Tuesday, November 23, 2004

November 23, 2004 PERMALINK
Minority Rules
(posted Nov. 22 11:45 PM ET)

Perhaps the most stunning part of the intel reform debacle is that the Speaker of the House admitted he had the votes to pass it.

Just not enough GOP votes to avoid making the Dems look good.

From the NY Times:

[Speaker Dennis] Hastert did not want to split his caucus and did not want the bill to pass with less than "a majority of the majority," said his spokesman, John Feehery.

"What good is it to pass something," Mr. Feehery said, "where most of our members don't like it?"

Well, there is a little thing called "the public good."

But that requires putting governing ahead of politics.

And that's not how the GOP got to where it is, so why start now?

Of course, saying the bill doesn't have support of the "majority of the majority" is a fancy, self-serving way to say a loud minority is opposed.

And that when a loud minority is opposed, it's important to wait -- as Senate Majority Leader Frist said -- until we "get it right".

Hmm. Does Frist apply the same logic to, say, judicial nominations?

Not exactly. As he said on CBS' Face The Nation this Sunday:

...let's take a nominee from the president, who has majority support in the Senate, and let's deny senators the opportunity to vote. It's wrong.

Any attempt to claim simple majority rule is a consistent principle of the GOP is now shot to hell.

So when the GOP tries to use it later, it should be quickly shoved down their throat.

We all know the Framers wanted the minority to have rights, to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

The question for the public to judge, both with today's intelligence reform and tomorrow's judges, is not if the minority has a right to object. Of course they do.

Instead the question is, what is the quality of the minority's objections?

Is the Pentagon's loss of turf, and lack of unrelated provisions on undocumented immigrant workers enough to warrant delay on the intelligence reform the 9/11 Commission says is "essential"?

And should the Senate roll over for activist right-wing judges who want to turn the clock back on equal rights, labor protections and environmental protections?

Media largely ignored Rep. Istook's inconsistency on tax provision

Many major media outlets merely reported Representative Ernest Istook's (R-OK) November 22 revelation that he "didn't write," "didn't approve," and "wasn't even consulted" about a controversial provision inserted into a $388 billion omnibus spending bill that would have allowed lawmakers to examine the tax returns of private citizens -- failing to note that just the day before, Istook had defended the provision and made no attempt to deny responsibility for it.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) called the provision the "Istook Amendment" on November 20, and on November 21 the Associated Press reported that "congressional aides said it had been inserted at the request of Rep. Ernest J. Istook Jr." Also on November 21, CNN.com reported that Istook -- "the Oklahoma Republican whose subcommittee was responsible for the provision" -- defended the provision, saying that it had been misrepresented, that "[n]obody's privacy was ever jeopardized," and that the language was meant to "include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers, but not inspecting tax returns."

It wasn't until November 22 that Istook took steps to distance himself from the provision, releasing a statement in which he claimed to have "had nothing to do with inserting this language. ... My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed."

Yet despite this inconsistency, most subsequent media reports accepted at face value Istook's denial of responsibility for the provision. A November 23 article in The Washington Post presented Istook's most recent assertions that he was "bypassed" and knew nothing about the provision without any mention of his defense of the provision the day before:

Micah Leydorf, Istook's spokeswoman, said she understood the language was added by the full Appropriations Committee staff or by Istook's subcommittee staff at the direction of staffers for the full committee. "We have a problem with how bills like this are put together," Istook acknowledged. "The subcommittee chairman should never be bypassed like I was in this case."

The Post's report was reprinted in several media outlets on November 23, including The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, and MSNBC.com.

Similarly, the Houston Chronicle and USA Today simply reported Istook's November 22 denial without noting his inconsistency.

The New York Times -- in a November 23 article criticized by Media Matters for America for other reasons -- was an exception in this regard. Reporter David E. Rosenbaum noted Istook's change in position.

What you won't learn about the "Istook amendment" from The New York Times

In a November 22 New York Times article titled "G.O.P. Says Motive for Tax Clause in Budget Bill Was Misread" -- about a provision inserted into a $388 billion omnibus spending bill that would allow the chairmen of the House and Senate appropriations committees to view federal tax returns -- reporter David E. Rosenbaum failed to verify claims made by people he quoted and omitted key pieces of information relevant to the story, including the exact language of the clause in question. While Rosenbaum filled in some additional details in a follow-up article on the subject published on November 23, he ignored contradictions between the two stories and failed to point out that an unverified claim made by a Republican committee staff member he quoted the previous day was, in fact, false.

