Glenn Greenwald verbalizes my worries about gay rights

Yesterday it was announced by the LGBT Pride Celebration Committee, that Wikileaks whistleblower/political prisoner Bradley Manning was selected as one of the Grand Marshals of the yearly San Francisco gay pride parade, considered a high honor in the gay community.

Almost immediately, Lisa L Williams, president of the Board of SF Pride, wrote a statement retracting his nomination:

Bradley Manning is facing the military justice system of this country. We all await the decision of that system. However, until that time, even the hint of support for actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform — and countless others, military and civilian alike — will not be tolerated by the leadership of San Francisco Pride. It is, and would be, an insult to every one, gay and straight, who has ever served in the military of this country.

Yes, you read that right. Blowing the whistle on war crimes is an insult to the military.

Glenn Greenwald (who is also gay, for the record) wasted no time in blasting Williams, calling her statement a "substance-free falsehood originally spread by top US military officials, which has since been decisively and extensively debunked, even by some government officials." Greenwald correctly reminds us:

Indeed, it's the US government itself, not Manning, that is guilty of "actions which placed in harms way the lives of our men and women in uniform."

And then Greenwald underscores the incipient fascism (my label, not his) of Williams warning the organization's members that EVEN THE HINT of support for Manning, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. WILL. NOT. BE. TOLERATED.

Wow.

This certainly is a long, long way from the San Francisco Gay Pride parade I once attended, decades ago, which tolerated (celebrated!) every bizarre, crazy activity and wayward political belief in the world. This had the wonderful result of making everyone feel welcome and giving off a warm, beneficent glow. This event was where I saw the revolutionary Tom Robinson Band, in 1981. (Robinson was an influential, radical gay punk rocker from the UK, who founded Rock Against Racism, a cause I was once allied with myself.) I suddenly realized that me and Tom Robinson probably do not belong in today's gay rights movement, which is now officially aligning itself with the government and trashing a courageous gay man who dares to speak out (and has had his civil rights violated as a result). Tom Robinson and Bradley Manning and Glenn Greenwald (and me) are OUT... apologists for right-wing warmongering like Lisa Williams are IN... it is the wholesale Lady Gagaization of gay rights; the defanging and neutralizing of a once-radical movement that asked the tough questions. Its all razzle-dazzle and the Bravo Network and Will and Grace reruns... nothing that asks participants to seriously question the status quo. (As it was for me, when I was young.)

Depressing.

Further, it isn't just the Lady Gagaization of gay rights, but the corporate sponsorship of gay rights... Glenn Greenwald ticks off the list of glitzy parade sponsors (HERE is the official list) which include AT&T, Verizon, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Clear Channel, Kaiser Permanente... basically the same list of corporate shysters presented by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Greenwald carefully catalogs their sins against the people, and then sputters:

So apparently, the very high-minded ethical standards of Lisa L Williams and the SF Pride Board apply only to young and powerless Army Privates who engage in an act of conscience against the US war machine, but instantly disappear for large corporations and banks that hand over cash. What we really see here is how the largest and most corrupt corporations own not just the government but also the culture. Even at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, once an iconic symbol of cultural dissent and disregard for stifling pieties, nothing can happen that might offend AT&T and the Bank of America. The minute something even a bit deviant takes place (as defined by standards imposed by America's political and corporate class), even the SF Gay Pride Parade must scamper, capitulate, apologize, and take an oath of fealty to their orthodoxies (we adore the military, the state, and your laws). And, as usual, the largest corporate factions are completely exempt from the strictures and standards applied to the marginalized and powerless. Thus, while Bradley Manning is persona non grata at SF Pride, illegal eavesdropping telecoms, scheming banks, and hedge-fund purveyors of the nation's worst right-wing agitprop are more than welcome.

And then, Greenwald starts making some interesting connections. Lisa Williams once worked for the political campaign of ... guess who?! President Hopey-Changey himself!* Greenwald reminds us:

It was President Obama, of course, who so notoriously decreed Bradley Manning guilty in public before his trial by military officers serving under Obama even began, and whose administration was found by the UN's top torture investigator to have abused him and is now so harshly prosecuting him. It's anything but surprising that a person who was a loyal Obama campaign aide finds Bradley Manning anathema while adoring big corporations and banks (which funded the Obama campaign and who, in the case of telecoms, Obama voted to immunize).

And finally, Greenwald voices the worries and concerns I have had for years... which it seems are finally coming to pass:

When I wrote several weeks ago about the remarkable shift in public opinion on gay equality, I noted that this development is less significant than it seems because the cause of gay equality poses no real threat to elite factions or to how political and economic power in the US are distributed. If anything, it bolsters those power structures because it completely and harmlessly assimilates a previously excluded group into existing institutions and thus incentivizes them to accommodate those institutions and adopt their mindset. This event illustrates exactly what I meant.

Yeah. And I remember ancient arguments I engaged in, with wacky old reds like the RCP, who warned me that gay rights was cosmetic and would NOT upend the status quo the way I was convinced it would. Were they right, after all?

