Gays, Microsoft, Lies, and framing

There's a lot going on in this world right now that we're all have already recognized. But this story about Microsoft really got put into perspective by John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog.org.

So I've been following this Microsoft situation, both here and on Americablog, who I believe broke the story for the most part.

Microsoft abandons gays, pass it on (& P&G TOO?!)

AMERICAblog.org (Front page - scroll down too.)

So...Microsoft backed out of this piece of legislation and are now trying to spin it as a big misunderstanding. But John Aravosis, a man who knows how to speak, has come out tonight, late, with some more news and well....he's pissed off.

Now, I'm not gay but I am totally pro-GBLT. I'm so pro-GBLT, it's to the point where I don't feel I have to label myself in that manner, but because of the state of separation in this country from different groups of people, well...you have to.

Just to preview a couple of John's responses to parts of this, I'll highlight a couple segments of it.

Per the NYT:

Microsoft officials said that the meetings with the [anti-gay religious right] minister did not persuade them to back away from supporting the bill, but that they had already decided to take a "neutral" position on it. They said they examined their legislative priorities and decided that because they already offer extensive benefits to gay employees and that King County, where Microsoft is based, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with a law as stringent as what the state bill proposed, they were focusing on other legislative matters.

and John's response to that bit...

Excuse me? Well if that's your rationale, that you don't need to support gay rights legislation when your employees are already covered by your own company policy, then why did you support the state legislation LAST YEAR when your employees were ALREADY covered by your company policy back then? Or were you wrong all these years to support gay civil rights legislation?

And why do you NOW support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that would protect gays nationwide from on-the-job discrimination, since your employees are already protected from anti-gay discrimination by your own company policy? Are you planning to pull your support from ENDA now too? Or are you going to stay on ENDA and prove that you just lied to the New York Times about not supporting civil rights bills when your employees are already covered?

And you got an award from the LA Gay & Lesbian Center a few years back for, among other things, fighting anti-gay ballot initiatives. Well, call me crazy, but those initiatives wouldn't have revoked any job protections YOUR employees get since your own company policy already covers them. So are you going to pull your opposition to the anti-gay ballot initiatives in the future too? And if so, when we do get our award back?

And by the way, what does the fact that your county has a gay rights law have to do with anything? Your employees are covered by your company policy regardless of the county law, so why does that factor into your opinion on the state law? Your response is simply bizarre.

Then some more....

There's more:
"Our government affairs team made a decision before this legislative session that we would focus our energy on a limited number of issues that are directly related to our business," said Mark Murray, a company spokesman. "That decision was not influenced by external factors. It was driven by our desire to focus on a smaller number of issues in this short legislative session. We obviously have not done a very good job of communicating about this issue."

Mr. Murray added that company officials had met twice with Dr. Hutcherson but that it was "long after our decision to focus on a tighter legislative agenda."

"We're disappointed that people are misinterpreting those meetings," he said.

and John, again, hammering away at this with the keen sense to cut straight to the heart of the problem - he calls it for exactly what it is and you CANNOT argue with John's point...

Yes, well we're disappointed that you just confirmed what we've been saying for the past 24 hours. You used to support the gay rights legislation and now you don't. Spin that, Sherlock. And you're admitting that this is part of a larger change in strategy by which Microsoft will focus more closely on what matters. And clearly, we are not what matters any longer.

A little more...

Then State Representative Ed Murray, an openly gay Democrat and sponsor of the bill, catches Microsoft in a bold-faced lie:

But Representative Murray said that in a conversation last month with Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, Mr. Smith had made it clear to him that the company was under pressure from the church and the pastor and that he was also concerned about the reaction to company support of the bill among its Christian employees, the lawmaker said.

and John hammers the nail into the coffin...

