Gay Patriot Header Image

ENDA’s not pro-business, it’s anti-competition

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 8:33 pm - August 25, 2009.
Filed under: Freedom,Gay PC Silliness,Log Cabin Republicans

No wonder Log Cabin national continues to crumble (while many local clubs flourish). Instead of offering a conservative approach to gay issues, they continue to support the policies and ape the rhetoric of the increasingly left-wing national gay groups.*

In Log Cabin’s latest missive, they do the right thing in defending Vice President Cheney against attempts by a left-wing radio host to misrepresent his records, but use the wrong terms, telling us that that good man spoke out on “equality issues” while Vice President. He did no such thing. He merely registered his opposition to a constitutional amendment defining marriage then-President Bush backed.

Earlier this month, Log Cabin issued a release, calling for passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and dubbing that interventionist legislation “pro-business.”

ENDA”s not pro-business, it’s anti-competition. It’s just an excuse to expand the scope of the federal government, a solution in search of a problem.   Indeed, in his organization’s very release touting ENDA, Log Cabin Republicans Spokesperson Charles T. Moran shows us what it’s unnecessary:

ENDA is reflective of policies already in place by the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies in America, as well as supported by many small-businesses which form the backbone of the American economy.

Why do we need the federal government to tell businesses to do what they’ve already been doing volunarily?  Even during the supposedly dread (for gays) Bush era, an increasing number of private corporations enacted non-discrimination clauses, without pressure from the federal government. In 2008, 472 (94.4%) Fortune 500 had adopted such policies, up from 323 (64.6%) in 2003.

Most corporate executives recognize that in order to be competitive, they need an inclusive workforce.  Why should the government force all companies to do what many have already done, reducing the competitive advantage of companies that have sought to make employment in their workplace more attractive to gay men and lesbians?

Those businesses, small as well as large have enacted non-discrimination policies (as well as those offering benefits to same-sex partners of their employees), because they know it’s good for business.  They didn’t do so because of a mandate from the federal government, but because they have learned responding to changing social conditions is good for business.

Let’s let businesses determine how to respond to the increasing social acceptance of gay men and lesbian.  They’ve been doing a great job so far.

Trying to dress up ENDA as “pro-business,” Log Cabin’s leaders betray a limited understanding of the free market.  This legislation works to the disadvantage of companies which have already reached out to gay and lesbian employees and clientele.

RELATED: The Hullabaloo over Microsoft.

* (more…)

Holding Democrats to Maddow Standard for Grassroots Activism

In light of the Democrats’ announcement that “are launching a national grassroots push Wednesday to show lawmakers that the majority of Americans still support overhauling the system,” it’s time to followup on the review I promised of the Rachel Maddow Grassroots Standard, especially now that the transcript of the MSNBC hostess’s show is up.

Commenting on a rally last week in Houston against global warming legislation, Maddow sniffed that it was anything but grassroots:

. . . the rally was organized largely by the American Petroleum Institute and the crowd consisted at least in part of oil company employees bussed in specifically for the event. . . .

The goal according to the American Petroleum Institute memo was to deliver a, quote, “loud message” to members of Congress and to “put a human face” on the issue.  And by human—let‘s be clear—we mean a human who has been bussed in by an oil company.

Wonder if she will take the Democrats to task as she does the American Petroleum Institute for calling the top-down rallies they’re organizing “grassroots.” Note also how Maddow dwells on the bussing in of activists, so surely she has taken the various left-wing groups to task for bussing in supporters to town halls and rallies to support the President’s proposed health care overhaul.

At yesterday‘s rally, many oil company employees arrived wearing t-shirts and signs that featured the logo of an ostensibly grassrootsy-sounding organization called Energy Citizens.

Given this criticism, I’m certain she’s taken the SEIU to task for sending its purple-shirted lackeys to various town halls and rallies across the contry.  And we’ve all noticed how the opponents of Obamacare tend to be the ones with the homemade signs while the President’s supporters tend to carry pre-printed placards.  Surely, she’s chided those proponents for not representing the grassroots.

At least some conservatives are doing what Maddow isn’t.

Noting that “The Democratic National Committee and its grassroots arm, Organizing for America, are helping to organize the effort along with the Health Care for America Now, a group pushing to create government-run insurance plan,” Darleen Chick asks:

WTF? OFA is the permanent Obama Campaign — They didn’t even change the website and the email list is exactly the same and it is fully funded by the DNC. How is that “grassroots” when the same statist Democrats are sneering and smearing word-of-mouth, chain-email organized people at Tea Parties and at townhalls with their handlettered signs as “astroturf”?

Blogging law professor William A. Jacobson is more succinct in his query, “How does one ‘launch’ a ‘grassroots’ effort? Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?

