Yes on Prop. K Town Hall!
Yes on Prop. K is holding an historic town hall and discussion panel today, 7 P.M. – 9 P.M., at the Unitarian Universalist Church, 1187 Franklin St. (Franklin between Geary & O’Farrell).
Already support Prop. K? Come out and show your support! Meet the organizers and learn about easy ways to volunteer during the days of the campaign. Undecided about Prop. K? Come out and listen to sex worker activists, criminal attorneys, public health experts, local politicians, labor activists, and members of church, LGBTQI, and neighborhood communities speak for themselves about Prop. K. It’s a great opportunity to ask questions and get answers straight from the source, unfiltered by journalists (and bloggers, heh!).
For the last century, year after year, sex workers in SF have been hounded, arrested and jailed, evicted, raped and even murdered, their children taken away. Those of us who have least – often women of color – have received the brunt of this persecution. Why has our city famed for being open minded allowed this injustice to continue? Now we can make a change and win greater protection, well-being and safety for all. Join a cross section of communities who want to make this happen!
Speakers include: sex workers and sex worker organizations, criminal attorneys Nedra Ruiz, Stephanie Adraktas, Stuart Hanlon and David Bigeleisen, Conference of Delegates of California Bar Association, Dr. Jeffrey D. Klausner, SF Green Party, neighborhood residents, church representatives, candidates for board of supervisor and other politicians, the LGBT community, labor representatives, and others.
- Prop K was put on the ballot by more than 12,000 San Franciscans to ensure that basic human and civil rights are extended to sex workers. It follows the recommendations of the path breaking SF Task Force on Prostitution.
- Prop K calls on the police to prioritize sex workers’ safety by vigorously enforcing coercion, extortion, battery, rape and other violent crimes.
- Prop K will end the criminalization of sex workers, many of whom are mothers trying to support their families in increasingly hard times. Criminalization traps sex workers in prostitution, increases vulnerability to violence and sets sex workers apart from the rest of the community.
- Prop K is an anti-racist initiative. Women of color are disproportionately arrested under the prostitution laws and make up the majority of women in prison.
- Prop K will not stop the prosecution of traffickers but will protect immigrant women from being targeted for arrest. According to the Public Defender, not one trafficker has been prosecuted in SF. However, many sex workers of color have been rounded up and deported.
Hope to see you there!
Small Moments
In the midst of it all, there are small moments that make me laugh or smile and remember that I’m here and that I will not lie down and die, goddamnit. Those small moments are usually political, such as this conversation I had while phonebanking for No on Prop. 4:
Voter: I’m 53–
PD: thinks, “Oh, shit,” because, “I’m [age],” is usually followed by, “so [Prop. 4] doesn’t matter to me.”
Voter: –and when I was 15, Planned Parenthood saved my life. They were there for me when I needed help. So I’ll vote no on Prop. 4!
Then there are the non-political moments that nevertheless remind me why I fell in love with my friends to begin with and why life is worth living wholeheartedly and fighting for.
Via text message:
PD: L’Elisir d’Amore was too delightful!
M: Did it elicit un furtiva lagrima?
PD: ILU! [Short, of course, for "I love you"]
The silly jokes, the bright sparks of wit, the shared love of music and opera–that’s part of why I fell in love to begin with, and these brief respites recharge my spirit all out of proportion to their brevity.
L’Elisir d’Amore genuinely was excellent. Ramon Vargas (Nemorino), Inva Mula (Adina), and Ji Young Yang (Giannetta) were spectacular! It took me a while to warm up to Vargas and Mula, but they did a fantastic job and had great chemistry. Vargas in particular was good at acting as well as singing. I would love to hear more of Yang’s delicate, fragile soprano and am thinking of going to L’Elisir d’Amore for Families, when she’ll be singing Adina. The more I hear her, the more I like her–I was lukewarm about her performance as the Rose (The Little Prince) last May, didn’t particularly notice her as Juliette (Die Tote Stadt), was entranced by her aria as Xenia (Boris Godunov) last week, and thoroughly enjoyed her turn as Giannetta tonight. She has a distinctive voice that stood out even during chorus pieces, once I knew what to listen for. Like birdsong or high, silver bells.
Election Memories
I’ve been thinking about election memories. My earliest political memory is from 1992, when Clinton meant a different Clinton and Bush meant a different Bush. My mom bought me a Scholastic biography of William Jefferson Clinton, a thin book that had a picture of a smiling, white man in a dark suit, seated behind a desk, hands folded. I thought it was cool how he’d wanted to run for president all his life, how he’d gone to Yale and how he was a Rhodes Scholar. I didn’t realize how strange it was that the new president didn’t come from a rich family, that his dad had been a traveling salesman, his mom a nurse, and his step-dad an abusive alcoholic. But that’s not my earliest political memory.
My earliest political memory is from 1992, when Clinton meant a different Clinton and Bush meant a different Bush, and my second grade class held a mock election. Chris Murphy said, “Don’t vote for Clinton. My dad says he’s a fag.”
The other election that stands out in my mind is 2004, when Kerry and Edwards were running against Bush and Cheney. My roommate and I were going to watch the election results come in, damning the fact that we were on the East Coast and had three more hours of nailbiting than the West Coasters did. Her girlfriend invited her over to her room and I ended up watching the election with a bottle of Ketel One. I was up until four or five in the morning, steadily becoming more and more drunk and more and more distraught, hoping against hope that somehow, the disputed votes would be counted and Kerry would win. That was all that I had left to hope for, since the same-sex marriage bans on eleven state ballots had all passed, and had passed with significantly more than a bare majority. Voters in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah voted for measures that defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. Some states went further and refused to recognize civil unions, while others went even further and banned civil unions outright.
Last week, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released the latest edition of the Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government. They found that the gap between the pro- and anti- marriage equality voters had decreased from September’s 41% yes, 55% no to 44% yes, 52% no. While the decrease in support is worrisome, what is more alarming is the importance the poll subjects attached to the outcome of Prop. 8, an indication of how likely they were to turn out and vote on the measure:
The proportion saying the outcome of the vote is very important has increased over time (48% August, 54% September, 57% today); however, this has occurred more among “yes” voters (57% August, 62% September, 69% today) than among “no” voters (44% August, 51% September, 49% today). – Full report, PDF
Furthermore, polls are mixed. A SurveyUSA poll from Oct. 17 showed Yes on 8 ahead, 48% to 45%, and a poll done by Marist College for the Knights of Columbus showed support for Prop. 8 at 52% and the opposition at 43%.
