Connect with us

Opinions

Democratic debates deflate gays, party

Extremist positions, embarrassing trans reference, lackluster appeals taint unveiling

Published

on

Democratic Presidential debate, gay news, Washington Blade
(Screen capture via YouTube)

Campaign operatives at the Democratic National Committee should be grateful that not many Americans tuned in to witness the party’s recent debacle of dual debates.

The twin episodes, broadcast on two consecutive nights, were a train wreck of both politics and performance. Dominant among both real-time and later-reflective observations by ordinary party supporters, as well as incumbent-disaffected independents, were reactions ranging between depressed and panicked.

Any thought that the top-20 presidential candidates allowed to participate would comprise a credible array of potential victors or convey a certain signal of prospective victory were quickly dispelled during a cumulative four embarrassing hours.

Although the second-night line-up set a record for Democratic presidential debate eyeballs, at 18 million viewers, that number fell far short of those watching both the first and second Republican debates in 2015 that captured the attention of 24 and 23 million viewers, respectively. The Democrats’ first-night debate was viewed by only 15.3 million.

While pundits parsed the winners and losers for each night – and there were both – the common view from living-room televisions and personal mobile devices was decidedly downbeat. Strong was the reaction assessing these contenders as a lackluster group.

The debates were one of the worst collective political performances and controversial issue narratives presented to a modern mainstream audience. It came at a moment Democrats ached to restore confidence after the party’s humiliating defeat in 2016.

Candidates seemed to forget they were addressing an entire nation and introducing themselves to a diverse electorate. Instead, they focused on fighting for support from the minority of party members eager to applaud leftist calls for much higher taxes and taking away the employer-provided private health insurance a large national majority enjoys and overwhelmingly wants to keep, while striking the most unpopular and nearly incomprehensible posture on immigration policies possible. It was a two-night kook-fest of radical issue pronouncements with scant resonance for voters.

While playing to the party’s far-left activists may produce short-term gains in seeking the nomination, eventually “walking back” those extremist positions for the general election could prove nearly impossible. Sen. Kamala Harris, deemed to have possibly jump-started her languishing campaign, is ample proof of that. Harris immediately took to the airwaves the next morning to disavow for an incredible second time her again-indicated intention to eliminate private health insurance.

Producing ridicule among LGBT voters and occurring early the first night, long-shot contender and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro blurted out a commitment to inclusion of abortion rights for “a trans female.” This declaration prompted viewers to scratch their heads in anatomical contemplation of whom he might be referencing. Chatter among gay wags dubbed Castro the “I believe in miracles” candidate, and his comment came across as a craven and awkward attempt to be the first to mention the LGBT community.

There was little additional overture to the “LGBTQ” on either evening, and consistently with that deer-in-headlights micro-pause typical of politicians bracing to correctly recite the acronym, especially when utilizing either queer-elongated or further-extended varietals. Passing reference to the “Equality Act” was made only once or twice among legislative litanies and a blur of demographic appeals.

LGBT voters over recent decades had come to mirror Hispanics when casting ballots, with upwards of one-third backing Republicans – particularly in congressional, state and local contests, and especially in non-presidential years. Current gay preferences have changed with the ascent of Donald Trump and a smaller percentage is presently inclined to support the GOP. For that reason, the public disappointment and political dismemberment resulting from the debates has noticeably deflated many in the gay community.

For party partisans and the LGBT voters desperately searching for an illuminated pathway toward ousting the current president they despise, the presentation of candidates at the debates promulgated a startling level of wariness and worry.

It’s quite possible none of them can win.

Mark Lee is a longtime entrepreneur and community business advocate. Follow on Twitter: @MarkLeeDC. Reach him at [email protected].

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

Commentary

Washington Blade responds to concerns over White House pool duties

Inaccurate media reports create confusion but we stand with our colleagues

Published

on

A photo from inside the White House on Monday. (Washington Blade photo by Joe Reberkenny)

Last week, President Trump announced his unconstitutional ban of CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House. Coincidentally, on Monday, it was the Washington Blade’s turn to serve as the print pool reporter on duty covering the president’s actions that day. This important responsibility is shared and rotated among the print members with each serving roughly once per month. The Blade is the only LGBTQ outlet with a seat in the briefing room, a slot in the pool rotation, and membership in the White House Correspondents’ Association, something we fought for decades to secure after enduring years of discrimination, ridicule, and resistance to openly queer journalists working inside the White House. We take our responsibilities there seriously. 

There are two pools that cover the president: broadcast and print. The other four members of the broadcast pool — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News — agreed to boycott their pool duties. There has been no boycott among the print pool, which is a separate entity. I called the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association on Monday to confirm that no outlets in the print pool were boycotting. 

A boycott by the Blade would set us back and lead to our expulsion from the pool and briefing room and our replacement by a right-wing outlet sympathetic to President Trump’s approach to attacking the media. The LGBTQ community is far better served with the Blade in the room than a far-right blogger taking our seat.

