So, there's this Senator from Idaho.  Maybe you've heard about him?  I've had a ton of email messages asking me when I'll blog about it.  I did a segment on McIntire yesterday.  And I've spoken at length with all the important homos in my life about the whole situation.  Here's my quick summary:

First, hypocrite with a capital HYP.  No question.  Closeted gay man actively oppresses us.  Not cool.

Second, police "sting" = entrapment.  I'm so not okay with arresting people for their thoughts or intentions.  Toe tapping and bag placement do not constitute a violation of the law, regardless of their intent.  My understanding is that the police officer played along, using established signals to communicate his interest. A friend explained to me that it is physically impossible for the scenario to have gone down without the police officer doing some fancy footwork of his own.

Third, the wingnuts are going to eject Craig faster than Mark Foley can compose an email.  He'll resign so a R appointee can take the "incumbent advantage" in the upcoming election.  You heard it here first.

Finally, the hysteria around men having sex in the bathroom is pathetic.  Good grief, people, get a grip.  The predator in the bathroom is not a gay man looking to make a connection with another adult.  My friend explained to me in great detail how much effort the individuals take to have some modicum of privacy and not expose their sexual activities to other people. 

The Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) recently announced plans to launch a month-long fast in September at the front door of the Oakland military recruiting station.

The goal of this fast and camp-out is simple: To contribute to the movement working for the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq, and an end to military recruitment in Pittsburgh.

I have taken some time before posting this.  While I do post about direct action issues on a semi-regular basis, I have not always been in POG's corner on some of their tactics nor in the corner of other direct action groups that are self-described anarchists.  That being said, I am opposed to the war in Iraq and support a troop withdrawal.  I am also intrigued by how well-laid out this tactic seems to be, similar to how impressed I was with the direct action at the CMU National Robotics Institute. 

I've also noticed that when I do blog about direct action tactics, it generates a lot of response from POG and their supporters, which I appreciate of course.  The problem seems to be finding and respecting common ground.  My impression from some of the commenters is that it is all or nothing and that's just not going to build a bridge with me.  At the same time, it doesn't sway me from believing that individuals *like me* can make a difference.

Fasts and long term encampments have historically been used as personal and political statements of protest and have been successfully utilized by groups seeking to raise the moral and political pressure in society necessary for specific changes in policy. In September, we will be demonstrating our outrage and sorrow through our actions as we work to create the world we want to live in. We will not only do this by fasting, but by marching, mourning and reflecting.

There's a long list of events, including a rally, picket, candlelight vigil, and a festival at the very end.  So you and I can get involved.  I'm planning to head down and liveblog at some point, depending on my own schedule.

What do you think?

I didn't see it.  We don't have cable here at Lesbian Central, so we miss out on all sorts of things like The L Word, Queer as Folk and, well, the entire lineupon LOGO.  I've never seen The Sopranos or pretty much any of its peers.  (Don't cry for us -- we trade a cable payment for internet access, dozens of cool magazines and plenty of nice evenings sitting on the porch with popsicles, observing real life on the Northside.)

So, I have a choice. I have been pouring through reports from various blogs and online homosites.  I could share my thoughts from that second-hand perspective.  But I'm not going to do that.  Instead, I'll share my thoughts on the meaning of the event and give you a few links to chew on the content. 

First, I'm absolutely pleased this event took place.  It is historic and a recognition that our community is a significant voting block.  Our responsibility is to use that power effectively.  As all politics are local, think back to the ACDC forum in May 2007 (aka "The Big Gay Chat")  We learned quite a bit about the stances of our local politicians on "gay issues" and voted accordingly (i hope you voted!).  Now we'll see what happens.  County Council Prez Rich Fitzgerald promised a meeting with LGBTQ human services leaders, of which yours truly was included, but so far -- no meeting.  Dan Onorato is calling for progress on City-County mergers, but not a single line of coverage on what this means for those of us who rely on domestic partner benefits provided to city employees (Hey, Mike Lamb!).   Is our community moving on these issues?  Has Steel-City Stonewall or Gertrude Stein been talking with County Council members? Who is taking the lead on the meeting with Rich Fitzgerald?  And, did anyone ask Beth Pittinger what happened to putting a queer person on the CPRB?

My point is that having an opportunity to hear what candidates for public office have to say about our issues does matter.  But what comes next is what matters more.  I personally haven't seen any "next" yet from the ACDC event.  Even the moderator, Hugh McGough, left public service for the private sector!   

As for our Presidential candidates, the general consensus seems to be that they are pretty good across the board on most issues ... Don't Ask, Don't Tell; hate crimes protections, non-discrimination.  So they want us to be free to be productive members of society without fear of being bashed or denied the right to die in Iraq.  Great.  And I only mean that to drip with a little sarcasm.  It really is great how far we've come on basic issues.

Then there's the marriage issue.  More importantly, the states' rights issue.  Hillary et al seem comfortable leaving a civil rights decision to the individual voters within each state.  It is not a credible position given our state-by-state track record on legislating discrimination, especially around marriage (hello to my friends in marriages of mixed racial heritages).  And it is a political cop out.

Anyway, here are a few links for more information on what went down.

Huffington Live Blog

Pam's House Blend (including a nice follow up on New Mexico's Bill Richardson saying homosexuality is a choice, perplexing given his good record on LGBT issues)

365gay.com has a nice overview

The Bilerico project has an overview and an analysis of what went wrong.