Excuse me? The reaction from the "Christian" employees? What kind of bigoted comment is that? Newsflash, Microsoft: The religious right doesn't represent all Christians, thank you very much. Speaking as a Christian myself, lots of your "Christian" employees are surely pro-gay and support the bill, and even some of those "Christians" are actually gay themselves. It is unbelievable this man has these Neanderthal views on religion and sexual orientation and he's the freakin' general counsel of Microsoft?

Like I said, this is just some of what John has up on his site and man - it's worth every article, every word, and every letter to read. This is a big deal. And in fact, John sums it up perfectly, in his epilogue.

EPILOGUE
Gang, this is a big deal. There is no other way to cut it than Microsoft has decided to back off of its previously staunch defense of gay rights. NO other way to cut it.

Sure, they've been great on gay stuff in the past, and they're now signaling that those days are over. They're more concerned now with focusing on their business. Well what we're they doing before? Supporting gays just for the hell of it?

And the bigger impact, which remains to be seen, is whether Microsoft now chucks us overboard at the national level and if other companies start to follow suit, following the corporate leader, as it were.

Microsoft should be ashamed of itself. And we should consider this a warning. It is no longer safe in America to be gay - or liberal for that matter. We've taken our rights for granted. And now they're being taken away, and our friends are being taken away by an ever-growing climate of hostility fed by an extremist administration and their Sieg Heil friends in America's Taliban.

It's time we started fighting back, and fighting back hard. It's time we took the gloves off and stopped playing nice. You're either with us or you're against us, as our enemies like to say.

Microsoft has chosen its side.

Have you?

I strongly encourage everyone who has been following this story to some degree yet hasn't been over to AMERICAblog.org to go now and read some of this stuff. It's nuts and it's important.

Coincidentally, my brother and I were discussing this and came up with a framing idea. At least I think it's a framing idea. You tell me if something can be done with this angle below, if it's been done, it's being attempted, or it's futile, which I hope not.

Gays have now become the great America scapegoat. They don't deserve marriage, they don't deserve equal rights, they can't foster children, they're evil, immoral, and have a problem.

What the fuck, is this NAZI Germany? This country is isolating a segment of the population and stripping it of it's rights to live free as Americans. Gays are now sub-human, just like the Jews were in Germany under Hitler's reign.

And it's supposed to be ok for the religious right and Tom DeLay to cry persecution and that people of faith are under attack - because that's unfair, but it's ok to persecute and attack the gays? Aside from being hypocritical and holding a double standard, that sure seems to me an awful lot like calling the kettle black.

•  Mucho kudos

  to John Aravosis for what I would call a perfectly worded, scathing, all out truthful response to this whole matter.

  by Stand Strong on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:26:49 PM PDT

•  John Aravosis...

  ...Is the kind of guy who turns off people who may even be relatively on his side in principle.

  The man cannot write with any semblance of eloquence, tact, or just general good humor -- it's all hate and bile.

  I really, really don't like AmericaBlog.

  But that's beside the point.  The truth of the Microsoft situation is, aside from the usual corporation weasel-out-of-things-speak that's not really anything to begrudge them for, they've decided to not get political about this issue, and that's not the worst thing in the world.  They're far from being the 'bad guys' worth our time to attack.

  On the scale of 'things to get agitated and fight for', this ranks pretty low.

  Corporations shouldn't have to get involved in politics (and thus alienate half of their customer base) if they don't want to.

  If you think computers shouldn't be sold to Republicans, that's fine and dandy -- start a company based on that principle.  But in the meantime, companies can perfectly defensibly remain neutral in the culture wars unless they explicitly choose to do otherwise (such as Ben & Jerry's) without being tarred and feathered.

  Aravosis is just a shouter.  And having met a real polemicist tonight (Christopher Hitchens!  Be still, my beating heart), I can tell you that he's a C-list shouter at that.

  by RealityBasedJoe on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:32:54 PM PDT

  •  It sounds to me like

    you feel it's not a big deal what Microsoft has done.

