OUTloud in South Carolina

Budget Cuts

2008-12-12T14:38:00.001-05:00

Where are our priorities in South Carolina? To further explain please read the following:

"Earlier cuts took away money for school buses, and the latest round couldn't completely protect schools. They will lose money for gifted and talented classes, along with other programs funded by the Education Improvement Act.

The biggest cuts were $76.6 million to the Department of Health and Human Services, $23.6 million for the Department of Mental Health and $21.5 million to the Department of Disabilities and Special Needs.

Specific cuts already announced include money for adoption services, sex-offender monitoring, advocacy efforts for disabled residents and programs that serve children with autism and those with spinal cord injuries.

Higher education loses a combined $123 million, or an average of 15 percent at each institution." Yvonne Wegner, Post and Courier, October 31st.

Budget cuts for gifted and talented classes? health and human services? mental health? sex offender monioting? What is the SC legislature thinking? The bigger question is what are they not cutting and why? Please Obama get us out of this economical downfall!!!!

Not A Underdog Anymore

2008-10-11T10:46:00.003-05:00

"Why Vote? My vote doesn't count here." Many people, young and old, have felt like South Carolina has been a no-chance-for-change-state for years. It has been 32 years since we have seen our state vote blue, but this year there is some promise of change. I am constantly trying not to get my hopes up of seeing my state become blue this year, but wouldn't it be amazing if it did? CNN and most news channels still say the SC is a solid red state, and maybe they are right. Recent polls say that Republicans are at 58% and Democrats are polling at 39%. According to the polls we will be seeing SC covered in red on election night. However, something has been happening in SC this year, and it may end up surprising many conservatives who thought they had this state in the bag. A couple of factors play to Barack's favor: 1) the democrats out voted republicans in the 2008 presidential primary 2) the democratic party in SC is largely African-American 3) the last person we voted for has completely ruined our economy and standing in the world.

We have also seen some other changes in SC these past few years. For starters the Stonewall Democrats have arisen in the state. Two openly gay delegates were elected to attend the Democratic Convention in Denver from SC. SC was second only to California with the number of people attending the GLBT caucus in Denver. Incredible. So I beg everyone to not just count SC as a red state. Democrats don't be fooled by Republicans telling you that your vote doesn't count. Get out and vote! Get your friends out to vote! Get out and vote early, so we can turn this state Blue!!!!!

What is all this talk about change?

2008-05-21T16:53:00.002-05:00

This question will really begin to be considered through the average American voter, as the Democratic primary race comes to an end. I have hoped for Mrs. Clinton's victory, but as many of her supporters have already seen, she has been defeated. Although my hopes of having her as my president have faded, I know that I must fully support the winner Barack Obama. McCain and Obama have entered the general election race and left Hillary behind. There are many things that this country needs at this point in time, but a Republican is not one of them.

So here we are, at a pinnacle of "change?" What is this change and where will it come from? Even McCain has announced his proposal for change and what that means, but does everyone really want change? It interests me that this many people are looking for radical change, but I don't see anyone doing much about it. People all around me ask where are the youth, the college students, all of the radical hippies? Where are they? Shut out. At the South Carolina State convention it was evident. I witnessed many young people trying to do what they believe in, trying to stand up for what is worth fighting for, but there was no support to be found. I have heard the media redundantly call the election in the hands of the "league of first time voters," but all I see is a continuous power struggle inside the "old time politics." We are being ignored again and again, and its time to stand up and be heard. The beautiful thing about young voters is the fact that money hasn't destroyed them yet. They are passionate about things getting done by grassroots action. They feel that they are not more important than anyone else, everyone should be taken care of, and treated equally. So this is my plea: Please Barack Obama do what you say and take care of me.

Hot For Hillary

2007-12-28T15:51:00.000-05:00

I have had many inner debates during this last election on who I should support, and I'm sure that these debates will continue because of how important this election is to me and my fellow LGBT voters. There are very serious issues at stake with who we choose to be our next Democratic candidate, and I admit it is very difficult to choose one out of the very qualified candidates we have been given. So who is it going to be? Biden, Hillary, Obama, Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson, Edwards, or Dodd? What issues are most important? LGBT issues, the war, health care, poverty, taxes, or abortion? All these things must be taken seriously, but which candidate has all the answers to all the questions? I think we all know the answer to that. There is no person with all the answers, and as unfortunate as it is none of these people will end all suffering in the world. This should not deter people from participating or "practicing" politics. Every issue that has come to a triumphant conclusion has not happened over night, but has taken years of baby steps. So here again we arrive at our problem, who shall inherit this diverse and divided nation (and world)?
Well maybe we should start with an easier question. Who should not inherit this nation and world? I think most of us agree that it should not be Giuliani, Paul, Thompson, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Hunter, or Tancredo. I also believe that we must support someone who can win. I'm sure all LGBT people would love for someone like Kucinich to be President; however, as much as we hate to say it, there are other factors in choosing a candidate. I believe one of those factors, unfortunately, is popularity. I believe that it is in fact late enough to see that our next Democratic nominee will be either Hillary, Obama, or Edwards.
So here we have them, our candidates from which we may choose! (Applause is welcome)

This is where things become more tedious. All three of these candidates are very similar on the issues with some exceptions. So lets begin with John Edwards. Edwards says that he is the strongest advocate of eliminating the threat of poverty, which is a major positive factor, but I'm not sure how much I trust Edwards. Also, I believe Edwards is the most uncomfortable with LGBT issues out of all Democratic candidates, and gives me reason to not support him. So now we Obama and Hillary. Both of these candidates would be firsts for the United States. First African-American or first woman.
Before I continue, I would also like to ensure that I believe that any of the Democratic candidates would be a much improved situation and most or all are over qualified to run this country. With that being said, I will support whoever the nominee is for the Democratic Party; but for delegation purposes I must choose a Democratic candidate to support and I have chosen Hillary.
Some may disagree, but I feel that Hillary will be the strongest of the democratic candidates and will be not only the strongest advocate for LGBT persons but also the person who will actually get things done regarding my closest to heart issues.
Some will argue that her husband's record on LGBT issues is poor, and it was; however, I believe Hillary will come through with her openness to LGBT people even with support from Bill. Also, she has repetitively spoken to the HRC, and is close friends with Joe Solmonese.

