Stevie:

You are not taking this thread in a different direction...though I would never have guessed that you are a libertarian!

My concerns are simple: It is precisely why the vote went the way it did that troubles me. I am a pretty conservative person myself, and certain policies that the incoming folks will bring in are a good thing. No argument there at all. Nor do I wish to sound that this is a terrrible thing for our country, from a fiscal point of view...or from several other points of view. I don't necessarily buy into this "war" on terrorism, however. There have been terrorists for many years...it was not until they hit us on our home turf that we finally decided to chase after them. Historical precident: WW2.

However, it is those same almost ultraconservative views that concern me the most. The problem with some of these views is that, if left unchecked (And a good job to Heather for reminding us of that, by the way), these people will take us back the the era of "Leave it to Beaver", "Ozzie and Harriet", or "Mayberry RFD". Nothing wrong with that, I guess...

...IF you are straight, white, Protestant and married with 2 kids and a collie. (In my case, that's 2.5 out of 4.) I am not against being conservative...I AM against people cramming their viewpoints down my gullet, regardless of the rationale. Hence the concern.

Couple of quick clean up points: This is not about Second Amendment rights (or lack thereof). This is about the rights of free speech, and the expressions of same. My biggest fear is that we will ALL be "forced" to "conform" (moreso than we are now) for the sake of "unity". Bah.
This article wasn't about Trannyweb's possible removal from the 'net by our governement. (In point of fact, they cannot; T-web is based in the UK, if I am not mistaken.) Because the article is posted in my site, that is the site in question...mine, and anyone who does not buy into the dogma of the current and/or incoming regime. (By the way...I am not for outlawing guns, either. I AM against making ammunition for them, however... ;D)

The Office of Homeland security bothers me for a few reasons. In a time of war (which this allegedly is), then they have broad powers to do "whatever it takes" to keep the home front safe. Sounds good. But in the wrong hands, that could mean any form of disagreement with the regime in question could (not will...yet) get you hauled off. And who is to say that the TG/Bi/L/G culture could suddenly be disagreeable to some very conservative people? I am not saying this will happen...only that the potential is there for it to happen. And since the Republicans tenmd to be the more conservative side...

Finally, dear, your quote: "On the first point, while I have nothing against homosexual couples, I'm against giving ANY unmarried couple the same status as a married couple. I say we should make homosexual marriages legal in every state, and then we won't need any special rights for anyone"
I concur; that sounds good in theory. BUT...that will not happen in the next two years, and in fact may not happen at all in our lifetimes, if the Prez and CO. place enough judges in the right spot...including the Supremes. And that is a big concern right there. In point of fact, this is a point where we could move backwards. There has been some talk of a constituional amendment making marriage only being between a man and a woman. And since we already know that the Gov't. is looking at chromosomes only (IE, XX or XY) to determine gender...then we as TG's could be poised on the precipice.

Still...I enjoy a good debate, Stevie. And when we are done, let's go do lunch, and then get our nails done after. I would love to meet you in person...you are a sharp thinker!

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne  :)

I have to agree with you, Jayne, that we could be in for some trouble.  However, I don't believe it is necessarily as bad as you think.

First, here is my take on the election.  I prefer divided government.  The situation over the last two years was perfect:  the president and the Senate in opposite parties.  That way, very little could get done.  The reason that I like very little to get done is that both parties are so awash in bad ideas that if either one gains a strong majority, we are in deep trouble.

Now, the government is no longer divided, but the Senate is held by Republicans by only a thin majority.  Senate rules make it difficult to get anything through that body.  A committed minority can stop most of the Senate's business with only 40% of the vote.  I am sure the Democrats will use that to stop some of what the Republicans will try to do.  The overall situation, in my opinion, is not exactly good, but at least the Republicans don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

TG issues rarely get much attention at the federal level.  I will be surprised if anything even comes up over the next two years.  But we will not make gains either, in the present political climate.  Bush may also appoint judges who are hostile to us, so we could be in for trouble there.  Otherwise, TG issues are primarily the domain of state and local governments.  In some places, we might make a little progress, and in others we will not.

