Major Duck-Up

With all the discussion over anti-gay comments made by Duck Dynasty star, Phil Robertson, I've decided to finally add a perspective that seems to be lacking expression.  That is, the opinion of a former fan of the show.  

I want to take on some common responses that have been made during discussions of Robertson's comments and suspension.  

"What did you expect?"  "Are you really surprised that he said that?"

In short, I expected better, and I'm more disappointed than surprised.  Of course I understood that the show was depicting a southern "redneck" family with strong religious values.  It shouldn't have surprised me that they have conservative views on homosexuality.  However, I suspected that a lot of the "redneck" attributes were exaggerated for the show.  Photos of the family before the show confirmed this.  So while they may portray themselves as hicks, I guess I held some hope that they would have a more tolerant message in the long run.  

For example, in one episode, Uncle Si puts on a feather boa and tiara while sipping imaginary tea with his grand-nieces.  Phil, of course, looks on disapprovingly and in the cut-away interview says how ridiculous Si was being.  For his part, Si expresses no discomfort, no "gay panic" over dressing up to entertain the children.  

After Phil's GQ interview, the episode that got the most attention was the one with an obviously gay photographer.  Phil's reactions to the gay man should have left no doubt as to his opinion, right?   Here's where the degree of "reality" comes into play.  "Phil" as portrayed in the show, is seen as the wise head of the family, but also shows a flawed human side.  Oftentimes, he expresses his opinion that his son's wives need to be "redneckified," and his concern that his sons and grandkids are getting "too city-fied."  In some cases, he comes to accept their differences.  Perhaps I was hoping that the photographer episode would introduce a process of coming to accept different people.  People say that the episode should have made Phil's opinion obvious.  But again, I was not ready to assume anything about Phil based on the TV persona.  For my part, I'm reminded of All in the Family.   The character of Archie Bunker was racist, arrogant, and opinionated.  Carol O'Connor, on the other hand, the actor who portrayed Bunker, strongly supported civil rights and acceptance.  

Jeezus, Phil! Why 'you gotta make the rest of look bad, eh?

It appears, though, that part of the reality show is real, and the backwoods, back-wards, hicks are as ignorant and intolerant in real life as the characters they play for the cameras.  

In the debate over Phil's right to free speech and disapproval of A&E suspending him (a decision they have since reversed), I held the opinion that no one's rights were infringed.  Yes, Phil has a right to express his views.  However, A&E was well within their rights to distance themselves from those opinions by essentially refusing to continue to provide a platform for his speech.  In other words, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from backlash when you make an ass of yourself.  

As to the attempts at undoing the harm, all I can say is "nice try, but no good."  A&E released a statement (included here in Chicago Tribune article) claiming to extend the Robertson family's regrets over the "course language" and asserting that Phil would "never incite or encourage hate."  Begging to differ, A&E, but the comments made by Phil, which reports are saying you knew about before they were published, are inciting and encouraging hate.  Calling someones sexual orientation a sin means that you consider it a choice, something they can and should change.  Such views make it permissible to pre-judge someone based on who they are.  Phil's graphic and ignorant stereotyping ignores the deep relationships formed between people of the same gender, and focuses on what he views as the "ickiness" of gay relationships.  Like so many conservatives, he thinks that gay people are only "gay" when we're having sex, so we must be doing it all the time.  (side note: I wish)  Judging people is the beginning of hate.  It makes all sorts of treatment "permissible" because they are "bad people."  

In the statement announcing the end of the suspension, A&E claims "Duck Dynasty is not a show about one man's views. It resonates with a large audience because it is a show about family...a family that America has come to love."  I have come to love the show and the family, but now feel disowned.  The show no longer resonates with me because there is a bitter and dissonant chord of intolerance and hypocrisy that I cannot ignore.  

I know that many people will continue to watch the show.  I will not be one of them.  

ENDA: Daring to Hope

There's a little more good news for LGBT people.  Today, the U.S. Senate passed ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

When news of the vote was getting out, a friend brought up a common question, so I figured I'd mention it.