Polls are an inexact science and it’s anyone’s guess as to how the increased voter turnout for the presidential election will affect Prop. 8. What stands out to me the most is not that various partisan and nonpartisan polls are showing conflicting results, but that the PPIC poll shows that the opposition has decreased and the support for Prop. 8 has become more fervent.
I cannot overemphasize how important Prop. 8 is. It’s not merely another anti-marriage equality ban, it’s an amendment to the state constitution. It’s not merely another state constitutional amendment, but the first attempt to take away marriage equality in a state that already recognizes and performs same-sex marriages. That’s why Prop. 8 is different. In all the other states that passed anti-marriage equality bans, rights were denied and discrimination was written into state law, but the rights had never been recognized to begin with. Here, the California Supreme Court recognized that the 2000 ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional and granted an affirmative right to marry. If we lose on Prop. 8, we’re not losing theoretical rights. We’re losing real rights that have been recognized by civil authorities, and that’s why Prop. 8 would be a huge, unique setback to the GLBTQI rights movement.
There are six days until the election. Both sides are flooding the airwaves with advertisements, jamming the phone lines with voter calls, and hitting the pavement with canvassers and demonstrators. Supporters of Prop. 8 are donating their life savings (SacBee) to Yes on Prop. 8 because they see it as a cause worth fighting for.
Pam and Rick Patterson have always followed teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tried to live within their means.
He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three-bedroom home in Folsom.
It’s a traditional lifestyle they believe is now at risk. That’s why the Pattersons recently made a huge financial sacrifice – they withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage. …
“The No. 1 reason members are donating and working toward this cause is the preservation of the traditional family,” she said.
That’s why Auburn resident David Nielson, 55, is giving. He said the church has not pressured him to contribute.
“Absolutely not,” said Nielson, a retired insurance executive. He and his wife, Susan, live on a budget. The couple donated $35,000, he said, “because some things are worth fighting for.”
The couple will forgo a vacation for the next two years and make other sacrifices to pay for their donation, he said.
“If it doesn’t pass, then at least I can tell my grandchildren I gave everything I could,” Nielson said.
The Pattersons, who have been married 14 years, say there were thinking about their children’s future when they decided to tap into their savings to contribute. And they also said no one pressured them into giving. [emphasis mine]
When November 2 comes and the polls have closed and the votes have been counted, will you be able to say that you did everything you could? That you stood up for what you believed in?
I’ve been getting emails from complete strangers about Prop. 8, people that rushed their weddings and had civil ceremonies just in case Prop. 8 should pass and ban new marriages but allow already married couples to stay married. I’ve been thinking of the lives at stake and how much a few short months can matter, let alone the years it would take to repeal Prop. 8.
According to No on 8, when undecided voters view both Yes on 8 and No on 8 ads, they’re more likely no. This means that getting our ads out is essential, which means buying ad time. According to Drs. Green and Gerber, Poli Sci profs at Yale, volunteer efforts are extremely persuasive (Slate):
Political scientists have run dozens of such studies during the past few years, and the work has led to what you might call the central tenet of voter mobilization: Personal appeals work better than impersonal ones. Having campaign volunteers visit voters door-to-door is the “gold standard” of voter mobilization efforts, Green and Gerber write. On average, the tactic produces one vote for every 14 people contacted. The next-most-effective way to reach voters is to have live, human volunteers call them on the phone to chat: This tactic produces one new vote for every 38 people contacted.
This means that talking to your friends, family members, and coworkers is essential. I’ve done phonebanking for No on 8 and by freak luck I haven’t talked to anyone that was undecided or voting yes. However, during phonebanking for No on 4, I’ve talked with undecided voters that changed their minds and decided to vote no after a short conversation, so I can easily believe that phonebanking works.
The election is six days away. Make sure to vote (absentee voters, mail in your ballots before Tuesday, because they have to arrive by the time polls close, or make sure to drop your ballot off at a polling location). Donate what you can ($5 minimum at the No on 8 site). The Nielsons and the Pattersons are sacrificing their savings and cutting vacations out of their budgets in order to support Prop. 8. What are we willing to give up to support marriage equality, anti-homophobia, and civil rights?
Phone bank at a No on 8 office or from your home. Conversations are short, easy, and effective.
Volunteer on Election Day and show your support for NO on Prop. 8. Take the day off work or do a shift in the morning or evening and show a real, human face to the voters.
My earliest political memory is of Chris Murphy, an eight-year old classmate, repeating his father’s hate speech. “My dad says Clinton’s a fag.” My 2004 presidential election memory is of watching anti-GLBTQI, anti-civil rights, pro-homophobia measures get voted in with overwhelming majorities. I want 2008 to be different. Help me make that possible.
Fight for equality. Fight for love.
“I Want You To Be Nice To Sex Workers”
Last September, sex worker, pleasure activist, and artist Sadie Lune (NSFW) took first place at Tony Labat’s I Want You project at SFMOMA. As part of the contest, the five winners had their images and slogans turned into posters. I’d actually forgotten about that, but I can’t wait to see them go up all over the city. For one thing, it’s great, free publicity for Yes on Prop. K. For another, Sadie Lune’s poster looks fabulous and combines the personal, the political, and the artistic into a provocative political request:
I love that line, “I want you to stop punishing me because you can’t imagine being me.” I think a lot of the prejudice in society comes from a lack of imagination and an inability or an unwillingness to empathize with other people. That ignorance and lack of understanding results in fear of the unknown and then hostility, trying to keep the unknown as far away as possible. When it comes to sex work, that hostility manifests as criminalization, which drives sex workers underground and tries to lock them into jails, where they’re kept out of sight and thus out of mind. It’s the attitude of, “I can’t imagine being a sex worker and so I’ll punish them for making me think about it and feel uncomfortable–I’ll push them away so I don’t have to think about them–I don’t want to think about the issues and so I’ll just vote no on K to preserve the status quo.” “I want you to stop punishing me because you can’t imagine being me” looks that attitude of hostility, fear, ignorance, or just plain apathy in the face and says, “Stop. Think.” The combination of the image and the slogan says, “Stop. Think. I’m a real person, and your decisions affect me.”
“I want you to be nice to sex workers” is another powerful line, because it raises the question of what exactly it means to be nice to sex workers. How does one go about it? Does it mean being a good customer, respecting a sex worker’s rules and paying them well? Does it mean not harassing them? Does it mean not making dead hooker jokes? Does it mean supporting programs that help sex workers transition out, if they want to? Does it mean giving a damn when someone murders, rapes, or robs a sex worker and gets off with a slap on the wrist? Does it mean advocating for sex workers’ rights? Does it mean realizing that sex workers are no more a monolith than any other group of people? Does it mean not privileging the voices of non-sex workers over the voices of sex workers?
