An Adam Bink Golden Oldie
From Feb 25, 2010. Original HERE.
Over the weekend at Rootscamp and generally over the past few weeks, I've been participating in a series of conversations concerning the relationship between traditional "legacy" LGBT organizations- such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)- and online communities. Discussions have centered around how there has been a lot of "infighting" over the past few months. Two prominent examples are the blogswarm last week aimed at the Human Rights Campaign around its strategy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, along with Bil Browning's criticism of GLAAD around The Cleveland Show episode, but criticisms in general- including in my writing, as you may have noticed- have been growing louder across the LGBT blogosphere for some time now.
What is interesting to me is where healthy dialogue turns into "infighting", and why it is deemed critical that progressive movement actors- such as President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders- need a "left flank", but the same does not seem to apply to LGBT organizations.
More on this, along with an interview w/HRC President Joe Solmonese, in the extended entry.
For all of the hammering of what is known as "Gay, Inc." in online spaces, (although I prefer the term "legacy" organizations) it is nice to have some examples of how things could work better. I found one great example in my inbox today.
One Colorado Education Fund, an arm of the LGBT equality group in the state, commissioned two polls- one of 4,600 LGBT Coloradans (including special efforts to reach people of color and transgender individuals) as well as 1,000 non-LGBT Coloradans on their perspectives regarding issues important to LGBT people. Colorado is a moderately pro-LGBT state at the legislative level, enacting housing, public accomodations, employment and hate crimes protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as allowing unmarried same-sex couples to adopt each other's children and make certain medical decisions for each other. State employees also can have their domestic partners on benefit plans. But the polling demonstrated that about a third of those polled were unaware such protections existed. And the state both enacted a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage as well as defeating a proposal to enact domestic partnership benefits. There is still a long way to go on that front.
The poll is a smart endeavor at accomplishing several things. One is obviously to communicate how pro-LGBT Coloradans are to lawmakers and the rest of the public. But to me, the most interesting part is how the numbers get at what LGBT Coloradans face and how they live. The numbers include percentage of those with health insurance, income levels, employment that all elicit some concern, and even figures like 83% of LGBT Coloradans have given money, goods or services to non-profits in the past year, and 31% of transgender people have served on a committee or board for a charitable group. I view this as a great way to communicate that LGBT Coloradans and families face the same struggles everyone else does, and give back the same way, too. In many places I've traveled, there is a perception that the gays are all well-off, living in fabulously decorated condos and never spend time giving back to their community. These numbers push back at that.
Equally important is how the numbers describe startling percentages of those who are not out of the closet at home or work, or have faced harassment on the street, in a public place, or in school- also an important way to communicate how Colorado is still not "live and let live". It goes back to what I keep repeating on the national level, how people can be fired just for who they love in 29 states, and how they appear in 38 states. This is that, except on a micro-level. Very important. You can check out full results of the poll here.
What I like almost as much as the polling idea is the town hall meetings across the state to open the floor up for ideas on how to build a better LGBT equality movement in the state- and in partnership with other progressive groups across the state. From my inbox:
Dear Adam,
YOU spoke. WE listened. Check out the results!
Join One Colorado and our community partners for a series of townhall meetings throughout the state. We will present the findings from the recent Needs Assessment of LGBT Coloradans, engage in an open dialogue, and seek your input about the next steps for a fair and just Colorado.
Boulder - July 13: 7:00 PM - RSVP HERE
Fort Collins - July 19: 7:00 PM - RSVP HERE
Colorado Springs - July 20: 7:00 PM - RSVP HERE
Denver - July 21: 7:00 PM - RSVP HERE
Durango - July 27: 7:00 PM - RSVP HERE
Grand Junction - July 29: 7:00 PM - RSVP HERE
Invite your friends, family and neighbors. All are welcome to attend and help shape the future of a statewide LGBT equality movement!
Sincerely,
Brad Clark
Executive Director
Townhall Co-Hosts
Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Progress Now, New Era Colorado Foundation, ACLU of Colorado, 9to5, National Association of Working Women - Colorado, Healthy Colorado Youth Alliance, Latina Initiative, The Kaleidoscope Project, Two Spirit Society, Gender Identity Center, Colorado AIDS Project, LGBT Community Center of Colorado, Denver PFLAG, PFLAG Boulder County, PFLAG Durango/Four Corners, PFLAG Fort Collins/Northern Colorado, Boulder Pride, Western Equality, Lambda Community Center, Denver Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, Babes Around Denver, Inside Out Youth Services of Colorado Springs, Pikes Peak Community Center, Out Front Colorado, Four Corners Gay & Lesbian Alliance for Diversity, Denver GLBT Commission, Sisters in Lesbian Kinship, Men's Supper Group of Fort Collins, Fortitude Men's Group, OGLBT, City of Fort Collins Recreation Department, CU-Boulder LGBT Resource Center, Imperial Court of the Rocky Mountains, GLSEN Colorado
I mention this because one of the most frequent criticisms of national "legacy" organizations in our movement is the lack of openness and accountability. I suggested the idea of once-a-year town hall meetings in cities across the country to HRC President Joe Solmonese in person last November, and it's something I still strongly suggest his and other groups take up. There will always be vociferous critics of positions groups like HRC take, but I find much of the criticism is simply not grounded in fact. A simple example is "HRC hasn't done anything", which is one I hear a lot, and debunked here and here. I got a ton of e-mails after each of those pieces from pretty apolitical LGBT friends who said they didn't realize HRC did more than just concerts and fundraisers- and from political colleagues who admitted the group was better than the vociferous criticism leveled, in some respects at least. On top of that, Joe himself told me in an interview he welcomes constructive criticism. You won't always find well-informed or reasonable viewpoints from some who attend town hall meetings, but you will find many. And among those who aren't, you might find that minds are more open after engaging them. What I see from our community is a cry for more dialogue and being able to question strategies, have questions answered, and simply engage with our leaders who go to the White House and Capitol Hill and represent us. I'd love to see more of that, not just from HRC, but from groups across the spectrum- and One Colorado is setting a good example.