    As for hate and bile, I can't say I see that and I usually check his site every day. It's the first site I check after Kos, and then I follow it with Buzzflash, to start. As for hate and bile, can't be any worse than some of the diaries that get posted here. "F'n religious right" , "F'n Catholics" , "F'n Evangelicals" , "F'n Republicnas" - to name a few of the phrases I see regularly on here.

    I'm sorry - but when someone or something says  or does something really stupid, and someone calls them out, that's not hate and bile. That's calling you out.

    by Stand Strong on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:39:15 PM PDT

    •  Well, let's see.

      ""you feel it's not a big deal what Microsoft has done. ""

      Exactly correct.  This is a succinct and true representation of my position. :)

      ""As for hate and bile, I can't say I see that and I usually check his site every day. It's the first site I check after Kos, and then I follow it with Buzzflash, to start. As for hate and bile, can't be any worse than some of the diaries that get posted here. "F'n religious right" , "F'n Catholics" , "F'n Evangelicals" , "F'n Republicnas" - to name a few of the phrases I see regularly on here.

      I'm sorry - but when someone or something says  or does something really stupid, and someone calls them out, that's not hate and bile. That's calling you out.""

      But that's the thing -- there's no humility (there, and on many of the diaries here) about maybe not knowing best on who's stupid and who's not.  Self-righteousness is a big problem in much of the liberal blogosphere.

      As for the diaries here -- I think many of them are egregiously bad in this regard.  "The DailyKOS diaries do it too" isn't really a defense of AmericaBLOG except to say that we also need to get our own house in order.

      by RealityBasedJoe on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:42:29 PM PDT

      •   Compared to what...

        .....

        your diaires??

        by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:40:59 AM PDT

        •  If you read back through...

          ..My diaries I've made on various usernames, I keep them quite civil.  Or at least, I do my best to.

          by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 08:55:05 AM PDT

          •  Well

            all I see here is RealityBased Joe. Gimme something to look at.

            by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 10:23:46 AM PDT

            •  Well, I went back and checked...

              And everything I wrote as PersonalResponsibility, PersonalResponsibilityReloaded, and PersonalIrresponsibility was erased.

              by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 11:49:23 AM PDT

              •  Mmmmm

                by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:03:22 PM PDT

              •  Not to sound like a cock

                but I've seen people who - just by your mere presence - will troll rate you. And with diaries that vanished and comments that reflect those ratings, you might want to be careful what you say.

                Not that you care. Or should care, really. But I guess - you're on DailyKos for a reason - whether its to contribute, look around, or incite certain feelings.

                Bottom line - it seems you've been labeled a troll by a few. It has the potential to follow you around, like in fact, it did here.

                If you want people to listen to you, debate you, and take you seriously, it's something to think about.

                That whole section in the "Microsoft backs out on gays (Psss..pass it on) diary where you were troll rated the hell out of I'm sure didn't go to well for you. And while I'm not a supported or censorship well...you prolly deserved it.

                by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:08:32 PM PDT

                •  Thanks.

                  ""but I've seen people who - just by your mere presence - will troll rate you. And with diaries that vanished and comments that reflect those ratings, you might want to be careful what you say.""

                  If I were more selective about what I said so as not to rile people up (Which I think was what you meant), my purpose for being here would dwindle.

                  Not because I come here to get a rise out of people.  In fact, just the opposite.

                  I come here because I believe the Democratic party's future is a liberal, progressive vision.

                  And in my eyes, there's no better representatives of that liberal, progressive vision than Tom Friedman, Bill Maher, Scoop Jackson, and yes, sometimes, Joe Lieberman.

                  I recognize that many here disagree with that -- but frankly, I think that's because the modern American left has become illiberal and regressive in many ways.

                  And I think it's time for true liberals and progressives to stand up and save the movement from itself, to some degree.

                  Doing that involves a lot of butting heads.  Look at the front page right now.  Look at how they're calling Tom Friedman childish names, Tom Friedman of all people!  One of the leading lights of our movement, if ever there was one!  And look at how they denigrate him.

