Now, I’m sorry, but it’s more than a little ridiculous for the wheels of government to get mucked up with something so trivial, but the irony is that many years ago Vegemite was bought by American food conglomerate Kraft, so, strictly speaking, it’s not even Australian anymore. Also, that company said some time ago that production will eventually shift from Australia to Asia (we’ll see about that: I can’t imagine that Australian consumers or, apparently, their government, would allow that to happen).

Most Americans have no idea what Vegemite is (a yeast spread), and most who’ve tried it hate it. The problem, a Kiwi once told me, is that Americans spread it on their toast like peanut butter, which is colossally bad idea. The best way to use Vegemite is to put a bit on your knife and kind of wave it over the toast (joking, but the point is, use very little).

Personally, I prefer Marmite, and like a little bit on toast with sliced cheese on top. I’ve also used it to help thicken beef stews. However, yeast spreads can aggravate gout, so I can’t have it anymore. They are, by the way, apparently a good source of B vitamins.

In any case, you gotta love a country whose government becomes embroiled in fights over Vegemite. Good thing it wasn’t Pavlova, or they might have an international incident on their hands.

The Wikipedia photo with this post shows NZ Marmite (it’s originally British, where a different version is still made) and a NZ-made jar of Vegemite.

Summertime

A couple days ago, I wrote about a questionable survey that supposedly found that Kiwis wanted their summer holidays moved to February because the weather is better. I said that while the survey itself was dubious, the news story was absurd.

However, there’s a basis in fact: The summer weather in New Zealand does get better as the season goes on. The early part of summer—December— can be cool and/or rainy (or not). January is usually very hot, but often with stormy periods. By February and March, the weather is usually pretty stable and a bit cooler (for my Northern Hemisphere friends, add six months to get the equivalent time of year up there).

Yesterday was a typical January day: Hot and sunny. In Canterbury, official temperatures hit 35.7 (or just over 96 US degrees Fahrenheit). But unofficially, the high was about 40 (104F). Here in Auckland, the official high was supposed to be about 26 (roughly 79F), but was measured hitting 28 (a bit over 82F), and probably higher in other places.

Why the discrepancy between official and actual high temperatures? Part of it has to do with natural variations in a region (micro-climates and all that). Part of it, though, is that often the official temperature is taken at a non-representative place. At one time—and still, for all I know—Auckland’s official temperature was measured at Albert Park—high on a hilltop in a shady, cool park. Go as little as a hundred metres away from the park and the temperature can be dramatically different. For Auckland, the official temperature is usually several degrees cooler than the temperature that typical Aucklanders are experiencing.

Which brings me back to the idea of moving summer holidays. There’s absolutely nothing that prevents workers from taking their holidays in February if they want to. However, school is in session at that time and there are important business deadlines (like year-end taxes) that have to be dealt with. “Moving the holidays” would mean changing all that, too.

The big churches liked the idea, saying it would make Christmas “sacred” again: Yeah, right, as if that’s all they’d need. For one thing, the public holidays around Christmastime would have to be trimmed back, kids would be in school, their parents at work. And February holidays would do nothing to remove the crass commercialism leading to Christmas.

The idea of moving the holidays is one of those things that comes up every year at this time when there’s very little real news—a mere meaningless distraction, in other words. Besides, it’s too hot to think about things like that right now.

I have questions

Here are some random questions I can’t answer. Maybe one of you can:

Why does the media always talk about “polygamy” when they really mean “polygyny” (a man having multiple wives)? This is what Mormons of old did and current-day fundamentalist Mormons in the linked story still do. The practice led to the amusing anti-Prop 8 signs carried by lesbians: “Joseph Smith had 33 wives. I only want one.” Anyway, a woman who has many husbands is never in the news (and that’s called “polyandry”, by the way). So why the generic term for people with multiple spouses when that’s never what they mean?

Why do liberals condemn (rightly, I might add) racism in all its forms, but turn a blind eye to homophobia? The condemnation of Rick Warren remained largely among GLBT people until it was revealed he was a cheerleader for the Syrian dictatorship; then heterosexual liberals talked about what a terrible person Rick Warren is. In a similar vein, they’d never, ever permit an avowed racist to deliver the invocation at any president’s inauguration, but a man who has consistently and repeatedly attacked the human rights and dignity of GLBT people is okay. Why is that, exactly? And why, exactly, are gay liberals like me supposed to shut-up and accept this mistake as an okay thing? Would you, Mr. or Ms. heterosexual liberal, say that if it was a KKK chaplain? No? Then why should I accept Rick Warren’s speaking as a “good” thing? The fact is, to many heterosexual liberal Democrats, a “fag” is a homosexual gentleman who has just left the room. We expect that of our enemies, but our friends?

