Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
We Can´t Afford to Wait
Dear MoveOn member,
Wow. Last night's health care vigils were our biggest event of the year, and they were a scathing indictment of our broken health care system.
And last night we shared stories of people bankrupted by medical bills and shut out by pre-existing conditions. Together with folks from Democracy for America, TrueMajority, Center for Community Change, Doctors for America, Health Care for America Now, and the Service Employees International Union, we helped shift the momentum.
The New York Times wrote, "Under the banner of 'Can't Afford To Wait,' the vigils...put a human face on the need for" health care reform.1 Many local newspapers and TV stations prominently covered the vigils as well (see below for links)—and last night they made it on to the front page of the Washington Post's website.2
Next week, lawmakers will return to D.C. with these vigils fresh in their minds.
"Seeing the mix of the crowd, old and young, joining across generational lines to advocate for reform which will make a difference for everyone."
–Phoebe G., Mattapoisett, MA
"Hearing the testimonies of all the people who have suffered under the current health care system—nightmare stories of people sick and dying from being denied care from private insurers, denied coverage, financially bankrupt, foregoing treatment because they can't afford it, etc. It makes you realize even more how crucial it is that we enact health care reform NOW—with a public option!"
–Anna E., New York, NY
These amazing vigils were organized by MoveOn Councils across the country. The Councils are local teams of committed members who go beyond email to run hard-hitting events in their communities. If you're not already part of a Council, click here to find out more and join a local MoveOn Council to plan actions targeting health insurance companies for later this month:
Together, we're reframing the health care debate to focus on the serious needs of real people, not ridiculous political fights. And as we head into this make-or-break fall, we've got momentum on our side.
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Peter, Michael, Kat, and the rest of the team
P.S. While all of us were out sharing stories in person, tens of thousands of other MoveOn members who couldn't make it out gathered online to share photos, stories, and light candles as well, at our virtual vigil. Check it out, here:
P.P.S. We've also posted photo albums from vigils across the country on our Facebook page. Take a look:
Sources:
1. "Rallying for, and Against, an Overhaul," The New York Times, September 2, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51819&id=17136-538505-MQCdnLx&t=11
2. "Health care reform advocates rally at Fargo-Moorhead bridge," Grand Forks Herald, September 3, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51825&id=17136-538505-MQCdnLx&t=12
"1,000-plus rally in Denver in favor of health care reform," Denver Post, September 3, 2009
http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_13257706
"Hundreds rally at state house over health care," WPRI-TV Providence, September 3, 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbQGolW1Z-k
"At Vigils, Support Shown for Health-Care Bill," The Washington Post, September 2, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51826&id=17136-538505-MQCdnLx&t=13
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. This email was sent to Daniel Orey on September 3, 2009. To change your email address or update your contact info, click here. To remove yourself from this list, click here.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Subject: State Fair Observation
I so love this Facebook post from my friend Bill (and his husband Brian):
So I went to the State Fair today (yes, I am one of the three people who actually LOVE going to the State Fair!). I saw many of the things that I had hoped to see...newborn calves, cute little billy goats, beer gardens, agricultural displays, motocross exhibitions, etc. And then I saw the Republican voter registration booth. And I thought, "Oh...I can't resist this one!".
As I walked up to the booth, the most prominent display was the "One Man, One Woman" displays, signifying anti-gay marriage. Oh...at this point, it was ON! As I walked up to the booth (I couldn't resist), one woman pointed to the "One Man, One Woman" button and said, "Thank God"! The first thing out of my mouth was, "Thank God for what? Discrimination???" She quickly walked away. But the lady in the booth quickly came over and began preaching to me about how the bible says that marriage is "...a contract between a man and a woman". I said, "Really? The bible speaks about contracts?" She said, "Well...it says that Jesus only recognizes a man and a woman". I then said, "Really? Where does it say that?" And, in typical "Christian" fashion, she said, "Well, I don't know exactly". I continued, "But you claim to know the bible and what Jesus says, so how can you not know where it says that, or what Jesus actually said about homosexuality?" (By the way, Jesus says NOTHING about homosexuality in the bible).