"Isn't that already the law?"

The answer is actually "no."  I was tempted to say, if that were the law, the Senate wouldn't be voting to make it the law, but then one never knows.  There are protections for government workers, and some state laws that protect gay and lesbian workers from discrimination in the private sector.  Fewer have protections for transgender employees.  That means that in most states, a person can be fired, or passed up for hiring or promotion, simply because they are gay or transgender.  

So why don't we hear about it?  Speaking for my local community, we here in Wisconsin are in one of the states that at least protects gay and lesbian people.  Wisconsin was the first state to include gay and lesbian in the equal opportunity laws, back when "Forward" meant something.  

Another reason we probably don't hear about many problems is that most major companies have voluntarily included sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, with many also including gender identity.  Even companies that don't officially prohibit workplace discrimination are not going to be too militant about it.  Cracker Barrel once had an official policy of not hiring and even firing any employee found to be gay or lesbian.  (It could not be enforced in Wisconsin, but at the time was legal in Illinois)  There was a national boycott of their stores and restaurants, and the policy has since been removed.  

But it does happen, and in states where it's legal, some people don't come forward about why they were fired.  These are typically areas where a person who comes out faces additional harassment and possible violence, especially if they "make a big deal" about why they were fired.  So, some protection, like ENDA is necessary.  

There is a tough fight ahead.  The bill still has to pass the House, and the indications are that Speaker John Boehner will not even let it be introduced for discussion.  

It would seem that the answer lies with a group that I frequently criticize.  An email I received from Log Cabin Republicans (list) says that they have met with some House Republicans to make the case for ENDA.  I'll be keeping an eye on their efforts and wish them well.  

Getting the Word Out to LGBT Concerns and the Affordable Care Act

Monday November 4th was the Wisconsin Launch of a community program called "Out2Enroll."  Milwaukee got to be the first stop in a nationwide effort to promote awareness of how the Affordable Care Act (ie. "Obamacare") affects LGBT people.

I wanted to get more information because I'm still unsure about the legislation.  I'm not as hyped about the ACA as Democrats are, but I'm also not as pissed about it as Republicans are.  This was a presentation that addressed issues important to me.  I won't speak as much in this article about the legislation itself.  Suffice to say, it is the law.  And while it is the law, I encourage LGBT people to check out the website out2enroll.org.  Here's why.   

The issue that stood out for me invloved coverage disparity, as noted in a chart in the presentation given by Kellan Baker, MPH, MA, Associate Director of LGBT Research and Communications Projcect at the Center for American Progress.  The chart* shows the current sources of coverage for LGBT people in the U.S. with 34% of LGBT Americans having no insurance at all.  29% have employer provided insurance.  Baker pointed to the known issues preventing LGBT people from receiving coverage, such as the inability to cover a partner in a state that does not recognize same-sex relationships.  The low rate of LGBTs with employer provided coverage points to the over 30 states where private companies can make hiring and firing decisions based on sexual orientation.  [edit: the number of states that do not include LGBT protection at state level is now 29, down since the previous time I checked]

This lack of coverage is especially problematic for a community with high rates of smoking and substance use, cancers, violence and abuse, HIV/AIDS.  Then there is the wide range of mental health issues; coming out, rejection by family and others, bullying, high rates of suicide, and homelessness.

My conservative leanings say that these issues need to be addressed more directly, and there are efforts in many of those areas.  Milwaukee's LGBT Community Center has a program to help people quit smoking, as well as an Anti Violence Project (AVP)  The AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin is one of many organizations fighting the epidemic through education, prevention, and treatment.  Trevor Project and Dan Savage's "It Gets Better" campaign are reaching out to help LGBT youth who may be considering suicide.  One day after this presentation, Illinois became the 15th state to recognize same-sex marriage.