The point here is that you won't always win over those who disagree on strategy, but you will open a dialogue, and you will dissect and eliminate some misperceptions. I'm glad One Colorado is moving toward that, and it's something like to see on the national level, too.
I have noticed there are three operating rules of engagement when it comes to some wide swaths of LGBT community and the Human Rights Campaign.
Rule #1: If we win any electoral campaigns or legislation, it must be because of The Grassroots operating on their own and not anything HRC did.
Rule #2: If we lose, it must be because HRC squandered lots of money and has no influence over the Administration or Congress, and not because The Grassroots didn't care or had other priorities, but because HRC failed to mobilize The Grassroots.
Rule #3: If HRC does something cool, it should be questioned with cynicism. For example, if something cool happens- like the National Equality March drawing hundreds of thousands of people to the National Mall, driven in part by Lady Gaga's appearance- it's teh awesome. But if 1,000 people rally with HRC at Freedom Plaza in DC in the middle of a workday driven in part by Kathy Griffin's appearance, the use of celebrities in movement activism is questioned.
To that end, it raises a question in my mind on the role traditional legacy organizations play. As Pam notes in her piece on Barney Frank's comments regarding the LGBT agenda, if our legacy organizations with their foot in the door are ineffective at pressuring the Administration and members of Congress to do what we want, that's problematic. She's right. On the other hand, in terms of whether we succeed or fail at something, is it as Pam describes in discussing DADT repeal in trouble:
The bombshell, as it were, is the fact that we see, yet again, that the White House is letting the LGBT community down on DADT repeal in a way that shows the impotence of HRC's efforts.
Or is it because effective activism by community members hasn't been lobbed at the White House? I haven't seen tens of thousands of phone calls flooding the White House switchboard, day-in and day-out. Aside from Dan Choi's chaining himself to the White House fence, I haven't seen direct action- either in DC or out following the President around the country- since the President's State of the Union. So, who is "letting the LGBT community down", here?
Too often I think there is a misconception that organizations with lots of money and big e-mail lists can mobilize whoever they want, whenever they want. If hundreds of thousands of calls aren't pouring in, it must be because HRC didn't push that big red button.
When in reality, it's hard to mobilize communities. We are not all HRC's zombies, here. I've been doing LGBT organizing for 6 years- both online and offline, in college, on the streets with Soulforce around Don't Ask, Don't Tell in 2006, and today. I could name a dozen gay friends who wouldn't do anything for LGBT rights unless they got a personal phone call from Madonna, and even then only if it's something they can do on their computer. I'm serious- apathy is real in the LGBT community. Out of the zillions of e-mail lists out there and the millions upon millions of e-action blasts sent, a tiny fraction have truly worked. Chris and I manage e-action at OpenLeft and we can tell you: mobilizing people virtually is hard, especially now that everyone gets flooded from list after list.
Now, to be fair, HRC hasn't asked people to call the bejeezus out of the White House, or follow the President around the country demanding to know whether he wants to see repeal this year, ginning up earned media- and I've called that out, too. They have done event after event in targeted states with swing members of Congress, though, and are partnering with organizations around the country on a massive veterans lobby day on the Hill next month. And at the risk of sounding repetitive, I go back to Chris' piece on how to start your own netroots organization. Decentralized activism is in these days, as it should be- it's part of what we do here at OpenLeft. Hell, a blogswarm flooded HRC's phone lines on DADT just less than a month ago. OpenLeft participated in another one pushing the Speaker's office on ENDA more recently. From what I heard, both were slammed with calls. Yes, there are limits to what non-large, well-monied organizations can do- not everyone has $40 million to throw around. But just because HRC doesn't do a tactic doesn't mean it can't be done. And don't assume that if people aren't mobilized, it must be because HRC is failing to mobilize them.
Nevertheless, if repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell fails, predictably, the blame game will focus exclusively on HRC, calls to not donate will be made, Andrew Sullivan will once again incorrectly write how they haven't done anything since their founding, etc. And no doubt, newer, less monied, more "grassroots"- whatever that means- groups like GetEqual will get a pass. My question is whether that will all be correct or not.
The purse strings on activism, so to speak, are not all in the hands of A Few Large Monied Organizations. It's important to hold them accountable and call out poor organizing where one sees it- I've done so myself in many places, including with HRC. As Pam writes, they play a key role in pressuring the White House. But for the sake of responsibility, the rest of us all play a role, too. I don't assume HRC or anyone else has all the power, and consequently don't rely on them. Neither should anyone else.