After this lady stuttered for a few minutes, she began to tell me that she doesn't understand why "the gays" are so adamant about marriage, when they have all of the same rights as heterosexuals. I then explained to her that we don't, in fact, have all the same rights...especially federal rights. She said, "No, you have the same federal rights as everyone else". I explained to her that there are ZERO federal protections/rights afforded to gay couples...including inheritance and income tax. She looked at me, puzzled, and said, "Are you sure?" I asked her where she was getting her information from, and she just said, "Well, a friend of mine said they were able to file for federal income tax returns as a couple". (The federal government DOES NOT recognize gay couples in ANY way, shape, or form as far as tax rights, inheritance rights, social security rights, etc.)
She then quickly moved on to say that she is upset that churches would lose their tax exempt status and be sued by "the gays" if they refused to perform gay marriages. I asked her to give me an example of ONE...JUST ONE...church that has been sued or has lost their tax exempt status for refusing to perform a gay marriage. She again stuttered and said that she had heard of a church in Auburn, California that had been sued. I said, "Really? Which church?" And, of course, in true "Christian" fashion, she could not answer me. She just said, "I don't remember the name of it". I then told her that marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for several years, and NOT ONE church has lost its tax exempt status, or has been successfully sued by ANYONE for refusing to perform gay marriages. She, of course, just shrugged me off.
(It is important to note that by now, one of the other crusty, white, blue-haired, "Christian" women working the booth had called security to come have us removed from the booth. A man came over to tell us that we had to leave now, at which point I looked at him and said, "I'm not going anywhere. This lady has controversial propaganda displayed, and she has to expect that she'll receive opposing viewpoints." I then looked at his shirt, and noticed that he was a mattress salesman working one of the other booths nearby, so I then instinctively told him to "fuck off". At that point, he just walked away!)
As my conversation with this idiot...errrr...I mean "Christian" Republican...continued, I asked her why she felt that "Separate but Equal" was equal. She said that she did not believe that it was. I asked her if she believed that whites should be allowed to marry blacks. She looked at me and said, "Of course". I then asked if she believed that the court had any business dictating the rights of people, and she explained to me that that was one of her biggest complaints with gay marriage...that the people had spoken and did not want gay marriage, so "the gays" should just leave it alone. I then explained to her that in 1967, despite the popular will of the people, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Of course, she did not believe me. (In case you were wondering, the case was decided in the Supreme Court on June 13, 1967). I asked her again if she believed that the will of the people, who at that time STILL overwhelmingly thought that blacks should not be allowed to marry whites, should have prevailed over the law. She didn't have an answer for me (again, in typical "Christian", Republican fashion".
By this time, the mattress salesman, and the other crusty, white, idiots...errrrr...Republicans...had had just about enough of me. So I gave her my email address, and I gave her some homework. I asked her if she could do the following:
1) Send me the quotes from the bible that say what Jesus thought about homosexuality;
2) Send me the name of the church that was "somewhere in Auburn" that was sued because they wouldn't perform gay marriages.
3) Send me the names of ANY churches that have lost their tax exempt status for not performing gay marriages; and
4) Cited the federal benefits that gay couples receive.
She promised me that she would email me with her "research". But I fully anticipate that I will not be hearing from her. In true "Christian" fashion, she knows nothing about what she says...she just spouts off inaccurate bullshit that she hears from other idiots...errr....Republicans. Sad.
Oh...and in case you were wondering...Brian wouldn't let me go back and say goodbye to the mattress salesman who tried to intimidate me from leaving!!! So I simply waived goodbye to him as I left.
The Meaning of Matthew: My Son's Murder in Laramie, and a World Transformed
by Judy Shepard
GET YOUR SIGNED COPY TODAY!
ALL BOOKS RESERVED BY SEPTEMBER 20, 2009 WILL BE PERSONALLY INSCRIBED
TO THE DONOR AND SIGNED BY JUDY.