However, these changes are coming slowly, and there are people who need access to healthcare now.  With the Supreme Court Decision striking down DOMA, the ACA can extend coverage to partners married in a state where same sex marriage is legal, even if they currently reside in a state that doesn't.  Prior to ACA, insurers could exclude coverage in areas of vital importance to the lives of LGBT people.  We still need to address the root issues, but making those changes will take time that many people don't have.  As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius said at the White House launch of Out2Enroll, "The Affordable Care Act may represent the strongest foundation we have ever created to begin closing LGBT health disparities."  After hearing the presentations on Monday, I agree.  And it's the foundation we need right away, not later.

A final note.  Kellan Baker from the Center for American Progress, Matt Hinz from HHS, covered the statistical and informational aspects of the program.  During the afternoon session, a trans woman named JoLee (sp) talked about her experiences with the insurance and medical professions as they currently are.  While she spoke with good humor, she seemed to me the quiet type; someone who wouldn't normally get up and talk to a group if she hadn't really been pushed to the breaking point by her experiences.  I won't share the details, they are hers to share.  But hearing the struggles she went through, the rude treatment by doctors and health professionals, put a very strong feeling argument to this issue.  I applaud her courage in speaking on Monday, and am grateful to have been there.

* Chart presented represents LGBT people with annual income under 400% of FPL.  Source: Center for American Progress

Spirit of Lincoln?

I'm a little confused, I think.  For months I've been getting invitations (advertisements) for Log Cabin Republicans' fund raising gala, "Log Cabin Republicans 2013 Spirit of Lincoln Dinner."  I wasn't really paying much attention since a) I'm not really a supporter to begin with and b) I just can't afford the trip to DC and big ticket price.  I understand the dinner sold out, so I'm happy for them.  But I have to wonder whether the booze has been flowing already.

Log Cabin claims to be "the nation’s largest Republican organization dedicated to representing gay and lesbian conservatives and allies."  There has been some debate (and I have sounded off in the past) as to whether LCR is LGBT first, or Republican first.  Their clever catch phrase is that they are "Americans" first.  Cute, but reading their press releases and observing their actions seems to indicate that their primary concern is for the party.  I've noted their criticism of sitting President Obama's statement in favor of gay marriage.  This same group praises Dick Chaney, who opposed gay rights throughout his time as Vice President, and only spoke favorably after leaving office.

With allies like these...

What confuses me is that through the months of getting emails about this dinner, I thought it was intended to recognize members of the GOP who work to break the party free from the grip of the religious zealots that control it.  Instead I see keynote speaker Tom Ridge, apparently because, like Cheney, he is now saying that the Republican Party should stop discriminating against gays.  See the article on the towleroad blog.  While originally saying he opposed same-sex marriage, he now says it should be up to the state.  Like Cheney, of course, Tom Ridge's title includes the word "former."  

But maybe there's a new conversion going on, because three of the honored guests that Log Cabin is celebrating must be doing the same.   The first three special guests are, Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX), Congressman Pete King (R-NY), and Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA).  The most recent information I found on these three was a Yes vote (all three) on the Violence Against Women Act.  That's a plus, but the fact that they voted yes on the 2013 version is telling.  Republicans balked at an earlier version, which didn't pass, because it included provisions for victims of domestic violence in same-sex relationships.  I couldn't find details on their stance during the debate, but there is record of their earlier votes.  All three voted against legislation to bar workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  All three voted yes to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.  

I will acknowledge that they did manage to invite at least one token out, gay, Republican; Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Fleck, who got last billing.  Fleck may be out, but according to a Pittsburgh blogger, "its not likely he'll have much opportunity" to vote on gay issues "unless the specter of the 'marriage protection' amendment resurfaces in a committee he's assigned to next term." (dated December 2012)

While I agree with Log Cabin that we need to recognize those members of the GOP who push against the grain, I think they are sounding the trumpets prematurely. 

I thought that "The Spirit of Lincoln" was referring to Abraham Lincoln.  I may be mistaken.  

Reactions to All American Boy

On June 2nd, Steve Grand launched the self made video for his song "All American Boy," breaking out as a Gay Country Singer.  The video went viral, and Grand has many new fans, including, possibly, some who may not have been fans of Country before.  The sudden fame landed him on Good Morning America this morning.   [The link to ABS's website showed as unavailable as I am posting this, but you can see the clip on Grand's facebook page for today's date, July 9th, 2013.]