Media Matters for America has compiled a list of key points a reader will not pick up from the Times' coverage of this subject:

-- That the language of the provision conflicts directly with what Republicans say was intended

While Rosenbaum correctly reported in his November 22 article that a provision was inserted into the budget bill (H.R. 4818) recently passed by the House and Senate that would explicitly authorize the chairmen of the House or Senate appropriations committees to inspect individual tax returns, he reported without rebuttal: "Republican leaders said that their motives had been misread and that there was never any intention to invade the privacy of taxpayers."

Rosenbaum quoted Representative Ernest Istook Jr. (R-OK) as saying that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized" by the provision and reported that, according to House Appropriations Committee spokesman John D. Scofield, "the only purpose was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices" in order to "examine how the money was being spent." While only those members and staffers responsible for the provision can truly know their own intent, the language of the provision, which Rosenbaum did not quote in the article, flatly conflicts with Istook's and Scofield's claims. The provision clearly authorizes not just access to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) facilities, but also to any and all information contained within, including tax returns.

Here is the text of the provision:

Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein.

In the follow-up November 23 article, Rosenbaum did include the relevant language from the provision but still neglected to tell his readers that this language was in conflict with the claims Istook and the committee staff made the previous day.

-- That a GOP staffer falsely suggested that members of Congress were notified of the provision's impact

On November 22, Rosenbaum passed along a claim by Scofield that senators should not have been surprised by the existence of this provision because Representative C.W. Bill Young (R-FL), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, had previously spoken "briefly" about the provision on the House floor. Rosenbaum did not verify either that Young had actually spoken about the provision on the floor or, if he did, that he had accurately characterized it. In fact, Young had spoken about the provision. Young's comments were made in an exchange with Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA), on the floor of the House.

But while Rosenbaum did verify in the November 23 article that Young had spoken about the provision on the House floor, he failed to point out that Scofield's defense was misleading. Scofield falsely suggested that Young's floor statement had put members on notice about the provision. In fact, while Young did talk about the provision, he mischaracterized it, wrongly asserting that Thomas was "correct" in his understanding that the provision did not allow for the examination of "individual tax returns, data or information."

-- Whether GOP senators who expressed outrage over the provision attempted to confirm that the bill contained no other objectionable provisions before they voted for it

Rosenbaum quoted Senators Bill Frist (R-TN), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) Ted Stevens (R-AK), and John McCain (R-AZ), expressing disapproval of the provision's insertion into the spending bill, which came to light only after it was discovered by the staff of Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), as the Associated Press reported. Hutchison noted that "[s]omething happened clearly in the dark of night."

Rosenbaum did not indicate whether he had asked Frist, Hutchison or Stevens -- all of whom voted for the final bill -- or their staff if they were satisfied that no other objectionable provisions had been inserted into the bill without their knowledge. (According to an article in the November 21 New York Times, the Senate went forward with the final vote after obtaining a commitment from House leaders that they would join the Senate in passing a resolution to strip the provision from the bill before it went to President George W. Bush for his signature). And Rosenbaum certainly did not note what is widely recognized as the far broader problem -- congressional leaders give members little or no time to read legislation before voting on it. According to the Associated Press, Conrad described the problem as "the recent trend in Congress not to pass spending bills by the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year and then have to combine unpassed bills into giant omnibus packages before Congress adjourns for the year." The AP quoted Conrad saying that "'there is no earthly way' for lawmakers and their staffs to learn what's in these bills in the few hours they have to inspect them before the vote. 'What else is in this stack of paper that people don't know about?' [he] asked."

-- Who was responsible for writing the provision and for inserting it into the bill

On November 22, Rosenbaum asserted that Istook "was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision." But on November 23, he reported that Istook denied responsibility. While Rosenbaum does note that Istook's later denial is inconsistent with his previous statements regarding the provision, Rosenbaum did not acknowledge in the later story that he had himself been inconsistent in reporting responsibility for the amendment.

I've been hesitant to blog recently, because I only like writing when I have something to say, and my ability to say something comes from a sense of optimism. I like to hope, I like to believe, and I want improvement and a better conversation. It's what I care about, who I am, who a lot of us are. I lost that, not because of the election, but because of the resigned reaction of the left to the election.