 | Today, the name Matthew Shepard is synonymous with gay rights, but before his grisly murder in 1998, Matthew was simply Judy Shepard’s son. For the first time in book form, Judy Shepard speaks about her loss, sharing memories of Matthew, their life as a typical American family, and the pivotal event in the small college town that changed everything. The Meaning of Matthew follows the Shepard family in the days immediately after the crime, when Judy and her husband traveled to see their incapacitated son, kept alive by life support machines; how the Shepards learned of the incredible response from strangers all across America who held candlelit vigils and memorial services for their child; and finally, how they struggled to navigate the legal system as Matthew’s murderers were on trial. Heart-wrenchingly honest, Judy Shepard confides with readers about how she handled the crippling loss of her child, why she became a gay rights activist, and the challenges and rewards of raising a gay child in America today. The Meaning of Matthew not only captures the historical significance and complicated civil rights issues surrounding one young man’s life and death, but it also chronicles one ordinary woman’s struggle to cope with the unthinkable. |
 This is a limited time premium you will receive when you make a donation of $50 or more through our website. (Shipping Included) | Now is your chance to obtain a signed copy of this moving book. 100% of the donations via our website will go to support the work of the Matthew Shepard Foundation. NOTE: Due to Judy's busy schedule, signed books will not be shipped before |
The Matthew Shepard Foundation was founded by Dennis and Judy Shepard in memory of their 21-year old son, Matthew, who was murdered in an anti-gay hate crime in Wyoming in October 1998.
Created to honor Matthew in a manner that was appropriate to his dreams, beliefs and aspirations, the Foundation seeks to "Replace Hate with Understanding, Compassion & Acceptance" through its varied educational, outreach and advocacy programs and by continuing to tell Matthew's story.
Timothy Kincaid
September 1st, 2009
David Weekley is a bit unusual for a United Methodist Church pastor. For one thing, he’s a Caucasian pastor of a historic 95% Japanese-American congregation. And for another, he has for the past 27 years kept the secret that he was born female. (WestLinn Tidings)
Standing behind his pulpit, Weekley began his usual worship service. About halfway through, he paused to share a personal message he called “My Book Report.”
He told them that in 1984, just nine years after undergoing extensive sex-reassignment surgeries, he was ordained by the Methodist Church without telling anyone of his original gender at birth.
Following his story, the congregation, who had remained silent throughout his talk, broke into thunderous applause. Church members then proclaimed their support for their pastor.
Days may be difficult ahead for Weekley, as the UMC is one of the more conservative branches of mainline Christianity. But at present he has a supportive family, supportive congregation, and supportive region. And his testimony can perhaps reach hearts that already know and love him and serve to open eyes and expand thinking.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Moderate Muslim Scholars: Homosexuality Is Natural And From Go
At a conference on Islam held in Indonesia, moderate Muslim scholars issued a statement calling homosexuality normal and created by God. Moderate Muslim scholars said there were no reasons to reject homosexuals under Islam, and that the condemnation of homosexuals and homosexuality by mainstream ulema and many other Muslims was based on narrow-minded interpretations of Islamic teachings. Siti Musdah Mulia of the Indonesia Conference of Religions and Peace cited the Koran's al-Hujurat (49:3) that one of the blessings for human beings was that all men and women are equal, regardless of ethnicity, wealth, social positions or even sexual orientation. "There is no difference between lesbians and nonlesbians. In the eyes of God, people are valued based on their piety," she told the discussion organized by nongovernmental organization Arus Pelangi. "And talking about piety is God's prerogative to judge," she added. "The essence of the religion (Islam) is to humanize humans, respect and dignify them." Musdah said homosexuality was from God and should be considered natural, adding it was not pushed only by passion.Two conservative Islamic groups at the conference responded by condemning gays.
Labels: homosexuality, Islam, religion
UK Gets Conservative Gay Group
From JMG:
The Log Cabin Republicans now have a counterpart in the United Kingdom. A Tory-affiliated LGBT group has been officially launched at Manchester Pride. LGBTory had a stall during the bank holiday festivities, while members marched in the parade to showcase the new rainbow Tory logo and the slogan 'Conservative and Proud'. Matthew Sephton, the chairman of LGBTory, said: “The weekend was a tremendous success. We had an excellent team in the parade and had loads of fun doing it.We were flying the flag for the modern Conservatives and for the LGBT community and had lots of attention from the many thousands of people who lined the parade route through the city. “On our stall, we had a great deal of interest in both LGBTory and the Conservatives generally. People were positive about us being there and were very happy to see us. As a group we are looking forward to working with all LGBT groups and other Conservative groups to continue the change needed to stamp out homophobia at all levels of society, once and for all.”Note how their name, LGBTory, echoes GOProud.
