May. 21st, 2008
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2008 02:10 pmVia: ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
delux_vivens
For the government, it was a possible solution to the so-called Indian problem. For the tens of thousands of Indians who went to boarding schools, it's largely remembered as a time of abuse and desecration of culture.
The government still operates a handful of off-reservation boarding schools, but funding is in decline. Now many American Indians are fighting to keep the schools open.
'Kill the Indian ... Save the Man'
The late performer and Indian activist Floyd Red Crow Westerman was haunted by his memories of boarding school. As a child, he left his reservation in South Dakota for the Wahpeton Indian Boarding School in North Dakota. Sixty years later, he still remembers watching his mother through the window as he left.
At first, he thought he was on the bus because his mother didn't want him anymore. But then he noticed she was crying.
"It was hurting her, too. It was hurting me to see that," Westerman says. "I'll never forget. All the mothers were crying."
Westerman spent the rest of his childhood in boarding schools far from his family and his Dakota tribe.
He went on to become an actor, an activist with the American Indian Movement and a songwriter.
He sang about his experiences growing up: "You put me in your boarding school, made me learn your white man rule, be a fool."
The federal government began sending American Indians to off-reservation boarding schools in the 1870s, when the United States was still at war with Indians.
An Army officer, Richard Pratt, founded the first of these schools. He based it on an education program he had developed in an Indian prison. He described his philosophy in a speech he gave in 1892.
"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
Transforming People, Inside and Out
Fifty years later, Pratt's philosophy was still common.
In 1945, Bill Wright, a Pattwin Indian, was sent to the Stewart Indian School in Nevada. He was just 6 years old. Wright remembers matrons bathing him in kerosene and shaving his head. Students at federal boarding schools were forbidden to express their culture — everything from wearing long hair to speaking even a single Indian word. Wright said he lost not only his language, but also his American Indian name.
"I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, 'Grandma, I don't understand you,' " Wright says. "She said, 'Then who are you?' "
Wright says he told her his name was Billy. " 'Your name's not Billy. Your name's 'TAH-rruhm,' " she told him. "And I went, 'That's not what they told me.' "
According to Tsianina Lomawaima, head of the American Indian Studies program at the University of Arizona, the intent was to completely transform people, inside and out.
"Language, religion, family structure, economics, the way you make a living, the way you express emotion, everything," says Lomawaima.
Lomawaima says from the start, the government's objective was to "erase and replace" Indian culture, part of a larger strategy to conquer Indians.
"They very specifically targeted Native nations that were the most recently hostile," Lomawaima says. "There was a very conscious effort to recruit the children of leaders, and this was also explicit, essentially to hold those children hostage. The idea was it would be much easier to keep those communities pacified with their children held in a school somewhere far away."
Discipline and Punishment
The government operated as many as 100 boarding schools for American Indians, both on and off reservations. Children were sometimes taken forcibly, by armed police. Lomawaima says that's not the only reason families let their children go.
"For many communities, for a variety of reasons, federal school was the only option," she says. "Public schools were closed to Indians because of racism."
At boarding schools, the curriculum focused mostly on trades, such as carpentry for boys and housekeeping for girls.
"It wasn't really about education," says Lucy Toledo, a Navajo who went to Sherman Institute in the 1950s. Toledo says students didn't learn basic concepts in math or English, such as parts of speech or grammar.
She also remembers some unsettling free-time activities.
"Saturday night we had a movie," says Toledo. "Do you know what the movie was about? Cowboys and Indians. Cowboys and Indians. Here we're getting all our people killed, and that's the kind of stuff they showed us."
And for decades, there were reports that students in the boarding schools were abused. Children were beaten, malnourished and forced to do heavy labor. In the 1960s, a congressional report found that many teachers still saw their role as civilizing American Indian students, not educating them. The report said the schools still had a "major emphasis on discipline and punishment."
Wright remembers an adviser hitting a student.
"Busted his head open and blood got all over," Wright recalls. "I had to take him to the hospital, and they told me to tell them he ran into the wall and I better not tell them what really happened."
Wright says he still has nightmares from the severe discipline. He worries that he and other former students have inadvertently re-created that harsh environment within their own families.
"You grow up with discipline, but when you grow up and you have families, then what happens? If you're my daughter and you leave your dress out, I'll knock you through that wall. Why? Because I'm taught discipline," Wright said.
