I unintentionally went off on FB again on PISAD just as I am trying to wean myself from this campaign that Hillary has all but won. And I just couldn't stop. While writing I though a lot of it was well written but I need a break and am not going back to read it now. Instead I'll post it here for posterity as it is much too long for FB.
Because there is no doubt
HIllary will win the nomination i am trying to wean myself away from the
is debate as what's the point - some of Sanders voters will vote for
HRC and some won't and I am convinced
there is not enough of them to make a dif in Nov. Uh-oh usually I
digress in the middle not at the start but here's another stipulation.
Sheila's doing a great job here, better than me and has even more facts
than me. But I gotta weigh in on pet peeve #3 of the misguided
neophytes inexperienced or inconsistently attentive to political
developments and realities - let me recap #1) HRC is neither an oligarch
or tool of wall street and never has been; paid speeches by GS are a
nothing but a baseless silly attempt to smear her by demagoguery and
avoid Bernie's failure to release tax returns - smart accomplished
people with influence and past or future positions of authority are paid
to give speeches to liven up and stimulate conference goers - they
always have they always will and anyone who thinks there is more to it
than that is inane and needs to read more - a lot more - and research
and listen to Barney Frank, a true brilliant financial expert and also a
heroic progressive civil rights advocate without whom persons with HIV
would have suffered far worse stigma and discrimination for far longer -
I KNOW I WAS THERE! SO WAS BARNEY AND SO WERE A LOT OF DEAD PEOPLE.
Right along with the current leader of the The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law who at the time was a legal advocate.
I haven't even gotten to my point and i have to mention peeve #2 -
Hillary is responsible for all the infidelity in the US for both
straight and gay couples and if only she had left Bill no one would have
ever cheated again. Please - go see a therapist - I have - who hasn't'
been cheated on - martial issues are between 2 people alone. OK
here's the point - #3 - DOMA and Don't Ask/Tell - so many had knee jerk
reactions and still do and are either ignorant of or ignore the
political realities of the time. A Republican Congress - elected
because Dems failed to vote just like 2010 and 2014
- were threatening to pass over the President's veto the most
regressive restrictive stringent legislation forbidding same sex
marriage, gays and lesbians from serving in the military and the end of
welfare and social service programs as we know them returning the uS to
the you're on your social policies up to the Great Depression. Instead
Bill Clinton brilliantly and ingeniously coopted the egomaniacal power
mad Gingrich and the R majority through shrew political strategy that
avoided a debacle that would have taken decades to undo and would still
be with us today. DOMA avoided a far worse fate of changing the
constitution and provided the basis for the legislative and legal
advocacy that have since established the right to marriage - it would
not have been possible without DOMA because something worse would have
been in its place and it may have still been in effect today.
Similarly, Don't Ask was a compromise - ethically and morally untenable
more than any other but still a compromise - while resulting in the
ousting from military service underservedly of many, it allowed a legal
environment that enabled many more to honorably serve and demonstrate to
even the most resistant military leaders the irrelevance or orientation
to service. And it was done in such away that it could be more easily
undone than if Rs had their3 way. And so too Welfare Reform, after
sustaining 2 vetoes with HRC's advice reform legislation was passed and
signed by the President based on the inclusion for the first time in
history of federal funding for child care and job training that enabled
millions of single mothers to find more lucrative employment and income
than welfare provided along with the benefit of self esteem. And I was
there for that one too , for 38 years enforcing federal civil rights
laws for the US Dept of HEW and then Health and Human Services, where
for several years our priority was to monitor the implementation of
welfare reform so that no one was denied benefits or services due to
language barriers or mental or physical disabilities or other factors.
And to the shock of so many from me to the Edelmans for the 5 years
that it included the federal funding referenced above - it worked!
At
the time of DOMA and Don't Ask same sex marriage and military service
was not even a remote possibility in the existing political environment.
It advances far faster than many including me thought but it needed
time. And still we do not have federal
laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. When i
started my career I thought it likely that prior to retirement
legislation would be approved so that sexual orientation discrimination
would be among the bases I enforced. But to this day, in most of the
country, a same sex couple can get married in the morning and fired or
evicted in the afternoon. Of what use is marriage to them. Because of
case law advancements, court rulings, and administrative enforcement by
the Obama Administration, i was able to include in my last public
technical assistance presentation that federal law not prohibits
discrimination with respect to gender identity or conformance based on
the evolving legal definition of gender. There is new legal
developments that may lead to similar coverage within gender regarding
sexual orientation. but i and many believe orientation is different
than gender and what is needed as passage of the New Civil Rights Act to
include sexual orientation and gender identify and status, a huge
improvement over the weak and meager protections ENDA would have
provided while a significant faction of the Democratic Party opposed
adding orientation the Civil Rights Act. The next Clinton
administration will build on the achievements of the Obama
Administration that are far more significant in so many areas than
acknowledged today. And Hillary will continue to be the progressive
leader she has always been fighting the establishment, fighting Wall
Street, fighting for equity for all, advancing the rights health and
welfare of women children and the underserved as she always has not
through unrealistic impractical revolutionary change but through the
steady incremental work and steps that have been the basis for
progressive development in the US for over 100 years. and continuing
to "do as much as she can for as many as she can for as long as she can"
her lifelong motto.