Back in February, I wrote a piece referencing how labor union leaders- most notably, USW President Leo Gerard- were making headlines warning that union families would stay home if things didn't change, and calling for LGBT leaders to do the same, in part to get taken seriously. I wrote:
Legislative action, much less success, on any number of LGBT issues including Don't Ask, Don't Tell, is far from certain, and our side needs to be lighting a fire under the White House and Congress, and warning of apathy from LGBT voters, or the Newsweek prediction from December will come true.
Five days later, around the blogswarm aimed at HRC, I wrote on a list of bullet points what I'd really like to see from HRC:
Increased pushback by warning, like the labor unions are doing, that angry and apathetic LGBT voters will stay home in droves during the 2010 elections (here)
A week later, when WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs refused to answer a direction question on whether the White House would like to see Congress pass repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year, I wrote:
And by the way, this is about the umpteenth opportunity of late for prominent LGBT organizations and advocates to take to the media and do the following: (a) Reiterate how critical it is that repeal, among other LGBT issues, is done before the 2010 midterms (b) Light a fire under Democrats' behinds by taking a page out of labor's book and warning that angry and/or apathetic base LGBT voters will stay home in droves, helping to cause another 1994. Stan Greenberg's polling demonstrated that from the 2008 elections to the 2009 off-year elections, Rising American Electorate voters- base Democrats, all- as percentage of the electorate dropped 9% in Virginia and 10% in New Jersey. There are a lot of reasons for that, but a big one is that they are demoralized by lack of action at the national level, and it played a role in losses across the board. And we all saw just how fired up Democrats were in Massachusetts.
LGBT voters are far from fired up and ready to go, and statements like this from the White House don't help. LGBT organizations and advocates should all be reminding them of their political best interests.
Finally, yesterday, two organizational leaders took the hint. From DC Agenda:
Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, alluded to potential political consequences if the bills don't advance in this Congress.
"I do think that there will be many LGBT Americans frustrated and disappointed if any of these [bills] don't move," she said. "Even though we don't have a pro-LGBT majority in the House and the Senate - this is our highest majority that we have and we need to obviously capitalize on the members that we have in the House and the Senate to pass legislation. So, in short, I do think that there will be anger in the community."
Herwitt said this anger would likely manifest itself in LGBT voters feeling disconnected from Congress and from the Obama administration.
This disconnect, Herwitt said, could affect political donations or discourage people from getting involved in re-election campaigns as well as "not door knocking, literature dropping, all that kind of stuff."
Herwitt also urged a stronger voice from the White House in advocating for legislation like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Domestic Partner Benefits & Obligations Act, as well as repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
"I do think that it is important that the president and the administration do strongly indicate to the House and the Senate their support and their desire to move on ENDA, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and DPBO," she said.
Michael Mitchell, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, voiced similar views.
"I think that we're seeing some - donors are starting to put their money elsewhere or holding off," he said. "I think that there are rank-and-file folks who are getting frustrated."
This is a start. As a community, you are only taken seriously if you can demonstrate that there are consequences to screwing with you. Labor has demonstrated this via SEIU 1199 and the Working Families Party pulling support from Rep. Arcuri after his no vote on health care. The immigrants rights' community has put out similar warnings via the America's Voice polling, demonstrating that comprehensive immigration reform was a critical issue to turning out the Latino vote, and to getting Latinos to pull the lever for candidates. A lot of this is played in parlor games in the media, and it was long past time LGBT organizational leaders started firing warning shots. And there's other ways to make these warnings, too. More of this, please.
Chris beat me to the Friday tab dump, but that's OK, because mine's an LGBT one anyway. Here's what I'm reading around the tubes:
Courage Campaign and GetEqual has a petition from Cleve Jones, a longtime friend of Speaker Pelosi, asking her to move ENDA after recess. You can read and sign here. They're going to deliver it to her offices during recess.
Meanwhile, Barney Frank says "it's our turn" and Tammy Baldwin says she's counted and the votes are there in the House. OpenLeft will also be partnering in an action on ENDA in the coming weeks. Stay tuned.
Up in Maine, the Catholic Diocese- one of the most vicious opponents of marriage equality last fall- announced it was withdrawing funding from Preble Street, a non-profit serving disadvantaged women, teens, and other people with food, shelter and support, because Preble Street joined a coalition in favor of a No vote on question 1. In response, the Diocese demanded its $15K back and rescinded a 2nd $15K award, while Catholic Charities Maine demanded its $2,400 back. There has been an outpouring of outrage and support for charity for charity's sake. I know a lot of Maine Catholics who have given this week, including the awesome mom of Joe Sudbay over at AMERICABlog. Check out Bill Nemitz's column here, and Catholics for Marriage Equality, a new group run by Anne Underwood (a very smart organizer I interviewed in Maine) has a donate page here.
HRC President Joe Solmonese has a very measured response to Dan Choi's criticism here. My earlier piece is here if you'd like some background.
Asked about the new DADT regulations and the White House commitment on the issue, Barney Frank says, "They're ducking. Basically, yeah, they're not being supportive, and they're letting Gates be the spokesman, which is a great mistake."
HRC is launching a new nationwide tour of veterans discharged under DADT and their allies. Those featured are here. I have an unconfirmed list of dates and tour stops, and I'll get a full list up as soon as it's finalized. Target states are WV, NE, VA, IN, FL.
Would sure be nice to see our Commander in Chief, or Admiral Mullen, step up and smack this guy down.