Here are some quotes from Hillary:

"Are you ready for a government that treats all Americans with dignity, and equality no matter who you are, or who you love?"

"I'm proud to stand by your side. I want you to know that just as you have always had an open door to my senate office, you will always have an open door to the White House, and together we will continue our struggle against hatred and our stand for equality." (To the Human Rights Campaign)

Through all the videos and sound bytes that I have seen of all the candidates, Hillary has shown me that she will be the best candidate for LGBT people. And because my blog concerns LGBT politics I will leave my other issues out of this conversation.

Something To Read While I'm Taking Exams

2007-12-06T01:51:00.000-05:00

I wanted to post something and just read this article for my Extremist Politics class. This article is written by The Blue Mountain Working Group and was featured in Eyes Right! Please read and discuss.

Remember this was written by the authors at the bottom of the article, also known as the Blue Mountain Working Group. In other words, I did not write this, although I wish I would have I think its amazing.

DEFEND DEMOCRACY AND PLURALISM

Please read the following statement and discuss it with your family, friends, and colleagues. This statement is meant to spark discussion of how best to defend democracy & pluralism in light of the continued victories of secular, religious, and corporate right-wing forces that employ scapegoating and demagoguery.

We are a group of individuals interested in joining with others to rebuild a multi-issue movement for progressive social change that can assist in informing and organizing broad coalitions to reverse the ominous right- wing backlash currently sweeping the United States. In May, 1993 we came from across the nation to the conference center in Blue Mountain, NY to share our concerns about the growing prejudice and scapegoating being provoked by intolerant and anti-democratic religious and secular movements of the hard right.

A wide range of individuals participated in the three-day meeting, including organizers, activists, journalists, academics, and researchers. Some had institutional affiliations, others did not. All the participants had been involved in educating about or organizing against right-wing campaigns at the local or national level, and had shown a commitment to respecting diversity and valuing cooperation. The goal of the gathering was to meet and discuss our experiences and ideas, develop a national perspective, and begin to outline a strategic response that reflected the diverse communities where we work and live. We carried out our discussions with a sense of purpose, a knowledge of history, a commitment to thoughtful and thorough discussion, a desire to learn from each other, and a humility born of painful experience heightened by an apprehension of peril. This statement is one result of our ongoing discussions during the past eighteen months.

We see the current general right-wing backlash as one of the most significant political developments of the decade, combining well-funded national institutions with highly-motivated grass- roots activists. To effectively counter this movement, we believe it is essential to understand the specific and complicated components of the political right wing across its many forms, and the often conflicting and competing aspects of right-wing theory and practice.

While the political right in the US can be bewildering in its complexity and shifting identities and allegiances, its players historically have assembled their core tenets and shared agendas from the same set of beliefs. They include conscious or unconscious support for white privilege; male supremacy; subservience of women and people of color; hierarchical religious and family structures; the protection of property rights over human rights; preservation of individual wealth; a rapacious form of unregulated free market capitalism; aggressive and unilateral military and foreign policies; and authoritarian and punitive means of social control. They also include opposition to the feminist movement and abortion rights; democratic pluralism and cultural diversity; gay rights; government regulations concerning health, safety, and the environment; and minimum wage laws and union rights.

The most activist segments of the US political right working within the electoral system are distinct from traditional conservatism, with its support for the status quo, as well as distinct from the far right or ultra right, with its overt theories of racist biological determinism and open support for individual and collective violence. We see some overlap among these tendencies, especially in local campaigns, but contend the current coalition effort uniting diverse right- wing activist groups around specific common themes represents a historic phenomenon that has appeared before in US history during times of economic and social stress. Various activist right- wing movements have historically been called the hard right, intolerant right, authoritarian right, regressive right, reactionary right, nativist right, populist right, radical right, extremist right, moralistic right, orthodox right, traditionalist right, nationalist right, exclusivist right, self-righteous right, elitist right, zealous right, theocentric right, theonomic right, and theocratic right.

We feel the phrase that best describes the essence of the contemporary activist right-wing movement is "anti-democratic right." The main goal of the anti- democratic right is to craft a reactionary backlash movement to co-opt and reverse the gains of the progressive social movements of the 1960's and 1970's which sparked the ongoing civil rights, student rights, antiwar, feminist, ecology, and gay rights movements.

To achieve this goal the anti-democratic right works in many arenas -- cultural, social, artistic, electoral, legislative, legal, political, academic, journalistic, religious, and theological. It has an infrastructure that engages in research, strategic analysis, media outreach, fundraising, education, community organizing, and direct action. The specific segment of the anti-democratic right that most concerns us is a growing coalition of well-funded reactionary political activists working with authoritarian religious zealots to define what it means to be an American in narrow, spiteful, and exclusionary terms.

The leaders of the anti-democratic right recognize that many persons have real grievances over various social and economic problems in our society, but these leaders cynically divert attention away from a serious discussion of these complex issues toward targeted scapegoats such as African-Americans, Asians, Arabs, and other people of color, Spanish-speaking residents, feminists, lesbians, gay men, immigrants, welfare recipients, Jews, Muslims, the disabled, and other persons, many of whom are still seeking equal access to the promised benefits of our society.

In a country confronting complex problems, the anti-democratic right offers simple slogans. In a society of many cultures, the anti-democratic right offers a monocultural vision of citizenship. In a society struggling for participatory democracy, the anti- democratic right offers elitism, exclusivity, and submission to authority.

The leaders of the anti-democratic right are deeply troubled by critical thinking, cultural diversity, and dissent; and they warn about the chaos of mass democracy and pluralism, and the evils of liberalism and secular humanism. When they speak of traditional family values, they often speak only of those values which traditionally have reinforced disproportionate access to power and privilege for certain segments of our society -- the upper class, males, whites, heterosexuals, northern Europeans, and Christians.