My reference to the Clinton marriage issue was sarcastic as well as referring to some folks well
known for quite some time who have often posted on this page but not on
this thread that they refuse to support Hillary based on their
perception that she undermined and worse women who allegedly had affairs
with Bill Clinton. You have never made this point but others have. On
Bros 4 Hillary there was a thread the other day in which dozens if not
more folks documented that many many persons have cited this reason for
opposing HRC. As well I have perceived in some that they oppose HRC
rather than support Bernie and many of those folks I believe will not
vote for her due to their perception of the fidelity or the corporate
issue and I don't' think any argument will convince them so I don't try.
The reason I raised it here is complex - I wanted to reference the
DOMA and DADT issue but since i referenced other annoyances without
naming them i decided to name them all. If you have never heard anyone
express antipathy for HRC due to their perception of her marriage good
for you but i have heard it so much i am sick of it. It is not Bernie's
fault either. Likewise but somewhat different, I know many friends who
fault HRC on financial issues and likewise it drive me crazy because I
believe it is based on false hood. I worked for her I know her not
personally but i have read her books. I already listed my documentation
so I am loathe to repeat it here because you will believe what you will
as is your right. She got paid for speaking at GS so what - Bernie
didn't release his taxes. His interview with the DN revealed he hasn't
the slightest idea how to break up the bid banks his signature issue.
I'll admit i don't know much about the monsanto issue but i know her
well enough to know she's not going to sell out consumer safety for the
sake of corporate interests. It's another thing my norcal friends raise
that i think will he resolved in time. i lived in SF for like i can't
even count that high 31 years and was a fed for 38 enforcing civil
rights laws as i referenced elsewhere as well as pointing out my
perception that your comments have been devoid of hate or insults even
if i disagree with you. It is reasonable that you would have expertise
on the Monstanto and food safety issues unlike me and that is important
to you. Finally - ever since I retired I like to write - I don't know
why - and I no longer have an editor for better and for worse. So some
days like today without intention or thinking ahead i start writing and
just don't' stop. i also started a blog when i retired where I stated
that I write for me, whether anyone reads is of not much interest to me.
I have also found it is my new therapy. My fb page is open and soon i
am going to copy and paste much of what i posted here and add it to the
blog and link it again on my FB page. the blog covers my career and
political views and electoral political experience. I have been
politically opinionated and strong willed since i was like 5, when I
started counting how many peas were on each of my 4 brother's plate.
Then in first grade i wanted to sue the Catholic Church for my
perception that they said only Catholics could go to heaven. That went
on for over a year till some one said perhaps others could if they were
good but they'd have to go to purgatory first. as I was about to
protest that i recognized my first concession due to my argument,
stuborness or plain annoyance and I never stopped. I worked for RFK in
high school, for Myrlie Evers in Pomona, for Dellums and the progressive
coalition in Berkeley and then for Harvey Milk. See what i mean aren't you happy you asked. best wishes
i
keep waiting to hear all the great things Sanders has accomplished -
other than violating the Civil Rights Act and voting against gun
control. Day after day post after post month after month we fill this
page with Hillary's vast accomplishments her entire life but no one ever
lists anything Sanders has done. His whole campaign is evidence of his
incompetence and more. You have the right to believe whatever you want
however baseless foolish and devoid of documentation but STOP telling
us Sanders is superior to the brilliant effective accomplished Clinton
or least start telling us what Bernie has ever done to show he could
accomplish anything in the future.
t's
not that complicated; approving or disapproving of HRC speaking at GS
is a different point than amount of compensation; it's called equal pay -
why should GS pay less to a woman speaker than a man? the speaker is
irrelevant; they are paying because they
believe the speaker has knowledge, are among few who have successfully
attained high level positions in government or industry, achieved
success in performance of their positions, and continue to exert
influence among a sector the payor finds of value, whether or not you
agree with the payor's opinion of the speaker. They are paying the
speaker to share her/his knowledge, not to do their bidding. Asserting
nefarious motives without any basis is slanderous defamatory and without
merit
e
has no chance in CA; for comparison, here are the results of the 2008
CA Dem Primary: Clinton - 51.5% popular vote - 204 delegates (46.3%
delegates) Obama - 43.2% popular vote - 166 delegates (37.7% delegates)
by the way - votes to date in Dem primary Hillary Clinton - 12,135,166 Bernie Sanders - 8,968,267
Clinton up by 3,166,899 over Sanders Clinton up by 2,078,8115 over Trump[
As promised, I am posting the comments I submitted. But as they are particular to me, I found another articulate but briefer comment to share as a sample. Those who wish to submit a comment may adapt from or use one of these samples. Or you may simply fill out the HRC form and submit that. I am finally trying to post a simple easy to follow one page guide. You can post as anonymous rather than use your name. First the comments, then the links. The deadline is November 9. I urge all to consider submitting a comment.
My comment:
I commend HHS for its
Proposed Rule to implement Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and
urge its adoption. I specifically concur with the proposal's
prohibition of discrimination based on gender status, gender
nonconformity, or against persons who identify as transgender or
transitioning.
With respect to discrimination based on sexual
orientation, I commend HHS for its commitment to address this important
issue as much as I recognize the barriers presented by case law to date
and the omission of any specific reference to sexual orientation
discrimination in the ACA.
I urge OCR to continue to follow case
law, to track if possible instances or documentation of sexual
orientation discrimination, and to consider publishing a guidance for
covered entities on best practices for ensuring nondiscriminatory
services and treatment for persons who identify as lesbian, gay, or
bisexual.