Does it mean listening to sex workers when they say what they want?
Questions, questions. The poster challenges the viewer and raises lots of questions. I love that.
Sadie Lune’s “I Want You,” video by activist, artist, and sex worker Scarlot Harlot (video NSFW):
Transcript:
[Organ grinder music]
[Applause]
I want you. I want you to listen to me, even if you think you’ve heard it before or don’t think I know how to speak for myself. I want you so bad, so bad right now–to respect me, and pay me, and understand that I do not sell myself, because I’m still here, and I’ve always been here.
I want you to know that I have your money. And your coworker’s money, and your father’s money has fed my family, and my rent, and my studies, and my habit, and my poverty, and my extravagance. And you might think that you don’t know me, but it’s more likely you just don’t know that you do.
I might want this job or hate it, but your condemnation and your ignorance and your accusations and your locking me down for my living, and your turning your back on my rape, and your knocking me off because you think no one cares, and your using me as the inhuman butt of your jokes–I want you to stop.
I want you to stop punishing me just because you may not be able to imagine being me.
I want you to be nice to sex workers. I want you, I really do. Please vote yes on Prop. K.
[applause]
———————————
I’m not a sex worker, and so although I can write about Prop. K, I’m trying to navigate the boundaries of privilege such that I don’t appropriate the sex worker activist movement or claim to speak for it. On the one hand, I’m writing about Prop. K the way I would write about any other ballot initiative–opining, navel-gazing, and analyzing–but I realize that in our anti-sex work society, my voice is privileged over the voices of actual sex workers. That’s wrong and I’m trying not to replicate that same power structure when I write, so if I fuck up and put my foot in it, please call me on it and I’ll fix it (I realize that asking for that guidance is in itself an act of privilege, but I’m not sure how else to say that I will inevitably fuck up, despite trying not to, and I welcome being told how I’ve fucked up. Perhaps the writer’s tag, “constructive criticism always welcome” would work?)
Random Silliness: 8 Homes
Renee tagged me for random weekend silliness, which was sorely needed this past weekend (I cannot wait for the election to be here, counted, certified, and over). Er, so much so that I didn’t actually get to it until the weekend was over. But Monday is a good day for random silliness, right?
Where Would Your 8 Homes Be?
List them. You don’t have to list your reasons, but if you do at least for a few of them, it would be more fun. And remember that the only rule is: the homes must be within the borders of the United States of America or else, within the borders of the country you live in, so as to utterly emulate the McCains. When you’re done, tag 8 people, so that they may join in the self-indulgence, forgetting about the crappy property market and the equivalent of The End of Pompeii on Wall-Street. You could spend your time hammering your doors and windows shut in preparation for the apocalypse instead, but it would be much less fun.
The John McCain meme was actually more difficult than I thought it would be, because most of the places I’d want to live are either abroad or where I’m currently living.
1. San Francisco, CA. I love SF, possibly more than any place I’ve ever lived before. I love the liberal culture, the activism, the street fairs, the weather, the architecture, the SOLE restaurant culture, the farmers markets, the diversity, the opera, the symphony, the walks, the neighborhoods, etc.
2. Boston, MA. I have friends there, which is the primary draw. That and the Harvard Book Store.
3. Ashland, OR. I would like to go to the Shakespeare festival. We visited years ago and it was a very cute, walkable town, with lots of trees and plants. There was also a used bookstore and an ice cream shop.
4. Hardwick, VT. Well, I guess I wouldn’t just want a flat there, I’d want to live there and participate in the SOLE agriculture-based economic revival.
5. Somewhere around Tahoe, close enough to a lake to walk there. Swimming and bathing in a freshwater lake is refreshing and the air up there is amazingly clear. There are plants and wildlife everywhere and although it’s not silent, the distinct lack of electronic humming is soothing and relaxing.
6. Hippie town, NC. I forget what it’s called, but a friend used to live in this small town in NC that’s very liberal. He’d wait tables and save up some money, then take off to go camping until the cash ran out and then he’d wait tables again. Lots of environmentalists, potheads, musicians, and artists.
7. Washington, D.C. In order to more easily attend protests and demonstrations. Honestly, mostly because I’m running out of ideas. The museums are great and free and the WNO is decent.
8. Chicago, IL. It’d be nice to have somewhere to stop over on cross-country flights. I haven’t spent much time there, so it’d be nice to get to know the city.
I tag tarigwaemir and sahiya.
Out and About: More Signage
More photos of political signage.
“YOUR VOICE VOTE REGISTER AND VOTE” advertisement on the side of a bus stop in the Mission, with the deadline for registration prominently advertised. The Mission is a rapidly gentrifying but still lower-income and predominantly Hispanic neighborhood–people that typically are very affected by politics–so I’m happy to see the SF Department of Elections making an effort to reach out to the inhabitants.
Marriage Equality: CA, AZ, FL…
Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry and define marriage as being between a woman and a man, is the anti-marriage equality proposition that’s received the most press and the most donations in this election. Unfortunately, the race is still close and the outcome is uncertain (LA Times).
However, there are also anti-marriage equality initiatives on the ballots in other states. Arizona’s Proposition 102 would amend the AZ state constitution to state, “Marriage – Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.” A state law already defines marriage as being between one woman and one man, but that’s not enough for the anti-marriage equality people. Arizona voters defeated an anti-marriage equality amendment in 2006, but the zombie of homophobia reared its head again. Equality Arizona is fundraising, running phonebanks, and canvassing neighborhoods against Prop. 102. If you can donate some money or time, please do. A group of bloggers at No on 102 are fighting back against the plethora of Yes on 102 signs by gathering No on 102 pictures. Take a picture and post it to their flickr or email it to noon102 at gmail.
In Florida, Amendment 2 reads,
Inasmuch as a marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.
Amendment 2 will ban recognition and benefits for all unmarried couples, blocking civil unions and domestic partnerships. The VoteNoon2.org website says,
The amendment would have an especially harsh impact on Florida’’s large senior population, many of whom form domestic partnerships rather than remarry after they are widowed in order not to risk losing essential benefits. Same-sex couples, who are already denied the right to marry by law, would now be denied the right to any kind of meaningful legal protection. The vague language in the amendment, “the substantial equivalent thereof”, will plunge Florida into lawsuits, much as has happened in other states. In every instance around the country, those behind these amendments immediately seek to have it interpreted in the most restrictive way possible for all unmarried people.