Many leaders of the anti-democratic right depend on fundraising through direct mail and televangelism, where using divisive and polarizing scare tactics to raise money has become commonplace. We have seen some leaders of the anti-democratic right use deception, false or unreliable statistics, pseudo-science, and pseudo- academic research. They opportunistically promote stereotypes, scapegoating, objectification, and irrational conspiratorial analyses alleging secular humanist treachery. They gracelessly exploit divisiveness, dehumanization, demonization, and demagoguery. They smugly act in a moralistic, self-righteous, even sanctimonious manner. They seek to impose their rigid and uncharitable views on every American. The danger they pose to democratic pluralism is real.

The anti-democratic right seeks to control what we read, the music we hear, the images we see, how we learn, what happens to our bodies, how we worship, and whom we love.

The rise of the anti-democratic right in our country occurs at a time when racial nationalism is sweeping Europe. We have witnessed the murders of immigrants, people of color, and religious minorities in Germany, and the spread of anti-Jewish bigotry across the continent. Who could have predicted the brutal ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia or the election victories of neo-fascists in Italy? In our own country, hate crimes and physical assaults on persons in targeted groups are on the increase. We have seen the shootings of abortion providers and bombings of clinics. We should not be complacent and dismiss the possibility that an economic or social crisis in the US could serve as a trigger for some hard-right religious zealots or reactionary racial nationalists to engage in paramilitary activity or unleash a campaign of intimidation and violence that could destabilize our own country.

It may seem a remote possibility, but it can happen here. We know from history that authoritarianism, theocracy, demagoguery, and scapegoating are building blocks for fascist political movements; and that people mobilized by the cynical, regressive, populist- sounding sentiments sown by a Ross Perot can be harvested by the angry, divisive, racial nationalist rhetoric of a David Duke or Pat Buchanan. We also know the paradox of fascism is that when most people finally are asking whether or not it is too late to stop it...it is. Better that resistance be early and preventative rather than late and unsuccessful.

Because we believe the anti-democratic right is a growing social movement, we see three immediate tasks to protect democratic values: 1) defending diversity within a pluralistic society, 2) maintaining the separation of church and state, 3) protecting the right to privacy for all people.

We share a sense of urgency. Time is of the essence. We must stop the hard right anti-democratic backlash movement before it inflicts more damage on our society. In defending democracy and pluralism we must refrain from using the same polarizing techniques of scapegoating, demonization, and demagoguery that have been so successful for the anti- democratic right.

As we fight intolerance we will consciously strive to resist using the same intolerant tactics we oppose. We will respect diversity while defending democracy. We recognize that many of the individual grassroots activists being mobilized by the leadership of the anti- democratic right are sincere and honest people with real fears concerning jobs, family, schools, and personal safety. They are not our enemies, they are our neighbors and potentially our allies.

We defend the right of all persons to hold religious beliefs and moral codes without government restriction or interference. But we insist that in a constitutional democracy the arguments for legislation and regulation be based on rational debate and factual evidence that demonstrate a useful purpose and a compelling government interest. The leaders of the anti-democratic right wave the flag, wrap themselves in the cloak of religion and claim they speak for God and country. We are not attacking God when we confront those who pridefully presume to speak for God. We are not attacking religion when we challenge those who imply that only persons who share their specific narrow theological viewpoint can claim religious or moral values. We are not attacking our country when we rebuke those who peddle a message of fear, prejudice, and division.

To stop the right-wing backlash we must help to build broad popular coalitions that include at the core all the communities under attack by the anti- democratic right in its many incarnations; and we must also include in these coalitions all persons of good conscience willing to defend democratic pluralism. Our allies are all persons who oppose theocracy and control by an authoritarian elite, and all persons who are willing to stand up for a real, dynamic, and vibrant democracy.

As progressives we believe there are many values we must uphold in building any principled coalition. Our method of work as a progressive coalition must reflect diverse styles, perspectives, and goals. We must speak with many different voices representing the many different threads that weave the social fabric of our nation. We see progressive social change as an ongoing process involving persons from many constituencies and issues working together whenever possible in an alliance for democracy and pluralism.

Our alliance embraces the struggles for racial and ethnic justice especially for persons who trace their identity to Africa, South America, Central America, Mexico, the Caribbean, Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific Islands. Our alliance embraces the struggles for fairness and tribal rights for the native peoples of this continent.

Our alliance embraces the movements seeking equal rights and safety for women. Our alliance embraces groups promoting a woman's right to control her own body, defending abortion rights, advocating comprehensive sexuality education and family planning, and seeking implementation of gay-positive curricula and AIDS awareness education. Our alliance embraces the equal rights movements defending the lesbian, gay male, bisexual, and transgender communities.

Our alliance embraces those seeking social and economic justice for African- Americans and the eradication of the vestiges of slavery and second-class citizenship. Our alliance embraces the struggles against scapegoating of immigrants, people of color, and welfare recipients. Our alliance embraces groups challenging racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-Jewish prejudice.

Our alliance embraces the impoverished seeking dignified work and a living wage. Our alliance embraces residents of the inner city seeking control and revitalization of their communities. Our alliance embraces those in rural areas seeking to preserve the family farm and fighting for fair agricultural and land use policies. Our alliance embraces persons opposing the anti-regulatory Wise Use, Sovereignty, Counties, and States Rights movements. Our alliance embraces groups fighting for a decent minimum wage, accessible child care, compassionate welfare regulations, and meaningful job training. Our alliance embraces alienated youth and the isolated homeless.

Our alliance embraces persons learning to overcome physical, emotional, and psychological challenges to independence. Our alliance embraces movements for a sound environment, better schools, bilingual education, and universal health care. Our alliance embraces persons decrying religious bigotry against Jews, Muslims, Catholics, and other belief systems. Our alliance embraces groups resisting militarism, ultra-nationalism, fascism, and genocide.

We come from churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of spiritual worship and secular reflection. We come from labor unions, non-profit agencies, progressive businesses, foundations, membership organizations, and social clubs. We come from farms and ranches, industrial worksites, office buildings, schools, colleges, factories, and the streets. We come from cities, suburbs, and rural areas. We are organized and unorganized, and work inside and outside the home. And we yearn to build a true alliance that unites all of us on the basis of mutual respect as we defend democracy and pluralism.