My first sense of genuine disappointment occurred prior to Kerry's loss. It happened as the ABB movement picked up steam, and pointing out deep structural failures in liberalism became impossible and even treasonous in a white hot electoral season. As the bloggerati became irrelevant in the glare of the final days, and organizing that we could not do took over, people sat, fidgeted, and bitched at each other online to get offline and 'do something', echoing the Ashcroftian idea that dissent is unpatriotic, only this time asking me not to dissent against Kerry, a man who refused to stake out a coherent set of ideals to run on, and did so in my name and the name of my party. I realized that the left and the right were each agitating for a screamocracy, not a sense of civic virtue, and not a sense of collective betterment. While the left and the right each approached politics from a similar mindset, the left's newfound immature populism has had less time to germinate, and wore shabby clothing compared to the right's well-articulated critique of modernity and growth.

The loss, and the coming loss of civility in the Senate, dashed my hopes of a pragmatic stoppage of the reactionary agenda. This is not a conservative country - Kerry ran a horrible campaign, and still received 48% of the vote. But it is a country whose ability to pick leadership at all levels is in utter shambles. The depth of the loss brought that home. Democrats are in the opposition, which is tremendously freeing in that irrelevancy allows us to ditch all the special interests who have sank their teeth into our necks. They must go elsewhere, or they perish. But we have not ditched the mindset of corrupt governance, though we are starting to, and the special interests still carry huge weight in our side of the aisle. This is remarkably unnecessary, but it is so.

I cared about Kerry's election for one reason - I didn't want the American people to ratify torture. But we did. So the loss was awful, but I never expected 'everything to be alright' even if Kerry had won. Still, the reaction to what happened was incredibly discouraging. Democrats have still not figured out, and apparently will not figure out, how to act like an opposition. Gonzales, Goss, Rice - they went or they are going through easily, and we still insist on handing the ammunition to our enemies in the name of a reasonably genteel post-war political order that no longer exists. I'm not sure why this is, though I suspect that momentum is an enormously powerful foe. As our country seems to be on the gradual path to police state-light, I worry about a currency crisis and the impact of our irresponsible choices precipitating a crisis that our political leadership can seize to complete the job.

And yet, it's not about all that. It's about people. It's about what kind of citizenry we want to be. The right-wing has a critique that is enormously powerful, but we have something better. In their religiously corrupt idealism, they see man as a malleable creature from whom evil can be eliminated by moral suasion, and failing that, force. Their vision is not racist, or evil, or ignorant, or immoral - it is medieval-modern. It is the answer to a populace confronting forces of globalization, cultural pollution, media-induced linguistic changes, new diseases, new lifestyles, and a new economy. Purge yourself, and police others. It's the transformation of an American citizen into an American subject, an addict to the idea of a wrathful, judgmental God who delegates his powers to anyone who can fundraise, bully or obey. All their infrastructure, infrastructure dedicated to effecting a constitutional reordering away from a liberal democracy, is based on this assumption of man's capacity to change and be changed into a rigid creature.

Our assumption too is that man can change. Unlike their brittle eyesight, which paradoxically asks man to be flexible enough to be changed into a rigid soldier of God (kind of like MagicShell), our eyes see the goodness of humanity and what we might be. This is not wide-eyed, but hard hearted. Man can be good, and a failure to countenance that brings a cynicism and rudderlessness best left for boarding school and theocracy. By contrast, our vision of mankind offers space, upwards, outwards, inwards. It is the vision of the frontier, of the internet, of NASA - we are the dreamers, the ones who know what man can do if asked, rather than coerced. While liberalism is in shambles, and our country will not remain the hegemon for long, Rome cannot really die. Ours is a rolling revolution, across Europe, East Asia, China - we created the tools that allow citizens to take space and make it their own, and though it may not happen in America, what will be modern greatness has come from our greatness, just as we took from the ancients to build our awful paradise of ideas.