Let’s be clear: the Blade stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion and we stand for the First Amendment and freedom of the press. In solidarity with the broadcast pool, we made two important decisions on Monday — the first day anyone had to think about any of this. First, we refused to take or share any videos or still photos of the president, which would have undermined the broadcast boycott. Second, when Politico’s turn comes up for pool duty in mid-October, the Blade will not fill in and cover for them while they are banned. Politico must be readmitted and allowed to do their job. 

After a rough day navigating and reporting on all of this, the Advocate published a reckless and inaccurate story suggesting that the Blade had crossed a picket line. Not true, as there is no print pool boycott. They claimed that I wouldn’t talk to their reporter. Also not true. I called their reporter within 90 minutes of receiving his message and he didn’t take the call or call me back. Their story named me and our White House reporter, immediately exposing us to public criticism and worse. The environment in D.C. is so toxic and even violent these days that subjecting our staff to unfair and false accusations like this invites harassment, doxxing, and worse. To do that without even talking to us is next level irresponsible and the antithesis of journalism.

On Tuesday, I talked to two reporters and an editor at the Advocate but they refused to retract anything in their inaccurate story. If the reporter had returned my call, I could have explained all of this but they are more concerned with clickbait and sensational headlines, a dangerous practice in these troubled times. 

Back to the pool. The Blade was in the briefing room in the Reagan era, when Press Secretary Larry Speakes made jokes about AIDS and the reporters in the room laughed out loud. We endured all of that abuse and worse for decades, always standing in the back of the room and never being called on. The Blade’s journalists persevered. When President George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Blade’s White House credentials were revoked amid an earlier press crackdown. Notably, no one boycotted or stood up for us. When Barack Obama won election in 2008, I received an email from his communications director informing me that effective midnight on Jan. 20, 2009, the Blade’s credentials would be restored. 

So we have had quite a ride navigating administrations and their changing requirements for gaining access but always playing the long game. As Barney Frank used to say, “If you’re not at the table, then you’re probably on the menu.” The Blade is at the table and we do our best to ensure the LGBTQ community’s issues are addressed by both parties. 

Thanks for reading and supporting the Blade’s work. If you have questions about our approach, you can reach me at [email protected].  


Kevin Naff is editor of the Washington Blade. Reach him at [email protected].

Continue Reading

Opinions

Young people should know history of the fight for human rights

Trump is working to erase contributions of marginalized people

Published

on

From left, Rep. Bella Abzug (D-N.Y), Frank Kameny and Rep. Shirley Chisholm (D-N.Y.). (Photos of Abzug and Chisholm public domain; Washington Blade archive photo of Kameny)

When talking with otherwise really smart young people, I am amazed how little knowledge many of them have about the fight for human rights in the United States. Our country was founded by white men, who didn’t think about giving full rights to Black Americans, women, the LGBTQ community (what they knew of it, or called it). They wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But that referred to all white men, and intentionally didn’t mention women. For 250 years, the country has been trying to make up for that, and making progress in fits and starts. We have yet to fully succeed. Today the felon, and his fascist aides, in the White House, are working daily to take us backwards. 

For that reason alone, it is important for younger generations to understand the fight for human rights, know who was fighting for those rights, and understand it is an ongoing fight. Often, when listening to some millennials speak, one would think the world began with them. They either forgot, or never learned, about all those who fought for the rights they now have. I realize this was true for previous generations as well. In 2016 I co-hosted a fundraiser for Pete Buttigieg during his run for president. He is an undeniably brilliant guy. Yet when he spoke of marriage equality, he just thanked Justice Kennedy for it. I reminded him after he spoke, while it’s nice to thank Kennedy for his vote, it shouldn’t be done without acknowledging the many activists who worked for decades, to get to the point that allowed Kennedy to cast that vote. In the same way it was clear to me during the Hillary Clinton campaign for president, many young women didn’t understand the work many of their own mothers had done, to fight for their right to control their own healthcare, and women’s rights in general. They took for granted the rights they had. Now, after losing some of them, many will realize the fight for their rights is never-ending. 

When I speak to younger members of the LGBTQ community, I am amazed how many don’t know the history of the AIDS epidemic, many thinking it was always a disease you could deal with by taking medication. They don’t understand the work so many activists did to bring attention to this devastating disease, and get the healthcare so many needed. Those like Cleve Jones, Larry Kramer, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and so many others. Recently, I realized how many young women don’t know the names of Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Shirley Chisholm, Bella Abzug — women who fought for their rights. And this is just recent history, no less knowing about the Suffragettes, the strong women who fought for their right to vote. I’ve met young women who don’t know what the ERA is, and others who think it passed. Many don’t know the nation couldn’t get 38 states to approve an amendment to include them in the Constitution. The same for young members of the LGBTQ community who don’t know what the Equality Act is. Others think it passed, and are shocked when told it didn’t and in 27 states, they can be married on Sunday, and kicked out of their home, and fired from their job, on Monday. They don’t know names like Frank Kameny, Harvey Milk, Barney Frank, or the history of the Mattachine Society, or the Stonewall Riots.

