Santorum, the "Google Problem", and the analogues of Jim Crow and DADT politics.

Say  what you will about Rick Santorum (and his "google problem")...but the man has a real gift for sticking his foot in his mouth.

Egg on face moment #2,132 is so bad that the Fox News interview in the link almost equals "gotcha" journalism. The commentator gives him a quote from a general against a policy Santorum assumes is DADT for the same biases referenced tirelessly about "military cohesion" and fairly quickly indicates that animus towards people based on immutable characteristics is the driving theme here.

When compared, the mentality of the military on integration was equally opposed when polled as it seemed to be to DADT. A fascinating historical account of both can be found here. Some of the most telling similarities follow:

In Which We Mildly Regret Relocating...

You're going to want to watch this: Chris discusses NC legislative madness on MSNBC « The Progressive Pulse

Three things-

1.) Since I'm back in NC for the foreseeable future, I vow to take a vested interest in state politics from this moment forward. I expect it to be a cringe worthy experience if this anti-abortion legislation is any indication...

2.) I adore-full stop- Melissa Harris Perry. She inspires, and makes me want to actually finish my Phd (cutting through the angst, shocking I know) .

3.)Gov. Bev Perdue is as showcased in this clip is doing an amazing job being the "thin blue line" against the idealouges and the Tea Party drives policy from staunchly conservative to batshit conservative. Seems a tireless job to use a veto stamp so much and so necessarily.

(Speaking of somber notes, this song evokes a similar pang of longing and...utter despair)

XCOM- Video game characters, social change and the Cold War. Cool.

http://gaygamer.net/2011/06/e3_11_interview_jordan_thomas.html

Below is a post of an interesting article about an upcoming (and impressive looking) FPS/Sci-fi game called XCOM, and more importantly its very interesting take on minority characters you find yourself working with to save the world.

One of the most often repeated, if utterly foolhardy, arguments against gay characters in games is that their sexuality is never a relevant detail to the plot. So I was more than a little curious and delighted to hear a developer put such a strong emphasis on a character's homosexuality in the game's second public showing. Thankfully, Thomas was gracious enough to sit and chat with me about the character of Dr. Weir, and how social commentary is a natural partner for the videogame medium.

"Weir is an Australian," Thomas began. "He's not a citizen of the States, although he came there to study particle accelerators, and already found himself an outsider on that grounds alone simply because of the paranoia of foreigners that was prevalent in the mid-century."

"But on top of that, he is also a closeted homosexual. He has both a sexual and a political opposition to the elite of the country, which are still very conservative - very focused on America as the best and the brightest - and he doesn't fit their paradigm. It is hard for them to acknowledge that one of the best scientists in the world is, in their minds, deviant. So he's struggled with that for a long time."

"But all of sudden this alien invasion hits and they need him and they have to put it aside. But then you see those tensions come to bear in the base. There are characters who don't like working with him. They are people of their time. And so you'll see different positions represented amongst the core cast. But he is - he is a man with true grit. He's able to weather it pretty well, and the player kind of gets to decide where they fall on that continuum. You can basically decide how to treat him."

Of course, homosexuality wasn't the only civil rights movement making headway in the 60's, and XCOM will explore other socio-cultural tensions of the time.

"As a narrative guy, it's the reason I'm excited to work on the game. The setting was chosen very specifically because I feel that the socio-cultural tension was about to come to a head. It was an old America and a new America kind of locked in a mortal combat, and it was very interesting for me to start exploring what was going on at the time."

"Agent Barns, for example, the African American guy who runs the agent operation and recruits for you, he was working COINTELPRO in the FBI - and that was a bureau program to run surveillance on the American people, not known by anybody - and Dr. Martin Luther King was his assignment. He was supposed to infiltrate that movement and discredit King by finding evidence that he was Red. He didn't find anything, and he was asked to fabricate it. He refused, and was almost going to be kicked out by J. Edgar Hoover and his cronies, but at that time the alien invasion happens and XCOM snaps him up."