From Greenwald's piece last month, mentioned above, titled The gay marriage snowball and political change:

If anything, one could say that the shift on this issue has been more institution-affirming than institution-subverting: the campaign to overturn "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" continually glorified and even fetishized military service, while gay marriage revitalizes a traditional institution - marriage - that heterosexuals have been in the process of killing with whimsical weddings, impetuous divorces, and serial new spouses (as Rush Limbaugh might put it: I'd like you to meet my fourth wife). And these changes are taking a once marginalized and culturally independent community and fully integrating it into mainstream society, thus making that community invested in conventional societal institutions.

Notably, Malcolm X also worried about the "buying off" of the black community, in just this same fashion. Some of us have probably forgotten that this was one of the tenets of Black Nationalism, that integration was also a form of neutralization ... and in the process of integration and assimilation, much intrinsic radicalism and core identity can be compromised.

Is the gay community being bought off and neutralized?

Unfortunately, I think so. Faster than you can say LADY GAGA. Or Bradley Manning.

~*~

*This perfect term for President Obama comes from Mister LarryE, aka Lotus, who has a cool blog you should all check out.

Random Dead Air Photo Gallery--Spring 2012

During my unofficial blog break, I pondered these Puzzling Questions of the week:

Why did Jeff Goldblum decide to sleepwalk through his season on LAW AND ORDER: CRIMINAL INTENT?

Is Ron Paul going belly-up for Mitt? (his followers certainly are not)

Is Charles Murray for real?

That last one is a result of reading his latest sordid volume: Coming Apart: The State of White America. At first, you think, huh? WHITE America? And then he explains that he has taken everyone else out of the equation so as not to be (insert whine) ACCUSED of anything, as he (correctly) was when he (co)wrote the racist book THE BELL CURVE. Thus, suitably chastened, he petulantly refuses to discuss anything but white people from now on.

Throughout the book, Murray periodically reminds us that he went to Harvard, just after he asserts something resoundingly clueless. Just so you know: he makes big money saying these stupid things. Is this what a Harvard education is worth? Save your pennies, kids.

What he doesn't understand is that white people's position is a result of having several buffer classes of people to take the heat; classes that CUSHION whites from economic and social upheaval (and thoroughly unpleasant jobs such as picking grapes in the fields), rather as having military bases all over the world cushions the USA from much unpleasant international fallout.

Murray thinks the elite (whites) have become the elite because of their superior morals and values... an argument so flimsy (regardless of all his graphs and pie charts) that Jonathan Chait (who admits he has not even read the book) successfully countered it in ONE FUNNY GRAPHIC on his blog. We know Wall Street is filled with paragons of virtue, yes?

Tellingly, Murray also includes a quiz about "living in a bubble"--which I found the most incredible section of the book. (Needless to say, I don't, and I doubt you do either.) One question, for instance, is "Have you ever been on a factory floor?"--and Murray has, exactly ONE TIME. (!) One. Time.

Non-Harvard aside: Why is someone so sheltered he has only been on a factory floor ONCE, trusted to write an opus about CLASS? That's hilarious, all by itself.

DEAD AIR studied this book in abject amazement, and consequently wondered if the Right and Left can ever agree on ANYthing at all. (shakes head) Also, my dislike and mistrust of the elites populating the Left, has been greatly enhanced... if that's possible.

~*~

I got photos... I have not posted random photos for a good while. (I blame Facebook!) Also, I have noticed that these random-photo threads tend to become spam magnets, for some odd reason. I guess the word "random" brings in the bots?

Anyway... below (as always, you can click to enlarge):

1) Efia Nwangaza addresses the Malcolm X festival; the local Malcolm X Center meet-and-greet photos are here.

2) Doggie cooling off in Falls Park fountain.

3) Big Girls Rock banner, also present at Malcolm X festival.

4) Cyril decides to relax in my clean laundry. It was suggested to me on Facebook, that a warm basket of laundry IN THE DIRECT LINE OF A SUNBEAM amounts to me setting an irresistible cat-trap.

5) Your yearly azalea fix! I almost let Spring go by without posting any! (McPherson Park)

6) Country band, The Buchanan Boys, who did an excellent country version of "Kashmir"! They have a Facebook page, but not a regular web page. (May 4th)

7) Purty roses and 8) Irises! That new Facebook "timeline" gives me an excuse to post flowers! Both from Falls Park.

9) Reedy River Falls, Greenville, SC. And have I written before (a few hundred times) about how cool it is to have a waterfall in the middle of town?

10) Yes, your ever-humble narrator continues to Occupy in downtown Greenville, SC.

11) and 12) My beloved Cyril has turned three years old!

I wished him a Happy Birthday, but he seemed singularly uninterested in celebrating.

~*~

Some random thoughts on giving offense

I have always "let a lot of things go"--since you know, my Deity announced a long time ago, that we should forgive 70 x 7. [1]

An argument continues. I have decided we need to air it here, since we are basically talking about a difference in radical approach.

