The most meme-y meme of all memes

  • Aug. 22nd, 2009 at 1:56 AM
Loon
DBAD

(Thanks, Team LexiMonkey!)

Tags:

Miracle






I Will Not Die An Unlived Life

I will not die an unlived life.
I will not live in fear
of falling or catching fire.
I choose to inhabit my days,
to allow my living to open me,
to make me less afraid,
more accessible;
to loosen my heart
until it becomes a wing,
a torch, a promise.
I choose to risk my significance,
to live so that which came to me as seed
goes to the next as blossom,
and that which came to me as blossom,
goes on as fruit.

~ Dawna Markova, from "I Will Not Die an Unlived Life"



Loon
I am loving NJ's incumbent governor.  He's up for re-election and he has marriage equality front and center in his stump speeches--even when he's not a queer events!  Get down, Mike, go ahead, get down!






Come to the Party!

  • Jun. 24th, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Loon

Lt. Colonel Victor Fehrenbach will be attending a White House cocktail party, and he just lost his job, so he'll have plenty of time to hang out and chat.




Loon
Here  is an example of what it's going to take.  Straight and/or Not Gay-Specific organizations and individuals need to remind the President of who he claimed to be, maybe help him get his Better Angels back on speed dial so that they can intervene and get his Inner Demons off the crack pipe.  He needs to remember that part of elevating the level of a conversation is to hold firmly in mind that the other folks are equal to it--because they are.

I'm glad that People for the American Way are letting President Obama know that it's not just queers who are losing respect for and trust in him--straight folks can do the math, too.  So, raise a loving intention into the ether, and hope that our top elected leader comes back to himself.

 
Home > Dear President Obama: It's time for LGBT equality
Email      Print 

An Open Letter to President Obama from People For the American Way

June 23, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

I am writing to respectfully urge you to bring the energetic moral vision that you championed as a presidential candidate to the cause of equality for gay and lesbian Americans.

Among the reasons that millions of people were inspired by your candidacy was your eloquence on behalf of an America in which everyone is offered respect and equality under the law. At People For the American Way, we disagreed with your decision to stop short of supporting marriage equality, but we welcomed the clarity with which you articulated the constitutional principle of equality in so many other areas. That vision energized not only gays and lesbians, but many other fair-minded Americans who recognize discrimination as a national moral failing, who view equality under the law as a defining part of the American Way, and who believe the country is ready to discard discrimination based on bigotries that should be left in our past. That vision would be even more powerful coming from you as president, but since your election we have heard very little.

Any reasonable person is aware of the extraordinary challenges that faced the nation as you took office, including a dire financial crisis that has cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and access to health care. You have not shied from these most daunting of challenges. But it seems that you have shied from promoting the vision of equality that you articulated during your campaign.

Legislative change is needed, and we will continue to push Members of Congress and the Democratic leadership to move forward to end discrimination against LGBT Americans even as they grapple with other urgent national priorities. We are counting on you to call for and help win passage of legislation that you pledged to support.

As importantly, Mr. President, you are uniquely capable of communicating to the American public the moral and constitutional values at stake in ending discrimination against gay Americans. Beyond the clear harm to gay and lesbian Americans, the lack of your leadership on these issues damages both America’s sense of fairness and the credibility of your administration.

Your recent action to extend some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, and your statement from the Oval Office committing yourself to work tirelessly toward equality, could have been the kind of moment that was celebrated as a milestone on the march toward equality. But instead it had the feel of, and was reported as, an incremental half-measure rushed onto the stage to placate a discontented political constituency.

While your comments in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act at the recent signing ceremony were welcome, they would have carried more weight as part of a larger ongoing effort to educate the American public about the moral need for LGBT equality. Moreover, the impact of your words was blunted coming so soon after your administration’s brief in support of DOMA using arguments that degraded gay and lesbian couples. You may have felt it was your duty to defend the law, but your argument that discrimination against same-sex couples doesn't count as discrimination and citation of case law on incest to claim that marriages of gay couples are unworthy of legal recognition was beyond the pale. Americans who support equality would not have been at all surprised if that brief had been filed by the Bush Administration. Coming from you, particularly without a broader public affirmation of your commitment to equality, it had the force of a hard slap in the face by someone we trusted.