Why does the mainstream media let the christianist right get away with promoting lies, distortions or just utter nonsense? The list is unimaginably long, but let’s take one recent example: The myth that African Americans passed Proposition 8. That myth was absurd when it was first promoted (and, sadly, too many gay people bought it). The christianist right has a lot to gain by causing division between the GLBT and African American communities (if we’re divided, they rule). The mainstream media lets them get away with it.

A study commissioned by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute (via Joe.My.God) has buried the myth once and for all. By looking at real, actual voting results (and not stupid exit polls), the study found that “party affiliation, political ideology, frequency of attending worship services and age were the driving forces behind the measure’s passage on Nov. 4. The study finds that after taking into account the effect of religious service attendance, support for Proposition 8 among African Americans and Latinos was not significantly different than other groups.” So there, wingnuts and your friends in the media. Can we now finally stop repeating the bullshit? (To download a copy of the study, click here for the PDF).

Finally, are there any liberal Christian preachers? I mean prominent, appear-on-TV-to-offer-commentary preachers, not some neighbourhood minister. On a recent podcast with my friend Jason, neither of us could name any, but we knew the names of plenty of far right preachers. The only prominent liberal Christian I can think of is retired Episcopal Bishop John Spong. Are there any liberal Christians left? Or are they all too frightened to take on the christianist right? Anyone?

Torture by America will end

Today Barack Obama followed through on one of the things that many of us voted for him to do: Restore the rule of law. Specifically, his appointment of senior Justice Department officials will see the end of torture by the US, as well as gthe end of warrantless spying and indefinite imprisonment of terrorist suspects without charge or trial.

Obama appointed Dawn Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, to run the Office of Legal Counsel—that’s the outfit that told Bush that he didn’t have to obey the law or US Constitution and could torture prisoners. She publicly criticised “Bush's corruption of our American ideals”, but her harshest criticism was for the lawyers in the office she will now head for daring to suggest “that in fighting the war on terror, [Bush] is not bound by the laws Congress has enacted.''

Harvard University law professor Laurence Tribe said of the appointment, “One of the refreshing things about [it] is that she's almost a 180-degree shift from John Yoo and David Addington and Dick Cheney,'' all of whom were responsible for cooking up the framework to “justify” torture. Tribe’s understating it a bit, since the unravelling of America’s Constitution was designed mostly by those three.

After eight years of high crimes and misdemeanours by the Bush-Cheney regime, a time when the Justice Department seemed to exist only to promote and justify the political agenda of the regime, it’s refreshing to see a strong legal team emerge, one that will be once again committed to the rule of law and to the Constitution they’re sworn to preserve, protect and defend.

There’s been criticism of President-elect Obama in recent weeks, coming from the left as well as the predictable whiners on the right. But if either extreme wants to know why people like me voted for Obama-Biden, this was one of the biggest reasons.

Summer statistics

Half of all New Zealanders want Christmas moved! That’s nonsense, of course, but no less silly than a recent news story headlined*, “Half of Kiwis want summer break moved to February”.

In fact, the survey found “44 percent of the people believe that the summer holiday period should be moved from December to February, when the weather is warmer, compared to 51 percent, who would like to leave it as it is. Another 5 percent were undecided.” Okay, I admit mathematics wasn’t my strongest subject in school, but 44 percent is hardly “half” and 51 percent is more than half. Wouldn’t it be more accurate, especially adding the “undecideds”, to say “more than half of New Zealanders are happy with summer break where it is”?

I questioned the validity of a previous survey result from the survey outfit, Research New Zealand, and while I’m too lazy to dig deeper into this survey (it is summer break, after all), I tend to be suspicious of this one, too. Okay, here’s one raised eyebrow: The news story says the survey “was conducted by telephone between November 26 and December 3”, a period with some cool and rainy weather as we waited for warm summer to begin. We should expect the respondents to have been yearning for summer. The results might be more valid if the survey had been conducted in January.