Lisa writes:

If I could go the entire rest of my life without hearing anyone say “I didn’t intend to say anything racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist” as if it means anything, it will still be too soon.

I don’t care. [2]

If you don't care, nothing will ever change, and no one will learn a damned thing. Some people, you know, just aren't as smart as others and have not had the educations that others have had... bottom line.

Someone says something transphobic to me or where I can hear it, I don’t care if they didn’t mean to hurt me, they did hurt me. I have the right to say “Hey, that thing you said was transphobic.” It’s just like if someone accidentally steps on my foot - I can still say “Hey, you stepped on my foot!” and whoever stepped on my foot will probably apologize and move on, and not start an argument about how I was standing in their way or how they never hurt people on purpose.

Bad analogy; it isn't as clear as that. What if the person says something and doesn't understand WHY it was transphobic? Can't we clarify and ask WHY? Isn't that a desire not to do further harm and integrate the message so that it never happens again?

Why is all discussion ruled out?

See, speaking of ageism, or rather, not speaking of it, since you carefully left it out of your list of oppressions (so should I assume the worst from this omission and claim ageism is therefore still acceptable to you?)--some of us come from older leftist/radical traditions in which all political questions were silenced by revolutionary cadre; to ask questions was to be seen as uncommitted to the cause, not because we needed to know the answer.

You sound like you think they did the right thing shutting us up, yes?

And you can say “Well, I didn’t mean to say anything transphobic” and I’ll say “I don’t care, you said it.” and suddenly the conversation becomes a matter of what you were thinking when you said it,

Well, yeah. If you are assigning meanings and INTENTIONS a person doesn't have, it becomes necessary to CLARIFY that NO you are NOT a proponent of mass genocide, or whatever outrageous charges are currently being levied.

And isn't it crucial to learn to express sentiments differently, rather than using offensive language?

How can one learn if one doesn't discuss these things?

(I still don't understand, for instance, and no, I am not allowed to ask, either.)

If some white person says "Obama is articulate!"--we need to explain that no, WHAT YOU SAID was not the insult (they in fact intended it as a compliment), but the way that particular word has been used in the culture, and what it conveys to African-Americans, is something quite different.

If that person doesn't understand that, I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss it, or they will never learn and they will keep right on saying it.

Yes, I fully realize there are people VERY tired of explaining that, and I get that. But simply WANTING to understand, is not wrong or bad.

It is the heart of all revolutionary change.

and not what you said, and what you were thinking is irrelevant.

If you think certain people's thoughts are irrelevant while other people's thoughts are valid, this explains plenty. I think everyone's thought are valid. Whether I want to argue with them (say, at Feminist Critics, where incidentally, I have argued at length) is another matter. But what they think DOES matter and IS NOT irrelevant; they have considerable influence, particularly if their thoughts reflect the majority.

I don’t care if you’re transphobic and hate all trans people or if you just slipped up, I want you to own what you said, and not tell me about your inner life.

(This is a reference to my post about my father and how difficult it has been to overcome certain influences.)

Lisa, we probably won't "own it" to your specifications, so you may always be angry at people who don't use the politically-correct terminology. If I was this picky, here in the hyper-conservative upstate of South Carolina, I wouldn't have a single friend left. This sounds like someone who lives in a liberal area, who has the luxury of never having to work with the opposition.

I do care about people's inner lives, and what they are thinking. Yes, even the "bad people"--I don't think lasting change happens any other way.

Again, this is undoubtedly a big difference between us.

And I realize that your approach is perfectly respectable, ideologically. Malcolm X agreed with you. But that doesn't make you the expert on politically-correct behavior, any more than I am.

I am totally unable to simply cut loose a longstanding friend, or relative, or lover, or whoever, just because they used the wrong language or said something stupid. Certainly, I would want to hear what that loved-one has to say for themselves.

When a stranger steps on my foot, it's very, very different than when a FRIEND does. I would never regard these two events as morally equivalent. If you do, that also explains the differences between us.

And yes, I also believe that the inner life of OTHER oppressed people, even if you regard it as unimportant, is important. A stupid or offensive remark from a comrade, or another oppressed person, is not the same as the same comment from one who intends to do harm or who is not on the same side.

--

[1] Matthew 18: 21-22. Offhand cultural note: Even mentioning that one believes in the traditions of various Deities/Churches, such as offering to do PENANCE for an offense, is not permitted in some circles... did you know that? I sure didn't!

I'm sure this vast cultural abyss has nothing to do with being old and working-class (instead of young, trendy, upper middle-class, bright-eyed, well-educated and properly enlightened), so don't even go there!

[2] Should I point out that you missed "classist" and "ageist" in your litany?

Actually, I'm pretty used to that. Some forms of oppression rate a mention, and some are merely part of the air we breathe and don't even matter. The fact is, though, I have overlooked a great deal more classism and ageism than you can imagine. And what do I get for assuming charity and giving friends the benefit of the doubt? I get told that my feelings, my inner life, doesn't matter.

Well, it's nice to learn that NOW, I guess. It is a lesson I won't soon forget.