Image from Steve Grand's Artist Page on facebook.  I do not own this image.

The majority of responses praised Grand for standing his ground, refusing to go back into the closet for a contract, and instead producing the video at his own expense.

Some naysayers tried to deny Grand the title of the First Gay Country Singer, claiming there are others before him.  I do acknowledge the others, especially Melissa Etheridge.  There may actually be several gay male country stars, but to my knowledge, none of them are admitting it.  So I still hail it as an accomplishment for an openly gay male to break onto the scene.  

I have yet to see any major reaction from the country music scene.  How will fans and other country stars react to this new development?  I'm sure I can search and find both the welcoming and the not-so-welcoming responses on a search.

The response that showed up yesterday was surprising.  Mark S. King, a blogger at The Bilerico Project, criticized the video, claiming it portrays gay men as sad, predatory drunks.  The video paints a picture, and for the most part, leaves interpretation up to the viewer.  The lyrics give us insight into Grand's thoughts, but not the other guy's.  King's interpretation is that Grand takes advantage of the straight friend's argument with the girlfriend, plies him with alcohol, and then makes an unwelcome sexual advance.  Many of the responses point out that sadness and whiskey are common in country music.  They say he was a young man in love who misread the signals and "made a mistake."  

My first reaction was that I could totally relate to the video.  But I guess I need to explain, because I am relating it to my own experience, and I apparently don't see the characters the way everyone else does. 

For starters, the "straight guy" isn't straight.  Maybe he's bi, or questioning.  King feels the video is portraying a gay man pining after a straight guy.  But there's a strong hint in the article that King mentions in his blog.  It states that "Grand sings about his unrequited love for a man in a heterosexual relationship."  Note that it doesn't say he's in love with a heterosexual man.

Grand may be the one offering the drink, but initially, he is not the one "making moves."  King points out that Grand makes his move after they are both drunk enough to go skinny dipping.  I will point out that it's the "straight" friend who first jumps into the water and removes his shorts.  Grand is then seen watching, and then standing at the pier, already nude, before jumping in.  When I was finished appreciating the gratuitous butt shot, the importance of that moment became clear.  The "straight" friend stripped under water ("on the down low") while Grand revealed himself out in the open.  The other guy seems to be enjoying the frolicking and naked playing in the water.  It's only when Grand kisses him - a kiss that he appears to accept momentarily - that he pulls away, shocked.  King sees a gay predator advancing on an unsuspecting straight boy.  I see a guy who is at least partially interested, and at least partly aware of Grand's feelings.  It takes him a second to stop the kiss, and then he pushes away.  Not from Grand, but from the implication of what that kiss means.  "That's too close.  That's too intimate.  That's too gay!"

The video shows the two moving apart.  Grand is shown in the context of singer then, lowering his head as he recalls the pain.  It then cuts to the boy returning to girl, reaffirming his hetero-normalcy. 

I guess I just relate more to Grand in the video (not the washboard abs part.  I wish!).  I don't see him as a predator "stalking" the straight boy.  It's not even, in my mind, completely unrequited love.  The story shows some genuine, mutual attraction.  It's just that one of the men is more ready to accept what it means about him.  The other is racked with gay panic and internalized homophobia.   

Maybe the straight guy represents an unrequited attraction.  Maybe he represents the whole world of Country Music. Is Country Music ready to fully embrace an out gay male, or will it be an arm around the shoulder, then a gentle shove, like the straight friend's "reconciliation" with Grand.  All I can say for sure is that the song will be stuck in my head for a while, and that Steve Grand certainly has many fans and tons of support.  