Florida law already defines marriage as being between a woman and a man, prohibits same-sex marriages, and has a Defense of Marriage Law (DOMA) on the books. Amendment 2 shows that anti-marriage equality people aren’t content with anything less than enshrining anti-GLBTQI discrimination in their state constitution.
For more information on what you can do to help defeat Amendment 2, visit VoteNoOn2.com. Floridian Brian has been blogging about Amendment 2 over at Incertus.
If there are other anti-marriage equality propositions up for the vote in this election, please let me know.
Socialized Health Care Can’t Be Worse
From today’s NYT: Some Cut Back On Prescription Drugs in Sour Economy (Stephanie Saul, 2008/10/21)
Your health or your food: that’s the choice forced by the rising cost of gas, food, and just about everything else. If you’re ill, medications are necessary for your health (I’m particularly aware of this at the moment, as I’m taking antibiotics for an infection), but the people that are the most in need of it are being forced to weigh the cost of medicine and the cost of food: long-term health versus survival.
“People are having to choose between gas, meals and medication,” said Dr. James King, the chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians, a national professional group. He also runs his own family practice in rural Selmer, Tenn.
“I’ve seen patients today who said they stopped taking their Lipitor, their cholesterol-lowering medicine, because they can’t afford it,” Dr. King said one recent morning.
“I have patients who have stopped taking their osteoporosis medication.”
Sometimes, it’s not long-term health that’s put at risk. Stopping medication escalates into worse health, which requires more care at more expense.
But for other patients, he said, “the prescription drug is a lifesaver, and they really can’t afford to stop it.”
Dr. Thomas J. Weida, a family physician in Hershey, Pa., said one of his patients ended up in the hospital because he was unable to afford insulin.
Not everyone simply stops taking their drugs.
“They’ll split pills, take their pills every other day, do a lot of things without conferring with their doctors,” said Jack Hoadley, a health policy analyst at Georgetown University.
“We’ve had focus groups with various populations,” Mr. Hoadley said. “They’ll look at four or five prescriptions and say, ‘This is the one I can do without.’ They’re not going to stop their pain medication because they’ll feel bad if they don’t take that. They’ll stop their statin for cholesterol because they don’t feel any different whether they take that or not.”
Whether or not you have health insurance, the rising cost of medication is a problem. As usual, the problem most harshly hits the poor and the elderly.
The average co-payment for drugs on insurers’ “preferred” lists rose to $25 in 2007, from $15 in 2000, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit health care research organization. And, of course, lots of people have no drug insurance at all. That includes the estimated 47 million people in the United States with no form of health coverage, but it is also true for some people who have medical insurance that does not include drug coverage — a number for which no good data may exist.
For older Americans, the addition of Medicare drug coverage in 2006 through the Part D program has meant that 90 percent of Medicare-age people now have drug insurance. And in the early going, Part D had helped stimulate growth in the nation’s overall number of prescriptions, as patients who previously had no coverage flocked to Part D.
But a potential coverage gap in each recipient’s benefit each year — the so-called Part D doughnut hole — means that many Medicare patients are without coverage for part of the year. …
Gloria Wofford, 76, of Pittsburgh, said she recently stopped taking Provigil, prescribed for her problem of falling asleep during the day, because she could no longer afford it after she entered the Medicare doughnut hole.
Her Provigil had been costing $1,695 every three months. “I have no idea who could do it,” she said. “There’s no way I could handle that.”
Without the medication, Ms. Wofford said, she falls asleep while sitting at her computer during the day but then cannot sleep during the night. Because she feels she has no choice, Ms. Wofford is paying out of pocket to continue taking an expensive diabetes medication that costs more than $500 every three months.
This situation is completely fucked up. People that are poor (disproportionately ethnic minorities), people that are uninsured, people that are elderly, people that have chronic illnesses, and people that are disabled simultaneously are the people most likely to need medications for their continued well-being and the people least able to bear increases in the cost of that medication. A profit-driven health care system that views health as a privilege rather than a right leaves all of those people in the dust.
I got sick last week. I woke up on Friday morning with a staph infection that oozed pus and throbbed with pain, so I called my doctor and got an appointment for the same day. While I was at her office, she checked with me to see if I was following up on my last test results and if I needed a referral to another specialist. We chatted about Prop. 4 as she took a look at the infection, and then she wrote a prescription and I picked up the antibiotics a few hours later. Why do I get such good care? Because my employer offers a good health insurance plan; because I pay hundreds of dollars every month for that insurance; because I pay an additional $100/year membership fee to the medical practice; because I make enough money that I don’t have to weigh the cost of the visit co-pay ($15) and the prescription co-pay ($10) and wonder if it would be better to skip the doctor’s office and see if the infection will go away on its own.
This situation is wrong. Access to quality health care shouldn’t be dependent on your ability to find an employer that offers health insurance, let alone a good plan, and it shouldn’t be dependent on your ability to pay out of pocket, either. Given that there will always be economic strata in society, tying health insurance to economic and employment status builds inequality into the system. It guarantees that there will be people without health insurance and people unable to afford health insurance and health care. Ultimately, this raises costs for everyone, since the cost of caring for uninsured people ends up being offset by higher fees for insured patients. I would much rather take the money that I’m currently using to pay for insurance premiums and pay it to the government in the form of higher taxes if it went to a nationalized health care system that covered everyone. Make preventative care accessible for everyone, lower overall costs, and give everyone access to health care.
Contact your elected officials about the shambles that is our health care system.
Out and About: Political Signs
A cafe window at Market and Castro.
Yes on Prop. K fliers on a pole on Market, near Embarcadero
Ferry Building Farmers Market: complete with McCain and Palin cutouts!
Ferry Building Farmers Market: opposite the McCain-Palin table, Obama-Biden (sadly, no cutouts).
Cindy Sheehan for Congress sign in an apartment window on Carl and Hilway.
I wanted photos of signs and political materials from around the city, but since I haven’t seen any No on Prop. 4 signage anywhere, here’s my window.
Schedule: T-19 Days
Week of Oct. 12
Monday: precinct dropping with Yes on Prop. K (dropping fliers at all the residential buildings in a precinct)
Tuesday: phonebanking with No on Prop. 8
Wednesday: Idomeneo at SF Opera!