These new numbers on HIV rate of infection in DC are really, really scary- and according to the piece, may even be off-target because they may have not sampled enough in establishments frequented by African-American men. A friend of mine has generated a lot of good activism on this through FUK!T, a DC non-profit which sets up tables I see at nightclubs and bars so guys can take a free package with condoms, lube and safe-sex information cards when they go home for the night. It's a very smart, prevention-oriented campaign whose budget was just cut. A $10/month (tax-deductible!) donation pays for 2400 kits, and I just signed up to contribute exactly that. You can donate here. If that's not enough to entice you, check out these hot videos and pics featuring world-famous porn stars (sorry, I couldn't resist).
Freedom to Marry, a smart pro-marriage equality organization, is expanding their staff in NYC. Several jobs here.
Over the weekend at Rootscamp and generally over the past few weeks, I've been participating in a series of conversations concerning the relationship between traditional "legacy" LGBT organizations- such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD)- and online communities. Discussions have centered around how there has been a lot of "infighting" over the past few months. Two prominent examples are the blogswarm last week aimed at the Human Rights Campaign around its strategy on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, along with Bil Browning's criticism of GLAAD around The Cleveland Show episode, but criticisms in general- including in my writing, as you may have noticed- have been growing louder across the LGBT blogosphere for some time now.
What is interesting to me is where healthy dialogue turns into "infighting", and why it is deemed critical that progressive movement actors- such as President Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders- need a "left flank", but the same does not seem to apply to LGBT organizations.
More on this, along with an interview w/HRC President Joe Solmonese, in the extended entry.
Over at AMERICABlog and elsewhere, John, Joe et al are asking folks to call HRC to ask the White House to ask Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year. I think increased pressure from HRC is important, though what I'd really like to see is four-fold, and I've called for several for months now:
Increased pushback in the media when items come out like the Pentagon considering segregated shower facilities or the Pentagon memo originally advising the President "now is not the time" (here)
Increased pushback on the one-year "study", like Rep. Sestak did in my interview (here), and emphasizing that Congress must repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell this year while the Pentagon completes its study
Increased pushback by warning, like the labor unions are doing, that angry and apathetic LGBT voters will stay home in droves during the 2010 elections (here)
Mobilization aimed at the White House. The night of the State of the Union speech, HRC launched its Voices of Honor campaign around grassroots mobilization, media events and legislative pressure. This is all important, but what remains to be seen is presidential leadership on the issue. John is dead-on here:
Unfortunately, we've reached a point with the Obama administration where allies have to publicly demand action, or promises are never kept. Just last week, the AFL-CIO was forced to send an action alert to its members, targeting the White House. If it's good enough for the unions, it's good enough for us.
Just like I asked LGBT leaders and activists to take a page out of labor's book on media pushback, HRC could do the same on this front. I'm not going to be satisfied with an official HRC statement "calling" on the White House to ask Congress. I'd like to see grassroots mobilization to do the same.
John et al are right that the momentum is on our side. We don't just need legislative mobilization, we need strong leadership, both from traditional groups and from the Administration, to push this through, and I'd like to see it on multiple fronts.
An Adam Bink Golden Oldie
From Tue Oct 06, 2009. Original HERE.
Andrew Sullivan wrote a fairly scathing piece last night mocking Obama's upcoming speech this weekend to the Human Rights Campaign Dinner, echoing the same tired criticism that HRC has failed to accomplish anything. Usually, the criticism refers to the federal level. In his case, it's "in the twenty years I've been observing them", but I've heard "since they were founded in 1980". Putting aside that HRC has dumped lots of resources into successful state campaigns and helped elect pro-LGBT candidates up and down the ballot, let's take a closer look at this.
When elections happen that change control of the White House or Congress, advocates always say things like "the Supreme Court is at stake!" or "the future of our environment hinges on it!" Then, when a major electoral victory occurs, like George W. Bush winning the White House, advocates sorrowfully say things like "well, health care reform is off the table for the next four years". And generally, they're right.
HRC is seemingly the only group excluded from this. Back in 2000, I heard "well, we're definitely going nowhere on LGBT rights under Bush" and then, eight years later, "HRC has accomplished nothing!!" from the exact same people. It doesn't add up.
I have my own share of problems with HRC, and I think they've made mistakes in the past, but I don't get why some of my friends in the LGBT rights movement think it's okay to give a free pass to environmental/pro-choice/health care advocates/others when Republicans are in charge... yet repeat the line that HRC has failed to accomplish anything over the same time period.
Two "state of LGBT" reports just came out, one today and one yesterday.
Today's is a memo from Joe Solmonese to the HRC Board, a copy of which I was given, on progress made for the LGBT community in 2009. These memoes are usually to discuss organizational accomplishments during the year, and while it does do that in part, the piece also helpfully outlines progress made. What stood out for is (a) the amount of positive efforts from the Administration for the LGBT community in the areas of regulation (b) Very muted criticism of the Administration.
In (a):
Sec. Clinton extending benefits like diplomatic passports, access to overseas medical facilities, housing allocations, and more for Foreign Service officers.
HUD regulations that prohibit discrimination in HUD housing programs and FHA mortgages
The lifting of the ban on HIV-positive visitors and immigrants entering the country, and suspension of denial of green cards for HIV-positive applicants
Inclusion of LGBT data in the 2010 Census
I mention this mostly because with all the "Democrats suck" talk around New York State and in general, this is all stuff that would never happen in most, if not all, Republican Administrations. And good on HRC for helping get them implemented. Small-ball, but important to remember.