Ultimately, I believe the issue of discrimination based
on sexual orientation is best addressed universally once and for all by
adding the term sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I
believe that objections to this are not as strong as in prior decades
and civil rights advocates for many covered bases of discrimination are
more cooperative and aligned than ever. Perhaps HHS could could consult
with DOJ for DOJ/Civil Rights Division to consider convening a
conference of a broad range of civil rights advocates to consider
proposing legislation that would do just that and could result in
advocates working together to achieve a common goal.
Getting back
to the ACA, the current state of case law and federal legislation
regarding religious exemptions is beyond my understanding. I would
simply urge that HHS adopt the strongest possible language to prohibit
religious-based exemptions from prohibitions of discriminatory denial of
and access to treatment and health care services.
In my
experience of many years as an EOS for OCR, now retired, I saw much
evidence of discrimination against gays and transgenders that OCR could
not address. I am aware of even more through the personal experience of
friends, acquaintances and community members throughout my life. Only
yesterday I learned through social media of a friend's experience as a
health care provider at a private non profit federally funded health
clinic in Fresno. She had to demonstrate to other employees how to
treat and serve with respect and dignity a patient seeking Hormone
Replacement Therapy from the initial interaction of inquiring how or by
which name the patient wished to be addressed through interactions with
varying service providers at this clinic. Fortunately, this employee
was aware of how to provide nondiscriminatory access and treatment to
this patient but so many providers lack this capability. Another comment from anonymous I found brief, succinct and to the point, a good example:
As a person of deep faith who believes that all of us no matter our
sexual orientation or gender identity are beloved and deserve access to
quality healthcare, and, as an OUT gay man for the past 33 years, I am
writing in support of the Department of Health and Human Services Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking on Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and
Activities.
I applaud the Department for establishing that the
prohibition on sex discrimination in Section 1557 of the Affordable Care
Act includes discrimination based on gender identity. Additionally I
urge the Department to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation in the final rule. Further, I urge the department to refrain
from including a religious exemption in the final rule-to include such
an exemption is not only unnecessary, but could do significant harm.
The
rule of law is the most advanced method of self-government humankind
has developed throughout history to avoid mob rule or the kingdom of the
individual, each for self, power to the strongest, most armed richest.
It's not perfect, it's complex and it's evolving.
As explained
above, when a law is passed an agency in the executive branch is
required to enforce it as written by issuing regulations for clarity.
The proposed rule discussed herein is Section 1557 of the Affordable
Care Act. Section 1557 is the first federal civil rights law that bars
sex discrimination in federally funded health care, As I explained
above, case law has established that sex discrimination covers gender
identify and nonconformity. The ACA however does not explicitly
prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. HHS must enforce
what exists, no more no less. HRC is asserting that sex discrimination
also covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. Despite its
assertion, that is an open question at best. I searched but could not
find any information on this matter explaining the basis for its
assertion on its web site. All I have to go on in trying to understand
their assertion is the request for comments I linked.
Therein,
HRC states: "Numerous federal courts and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
have determined that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
is sex discrimination under federal law." However, I can find no basis
for that statement on its site or elsewhere, it simply provides no
documentation to support its assertion. Perhaps it thinks it too
complicated too understand. HRC correctly asserts that unless HHS
determines that sex discrimination covers sexual orientation, the ACA
does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The fact
is the ACA does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation;
to include such a basis would violate the Constitutional doctrine of
separation of powers in effect for over 200 years. Congress has the
authority to pass legislation in the ACA or separately prohibiting
sexual orientation discrimination without which federal agencies cannot
prohibit it unless Courts find otherwise.
HHS, however, is
so concerned with discrimination based on sexual orientation that it
addresses the matter in the proposed rule despite no explicit provision
in the law as follows:
"The proposed rule makes clear HHS’s commitment, as a matter of policy,
to banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and requests
comment on how a final rule can incorporate the most robust set of
protections against discrimination supported by the courts on an ongoing
basis.
As a matter of policy, we support banning discrimination in health
programs and activities not only on the bases identified previously, but
also on the basis of sexual orientation. Current law is mixed on
whether existing Federal nondiscrimination laws prohibit discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation as a part of their prohibitions of
sex discrimination. To date, no Federal appellate court has concluded
that Title IX's prohibition of discrimination “on the basis of sex”—or
Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination more generally—prohibits
sexual orientation discrimination, and some appellate courts previously
reached the opposite conclusion. (22)
However, a recent EEOC
decision concluded that Title VII's prohibition of discrimination “on
the basis of sex” precludes sexual orientation discrimination because
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves
sex-based considerations. The EEOC relied on several theories to reach
this conclusion: A plain interpretation of the term “sex” in the
statutory language, an associational theory of discrimination based on
“sex,” and the gender-stereotype theory announced in Price Waterhouse.
(23) The EEOC's decision cited several district court decisions that
similarly concluded that sex discrimination included sexual orientation
discrimination, using these theories. (24) The EEOC also analyzed and
called into question the appellate decisions that have concluded that
sexual orientation discrimination is not covered under Title VII. The
EEOC decision applies to workplace conditions, as well as hiring,
firing, and promotion decisions, and is one of several recent
developments in the law that have resulted in additional protections for
lesbian and gay individuals against discrimination. (25)
The
final rule should reflect the current state of nondiscrimination law,
including with respect to prohibited bases of discrimination. We seek
comment on the best way of ensuring that this rule includes the most
robust set of protections supported by the courts on an ongoing basis."