Thursday: phonebanking with No on Prop. 4
Friday: precinct dropping
Saturday: pick up fliers for precinct dropping, pick up MUNI greeter stuff for No on Prop. 8
Weekdays mornings, M-F, 7-9: MUNI greeter for Prop. 8
Week of Oct. 19
Sunday: precinct dropping, Whores Against Wars: March 4 Sweeping Change
March 4 Sweeping Change
Sunday, October 19th
Gather at SF Ferry Building at 12:45pm
Community stroll will end by 3:00pm @ SF City HallBreak out your comfortable walking shoes and join sister maeJoy B. withU, Whores against Wars, sex workers for Prop. K, and other allies at the SF Ferry Building this Sunday, October 19th for a community stroll/penny drive in support of San Francisco’s Proposition K. The informal walk will begin at 1pm, travel down market street, and conclude by 3pm at SF City Hall. Bring drinking water and friends.
Monday: Phonebanking for Prop. 4
Tuesday: Phonebanking for Prop. 8
Wednesday: Boris Godunov at SF Opera
Thursday: Phonebanking for Prop. 8
Friday: Night off?!?!
Saturday: pick up fliers for precinct dropping
Weekdays mornings, M-F, 7-9: MUNI greeter for Prop. 8
Week of Oct. 26
Sunday: precinct dropping for Prop. K
Monday: Phonebanking for Prop. 4
Tuesday: Phonebanking for Prop. 8
Wednesday: L’Elisir d’Amore at SF Opera
Thursday: Phonebanking for Prop. 8
Friday: Night off?!?!
Saturday: pick up fliers for precinct dropping, Joshua Bell at SF Symphony
Weekdays mornings, M-F, 7-9: MUNI greeter for Prop. 8
Week of Nov. 2
Sunday: precinct dropping for Prop. K
Monday: Phonebanking for Prop. 4
Tuesday: ELECTION / visibility for Prop. 4
M-T, 7-9: MUNI greeter for Prop. 8
Among all that, there’s work, blogging, and apps. -headdesk-
Why do I care so much? Phonebanking is actually fun, but precinct dropping is exhausting and it’s easily two solid hours of walking and climbing stairs while lugging pounds of fliers. The idea of waking up in time to get to a MUNI station for rush hour at 7 A.M. so that I can stand and hold signs for two hours before going in to a full day at work, followed by more volunteer work, makes me cringe.
I care because I can’t not. No on Prop. 8 – this is my life. No on Prop. 4, Yes on Prop. K – they’re the right thing to do. This election matters; I won’t repeat the tripe that it’s the most important election of our lifetime because every single election is hyped as “the most important election of our lifetime.” That begs the question, anyway; the election is important because it matters, so why does it matter to me?
Equality. Justice. I learned when I was little that no one would recognize my rights if it was to their advantage not to. I learned the outlines of sexism and I didn’t see how much progress feminists had made; I saw how the same things that Laura Ingalls Wilder fought against were still present in the thoughts and actions of the society around me. I learned to be stubborn and to work; I learned that I could seethe and cry against injustice or I could fight back against it and change things for me and for every person to come after me.
The only reasons that I can even think about legalizing same-sex marriage and post No on 8 signs in my windows and announce that I’m queer on Facebook for everyone to see and talk about opposing Prop. 8 over coffee at work are the tireless work, the dedication, and the courage of the GLBTQI activists and allies that came before me. Their work, their resistance, their persistence are why I can stand in a MUNI station holding a No on Prop. 8 sign without even considering that I might be harassed when only four years ago, I most certainly would have been.
The only reason that I can argue for protecting a girl’s right to choose and argue that she has the right not to be considered the property of her parents, and that she especially deserves to protect herself from abusive parents, is the determination of the feminists, pro-choice activists, supporters, and doctors that refused to back down in the face of violent opposition. Their work, their resistance, their persistence are why I can call Republican voters for No on Prop. 4 and speak with women that say, “What’s Planned Parenthood saying? No? Planned Parenthood tells me to vote no on Prop. 4, that’s good enough for me.”
I honor my radical ancestors and the legacy they left to every person, which was to carry on their work and shape a fair, equal world. I volunteer for them, to change the world for myself, and to build up the foundations of justice and equality so that the people that come after me will start from a better place than I did.
There is injustice everywhere and it’s tiring to look at it day after day and run into obstacles, such as the man that told me, “I don’t think my wife needs to speak to anyone from Planned Parenthood! -click-” and the ex-friends that earnestly believe that Prop. 8 doesn’t take any rights away, it’s about protecting the children of heterosexual marriages! I get that. It’s tiring as fuck and you’d better believe I know it and that sometimes I see the allure of stepping back and not caring. I’m single. I’m over 18. I’m able-bodied, I’m not a sex worker, and I have a high-paying job. I’m a Korean-American, queer woman, but I have money and that gives me enough privilege that I could afford not to give a shit about anything if I didn’t want to. I don’t have to care about Prop. 4, Prop. 8, Prop. K, or anything else on the goddamned ballot if I don’t want to.
But I can’t not care. I can’t sit by and do nothing. The sacrifices of my predecessors, the hard work of my parents, and my work and class privilege put me in the comfortable position that I’m in now, and I have to use that to shape a world where everyone can have the option of that comfortable safety and freedom.
I know that the majority will never recognize the rights of a minority of their own volition, whether that minority is GLBTQI people, teenage girls, women, sex workers, or the people that exist at the intersections of those identities. The march of time is not inherently politically progressive and it only looks so in retrospect because of the people that pushed for progress every step of the way. The suffragettes thought that equality was around the corner any day now and that after the 19th amendment, the ERA would of course pass and shortly there would be no need for feminism. Yet earlier this year, the Senate blocked the Ledbetter Act, which would have required equal pay for equal work.
Time is not inherently progressive. The majority is not inherently progressive. And so I work.
Some Welcome Humor
Yesterday, I thought that this blog snarkifying comments made by Prop. 8 supporters was the funniest thing I’d seen in ages.
I was wrong. This picture is the funniest thing I’ve seen in ages. McCain looks immature, undignified, and cretinous.
LizardOC’s snarky reframing of the “fundamental repugnance of the confidently bigoted” makes me laugh and provides some much-needed cheering up. I’m working hard and so are many other people, but sometimes, I’m so tired. I’m tired of constantly having to fight for rights and social justice, and I’m tired of encountering bigotry and hatred. It can be wearying. But it’s necessary and I will never stop. And so endurance and laughter are key to staying in for the long haul.