I commented that it sounded like XCOM was really more of a 60's period piece that happened to use aliens as a catalyst to bring out the social climate.

Between these two characters mentioned, this game sounds fascinating. Whats the idea many a dystopian story has suggested? When confronted with bigger problems (i.e- world threatening invasions etc) there's nothing like a threat of an apocalyptic scale to unify people and (at least temporarily) forget our collective "differences". Marginally at least.

There are of course incidences to the contrary: Alan Turning was a gifted British mathematician that proved to be influential during WWII by code breaking and using his considerable talents to counter the threat of Nazi Germany in England. In the 1952, Turning was convicted of "indecency"(for being proven to be a homosexual) and subsequently chemically castrated, and committed what is believed to be suicide two years later.

It stands as one of the most galling examples of how moral "correctness" and rigid expectations regarding sexual conduct/sexuality can lead to the ruin of otherwise brilliant people. Much about homosexuality during the time period XCOM is set in is still wrapped up in the idea that gay= defective and that its a national security risk. Of course, the way the culture demonized gay men and women it somewhat became a self fulfilling prophecy...

The other compelling bit about the argument is what the US Government, especially in the Jim Crow south, did to black servicemembers, Treating them with distrust and genera purpose malaise. The heavy scrutiny and intel conducted by the FBI against Martin Luther King Jr was done in the interests of finding something to damage his credibility or discredit him (and prove the idea that black people were "agitated" into activism by Communists and otherwise fine with segregation*).

*See note #168.

XCOM's character details, coupled with this pretty amazing looking trailer released at E3 last week puts it waaaay wayyy higher on my list of must have video games this year. I'll be keeping a very close eye on this one.

UPDATE: More on XCom's demo here.

Have You Tried...NOT Being a Mutant?

Say what you will about comic books as a medium (because I'm whistling while you do that and pretending you're cooler than you are), but there really are moments where, through use of metaphor, comic book story telling gets it right.

Case in point? Allow me to extol the virtues of Marvel Comics' X-Men franchise: The put upon minority you've all been socialized to "fear and hate" because they've got qualities that make them "different"- yeah, they saved the universe a few times while you weren't looking. They look great in spandex, have fascinating powers, tend to be beautiful, doomed and fabulous...oh wait, it sounds as though I'm describing Twilight. But yes, there's angst, intolerance and a lot of fighting killer robots while romantic quadrangles develop. There's a cast of hundreds (seriously, you'd think you were watching Game of Thones) and a wondrous Hogwarts for Mutants in which mutant children are trained for superhero greatness (or usually trained to avoid being killed immediately...which is a topic for another post altogether).

What other mediums not aimed purely at adults adress issues like racism, diversity, civil rights activism and clearly display how to rise above petty bigotry and contribute to the greater good? I couldn't think of any either.

What I find consistent about the X-Men brand, is that even when it descends into cliche- and any comic book series thats been around 50 odd years can fall prey to this- is as follows:

1.) Diversity training- Without a doubt, the X-Men are one of if not THE most longest running diverse super hero themed comic books of all time. Not only did Giant Size X-Men #1 remedy the cookie cutter white bread "All-American" rosters of the original 5 X-Men (and similarly the original Avengers, Justice League and so on and so on). The second group, under uber-writerChris Claremont , boasted a Canadian misanthrope, a blue skinned German acrobat, An Irish ex-con, a surly Native American, an even surlier Japanese man and a Kenyan Goddess. Granted, the "All New All Different"recruits (as written by Claremont) were guilty of some incredibly hokey and frankly cringe worthy stereotypical dialog. How else would we know that the big Russian guy was so if he didn't shout things like "By the White Wolf!!!" when he was surprised? How else were we to know that Nightcrawler was German without him sprinking "mein freund" after every sentence? (But the Ah's and Mahs of Sassy Southerner Rogue and hell, half of the things Irish born Banshee said were just wrongness given voice). Many of the characters developed considerable depth over time that extends well beyond the sub-cultural window dressing (such development varies depending on the writer), so the tone and the treatment of minority characters has greatly improved. Still, the X-Men are some of the only places to see minority characters of any stripe do anything of note continually.