In the Wake of DOMA and Prop 8 Decisions

It was a good day.  I just hope people don't start a trend of asking "Where were you when you heard that DOMA had been struck down?"  Well, I was working, and used a bathroom break to check Twitter for the responses, because I knew the announcement was due at 9a.m. central time.
After returning, I picked an opportune moment during the shift to inform my coworkers, "oh, by the way did you hear?  DOMA was struck down!"  I did not tell them that I had just looked it up while in the john.

There were many celebrations, and some pretty good quotes throughout the day.  When asked for a response to Michele Bachman's anti-gay tirade about the decisions, Nancy Pelosi quipped, "Who cares."  Milwaukee's Cream City Foundation president, Paul Fairchild, had the same answer when asked how he thought Julaine Appling and other gay rights opponents in Wisconsin felt about the rulings.

There were even statements from Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, praising the decisions.  These two groups were fairly silent during the hearings and rallies in March.  A Republican friend of mine argued during that time that he supports marriage equality, but that DOMA was neither constitutional nor unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not say that marriage is a right.  Of course, the arguments that won the day were that the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, and if the law provides benefits and protections under the status of marriage, it cannot be denied to some based on sexual orientation.  I suspect that this opinion stems from the party line against "activist judges," who do seem to shoot down a lot of the party's favorite legislation.  Perhaps they can look to Tuesday's decision regarding the Voting Rights Act as a case where a difficult (and in this case unpopular) decision had to be made based on the Constitution.  (I'll need a separate post to discuss that one)

In both LCR and GOProud responses, the focus was on a victory for states' rights.  OK, I'll take it. But then what does that mean for Wisconsin?  Immediately, nothing.  At a celebration last night, a speaker (sorry, I forget which one) mentioned that she and her wife, married in Massachusetts but residing here, might be eligible for some of the federal benefits, but which ones won't be known for some time.  Each of the 1,138 items under federal marriage will be reviewed individually.  It also remains to be seen whether attempting to claim any federal benefits will cause them to be prosecuted under a Wisconsin statute that makes it illegal for couples who could not legally marry in Wisconsin to get married in another state and come back.

Since Wisconsin has an amendment on its state constitution banning same sex marriage, or any similar arrangement or recognition of same sex relationships, the DOMA decision does not have a direct impact here.  I wonder what effect the Prop 8 decision has on a potential legal challenge to to the 2006 amendment.  The Supreme Court declined to rule on it, which simply upheld a lower court ruling that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

The direct impact on Wisconsin is the momentum it gives us to keep working toward full equal recognition our relationships.  Harvey Milk said "you gotta give 'em hope."  Yesterday, we got hope back.  Today, we drive on.

Gay Rights Activists are Being Too Gun Shy

Taking Sides

In a recent post, I mentioned that I support the right to bear arms - responsibly.

I've refrained from posting too often about gun rights because so many of my friends who also share my posts and take a strong stand on gay rights (whether they themselves are gay or straight) are just as strongly against guns.  Their views vary, from supporting bans on certain types of guns, to banning all guns, period.  Many posts are similar to the debate raging around gay marriage on both sides.  The problem with the debate is that agreeing with a particular point seems to imply that one agrees with everything. I agree with the NRA that banning guns is not the solution to the violence problem.  But I also do not think that more guns is a solution either. I fell into a similar argument when a friend said he was against the Supreme Court hearing cases against Proposition 8 and Defense Of Marriage Act.  While his argument was against the process, (he feels it should go through the legislature, not the courts) it felt like he was saying that he didn't support gay marriage.  He and I have disagreed before.  We seem to have a little agreement on tax and spending issues, but our priorities are wide apart.  He believes same sex couples should be able to marry, it's just not a fight that he is very committed to, and he believes that the Republican Party, while opposed to marriage equality, likewise has the issue low on their priority list.  (their spending on a legal defense of DOMA says otherwise, but I digress.)

On the matter of gun control, the amount of statistics and allegory in the media is baffling, so as in many cases, I form my opinion based on my personal observation.  The people I know who own guns are incredibly responsible with them, and I would oppose any law that infringed on their right to own and responsibly use a firearm.