Moreover, in the absence of a stronger statement about the importance of equality for all Americans, it has been equally difficult for your supporters to understand the continued discharges under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell of service members devoting their lives to our country. Congress should vote to repeal the destructive law that destroys military careers and robs the armed forces of highly trained soldiers, but until that happens, you should use your authority as commander-in-chief to suspend discharges of these personnel until that law is changed.

We have seen you change a nation’s conversation with an extraordinarily compelling speech on the issue of race in America. We have seen you change the perceptions of the world with a historic speech on history, pluralism, respect, and democracy to the world’s Muslims. We have seen you bring grace and conviction to the debate with your speech at Notre Dame about preserving a woman’s right to choose.

On the question of LGBT equality, it’s time to make that speech.

Mr. President, you have the opportunity to be on the right side of history. Every day, LGBT Americans face discrimination and are being denied their constitutional rights. There is no one in public life who could, and based on your stated principles and promises should, do more to move America forward toward becoming a country in which LGBT people are respected and treated as fully equal under our Constitution and laws.

We ask for your leadership and voice. When you lead, we will back you with every bit of heart and determination we can muster.

Sincerely,
Michael B. Keegan signature
Michael B. Keegan
President
People For the American Way







Why Multi-Status Doesn't Work

  • Jun. 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Loon
A friend in California married her partner of many years.

Prop 8.

Court upheld their marriage.  She sent in an application to have her passport updated to her new name, because she took her wife's last name.

Now, the US government is holding her passport as though she's committed fraud.  For $800 they'll give her the old one back.  Or, for that plus an amount I can't recall, they'll add her new name as an "a.k.a".

I was under the impression that anyone can change her name at any time.  The advantage to doing so with a wedding is that most states waive the name change fee.  But I'm pretty sure I could go to my town hall, fill out a form, pay a fee, and change my name to "Chevrolet Sprocknocket" if I care to do so.

I didn't want to believe this to be a gay thing.

She asked for a detailed account of what the problem is.  She was told the problem is that she married a woman, and DOMA blah blah, etc.

My sense is that the government is breaking the law.  I believe that if the state ok'd a name change, for whatever reason, it's not the federal government's right to challenge that.  Her legal name is a matter of recorded fact.  They don't get to pick it for her.

Tags:

Loon
I'm hoping Pablo Neruda was right, when he wrote that.  As the Obama administration continues to make hash of the Hope and Change gardens he planted in the hearts of many Americans--particularly members of the LGBT community and people for whom HIV and AIDS are compelling issues--as his policies and words continue to drift apart, it's important to find an anchoring thought.  I choose this one, by the great Chilean poet and social activist.  There's a reason why I picked him.  I'll share it further down in this post.

FYI, I'm not putting this behind a cut because it's too important.  I want it in as many faces as I can reach.

In 1993, Jesse Helms sponsored legislation that made it illegal for people who had communicable diseases to enter the country. In recent years, the law has come under fire for its outdated point of view, lack of value, and ineffective functional enforcement.  It is important to note that President George W Bush
supported repealing it

Interestingly, the legislation to repeal was a bipartisan proposal, introduced by then-Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) and Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) with broad support in both parties and in both houses of the Congress.  The bill was called, The Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008.  It was signed into law by President Bush on July 30, 2009.  Why isn't it being enforced?  Why is the current administration simply reinforcing destructive practices that no longer serve the best interests or will of the people?

President Obama's administration, on the other hand, has made enforcing the 1993 law a priority.  When the Pacific Health Summit 2009 convened last week (June 16-18), a key speaker was absent from the line up: Paul Thorn.  He'd been denied access, despite interventions by Congress members and a direct appeal to the US Consulate in London.  

It was too bad because the primary topic this year was tuberculosis and Paul has had, and survived, multi-resistant tuberculosis.  He picked up in a hospital.  The treatment took three years, but it worked!  This was particularly remarkable because he is also HIV+.

It was this combination, and his work founding and directing a TB organization that made him a hot ticket for the Summit.  One of the big concerns is the increased vulnerability to infection among those living with HIV.  Think about the perfect storm that would arise if the two diseases crossed paths in a region with a large percentage of the population having an HIV+ status.  Wait, you don't have to; it's already happening in Lesotho, where 70% of people with TB are co-infected with HIV/AIDS. 

Good that the conveners are looking at this issue in a focused way.  Bad that the enforcement of the law deprived them of Paul's presence.  How was our safety enhanced by denying our shores his presence for the three days of the Summit?