Later incarnations of the X-Men boast openly gay french Canadians, Formerly "evil" nazi holocaust survivors and (interestingly but sadly underused) Muslim teens from Afghanistan.

This fits well with focal character Professor Charles Xavier -who is arguably an analog of MLK at least with his peaceful protest/activist approach to mutant rights- integration and co-existence to Magneto (Malcom X) 's "by any means necessary".

2.) Ladies First- Another boon to X-Comics many others cannot attest to is that while radioactive spiders and cosmic rays disproportionately grant men super powers, genetic mutation affects men and women equally. Therefore, there are scads of super powered, bad ass women in the X-Men, far more than most other super hero books. Storm has the distinction of being not only the first black woman to take a leadership role in a comic, as well as being the first black character to be prominently/regularly featured in a comic series. Suffice it to say that the number of important women in the X-mythos adds a great and needed balance to the bro-code many comic books seem to perpetuate.

Another interesting point here when it comes to gender inclusiveness, the X-Women tend to exist as characters in their own rights, full fledged heroines and identities that aren't analouges of male characters. (There's no She-Cyclops...though sadly, there is a she-verine) Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk and Spider-Woman? Feminized versions of male counterparts. Storm, Emma Frost and Rogue aren't characters that were reliant on other (patriarchal) forces to imbue them with power and purpose. Its an interesting theme that furthers the point of gender equality.

3.) Intolerance for Dummies- Mutants are openly, actively discriminated against. So much so that the government in many cases displays some fantastic racism towards this minority group. (Sure, lets sick homicidal robots on a school and see what happens!) To underscore this point, there was recently a story arc where legislation from a right leaning conservative group was pushed forward to attempt to ban mutants from procreating. It was called Proposition X. Note any real world similarities?

What makes this unique to the reader is that Mutants can be born from any social class, ethnic group, gender or orientation, making your average 14 year old's angst over having pimples and feeling misunderstood both poignant and welcome. Sure, it evidences worst case hypothetical intolerance scenarios, but it makes clear for the readership the constraints and consequences of blind hatred, and the costs of being part of a disenfranchised minority group. There's little more heroic than being the perpetual underdog, fighting to protect people who really would rather you "kept your power to yourself", or stayed away from normal people.

When you have "villains" who were victimized during childhood in concentration camps, and more aggressively seeking to protect those "normal" humans fear and persecute, it makes for compelling somewhat more complex motives when the "good guys" come to their aid...and still don't get any thanks for it. No good deed really does go unpunished when you're a mutant.

Beyond that, the metaphorical comparisons to LGBT rights ("Have you tried...not being a mutant?", and the sort of "passing" or "closeted" aspect of being "discovered to be a mutant") , as well as antisemitism, the 60s civil rights movements make the significance of being a mutant, and being quasi-heroic in the face of it all the more winning.

As far as those of you curious about a few great story arcs to guide you into X-Men reading, I'll suggest a few brilliant reads:

• Joss Whedon's "Gifted" Arc of Astonishing X-Men is sleek, witty and has some of the most gorgeous art and conflicted character dynamics the series has seen since the 80s. A definite return to fighting form, and a series that sets the bar for X-Men comics very very high indeed. There's an equally astonishing motion comic about the arc "Gifted" that makes me grin every time I read it its so perfect. You can scope it out on Netflix. (Heck, the entirety of Whedon's Astonishing run lives up to its name and is well worth reading, but Whedon's takes on the characters of Cyclops and Emma Frost are beyond compelling.)
• Matt Fraction's been doing a ton of fascinating things with the X-Men. So many clever ideas that it boggles the mind why the put upon mutant community wouldn't have moved to San Fransisco, cut out the "good v. evil" in fighting and become an actual community decades ago. Under his run, he (wisely) brought Northstar, Psylocke, Dazzler, Namor and Magneto to the ranks of the X-Men, no longer are they a fragmented aggregate, now they're a unified army. His work on Uncanny X-Men of late featured an ingenius take in 'Quarantine", which has a super flu incapacitate the mutant population just in time for a genetics firm to rip off their brand (imagine, the very thing that makes you hated and feared-and special- suddenly being exploited by the uber-wealthy fanboys). Interesting concepts about identity and "what makes a people a people" here. Couple it with some brilliant dialog and you've got a winner all around. Fraction's Utopia arc takes Cyclops (a character I felt was wooden and despicable once upon a time) yet another level of badass.