Legal experts can disagree with the assessment expressed above by HHS and HRC as is its right has chosen to do so. After again reading OCR's position as stated above, I see that EEOC has determined that sex discrimination precludes discrimination based on sexual orientation. But OCR states that no Federal appellate court has issued a decision consistent with that EEOC decision and states that as a matter of Constitutional principles, OCR cannot assert that sex discrimination covers sexual orientation discrimination.
Another
area addressed in the proposed rule is the principle of religious
exemption. Due to recent Supreme Court rulings and other legislation, I
find the status of case law in this matter too confusing for me to
contemplate. All I know is no service provider should ever be able to
deny services or discriminate due to religious beliefs. The proposed
rule has language finessing a fine line between compliance with existing
case law without upholding it while asserting that religious exemptions
so should not be allowed.
So what does this all mean? I concludes as follows:
Everyone
should submit comments either through HRC or directly to HHS on the 3
issues of some controversy in the proposed rule, the more the better,
you know the bigots will be submitting their comments:
1) Concurring with the Rule as written to prohibit discrimination based on gender status or nonconformity;
2)
Expressing objection to discrimination based on sexual orientation -
while HHS is unlikely to include explicit prohibitions, your comments
are documented and count and can be used to show Congress the widespread
support for passing laws to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation;
3) Expressing objections to allow religious exemptions for health care service providers.
So
why did I take so long to state something so simple - because I was
puzzled by HRC's assertion and wanted to determine its validity and
basis for myself, because I wanted to educate anyone interested in the
history of discrimination in health care and the current state of case
law regarding discrimination against gays and transgenders, and to
explain why discrimination against transgenders is prohibited before
discrimination based on sexual orientation but not to defend the lack of
laws prohibiting discrimination
During my last presentation prior to
retirement, I was as surprised as I was pleased to discuss OCR's
authority to enforce provisions of the ACA prohibiting discrimination
against transgenders in the provision of health care services, and that
those who believed they had experienced such discrimination could file a
complaint with OCR, even if I wouldn't be around to investigate it and
issue findings, and before an audience of health providers that included
staff and clients who are transgender or gender nonconforming.
For those who have read this far, after you have submitted your
comments, with elections approaching, you can ask candidates for office
in your district or state whether they would vote in favor of amending
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include the basis of sexual orientation
to once and for all prohibit discrimination against lesbians and gays
throughout the United States in employment, housing, health care, public
accommodations and all other areas with one simple amendment.
Links:
Fact Sheet: Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities Proposed Rule Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/nprmsummary.html
FAQs - Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/nprmprqas.html
Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities - Proposed Rule: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=HHS-OCR-2015-0006-0001
Recently 2 distinct postings on FB brought my attention
back to my career enforcing Federal laws prohibiting discrimination in
health care and human services on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, age, and disability, including HIV status or alleged risk
status. These laws were passed as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(and related case law with respect to HIV as a disability). Enforcement
of laws, especially with respect to civil rights, are dispersed among
the many federal agencies, each having jurisdiction over its subject
matter or fundees. Specifically I worked for the US Department of
Health Education and Welfare and its successor agency the US Department
of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights (HHS/OCR -
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/index.html
Discrimination in the provision of health services has a long tawdry appalling history in the Unites States. The book "Health Care Divided, Race and Healing a Nation” by David Barton Smith, thoroughly covers that history prior to 1964 and perhaps beyond as well. I am not going to go back quite that far.
The
first FB item that got my attention was a posting from a health care
worker (and also member of a royal court) discussing her experience in
showing other staff how to treat a person going through gender
transitioning with dignity and respect at a private non-profit health
care clinic. The other item was a link to the advocacy organization
Human Rights Campaign Fund soliciting comments to HHS/OCR regarding a
proposed regulation the drafting of which started as my career was
ending. I will discuss that period and my thoughts, which may slightly
diverge from the HRCF's view, in a moment. But first to demonstrate the
importance of this issue and of the greatest number of people possible
submitting comments on your view of nondiscriminatory access to health
care services for all and the proposed regulation I am including the
link to the proposed HRCF comments and form right here. You don't have
to read what I think; you can stop and fill out your opinion now.
Comments
are due by November 9, 2015. Briefly, when Congress passes and the
President signs a law, the appropriate federal agency issues specific
regulations to enforce the law. Once the agency drafts the proposed
regulation, it is published in the Federal Register so the public may
view and comment on it. After the comment deadline, real people in DC
read each and every comment, summarize and categorize them, determine
whether to amend or change any part of the proposal, then the Department
publishes the final regulation in the Federal Register along with a
summary of the comments, and the reasons for any changes made or
considered and rejected. Then the Department begins enforcement. It is
a lengthy process. But your comment is read and each one is
significant, especially if many present a common view, such as the HRCF
is urging. At the end of this article, I am going to post links to the
proposed regulation, Qs and As, FAQs, TA information, and links to other
documents or information you may find of interest on OCR's site.
Since
my view and understanding of case law is based on my experience and
informs my view of comments that I am considering, I want to provide
some historical background first. This is also necessary because as you
will see there is a tremendous and unexpected irony that I myself faced
at the end of my career and addressed in my very last public
presentation on OCR's enforcement of regulations prohibiting
discrimination and OCR's complaint process to an advocacy organization
transitioning to a health services provider consistent with the reforms
authorized by the Affordable Care Act - an organization staffed in part
by and whose primary mission is to serve Asian-Pacific
Islander-Americans with or at risk for HIV/AIDS including persons
identifying as gay or gender nonconforming or transgender. it is a
question I had to face that HRCF's notice directly raises - how did we
get to this point where discrimination based on gender status or
nonconformity is prohibited but discrimination based on sexual
orientation is not?