To quote the inimitable Molly Ivins,
As a life-long Texas liberal, I have spent the whole of my existence in a political climate well to the right of that being created by Ronald Reagan and his merry zealots. Brethren and sistren, this can not only be endured, it can be laughed at. Actually, you have two other choices. You could cry or you could throw up. But crying and throwing up are bad for you, so you might as well laugh. All you need in order to laugh about Reagan is a strong stomach. A tungsten tummy. – The Progressive, March 1986. p. 84 in Molly Ivins…Can She?
BRIAN KINNEY!!11!1!
After dealing with homophobes, there is something curiously consoling about watching early seasons of Queer as Folk and enjoying a TV show focused almost exclusively on gay and lesbian characters, their lives, their loves, and the homophobic challenges they face. Most importantly, it presents them as fully developed human characters. The show has many problems, most notably sexism and that there are no primary POC characters, but it still speaks to me. I love their friendships, their joy in each other. I love Brian and Justin!
I have another story for the “Conversations with a Homophobe” series (YAY, it’s a series now! WTF UGH.), but I’m phonebanking with No on Prop. 8 tomorrow so it’ll be up at some point TBD.
This post was prompted by the excellent Brian/Justin scene at the end of 1.18, where Justin’s thinking of going to Dartmouth and Brian shows that he really does pay attention to the things that matter and in his own inimitable way, he understands and cares for Justin. <3 <3 <3 <3 I love watching them when they’re together and in love with each other and it shows.
No on Prop. 8: Conversations with Homophobes
A few months ago, a junior high school friend friended me on Facebook. She’s one of the Mormons that is against same-sex marriage, against recognizing that everyone, GLBTQI or heterosexual, has the right to marry. Loving v. Virginia recognized that
Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” [sic] 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.
and this former classmate and her spouse exercised that civil right last year. It is remarkably hateful, narrow-minded, and selfish for someone that writes in her profile that marriage and her hubby are wonderful to deny that right and joy to someone else, based on sexual orientation. Behind all the excuses about religion, the separation of church and state, “God said marriage is sacred,” “marriage is traditionally between a woman and a man” (false), Yes on Prop. 8 is about homophobia. It’s based on the idea that same-sex couples just aren’t right, just aren’t the same as straight couples, just aren’t really in love … and even if they weren’t, recognizing their right to marry would somehow dilute straight marriages. Those ideas are homophobic. And if your straight marriage would be rendered unstable by my same-sex marriage, you have problems in your relationship that won’t be solved at the ballot box.
Last night, this junior high school acquaintance (JHSA) posted a video on FB with this note, “Please view this video of the removal of parental rights that will happen if gay marriage is legalized in CA.”
Any person with a minimal grasp of the legal framework of parental rights and marriage would realize that there is no logical connection between same-sex marriage and removing the parental rights of straight couples. Amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between a woman and a man and explicitly denying the right of same-sex couples to marry does nothing to preserve, destroy, or otherwise affect the parental rights of straight, married couples. The only possible connection between parental rights and same-sex marriage is that if same-sex couples can marry, then they will, logically speaking, have parental rights over their own children. They will not be out in the streets ripping straight, married couples’ children away from them. Since same-sex marriage has been legal since June 16, if the disaster scenarios that Yes on 8 dreams of were valid, they would already have occurred. I’m looking around and seeing a distinct lack of straight couples losing their parental rights due to same-sex couples marrying.
Not being one to put up with stupidity and illogic of this order, let alone homophobia, I commented,
Have you _read_ the text of Prop. 8? It doesn’t affect married, straight couples’ parental rights at all. It only removes the rights of same-sex couples to marry and thus codifies bigotry and prejudice in our state constitution. If you’re going to take the side of homophobia and hatred, at least do it without resorting to outright fabrications and lies.
JHSA invited me to join a Yes on Prop. 8 FB group a few months back; I declined and then wrote on her wall and politely asked her not to invite me to anymore homophobic groups, as I would be voting no on Prop. 8 and did not support bigotry and prejudice. She deleted my comment without responding, so I figured that she would probably do so with this comment as well.
Oh-ho! I woke up this morning to this gem, not from JHSA, but from one of her in-laws:
Excuse me [Pizza Diavola], but if you are going to try to resemble some form of tolerance and the higher road then make your arguments based on logic rather than personal slamming. Honestly.
I responded,
Excuse me [in-law], but if you are going to try to endorse homophobia and hatred, be honest about it. Prop. 8 codifies hatred. Is it hard for you to own up to that? Then perhaps you should reconsider your position. Honestly.
and then added,
By the way, I’m amused and appalled that a homophobe would preach about “tolerance and the higher road.” I’m sorry, I have no tolerance for homophobes that try to take away other peoples’ rights.
JHSA and family, I have no problem with you exercising your religion in your church and in your lives. I do have a problem with you extending the reach of your religion to the public square and into my life. I hate intellectual dishonesty; if you’re going to endorse bigotry and hatred, be honest about it. Say, “I believe that GLBTQI people are wrong and inferior to me, and that’s why I’m voting yes on Prop. 8.” Have the honesty to own your homophobia and stop hiding behind fear-mongering lies about same-sex marriage.
JHSA tried to convert me to Mormonism in 8th grade; I read the Book of Mormon she loaned me and politely returned it. It is appalling that she can’t grant me the same respect that I granted her.
A short message from Mayor Gavin Newsom and No on Prop. 8:
Transcript:
I don’t think it’s hyperbole to say that this is the second most important election in the United States of America. Let’s not look back and say, “We coulda shoulda, woulda.” We know this is going to be close. I’ve got polls, they’ve got polls that are very good, and I’ve got some polls that have this right on the bubble. So as far as I’m concerned, this thing is a dead heat. So we are gonna have to work harder, and absolutely are going to have to work smarter, than our opponents. If we succeed, we will not only change history in California, we will change the tone and tenor of this debate across not only America, but the rest of the world. [Applause] People are counting on us. This is a big deal! This is a big deal! We have done so much, we have come so far. We have changed the way people feel and the way people view members of the LGBT community. But we have not finished the job.
Donate and help close the $10M fundraising gap between No on 8 and Yes on 8. Phone bank and talk with undecided voters. Write and talk with everyone you know, and explain why we must defeat Prop. 8.
Fight for equality. Fight for love.
MIA from Social Life
Yeah. The election’s Nov. 4 and I have quite a few ponies in the race. So, I’m just going to be upfront and say that I’m going to be bad at keeping in touch, phone calls, emails, IMs, and hanging out until Nov. 4, because not only is politics taking over my brain, it’s taking over my planner. I keep thinking that there’s not enough time to do everything I need to do and want to do, and all of it has to be done before Nov. 4., all of it has to be done asap for maximum exposure before the elections, it’s all time-intensive, blah blah blah raaghhh: that’s what the inside of my head looks like right now.