In terms of criticism, Joe briefly mentioned Rick Warren and the DOMA brief. My list is much, much longer than that. In fact, John Aravosis' mile-long list is the best summary out there. I would like to see stronger pushback from our national LGBT organizations. When I interviewed Rea Carey of NGLTF, she refused to call for an apology over Warren, DOMA and other items, and said I'd have to ask the Administration if they believe they made mistakes. We are never going to get past what one colleague of mine calls the "customer service window" of the White House unless we raise hell harder, and demand not just verbal support for major initiatives, but action.
The other report is on LGBT progress over the past decade, released by Movement Advancement Project and the Evelyn & Walter Hass, Jr. Fund. It statistically documents a number of accomplishments as well as lack of progress including laws, HIV/AIDS infections, polling, military discharges and more. Some of the numbers like the polling data don't quite tell the whole story, but the point that stands out to me is the state-based progress. Cleve Jones, who led the National Equality March, made the argument that the state-by-state strategy was "a failed strategy". While I disputed that in this piece on a strategic level, the data show otherwise. It is piecemeal, but there are real accomplishments in terms of laws. 0 states had marriage equality in 2000; 5 do now, and it would be eight with CA, ME and if you include DC. NJ is also a possibility. In 2000, 1 state had anti-discrimination laws based on gender identity; 14 do now. Less than 1% of Fortune 500 companies had such protection; 35% do now. All of this progress helps move things on the Congressional level and in the courts.
(I wrote this post exactly one year ago, and am promoting it today unchanged because so far, with the exception of not being able to turn one's Twitter status red this year (darn), I see no difference in publicity or calls to action on World AIDS Day today. If there is, I will update this piece. In the meantime, vaccines do not make themselves, but finding one remains the best hope for a cure. Prevention must one day become eradication.
Please consider volunteering for an HIV vaccine trial. And if you are not eligible, consider asking a friend, family member, or colleague to do so. We have made great strides over the last year and it must continue. More details below, or you can go to hopetakesaction.org for more. - promoted by Adam Bink)
I've been sitting at my computer all morning, reading through the advocacy discussion on World AIDS Day. Usually on these kinds of commemoration days there is an overemphasis on quick internet activism- a Facebook status update is all I expect out of lots of friends, both gay and straight- and an underemphasis on offline action.
Today is no exception, but it's especially disappointing because of the lack of emphasis on vaccine trials. Allow me to get a little personal on you.
I come from a background of volunteering. My mom was a team leader for the United Way Day of Caring, so I participated each summer. Before I became sexually active, I donated blood at the Red Cross every chance I became eligible again- literally gallons' worth. My grandpa spent the last few years of his life needing blood transfusions, so I became aware of important it is and how many shortages there are.
In that spirit, and because of how HIV/AIDS affects my community and friends, two years ago I participated in an HIV vaccine trial through the National Institutes of Health. The trials were no secret- NIH advertised in Metro Weekly, a local LGBT magazine, calling for volunteers. It wasn't difficult- when I had a visit (I had a total of about a dozen, I got up a little earlier so I wouldn't miss work and hopped on the DC Metro a couple of stops to the NIH campus. I did a few visits of background medical counseling and routine blood tests- the same you would get at a yearly check-up with your physician. The vaccine was given in separate doses- all with careful monitoring of symptoms. The extremely courteous, friendly, professional medical staff called regularly to check up and make sure I was okay. I was given a chart to monitor any reaction I had- which was none. The follow-up visits consisted of simple blood tests and inquiries on any symptoms. It was not, by any stretch, a harrowing experience, and I was generously compensated for my time. And I've been tested multiple times since then and am still HIV-negative.
I didn't tell many people about my participation at the time, and those I did tell, I was shocked at the concerned reaction- even by physicians I know, even by people I know who lost family to breast cancer, another disease with no cure, and have lamented to me how there is no vaccine. But the trial vaccine cannot cause HIV infection. From the NIH website set up for volunteer intake (emphasis theirs):
Q: Can a study vaccine cause HIV infection?
It is impossible to get HIV infection or develop AIDS from experimental vaccines. They are not made from live HIV, killed HIV, weakened HIV, or HIV-infected cells. The investigational vaccines in this trial cannot cause HIV infection.
You could even be receiving a placebo. More to the point, though, I was left wondering at the public approach to HIV/AIDS and other diseases. How are we ever going to get past prevention and onto eradication if we don't get past the perception that these vaccines just make themselves, and volunteering isn't critical?
You see the same approach today. On Twitter, you can turn your update status red by tweeting #RED. But as of 10:45 AM EST, the sponsor, @joinred, which is run by Nike and has over 850,000 followers, makes no mention of volunteering to find a vaccine or even getting tested. The Obama administration's new website, AIDS.gov, has an entire section devoted to using new media, but no mention of the government's own NIH vaccine trials- which, as I discuss below, are still calling for volunteers. I can't find it in the HIV/AIDS Programs, National HIV/AIDS Strategy, HIV/AIDS 101, or Prevention sections of the website. President Obama's proclamation this morning doesn't call for volunteers. And this is the federal government's own program we're talking about! In the LGBT world, I don't see it on the Human Rights Campaign's blog post titled "Marking World AIDS Day". NGLTF, in a statement, mentions the need for treatment access, comprehensive sex ed, combating discrimination, syringe exchange programs, but nothing about vaccine trials.