It's a complex issue to be sure, and I am not in entire agreement with either side as I said.  I have some issue with the saying that "guns don't kill people, people do."  If that were entirely true, we wouldn't be so worried about the right to have the gun in the first place.  Now the other statement used by the pro-gun lobby, that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws would have guns" does stand to reason, at least literally.

Common Ground: Two Issues, Same Enemy

A thought occurred to me recently.  Gay rights and gun rights appear to be very opposite, especially if you think of the issue in terms of politics.  Gay rights are championed by the Democratic party, and gun rights by the Republicans.  It would seem logical then, that Democrats will support bans on guns, and Republicans support bans on gay marriage.  By extension then, if you support gay rights, you're a Democrat, and oppose gun rights, and vice versa.  It's that assumption that I am trying now to break away from.

Both sides have a set of arguments, but as a comic panel, The Atheist Pig, points out, it boils down to a simple psychological aversion.  At it's root, the opposition to gays is the thought that two men together is "icky."  

In my opinion, there is a similar aversion to the right to bear arms: guns are scary.

I am not saying that either opinion is wrong.  They are opinions, after all.  Many straight people are simply not used to the thought, or sight, of two men being affectionate with each other, and feel "icky" about it.  Likewise, people who don't own guns, or perhaps who only see the cinematic portrayal of violence, are going to feel that guns are "scary."

Come Out of the Gun Cabinet

Much of the changing attitude toward gay rights has been attributed to more and more LGBT people coming out.  I have found that my own understanding of transgender people has grown, and would not have without friends and acquaintances who were willing to be open.

Likewise, I think we need more people to be open about support for responsible ownership and use of guns.  I know people who own firearms, and advocate for gun rights.  As I mentioned before, they demonstrate what it means to respect the power of these weapons, and make a reasonable case for equal access to them.  The NRA has a strong case, but lousy PR if you ask me.   Both sides are putting out their extreme stories and examples.  Mass murderers with guns, vs. the armed savior who prevented a crime.  What about the majority of gun owners?  The people in the middle?  People who own firearms, and take target practice, but have never had to use them in an emergency situation?  Or people who hunt, whether for sport or for food, but have never otherwise fired a weapon?  We need to hear more of those stories.  The reason we don't is because, just like the stories of same sex couples, it's boring.  Boring doesn't make news.  But slowly, these stories are going to make a difference.  

Congratulations Tammy Baldwin

Congratualtions to Tammy Baldwin.  She was sworn in to the U.S. Senate yesterday.  Although I do enjoy the formality of tradition in the ceremony, I rather would have liked to see a modified swearing in, where Vice President Biden asks "Do you swear to uphold the constitution of the United States, and to perform the duties of this office to utmost of your ability?" to which Tammy Baldwin could respond "You're Damn Right!"

Tammy has said that she didn't run in order to win, and that she wasn't focused on becoming the first openly gay Senator.  She does, of course, recognize the importance of this milestone, though.  In a report from WISN 12, Milwaukee she explained "If you're not in the room, the conversation is about you... If you're in the room, the conversation is with you, and that's transformative." 
 
This is one of the reasons I have supported Tammy since her 1992 run for State Assembly.  At the  time, I could only root for her from counties away.  I remember watching election returns until late at night, frustrated because local stations focused on Milwaukee county, and the ticker on the bottom showed her race about every 20 minutes or so.  I actually didn't find out the result until the next morning, and I celebrated when I learned of her victory.

Back then, I had some notion of who Harvey Milk was.  I've read up since then.  Harvey understood, perhaps inspired, what Baldwin says about the conversation.  Allies are important, especially in bridging the gap between lgbt people and those "want nothing to do" with us.  But it's just as important that we have "one of us" taking part in the conversation. 

A Real Cliffhanger

I'm No Expert

I'll admit that I'm still not entirely clear on how our economy works.  In the microcosm of my own life, I do know that spending more than I make is stupid, and that borrowing to meet spending only leads to greater debt and struggle in the future.  My options are to try to make more, or to spend less.  Making more would mean asking for a raise or more hours. I could take on an additional job, seek a higher paying job, or take on another one.  One option I don't have, and the reason I feel politicians just don't relate to real people, is the authority to simply tell my bosses they're going to pay me more, or to get together with my coworkers to "vote" ourselves a higher paycheck.