Sherman Indian High School
Not all American Indians had negative experiences at boarding schools. Some have fond memories of meeting spouses and making lifelong friends. But scathing government reports led to the closure of most of the boarding schools.
One school that remains is Sherman Indian High School in Riverside, Calif. — the same boarding school Toledo attended.
Hershel Martinez, a Navajo student, gathers with a group of friends in a school hallway to form a drum circle. The school encourages cultural activities like this. That's one reason Martinez feels more comfortable here than at his former public school in Los Angeles.
"Everyone was wondering what nationality, what race am I," Martinez said when asked about being at a public school. "I'd tell them and they're like, 'Wow, you're Indian. You're like the only guy I know who's Native.' But here, at Sherman, they know how I feel about being Native. And they understand where we're all coming from."
Read the rest here
delux_vivens Tom Torlino, a Carlisle School student, before and after spending time at the school. Courtesy Denver Public Library, X-32984, X-32985
For the government, it was a possible solution to the so-called Indian problem. For the tens of thousands of Indians who went to boarding schools, it's largely remembered as a time of abuse and desecration of culture.
The government still operates a handful of off-reservation boarding schools, but funding is in decline. Now many American Indians are fighting to keep the schools open.
'Kill the Indian ... Save the Man'
The late performer and Indian activist Floyd Red Crow Westerman was haunted by his memories of boarding school. As a child, he left his reservation in South Dakota for the Wahpeton Indian Boarding School in North Dakota. Sixty years later, he still remembers watching his mother through the window as he left.
At first, he thought he was on the bus because his mother didn't want him anymore. But then he noticed she was crying.
"It was hurting her, too. It was hurting me to see that," Westerman says. "I'll never forget. All the mothers were crying."
Westerman spent the rest of his childhood in boarding schools far from his family and his Dakota tribe.
He went on to become an actor, an activist with the American Indian Movement and a songwriter.
He sang about his experiences growing up: "You put me in your boarding school, made me learn your white man rule, be a fool."
The federal government began sending American Indians to off-reservation boarding schools in the 1870s, when the United States was still at war with Indians.
An Army officer, Richard Pratt, founded the first of these schools. He based it on an education program he had developed in an Indian prison. He described his philosophy in a speech he gave in 1892.
"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
Transforming People, Inside and Out
Fifty years later, Pratt's philosophy was still common.
In 1945, Bill Wright, a Pattwin Indian, was sent to the Stewart Indian School in Nevada. He was just 6 years old. Wright remembers matrons bathing him in kerosene and shaving his head. Students at federal boarding schools were forbidden to express their culture — everything from wearing long hair to speaking even a single Indian word. Wright said he lost not only his language, but also his American Indian name.
"I remember coming home and my grandma asked me to talk Indian to her and I said, 'Grandma, I don't understand you,' " Wright says. "She said, 'Then who are you?' "
Wright says he told her his name was Billy. " 'Your name's not Billy. Your name's 'TAH-rruhm,' " she told him. "And I went, 'That's not what they told me.' "
According to Tsianina Lomawaima, head of the American Indian Studies program at the University of Arizona, the intent was to completely transform people, inside and out.
"Language, religion, family structure, economics, the way you make a living, the way you express emotion, everything," says Lomawaima.
Lomawaima says from the start, the government's objective was to "erase and replace" Indian culture, part of a larger strategy to conquer Indians.
"They very specifically targeted Native nations that were the most recently hostile," Lomawaima says. "There was a very conscious effort to recruit the children of leaders, and this was also explicit, essentially to hold those children hostage. The idea was it would be much easier to keep those communities pacified with their children held in a school somewhere far away."
Discipline and Punishment
The government operated as many as 100 boarding schools for American Indians, both on and off reservations. Children were sometimes taken forcibly, by armed police. Lomawaima says that's not the only reason families let their children go.
"For many communities, for a variety of reasons, federal school was the only option," she says. "Public schools were closed to Indians because of racism."
At boarding schools, the curriculum focused mostly on trades, such as carpentry for boys and housekeeping for girls.
"It wasn't really about education," says Lucy Toledo, a Navajo who went to Sherman Institute in the 1950s. Toledo says students didn't learn basic concepts in math or English, such as parts of speech or grammar.
She also remembers some unsettling free-time activities.
"Saturday night we had a movie," says Toledo. "Do you know what the movie was about? Cowboys and Indians. Cowboys and Indians. Here we're getting all our people killed, and that's the kind of stuff they showed us."