We see a synergistic interactive relationship among activists, organizers, researchers, journalists, and academics from these various movements and constituencies as resulting in the most informed and useful analyses, strategies, and tactics to bring about effective action for social change. We believe there must be two-way interaction between the national and local levels. The needs and specific issues of local partners must inform and shape national strategies, and at the same time, the resources developed by national groups must be made available to grassroots organizers to stimulate informed discussion of various strategies and tactics. At the leadership level, there has not yet been sufficient cooperation of potential progressive allies, and many people in national organizations still need to be educated about the serious nature of the threat posed by the anti-democratic right.

Hard experiences have taught us that short term tactics that divide communities for the sake of individual electoral victories are short-sighted, frequently backfire, and even when successful, weaken the type of long-term coalition building that is necessary for eventual victory. It is essential to develop an analysis that bridges issues, helps communities understand the threat to them, and pulls together diverse constituencies and issues. The anti- democratic right has been successful in reframing the public debate over key issues such as family, morality, and children. We must participate in and reclaim this debate.

We believe in full equality for everyone -- nothing more, but nothing less.

Ours is a vision of democracy where all have an equal voice. Of a democracy where progressive populism encourages active participation by all residents in open, full, and honest debates over legislation and government policies. Where we elect our government representatives on the basis of ideas, not images. Where the consent of the governed is informed consent, not manipulated consent. Where the wealth of wisdom possessed by a political candidate is more important than the reach of their wallet. Where elections offer real choices rather than rotating elites. Where the majority sets policies while consciously respecting the rights of the minority; and both the majority and the minority have their grievances carefully considered, and have access to representation. This is the promise of our nation. We must work to see this promise achieved, rather than see it eroded by the regressive populist- sounding demagoguery of the anti- democratic right.

Our goal is twofold: we must stop the hard right; and we must pursue the unfulfilled promises of a healthy pluralistic democracy: justice, equality, security, and fairness -- the real American Dream.

Many of us who met at Blue Mountain have continued working together as an informal network, and this has helped us gain the perspective we need to be more effective in our individual tasks fighting the right in cities and states across the country. It is vital that we all share information, advice, criticisms, and assistance as we learn to work together. The anti-democratic right has a multi-issue strategic agenda, but its tactic is to focus its attacks on one high-visibility target constituency at a time. No single segment of our society has demonstrated an ability to resist these attacks alone. We must learn to work together. We urge everyone who desires to defend and extend democracy to join together in forming broad and diverse locally-based coalitions to resist the rollback of rights; to block the backlash; to fight the right.

The leaders of the anti-democratic right say their movement is waging a battle for the soul of America. They call it a culture war. We believe the soul of America should not be a battleground but a birthright, and that culture should be celebrated not censored. We believe America is defined by ideas and values, but not those limited by religious beliefs, biology, bloodlines, or birthplace of ancestors.

The time has come to stand up and vigorously defend democracy and pluralism against the attacks orchestrated by cynical leaders of the anti-democratic right. History teaches us that there can be no freedom without liberty, no liberty without justice, and no justice without equality; and we look forward to success because we know it is through the never-ending struggle for equality, justice, liberty and freedom that democracy is nourished.

Russ Bellant Journalist/Researcher Author: "The Coors Connection" Detroit, Michigan

Chip Berlet Journalist/Activist Political Research Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts

Anne Bower Executive Director/Editor The Body Politic Magazine Binghamton, New York

Robert Bray Fight the Right organizer National Gay & Lesbian Task Force San Francisco, California

Mandy Carter Director, A National Call to Resist Campaign National Black Gay and Lesbian Leadership Forum Washington, District of Columbia

Fred Clarkson Journalist/Researcher Co-author: "Challenging the Christian Right" Northampton, Massachusetts

Marghe Covino Co-Founder, Project Tocsin Sentinel Institute for Research & Education California

Elias Farajaje-Jones Howard University School of Divinity Washington, District of Columbia

Suzanne B. Goldberg Staff Attorney Lambda Legal Defense New York, New York

Barbara J. Hart Legal Director, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence Reading, Pennsylvania

Kate Harris Reproductive rights organizer Consultant to non-profit groups California

David Mendoza Ex. Director, National Campaign for Freedom of Expression Arts Activist Seattle, Washington

Scot Nakagawa Activist/Organizer National Gay & Lesbian Task Force Portland, Oregon

David Nimmons Social justice activist Gay and lesbian community New York, New York

Suzanne Pharr Writer/Organizer Women's Project Portland, Oregon

Skipp Porteous President, Institute for First Amendment Studies Research & Education Great Barrington, Massachusetts

Tarso Ramos Researcher/Activist Western States Center Portland, Oregon

Loretta Ross Program Research Director, Center for Democratic Renewal Atlanta, Georgia

Barbara A. Simon Gen. Counsel, Institute for First Amendment Studies Research & Education Massachusetts

Urvashi Vaid Organizer/Author Human rights activist Provincetown, Massachusetts

Thalia Zepatos Writer/Organizer Campaign Consultant Portland, Oregon

Organizations, when listed, are for identification only. Drafts of earlier versions were circulated among selected activists and researchers for their comments. This final version reflects the substantial and thoughtful input of many persons other than those whose names appear on this page.

Where I Have Been

2007-12-01T22:26:00.000-05:00

To my readers,

I am very sorry for being missing in action for the past few months. I have had an extremely hard semester which has taken my blogging time away; however, now that this semester is finally over, I will be getting back to my love, politics.

Nick

Some important things that need to be addressed:

1) The state primary is coming up soon and the LGBT community of SC needs to be ready. Not only ready to decide who it wants to be our candidates, but ready to be apart of the delegation process. The South Carolina Democratic Party has set a goal to have 3 openly gay or lesbian delegates to this year's National Democratic Convention. This is NOT a quota, but a goal, and will be very hard to fill if there are not many active openly gay people running for a delegate seat. I will be running this year for a delegate seat, but still want others to run because I want to have as many chances for openly gay men and women to have their voices heard and their presence noticed. There are a few things in which one must do to become a delegate. First, one must choose a candidate to endorse, because the candidates have a great say in who gets to be their delegates. Secondly, one must attended their county and state convention to be eligible to attend the national convention. So this is my hope that every LGBT person of SC that is involved with politics to try for a spot in the National Convention. If you have more questions contact me and I will send you Tom Chorlton's Delegate selection plan. My email is nshalosky@hotmail.com.