Way back when I first started, I hoped that
before I retired Congress would pass and OCR would be authorized to
enforce laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
For a while it did not seem to be an unrealistic expectation. Support
for gay rights was increasing and far more bipartisan than it is today.
It seemed that with each session of Congress passage of the proposed
Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) seemed a little closer. Then
life interrupted. I became involved in issues relating to HIV related
discrimination, achieving national expertise within OCR and for awhile
speaking at conferences around the country. Eventually someone wondered
why an agency with 10 regional offices had only one guy who could speak
on the issue. Advocates in Region IX where I worked were marveling
that OCR was issuing violation findings on complaints they filed while
advocates in many other regions were marveling that OCR was issuing
findings of compliance. Training was in order and after another 2 or 3
years of struggle completed so that each regional office could address
HIV discrimination with competent expertise and my national touring days
were over.
I wrote a lot more on my experience in OCR
that is posted elsewhere on my blog mostly on the "Career" page but also
the "Politics and Government Page" that is not directly relevant to
discuss here. Eventually as I became more informed and got to know more
legal experts and advocates I realized ENDA did not cover the provision
of services. And its support was actually decreasing among Republicans
and passage looked more and more distant. Although I understand more
now how it occurred, i remain like many of you shocked that same sex
marriage has been legalized before discrimination has been prohibited.
And what is the value of sanctioned marriage if it results in losing
employment and/or housing? And as i have been doing since I could talk,
i started asking lots and lots of questions in particular about why
advocates were seeking new laws to prohibit discrimination based on
sexual orientation, which would have to be passed to cover employment,
access to services, and public accommodations across a broad range of
areas, rather than simply amending the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to
include sexual orientation.
Turns out civil rights
advocates did not want to equate discrimination based on race with
discrimination based on sexual orientation. Now that's a loaded issue I
am not going to get bogged down in with the exception of some broadly
agreed upon caveats - gay people as a class were not enslaved by the
majority nor were subject to mass and regular lynching. I especially do
not want to discuss "passing" either with respect to light skinned
Blacks or gender conforming gays. But the other caveat is that
discrimination is wrong and must be prohibited in all instances
consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. I
don't think it's necessary to discuss or agree on much more than that.
Now as I see it, ENDA is on life support. And tremendous progress has
been made in achieving coalitions and common ground among traditional
civil rights advocates representing persons of color and persons who are
gay, lesbian, or gender non-conforming or transgender. Some LGBT
advocates, and I am in strong agreement with them, believe we should
drop ENDA and work on amending The Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include
sexual orientation. That would be simplest, most effective, and most
fair, and most consistent with Constitutional values. Some traditional
civil rights advocates may object, but I believe it will come down to a
generational divide and those objecting may risk losing their office.
The time has come to amend the CRA.
Now what of
discrimination regarding gender conformity and status? Certainly I
would not object to including it as well in the CRA and so do many
others. But just as unexpected as legalization of same sex marriage
have been advances on this issue in widely accepted case law. Over the
past number of years, Federal courts have issued rulings that have been
widely accepted finding that the term sex when applied to discrimination
incorporates gender status and nonconformity. Rather than objecting,
the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the US
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division have concurred with such
findings. So today it can be said that Federal law prohibits
discrimination against persons identifying as transgender. So whether
it is necessary to include gender status in an amended CRA is an open question.
Now
what of sexual orientation - is that also incorporated within the
definition of sex discrimination. Therein lies the controversy. HRCF
seems to assert that courts have ruled that it does. I am not aware
that they have. And if they have, does CRA need to be amended or ENDA
adopted? Why aren't Federal agencies such as EEOC and DOJ presently
forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation. Having relieved
my brain of the above and developed my thoughts to this point, I need to
take a break and informed by my review of the above, read again what
HRCF, says what the law states, what the regs say and all the background
info on OCR's site. I will return with my conclusion in Part 2, which
will discuss whether Affordable Care Act and case law cover sexual
orientation and the affect thereof on the proposed regulations.
A while ago I blogged about a new playlist I put together of songs that
both these great vocalists recorded. While the arrangements mood and
intonation often differed I found it fascinating to listen to and
reflective of my knowledge that they both were on record stating that
each influenced the other. And now along comes this terrific piece in
the NYT that documents their interaction and communication more than I
ever knew or imagined. As an old fan of Billie and a new fan of
Frankie, whose recordings I have been recently exploring (not many
vocalists left I have yet to explore) nothing I have read recently has
excited warmed and stimulated me as much as this piece. Below is my
real time commenting, the link to the article and the full essay as
published in the New York Times.
A favorite tidbit is she called him "Frankie". 'I told him certain notes at the end he could bend.
... Bending those notes — that’s all I helped Frankie with.’’ Those
notes that Holiday told him to bend — they bent toward the boudoir."