Spending less is a challenge, but lately, it's been the easier of the two.  I must be doing something right in that arena.  A friend recently mentioned a conversation they had with my dad.  They were visiting and he asked if I was still being too cheap to turn the heat on.  If Dad's calling me "cheap" then I can only respond that it's because I'm taking the lessons he taught me.  Maybe Dad and I should both go to Washington.

Well, the fight between the two strategies is being fought out by our leaders.  Last night (January 1, 2012) a temporary deal was passed.  After trying to sort through the details, I realized why Dad and I aren't in Washington.  It's kind of mind boggling, which also explains a thing or two about politicians.

In all of this, it seems like the majority of the deal favors the increased income strategy  the Democratic party and President Obama wanted.  It's a win, but a temporary solution.

Media Messing It Up

As the media was covering the approach of the fiscal cliff (or more accurately, our approach to the fiscal cliff) I was reminded of an allegory I heard of the way hunters catch monkeys.  Food is placed in a hollowed out gourd with a small opening, and the gourd is tied to a tree.  The monkey is able to reach in and grab the food, but when grasping, the monkey's hand is too big to fit back out of the hole.  At this point, the hunter is able to simply walk up to the monkey, which is unwilling to let go of its prize, even in the face of immediate danger.

Here were two sides of the economic debate, both clinging fiercely to their prize ideals, and in this case, the prize was dragging them to a cliff.  It wasn't until they both went over that one realized the imminent doom and relaxed its grip.

Putting aside for a moment, the satisfying image of politicians as monkeys, I have to admit that I was surprised to hear that the deal passed with support from Republicans willing to compromise.  As you may know, there is a lot that I dislike about the Republican Party; its pandering to religious extremists topping the list.  But I grudgingly admit that I have several areas of agreement with the GOP. (There, I said it.  That doesn't mean I'm joining GOProud or Log Cabin.  Not even close)

Still, seeing the party that I considered the more stubborn making the move toward center gave me hope.  Surely now that at least one side was showing reason, the other would be pressured to do the same.  Then I saw this headline in the Huffington Post..

January 1st, 2013, Fiscal Cliff Deal Passed By Congress After Republicans Cave.  

So, after months of both sides accusing the other guy of being unwilling to compromise, the side that does is labeled as having "caved" and being the loser.  That's exactly the mentality that prevented any kind of compromise for an entire year.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning a parade to praise Republicans as the heroes of the day.  But let's give them credit, they gave up something they wanted in order to prevent the immediate catastrophe.  Framing this action as a sign of weakness is going to make any future agreement that much more difficult.  And Democrats are are going to hesitate to relax their grip now, lest they be viewed as losers by their side.  (there are already those who accuse Obama of being weak on the deal)

Even though Democrats didn't get everything they wanted in the deal, I do think Republicans gave up more of their hopes to make the deal happen.  America will now wait to see if, when the time comes to work on a more permanent solution, Democrats are willing to do the same.  This will certainly be an expectation of Republican voters, and even many who voted Democrat, like myself.

Now, I've been accused of being a single issue voter, because gay rights were my primary reason for voting against Romney.  I won't go into the others on this post.  The label implies that I had no concern at all for the economy.  That's not really true.  The economy was factored in, and I did in fact give Romney a slight advantage on the economy, but at the cost of stomping civil rights into the dark ages.  As I said before, I didn't think either side that the one true answer.

So my comment to the party I did vote for is this.  Be ready to face the reality that compromise is going to mean cutting spending. period.  I'm not talking about reducing increases in spending, I mean cutting spending.   You probably could push through more tax increases, which would further divide the nation.  Or you can take a serious look at your budget and make the tough decisions every American in the real world is doing.  Agreeing to spending cuts is not losing, it's being reasonable.  It's your turn.