If you’d like to hang out, I’m phonebanking with No on Prop. 8 every Tuesday and No on Prop. 4 every Thursday, and I’m doing precinct walks (dropping off fliers) for Yes on Prop. K on various days/nights every week. I would love some company. Anyone up for precinct drops? It would be good hanging out time, and it’d go much faster with another person. -watches friends flee- Also, I forgot that October was the Month Of Music, so if anyone’s interested in coming along to Idomeneo, Boris Godunov, L’Elisir d’Amore, or Joshua Bell, let me know. -watches people run away even more quickly-
Kickass voter registration status tool for San Francisco-registered voters. It lets you check your registration status online.
|
 |
 |
(my windows look something like that, minus the No on 8 sign, which I haven’t picked up yet)
CT Supreme Court Rules for Equality
Via Mustang Bobby, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry and that CT’s civil union law does not provide same-sex couples the same benefits as marriage. In other words, separate is not equal. From the Greenwich Time article:
The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut’s civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples. …
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.
“To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others,” Palmer wrote.
The full text of the decision is here (PDF).
Separate is not equal. Same-sex marriage is about human dignity and civil rights, as Gavin Newsom put it, and at its heart, it’s about human equality. Slowly but surely, people are realizing that. In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court wrote,
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.
The principle of that ruling applies to same-sex marriage as well.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said in a statement. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision – either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution – will not meet with success.”
Gov. Rell’s statement highlights the importance of the courts in our governmental system: they serve as a check on the tyranny of the majority and the whims of contemporary society. That’s what they’re suppose to do. They’re supposed to interpret the laws and the state and U.S. constitutions, whether or not their decision ends up reflecting the majority of the people–especially when their decision runs contrary to popular opinion. Rell’s statement just highlights how absurd it is that we’re voting on the humanity and equality of a group of people. Human rights are something we have by virtue of being human; whether or not society chooses to recognize them, they are our rights.
Rell’s statement that attempts to reverse the decision would be unsuccessful is interesting; is she simply toeing the Republican party line with the “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut” and paying lip service to homophobia? She signed CT’s civil unions law despite some Republican opposition to it, but threatened to veto it and only signed it after the bill was amended to define marriage as being between a woman and a man. In 2007, she also declared that if the legislature tried to pass a same-sex marriage bill, she would veto it. Her current position seems to indicate that she would not support a constitutional amendment or a bill that would ban same-sex marriage, which is a good but puzzling change of position.
Contact a CT state official, Representatives, Senators, and Governor Rell and ask them to work on making this promise a reality:
State legislative Judiciary Committee Co-Chairman Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, called the court’s decision “a bright day for Connecticut.”
“Today’s decision is an affirmation of Connecticut’s legacy of leadership in civil rights issues,” McDonald said. “The legislature must now take steps to clarify state law to comport with this decision. The Supreme Court has admirably done its job, and now we are required to do ours. And I predict that we will do it in a bipartisan fashion.”
No on 8: Fight for Love
Via Love Honor Cherish’s facebook feed: Mormons renew calls for Calif. gay marriage ban (SJ Mercury).
Okay, I was a Christian for over half my life. At 13, I made the decision to be baptized, which I viewed as a vow to God; I seriously considered being a missionary; I prayed constantly; I read most of the Bible; and in short, I was hard core. Since then, I’ve researched the rise of Christianity and the politics surrounding it. From that background, I would like to ask Ballard how the Hell exactly enshrining discrimination in the sttae constitution constitutes God’s work:
“What we’re about is the work of the Lord, and He will bless you for your involvement,” apostle M. Russell Ballard said during the hourlong meeting, which was broadcast to church buildings in California, Utah, Hawaii and Idaho. … “We know that it is not without controversy, yet let me be clear that at the heart of this issue is the central doctrine of eternal marriage and it’s place in our Father’s plan,” Ballard said.
If he’s talking about Leviticus 20:13, I would like to ask Ballard if he wears mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), eats shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), shaves (Leviticus 19:27), practices Onanism aka pulling out (Genesis 38:9-10), or allows women to attend church within 42 days of giving birth (Leviticus 18:14). In short, anyone that hides behind the commands of Leviticus to justify homophobia is cherry-picking commands to adhere to. Follow everything or follow nothing, as John says in Revelations 3:15-16:
οιδα σου τα εργα οτι ουτε ψυχρος ει ουτε
ζεστος οφελον ψυχρος ης η ζεστοςουτως οτι χλιαρος ει και ου ζεστος ουτε ψυχρος
μελλω σε εμεσαι εκ του στοματος μου [Septuagint]scio opera tua quia neque frigidus es neque calidus utinam frigidus esses aut calidus. sed quia tepidus es et nec frigidus nec calidus incipiam te evomere ex ore meo. [Vulgate]
I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot. I would thou wert cold or hot. But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. [King James]
If you’re going to be a hateful, bigoted, prejudiced homophobe, be an honest, hateful, bigoted, prejudiced homophobe and stop hiding behind the excuse of religion when you merely latch onto it for a justification for your hatred rather than for all-encompassing belief.
Officially, the Mormon church is politically neutral and does not endorse individual candidates or political parties. The church does, however, weigh in on issues it considers morally important. The church holds traditional marriage as a sacred institution ordained by God and has actively fought efforts to legalize same-sex marriage across the United States since the 1990s.
Why is it a sacred institution? What constitutes that “sacred institution”? If it’s marriage between a woman and a man, I would like to suggest that someone’s a little ignorant of Biblical stories. Jacob had multiple wives. David, God’s anointed king, committed adultery, impregnated Bathsheba, and sent her husband to be killed on the battlefield so that David and Bathsheba could marry. Solomon kept a harem. The contemporary conception of marriage is hardly akin to those Biblical marriages. For that matter, the U.S. legal position on heterosexual marriages is also far from the Mormon view of marriage. It’s laughable that people that follow a religion that explicitly supports polygamy in its holy scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-62) would try to ban same-sex marriage on the grounds that it’s not “traditional” or “sacred.”
On that note, how will allowing same-sex couples to marry affect Mormons’ ability to participate in their sacred institution? It won’t (unless Mormon same-sex couples that wish to marry). Allowing same-sex marriage does not force any Mormon priests to perform same-sex marriages.
Mormons have been active participants in the campaign both as volunteers and financial contributors, giving an estimated 43 percent—some $8.4 million—to the Proposition 8 campaign, according to the Web site mormonsfor8.com. There are about 770,000 Mormon church members in California, but Mormons from outside the state have been encouraged to give money and time to help pass the measure.