In other areas, however, we could be in for some trouble.  Bush and the Republican Senate would very much like to enforce a conservative Christian agenda on the nation.  Abortion rights (which I strongly favor) are at risk, and the separation of church and state could crumble a little.  The political climate which would be generated by conservative Christian victories would be hostile towards us, but it would also likely spur a reaction.  If they go too far in the next two years, we will see a strong reaction from the Democratic side, and the Republicans will likely lose ground.

I have to agree with Stevie that the Republicans are not all bad.  The Democrats have a nasty habit of taxing us too much to fund poorly-conceived social programs, and most of them want to restrict our gun rights - at last count, I have fifteen guns and I want to keep all of them!  I just wish the Republicans would ditch the religious conservative element, and then I would rejoin the party.  (In 1988, I enthusiastically attended a George Bush campaign rally; by 1992, I voted against him because of the Christian conservative element in his politics.)

Stevie's comment about having as much control over one's life as possible is right on.  The Republicans are happy to allow this in economic matters and the right to bear arms, but at the same time they want to police our morals.  Their philosophy, at the present time, is not consistent and is terribly flawed.  When we are restricted in our moral values, religious beliefs, and lifestyles to whatever the Republican party deems appropriate, then what control do we have?

Jayne, here a response to your question, "how do we move forward?"  The political climate in much of the country right now is rather conservative; a substantial portion of the population feel that they have lost something - the traditional values are under attack, and people they never heard about before are now asserting their rights, and these people are different - and therefore threatening.  The conservatives are reacting.  But they are getting old.  Time is on our side.  For the most part, younger people do not appear to have as many of the bigoted attitudes of the past, but they don't vote.  At present, I will feel lucky if we keep what we have.  Since our rights, and those of other minorities, such as homosexuals, are under attack, we must defend what we have before we can move forward.  In more progressive states and cities, we should be active in pushing for our rights, preferably by working with the gay community.  But in conservative and reactionary localities, we will not, any time soon, win any rights through legislation.  We must start small, by simply being visible.  We should go about our daily business.  Those of us who go out en femme frequently can help by simply being out there.  If we get read, it is not necessarily bad.  It shows people that we exist and that we are not a threat.  When confronted, be courteous and be willing to answer questions.  There will always be bigots who can never be swayed, but there are numerous people out there who simply don't know we exist.  When they learn about us, they are not necessarily threatened, and they might become allies.  Education is the key.

The previous paragraph brings to mind an incident which may have gained the TG community a few friends in the conservative, straight-laced community of Bountiful, Utah.  I was with a TG group which was having a dine-out in a nice restaurant there.  The wait staff there know us and are happy to have us there.  That night, a crowd from the high school prom was also in the restaurant; they asked us if they could come to our table and ask questions; we happily obliged.  We answered their questions in an entertaining and non-threatening way.  I am sure we gained a few allies that night.  This is precisely how we can make progress at present - by educating people, a little at a time.

The present Republican majority is troubling, but in time it will pass.  Unless this country takes a dramatic turn for the worse, they will not be able to hold on for long.  They will either moderate their more extreme views or they will lose elections.  They cannot build a lasting majority on the tired values of the past.

We should watch the situation carefully for the next two years.  Their is a potential for disaster, but it is by no means certain.  I have a hard time believing that the Senate Democrats will let the Republicans do everything they want, and they still have the power to obstruct them.

I guess I am done for now.  I hope this long treatise doesn't bore everyone to tears.

Everyone, good luck, and watch your backs, or the rabid reactionary Republicans will get you!

Heather H.

Hi luvs!

GODDESS!!!

What have we just done in the United States? ???

The Republicans are going to be in charge of the government in both the White House and Congress for the first time in 50 years, if I heard correctly. Be afraid. Be very afraid. I am--and I'm registered AS a Republican! ::)

We have this "Office of Homeland Security"--does this NOT reek of Orwell's "1984" Thought Police?  :o

Here's the deal, ladies. Normally, I would have a big 'ol long post about this, and what we could potentially lose in terms of our human rights as TG's/TV's/CD's.  