Striving to be a good citizen is our duty, and I believe we will break the addiction self-righteous corruption has on many of us. We will figure out how to build a world in which we can mate, look at each other in wonder and awe, pray, eat, express ourselves and love. It will not be easy. It will take a great deal of time and effort, and some of us will not live to see the trends that Dean signified take firm root in our fertile American political soil, just as many Iraqis die today because of our invitation to people we like to cross the Rubicon. But the right-wing is fundamentally a weak historical movement, because the constitutional impasse takes ten years to really acknowledge as real. Americans have decided that everything is basically ok, and don't want to rock the boat. The right knows this, that they cannot legitimately change the constitution, so they put airy rhetoric to the test and claim a mandate to slip in a reversion to Medieval times in the backdoor. It is wrong, but it comes because we have not led. When we do, and when Americans are ready to put their minds to genuine constitutional change, the right will fall, as the Confederacy did before them.

And so for that, I am optimistic. I see the potential for leadership once again, dim for sure, but extant. We have the hunger, we are asking the right questions, and conversations accelerate so aggressively that when the right constitutive balance is struck in any one state or set of institutions, it will spread. Finally, we can redeem our country. We are living in a world where America the nation-state cannot be trusted, but that a new global covenant built on a connective spirit can speak to our common humanity. Our current government is no longer legitimate, perhaps, but the people are still sovereign.

Stop Relying On The Party (Or, How We Can Win)

Submitted by Oliver Willis on Tue, 11/23/2004 - 9:52am.
Brand Democrat | Democrats

Republicans are supposed to the be the political affiliation obsessed with a top-down hierarchy that forces them to wait for commands from headquarters before they act. Increasingly, I'm finding that to be true with the Dems.

As this Brand Democrat deal has ramped up - way more than I ever expected - I keep hearing from the odd person or two that I should take this to the DNC or Dean or Other Important Democrat. Why?

I'd be thrilled if the official Democratic Party adopted some of the ideas we've presented or if President Clinton called me up tomorrow, but that's beside the point.

Stop waiting for the party to fix things, because that's not going to happen. Yes, they have a lot of power, but they are nothing without us, their constituency. When the GOP was the party essentially lost in the wilderness, post-Goldwater, Republicans didn't sit around waiting for the RNC to craft a strategy for them. They went ahead and did it anyway. Some of the things worked, some of them didn't. The things that worked caught on, and were integrated into the party message and ideology - this is the opportunity we have now.

I certainly didn't want to lose the election, but I have noticed before that the Dems (including myself) think a long-term plan is a four year strategy. What we are just now seeming to understand is that it often takes a candidate of Clinton's style to overcome the structural problems inherit in running against the GOP machine and a media that is willing to just be stenographers.

In other words, simply appealing to the good sense of the American people is a loser strategy. Relying on the party to figure this out is even more of a loser. We've got to do it.

We have to get marketing. Get the moans and groans out now, because this is how you win, and I don't wanna hear it.

• Brand Democrat: A cohesive set of principles that define the party in the minds of America. Even Democrats don't "get" the Democratic stance, because we've been doing this ad hoc. It's not talking about health care in Michigan or jobs in Boise. It's having a set of commandments, as it were, for what every Democrat coast to coast can identify as his bedrock. This will always vary depending on the politician. A Democrat in Oklahoma is almost always going to see the world differently from a Democrat in New Jersey. The principles of the party will be the narrative threads that unite them.
• Getting the Message Out: Jerome has hit on something here with how Meetups and the like can get many of us on the same page. It isn't about getting everyone in your neighborhood to a Meetup. That's never going to happen, and it shouldn't happen. The people who sign up for a Meetup are most likely going to be connector types, influentials. If you're the one in your network of friends/family who tends to evangelize things ("You should really get a Tivo", "Have you tried that new Vanilla Coke"), then that's you (among my friends/family, this tends to be me). We should look at Meetups and other online components as a way to get the Democratic ideals out to the folks that can get the word out to their less involved/active friends and family. This doesn't mean hitting them over the head with a bunch of political nonsense. It means getting a message out into the world coming from a trusted source. People are a lot more likely to see the relative merit in an idea gleaned from "my friend who knows about politics" than 1,000 commercials on television.
• Plugging in the Candidate: Only then does the party's role become integral to the success. Once you've got a bedrock set of "what is a Democrat" ideas succesfully out there, its time to throw in a candidate who can put the philosophy into reality. This is not just a presidential candidate. A political movement goes nowhere without a candidate, but a candidate is not a political movement. The idea is, if you can plug in an articulate person that is able to tell you that they are a Democrat, you're halfway to the endzone already. What their job is now is to tell you what their personal take is on being a Democrat, and pound the ball into the end zone. They are part of the greater narrative tale.