                  There's a lot of work to be done.

                  ""Bottom line - it seems you've been labeled a troll by a few. It has the potential to follow you around, like in fact, it did here. ""

                  I accept that.  But steadying and focusing the direction of the Democratic party and the progressive movement is important enough to have some thick skin about.  Which is why I keep coming back here.

                  I made a big long post on one of the previous names, a diary, called "Let's talk about civility of discourse at DKos."  It received over 400 replies.

                  It was really good.  It's a shame it's lost to history now.

                  by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:43:32 PM PDT

  •  here's some more shouting for you!

    You need to read more thoroughly about this matter first, before you try and suggest that Microsoft isn't being political on this issue. A company that has long been a supporter of gay rights, a company that showed other corporations that being supportive of gay employees was the right thing to do, has suddenly decided that being supportive of gay employees isn't the right thing to do anymore. They've been brainwashed and scared by right wing religious extremists who are worried they are going to somehow estrange their Christian employees, by having had extended benefits to their gay employees, which they've been doing for years! And then they've extended a complete lack of support for a state law that they've previously supported in the past, when they didn't even need to. Now, enlighten us, how is that not political?

    And if that doesn't qualify as a "thing to get agitated and fight for", as in, civil fucking rights for people just because of sexual preferences, who shouldn't even have to worry about whether or not they somehow "deserve" them regardless of what their job is, then maybe you should give us a clue as to something, oh, less annoying or bothersome to fight for?

    Maybe you would be a "shouter" too if you had to constantly fight against bigotry and homophobia and right wing religious extremists all the time. Some of us get a little bit hoarse having to yell at people like you who say you "get it" but obviously don't, when we're busy having to yell at bigots and religious zealots and politicians and every other douchebag who keep trying to tell us we're less than human just because of our sexuality. It's the 21st century, not the Dark Ages, but it seems like a whole lot of people want it to be the Dark Ages all over again.

    by mrradon on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:17:16 AM PDT

    •  thank you

      for putting this so well. Clearly realitybasedjoe's reality is rather different from that inhabited by you and me (and many, many others). Perhaps realitybasedjoe will share with us whether he thinks there are any issues worth 'shouting' about...?

      by ianrs on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:08:44 AM PDT

      •  Yes,

        I too would like to know. What is worth shouting about, RealityBasedJoe?

        I curious - I'm too lazy to go get the link - as to your underlying stance on both the issue of gay rights, and this particular piece of legislation that Microsoft has done a complete 180 on that you yourself also said in a previous Microsoft diary of a few days ago, that you wished they had supported this bill, as you're a supporter of gay marriage.

        Which in itself is ironic because now you're saying they shouldn't take any stance, but they did - going against what they've traditionally done - and taken a non-progressive political stance.

        And an answer that wasn't a basic shoulder shrug would be more appreciated.

        And if you would, also elaborate on what you said here...

        But that's beside the point.  The truth of the Microsoft situation is, aside from the usual corporation weasel-out-of-things-speak that's not really anything to begrudge them for, they've decided to not get political about this issue, and that's not the worst thing in the world.  They're far from being the 'bad guys' worth our time to attack.
        

        ...because well - they did get political about it. Initially, it was a progressive movement towards diversity and equal rights - now it's become a political stance, based on the woes of the religious right.

        by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:25:53 AM PDT

        •  And for what it's worth, RealityBasedJoe

          already I have seen you troll rated up the wazoo for some things you say in other diaries and Open Threads. And seeing you as the first outside commentor on this diary, I immediately was on guard for what you have to say.

          But I haven't rated you yet because I'm curious as to what you're standpoint is.

          I can't tell if you're conservative, central, liberal, or really anything. You haven't posted any diaries and a lot of your comments have gotten low marks.