Today, I learned that my favorite professor at school--the one whose seminar changed my life, my academic plans, and my career vision--was denied entry into the US in May due to his HIV+ status.  He is a career community researcher who works in populations that are frequently neglected out of fear and barriers to access.  His ethical and humane approach to research has granted him entrance to such communities and the result is a body of work that is incredibly useful.  In addition, he's an artist and fiction writer.  He was born into poverty in Chile, emigrated to Canada, and has been a citizen there for many years.  It was in deference to his Chilean heritage and life long activism that I picked the quote from Pable Neruda.

He's been HIV+ since 1995, and has traveled freely between his home in Canada and the US for the past 20 years.  Until May, 2009.  Now, his name is in a big database and he will be barred entry until/unless the law is repealed, and those who are on The List are re-evaluated.  This ban includes passing through the US, or US ports, in transit to another destination.

I'd hoped to have him as the faculty adviser for my senior study, had counted on it.  If he'd turned me down, that would be one thing; but this reason is uniquely unsatisfying.  And while I'm sure I'll find another adviser, his area of research, preferred methodologies, and professional posture would be a tremendous boon; I would feel comfortable stretching further in my work, knowing that he was overseeing my efforts.  Who can measure how that benefit would ripple out over the years?

Under the 1993 law, it's possible to apply for a waiver, though none is guaranteed.  Another thing one could do is simply not get tested for ANY communicable disease.  If you have no diagnosis, you won't be lying as you float through Customs.  Yet another would be to lie, committing a felony in the process.

This policy beggars several questions:

HOW DOES THE LAW ADDRESS the issue of those who travel to or through the US and don't know that they have a communicable disease?

IF A CANADIAN CITIZEN'S PARENTS TRAVEL TO THE US FOR A VACATION and are injured or become ill, and their adult child in Canada has Hepatitis C, does this mean that said child will not be able to enter the US to be with them at the hospital?

WHAT HAPPENS IF A FOREIGN NATIONAL CONTRACTS a communicable disease while in the US?  Must they leave?  What if they picked it up because they were in the hospital, or in the line of duty?  Do they still have to leave?

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHOSE RELATIONSHIPS STATUS status is not recognized by the federal government, such that they cannot become citizens by virtue of marriage to an American citizen, will they have to leave if they are sick of become sick?

HOW DOES THIS KEEP USE SAFER, if there is no way to vet for people who don't know they are ill?  Is it a useful law?  Does it protect us in a meaningful way?  Do we need to be protected?

In 2007, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a report,
Moving Beyond the U.S. Government Policy of Inadmissability of HIV-Infected Noncitizens -- A Report of the CSIS Task Force on HIV/AIDS, which outlined considerations and issues related to the existing laws.  The Center found the current policy to be out of date, reflecting the panic, knowledge base, and fear of the time in which it was developed.  Several recommendations were made to bring it up to date, with the specific recommendation that care be taken to get it right.  CSIS found these changes essential to affirming the credibility of the US regarding HIV/AIDS, as well as it leadership role.

The noxious brief mentioned previously was filed on  June 11* and, to my knowledge, there has yet to be any response from the White House to the various complaints pouring in from LGBT-community VIPs, despite coverage from major print media outlets (e.g., NYT, WSJ, etc.).  June 16 marks the convening of the Summit and of Paul Thorn being denied entry.  Then, on June 17, the Obama administration made a show of unveiling an array of minor domestic partnership benefits that will now be conferred to federal employees.  The language of the announcement was careful, incluing a clause that says something like, "to the extent that it's legal", which, of course, excludes things like health care.
  There is talk among LGBT community leaders, on the other hand, regarding an October march on Washington, to express significant disappointment regarding the growing rift between President Obama's campaign rhetoric and in-office actions. 

The President acknowledged that new policy regarding benefits to the domestic partners of federal employees reflects only incremental progress was small, but that is a genuine first step--which is true.  The question of sincerity comes up when, without addressing the June 11 brief at all, the President went on to say (emphasis mine),

I think we all have to acknowledge this is only one step," the president said. "Among the steps we have not yet taken is to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe it's discriminatory, I think it interferes with states' rights, and we will work with Congress to overturn it. We've got more work to do to ensure that government treats all its citizens equally, to fight injustice and intolerance in all its forms, and to bring about that more perfect union. I'm committed to these efforts, and I pledge to work tirelessly on behalf of these issues in the months and years to come.