During Wednesday’s taped satellite broadcast, church leaders asked for 30 members from each California congregation to donate four hours of week to the campaign. They also called on young married couples and single Mormons to use the Internet, text messaging, blogging and other forms of computer technology to help pass the initiative, saying the church has created a new Web site—PreservingMarriage.org—with materials they can download and post on their own social networking sites. …
Along with recruiting Mormons to work in California, church members from outside the state have been asked to call friends and family at home in California to encourage support for the measure, according to Clayton. He said many students attending church-owned universities have asked how they might help and could be enlisted to make calls.
“In California, the phone trees are up and running. We just want to be able to help, and one of the things we can do is we can organize,” Clayton said in an interview Wednesday. …
Its involvement in the California same-sex marriage debate this year began with a letter from church President Thomas S. Monson asking California Mormons to give their time and money to pass Proposition 8. Monson’s letter has been read repeatedly in Mormon churches, and opponents of the forthcoming initiative have credited LDS members with giving the Yes on 8 camp an edge in donations and volunteers [emphasis mine].
The LDS church has been running a ferocious, homophobic campaign. We. Can. Beat. Them. Every action they take, they take in defense of homophobia and hatred. Every word they write, they write to strip away GLBTQI peoples’ rights and deny us our humanity and equality. They are motivated by fear, intolerance, and hatred. We are motivated by a passion for justice, equality, and love. I would not deny them the right to practice their religion in their churches; they would extend the reach of their church to the county clerk’s office.
Join me in fighting for equality. Do what you can, give what you can. Let’s say, four hours a week. Or use the Internet, text messaging, blogging, and other forms of computer technology to defeat the initiative. No on Prop. 8 has materials you can download and post on your social networking sites. Call friends and family at home in California to encourage support against the measure. The phone trees are up and running; make calls from home and give a few minutes or attend a phonebank.
Fight for equality. Fight for love.
No on Prop. 8: The Greatest Of These Is Love
Via Sarah in Chicago:
The election is in 26 days. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH TIME ARGH -RUNS AROUND IN CIRCLES-
Okay, first things first. California voters: you have until Oct. 20 to register to vote. You have until seven (7) days before the election request a vote by mail/absentee ballot. If you vote absentee, you can return your ballot to any polling site or you can return your ballot by mail. If you mail your ballot, do so before Nov. 4, because it has to arrive by the end of the day, Nov. 4, in order to be counted.
Everyone else (sorry, I’m not looking up voting requirements for the other 49 states): you can find your state’s voting deadlines, forms, and contact information at Project Vote Smart’s state voter registration information page.
Read the rest of this entry »
Gov. Palin Uses Ableist Insults
Continuing on the theme of harmful rhetoric, VP candidate Gov. Sarah Palin thinks that ableist speech that belittles disabled people is acceptable (NYT):
PALIN: In my comment there, it was a lame attempt at a joke and yours was a lame attempt at a joke, too, I guess, because nobody got it. Of course we know what a vice president does. [emphasis mine]
Using lame as an insult is ableist for the same reason that using gay as an insult is homophobic: it relies on the idea that being lame is synonymous with being bad, stupid, or whatever else you’re using it to mean.I t’s rude and insulting to people with disabilities, because those insults are talking specifically about them (see Sweet Machine’s post, “Why I don’t use the word ‘retarded’”) and demean them.
I stopped using retarded as an insult years ago, and a few months back, I realized that if retarded was ableist, so was lame. By the same logic, so was dumb. I don’t use any of those ableist insults anymore; it’s disgusting how difficult it was to eradicate lame from my vocabulary. It’s surprising how much unthinking prejudice exists in the logic behind that defines certain words as insults (using whore or prostitute as an insult is anti-sex worker and often sexist; redneck is classist; wetback is racist). Seemingly innocent words that drip with hatred and systemic discrimination: stop using them.
On the minus side: it’s hard to change up habits of speech and thought.
On the plus side: the more you do it, the easier it becomes. Someone–a teacher or a Girl Scout troop leader–explained why using retarded as an insult was wrong. Reading in the blogosphere and learning about able-bodied privilege helped me draw the connection from retarded to lame. Dumb came shortly thereafter as a natural extension of that thinking and self-examination. It becomes easier as you go.
Flewellyn on “flyover country”
Today’s theme is self-awareness in speech.
As far as the whole “flyover country” myth goes, or the countering myth of “real Americans are rural Americans”, I frankly am sick of both of them.
I live in “flyover country”, in Minnesota, and people are not inbred hicks around here. Okay, most of them aren’t, I daresay you can find a few anywhere. But there’s nothing about rural or middle American voters that makes it right to ignore us, as many liberals seem to do.
On the other hand, we shouldn’t be held up as the archetype of “true America”, with all others being some variety of fake or ersatz American, either. Midwestern Americans are not privileged with some special wisdom on the true spirit of the American Dream, or what our nation is really all about, or with what the country really needs above all else. Conservatives have made the “heartland values” idea into a hallowed myth of their platform, and frankly, I think it’s just as pernicious as the dismissive “flyover country” idea, because either way you slice it, you’re writing off a good chunk of Americans as irrelevant or somehow less worthy.
Both memes need to be put down. Rural and midwestern Americans are no better, but also no worse, than those you’d find in the large cities of the coasts, and we should be neither ignored as irrelevant nor idolized as the only true Americans, because the “true” American is EVERY American.
Originally posted as a comment by Flewellyn on Shakesville using Disqus.
It’s the flip side of things: if you object to “San Francisco liberal” or “out of touch, elitist, New England liberal,” you ought to object to “flyover country” and “inbred Appalachians” and “West Virginia cousins.” I used to make jokes about all of the above until I realized that if I disliked the dismissive, reductionist stereotyping inherent in “San Francisco values,” it would be hypocritical to perpetuate similarly dismissive, reductionist stereotypes based on geography and class. The phrase “flyover country” is so scornful and dismissive and it says, “I’m not interested in going there, so that area and all its inhabitants are below me.”
Think B4 You Speak: +, +/-
Plus: Following up on the last post, I poked around the ThinkB4YouSpeak site and the Ad Council’s site to see what the ads were like. Overall, the print ads (I haven’t looked at the vids) are well-executed: they’re simple, they’re to the point, and they challenge the viewer in unmistakable terms to consider what it means to use gay, dyke, and faggot as insults.
Read the rest of this entry »