However, the survey company isn’t the issue as much as that journalists seem incapable of looking at statistics with anything even close to a critical eye, much less a sceptical one. So much of modern policy is driven by opinion polls and other statistical research that journalists do a huge disservice to the public when they can’t seem to grasp statistics or polling data. And you don’t need a survey to tell you that.

*Update: Since I first read the online story linked to above, the headline has been changed to "February summer holiday idea finds favour" which is accurate. It turns out that website comments (which I seldom read) raised the same objection to the headline that I did.

Ban these words!

At the end of every year Lake Superior State University issues its “List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness”. As a list created by popular selection, it may not include the best choices, but they are probably the words that people are most sick of hearing. I’m sick of some of them, too, others, well, “not so much” (a phrase on the list).

However, the phrase I despise more than any other wasn’t on the list: “On the ground”. As opposed to what, exactly? In the air? Under water? Hovering gently like a balloon? The phrase is not just banal and meaningless, it’s way too cutesy for what are often serious subjects.

One of the early uses of the phrase was about troops: “Boots on the ground”. That’s now used in non-military contexts, and the simpler “on the ground” is used constantly, more often than not when a simple word like “there” would be enough.

I guess what annoys me so much about phrases like this is that it’s mere puffery, big phrases for things that don’t need or deserve it. Obviously, I sometimes use phrases like that, too; I’m not immune to popular culture influences.

Because the phrase wasn’t on the list, I nominated it. If there’s a word or phrase you’re sick of hearing, you can nominate it for next year’s list. And be sure to let me know what your choice is, too. If we all, um, ban together it could be a real “game changer”.

Lifeline threat?

Allowing trucks back onto the outer clip-on lanes of the Auckland Harbour Bridge may cause them to fail, even after a $45 million upgrade programme to prevent exactly that. The upgrade, once completed, was supposed to allow the lanes to carry traffic, including trucks, for 30 years.

But the report is saying that if trucks are allowed back on once the work is complete, the lanes will fail in as little as ten years, so trucks may need to be banned permanently (they’re banned until the work is complete). This new assessment came about after NZTA officials looked at the possibility of adding cycle/pedestrian lanes to the bridge, and found not only that the weight couldn’t be added, but that trucks will likely need to be banned permanently.

This all matters because the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which carries State Highway One, is the main north-south link. If it fails, it would create chaos for the economies of the Auckland region on northward.

The bridge was opened in 1959 with four traffic lanes, two in each direction. Within a few years, the bridge had reached capacity and more lanes were needed as the North Shore boomed. In 1969, a Japanese company added clip-on lanes on either side of the bridge, adding a total of four more lanes (two in each direction). The company chosen led to the nickname “Nippon Clip-ons” for the added lanes.

According to the New Zealand Herald, Transport Minister Steven Joyce will soon announce the acceleration of several roading projects, possibly including the Waterview connection to the motorway system, completing the western motorway bypass of Auckland. That would provide a second north-south motorway route. More controversially, plans to construct another Harbour crossing, probably a tunnel, may get a hurry-up from the Government despite the current projected cost guesstimate of $14 billion.

It’s important to note that NZTA, which is in charge of roading, is an independent agency and not a tool of the Government of the day. So, while the report on the bridge may give the Government justification for pushing through roading projects, that doesn’t mean the agency manufactures that justification. While engineers may—and probably will—disagree with all or parts of NZTA’s conclusions about the bridge, no one would suggest a political motivation for them.

It was certain that whichever party won the November election, they’d be facing the same issues after decades of chronic under-investment in infrastructure. The Labour Government made a start on reinvestment, and it’s now up to the National Government to carry on and expand that work. The current report shows the urgency of much of it.

The photo accompanying this post is of the underside of the bridge at Northcote Point (which I took at the same time as the ones I used in this post). The box running along the right side of the bridge contains steel beams that need to be reinforced. At the moment, the spot where this photo was taken is closed as work continues on the reinforcement programme.

New Year briefs

Just a few short news items this New Year's Day…

Citizenship’s birthday

Today is the 60th anniversary of New Zealand citizenship. On this date, the “British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948” took effect. Before then, the people of New Zealand were British Subjects.