Now, I'll be the first to say I'm no expert on epidemics, and I know items like getting tested, combating stigma in the African-American community, and syringe exchange programs are important. I also know HIV/AIDS vaccine trials have had limited success- although no more so than lots of other diseases. But it simply doesn't make any sense to talk about prevention of diseases through pap smears and mammograms and HIV tests, and not ask people to volunteer to try and end these diseases permanently.
We've just achieved a cervical cancer vaccine. Every winter, everyone flocks to get a flu vaccine to the degree that there's always a shortage. Every child gets an MMR vaccine. Hepatitis B. Polio. On and on and on. Americans know how critical vaccines are. What seems to be be unknown is that these vaccines do not come out of thin air. They come from people bravely volunteering to help develop them so that the rest of our country, and the world, can live longer. People bravely volunteer to fight overseas in the name of saving lives. Why don't the rest of us bravely volunteer to save lives here at home? It's time to start volunteering, and for our leaders to start calling for volunteers.
If you are a man who has sex with men, HIV negative and between 18-45 years old, please consider volunteering (there are a few other requirements you can read about on the website). There are trial clinics all over the country (and the compensation is really good too). We will never get eradicate these diseases if we don't and step up individually. Mark World AIDS Day by taking a giant step forward towards a cure.
Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign, was in Maine for the election and he and I sat down for some chatting. I'll have more clips up this week of what we talked about, but let's start with Joe talking about the Democratic Party's commitment, or lack thereof, to LGBT issues in response to the OFA/DNC fiasco.
As I've written before, OFA and Obama's refusal to get involved in a major way was not just disappointing but a slap in the face on top of what the Administration (and by extension, the campaign through actions like inviting "ex-gay" homophobe Donnie McClurkin to speak at their rallies) has already done. The Maine fiasco was, for me and others, the straw that broke the camel's back, and in response, John and Joe at AMERICABlog have launched a donor boycott of the DNC until the Administration accomplishes legislative priorities.
Now, I've called for more patience on LGBT legislation, and I don't entirely agree that DOMA can be repealed "today" as they do, but I think these kinds of actions are on the right track, and the Administration is going to see a lot more of this coming down the pipe. HRC gave a tacit endorsement of the action as well.
But what really gets me is the smaller, stupid things they do to smack gays around. As Solmonese said, taking action in WA and ME "is by no means a risky strategy, and at the core of what they ought to be doing." It would not cost them anything to ask for a No vote in the Maine e-mail blast. Obama called for a No vote on Prop 8 but the tepid statement they issued regarding Maine didn't even mention the words "Maine" "No" "Question 1" or anything that would actually influence voters. Rick Warren at the inaugural, Donnie McClurkin, abolishing White House and DNC LGBT liaison positions, refusing to interview with LGBT press, or even apologize for any of these actions... the list goes on and on. In fact, John and Joe have a full list here.
Just like the "internet left fringe" comment, either don't advance Obama's position among voters or, if they do pick up votes, do so at the cost of endorsing McClurkin and Warren-style bigotry. The White House needs to both push harder for action on LGBT priorities as well as shut this kind of crap down.
As is the tradition every year with the HRC national dinner, a lot of bitter criticism comes out about the group. I debunked the "they haven't done anything" argument last week. Today I want to write about a segment of the gay community whose influence we must all fear: the Rich, White Gays (RWGs).
You see, many in the LGBT community (examples here, here and here) have criticized HRC as a group made up entirely of RWGs, and that we should dislike HRC, their money, and their support because of the RWGs. In fact, the HRC headquarters was actually vandalized yesterday for the same reason.
Allow me to do my best to disabuse you of the notion that HRC, via the scary RWGs, are destroying all of Gayopolis (h/t Queer as Folk):
1. Corruption. In any discussion of financial support leading to certain policies, there should be an A->B argument, such as Max Baucus takes millions from insurance companies->his doing their bidding in Congress. Is this the case with the RWGs and HRC? Has HRC been particularly dismissive of poor LGBTers, or people of color, or lesbians/bisexuals/transgender individuals? It doesn't seem that way. Here in DC alone, I regularly see HRC's support everywhere in the community for non-RWGs, financially sponsoring everything from Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League brunches to the Mautner Project, an organization focusing on lesbian health. They also were the only LGBT organization to purchase sponsorship at Netroots Nation last year. These are all organizations whose constituencies are predominantly some or all of the characteristics of non-rich, non-white, non-gay male.
Legislatively, last time I checked (aside from the T issue in ENDA, which I and many others supported as a strategic measure), HRC hasn't been pushing legislation that only benefits, rich white gay men.
2. Financial support. Like with its support of SMYAL and the Mautner Project, lots and lots of organizations rely on HRC for financial support. HRC also puts tens of thousands into political support- in direct contributions, sending staff, and other ways- into political campaigns, like the 2005 Maine non-discrimination ballot initiative, this year's Maine marriage campaign, Referendum 71 in Washington, Prop 8, electing LGBT members of Congress, and more. Yet I know many people who cheer HRC's contributions to non-profits and political campaigns turn around and make the RWG argument.
But is this different than anywhere else? Many foundation boards are entirely rich and white. Many individual donors who give money in LGBT politics are rich, white and gay. Should the money be rejected because of the race and class from which it comes?