How do these claims line up with the content of the heinous brief?  Not at all.  The brief says that DOMA is not discriminatory, for one thing.  It calls DOMA reasonable.  It says that DOMA supports the best financial interests of the country.  How are we meant to resolve these discordant messages, broadcast from the same "mouth"?

Bottom line: what can those of use who find this situation unacceptable do?  We can hold a clear and vibrant hope that this President will live up to his promise and his promises, rather than allow what made him such an unusual and inspiring choice to whither and subside into a Clinton-esque shuffle-dance.  We can share the information and resources with everyone we know.  We can write to our elected officials, at every level of government, and express our desires, opinions, and requests for swift action to repair this dis-parity.  We can continue to speak, and to hold this administration accountable--just as we held the previous administration's feet to the fire when we disagreed with it.  We can re-mind all of our legal representatives of their tremendous capacity to effect genuine and enduring change--the kind of change that promotes the dignity and empowerment of all citizens and raises our communities and our nation to the next developmental level.

We can make a difference.  We can prove Pablo Neruda right.  Yes, we can.


-Dot

*The irony thickens when you consider that the noxious brief was filed on th 42nd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling on Loving v. Virginia, the case that ended all raced-based restrictions on marriage.  Key parts of the Justices' ruling remain intact, worthy of review:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.



Copyright 2009  Dot's Stuff.  All rights reserved, except your right to be represented in your governance.

Venting: If Not Now, When?

  • Jun. 14th, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Seward - to - Anchorage
What I have to say may not win me warm fuzzies, but it has got to come out before it eats a hole in my gut.  So, here it is in all of its venting wonder and unfiltered glory.You have been warned... )

-Dot

Copyright 2009  Dot's Stuff.  All rights reserved, but you are welcome to a change of heart.


Seward - to - Anchorage
President Obama and I part company dramatically on at least two issues: energy and LGBT civil rights.  While people I love and respect continue to hold out for him to be better on one/either/both policy areas than he is, I feel compelled to present What Thie Administration Is Actually Saying and Doing.  I'm becoming a pain in the butt.

I know that many people want to believe that President Obama is a reliable friend to the LGBT community.  I can understand the impulse--after all, this is the guy who called DOMA "abhorrent".  That he did so scant weeks before the 2004 Illinois Democratic Primary in which he sought to obtain the nomination for US Senator, and though it was a reversal of his previous public position, is not included in story very often; people tend to prefer the knight in shining armor version, overall.

Unfortunately, current facts don't align with desire to make him over as a LGBT ally.  His adminstration has filed a brief in requesting the dismissal of a trial in California related to same-sex marriage and perceived effects of DOMA.  I have no opinion on the merits of the case and whether or not it actually ought to be dismissed, because I don't know enough about it.  What I do know is that the language in the brief is an education, unto itself. 

I could go through it here and analyze it, line by line, or paragraph by paragraph.  What I'd prefer, though, is to invite you to read it for yourself, and then take whatever action feels appropriate for you, if any.  That's all.  Just read it, reflect, and choose a response.  If you are interested, John Aravosis wrote a short piece about it, as did Andrew Sullivan (who quoted John's substantially).

Thanks.

~Dot

Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff.  All rights reserved, even yours.

Evidently...

  • May. 20th, 2009 at 11:05 PM
close-up
...it's not QUITE to hip to be queer as one might think.

Ummm...

  • May. 1st, 2009 at 7:10 AM
Loon
I really will post again someday.

What Girl Doesn't Love 17"?

  • Apr. 13th, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Mac
It's coming!  Whee! 

The ordering process was a snap.  The paying and shipping processes have been Microsoft/Dell-worthy ... almost.  The saving grace is that the product around which the havoc circles is fantastic.

First verse: ordered stuff, arranged to distribute payments across two debit cards, in two chunks.  Apple blew that and, instead, got themselves listed by my bank as fraud-makers.  Oops.

Second verse: ordered stuff, made arrangements to pay via wire transfer.  No muss, no fuss for the involved banks.  Apple blew that and, instead, created two partial orders--both of which included the computer, software, and warranty, and then each contained either the printer or the mouse, but not both.  The mouse one had gone through, and for the proper cost less the cost of the printer, meaning that I'd "overpaid".  (Wonder if they'd planned a refund...)  The second one was pending authorization.  Had I not checked this morning, it would have tried to bill my bank account after 3pm today.  Yay.