In 1931, the UK Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster granting legislative independence to the self-governing Dominions (which included New Zealand). Technically, New Zealand remained a British possession (albeit a self-governing one) until the NZ Parliament adopted the Statute on November 25, 1947. At that point, the New Zealand Parliament became legally independent. The following year, under its new authority, New Zealand defined what its own citizenship was. In 2003, Parliament passed the Supreme Court Act, which abolished the right of appeal to the Privy Council in London (or, formally, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council), replacing it with a New Zealand Supreme Court. The last formal tie to Britain is that the Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II, is also the Queen of the United Kingdom. If New Zealand becomes a republic one day, as many people think it will, then the last tie to “the motherland” will be gone.

It could be argued that the establishment of New Zealand Citizenship 60 years ago today was one of New Zealand’s biggest moves toward complete independence. Sometimes moments like this, and their importance, get lost in the sweep of history. So, it’s worth acknowledging days like this when they come.

Slappy Holidays

A Wellington shop clerk was slapped by a “well-dressed woman” who shouted at the clerk, telling her it was illegal for the shop to be open on Christmas Day, one of 3½ days when there’s a “trading ban” in effect. However, the truth is that businesses deemed to be providing “essential services”, including obvious places like petrol stations, pharmacies and dairies (convenience stores, like 7-11 in the US or small, independent grocery stores). Actually, there are other exceptions, including video shops and even beauty parlours, providing they only rent things or provide services but don’t sell any products.

The woman left after slapping the clerk, tried to close the shop doors, shouting, “Keep it closed!” Understandably, the police want to talk with the woman. To me, it just goes to show what happens when someone acts on what they think the law says about something. Most people, like this woman, don’t have a clue about laws and obviously should have left enforcement to those who are paid to do that (though in this case the store was open legally).

Permanent holiday?

Speaking of Wellington, the New Zealand Parliament is on hiatus until February 10. I doubt very much that anyone’s noticed its absence. Any chance we could get Parliament to stay on holiday?

Happy New Year

Since we’re the first major country to see in each new day, let me be among the first to wish the world a Happy New Year. So far, 2009 has started out okay. Let’s make it a great year.

Fast away the old year passes

Every December 31, I like to look back at what went right, what could’ve been better, that sort of thing. Back when I kept written journals, I used to look back at news stories, too. Now, all I have to do is peruse the archives of my blog to see what I thought of some of the news from the year. Such a time saving!

Since I’ve had the blog, though, 2006 was the only year I was able to do a year-end post (last year, I was in Chicago and had a very quiet—and cold—New Year’s Eve/Day). So this year I again get to look back, and on a year with far more highlights than lowlights.

The election of Barack Obama is clearly a major highlight, and still pretty much surprises me. Actually, it was probably the highlight of the year. The election of more Democrats was a great thing, but is held back from being a highlight only by the fact there weren’t more elected (I mean, really: After all the Republican fuck-ups over the past 8 years, you’d think voters would have been tripping all over themselves to give the other team a go).

Far closer to home, a major highlight was the Custom LASIK eye surgery I had. It’s the closest thing to a surgical miracle that I’ve ever experienced, and it’s made my life so much better. Expensive—very—but worth every cent.

Highlights for me also continue to be my podcast and this blog. Most of my blog posts are like any other person’s—opinionated rants—but every once in a while I write one that I think is pretty good. Sometimes, I add on to news stories to give some more background and information (like I did here and also here). Hardly journalism, but useful to people who read them.

Probably my favourite podcast episode of the year was my interview of Kiwi Singer/Songwriter Monique Rhodes in AmeriNZ 91. Unfortunately, that episode was posted at the same time I was switching feeds, so I’m afraid not as many people heard it as I would’ve liked. That’s a shame, because she’s great and deserves to be heard more widely. I’m not mentioning other episodes for fear of forgetting a guest (they were all great, especially my old friend Jason and e-friend Mark). This year I also began, tenuously, adding videos to my media stable.

What about lowlights? Well, the biggest also comes from the American election: The passage of Proposition 8 in California, as well as other anti-gay measures in other states. They were an affront to democracy even as it was used to make the propositions law. I was disappointed (though not surprised) to see Labour lose Government in New Zealand. They’ll be back sooner or later, of course, because that’s the nature of democracy. Similarly, in the perhaps longer term, this year’s hateful American ballot measures (and those from other years) will eventually be reversed because that, too, is the nature of democracy.

