The Camilo Post

I really don't think I can explain the effect of the death of Michael Jackson on me in 140 lame Twitter words or less. Nor did I want to post 20 different posts to say this. So I need to write more.

I have not cried, don't think I will, it's not like that for me. The feeling of loss, the sense of a changing of time does hit me. It is indeed the end of an era, the turning of a page in the music world. When I was 11 years old, on August 16, 1977, grown women cried and everyone said The King was dead. I did not understand what the big deal was about this guy named Elvis Presley dying. I was already into Earth Wind, and Fire, The Bee Gees, The Eagles, and The Jackson 5. Who was this Elvis guy? But it was huge. And now I understand the impact, nearly 32 years later, another King is Dead.

The King of Pop. The Jackson 5, The Jacksons and Michael Jackson were soundtracks to my life. The Jackson 5 to my childhood. The Jackson's “Destiny” and Michael Jackson's “Off the Wall” album were ones I played endlessly when I was 12, 13 years old. These were my songs. This was my music. Music then, as it is now, was a huge part of my life.

Then, “Thriller” came out. I was in high school, already getting into new wave and kind of not as interested in Michael Jackson, especially with the first single, “The Girl Is Mine” with Paul McCartney. Then came “Billie Jean” and “Beat It”, and I could not deny

Click to read more ...

(parts are taken from Hank's Ramblings found here)

Yes, The DOJ recently compared homosexuality to incest and fuc& them for that. However, the DOJ is NOT Obama. Obama’s position on gay marriage has been consistent: On the federal level, against full marriage - for civil unions; Repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and leave the states free to extend marriage rights if they so choose. It’s exactly the same position, by the way, that Hillary Clinton took, except she only called for the repeal of Section 3 of DOMA. The fact is, there’s very little a President can do on this issue. On the Federal level, the issue is entrenched. Even if Obama were in favor of full marriage equality, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party would not be enough to carry such a bill – and the 3/4 of states required would never ratify it. As the President has no jurisdiction over state initiatives, states will continue to do as they please, and the gay community must focus their marriage in state-by-state battles. The war over same-sex marriage will be won or lost in the Supreme Court.

Did you know that Obama's Administration has “four broad legislative goals,” on LGBT rights which include the extension of “hate crimes” to include those against gay and transgendered individuals, securing the passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, and repealing DOMA.

“The pledge and the promise is that, this will be done before the sun sets on this administration,” vowed Berry. “Our goal is to have this entire agenda accomplished and enacted into law so that it is secure.”

Most people aren't aware of this because the anti-Obama activist queer media won't print it. The Catholics will though.

Rushed legislation is easily overturned. Be patient, and you will have lasting, permanent, and almost impossible to overturn change. Trust me on this. For something as complicated and tough to push through as the LGBT agenda, 5 months is not long enough to make the irreversible changes that need to be made and to have the buy in of all the necessary players. Obama even changed Army Commanders to one who is cool with the over turn of DADT.

It's all coordinated, calm, and planned, unlike the emotional, rash, demanding people who should be mad at their fellow Californians and not the POTUS. Focus your anger correctly. Obama was never a gay marriage knight in shining armor and never said he would be. He is still on track to deliver all he said he would. Yes, 5 months is too quick to judge on something as complex as the LGBT agenda.

Queer activists are not even beginning to choose to comprehend how Washington works. If you know history, we got DADT because Clinton gave into activist queers about gays in the military and DADT was actually a fucked up consolation. Do you want another fucked up consolation because you won't be patient?

We will be victorious. I'd bet my 401k on it.

The State Supreme Court of California made a very plain ruling in May 2008 initially when it gave gays the right to marry. It's a travesty of California's ballot initiative process that the people were then able to vote away the rights the Supreme Court had awarded them.

This court was not activist, mostly all Republican and not inclined to rock the boat, but they did vote what they saw was the way the law was.

Today's decision was destined to happen because it was a weak case, the whole revision thing. Everyone involved should have gotten together and made the case a compelling one about the constitutionality of Prop 8, and maybe then we would have had a chance at winning instead of this lame argument of revision versus amendment. 

This battle may have been lost, but the war is not over.

With many protests and rallies planned for today and the weekend, I thought I'd share this from OneStruggleOneFight.com, I tend to agree with it quite a bit:

Why Civil Disobedience?

There are no more elegant defenses of civil disobedience than King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, a letter written in response to white clergymen asking King and the Civil Rights Movement to wait and be patient for their hopes to be realized.

In his eloquent rebuttal, he wrote of the impossibility of such patience, when "'Wait' has almost always meant 'Never'" and that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." Civil disobedience, he explains, is a way of bringing about that justice by "creat[ing] such a crisis and foster[ing] such a tension...[that] it can no longer be ignored."

The long history of discrimination against LGBTQ people, a history that promotes gay bashing, bullying, suicide, and lives of shame and desperation, has made civil disobedience a fact of our existence. In countries and societies that outlaw homosexuality, simply living day to day is an act of civil disobedience. In the United States, the same applies to any LGBTQ person who seeks to join the military, provide benefits for a partner, wed, or donate blood. And until the Supreme Court intervened in 2003, homosexual sex was an illegal, jailable offense. To this day it is legal to be fired, denied housing, ousted from committees and political office, and denied the right to adopt children simply because of who we are.