          But I'm still willing to listen, if you're willing to step up to the plate.

          by Stand Strong on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 05:38:28 AM PDT

        •  Heh

          ""I too would like to know. What is worth shouting about, RealityBasedJoe?""

          In politics, very few things - Shouting just generally indicates a lack of self control and an unawareness of how to present oneself decently.

          ""I curious - I'm too lazy to go get the link - as to your underlying stance on both the issue of gay rights,""

          My position is pretty much a mirror of Andrew Sullivan's.  I support gay marriage wholeheartedly.  Not a big fan of hate crime laws, in that in reality the costs of going down that slippery slope outweigh the benefits.  A big fan of equalization under the law in all its forms.  All the costs, all the benefits.  All avenues should not descriminate.

          ""and this particular piece of legislation that Microsoft has done a complete 180 on that you yourself also said in a previous Microsoft diary of a few days ago, that you wished they had supported this bill, as you're a supporter of gay marriage. ""

          Read my actual comment -- I didn't make it nearly so simple.  I said that I support the bill, and so in my heart I have a simpleminded notion of "It'd be nice if everyone everywhere supported it", but in my head I know it's not a corporation's place to get involved in this sort of thing.

          ""Which in itself is ironic because now you're saying they shouldn't take any stance, but they did - going against what they've traditionally done - and taken a non-progressive political stance.""

          Going against what they've traditionally done by withdrawing themselves is not 'taking a stance'.  It's going from 'a stance' to 'an absence of a stance'.

          ""...because well - they did get political about it. Initially, it was a progressive movement towards diversity and equal rights - now it's become a political stance, based on the woes of the religious right.""

          And now they feel it's better if they're not political.  Nothing wrong with that, because it wasn't their role as a corporation to begin with.

          You have this very odd notion in your head that once they're political about it, they must be political about it forever more, and cannot backtrack out of politics.

          by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:07:53 AM PDT

    •  also

      meant to rate you 4, but have not yet got hang of the technicologicalololgy.

      by ianrs on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:12:53 AM PDT

    •  Let's see.

      ""You need to read more thoroughly about this matter first, before you try and suggest that Microsoft isn't being political on this issue. A company that has long been a supporter of gay rights, a company that showed other corporations that being supportive of gay employees was the right thing to do, has suddenly decided that being supportive of gay employees isn't the right thing to do anymore.""

      And there's nothing wrong with their choice to do that, if it means they're not involving the law.

      If they're changing company policy towards their employees in terms of compensation, that is risible.  But changing their policy of which laws they support to a more neutral path is not, since it's not really their place to begin with.

      ""They've been brainwashed and scared by right wing religious extremists who are worried they are going to somehow estrange their Christian employees, by having had extended benefits to their gay employees, which they've been doing for years! And then they've extended a complete lack of support for a state law that they've previously supported in the past, when they didn't even need to. Now, enlighten us, how is that not political?""

      It's precisely not political -- it's withdrawing themselves from a culture war they shouldn't have been involved in to begin with.

      What benefits they offer their own employees is important, and worth fighting for -- but they shouldn't be getting involved in lobbying for cultural change laws.

      ""And if that doesn't qualify as a "thing to get agitated and fight for", as in, civil fucking rights for people just because of sexual preferences, who shouldn't even have to worry about whether or not they somehow "deserve" them regardless of what their job is, then maybe you should give us a clue as to something, oh, less annoying or bothersome to fight for?""

      It's how you fight for it.  When African Americans fought for civil rights in this country, they protested wearing their Sunday best.

      You protest with, in this case, childish behavior.

      ""Maybe you would be a "shouter" too if you had to constantly fight against bigotry and homophobia and right wing religious extremists all the time. Some of us get a little bit hoarse having to yell at people like you who say you "get it" but obviously don't, when we're busy having to yell at bigots and religious zealots and politicians and every other douchebag who keep trying to tell us we're less than human just because of our sexuality. It's the 21st century, not the Dark Ages, but it seems like a whole lot of people want it to be the Dark Ages all over again.""