Labels: LCR, LGBTory, Tory Party, UK
“The Impact of Inequality” is one of the most important books you will ever read. -- Thom Hartmann
August, 2009
Each month, BuzzFlash is privileged to have nationally syndicated progressive talk show host Thom Hartmann review a progressive book or DVD exclusively for BuzzFlash. See other progressive premiums at The BuzzFlash Progressive Marketplace.
Thom Hartmann's Review -- Exclusively for BuzzFlash -- for August, 2009:
"The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier"
By Richard Wilkinson
Reviewed by Thom Hartmann
If the number of dog-eared pages thickening the upper corner of a book on my bookshelves is any indication of how important that book was to me (and it is), then “The Impact of Inequality” is one of the top ten books in my library (and it is).
Wilkinson has, quite simply, identified the One Single Issue That Drives Everything Else.
Obesity, cancer, infant mortality, homicide, gun violence, imprisonment ratios, depression, drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, venereal disease rates, use of prescription antidepressants, workplace satisfaction, trust of one’s neighbors – pick from the menu. ALL of them are driven by a single variable.
And that variable isn’t wealth. While America is the richest nation in the world with a median income of around $44,000/year, we’re way in the back of the pack in all the indices mentioned above. So is the second richest nation, Great Britain.
And it wasn’t that way in the period from 1940 to 1980.
The reason it is now, it turns out, is pretty straightforward. While most European and developed nations have a ratio of about 3:1 to 5:1 between the wealth of the poorest 20% of the populace and the richest 20%, the UK and US are running in the neighborhood of 8:1.
The more unequal a society is, the more problems it has. Regardless of how rich it is.
Conversely, the more equal a society is the better it does. Regardless of how poor it is (so long as they’re above a baseline survival threshold, which appears to run around $5000/year). Costa Rica, at around $7,000 a year, does better than the US or UK on all of the items on the list above – and more.
And it’s not just differences in these indices between nations: they also occur between states or provinces in nations. Wilkinson documents in his book how the most equal of the states of the US and provinces of Canada have the best outcomes in all the cases listed above, and the most unequal of the states have the worst outcomes. The relationship is absolutely definable, linear, and predictable.
Richard Wilkinson builds a powerful and irrefutable case in this book for a radical re-think of the role of wealth – and government and taxes – in society. Without this incredible piece of the puzzle, no other discussion of tax policy, industrial policy, educational policy, or rules of business can make serious sense.
“The Impact of Inequality” is one of the most important books you will ever read. And as a bonus, it’s also one of the most readable. I started it on a Friday afternoon, and was so stuck to it that I was finished by Sunday afternoon, complete with having made pages of notes and folded over and marked up at least sixty or seventy pages. Buy two or three copies, because this is a book you’ll want to share with everybody you know.
(Note: Wilkinson has published a sequel to “Impact” in the UK, titled “The Spirit Level,” which will become available in the US this winter. Its website is here. I ordered it via a British bookseller and read it cover-to-cover, but found it to be mostly a rehash and update of the contents/statistics/arguments of “Impact.” While “Spirit Level” will definitely be worth buying when it comes out, I recommend you not wait but get “Impact” now and familiarize yourself with what I predict will become the hottest topic of discussion in economic and political circles over the next few years.)
Thom Hartmann is a New York Times bestselling Project Censored Award winning author and host of a nationally syndicated progressive radio talk show. You can learn more about Thom Hartmann at his website and find out what stations broadcast his program. You can also listen to Thom over the Internet.
THOM HARTMANN'S INDEPENDENT THINKER REVIEW OF THE MONTH FOR BUZZFLASH
Monday, August 31, 2009
Adam & Andy
I I really love the work of James Asal. Go to his site (click the pic above), and click archives to follow the story. Its great fun.
Mary Cheney Donates To Anti-Gay Ohio U.S. Senate Candidate
The openly lesbian spawn of Dick, Mary Cheney has contributed $1000 to the campaign of former U.S. Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH), who is running to replace the retiring Sen. George Voinovich. As a Congressman, Portman voted against same-sex marriage and against allowing gay adoption in DC. Critics consider this donation to be curious as Cheney has spoken out in favor of both issues in the past.Labels: gay adoption, GOP, Mary Cheney, Rob Portman, Senate
Carrie Prejean Sues Pageant Officials For Religious Discrimination
Dethroned homophobe Carrie Prejean has filed suit against her former handlers at the Miss California USA pageant, alleging religious discrimination, libel, and everything else she could think of.