There are a plethora of storylines and character arcs that are worthy of honorable mention, and of course I'm merely touching the tip of the iceberg with my analysis here, but there's a lot of brilliance in these ideas and these characters. One of the underlying reasons I'm the left leaning, sociologically minded politico I am today is that X-Men comics adhered to my dormant worldview, taught me about inequality and moral fiber, the ability to be more than what people see of you, better than what they think of you, and do good despite the idea that they might not deserve it. Pretty good life lessons at the cost of a few dollars a month, I'd wager.

Mauve Alerts and Awkward Conversations.

SGM Seeks LTR in NYC: JT vs. Bigotry in Many Forms! | News & Columns About Gay & Bisexual Men, Best. Gay. Week. Ever | AfterElton.com

This is a brilliant article by JT Riley about American culture and polite society dealing with casual bigotry. Its an article and issue eriely resonant with my life experiences in sleepy college towns in rural North Carolina. I feel like half of my adult life has been spent arguing with southern baptists and aging parents and people who "don't know any better" about "well, you know". And it makes me tired all the time. A conversation for another time, however.

Reiley's sparring with his mother's friend (about "the Jews", "the gays" etc) reminded me of the alarm and disapointment I experienced last week at my cousin's wedding. It was a very afro-carribian "jump the broom" affair, and I was rather pleased at having decided to make the 9.5 hour drive to North Carolina to do so on the account of everyone looking so lovely and everything being just so. It had begun to rain, so the ceremony was cut short and we'd all gathered, roughly a hundred handsomely dressed black folks, dodging the rain in a gorgeous building off the park for the reception.

It was then I got cornered by my uncle, who by all accounts was the eccentric mildly-sociopathic blowhard of the family (I suspect I'm growing into my generation's version). I'd always operated under the assumption that he was a bit of a radical in his day and ultimately meant well.We started talking about the President, whom he feels isn't black enough for his tastes. This I immediatley bristled to, because as I always say when the topic veers to the idea that someone's idea of "blackness" makes everyone else be measured by this arbitrary standard (a box to unpack another time). Then he started defending Kadafi as though he has every right to opress people and deny them self-governance simply because he was "a brown man". Then he started in on "the Jews". I felt paniced. Why hadn't anyone ever TOLD me my uncle was an anti-semite?! Most people just rolled their eyes and nodded and sparred with him lightly, and being on the better end of the mason dixion line for such a long while, I'd never had the luxury of discovering this awkward truth.I steered the conversation from defamation and pointed out problems I had with the nation of Isreal's policies and practices towards Palestine; a topic safer only by degrees, I'm aware. I was blindsided, amazed that I couldn't have seen something like this coming, and disappointed that one of the most socially minded people in my family could get it so utterly wrong. I vowed to continue the conversation, but my father shot me a withering glare that told me it was futile. People ought to warn others when they're about to be cornered by unwitting monsters. We need to tie bells, or have some sort of early warning system (mauve alerts, maybe) to inform us of how to properly engage with people who are so desolatingly disconnected from the important work of living in the now.

Meanwhile, at the Hall of Doom...