Our current president is trying to wipe out all this history, and reverse any progress that has been made. Knowing this, it makes it even more important for school systems across the nation to fight to educate our children. We should ensure no child can graduate high school, without taking a course called “The 250-year fight for human rights in the United States.” They need to understand the history, and learn about the people who fought for their rights. They need to know how far we have come in 250 years, and understand, as we begin the next 250, how far we still have to go, to ensure real, full equality, for all.


Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.

Continue Reading

Opinions

How emerging drone tech can support LGBTQ workplace inclusion

Employers should establish clear policies governing data access

Published

on

(Photo by kadmy/Bigstock)

Workplace inclusion is increasingly becoming part of a broader conversation about employee safety, dignity, and equal access to secure working environments. For LGBTQ employees, an inclusive workplace is not simply one that communicates supportive values it is one where policies, infrastructure, and technology work together to help people feel protected and respected.

As organizations explore emerging technologies to strengthen workplace operations, drones are becoming a valuable tool for improving physical safety, situational awareness, and emergency preparedness. When deployed responsibly and with appropriate privacy safeguards, drone technology can contribute to safer workplaces without singling out employees based on identity.

Key Benefits of Drone Technology for Safety 

  • Reduced Employee Exposure to Hazards: Drones can inspect difficult or potentially dangerous areas without unnecessarily placing employees at risk.
  • Faster Emergency Awareness: Aerial visibility can help safety teams assess incidents and make informed decisions more quickly.
  • More Consistent Safety Coverage: Drones can support inspections across large workplaces, campuses, warehouses, and remote facilities.
  • Safer, More Inclusive Environments: Technology can help organizations improve physical safety measures that protect employees equally, including LGBTQ team members.
  • Privacy-Conscious Safety Practices: With responsible policies, drones can support workplace security without profiling individuals based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or other personal characteristics.

Improving Physical Workplace Safety

A clear application of drone technology lies in the inspection of facilities and infrastructure. Inspection of rooftops, industrial machines, construction zones, warehouses, remote locations, and other risky areas can be achieved using drones fitted with cameras and other sensors.

Such use of drone technology may help in reducing the risk of forcing employees to access such risky areas unnecessarily. Moreover, any technological advances in terms of improving workplace safety are equally beneficial to all workers irrespective of their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.

Supporting Emergency Preparedness and Response

An emergency can reveal flaws in your workplace safety program. In big settings like industrial campuses, warehouses, or outdoor workplaces, it might take security personnel longer to respond. Drones might supply better aerial visibility in several types of incidents. They make it possible to see circumstances rapidly, locate blocked paths, examine out- of-the-way or damaged areas and direct needed aid. 

Enhanced situational awareness provides better answers while limiting exposure to risks. In a perfect safety world, all employees are served with dignity and attention while emergency actions are created with diversity in mind.

Creating Safer Shared Environments

Workplace safety also involves creating physical environments where employees can move through facilities confidently. Drone-based inspections can help organizations identify infrastructure concerns such as damaged lighting, inaccessible areas, perimeter issues, or other physical conditions that could create safety risks.

The technology does not need to identify who an employee is to provide value. Instead, organizations can use drones to evaluate spaces and infrastructure while maintaining clear boundaries around personal privacy.

This distinction is particularly important when discussing LGBTQ workplace inclusion. Technology designed for safety should protect employees rather than create an environment in which individuals feel watched, profiled, or treated differently.

Privacy Must Remain a Priority

The potential benefits of drones also come with important responsibilities. Cameras, sensors, and data collection capabilities can raise legitimate privacy concerns if organizations deploy them without transparent rules.

Employers considering workplace drone programs should establish clear policies governing where drones may operate, what information may be collected, who can access that information, and how long data is retained. Employees should also understand the purpose and boundaries of workplace drone operations.

Drone technology should never be used to infer, monitor, or profile an employee’s sexual orientation, gender identity, personal relationships, or other sensitive characteristics. Inclusion depends on trust, and responsible technology policies are essential to preserving that trust.

Technology Is Only Part of an Inclusive Workplace

No drone platform can create an inclusive workplace on its own. Meaningful LGBTQ inclusion still depends on organizational culture, anti-discrimination policies, fair employment practices, accessible reporting channels, employee education, and leadership accountability.

Technology can support these efforts by improving the physical conditions in which employees work. For example, drones may help reduce exposure to hazardous tasks or improve visibility during emergencies, while organizational policies ensure that these benefits are available fairly and respectfully.

Building Safety and Inclusion Together

As drone technologies continue to develop, there is a chance for businesses to expand their minds on what innovation should seek to achieve. Efficiency and increased operational intelligence are vital, but technology can equally play a part in creating safe and inclusive environments that show dignity to employees.

When it comes to LGBTQ employees, along with the workforce in general, the most effective approach to technology is one that enhances safety without threatening privacy and equality. Consequently, the future of workplace innovation should take into account not only what technology is capable of but also how wisely it is applied. By combining cutting-edge technologies like drones with responsible business practices, businesses can make strides in both areas at once.


Andrew Mabry is a technology researcher and analyst specializing in UAV and drone technology, AI, and emerging digital technologies.

Continue Reading

Popular