I also view HRC as a kind of aggregator for donors. Is it better there be no HRC Dinner at all, where non-profit executive directors go principally to get access to the RWGs to get additional direct financial support? Is it better for a non-profit like SMYAL to not get any money from HRC, and for its tiny staff to spend even more time and resources on development work, rather than helping underprivileged youth of color?
3. Hypocrisy. At the same time folks trash HRC's RWG demographic, they celebrate RWGs. Bruce Bastian is a classic example. Bruce, a Utah native and former Mormon missionary, co-founded WordPerfect and is on Fortune 500's list of richest people in the country. He is widely respected as one of the most inspiring and generous donors in the LGBT movement. I see praise heaped upon him in many quarters, as I should.
Bruce has also given millions to HRC. He is on the HRC Board of Directors. I went to the HRC Dinner last year, where he was the guest of honor, feted and given an award.
If anything, Bruce is the Rich White Gay incarnate, but he is praised, while the organization doling out his money to causes we all hold dear is demonized as "you're rich, white and gay, so you suck!!". Huh?
4. Diversity. In a perfect world, every foundation and political action group and non-profit would be a mix of races, classes, and colors. I would hope that HRC and lots of other groups are more diverse- economically, racially, and in terms of sexual orientation. That's not the case, and I don't think that will ever be. So why are we making race-based and class-based attacks on organizations that support the rest of the community? It's not like HRC is the only one. I live in DC, one of the gayest cities in the country, with a majority-black population. Yet I go to events all all the time- benefit galas, LGBT performing arts, sporting events, political group meetings, bars, you name it- that are almost entirely middle-to-upper-class, white and gay. I have friends who tell me the same in other cities. Yet I don't hear the kind of vitriol thrown at the sponsoring institutions like I do HRC.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the financial makeup of the LGBT community, but I don't think the class, economic, and sexual orientation structure of HRC- or the other events I mentioned- is because they're some kind of racist, classist, LBT-hating group. I think it's because there aren't exactly tons and tons of rich LBTs or people of color, particularly POCs who are "out". Is this HRC's fault?
And a greater amount of HRC's programming- like this Ya Es Hora program- involves HRC Steering Committee partnering with local volunteers to help low-income Hispanics apply for citizenship. One colleague related how the Houston chapter volunteers were nearly all people of color, and split male/female with one transgender individual. HRC has also had several female executive directors and diversity within its staff and board.
---
Again, I wish organizations were more diverse in many ways. I was not happy there was a lack of diversity in local DC planning meetings for the National Equality March. But I don't get why hurling criticism at those that aren't, and can't do a whole lot about it, and do a ton of good, accomplishes anything.
Like the "they haven't accomplished anything" argument, the RWG criticism of HRC isn't entirely grounded in reality or fairness. I don't think HRC has done everything entirely right, but if you're going to make a criticism, at least do it in the interest of good faith, not for the sake of finding a mean adjective to slander them with.
This is more of a sports metaphor, but h/t to Jerry Sullivan, one of my favorite Buffalo News writers, for the title
Some items of note around the country today:
I just got an e-mail from Rep. Eric Massa with the ominous title "An Important Announcement About The 2010 Election", with the text:
The Founding Fathers designed the House of Representative as the People's House, and as such the citizens of this great Nation have the duty to elect their member of Congress every two years. While people sometimes get sick of campaigns, this cycle of frequent elections gives the people the best and most immediate tool possible to hold their member of Congress accountable and make their voices heard.
Accountability is a value that I hold near and dear, and it is with this spirit of service that I write you today.
On Saturday, 10/10 at 10:00 am, I will be making a formal announcement about the 2010 election. I would like to invite all of you, friends of old and new, to join me at Centerway Square in Corning NY on this morning.
It has been my honor and privilege to serve the families of this region and I hope to see you on Saturday in my hometown of Corning.
I called Massa's comm people for comment, and they declined to do so initially. Will update if warranted.
I don't like the sound of it, though. Massa knows it's a tough district (he lost his first race in 2006, which I worked on for a bit, and it's my grandpa's district), so perhaps it's just to prime the pump for a big crowd for his re-election announcement. I can't imagine he's running for higher office- certainly not Gov or Senator, and I don't really see him in something like a primary for comptroller or AG (or even qualified). The worst possibility is that he's not running again, something that would really disappoint me. I've been a huge fan of Massa's, particularly on his pushing for the House health care bill to be more progressive, and on his very strategic ways of talking about health care to constituents. He spent 45 minutes with a group of us NYers at Netroots Nation talking about that, and also hit some nails on the head when speaking at panels, too.
But one term and done would really piss me off, considering how hard the district is and how hard many of us worked for him, and that many of you contributed close to $1 million overall on ActBlue- including several thousand for standing firm on a public option. I hope he stays.
At the polar opposite of one term and done, former four-term Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad is running again. I asked former Iowa political operative Mike Lux for comment, to which he replied "I thought we got rid of that m*****f*****."
Last night, the defense authorization bill with the LGBT hate crimes amendment beat a motion to recommit (an effort by the Republicans to strip out the amendment), 178-234. Those are solid numbers, in addition to the fact that the Senate version already has it in by amendment. So we should be all set. HRC reports the conference report should be voted on in both houses by the end of next week before going to Obama's desk. We're close to the first major legislative achievement for LGBT rights in this term.