In the midst of such a struggle, it is time to act. There are calls for patience and separate institutions while our right to live lives of dignity and equality is further diminished with every popular election. The failure of many, though not all, communities, states, and the federal government to recognize the civil rights of LGBTQ people calls for an outcry loud enough to have our voices heard and our needs made manifest.

OK so breaking news all over the queer blogosphere last week - Obama is backpedalling on LGBT Equal rights!! Why? Because the section on the White House website has been reduced to a few lines instead of paragraphs! "Oh no he's turning his back on" "us he just wanted our vote" "whine whine bitch moan".

Please seriously shut the f&*k up already you screaming drama queens. We've got one of the worst recessions in the history of the country, millions unemployed and uninsured, auto industry and financial sector in shambles, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention trouble on the border with Mexico and their drug violence, and the man has been in office 100 days and you're already bitching? You are upset that he said "one sentence" about the Hate Crimes act passing. What did you want in the middle of a Swine Flu pandemic, a one hour speech? HELLO, the LGBT adenda, in the midst of all the other turmoil the Nation is in right now, is at about the right place on his list of priorities. Get you head out of your ass and keep watching. And I'd really bite my tongue until there is proof that there has been some change of LGBT equal rights policy from Obama, as I am not expecting to see any. I expect him to deliver. It's far too early to say he will abandon his promises. 

Even about Don't Ask Don't Tell. 

Which is the latest hot button issue. "He won't DO anything!" they whine.

Wrong screaming bitches! He says he will. But he wants to do it with Congressional action. That takes time. Again, changing this nearly 25 year old policy will not happen overnight. Not if we want it done in a a permanent, lasting way that will not be able to be stricken down the next time a right wing President takes office.

There is one thing I know about Obama - he's a Constitutional scholar, he does things in a way that will not be able to be stricken down, that have concrete legal standing. 

It's been what, 114 days into his Presidency...I've never seen such demanding people in my life. It's kind of like the people who want a crash diet, their instantaneous results, only to have it all come back later. Maybe Obama could do something quickly about this, but if it is not well thought out, it could be repealed or overturned. Do you want immediate change, or lasting change?

This is reprinted from a bulletin post from The Project Economic Refugee:

If an immigrant commmits a crime... it's all over the news. But if an immigrant does something positive (which is far more likely) or if the immigrant did nothing wrong but is nevertheless in deportation proceedings and is a mother or father of a U.S. soldier fighting in Iraq, why is that NOT being reported (specially on Lou Dobbs or Bill O'Reilly's Show)? Or how about the stories of families being torn apart because one family member that did nothing wrong except escape hunger and/or violence but is still is being deported? hmmmmm.....

"Separating Fact From Fiction About Immigrants and Crime"

Posted by Walter Ewing, Immigration Policy Center at 2:55 PM on January 12, 2009.


Harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime because the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.


Originally appeared on: http://www. alternet. org/blogs/immigration/119276/
Subscribe to their e-newsletter! Go to:
http://www. alternet. org/newsletter/subscribe and select the "immigration" box.


The perennially hot, and inflammatory, question of whether or not immigration is related to crime has yielded front-page stories in both the Washington Post and New York Times over the past two days. In different ways, each of these stories highlights the extent to which the myth of a supposed link between crime and immigration has long been based on emotion rather than fact. Although study upon study over the past century has demonstrated that immigration is not associated with more crime, the "myth of immigrant criminality" persists.


On Sunday, the Washington Post ran a story about how two high-profile murders recently committed by undocumented immigrants in Maryland's Montgomery County, together with a rising number of "serious crimes" in the county, have provoked fear among officials and residents, prompting new proposals to have police officers check the immigration status of suspects in violent crimes. However, as the story points out, police do not know how much of the recent rise in serious crimes, "if any, is attributable to illegal immigrants." Yet, to many people, the lack of evidence in this regard is irrelevant. As a defense attorney quoted in the story points out: "You're talking about the fear that crime evokes.

"

In a different vein, the New York Times today ran a story on the rising number of federal prosecutions for immigration offenses [as opposed to actual violent crimes], which the Department of Justice ostensibly has pursued with increased vigor as part of the government's broader counterterrorism strategy. But, the story notes, while immigration prosecutions have skyrocketed over the past five years, "white-collar prosecutions have fallen by 18 percent, weapons prosecutions have dropped by 19 percent, organized crime prosecutions are down by 20 percent and public corruption prosecutions have dropped by 14 percent." One might question the wisdom of devoting more and more resources to the prosecution of undocumented immigrants for "illegal entry" at the expense of, say, arms traffickers who actually do have an adverse impact on public safety.


As the Brookings Institution concluded in a report (http://www. brookings. edu/events/2008/0925_media_immigration. aspx) last September, "when immigration is associated with crime, crisis or controversy, it makes news." But anecdote is not a substitute for fact, especially when it comes to public policy. Numerous national and state-level studies (http://www. immigrationpolicy. org/images/File/factcheck/SettingtheRecordStraightonImmigrantsandCrime9-10-08. pdf) over the past hundred years have found immigrants are less likely than the native-born to commit crimes or be in prison, and high rates of immigration are not associated with higher crime rates. Harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime because the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.