And for decades, there were reports that students in the boarding schools were abused. Children were beaten, malnourished and forced to do heavy labor. In the 1960s, a congressional report found that many teachers still saw their role as civilizing American Indian students, not educating them. The report said the schools still had a "major emphasis on discipline and punishment."
Wright remembers an adviser hitting a student.
"Busted his head open and blood got all over," Wright recalls. "I had to take him to the hospital, and they told me to tell them he ran into the wall and I better not tell them what really happened."
Wright says he still has nightmares from the severe discipline. He worries that he and other former students have inadvertently re-created that harsh environment within their own families.
"You grow up with discipline, but when you grow up and you have families, then what happens? If you're my daughter and you leave your dress out, I'll knock you through that wall. Why? Because I'm taught discipline," Wright said.
Sherman Indian High School
Not all American Indians had negative experiences at boarding schools. Some have fond memories of meeting spouses and making lifelong friends. But scathing government reports led to the closure of most of the boarding schools.
One school that remains is Sherman Indian High School in Riverside, Calif. — the same boarding school Toledo attended.
Hershel Martinez, a Navajo student, gathers with a group of friends in a school hallway to form a drum circle. The school encourages cultural activities like this. That's one reason Martinez feels more comfortable here than at his former public school in Los Angeles.
"Everyone was wondering what nationality, what race am I," Martinez said when asked about being at a public school. "I'd tell them and they're like, 'Wow, you're Indian. You're like the only guy I know who's Native.' But here, at Sherman, they know how I feel about being Native. And they understand where we're all coming from."
Read the rest here
You can have the scholarly version via ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
elusis:
Part of the reason we don’t call our groups white is that we don’t even realize that these groups are catering to us. Part of being white means not having to think about whiteness and the opportunities it grants. In fact, even thinking about whiteness makes many of whites uncomfortable, which is why the reaction to BET is so strong. There is a knee jerk reaction that says “calling something white is wrong so calling something black is wrong.” But what my white students don’t realize is that what is more offense than calling something white is excluding people of color (whether it is intentional or not). They are oblivious to how the groups they are part of operate to exclude people of color. On the other hand, they don’t realize that most groups that are labeled black don’t exclude whites; they incorrectly think that whites can’t join black fraternities or sororities or go to historically black colleges, which just isn’t the case. (See Footnote 2) At the same time, they don’t realize that the groups they are part of are not doing much if anything to appeal to people of color.
The BET question also gives us the opportunity to talk about the psychology of being in the minority or the majority. It is difficult for many whites to imagine how being outnumbered and ignored affects people of color, so I try to make students think about how predominantly white programs dominate. This makes it difficult for people of color to find role models and realistic reflections of their lives. I tell them that the feeling that they have of being left out when they wonder why there is a BET, is something that people of color in this country deal with every day. I ask them to imagine how they would feel if they were the only white person or one of a few white people in our class. I explain that since the dominant culture’s views are everywhere people of color have to learn the norms and rules of whites in order to get by, but whites don’t have to understand what it means to be black (Asian, Latino, American Indian, Middle Eastern) to function in this society. ((I often make a joke about an insider stereotype that many blacks have of whites–white people’s hair smells like a dog when it is wet. I ask how many of my students have heard of this. Usually, the only students who have heard it are black. Many students laugh because this stereotype seems absurd. Then, I say, “How many of you have heard the stereotype that blacks are violent and crime prone?” Almost all the students raise their hands, and nobody laughs. I make the case that the first one is humorous to them because it really doesn’t have an impact on the day to day lives of whites, but the crime stereotype isn’t funny because it has a profound impact on blacks.))
This question allows us to discuss the historical dimensions of discrimination. Many black groups and organizations have been formed because blacks were not allowed to be part of white organizations. So we have historically black colleges and universities because white schools did not allows blacks to enroll. When I note this, some students will say that black organizations should have been disbanded with the end of legal segregation. The problem with that view is that discrimination didn’t end with the change in laws; moreover, using that same logic white segregated schools should also have disbanded. If we never had racism, I suppose there wouldn’t be any BET. We would not even refer to people by their skin color, but there was and is racial discrimination, so we can pretend color doesn’t matter.