2) Who I am now publicly endorsing:
I am now publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton which I will be writing about frequently from now on. One thing I wanted to mention with my endorsement of Hillary is that this does not mean that I feel negatively about all candidates, but through all reason I believe that my support should be for one of the top three and out of those three, Hillary has my vote; however, my voice, only goes as far as to speak for myself, not for any person.

3) Activism:
I have felt that there has been an extreme lack of interest, especially among my fellow generation, in this election and the political process in general. I hope that everyone will allow their voice to be heard, because you can and must be heard if you want things to change.
So in whatever talent you possess, tell the world what matters to you. One of my classes this semester is drawing, and for my final project I had to create an inner self-portrait. It can be seen below and shows my feelings about what is happening to OUR nation.

Expectations for The Citadel

2007-07-17T12:00:00.000-05:00

On Monday people from around the nation will be in Charleston to see the 8 democratic candidates battle it out at the southern battelground, The Citadel. I am very excited to be attending the historic debate hosted by youtube and CNN because this debate will be the first with all questions asked by voters. I am very excited about this debate because of its location (The Citadel) and the type of questions that will be asked. Although CNN and Youtube will be able to choose which questions get aired and asked, the general feel of the debate will be different because of the forum. Also, the location should play a major role in the general feel of the debate. Who would have ever imagined eight top democrats standing on the property of The Citadel. For those of you who are not familiar with The Citadel, it is the South's military academy, with a long tradition of conservatism. For example, The Citadel opened its doors to the first woman in 1995. I would say that's a little late, even for conservatives. As Democrats are preparing to have an all night session in congress to bring attention to the congressional battle over the war in Iraq, the top representatives from the Democratic Party will be standing neck deep in the tradition and "values" of the military of our country. Many people will be expecting awkward feelings as Democrats fight against the war. So what will they say?

I believe this is a very easy question to answer...

The Democrats will and should stand up for the troop withdrawal while standing in The Citadel; however, they will focus not on the policy of the war or any reason for leaving besides bringing the troops home. This should make everybody happy right? I can only hope that my personal favorite, Joe Biden, will stand up and set himself apart and attack the policy and reasons for withdrawals.

Should bringing the troops home be the reason we want to end the war? I think the reasoning behind that argument is completely naive. Servicemen and woman are doing their job, and are doing the best job they can do with the supplies and missions given to them; however, the reason we need to be leaving Iraq is not because troops need to come home. Has anyone forgotten the whole peace thing? I am against the war for the simple fact that it is a war, and yes this war is stupid and we have entered it for stupid reasons, but aren't all wars stupid? Yes! So I challenge all Democratic candidates to stand up when asked the question why should we leave Iraq: "Because we are in a war? Why else?"

A question that I hope arises at the debate is the already asked and answered question about Don't Ask Don't Tell. At The Citadel there is an underground group of students that no person in this country, except for me, likes to talk about. LGB (purposefully left out the T on this one for obvious reasons) students at The Citadel will be wanting to know which candidate will let them speak? Don't believe that there are LGB students at The Citadel, well think again. I hope that one of these candidates will stand up for these students and allow them to serve our country and be who they are at the same time.

I am very excited to see this debate unfold and hope that it will live up to my expectations. I am also in the process of making a calender of sorts for the post-debate parties by request of the most recent comment. I know the Edwards campaign party will be at the American Theater on King Street.

Youtube Debate

2007-07-05T12:25:00.000-05:00

The first ever presidential debate to be completely composed citizens' questions will be held this month at the Citadel. The Democratic Party debate held on July 23rd will be moderated by Anderson Cooper, but will be guided by the questions submitted to YouTube. I am currently working on submitting questions regarding gay rights to YouTube to be considered for the debate. As most of you know, tickets to this debate are going to be very hard to come by, the the Chairwoman of the Democratic Party, Carol Fowler, noted that her best advice for getting tickets to the debate was "Good Luck." Many campaigns will be hosting parties around the city of Charleston and around the nation. Because this debate is being held at the Citadel, I believe that it would be an ideal location for candidates to be drilled (pardon my pun) on their stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I also think it would be a good idea to get a group of LGBT supporters to be organized and represented in the media for the debate. Let me know if anyone would be willing to host a LGBT Debate Party. I'm sure it would be a ton of fun so let me know what you think!

Oh and if Anderson Cooper isn't enough incentive for watching the debate with a group of gay supporters, I don't know what is?

Democratic Debate Look Out

2007-05-30T10:44:00.000-05:00

As you may or may not know, the second Democratic debate will be held on this Sunday, June 3rd. The debate will be on CNN at 7 pm. Some friends and I will be getting together to watch the debate and argue during the breaks about which candidate does better. I am hoping that questions about gay rights will finally come up especially since the release of the gay platforms by Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. I love watching debates and figuring out strategies that the candidates use and what they should use. What are you looking for at the debate this Sunday? Leave comments about what you will be looking for in a candidate in the debate setting in New Hampshire. Then I will revisit this post after the debate to see how the candidates held up to South Carolina's expectations.

Religion Obviously Important to Republicans

2007-05-15T21:32:00.000-05:00

During tonight's GOP debate, the moderator introduced each candiate with a little window box showing their stats. I noticed that "Religion" was second on the list, only to age. Objectivly, religion came first on the stats for all the Republican cadidates. I feel like this shows how dedicated the Republicans are to the conservative religions. Also, I noticed that when Giuliani was talking about catching the Islamic terrorists from Fort Dix, he stated "Thank God" while putting his hands together and looking up.