Mainly, the highlight for me this year, as it has been for so many years now, is ordinary, day-to-day life in a beautiful, tolerant land (with sane politics!), shared with someone I love, the best dog in the world, and an embracing extended family. Really, because of all that, how could anything else be all that bad?

Happy New Year!

Proportionate responses

The news of Israel’s massive airborne attacks on the Gaza Strip implicitly suggested that the response was “disproportionate”, that the Israelis were being brutal and pre-emptive in their actions.

Here in New Zealand, veteran activist John Minto led protests outside the US Consulate in Auckland. Later, protesters marched up Queen Street to Aotea Square where they burned a US flag. The US gets the focus and blame because of its ardent support for Israel.

Truth and reality are always far more complicated than either the news media or activists on any side of any issue are able to comprehend, and nowhere is that more true or certain than in the Middle East generally, or the current situation in particular. In an editorial, the Chicago Tribune said:

It makes you wonder what would have happened if there had been such international outrage back in June, when the first rockets fired from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip disrupted a cease-fire that was just days old… What would have happened if there had been such outrage when the rocket attacks from Gaza began to escalate a few weeks ago? Or if there had been outrage when Hamas formally declared on Dec. 18 that it was ending the six-month truce with Israel?

Memories and words

Every year around now, I think of my mother, who was born this time of year. She would’ve turned 92, though she died the better part of thirty years ago. It’s been so long, in fact, that I can go a long time without being able to remember the last time I thought of her.

And then this time of year rolls around again.

My mother always complained about having a birthday so close to Christmas. When she was a little girl, her relatives would say to her, “Instead of getting you two small presents, we’ll get you one big one.” She thought that was a fraud. “I knew that if my birthday was any other time of the year, I’d get TWO big presents,” she told me. Even as a kid, with no money of my own, I tried to make sure I got her two presents.

I’ve lived more of my life without her than I had with her. I passed that milestone a few years ago, the year I reached the age my parents were when I was born. It was kind of a sobering thought at the time.

I wish I was able to write something really special to commemorate her day, but the truth is, I haven’t been able to. In 2006, I couldn’t think of what to say, and last year I had my trip to the US. Actually, that’s been true, to varying degrees, for years, and I’m sure part of it is the number of years since she died.

So instead, I’ll just say the obvious, “Happy Birthday, Mom.” I still think of her around her birthday every year, I think of her two presents and I wish that I had just one more chance to give them to her. That’s the way life goes, and sometimes there just aren’t any words.

The street has no train

This is something I don’t think I’ve seen until today: A street in Newmarket (an upmarket shopping area of Auckland City) has been cut in half by a commuter train platform (under construction). Until recently, the street went through (the old “Railway Crossing” sign is still on the lightpost), but now the street has been cut in two by the new rail platform. This isn’t exactly a major street, but it does make the businesses on the part I was standing on arguably less accessible than before. I have no idea whether this was a good idea or not, it just struck me as odd, since I’ve never seen it before. However, it’s so bloody difficult to get around Newmarket as it is that, in that sense anyway, this is kind of in keeping with the area.

Auckland Christmas

This is my third video, but only the second one I’ve posted to YouTube. All of my videos are available for viewing or download over at my AmeriNZ Podcast site (the Videos category has just the videos). You may remember the Christmas tree lads from my post a few days ago.

Not that it matters, but this is my 400th post this year.

Merry Christmas

Chelsea Sugar Refinery

I hadn’t planned on just posting photos this week, but I guess it’s sort of a Christmas present—taking a break from serious subjects to show a little of my Auckland this time of year.

Today’s photo is of the Chelsea Sugar Refinery taken from Northcote Point last week. In the middle distance is Birkenhead Wharf, which is a ferry terminal.

The refinery’s 18-month construction began in 1883 on a site chosen because it was flat, had a fresh water supply from Duck Creek and because the Waitemata Harbour (also called Auckland Harbour) is at its deepest a few metres offshore. 1.5 million bricks were made by hand from clay on the site, one million for the refinery itself and another half million for a damn across Duck Creek.

The site eventually consisted of 450 acres, and today much of it is kept in park-like condition that the public is welcome to visit. It’s a lovely site, and maybe one of these days I’ll go and take some photos there.