I just started reading Americablog in earnest a month or so ago, but they've been on fire lately regarding anti-gay politics. What John Aravosis has tipped us to in Tennessee is nothing short of staggeringly corrupt and ethically bankrupt.

In short? A veritible who's who of corporate interests are pushing a bill that not only strips gay inclusion from anti-discrimination laws (in the workplace), but ALSO will repeal/nullify all civil rights discrimination laws in the entire STATE. So, in other words, Tennessee will have carte blanche to discriminate in hiring and occupation as it sees fit now that those pesky laws aren't at play anymore. This is a gargantuan setback for civil rights, and one of the ways I say "States Rights" = "Justified exclusionary policy".

I'd like to get responses from these companies alleged to be making these back room powerplays. Some of whom I have ties to directly (and am feeling the slimier for it suddenly), and think some transparency is in order. If this proves to be true in any way, these guys have a lot to answer for.

Read the full account @ Americablog and be sure to sign the petition that follows it. This is one that it might pay to get loudly involved on. Sitting on the sidelines while the big plays are decided by back room super-villiany? Not something I'm going to let slide.

Nissan, Comcast, FedEx, AT&T on verge of getting gay rights law pulled in Nashville

Persecutory Complexes At Their Finest.

Another great post from good old JoeMyGod, http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/05/world-net-daily-poll-christians-are.html See, here's the problem with their argument: They believe that anyone rejecting the idea that their right to discriminate based on religion is "discriminating" against their religion. Which is just plain false. The level of entilement required to push this argument forward is epic in its scope. Beyond the reality that a religious statistical majority cannot be at the same time a put upon persecuted minority, there are a few other logical snags with this sort of assertion. The problem here is that the equation works out that a.) Christians may not be inherently homophobic but homophobia tends to be an inherent part of the interpretation of the Old Testament, b.) Because of this, Christians tend to be opposed to both the "evils" of homosexuality and any equality granted to what it considers "sin" based on this interpretation, c.) when the state and the constitution acts in ways that is counter to this wish, and society does not back in masse this "hate the sin/sinner" brief, they take it to be an affront not only to their position, but an attack on their ability to practice their religion. In other words, to discriminate is in this view a cornerstone of their religion, and not being allowed to do so based on either the idea that being disallowed the right to marry is unconstitutional or the idea that Western cultures are relaxing their views on issues regarding sexual orientation is seen as a cause of anxiety. All cultural change regarding stigmatized minority groups tends to take this shape. As the minority group moves from internalizing the social expectations and condemnation of the dominant culture (the minstrel phase), they gain a sense of normalcy that comparatively serves to express to those in the dominant culture that the differences between the two groups are fewer than previously believed. All this comes at the cost of those in the dominant culture who seek to cling to the power that comes with being able to apply the label of deviant to the groups it wishes to minimize or control. Those in the religious set see their losing of the ability to stigmatize homosexuals and rigidly control the expectations of marriage as an extreme loss of power. Catholicism and its various offshoots and iterations have insinuated itself into numerous aspects of society, and as people become less religious and less dependent on that authority the traction of the church as an agent of social control wanes. On a personal note, I had a row with a man at a bar over this issue the other day. He kept resubmitting the statement that he was "concerned" about the idea of same sex marriage as a Catholic who feared that "those people" would force his church to marry them despite their objections. Its an argument I hear from the more progressive of the Xtianists, so its one I'm willing to entertain. I told him that while his concern might have some far flung possibility to it, I don't know many rational people that would seek out social institutions for one of the most important days of their lives that have made it glaringly obvious they're not welcome there. By nature of the exclusion the Catholic church (and many others) make policy as it pertains to its would be homosexual membership, its basically ensured that many a gay person of faith has rejected Christianity out of the vilification and rejection it insists upon. And any self respecting person I can think of isn't going to give money or invest emotionally in an institution STILL actively interested in discriminating against them.Further, if you approach this from a civil rights model, it becomes even more difficult to justify the position. Even IF various religions will still have the right to discriminate based on same sex marriage, and people who want to marry honor that without a fuss...is it even something that is comparable legally? Do churches get to dismiss the wishes of interracial or interfaith couples if it flies in the face of their belief system? Legally I could forsee this becoming a tad wonky, but again, I submit that when gay people are allowed to marry the lionshare will gladly do so in environments that have been welcoming and supportive to them- not ones that have been tooth and nail fighting their ability to do so. Its telling that the tenor of the argument for anti-gay institutions and groups here has become such that a lot of the forthrightness and moral certainty of late seems to be waining. What I find interesting about how religion intersects with the argument, those actively going about the work of dis-empowering and enshrining institutional discrimination are those framing the argument in a way where they are in fact the victims. And now for something outstanding from Ra Ra Riot (again...they've been getting a ton of play on my ipod)