When it came to my issue, Gay rights, questions did include the subject...slightly, but no candidate commented on that one subject. When Republican candidates would rather face questions about abortion, it could be a bad or good sign. It could mean that they are not thinking that gay rights are very important, but also it may mean that they think that their polls would decline if they don't support gay rights. Hopefully its the second.

Gay Republicans?

2007-05-11T22:09:00.000-05:00

On the evening of May 8th, 2007, I attended an Alliance For Full Acceptance meeting. The guest speaker was Patrick Sammons, the president of the Log Cabin Republicans. Patrick told the captive room at the Renaissance Hotel in Charleston, that he feels as though "equality is impossible to achieve without Republican votes, particularly in red states like South Carolina." I agreed with Patrick when he stated that he hard working Log Cabin Republican's working from inside the Republican Party is the best way to gain those Republican votes. He also stated that "if every gay and lesbian person left the Republican Party tomorrow, we wouldn't be any closer to achieving equality." I completely agree with his ideals and philosophy; however, he continues by pointing out the "voices of intolerance that are in the [Republican] Party." Then Patrick used the Republican voting record on the new hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation. He pointed out that they lobbied and got 25 Republicans to vote for the bill. Earlier in the talk, a member of the audience stated that the Democratic Party had done no more for the LGBT community than the Republicans had. Patrick used the vote as a huge victory for the Log Cabin Republicans; however, after looking up the complete voting record for the new hate crimes bill, 212 Democrats voted for the bill with only 14 opposed, while the Log Cabin Republicans were bragging about their meager 25 Yeas and 166 Nays. Also after doing a little research, I found out that the Democratic National Platform includes sexual orientation as protected from discrimination in and out of the workplace. Does the Republican National platform mention us? NO. All in all, I believe that the basic principle of Gay Republicans is a great stepping stone for the LGBT movement, but I would like to see the Log Cabins to be more forceful with their inclusion into the Republican Party.
One more example of the Democratic support in a red state like South Carolina happened at the election of the new Democratic Chair of the SC Democratic Party. Carol Fowler, in her acceptance speech, mentions that the Democratic Party is a party that believes in equality for Lesbian, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgenders. Then, at her victory party, she wore a "Gay Vote Button" proudly.

The "Gay Vote Button" at the SC Democratic Convention

2007-05-08T11:20:00.000-05:00

Friday April 27th, 2007 marked the annual SC Jefferson-Jackson Dinner and the Jim Clyburn Fish Fry. Along with my professor and another student, I wore a button reading "Gay Vote" in red, white, and blue. Armed with extras to distribute to advocates of our cause, we headed for the convention center. Upon arrival to the Columbia SC Convention Center, I stumbled upon Joe Biden (Senator Delaware) who gave me a firm handshake, a big smile, and the words "I'm with ya" while pointing to my button.
My professor has always been an advocate of being seen, and swears by the power of the "Gay Vote Button." Much to his credit, I immediately saw how well politicians and others who attended the convention responded to the button. After shaking hands with Biden, I walked over to the John Edwards Campaign. While Mr. Edwards chatted with reporters, I spoke with Mrs. Edwards. She mentioned the button and told us she was glad to see us at the convention. We conversed for a few minutes and made friends. I felt that she was a very heart warming person and could bring a great deal of compassion to her husband's campaign.
After spotting Bill Richardson preparing to make his entrance into the convention center, my professor and I swiftly caught up with him and his small entourage. I introduced myself to the governor of New Mexico and thanked him for his service thus far to the gay and lesbian community. My professor, Tom Chorlton, stepped up behind me and said "Mr. Governor, I would like for you to reconsider your position on gay marriage." Mr. Richardson said, "What about civil unions?" Mr. Chorlton then came back quickly saying "If Hispanic people were limited to civil unions you would never stand for it, equality is the only right thing." After Richardson gave a moment of silent reflection he stated "I'll consider it."
Tom Chorlton and I decided to base our questions on the ever so popular issue of gay marriage; figuring that that would be the issue that would hit closer to home on the campaign trail. Gay marriage is of course very important to us, but in my in my opnioin there are much more important issues facing the LGBT community, but gay marriage seemed our conversation piece.
While meeting many new people and just enjoying being around many other liberal people in a conservative state, I was amazed at the responses I was getting from my button. A woman at the Edwards campaign party noted that she once worked for the SC legislator and always did everything she could to prevent prohibition on gay adoption. She had a gay son who died from AIDS and was very thankful that someone was supporting his cause.
The three of us were separated at the banquet, but I quickly made friends with the six women who were sitting at my table. Two girls fresh from law school, one very outspoken but very sweet woman from Bluffington, a retired lobbiest from Washington, and two women from the Low Country.
As Obama and Dodd were coming and going from the banquet, I hurried to meet them and get a handshake. After the banquet, I headed over the the Jim Clyburn Fish Fry with my new friend from Washington. After having seen all the partying, I saw Joe Biden speaking with some of the party attendees. I quickly ran over to speak with him and get a picture. After Chorlton and I spoke with Biden he agreed to meet with us at a later date. Of the morning of the convention, the annual Progressive Caucus met at Damon's for a Progressive Caucus breakfast. The Progressive Caucus consisted of individuals in support of minorities such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Sexual Orientaions, ect. Bill Richardson was the only candidate who attended the breakfast, Chris Dodd's wife made an appearance, and Joe Biden's sister and campaign manager came.
For a general personal opinion about the candidates at the convention my list for who I like is:

1. Bill Richardson
2. Joe Biden
3. Dennis Kucinich
4. Hillary Clinton
5. Barak Obama
6. John Edwards

SC Hotels Anti-gay?

