New Study Shows Prop. 8 Success “Not Personal” --

If you live in California and are a Republican, attend church at least once a week, hold socially conservative views, and are 65-years-old or older, you most likely voted "Yes" on Proposition 8 to repeal marriage equality for your gay and lesbian neighbors. In addition, you are most likely male and probably even know someone, or are related to someone, who is gay or lesbian—but you still supported Prop 8.

Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. ...

U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military. ...

Violet at Reclusive Leftist starts
"pulling together some of our thoughts about the new feminism we’re building, what I think of as the Fourth Wave." Very interesting list -- and great comments/discussion.

This comment especially struck me: "Women need, desperately, cultural permission to be selfish, to put ourselves first without apology and without trying to spin it as good for other, more important people, too. Because even though I do believe feminism is good for the whole Human community, it really wouldn’t matter if it weren’t. Women have a right to demand what’s good for us."

the first openly-gay person to be elected to Congress--ever (Baldwin and Frank came out while already in office). The article takes stock all around the country.

“Jared Polis is the first openly gay man to be elected to Congress as a non-incumbent, and he joins Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank as the three out members,” said Denis Dison, a Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund spokesperson."

“a bittersweet election for gay people.”

Ever wonder what Obama actually did as a community activist? Whether he succeeded in actually helping people in Chicago? How an outsider without Chicago ties ended up a political insider? Why he left organizing for law school? Why so much of his language in the primaries was that of "bottom up" and "movements"? About all that Alinsky stuff? ...

John Judis: Creation Myth--What Barack Obama won't tell you about his community organizing past

and from 07, a long, but thorough account of those days: The Agitator--Barack Obama's unlikely political education

(Updated with a post that totally proves my point) She of 18-hour support wonders, along with the Mighty Glenn:

At last, Glenn Greenwald has gotten down to the nitty-gritty and discussed what no one is saying about the original FISA legislation that was introduced in 1977 - that it was an outrageous ceding to government of the power to violate our Constitutional right to privacy (yes, privacy) as clearly spelled out in the 4th Amendment.
...
Indeed; the most liberal position in the public discourse is this: that it's okay to take our time on constructing a new, more invasive FISA law, because the original law will cover us adequately in the meantime. But virtually no one is arguing that no updating at all of the original law has ever been necessary (except me and a few security geeks), and no one at all is pointing out that FISA itself is and always was a bridge too far. When the authorities violate the 4th Amendment, they should be put in jail, not given greater latitude to spy on us under a legal fiction of national security.

Am I the only one who thinks that we really don't live in a nation of laws anymore? That this whole discussion is mostly one for wonks who love detail? Because it seems to me that between the AG refusing to do his job, and the "Constitutional scholar" and "experienced lawyer-stateswoman" both wimping out on major Senate debates about the Constitution, talk like this misses the point. I'm not harshing on A or GG, christ no. But I'm asking for a better way to frame the question. Right now the Constitution is a beautiful dream, but it's clearly not "in force." The law of the land is: who is closer to the security-military-contractor-prison complex, me or thee? If I am, I win. If you are, you win. This rule applies in confrontation, business, "the economy," and across most elements of the social environment. And if you have enough of a connection to the MIC, you can get away with anything, anything at all...

Part 1 is here; Part 2 is here.
________________________________
Several years ago, in the pages of my first blog, ddjangoWIrE, I wrote an essay with the same title. When Blogger "accidentally" deleted my account, relegated ddjangoWIrE to a stripped archive, and "lost" some of my posts, the piece converted to disconnected bits in cyberspace and the essay was gone.

I'm really not going to use that disappearance as the primary excuse to post another brief essay on the same subject. Given the state of our nation, our democracy, and the inattention, malaise, and downright selfishness of its people, there are quite enough reasons to revisit this territory.

You're not surprised. Hat tip to Blondesense, for making me get pissed as I pack.