Mississippi still racist. In Other News? Water is still wet.

The fine folks of Mississippi's Republican Party, when polled (N=440) about politics and social issues expressed that 46% of them would prefer interracial marriage be illegal. Not shocking, but the implications are telling all the same...


http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_MS_0407915.pdf

Q14 Do you think interracial marriage should be
legal or illegal?
Legal
40%
...............................................................
46%
Illegal ..............................................................
Not sure 14%

Well, it just confirms the idea that unsurprisingly entire pockets of the deep south have through sheer force of will have managed to avoid reality and modernity. It further underscores a much more important idea: that left to popular vote, the ability or right for interracial couples to marry whom the see fit would- if 46% of the sample had its way, be illegal. The collective rights of the American people should never be left up to the musings of a popular vote, as the old biases tend to be pervasive regardless of whether or not we naively expect others to do the "right thing". The "Will of the People"(tm) is not always right or fair. It was, after all, only 1967 when Loving v. the Supreme Court of Virginia decided that Interracial marriage ought to be decriminalized. There are more than one types of American culture, some of which exist in the present, some of which pine for the days past. These sort of intra-generational divides I have a feeling will grow more pronounced as the Baby Boom generation advances. Gay marriage, interracial marriage, the sudden and xenophobic fear of all things sharia...all growing pains social conservatives can't bring themselves get out of the past long enough to see clearly... and seem desperate to counteract at the cost of the liberties of others.

(And the always great Arcade Fire, for your reading and listening pleasure. )

The Cloture: DADT, Social Conservatism and Civil Rights

Joe. My. God.: DADT Cloture Passes Senate 63-33!!!

This is pretty remarkable news, and I admit I was somewhat cynical that- given all the posturing and heel dragging of the likes of McCain and the naysay set- that the vote to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell would come to pass anytime soon. I was hopeful, as institutional discrimination is a disgusting affront to what we're all supposed to hold dear as American citizens...but admittedly there seems to be the typical reaction of social conservatives to find less than clever rationalizations for maintaining a very biased status quo. Ever fueling the social closure hypothesis. I find myself wondering now, if in our recent histories, segregationists felt similarly in the face of imminent (and ethical) striking down of Jim Crow. Did the Jesse Helms shrug and retire to his library to brood? Did political lobbying groups threaten those in office that endorsed or propagated these social changes the way the Family Research Council has? Vow revenge and shake their fists in a disturbingly undignified fashion, claiming that Senators should and will be “held accountable”. I’ve never heard language from the Left that even approaches this sort of paternalistic condescension.