Or, you could go with the short and sweet version viacleojones:
When dumbasses bring up that shit, I just say:
Lifetime - Women
Spike - Men
Country Music Channel - Hillbillies
The N - Tweens
Telemundo - Latino
By that point, they feel stupid and drop it.
Or, you could do both.
elusis:Part of the reason we don’t call our groups white is that we don’t even realize that these groups are catering to us. Part of being white means not having to think about whiteness and the opportunities it grants. In fact, even thinking about whiteness makes many of whites uncomfortable, which is why the reaction to BET is so strong. There is a knee jerk reaction that says “calling something white is wrong so calling something black is wrong.” But what my white students don’t realize is that what is more offense than calling something white is excluding people of color (whether it is intentional or not). They are oblivious to how the groups they are part of operate to exclude people of color. On the other hand, they don’t realize that most groups that are labeled black don’t exclude whites; they incorrectly think that whites can’t join black fraternities or sororities or go to historically black colleges, which just isn’t the case. (See Footnote 2) At the same time, they don’t realize that the groups they are part of are not doing much if anything to appeal to people of color.
The BET question also gives us the opportunity to talk about the psychology of being in the minority or the majority. It is difficult for many whites to imagine how being outnumbered and ignored affects people of color, so I try to make students think about how predominantly white programs dominate. This makes it difficult for people of color to find role models and realistic reflections of their lives. I tell them that the feeling that they have of being left out when they wonder why there is a BET, is something that people of color in this country deal with every day. I ask them to imagine how they would feel if they were the only white person or one of a few white people in our class. I explain that since the dominant culture’s views are everywhere people of color have to learn the norms and rules of whites in order to get by, but whites don’t have to understand what it means to be black (Asian, Latino, American Indian, Middle Eastern) to function in this society. ((I often make a joke about an insider stereotype that many blacks have of whites–white people’s hair smells like a dog when it is wet. I ask how many of my students have heard of this. Usually, the only students who have heard it are black. Many students laugh because this stereotype seems absurd. Then, I say, “How many of you have heard the stereotype that blacks are violent and crime prone?” Almost all the students raise their hands, and nobody laughs. I make the case that the first one is humorous to them because it really doesn’t have an impact on the day to day lives of whites, but the crime stereotype isn’t funny because it has a profound impact on blacks.))
This question allows us to discuss the historical dimensions of discrimination. Many black groups and organizations have been formed because blacks were not allowed to be part of white organizations. So we have historically black colleges and universities because white schools did not allows blacks to enroll. When I note this, some students will say that black organizations should have been disbanded with the end of legal segregation. The problem with that view is that discrimination didn’t end with the change in laws; moreover, using that same logic white segregated schools should also have disbanded. If we never had racism, I suppose there wouldn’t be any BET. We would not even refer to people by their skin color, but there was and is racial discrimination, so we can pretend color doesn’t matter.
Or, you could go with the short and sweet version via
cleojones:When dumbasses bring up that shit, I just say:
Lifetime - Women
Spike - Men
Country Music Channel - Hillbillies
The N - Tweens
Telemundo - Latino
By that point, they feel stupid and drop it.
Or, you could do both.
The Bad News
May. 21st, 2008 08:11 pmThe President of The Gambia has decided that all homosexuals must leave the country within 24 hours, or be killed. He intends to introduce a law stricter than Iran's on the subject. Of course, he justifies his prejudice by citing religion. Islam, in this case. Motherfucking Ignoramus.
In other news: Jamaican PM claims that attitudes towards gays and lesbians are improving in Jamaica,but only only forcefully reiterates his resistance to decriminalizing homosexuality."Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside, we are going to have to determine that ourselves and we are going to have to determine to what extent those values will adapt over time, changing the perception and to changing understanding as to how people live. But it can't be on the basis that a lobby group, far and away from Jamaica, is going to start to define for Jamaica how it must establish its own standards and morals," he said. Great. So the ignoramuses are catered to, at the expense of GLBT's lives. Then again, if he said anything ;ess, he's be run out of town on a rail. The best way to get them to change is to pipe the changes in via cable television frankly. Lord knows that they eventually adopt anything that America promotes...