And you can catch all sorts of snippets from the event at YouTube.

My call after reviewing the materials   - Edwards is best on our issues and did a good job tying OUR rights into universal HUMAN rights ... like healthcare and he nailed it on homeless LGBTQ youth.  I've said all along it will be Edwards with Obama or Clinton as the VP candidate.  I've thought that because I know America isn't ready to elect a black man or a woman.  I'm starting to think he's our best candidate.  I truly believe Edwards has a better grasp of what life is like for those without privilege, especially those enmeshed in poverty. We'll see what happens ...

A gentle chastisement for my fellow bloggers here in the Burghosphere ... where is your coverage on this historic political event?  I have received numerous email messages asking me for my response.  Did anyone email dayvoe, the admiral, ms.monongahela or bram?  How about Johnny Mac?  Might Chris Potter write a column comparing the ACDC event to the LOGO/HRC event?  Will Dr. Goddess take a stab at what's happening on LGBTQ issues in the African-American community  - would Obama lose or gain local support if he was more openly supportive?  There's a lot of chatter among openly gay African-American bloggers about these issues.  What does it mean for Pittsburgh?

Some of them might even have cable ....

Beth Pittinger, Executive Director of the Citizen Police Review Board and longtime friend to local activists, seems to have changed her tune of late.  Usually on the frontline defending members of the Pittsburgh Organizing Group and other local activists from police-driven infringements on their right to assemble, Pittinger's sensibilities have been offended by local animal rights activists who protested at Dan Onorato's church in response to his decision to kill geese in North Park. 

?We?re concerned about the disruption that occurs to the person?s family and neighbors,? says Beth Pittinger, executive director of the CPRB, who called a recent protest by animal-rights activists at the church of county chief executive Dan Onorato ?offensive.?

?There are plenty of other places a group can take their protest,? she says.

To protect the home as a "safe haven," Pittinger wants Pgh City Council to make pickets at dwellings illegal.

Well, that's an interesting twist.  It is certainly debatable whether protesting at someone's home is tactically sound or in good taste, assuming one is concerned about such things.  But at last check, the Constitution wasn't designed to protect friends and neighbors from being offended. 

I'm perplexed that Pittinger has championed this cause.  She shows up at just about every peace and justice event in town to keep an eye on police conduct.  She pushes for transparency on police procedures regarding crowd control (and the use of tasers).  She seems to actually be trying to protect the civil rights of city residents, even when her organization is dismissed as ineffective and powerless. 

Unfortunately, I believe that Pittinger has failed to deliver on a promise she made to the LGBTQ community in the fall of 2005 when she agreed to work with the Mayor's office to appoint someone from our community to the CPRB.  That was three mayors ago.  So I'm skeptical of her ability to deliver. (It would be great if someone could prove me wrong and identify a current member of the CPRB who was appointed to represent the LGBTQ community.)

I'm even more skeptical of her motive for restricting free speech.  What does she say to housing and community groups that show up at the front door of slumlords who have refused to take responsibility for their properties?  Does the disruption to the neighbors outweight the disruption to the neighbors of the blighted rental properties? 

Is it possible that Ms. Pittinger is looking ahead to a potential City-County merger and what that might mean for her organization?  Is it just a coincidence that she has spoken out when the protest involved the County Chief Executive, the most powerful Democrat in the region? 

I should disclose that Ledcat has ties to the Department of Public Safety, so I fully expect that Ms. Pittinger's defenders would use that to suggest bias on my part.  That is probably true.  However, I also used to work for a statewide agency that served adults with developmental disabilities and Ms. Pittinger was the former divisional director and ongoing legal guardian to consumers while I was there, giving me ongoing indirect contact with her over civil rights issues. More room for bias?  Probably true.  Just want to get that out there.

Personally, I think protesting at a church over the geese issue wasn't tactically sound.  I think killing geese was a stupid option given that there are proven dog herding methods that are more humane and just as effective.  However, I doubt the church folks see it that way.  That being said, they had a right to assemble there. 

But where would it end?  Would survivors of sex abuse at the hands of priests be unable to protest at a church that harbored a perpetrator?  What is a so-called Christian politician engaged in political activity in direct conflict with his or her professed faith? 

If someone showed up to protest my neighbor harboring her drug-dealing, gun toting son and his incessant need to hurl glass bottles all over the street, I'd bring them glasses of ice team and an assortment of pastries.  Alas ///

My favorite example is Fred Phelps of www.godhatesfags.com. He protests at the funeral of soldiers, believing that God is mowing them down to punish America.  Laws are being passed to protect the families of soldiers.  Unconstitutional laws, but perhaps well intended.  Too bad Beth Pittinger and every elected official in the United States didn't feel so moved to restrict free speech when Phelps showed up at the funerals of gay men and women, bearing signs that said "Your son is in hell."    What's more offensive -- geese lovers in the parking lot after Mass or a grieving mother faced with personalized hatred directed at her dead child? 

The degree of offense is not the point. The point is that Beth Pittinger and the City Council are not in a position to protect people from being offended.  Unlike the bubble zone ordinance, this is not a matter of balancing two constitutional rights.  If the protestors prevent people from attending their religious services or trespass on private property, enforce the law.  But don't strip the protestors of THEIR rights.

One can only imagine that police misconduct must be non-existant if Ms. Pittinger has turned her attention to the woes of Onorato's neighbors.  If only that were the case ...