Third verse: printer added to oder that was shown as paid, the total equaled what I wired, I am told all is well.

And, yes, pain in the butt.  I said, "Never have I worked so hard to pay a company thousands of dollars!"  What I didn't say was, "I'm so frigging happy to be jumping back to the happy side of the home computing fence that it's WORTH IT!"

The mouse is coming first.  I'd better not let it near my work PC (a.k.a. "cheese").

That is all.

-Dot

School, right?

  • Apr. 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 PM
Trub
I so want to continue to my day-by-day chronicle.  I so am not possessed of the remaining brain function to do so.  For now, just know that it's wild and excellent and rigorous and excrutiating and cool beyond measure.  I'm here and that's a fabulous truth.

Dot

Tags:

Loon

Minutiae )

Cheers,

-Dot

Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff.  All rights reserved.  I need a nap!

School 3 (notes about 03.27.2009)

  • Mar. 28th, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Trub

 

Grab a snack. It's a long one! )


That, my friends, completes this telling of beauty and wonder.  Thanks for taking a ride on the Navel Gazer Limited!

-Dot

Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff.  All rights reserved.  I'll share the moon.
 


School 2 More

  • Mar. 27th, 2009 at 6:58 AM
Loon

One of the biggest insights I experienced yesterday was a perspective on the personal alchemy of challenge and ability I bring with me to this experience.  Each has his or her own, of course, and that's part of what creates a dynamic atmosphere, to be sure.  It feels nice, though, to have a sense of myself in this context because, coming into it, I was visited by a host of concerns and past themes from previous academic life periods.

More about this. )
This is a good place and I am grateful to be here.

-Dot

Copyright 2009.  Dot's Stuff.  All rights reserved.  Wanna pine cone?

School 2: Of Kale and (goat) Cheesecake

  • Mar. 26th, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Loon
Cards:

Louise Hay Wisdom deck - "I am on the cutting edge of a new conscious awakening for the whole planet.  I am willing to expand the horizons of the thinking."

That was pretty much the theme of what was being expressed by some of the faculty today.  Why not?


Doreen Virtue Goddess deck: - Green Tara

All about asking for help and delegating.  I did a good job with that today. 

 

My brain is jelly and Hulu was not involved.

That is all.

Oh, except that  faced with choosing between pork chops and tofu, I selected Drive to Montpelier and Eat at the Organic Vegetarian Restaurant.  Curried garbanzos, kale, miso soup.  Not super hot.  Not super flavorful.  Better than a pork chop or tofu.

Then, I went to The Black Door and got a piece of goat cheese cheesecake to go.  It came with a lemon tuille that was a perfect eating utensile and yummy, as well.

When life hands you pork chops, eat garbanzo beans.  That's what I say!

-Dot

School 1

  • Mar. 26th, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Trub
Arrived last night to check in at about 8.  Picked up a friend, ML, who happens to live in Plainfield and we went to dinner in Montpelier.  When I got back to campus, I pulled onto the brick walkway to unpack my car.  A coyote was hanging out in front of the community center, sniffing around a tree and rubbing up against it.  It's a kind of tree I can't name, but that I know is attractive to deer because it has not-super-heavy shaggy bark.  If I put my imagining hat on, the coyote was doing a Jets/Sharks thing for the benefit of the deer.

It hung out for a while and then bounded off, tail high.  I shared that with a couple of people this morning.  One thought it was a good omen.  The other was worried that it was a dangerous thing, was even more concerned that it was in the courtyard rather than behind the building.  I'm not sure the coyoted was as concerned with whatever the human concept difference is between those locations, given that they are separated by a scant 100 feet.

People amaze me with how wild they think their yards are not, and with how frightening nocturnal animal (and insect) activitiy can be to them.  :)  I do not want to go to there.

This morning, I'm waiting for the next step, whatever that may be.  Meanwhile, I'm setting up my room and planning to head to the co-op for some things I neglected to bring.  Like lotion.  In Vermont.  In March.  An intellectual giant is me!

:)

-Dot

Tags:

Profile

Loon
[info]dottie_dear
Dottie Dear

Latest Month

August 2009
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by [info]phuck