2007-04-09T20:02:00.000-05:00

After reading about the newly committed gay couple in Sumter being turned down from renting a room at Affordable Suites of America in Sumter, I started to wonder about the hotels in Charleston, Myrtle Beach, and Conway (my hometown). I began doing a personal investigation of the local lodging places to find out the general reaction to same-sex couples as customers.
I used the yellow pages in the phone book to find a complete listing of hotels/motels and started calling the reservation desks. I decided that my general question would be: "Do you (the hotel) rent rooms to same sex couples?" I thought this question was simple and to the point and would allow no room for half answers, but would allow for some slight changes in the reactions (based on friendliness, rudeness, and overall comfort with the situation). I also wrote down what each employee said verbatim for a record. I also wanted to test the differences of reactions from different demographics among the hotels (hotel rating and location). I considered my demographics ranging from 1 1/2 star hotels to 4 1/2 star hotels. My locations included North Charleston, Downtown Charleston, Mt. Pleasant, Myrtle Beach, Conway, and Sumter.
Although I did get some negative reactions from some hotels, I received all positive conclusions. When I asked the male employee at a Charleston hotel he said "haha...you're funny...can I put you on hold?" This was my most negative comment and person who replied. After being on hold for about five minutes, I was disconnected. After being disconnected, I called back being more forceful in my question I received an answer from the same voice saying "yeah...we don't have a problem with that."
With my results, my most common received answer was "why wouldn't we [rent rooms to same-sex couples?]" I was put on hold twice, and out of 27 hotels, i got 6 unfriendly answers. Surprisingly, I found that the higher rated hotels in Charleston were more negative, and the lower rated hotels in other areas were more negative. I found that the most positive responses came from North Charleston, and the most negative responses came from either Sumter or Downtown Charleston. To my surprise and delight, Conway was second best to North Charleston.
So are we in a state that gays are frequently not given rooms in hotels? No. Are we in a state where employees will be rude to gay customers? Yes. Are we in a state that employees will be friendly to gay customers? Yes. The most gay friendly hotel in my investigation? Comfort Inn Coliseum. The least gay friendly hotel in my investigation? Sleep Inn Mt Pleasant.

I hope everyone finds this information helpful and if you have any experiences with any hotels comment on this post. Also, if everyone would call the Comfort Inn Coliseum in North Charleston and thank them for their nondiscriminatory staff, I am sure they would appreciate it. Their number is 843-554-6485.

South Carolina Constitutionaly Anti-Gay

2007-03-25T22:36:00.000-05:00

This Thursday, South Carolina officially became Constitutionally Anti-gay. Although the constitutional amendment was approved in November, lawmakers officially added the amendment on Thursday to discriminate against same-sex couples, and their rights to find happiness and liberty in each other. According to the Washington Blade, four out of five South Carolina voters voted for the amendment. South Carolina, my home state, the place that I have given all of my life to enhance, make proud, and clean, you have just disappointed me with your ignorance and lack of compassion for fellow citizens of your state and country. Let me take this time to present to you a opposite but equal point of view, let me now show you what it is to be in the eyes of someone who is taught by their government not to love:

(The following is obviously a hypothetical situation because of its absurdity, well we thought so too)
The United States decides to take all money, heath insurance, homes, ability to travel, jobs, education, and the right to live from all South Carolinians. Most of the citizens of the States agree, even when not benefiting from the legislation, should remove any rights from the state of South Carolina because they are not as intelligent and incapable of being valued members of the country. The United States decides to go to a vote on the matter, already knowing the outcome but feeling it necessary to show proper protocol when discriminating against a diverse group of people. When the vote comes in, as planned, the vote is overwhelmingly in support of the destruction of South Carolina, just further allowing the country to spit in the face of South Carolinians. The people of South Carolina wonder how the people who were not effected by the legislation were able to vote on its outcome. They also wonder how it is fair that people were allowed to vote on their destruction at all. How would this make you feel, if you read this in the newspaper or on a blog assuming you knew it was non-fiction?

Please allow yourself to ponder this situation, and turn the perspective as if standing in front of a mirror, and know that you voted to discriminate against one of your own, one of the great, one of the underestimated, one of the headstrong South Carolinians. Please remember what you did.

Live 5 News Coverage on Blogs

2007-03-22T14:51:00.000-05:00

Today, March 22, Max Blachman and I were asked to talk about our blogs to Erin Colgan a Live 5 news reporter. She asked Max and me how we got started blogging and what influence does blogging have. Max, a senior political science major at the College of Charleston, told Erin that the influence of young political bloggers is increasing. Max writes his political blog, Democrats In the South, about current political events from the prospective of a Democrat in the heart of the south. My blog was also featured and Erin found it very interesting that I am a college freshman and write about LGBT politics where it is extremely controversial to do so. She asked me if I ever had any doubts or fears writing my blog, and I replied with informing her that even though there may be times where there is fear, I write because I want to let people know that there is a active LGBT community in the south. Make sure to watch the story on Live 5 News at 7pm on Monday, March 26th.

Just a short thought...

2007-03-16T08:24:00.000-05:00

One thing that will be very important during this next election and the years surrounding it are the changes in party politics. I think that the Democrats and Republicans are becoming far too moderate and if they continue, may as well merge. Knowing this will not be the case I believe that the platforms of the two main parties will be seeing some huge changes within these next few years. I also think that third parties will have a great deal to do with this, these third parties should be fighting hard this election to win support and votes for their issues to persuade the Democrats and Republicans to endorse the issue. Could there be an emergence of a new party? Could the lines of the Democrats and Republicans drastically change? I think so, and it should be fun to watch.

John McCain in Conway South Carolina

2007-03-15T12:55:00.000-05:00

I attended a Waccamaw Republican's Club meeting last Saturday where Senator John McCain was the speaker. I thought I would just share a few things that he said with everyone. First of all, when talking about his position about the war in Iraq he stated that "we will never surrender, they will," that is if he becomes President. He also talked about how he approved of the "new strategy" in Iraq from our new general. He also took the opportunity to bash the Democrats in Congress by saying that they didn't support the troops and knew this because of the non-binding resolution that the Democrats presented. He said that because the Democrats didn't support the mission they didn't support the troops. This was followed by a boisterous applause by the audience. I didn't feel as though it was applause worthy at all. During a question and answer period Senator McCain was asked about his contrast with Rudy Giulliani on the issue of the social agenda. McCain replied that one must view his "conservative record" on all issues "social and fiscal" and that he would stay the same. He immediately changed the subject while in the presence of this ultra-conservative audience. Another person expressed his concern with environmental policy and asked McCain what would he do to improve the environment. McCain responded by saying "I do believe in climate change, but I don't think America should alter its economy" due to the change. Does this sound environmentally friendly? I will give him credit for talking about implementing more nuclear power such as the Savannah River Site in SC, but as for everything else I was left unimpressed.