Read more at: JMG
Corvino: Other People’s Judgments
“You don’t just want us to tolerate what you gay people do,” my skeptical questioner announced, “you want us to think that it’s RIGHT.”
Whenever I hear this point–and it’s pretty often–I always think to myself, “Duh.” Of course I want people to think homosexuality is “right.” Why would anyone think I wouldn’t?Actually, the latter question is not entirely rhetorical. Even my fellow gays ask me why we should care about other people’s moral approval. Beyond the obvious pragmatic advantages - for example, more moral approval means more favorable voting attitudes means more legal rights means an easier life - why should we give a damn what other people think? And while we’re on the subject, why should THEY care? Why are our lives any of their business?
There’s a myth circulating among well-meaning people that “morality is a private matter,” and that therefore “we shouldn’t judge other people.” This is nonsense of the highest order. Morality is about how we treat one another. It’s about fairness and justice. It’s about what we as a society are willing to tolerate, what we positively encourage, and what we absolutely forbid. It is the furthest thing from a private matter.
There’s a story I always tell in my introductory ethics classes about a freshman who wrote a paper defending moral relativism. His paper was laden with references to what’s “true for you” versus what’s “true for me,” what’s “right for you” versus what’s “right for me” and so on. I gave the paper an F. Surprised and angry, the student came to my office demanding a justification.
“Well,” I carefully explained, “I graded your paper the way I grade all papers. I stood at the top of a staircase and threw a batch of papers down the stairs. Those that landed on the first few stairs got A’s…then B’s, C’s and so on. You wrote a long, heavy paper. It went to the bottom of the stairs. It got an F.”
“That’s not right!” he blurted out.
“You mean, that’s not right…FOR YOU,” I responded, grinning.
The moral of the story (aside from, tenured professors do the darndest things) is this: despite all of our talk of “right for you,” deep down we believe in public moral standards. We may disagree about what those are, and about what actions fall under their purview - but we still believe that right and wrong aren’t entirely relative. (For the record, the grading story is entirely fictional.)
One might object that grading affects other, non-consenting people, whereas relationships affect only the people involved. There are two problems with this objection.
The main one is that the latter point is just false. Unless one endorses a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” secrecy, relationships have a public presence and thus public consequences. Gays aren’t waging the marriage battle just so we can all go back in the closet. Like most people, we want to stand up before family and friends, proclaim our love, have it celebrated for the beautiful thing that it is. (At least, that’s what many of us want.)
We want to send the message to young gays and lesbians that there’s nothing wrong with them; that they, too, deserve to love and be loved, and that there’s nothing sinful or wrong about that. We want to be treated equally in the eyes of the law. All of these aims affect other people in various ways.
Second, the objection invites the response, “Says who?” Who decides that only actions affecting other people are appropriate targets of moral scrutiny? Who decides that that’s the right way to look at morality? And there’s no way to answer such questions without engaging in a bit of moralizing. Value judgments are inescapable that way.
Those who claim that they’re not taking any moral stances about other people’s lives are, by that very claim, taking a moral stance about other people’s lives - a “tolerant’ one, though not necessarily a very admirable one. Sometimes, other people’s behavior really sucks, and we should say so.
“Saying so” is part of the confusion here. There’s a difference between MAKING moral judgments and OFFERING them, not to mention a difference between offering them respectfully and wagging your finger in people’s faces. The latter is not just self-righteous; it’s generally counterproductive. I suspect when people say that “we shouldn’t judge other people,” it’s really the latter, pompous kind of moralizing they’re concerned to avoid. But we shouldn’t confuse the rejection of bad moralizing with the rejection of moralizing altogether.
In short, we should care what other people think, and do, because the moral fabric touches us all.
********************
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit www.johncorvino.com.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
VIVA Uruguay!
Uruguay May Allow Gay Adoption
The march for LGBT rights across South America continues as Uruguay prepares to legalize adoption by gay couples.
UT Gov. Gary Herbert: It Should Be Perfectly Legal To Discriminate Against Gays
I should have blogged about it at the time, but there was a lot of concern a few weeks ago when President Obama appointed Utah's gay-friendly Gov. Jon Huntsman to be his ambassador to China. It turns out that fears about Huntsman's successor were well founded.Courtesy of JMG