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"
- Location:work
- Mood:
happy - Music:The J.B.'s "Hot Pants Road"
- Location:Work
- Mood:
Nerdishly Pleased - Music:"Gold Digger" -- Kanye West
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.
- Location:Work
- Mood:
Interested - Music:"Not Listening" -- Sick of Sarah
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.
| |||||
- Location:Work
- Mood:
satisfied - Music:"Not Listening" -- Sick of Sarah
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.
- Location:Home
- Mood:
Are you KIDDING me? - Music:Loons
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),
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:
Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff. All rights reserved, except your right to be represented in your governance.
- Location:Home
- Mood:
Determined - Music:Yes, we can (Sly & Robbie, from "Riddim Killers")
-Dot
Copyright 2009 Dot's Stuff. All rights reserved, but you are welcome to a change of heart.
- Location:Home
- Mood:
Fed Up with Being A Good Girl - Music:Crickets
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.
- Location:Home
- Mood:
wishing I was wrong - Music:Loons
- Location:Colorado
- Mood:
unsurprised - Music:Spheres
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
- Location:work
- Mood:
cheerful - Music:"At the Codfish Ball" -- John Lithgow
Dot
- Location:Dorm
- Mood:
creative - Music:You'll see...
( 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.
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?
- Location:Dorm room
- Mood:
peaceful - Music:Birds
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
- Location:Dorm room
- Mood:
silly - Music:rain on the tin roof
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
- Location:School!
- Mood:
curious - Music:Birds