My question becomes, “Did segregationists vow revenge and go out of their way to punish those responsible for what they considered the ‘end of the world’?” Likely, but I haven’t pierced that proverbial veil enough to say outright. I find the language and tactics of these far right groups increasingly erratic and problematically aggressive, and their ability to project any pretense of civility towards the groups they actively seek to disenfranchise (i.e- the gay minority in this instance) rapidly evaporating. The “love the sinner, hate the sin” meme is greatly disingenuous as a lot of the rhetoric about homosexuality being a “perverse pathology that ought to be criminalized ” etc that doesn’t pass many, if any litmus tests of ethical consistency. The very reason several of these groups go from being covertly bigoted (which is still concerning, but a person’s belief system even when based on consistent falsehood and fabrication is still their own) to groups on the SPLC’s hate list is because they willfully push forward these fabrications and demonizing rhetoric as though it were true for the whole group. Evangelical Bryan Fisher seems convinced (based on flimsy logic, to put it nicely) that all gay men are pedophiles, in fact, he seems obsessed with the notion and publishes information to this effect constantly.(RightWing Watch has an amusing write up involving Fischer,here ) Anything to advance the glaring misconception that gay people, like black people, like Jews and agnostics are somehow less than and deserve nothing short of differential treatment for not adhering to the expected behavior set of the dominant group.

In the case of DADT it means that it is not only rational as far as the religious conservative is concerned, as gay men are mentally ill perverts who are likely to molest their fellows while they sleep, to hunt down otherwise functional and effective personnel for what they might do in their personal lives, rummage through their things and fire them for whom they happen to love or like, it’s a duty of any God fearing Christian to purge the sinners from their midst. This, in a time when the American military is involved in two wars and military retention is low. It reminds me of an excellent book I read about the McCarthy era called the Lavender Scare, which examined one of the most effective expulsions of gay (or perceived to be gay) employees from State and Federal employment in the nation’s capital and more importantly the socio-cultural mindsets behind them. Much of the ideology that advanced the firing of thousands of possibly gay employees exists part and parcel in DADT. A lot of this comes from the outdated concept that a.) ones sexual orientation, provided it is not heterosexual is something that should at all costs remain hidden, and therefore such an intense secret would be a “national security risk” if enemies discovered it. b.) the myth that being gay is a “lifestyle choice” that gay persons seek to spread to others. The American Psychological Association in its infancy bares some responsibility for furthering the social concept that homosexuality = mental illness, but has since been consistent in debunking this. Much like eugenics, and other pseudo-scientific attempts to justify bigotry in the early 1900s, the lion share of these ideas just do not hold up against scientific research. That said, its almost unthinkable for any fair minded American to put forth their own prejudices and expect them to dictate governmental policy (With the exception of anti-immigration law and, Islamaphobia…on second thought…I take that back.). My personal distaste for persons who wear too much perfume is a personal bias, should I win election and ban perfume in public places, it becomes institutional discrimination. We’ve established that much of the animus towards gay soldiers is based on irrational fears generated by the Cold War era and perpetuated over and over by social conservatives and those who have not given the issue any rigorous empirical consideration. No one is suggesting that one has to alter one’s belief system to serve in the military, but to suggest that one must be thrown out of service for belonging to any particular status in their private lives is the antithesis of American ideology. Fairness dictates that we do not institutionally enshrine bigotry in any form into law and it is with incredible, profound pleasure that I see our society coming to a point where this fairness is becoming more universally applicable. This is another step in the moving, noble journey towards human decency on the whole and I for one am quite pleased to be witnessing history unfold before us.

Bare in mind that the Cloture vote passing means that no more debate on the topic need be heard and that the actual vote can go forward. Our political system works in, at times, confounding ways, but the future of DADT should be decided by the end of the day. Hope springs eternal.

EDIT: As of today, the policy Dont Ask Don't Tell, which compells the military to discharge military personnel it discovers is gay is no longer the rule of law. You've just witnessed civil rights history folks. This was the doing of several brave and tireless activists and soldiers themselves (Lt. Dan Choi for example has worked fiercely and outspokenly with this end in mind and deserves credit for his determination), honorable politicians and the changing winds of American cultural reality. Its also important to note that President Obama and the political climate at present has a lot to do with this victory (as few GOP Senators voted in favor of the repeal and fewer still can discuss gay persons without the loaded rhetoric we've discussed above). This is a profound moment in which we break with antiquated notions of difference and condemnation and start acting as though egalitarian ideals actually mean more than the lipservice so often given. Its a good day for liberty.