I'm not going to do that, this time. ;D  

Instead, I'd like you to do so. I'd like you to read the post on my website called "On Awakening to A Brand New World" (It's in the prose section).  The address is: http://Ladyjayne83.tripod.com.

Then I'd like you to post your responses on the article here so everyone can share in the thought process.  (If need be, I will post the article here. I'd rather not, however, tie up Katie's server with it if I don't have to. ;D)

Sound off, ladies...especially those of you stateside.

Concerned luv 'n hugs,

(Dr.) Jayne Sakura  :)
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"
(and a very concerned one, at that)

I have a little more to add.  Jayne, I share some of your concern about the Department of Homeland Security.  This department, and others, could be free to run wild if they are not watched carefully.

This thought reminded me of a book that sits on my shelf.  I found it in the rare books room of a local used bookstore.  It is entitled, "McCarthyism:  The Fight for America" by Senator Joe McCarthy.  This frightening book is well worth a look if you want to see what can happen in this country if paranoia runs wild.  



On Pages 14 and 15 McCarthy talks about "sex deviants", especially homosexuals.  You can imagine that he did not like them much.  He considered them to be a "security risk" and had no problem with forcing them out of jobs.

Luckily, McCarthy was finally discredited, but not until he had ruined the lives of many innocent people.  For many years, he has been held up as an example of what not to do.  But memories fade with time.  This country does a rather poor job of teaching history in the public schools.  Those who do not know their history may repeat past mistakes.  I hope we do not embark on a new McCarthy-style witch hunt.  If enough people are reminded of Joe McCarthy and his witch hunts, perhaps they will be unwilling to repeat his excesses.

We must not allow a new McCarthyism to develop in the present climate of fear.

Heather H.

Heather:

Great post, hon. You are also pretty sharp!

I agree with much of what you said, especially:

"This is precisely how we can make progress at present - by educating people, a little at a time. The present Republican majority is troubling, but in time it will pass.  Unless this country takes a dramatic turn for the worse, they will not be able to hold on for long.  They will either moderate their more extreme views or they will lose elections.  They cannot build a lasting majority on the tired values of the past. We should watch the situation carefully for the next two years."

Bravo! I'm hoping you are correct. Let's get people in our hometowns to see our viewpoint, one (or two) at a time.

Luv 'n hugs,

Jayne  :)

Good post, Heather, and I wasn't bored at all. Unfortunately, I'm too tired to provide a decent response right now, but I will say that I'm a member of the Libertarian Party because of some of the same things you find wrong with the Republican Party.

5. "And they are STILL talking about a 'national ID card'."

I agree with you that a national ID card is a very bad idea. I'm against it, no matter who proposes it, or why. It's bad enough that the government tries to keep tabs on all of our firearms purchases.


6. "My point is this: we walk out of our homes as a transgendered person at our own risk." "And now, we could face even more problems-and harassment-from our own government."

I agree completely with the first sentence. For the most part, society looks down at us. However, I fail to see how we will face additional problems now that the Republicans have control at the federal level. Is anyone proposing anti-tranny legislation?


7. "Now is the time to start seeking candidates -in ANY party- that will restore our lost civil rights as ordinary citizens, not just as TG's, and help us transgendered people find a new form of acceptance, or at least, protection. `Cause I'm not so sure we're as safe as we were the day before I wrote this."

Aside from a blatant disregard for the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) during the twentieth century, what rights have we lost? Why aren't we going to be safe now, compared to November 4, 2002? If you are suggesting that we strike down all of those unconsititutional anti-gun laws, then I'm with you, sister! Otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean.

Jayne, I hope I don't sound too confrontational, but I do enjoy healthy, civilized debate. Please let me know if I'm taking this thread in a different direction than you intended, and I'll stop. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif

Oh, I finally found the post. Here's a link straight to it: http://ladyjayne83.tripod.com/id119.htm

Jayne, now that I've read your post, I want to respond to some of your statements, if that's O.K. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Smile01.gif


1. "I am very afraid that we may well lose what few privileges we have now."