‘It is Billie Holiday ... who was, and still remains, the greatest
single musical influence on me,’’ he said in 1958." I love this reference to "cunning" as follows: "Her approach to rhythm was cunning. She
meandered around the beat, slyly elongating and truncating syllables,
gliding down for a landing in surprising places. Sinatra was captivated
by the third song she ever recorded,
‘‘I Wished on the Moon,’’ a stock-standard Tin Pan Alley ballad that
Holiday, with deft tugs at the melody, transforms into something deeper:
a celebration of ecstatic new romance tinged with the melancholy
awareness that love fades." The following had me channeling Lauren Hill -
"that thing, that thing that ... " "As for Sinatra, even as a tyro — a
babyfaced 25-year-old fronting Tommy Dorsey’s band in a bow tie too big
for his string-bean frame — the throb in his song was unmistakable." Oh
yeah " that throb that throb that ..." Perchance does it reveal my 'youth" to
inquire what the f is a tyro? 2 Brilliant observations: "Of course, the message of Holiday and
Sinatra wasn’t just sex. It was pain. To put the matter in genre terms:
Both Holiday and Sinatra were torch singers. In Sinatra’s case, this was
a novelty. Torch singing had traditionally been women’s work, but his
records made the case that a bruiser in a fedora could love as hard,
could hurt as bad, as any dame." and Sinatra
is often celebrated as the swaggering Rat-Packer, Holiday as a tragic
balladeer. Yet it’s Holiday’s music that percolates with greater joie de
vivre, and Sinatra’s that scrapes darker depths. Here's
what I was trying to say in my earlier piece, only more observant
articulate nuanced and savvy: "One of my favorite parlor
games is to listen to the singers’ versions of the same songs: to hear
the hay that they both made of ‘‘All of Me’’ or ‘‘Day In, Day Out,’’ to
observe their different angles of attack on ‘‘Night and Day’’ —
Holiday’s playful and insouciant, Sinatra’s grand, booming, brooding.
Then there are those moments when the two giants directly address one
other. Sinatra was the acolyte, but the flow of influence reversed on
Holiday’s lavishly orchestrated ‘‘Lady in Satin’’ (1958), an homage to
Sinatra’s Capitol Records concept albums. Holiday made the connection
explicit by opening the LP with a tremulous version of ‘‘I’m a Fool to
Want You,’’ Sinatra’s signature torch song, co-written by the man
himself. A few years later, Sinatra answered back on a recording of the
standard ‘‘Yesterdays,’’ a Holiday staple. At the 1:11 mark of that
song, Sinatra sings the word ‘‘then,’’ unleashing a dramatically low and
rumbling descending vocal line. Keen-eared listeners picked it up right
away: This was Ol’ Blue Eyes doing his Billie Holiday impression. A
century after their births, Holiday and Sinatra are still talking to
each other. What a privilege it is to listen in."
Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday: They Did It Their Way
More than just contemporaries, Frank Sinatra and Billie Holiday were mutual admirers who pushed each other musically.Credit
From left: Donaldson Collection/Getty Images; Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images
In
life, the two may have been miles apart in circumstance and success.
But as each other’s great influences, they’ll be forever one.
BILLIE
HOLIDAY, née Eleanora Fagan, was born in Philadelphia, 100 years ago
this past April 7. Eight months later, on Dec. 12, 1915, Francis Albert
Sinatra arrived, about 95 miles up the coast in Hoboken, N.J. The birth
of these two great — arguably, greatest — popular singers, in the same
year, a century ago, might be deemed a cosmic fluke, an accident of
history. You could also call it history in action. They were born into a
still-primitive pop music universe, but changes were afoot. By the time
they turned pro, as teenagers in the 1930s, American music had been
reshaped by modernity: by the blues and jazz and suave Broadway pop, by
electrical recording and microphones and radio. This new brand of music
and set of technological tools were ideally suited to Holiday and
Sinatra’s talents — an artistry based on uncommon musical and emotional
intelligence and expressed through miraculously shrewd and subtle vocal
phrasing. Had Eleanora and Francis been born in another year, had they
come of age in a different musical world, they might never have become
Lady Day and the Voice.
They
were linked by more than just the coincidence of their birth year. We
associate Holiday and Sinatra with other muses and collaborators — she
with the saxophonist Lester Young, he with the arranger Nelson Riddle —
but throughout their careers, the singers exerted a powerful pull on one
another. Their paths crossed early. Sinatra first saw Holiday perform
sometime in the late ’30s; he became an instant devotee. In 1944,
Holiday told columnist Earl Wilson that she’d offered Sinatra advice on
his singing. ‘‘I told him certain notes at the end he could bend. ...
Bending those notes — that’s all I helped Frankie with.’’ Sinatra made
no secret of his debt to Holiday: ‘‘It is Billie Holiday ... who was,
and still remains, the greatest single musical influence on me,’’ he
said in 1958. In ‘‘Mr. S: My Life with Frank Sinatra,’’ from 2003,
George Jacobs, the singer’s former valet, writes that Sinatra visited
Holiday in her New York City hospital room in July 1959, shortly before
her death from drug and alcohol-related liver and heart disease. When
Holiday died, Sinatra holed up in his penthouse for two days, weeping,
drinking and playing her records.
The
Holiday-Sinatra bond, in other words, was a classic relationship of
guru and disciple. Certainly, Holiday was the more precocious of the
two. She began singing in Harlem jazz clubs at age 16 and cut her first
records as an 18-year-old in 1933. By the time she returned to the
studio in 1935, she was a revelation — neither the white balladeers who
dominated the Hit Parade nor the black blues queens from whose ranks she
emerged provided a precedent for her. By traditional measures, she
didn’t have much of an instrument. Her voice was small and slight. She
delivered songs in a midrange drawl that cracked and creaked when she
ventured north and south — a bit shrill in the upper register, a touch
hoarse on the low end. Yet the result was inviting and beguiling. Like a
cool enveloping mist, it was a sound to get lost in."