We can make it so that their job is fixing the country, and not a party.

"To those who say the struggle for marriage equality has been 'Too much, too fast, too soon,'" the assemblyman said, "we say 'Enough!'

"Enough of Democratic leaders buying into Karl Rove's cynical, handcrafted game plan. By doing so they are increasing the store and stock of homophobia in this country. Homophobia is on the rise; even in California, 91 percent of college students report hearing slurs about sexual identity on campus. ... Don't think that homophobia isn't impactful. Each of us is responsible for our own actions, but homophobia is connected to the rise in HIV. When you have a community disparaged and labeled by the nation as inferior, not worthy of equality, self-destructive behavior in the young of that community results. And half the new HIV infections are among those 25 years of age and younger.

"I will not let the gay, lesbian, bi, transgender community become the whipping child for America.

"I will not let Rove and those Democratic leaders who buy into his phobic talk scapegoat us -- and scapegoat leaders like Gavin Newsom, Ted Kennedy and Phil Angelides, who stand up for equality -- and blame us for what's wrong in the nation and for what went wrong for the Democrats in the election."

Leno puts it neatly when he puts it personally: "I am a gay man, worthy of election to public office. I am able to preside over and legalize the marriages of heterosexual couples, but there's something about me that the state has defined, which prohibits me from marrying my most intimate and committed partner? There's a huge flaw in the law and that's how the debate must be framed. Are some law-abiding, taxpaying Americans inferior because of the way they love and choose to form families?"

by maddrailin
Tue Nov 23rd, 2004 at 04:30:38 PST

This is something I have personally never seen discussed in the gay marriage debate, but it is the fundamental reason why gay marriage should be legal and it completely wipes out the arguments against gay marriage.

Diaries :: maddrailin's diary ::

I am not posting this for pity or pats on the back or congratulatory comments for what I've lived through - I am posting it for the lonely and desperate fourteen year old out there, who needs their parent to understand right now. This might be what your child, brother, sister, nephew or niece is living through at this very moment.

You may be saying to yourself - "ridiculous" - but trust me - we learn to hide it very early on. I had girlfriends all the way through high school - no one had an inkling. So without further ado....

Marriage has a built in support structure that has been there through the ages.

Everyone, both gay and straight, are bombarded with the wonders of marriage day in and day out no matter who you are or where you live.

You have wedding announcements in the papers.

You have engagement parties.

Relatives come from all over the country, if not the world, to see your marriage take place and they celebrate, as they should.

There are entire television shows devoted to celebrating the wonders of marriage.  

Movies are based completely around a
woman finally getting her man to the alter, or vice versa, and the happy ending when they finally kiss at the alter.

There are traditions such as the father paying for the daughters wedding - the throwing of the bouquet - the first dance as a married couple - removing the garter - and dozens more that I won't mention.

I mean jeeze - you can even get a congragulatory letter from the white house signed by the president when you are married.  

To sum it up there is a real support structure built around marriage from your family to your local church and businesses to your town government, state government and finally the federal government.

In contrast - gays and lesbians have no such support structure unless they seek it out and build it themselves and even then it can be torturous.

You may lose family members and friends in the process.  

Here in vermont - even after the civil union bill was passed there were town clerks who refused to give out these licenses.   Can you understand how embarrasing a situation like that can be?

You have to seek out gay friendly places to have your civil union - and even when you do you still feel nervous and out of place.

If you are religious you have to locate a gay friendly church, unless you choose to hide who you are.

You don't know how any one person might react to your being gay and your consideration of entering into a civil union.  You might tell an associate and they could have any reaction - be excited - be angry - or even become violent.

Everything in considering a civil union becomes a chore - the wedding cake - the rings - who to invite - where to rent the clothing, as opposed to straight marriage, which in most cases, is a celebration from the start with family members helping from day one.

Because these support structures do not exist for gay people there is quite often a breakdown in the moral fabric of their relationships.

If the bottom falls out on your gay relationship there are no built in safeguards, as there are in the straight world of marriage, to help your relationship bounce back.