To what privileges do you refer? How do you think we'll lose them?


2. "Does anyone care that our 'Office of Homeland Security' can easily be turned into a form of the Thought Police?"

I'm always concerned about that, but what's so special about the Republicans and the Office of Homeland Security that makes them such an unusual danger?


3. "Websites such as this could conceivably be forced off the `net, because, while being bisexual, lesbian, or gay is
'politically correct', Transgender issues are not!"

While I agree 100% that we don't enjoy the same PC status as other groups, I seriously doubt that Trannyweb will be forced off of the World Wide Web.


4. "Transgender people are essentially an add-on to the alleged 'Homosexual Agenda' I keep hearing about (Does anyone really know what this agenda is?)."

Yes. The argument is that some homosexuals want to see legislation passed that gives equal status to heterosexual and homosexual couples, and they also want society to openly accept homosexual couples as normal and integrate them into our daily lives, as opposed to being a sub-culture. What also bothers some conservatives is that there are government funded programs in the schools that attempt to teach children that homosexual couples are normal. For example, some classes have used books such as Heather Has Two Mommies to teach children that nontraditional families are O.K.

On the first point, while I have nothing against homosexual couples, I'm against giving ANY unmarried couple the same status as a married couple. I say we should make homosexual marriages legal in every state, and then we won't need any special rights for anyone. On the second point, that's what you get when you have government-run, government-funded schools. There's always someone who's offended by someone else's agenda. Granted, I'm a hard-core capitalist, but I'd like to do away with government schools and privatize them all. That way, you can send your kids to schools that don't offend you, politically, religiously, or otherwise, and you won't have to tolerate your tax dollars being spent on things you don't like. I realize that I'm in a very small minority on this private school issue, though.


More to come...

Girls, before all of the fallout begins, just remember; someone asked me for my opinion this time. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/fashionlab/Images/Smileys/Laugh01.gif  Jayne, I couldn't find your post, but I'll go ahead.

First off, I was generally pleased with the 2002 election results in the USA. I would've preferred to see more Libertarian victories, but the Republican victories were good enough for now. In other words, I'm glad the Democrats suffered losses across the country, and I hope that trend continues in future elections.

Why?

A. International Relations is an important issue right now. We're already at war, and we're on the verge of going into Iraq, so the last thing I want right now is a Democrat in the White House. I thought we should've eliminated Saddam Hussein the first time around, but Bush Sr. was too worried about repeating Vietnam, so he stuck to his pre-determined objective of driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Since then, Hussein has been playing cat and mouse with us (not just with the USA, but with the UN, as well). Hussein has just been given his last chance, and we need an administration that will back up the talk with action. I don't like war, but I don't care for terrorism, either, and Hussein's intentions are no mystery to us. This is one area where I'm more Republican than Libertarian.

B. I prefer to have as much control over my own life as possible. Control begins with economics. While the Republicans are not as committed to capitalism as the Libertarians, they do generally favor state, local, and individual control of our money. The Democrats want to tax us into the ground and tell us how our own money will be spent by having the federal government run our lives. If I want communism, I'll move to China.

C. Unlike economics, things aren't as clear cut between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to social issues. Both parties take liberal and conservative positions, depending on the issues. Again, I want as much control over my own life as possible, but I do live among others in a society, and we must have laws and rules to govern our interactions. The Libertarian party platform comes the closest to my beliefs in this area, but between the two major parties, the Republicans generally match my positions more often than the Democrats. There are some key social issues where I disagree with most Republicans, though.

D. Regarding the Office of Homeland Security, I know we have to deal with terrorism here at home, but I was disappointed in the Republicans for creating a new government agency. We should be making government smaller, not larger, and I think existing agencies could've coordinated (something they failed to do under Clinton) their efforts to fight domestic terrorism. However, as long as we don't give this agency too much power, I don't feel too threatened by it. For those of you who fear Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft, remember that Clinton's FBI chief, Louis Freeh, wanted us citizens to give up some of our freedom for increased security. When it comes to power grabbing, we have to keep our eyes on EVERY administration, not just the Republican ones.