Much Easier to be a Blogger in Opposition

One of the things I’ve discovered contrasting the past seven months to my first four years blogging is that it’s much easier to blog in opposition to the party in power than in support of the incumbent Administration (especially when you’re a small government-type defending a President named Bush).

Simply put, political leaders don’t live up to expectations.

Many on the left, particularly among the “netroots,” have found it hard to make the adjustment.  Having found a voice in this relatively new medium as the opposition, lacking any experience blogging during the Administration of a politician they helped elect.  Perhaps, that helps explain why they remain nasty even as their party controls all the levers of political power in our nation’s capital.  They’re used to attacking their adversaries and unaccustomed to having to defend the proposals of their political allies.

When the next Republican President takes power, we conservatives (and libertarians) of the blogosphere will have had experience on both sides, in opposition and support, of the party in power.  For now, our job is a little easier given that the job of the opposition to oppose.  And it is often easier, in this imperfect world, to criticize then defend.

Yet, if we on the right wish to distinguish ourselves from our political adversaries on the left, we must propose real reform and dare defend such ideas in public forums.  I credit such commentators as Charles Krauthammer and John Mackey as well as Georgia Congressman Tom Price as well as his Wisconsin colleague Paul Ryan and Senator Tom Coburn for proposing alternative health care reforms to those the Democrats have put forward.

So, let’s learn from our adversaries–mingling our criticisms of their proposals with advocacy for conservative reforms.

Will Obama Have A ‘Torture Czar’?

An Instapundit reader thinks so.

“A senior administration official told The Associated Press Monday that Obama has approved establishment of the new unit, to be known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which will be overseen by the National Security Council. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the program has not yet been officially announced.”

Reader Randy Tollefson writes: “Does this mean Obama now has a Torture Czar?” I’m sure it doesn’t. The United States doesn’t torture.

Hopeandchange, folks.  Hopeandchange.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Barack Obama: The Great Divider

Abraham Lincoln was “the Great Emancipator,” Ronald Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” and now, I believe, we’ve found a sobriquet that defines their current successor’s greatness.  Barack Obama is the “Great Divider” (though some might dub him the “Great Decieiver”).

Though he campaigned as a unifier, bridging appeals to liberals (promising more government spending) with appeals to conservatives (promising to balance those spending increases with spending cuts), he has governed as a divider.  Almost from Day One, he has waved his victory in the face of the opposition, answering their criticisms of his spendthrift “so-called stimulus” by telling then he’d won.

He has since blamed his predecessor regularly for the crisis he “inherited,” something none of his recent predecessors, even one who “inherited” crisis as least as bad as (and by many accounts worse than) the one he did, has done.  While he claimed he did want to look back at interrogation policies of the Bush years, his Attorney General is doing just that, launching a criminal investigation of CIA agents’ tactics.

Now even as popular support for a major overhaul of our nation’s health care system erodes, he presses forward with his plans to do just that even as he lacks any sort of a national consensus.  He would do well to scale back his proposals, rather than push his plan against growing opposition, even within his own party.

When he makes a plea for honest debate, he addresses only the (alleged) misrepresentations and “outright distortions” spread by the opposition. He doesn’t consider those on his side of the debate.  He whines that some of his critics’ contentions are “phony claims meant to divide us.”  And yes, there have been some opponents of Obamacare who have not been civil in raising their objections.  He’s right to criticize them.

But, if he’s going to criticize those who contribute to the degeneration of this debate, he should fault those who, say, call opponents of Democratic plans insincere evil-mongers and Neanderthals bearing swastikas while committing an “act of treason.”  Such rhetoric is also meant to divide us. (more…)

“Intolerance to the ideas of nonliberals”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 2:14 am - August 25, 2009.
Filed under: Liberal Hypocrisy,Liberal Intolerance

There are some themes I cannot repeat often enough on this blog, on being the basic operating assumptions of all too many (but fortunately not all) modern American liberals, that is, that all conservatives are whackjobs and that any deviation from their party line reeks of heresy and must be punished.  If we dare oppose a liberal leader, well, then, we’re guilty of “treason.”

Andrew Breitbart is the latest to see the Whole Foods boycott as a defining moment for the American left:

But Mr. Mackey missed the key ingredient of modern liberalism: intolerance to the ideas of nonliberals. And this miscalculation may prove to be devastating to his multibillion-dollar business.

Everywhere one looks these days, the intolerance of self-avowed liberals is on display. Especially since Mr. Obama came to power.

The purportedly open-minded and empathic among us who now run everything – save for NASCAR and Nashville – openly wage war against those who dare disagree.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the President of the United States dared criticize those who display such intolerance by misrepresenting the ideas of their ideological adversaries and using hateful epithets to describe them?  Perhaps, he could ask that the health care debate becoming a “teaching moment” on the value of civil discourse as we learn to respect the opinions of those with whom we disagree on issues so important.