It's easy for a gay man or lesbian to dump their partner and have no concerns - no repercussions. No one in their family saying "Oh my, you're going to get a divorce?"  

Many family members will still think of your being gay as a phase you are going through even after you've been out for decades.

There are no legal repercussions - just a divvying up of the crap you might have accumulated over the life of the relationship.

Kids:

Teenagers growing up gay truly ARE more likely to kill themselves - but why?  

Because society looks down on who they are.  Many parents would never approve of their coming out - and if that's true they would certainly never approve of bringing home a new boyfriend.  

This leads to depression and loneliness - some even run away rather than face having to tell a parent the truth.  Life on the street isn't pretty for a gay teenager - in fact it quite often leads to prostitution, drug use, alcoholism and death.

Even if your parents completely accept you being gay as a teenager - it is still a sad and gloomy experience - many compare it to going through a death in the family when a parent is told.

In contrast - straight teens get the excitement of prom - the embarrasing talk with their parents about sex and their first boyfriend or girlfriend - gaggling with friends about a hot cheerleader or the schools quarterback...etc.

Mom or dad will tell them of their own experiences in high school - they'll reminisce  together - this builds their relationship.

while parents of gay children quite often have to seek counseling to deal with their own emotions after their kid comes out - now imagine the guilt of THAT hanging over your head if you are fourteen years old.

Imagine this if you would - everything is reversed - you're fourteen and everything from the television shows you watch, to the magazines you buy, to the billboards you see everyday, are telling you that YOU should be gay - what kind of an effect would that have on your fourteen year old mind?

Everyday, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year - for our entire lives we are being told that being gay is wrong.

I must be sick - even the president doesn't believe gay people should be able to be married.

This might give you a tiny perspective into how difficult it is to be gay and how strong a person it takes to come out.

So this brings me back to gay marriage:

Gay marriage isn't just about two people being able to get married.  Ultimately it is a recognition of the fact that you have a right to exist - that the way you live your life is legitimate AND that everyone recognizes this even if they don't agree with it.

The effect would be a strengthening of gay and lesbian relationships, their support structures and it would ultimately creep into every aspect of their lives from conception to death.  

What I am talking about is gay marriage completely changing the way society thinks.

It would take generations for something like this to actually happen, but the benefits for gay people and the straight people alike would be enormous.

THAT - in a nutshell - is why gay marriage is so important - not for me or any adult gay or lesbian, we're all already slightly or very damaged - but for the kids who are growing up gay at this very moment and the ones yet to be born.

by MAJeff
Mon Nov 22nd, 2004 at 19:31:33 PST

I first wrote this back on February 10.  For some reason, I can't edit it, so I'm reprinting the diary here.  Something tells me it could get ugly in here; oh, well.

I didn't realize how prescient I was back then (especially since this was a couple days before San Francisco began its municipal civil disobedience)...well, at least I was able to foresee what one of the major narratives of the election results would be.

We're sorry that our donation of resources such as time, energy, money and skills to the Democratic Party had such an impact in detracting from the Democrats' courageous stands against No Child Let Behind, the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Iraq, Medicare reform, and Bush's budget busting tax cuts. We should have realized this and stayed out of the Party.

We're sorry for the timing of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courts ruling.  We should have done a better job of scheduling their calendar.  Also, when the couples suing the Commonwealth, with the assistance of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, filed their suit, we should have foreseen 9-11, the War on Terror, the invasion of Iraq and the extending jobless recovery.

We're sorry our sexual orientation makes some of you uncomfortable.  Your comfort should be our paramount concern.  We really need to stop make silly demands about being included if it's going to make other people uneasy.

We're sorry our demands to have our families treated equally offends some of you.  Of course, we should have realized that your families are superior to ours.  We don't really need equality.  Separate institutions that leave you in superior positions, like civil unions, should have been fine with us.

We're sorry that our selfish concern with issues that affect our lives stands in the way of addressing important issues.

We're sorry that our intrusion into the cultural sphere has brought such awful programming as Will and Grace, Queer as Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, and Angels in America to your television screens.  We shouldn't have interfered with such quality programming as Married by America, My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiancée and the Janet/Justin halftime show.

We're truly sorry for these things, and for any other ways we've made your lives difficult.  We should have realized over the past couple decades that by pushing for changes that would positively affect us, we'd be destroying the country.

Please accept Our sincerest apologies.