Anyway, for more on the refinery and its history, the company has a page I excerpted above.

Another seasonal view

Here’s another seasonal view: This is Rangitoto from Takapuna—after a dentist appointment yesterday, but we’ll ignore that part. The volcanic island is the most dominant view around Auckland, next to the Sky Tower. I’ll leave it to you to determine if this is as scenic as yesterday. I couldn’t possibly comment.

A Christmas era ends

For the past couple years, a group of lads has been selling Christmas trees by the side of the road, usually wearing nothing more than a pair of shorts. They wanted to make a little money in December, when most of them were on break from university.

Why the skimpy attire? “I think it was by accident, really,” one of the lads told me. “We were out here one day…and then all the sudden we started getting bored and started waving at cars and took off our shirts, and it started growing from there.” The lads had a child’s paddling pool they sometimes used, and sometimes they carried out special routines—exercise sessions, dance parties, champagne breakfasts (for them, they were more thoroughly dressed in suits). A few times they wore only budgie smugglers (Speedo-style swim suits). Despite the skimpy attire, it was all just a bit of a laugh and actually completely innocent.

They got the attention of people driving by, often earning a friendly toot from a car horn as well as some sales, though apparently not as much this year as last. “It doesn’t really worry us,” they said about the reduced sales this year, “as long as we could have a bit of fun and make bit of money.”

Today was their last day ever, and somehow it just won’t be the same without them. They added a bit of silliness to the season, and some fun, too. And no one could fault them for their commitment to earning some money in a novel way.

One of the best things for me about it was that is was certainly something that could never be copied for Chicago’s Christmas. Warm weather Christmases definitely have their advantages.

Fighting the liars and bigots

I always said that the people backing California’s Proposition 8 were bigots and liars. I said that because of two things: First, since there was no logical reason to take away gay and lesbian people’s right to marry, their motivation was religious bigotry. I called them liars for an obvious reason: They blatantly lied in their ads promoting Prop 8 and when they weren’t lying they were distorting truth, which amounts to the same thing.

During the campaign, the Yes on 8 people claimed they were only interested in outlawing same-sex marriage, but had no interest in the 18,000 same-sex marriages that had already taken place. Even in the days after the election, an AP story said, “Supporters of the ban said they will not seek to invalidate the marriages already performed and will leave any legal challenges to others.” The Yes on 8 people were lying.

Despite what they promised in the campaign and in the days after, this past Friday the Yes on 8 campaign did what I always said they would do: They filed a brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that the existing same-sex marriages must be nullified because the new law declares that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California.

In the aftermath of the vote, California Attorney General Jerry Brown said that all 18,000 marriages would remain legal. He also said he would defend Prop 8 against legal challenges under the California constitution. But after further study of the implications of Prop 8, on Friday, he, too, reversed his early position and asked the California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop 8, saying "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."

Predictably, the wingnuts are apoplectic, though I think they’re faking it for PR value. When the challenges to Prop 8 were filed, Yes on 8 demanded to be able to lead the defence because they said that Brown wouldn’t do so, or wouldn’t be forceful enough for their liking. They ultimately hired the reviled Kenneth Starr who led the persecution harassment witchhunt investigation of President Bill Clinton. Starr’s enthusiasm for backing the far right on its crusades was evident in the attempt to nullify same sex marriages, a brief he co-wrote. It’s something they didn’t need to do to defend their ballot measure—they could have done as they tried to make us believe they would do and leave it to others to litigate. But that wouldn’t have fulfilled what was clearly their goal and plan all along.

There are plenty of people—not all of them on the right—who say that Prop 8 is done, and opponents should work on a repeal effort. That ignores the fundamental problem with Prop 8: A simple majority vote fundamentally altered the California constitution to take away the rights of a minority. If this is allowed to stand, ALL minorities are at risk. Human rights can never be put to a popular vote because at any given time the hated minority of the moment is at risk from the tyranny of the majority.

Every concept of justice as well as fairness demands that the California Supreme Court invalidate Prop 8. Jerry Brown was right to change his position. The Yes on 8 people didn’t change their position on those 18,000 marriages, they just revealed their true agenda—and reinforced yet again why they’re called liars and bigots: It’s because they are.

BlaGOjevich!

Disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today said he’s “done nothing wrong” and plans to fight to stay in power. Never mind that there can’t be more than a handful of people who believe him, or that he’s brought the entire state into disrepute, or the fact that he cannot carry out the duties of the office. No, the only thing that seems to matter to him is his precious ego—and money, too, apparently; after all, who would hire him now?

So he’s digging his heels in, the Illinois Supreme Court won’t act, so impeachment is left as the only way to get him out of office. It’ll be an expensive, time-consuming and thoroughly destructive process the state will have to go through, thanks to one man’s selfish, self-centred egomania.

If that man had even the slightest bit of integrity, the tiniest fraction of concern for the people of Illinois, if anything mattered to him apart from his own ego, then he would do the honourable thing and resign. But his actions show he has no integrity, no concern for Illinois and he’s clearly not honourable in any way.

Nevertheless, there’s one and only one thing that Blagojevich must do: Resign. He must stop making things worse than they already are. Go, Rod, you’re not wanted and certainly not needed. Just GO!

Disappointment and reality

Yesterday I wrote about President-elect Obama’s mistake in choosing homophobic far-right christianist Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. If you believed what some gay activists and bloggers have been saying, Obama has morphed into another Bush. Those people need to get a grip.

Which is not say they don’t have some valid points. For example, activists are right that GLBT concerns and issues aren’t taken as seriously by the new Administration as other minorities’ are. Also, there are no out-gay or lesbian people in Obama’s cabinet. Let’s contrast these two with the Bush-Cheney regime: Not only did they not pay any attention to GLBT issues, they did everything in their power to make things worse for us. A current example is the US opposing the UN’s gay rights resolution: Some State Department staff wanted the US to back it, but Bush-Cheney’s “pro-family” appointees made sure the US opposed it.

In my opinion—and it’s just that—there was never any real possibility that an out-gay or lesbian person would be appointed to the Cabinet. It was rumoured that lesbian labour activist Mary Beth Maxwell might be appointed Secretary of Labor, but I wonder if that was just a kind of wishful-thinking. Nancy Sutley was appointed chairwoman of the Council on Environmental Quality and some media said she was the first prominent, out-gay or lesbian person to join Obama’s cabinet—but that’s hardly a cabinet or even cabinet-level position. It’s also important to remember that very often Secretaries have little power, and often these “lesser” positions have a lot of power. Needless to say, there would never even be a rumour of an out-gay or lesbian cabinet official for any Republican.

Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, has an anti-gay voting record. He voted to enshrine a “one man, one woman” definition of marriage in the Constitution twice, he voted to ban gay adoptions in the District of Columbia, he voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and he twice voted against the Uniting American Families Act which would have allowed US citizens to bring their non-US citizen partners into the US, a law that would affect people like me. This is part of his solidly conservative voting record, including being completely anti-abortion and against stem-cell research, for example.

As Secretary of Transportation, however, LaHood won’t be working on any of these issues. It has been suggested that if Obama is to get Congress to pass the biggest transportation infrastructure legislation since Eisenhower’s interstate highway program, he’ll need a legislative insider respected by both parties. So, LaHood’s anti-GLBT record is irrelevant, especially because he was never a leader on any of those issues—he just voted the wrong way on them.

So, what do we get in the new Administration? We have mostly good, competent and fair-minded people, and a few who are well behind the times on social issues. There’s a mix of races, genders and parties—and arguably even ideology within those parties. What we have, in other words, is an Administration that looks more like America than the one that’s about to leave. If President Obama is to win the support of all Americans, and not just those on the centre and left, then not all of his appointees can be expected to pass our litmus tests. That’s politics.

The issue of Rick Warren, however, is completely different due to the huge symbolic message it sends out. That’s a mistake that I can’t—and won’t—defend. I’m disappointed about the speaking role for Warren, but you know what? I’ll glady take this Administration after eight years with nothing but disappointment over and over again. The reality is that even with these disappointments, the worst day of the Obama-Biden Administration will be far, far better than the best day of the outgoing one. Not even Rick Warren can change that.

Obama’s first mistake?

So far, President-elect Barack Obama has been doing pretty much everything right. Now, however, Obama is facing criticism for what many are calling his first mistake: Inviting far-right preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Mind you, some progressives say keeping Robert Gates was his first big mistake, but that’s another topic, and one I’m personally not sure about ether way.