Her
approach to rhythm was cunning. She meandered around the beat, slyly
elongating and truncating syllables, gliding down for a landing in
surprising places. Sinatra was captivated by the third song she ever
recorded, ‘‘I Wished on the Moon,’’
a stock-standard Tin Pan Alley ballad that Holiday, with deft tugs at
the melody, transforms into something deeper: a celebration of ecstatic
new romance tinged with the melancholy awareness that love fades.
Sinatra signing an autograph for Holiday in the 1940s.
On
that record, as on so many others, you can hear Holiday batting bedroom
eyes. She was a beautiful woman, but it was her husky voice, and the
knowledge of earthly pleasures that it conveyed, that made her a sex
symbol. As for Sinatra, even as a tyro — a babyfaced 25-year-old
fronting Tommy Dorsey’s band in a bow tie too big for his string-bean
frame — the throb in his song was unmistakable. From Holiday, he’d
learned that, ideally, musical seduction was a subtle art. His come-ons
were staked on telling details: minute vocal shading, delicately dabbed
colors, the teasing extra half-beat pause before the headlong plunge
into the chorus. Those notes that Holiday told him to bend — they bent
toward the boudoir.
Of
course, the message of Holiday and Sinatra wasn’t just sex. It was
pain. To put the matter in genre terms: Both Holiday and Sinatra were
torch singers. In Sinatra’s case, this was a novelty. Torch singing had
traditionally been women’s work, but his records made the case that a
bruiser in a fedora could love as hard, could hurt as bad, as any dame.
He proclaimed himself an ‘‘18-karat manic depressive,’’ and you could
hear it even in up-tempo songs like his tumultuous 1956 version of ‘‘I’ve Got You Under My Skin’’:
the singer gusting from ecstasy to despair and back again, along the
crests and crashes of Riddle’s orchestrations. His ballads cut even
deeper. On albums like ‘‘In the Wee Small Hours,’’ Sinatra cast himself
as a noir gumshoe, pursuing an insoluble case: ‘‘What is this thing
called love? ... Who can solve its mystery?’’ Holiday played a more
traditional role. In ‘‘My Man,’’ ‘‘Don’t Explain’’
and other torch ballads, she was the bruised diva, doomed to
masochistic love with callous men. But there was more: a spirit of
resiliency and unflappable cool in the face of cruelty you could detect
in all her music, from the most standard pop-jazz genre fare to the
anti-lynching anthem ‘‘Strange Fruit.’’ In Holiday’s hands, a torch song was also a protest song.
The
fates of the two singers can stand as a parable about race in
20th-century America. Holiday was an adored cult artist who never
reached superstardom during her lifetime. When she died, at age 44, she
had 70 cents in her bank account. She spent her last days in Manhattan’s
Metropolitan Hospital under police guard; she’d been placed under
arrest in her hospital bed, on drug possession charges. Sinatra outlived
his hero by 39 years. He released dozens of albums, including a few of
the best ever made, and a handful of duds, too. He was feted by
presidents and died a multimillionaire.
Today,
Holiday and Sinatra are so shrouded in myth it can be hard to see them
clearly. But when you listen to their records, the clouds part.
Frequently, you find them playing against type. Sinatra is often
celebrated as the swaggering Rat-Packer, Holiday as a tragic balladeer.
Yet it’s Holiday’s music that percolates with greater joie de vivre, and
Sinatra’s that scrapes darker depths. One of my favorite parlor games
is to listen to the singers’ versions of the same songs: to hear the hay
that they both made of ‘‘All of Me’’ or ‘‘Day In, Day Out,’’ to observe
their different angles of attack on ‘‘Night and Day’’ — Holiday’s
playful and insouciant, Sinatra’s grand, booming, brooding. Then there
are those moments when the two giants directly address one other.
Sinatra was the acolyte, but the flow of influence reversed on Holiday’s
lavishly orchestrated ‘‘Lady in Satin’’ (1958), an homage to Sinatra’s
Capitol Records concept albums. Holiday made the connection explicit by
opening the LP with a tremulous version of ‘‘I’m a Fool to Want You,’’
Sinatra’s signature torch song, co-written by the man himself. A few
years later, Sinatra answered back on a recording of the standard
‘‘Yesterdays,’’ a Holiday staple. At the 1:11 mark of that song, Sinatra
sings the word ‘‘then,’’ unleashing a dramatically low and rumbling
descending vocal line. Keen-eared listeners picked it up right away:
This was Ol’ Blue Eyes doing his Billie Holiday impression. A century
after their births, Holiday and Sinatra are still talking to each other.
What a privilege it is to listen in.
A version of this article appears in print on October 25, 2015, on page M2132 of T Magazine with the headline: They Did It Their Way
The New York Times recently celebrated its historic accomplishment of achieving 1 million digital subscribers, including me, by asking for reader feedback. At the link, is the column from the NYT Public Editor to which I responded below.
You asked for it, you'll get it! But
before I start on what's wrong, I'll tell you what's right and why I
care. And before that, a little about me. I fled LA County ASAP for
Berkeley at 18, then San Francisco, which for a time seemed like Oz. I
spent 38 years working for the Federal government, most of them
enforcing civil rights laws for US Dept HEW then Health & Human
Services, Office for Civil Rights, returning to city of LA to help open
OCR's first and only Field Office in LA during the glory years of govt
service aka the Clinton Administration under the leadership of the most
brilliant and devoted genius in govt service, now the Sec of Labor, Tom
Perez. Eventually I bought a house, retired, and started writing
liberated from govt editors but not from my penchant for gratuitous
comments, run on sentences, or needlessly long comments.