      So if I don't agree with you on your methods, I don't "get it".  Way to win supporters to your side with that tactic, chief.

      Keep in mind:  Your opinions are not monolithic.  Hell, according to one figure I read, 25% of gays voted for Bush.

      When it comes to issues such as outing, or whether corporations should lobby for cultural change laws, you are not the sole arbiter of morality.

      by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:01:41 AM PDT

  •  you missed something obvious

    But that's beside the point.  The truth of the Microsoft situation is, aside from the usual corporation weasel-out-of-things-speak that's not really anything to begrudge them for, they've decided to not get political about this issue, and that's not the worst thing in the world.  They're far from being the 'bad guys' worth our time to attack.

    WRONG.

    Microsoft pulled out of the coalition pushing the bill at somewhere around the last minute at the impetus of a wingnut preacher.

    This isn't a neutral act, this is betrayal of trust. If MS had decided not to participate in the legislative process with respect to this to begin with, people might grumble but businesses don't have to lobby everything.

    Their change in position can be considered certain to have affected at least 1 vote, MS is the 600 pound gorilla of WA politics and has entirely too much political influence in the rest of the nation. Well, that legislation lost by one vote.

    They have chosen to ally with the Religious Right and they figured nobody would notice.

    Perhaps this doesn't bother you, but the fact that it doesn't tells us something about you.

    It's also pretty stupid in a business sense. There really isn't much of a downside to switching to the Mac OS for the great majority of people, all most people have to lose is vulnerability to Windows viruses / trojans / spyware.

    The groups they have chosen to blow off in favor of the Religious Right are in general, groups that have higher percentage of computer users, better educated, and know that there are other choices than Windows.

    The threat of the wingnut preacher was an empty one. Unless you can see fundies switching to a computer company with the kind of liberal image Apple has.

    The place to hurt MS is in the bank account. Switch to Apple, or stay with MS and don't be in any hurry to upgrade your OS and applications.

    Avoiding MS completely in the business world is somewhere between difficult and impossible, but we can certainly conduct our business and personal computer use in ways that will make MS a lot less money.

    by alizard on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 03:30:15 AM PDT

    •  Let's say they did pull out to religious right

      pressure.  They claim they didn't, but let's say they did.

      So?  The religious right are their customers, just as we are.

      It's not their place to get involved in the culture wars.

      The fact that at one point in the past, they got involved on our side, does not make a difference to that.

      by RealityBasedJoe on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 09:09:07 AM PDT

      •  so...

        They're entitied to pick a side. They are not entitled to pretend to be neutral.

        Just as we are. What's your problem with our making decisions in the marketplace to drastically reduce the use of Microsoft products?

        It isn't like there's really a downside to this, all most users really have to lose is susceptability to viruses, Trojans, and spyware.

        by alizard on Sat Apr 23, 2005 at 03:50:03 PM PDT

•  It figures that an operating system

  that crashes as often as Microsoft would crash on this bill. Use Firefox!

  by moon in the house of moe on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:35:45 PM PDT

•  Microsoft Owes Big

  With the Ashcroft settlement of the Abuse of Monopoly conviction Reno's DOJ had won in 2000, Microsoft will cheerfully betray its customers and employees any time the Republicans ask.

  Why did anyone think else?

  by epcraig on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:54:34 AM PDT

•  Windows like voting Republician.

  Don't you all see just how bad Microsoft is?  Why are you still using Microsoft Windows?  It is like voting republician.   People do it because they don't think.  

  Free yourself.   Linux or if you must OS X.

  by tarminian on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 04:01:42 AM PDT

•  anybody know...

  what Corel is like in terms of supporting gay rights and other corporate social responsibility issues?
  or amazon.com? [they kill off local stores and don't have great employee morale, i know, but wondering about the GLBT issue specifically]
  

  by decafdyke on Mon Apr 25, 2005 at 11:12:54 AM PDT