Warren is an ardent opponent of GLBT rights, most notably in pushing California’s Proposition 8, which took away the right of same-sex couples to marry. In a recent interview, he said he couldn’t see a difference between same-sex marriage and incestuous, polygamous and pedophile “marriages”. He’s also declared that those who don’t believe in God shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office. He’s not a nice man.

In fact, Warren himself has said that the only difference between himself and arch-homophobe and überbigot James Dobson (of Focus on Hate, er, the Family) is one of tone. On that one thing, I completely agree with him: Warren, Huckabee, Dobson, Bauer, etc., etc., are all the same apart from the way they express their bigotry.

Understandably, gay activists and progressives alike are outraged. Obama responded:

I think it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something I have been consistent on and something I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency. What I've also said is that it is important for America to come together even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues… What we have to do is create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans. So Rick Warren has been invited to speak, Dr. Joseph Lowery—who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren about a whole host of issues—is also speaking.

I completely agree with the president-elect that we need to find a way to “disagree without being disagreeable”, but this is not the way to do it. Warren’s ignorant, divisive and bigoted rhetoric, along with his use of gay people as a political weapon, mean he’s not fit to take part in an event meant to bring all Americans together. He uses his faith to instil fear and sow the seeds of hate, and he’s never shown a willingness to “find a common ground” on any issue.

It’s not “finding common ground” to give bigots such a prominent role. If he were a preacher who used his bible to justify racism, we would never have this discussion because he would never have been chosen. In America, racism is not given official sanction, but homophobia, well, that’s to be given respect and tolerance “even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues”.

The only mitigating factor I can think of is that the wingnuts are every bit as outraged, but for different reasons: They think that all “Christians”— a word they define as meaning only those who hold the same loony beliefs they do—should shun Obama. So, if this makes the wingnuts angry, it can’t be all bad.

Still, choosing Rick Warren to give the invocation was a mistake. I hope that those at the Inauguration will turn their backs on Warren when he speaks. I know I’ll definitely ignore him when I watch the TV coverage.

But here’s the thing: Choosing Warren, wrong as it was, is not the end of the world. If anyone seriously thinks that this Administration will be anything but a massive improvement over the current one—for all Americans, including GLBT Americans—then they need to have their heads examined. This was a mistake, and I call it as I see it, but there are definitely better days ahead.

Paul Weyrich is dead

Yet another Republican hatemonger has died. He will not be missed.

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan was quoted as saying that Weyrich "was instrumental in the development of conservative thought" in the US. That’s an understatement: He was one of three founders of Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” (which, as we all know, was neither), he helped form the “Christian” Coalition and was the first president of the Heritage Foundation. When he died, he was head of the hard-right Free Congress Foundation.

Weyrich was long an enemy of gay people, and not just by promoting the political involvement of the far-right christianists who eventually took over the Republican Party. On a TV preacher’s show, he proclaimed that all gay men are child predators. More recently, he promoted another right wing homophobic stereotype when he wrote that President Obama will "emasculate the military" when he repeals the infamous “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” anti-gay military policy. He also claimed that Obama will force Roman Catholic doctors to perform abortions.

Weyrich was wrong about pretty much everything imaginable. That’s okay, liberty gives us the freedom to be wrong. But he tried to impose his beliefs on everyone and to suppress the liberty and freedoms of people he disagreed with. That’s not okay.

So, another hatemonger is dead. No one in the centre, let alone the left, will be mourning this death.

Beginning to look like Christmas

One defining feature of this time of year is, as I wrote back in 2006, the pohutukawa trees in full, red bloom. This happens every year around Christmas, with the peak sometimes in early December, well before Christmas, other times later in the month.

I’m not sure which it is this year.

Today I had a lucky combination of both time and a sunny day, so I headed out to see if I could get some photos. The photo above is one I shot today. Actually, I took many more photos and video, for a bigger project I’m working on.

For now, though, I thought I’d share one of my favourite things about Christmas in this warm and friendly place.

Saluting Slap

Congratulations to my e-friend Mark whose blog, “Slap Upside the Head”, was just named Best GLBT Blog in the Canadian Blog Awards, winning a commanding 45.77% of the votes cast. “Slap” has been on my e-reading list for a very long e-time now. Okay, okay, that’s e-nough…

Seriously, well done, Mark!