I
am devoted to the NYT because, other than possibly The New Yorker,
published weekly, there is no better written media journal anywhere.
Your closest competitors mere ghosts of their former selves, the LA
Times deteriorated into not much more than a tabloid without corporate
support or the resources to allow the few journalists left to conduct
the minimum amount of research necessary to complete an article, and the
Washington Post chasing it downward as quickly as it can. I rarely
read the sports pages, but even there when I find something of interest I
find quality writing. Someday someone needs to beatify and bestow
deserved sainthood on perhaps the best writer and critic in journalism
anywhere, Stephen Holden. No one writes better.
I smirked
as I read your lead in this column thinking to myself surely your editor
is a self absorbed jerk masquerading as a considerate editor only
concerned with pleasing readers rather than increasing corporate profit
but indeed I feel more and more often a cog in the corporate drive to
make more and more money. And I do understand that profit is necessary
to publish the high quality publication I love. And perhaps as some
have said I am not like anyone else so my views lie outside the core of
reader sentiment and that's OK too. I subscribe to and read the digital
edition as if it were the printed edition. Maybe I am old fashioned. I
look through the articles - my favorite starting point is Today's Paper
- and choose from there which article to read when in what order. I
have the impression you would like to eliminate that link. Of course I
check the main page site for more updated news. But - and every other
newspaper is worse at this - I resent feeling like the NYT thinks I am
an idiot unable to navigate through your sections to find the articles I
find of interest, rather than what some unseen viral presence seems to
want me to read. And granted as I did not grow up with this technology I
am not as savvy as others but even i can find my way around a web
site. It seems like I can't even read one sentence of an article when
up pops demands to read this, go here, go there, and I just want to
scream for gosh sake leave me the heck alone and let me finish reading
what I started. I may or may not choose your viral ghost's selection
next. But I can find what I want. And if NYT is making a profit at
getting readers to accept your suggestion of a "new" way to read the
publication, or wish to subscribe to additional features for behind the
scenes materials, go for it, but without me.
I don't want a new way to
read a newspaper. Nor am I looking for more to read. I prefer not to
spend 24/7 with my eyes glued to a computer, tablet, cell phone, ad
nauseam, I like to have time to spend interacting with real people in
real time. I fear the next generation will be unable to communicate
with other people directly or even write, but that is not for me to
worry about. And I will grant that I am not so self absorbed to think
that you can remove all these annoying popups just for me while
maintaining them for readers that provide NYT with income. But in part
this is because you have given me the opportunity to gripe and I have
been wanting to complain about all this for a long time, petty as it may
seem.
Perhaps more substantively, i find the absence of
women from the top ranks of editors to the number of reporters slants
and demeans coverage of women leaders, Hillary Clinton in particular.
And those few you have delight in skewering other women. Wouldn't it be
interesting if her editor told Maureen Dowd to refrain from writing one
more column about Clintons or Bushes for 6 months - a year? Do you
think she could still produce a weekly column some readers would find of
interest? Fine if she hates Hillary so much but her demeaning
condescending tone reeks of upper class snobbery.
On the news pages -
twice now I have seen a similar headline - "Hillary says she opposes
pipeline" and another I have forgotten. Really have you ever said that
when a male politician announces a decision or position. I am sure your
editor will excuse it by saying the word "says" is shorter than
"announces" but it reeks of a negative condescending demeaning tone that
questions her sincerity unfairly. If you all think she is
opportunistic, publish a column about it on the opinion pages. Why
can't you just publish "Clinton opposes pipeline"? Succinct, brief and
accurate.
Now on to your celebrity or perhaps performing
artists' interviews. You already got deservedly raked over the coals
for the Taye Diggs interview so I don't need to pile on. I'll give 2
examples of what I see as backsliding. The recent interview with Aretha
Franklin regarding her performance for the Pope. Does NYT employ that
interviewer? A more insulting interview lacking in even one worthy
question of substance I have never read. It is only due to her stature
and maturity that she did not throw a fit worthy of Nicki Minaj and
throw him out. For example, "Aretha, why did you choose to sing Amazing
Grace for the Pope?" Really? You are expecting "When A Man Loves A
Woman" or "Freeway of Love"? It's like Wolf Blitzer asking the military
this morning "how dangerous would it be if terrorists acquire nuclear
weapons?" Ask a 3 year old; these people have more important things to
do. Compare it to her interview published at Philly.com for an
interesting interview of substance with merely an overlay of puffery.
Of
course, I mention the feature on Nicki just published today and about
to compete with your Taye Diggs feature for reader reaction. I have
nothing to add to the comments of Nicki and the interviewer at the end.
But my observation is to wonder if you go through that article, how
much of it included actual quotes from Nicki Minaj spoken during that
interview rather than from other sources? A paragraph's worth, if
that? The interviewer actually seems to me a fairly good writer with
legitimate ideas worth exploring, in a creative essay. She could have
written a commentary on the subjects she wished to explore regarding the
role of women in rap, the evolution of rap, feminism, misogyny,
relationships with male paramours, friends, and/or peers who are
performing artists. But that is different than an in depth
interview lacking in questions that engage the interviewee sufficiently
to result in an article or interview worthy of publication.