After the speech, I disguised myself as a Republican (as painful for me as it would be for you) and asked McCain to take a picture with me for my goal to meet every major candidate.

I then met Henry McMaster, the SC Attorney General. Let's just say I enjoyed Mr. McMaster more than Mr. McCain.

Is Hillary Taking Us Under Her Wing?

2007-03-07T22:48:00.000-05:00

Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first to speak out about gay rights, but should we fall down and start bowing to her feet just yet? In Hillary's speech to the Human Rights Campaign's board members, she mentioned many issues that she supports or doesn't support to show her ability to show her excessive support for the gay rights movement; however after watching the speech over and over I began to wonder if she was sincere. From my possibly over critical eye of public speaking I noticed that Senator Clinton read off the names of her "colleges" in the Human Rights Campaign that she worked with when trying to defeat gay opposition. Clinton did state a very progressive statement at the beginning of her speech:

"Most of all I want to thank all of you. I want to thank you for how every day, you stand up for the basic principle that our country is really anchored on, that we are all created equal, and that we are each endowed with certain inalienable rights and that we should all have the opportunity to live up to our God given potential."

Clinton also noted that the gay rights movement is “a job [we] didn’t ask for” therefore assuring the Human Rights Campaign and the gay community as a whole that she believes that being gay is hereditary. This may seem minor but having this belief will make sure the beholder must believe because gays are born gay they should have equal rights, without any exceptions. Other things that Clinton said that surprised me in a good way were her statements about the things she supported such as gay couple adoption (which tends to be the last thing candidates support even after marriage), ENDA (Employment Non-discrimination Act), and the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy (which oddly enough was endorsed by none other than William Jefferson). She also stated that she is going to “change laws, and change hearts” in Congress. I loved this quote because of her influence in Congress that she currently possesses.

On the other hand, when she talked about achievements done by the HRC, she only mentioned putting Democrats into power in the Senate and House. I would have liked to hear about the other many fights gay political people have overcome besides the defeat of the Republicans. Even though she is a different politician with different ideals than her husband, one can’t help but to laugh at the irony of Hillary saying there should be an end to the FMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and supporting ENDA. Mrs. Clinton didn’t seem to educate Mr. Clinton about the gay rights movement when it comes to FMA, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and ENDA. I think Hillary is going to have to take responsibility for some of the contradictions between her and her beloved husband, even though I do realize the separation of views in married couples.

Clinton's Full Speech to the Human Rights Campaign can be viewed here:

Military Sodomy?

2007-02-22T23:11:00.000-05:00

The Washington Blade, a LGBT political newspaper, recently released a story about an Air Force Officer being accused of rape. The "problem" is that he is accused of raping men. What surprises me is that he can't decide to come out and give a defense to his rape and risk being discharged from the military, or taking his chances with rape and staying in the military. Reasons why the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy is wrong and immoral? Where did this policy come from and who could have not realized it's implications? You think it must have been Reagan or one of the Bush's; however, it was the great William Clinton. Yes although Bill promised the LGBT community the world, he gave them the proverbial closet instead. The military policy is my top priority when it comes to LGBT rights and the first thing that needs to be fixed. When I look for a President, he or she must show me that he or she will be doing something to reverse the military policy to get my vote. I would like to know what topic concerns you the most in the next election? What are you looking for in a President?

Has Something Changed?

2007-02-21T23:34:00.000-05:00

While reading LGBT newspapers and magazines I have noticed something that resembles a growing trend of states considering new gay marriage/civil union policies. Although 26 states have State Constitutional amendments some states are beginning to see LGBT point of view. Wyoming, Rhode Island, and New Jersey have taken strides that are consistent with pro non discrimination to sexual orientation. New Jersey became one of few states allowing civil unions between same sex marriage. Rhode Island has proposed to recognize the marriages from Massachusetts. Wyoming has discussed being pro gay marriage this week. Why the sudden outburst of pro gay states this week? Despite the loss of one of the founders of the Daughters of Bilitus, the first official Lesbian organization, the LGBT movement as obviously seen great strides this week. I can only imagine and hope that this is from the influx of political lobbying and change of thinking from conservative politicians, but realisticly I assume the time spent here is a distraction from the war in Iraq. Hopefully this trend will continue throughout, well, forever but this should only act as encouragement for members of the LGBT community and supports to continue fighting and rallying. Wear your "gay vote" button or your HRC t-shirt! Stand out and ask tough questions to the new political candidates. Write letters and discuss how you can get involved! Go out and be gay and be good!

Who Will Speak First?

2007-02-19T23:04:00.000-05:00

As presidential candidates begin to make their moves on the White House, members of the LGBT community are waiting to see who will bring it up first? Who will show the first sign of support for LGBT folks? Dennis Kucinich, the U.S. representative from Ohio, is the only presidential candidate who is in full support of all issues gay. Kucinich is the only candidate supportive of gay marriage. The problem is the very question you are thinking: “Who is Dennis Kucinich?” Kucinich has no name recognition and absolutely no way to fund a 20 month campaign for the Presidency. So we members of the LGBT community must find support from another candidate. It seems as though that support will obviously not come from Sam Brownback, Mitt Romney, or John McCain. What about the republican forerunner, Rudy Giulliani? As of February 14^th, Giulliani was ahead of McCain by 40% to 24%, according to the Gallup Poles. Giulliani supports civil unions but not gay marriage. Could this be a possibly be a gay friendly Republican? These words are almost never placed into a sentence together and are somehow making an appearance in the early stages of the 2008 campaign. Is gay marriage the only issue concerning LGBT politics? Of course not! It would be catastrophic if the LGBT community only cared for gay marriage. Other issues such as the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, AIDS, and HIV immigration are major issues concerning the LGBT community and not limited to these. So as we begin our long journey of deciphering political campaigning, false campaign promises, and political symbolism, we should keep in mind who will be strong enough to speak first in support of the Gay Rights movement: this could be our man, or woman.