Glenn Greenwald has a fantastic piece documenting how Anne Kornblut violates the WaPo's own rules by using anonymous sourcing sixteen different times in one piece on the Obama Admin's national security policies, and journalistic ethics in general, as well as some on national security issues.
Yesterday, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, which would legalize marriage equality in the District, was introduced with much fanfare and 10/13 councilmembers co-introducing it. If you're looking for legislative and process details going forward, I wrote a piece last week on it here, and my friend Michael Crawford of DC for Marriage also has a piece today.
If you live in California, there are two LGBT bills before the Governor- one that would recognize Harvey Milk Day (which he's vetoed before, prior to the movie I believe) and one that would clarify that same-sex couples married out-of-state before Prop. 8 are recognized in CA, and that couples married after Prop 8 are entitled to the same rights. I know a lot of LGBT couples who marry in other states and have talked about moving to California one day- this would ensure they are entitled to marriage recognition. Equality California has phone numbers here of your local office- call Arnold and tell him to sign the bills.
Robert Harding at TAP reports the Rochester D&C is running another column by David Sirota, his latest on Afghanistan, which is a great sign. I wrote a bit last week on the D&C, a staid, center-right newspaper with far too many right-wingers on the ed page and a center-right ed board in a solidly Dem city with some hubs of progressivism. They're considering adding David permanently to the ed page. Take a second and drop an e-mail to Editorial Page Editor James Lawrence at jlawrenc@democratandchronicle.com and tell him that you want to see David Sirota's column made permanent.
Andrew Sullivan wrote a fairly scathing piece last night mocking Obama's upcoming speech this weekend to the Human Rights Campaign Dinner, echoing the same tired criticism that HRC has failed to accomplish anything. Usually, the criticism refers to the federal level. In his case, it's "in the twenty years I've been observing them", but I've heard "since they were founded in 1980". Putting aside that HRC has dumped lots of resources into successful state campaigns and helped elect pro-LGBT candidates up and down the ballot, let's take a closer look at this.
When elections happen that change control of the White House or Congress, advocates always say things like "the Supreme Court is at stake!" or "the future of our environment hinges on it!" Then, when a major electoral victory occurs, like George W. Bush winning the White House, advocates sorrowfully say things like "well, health care reform is off the table for the next four years". And generally, they're right.
HRC is seemingly the only group excluded from this. Back in 2000, I heard "well, we're definitely going nowhere on LGBT rights under Bush" and then, eight years later, "HRC has accomplished nothing!!" from the exact same people. It doesn't add up.
I have my own share of problems with HRC, and I think they've made mistakes in the past, but I don't get why some of my friends in the LGBT rights movement think it's okay to give a free pass to environmental/pro-choice/health care advocates/others when Republicans are in charge... yet repeat the line that HRC has failed to accomplish anything over the same time period. Take 2001-2007. What exactly has ANY progressive issue movement legislatively accomplished, excluding successfully playing defense (e.g. Social Security privatization) in six years of conservative Republican control of Congress and a conservative Republican in the White House? I haven't seen anything major. I don't think I should be surprised, either.
And it's not just during 2001-2007 that were the dark ages for progressive issue movement. Health care advocates "failed" in 1993-94. The environmental lobby "failed" to pass Kyoto out of the Senate in the late 90s. Yet I haven't seen anything like the vitriol that is spewed at HRC, year in and year out, without regard to the political dynamics around their existence. It's not like HRC was handed a pro-LGBT Congress and President and hundreds of millions for the last 29 years and they managed to fumble the ball, so stop talking like that's what happened.
In fact, only for two years and eight months of its existence since 1980 has there been a Democratic trifecta, and only eight months of that I would actually consider a pro-LGBT Congress- e.g., 2009. Considering that some 90%+ of Congressional Republicans routinely vote against LGBT rights, and that we've had homophobes like Reagan and Bush inhabiting the White House, it is kind of pretty important that Democrats control the branches of government for LGBT rights to advance, so it's not exactly what I would call a fair playing field for arguing HRC has squandered millions or whatever.
OK, some would say, what about today? We're nine months into a new administration and have zero to show for it. Sure. But there are a zillion other issues on the agenda that are of more important to most Americans and the Dem leadership- and frankly, there probably should be. HRC doesn't have any weapons in its arsenal to make more Americans care about hate crimes than they do about getting laid off, or health insurance. For many Americans, LGBT rights will- like medical marijuana, or Electoral College reform- always be just below whether their recycling gets picked up once or twice per week on the list of issues they care about. And this is HRC's fault how? And if they do get blame, why don't I hear other groups get the same blame?
If HRC is to blame for Republican control of the House that prevented any LGBT rights legislation from coming to the floor, or an anti-LGBT President being elected multiple times, then we are all accountable for allowing that situation to occur. It's not like HRC was the only player on our team in elections progressives have lost. Stop pointing fingers at HRC and look around.
I am all for accountability. But sometimes I think advocates look for someone/something to blame when there really is no one actor at fault (or themselves), so they point to the biggest player with the biggest name recognition and the most amount of money and shout "they screwed up!" Some in the netroots are currently doing this with Health Care for America Now. It accomplishes exactly nothing. If there is a major strategic mistake when an organization had the opportunity, then say so. Otherwise, stop the "they have failed to accomplish" without including most of the progressive movement in that, and without taking political dynamics into account.
STATE BLOGS