Conservative arguments in light of California: Penis into Vagina =Marriage
In other news: Jamaican PM claims that attitudes towards gays and lesbians are improving in Jamaica,but only only forcefully reiterates his resistance to decriminalizing homosexuality."Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside, we are going to have to determine that ourselves and we are going to have to determine to what extent those values will adapt over time, changing the perception and to changing understanding as to how people live. But it can't be on the basis that a lobby group, far and away from Jamaica, is going to start to define for Jamaica how it must establish its own standards and morals," he said. Great. So the ignoramuses are catered to, at the expense of GLBT's lives. Then again, if he said anything ;ess, he's be run out of town on a rail. The best way to get them to change is to pipe the changes in via cable television frankly. Lord knows that they eventually adopt anything that America promotes...
Conservative arguments in light of California: Penis into Vagina =Marriage
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriages on Thursday in a major victory for gay rights advocates that will allow homosexual couples to marry in the most populous U.S. state.
The court found that California laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state's constitution. Opponents of gay marriage vowed to contest the ruling with a statewide ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
The ruling would allow California to be the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont permit same-sex civil unions that grant largely similar rights as those for married couples but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.
The California court's 4-3 decision overturns state laws prohibiting same-sex nuptials and is likely to influence other states expected to rule on gay marriage.
The state's constitution "guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship," the court said.
HOWEVER
The California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be the last word.
California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the U.S., the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on gay couples waiting to tie the knot.
The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters reject gay marriage, their decision will supersede the high court's. There are signs the contest's outcome will be close.
It will certainly be costly — the two sides say they plan to spend at least $25 million combined on the campaign.
"The people who want to defeat the amendment are going to have to work very hard to be successful — harder than the people who want the amendment to pass," said Charles Gossett, a California State University-Pomona political scientist who has analyzed a decades worth of poll numbers on the issue. "But I don't think its impossible."
Though the state has a history of being on the vanguard of gay rights, California residents have polled slightly against same-sex rights in recent years.
The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea.
In any case...
PDF of the Ruling
And as a breakdown...
The California Marriage Ruling: What it means and what it doesn't mean
The Presidential Candidates respond:
Obama, Clinton and McCain are distinctly unenthusiastic about this development. Clinton and Obama talk shit about state rights, McCain talk shit about activist judges
Please note the takedowns of the States Rights Bullshit down by Melissa of Shakesville One:three years after Connecticut legalized civil unions, same-sex couples are finding (quelle surprise) that "the measure had not delivered the equal rights it had promised." It's one thing to promise to guarantee "the same rights" as mixed-sex couples, but, in practice, it's not so easy; the regulations of public and private systems and services (e.g. healthcare, pensions, tax laws) recognize "marriage" but not "civil unions" as a determinative category for qualified participation, and administrators of those systems and services often have no idea what to do with "civilly unionized" couples. And that's to say nothing of the general second-class caste of civil unions.,
Two:The lesbian couple lives in Rhode Island, and was married in Massachusetts, which allowed them to marry because no law specifically bans same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. However, "The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.",
Three:Two More Examples of why we need Federal Equality,
Four:So…those New Yorkers’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they’re still not legal in New York. And Rhode Islanders’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they are not currently legal in Rhode Island, but may be at some point. Is your head spinning yet?
Meanwhile, residents of Massachusetts who are legally married are not recognized as such by the federal government, so they are denied federal benefits like tax breaks and survivors’ benefits. And, naturally, a couple who resides in one of the few states recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions are required to stay there forever, lest they lose the legal recognition of their relationship and attached rights.,
Five:For the first time the surviving spouse of a member of Congress is being denied death benefits.
Dean Hara, who married former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds shortly after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, has been disqualified for benefits under the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Studds, he first openly gay member of Congress died Saturday due to a blood clot in his lung. He was 69.
And THREE CHEERS for activist judges...
The court found that California laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples are at odds with rights guaranteed by the state's constitution. Opponents of gay marriage vowed to contest the ruling with a statewide ballot measure for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
The ruling would allow California to be the second state, after Massachusetts, to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont permit same-sex civil unions that grant largely similar rights as those for married couples but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.
The California court's 4-3 decision overturns state laws prohibiting same-sex nuptials and is likely to influence other states expected to rule on gay marriage.
The state's constitution "guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one's life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship," the court said.
HOWEVER
The California Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage will not be the last word.
California voters will almost certainly hold a referendum on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in November, and for the first time anywhere in the U.S., the vote will have a direct and immediate effect on gay couples waiting to tie the knot.
The amendment needs a simple majority to pass, and if the voters reject gay marriage, their decision will supersede the high court's. There are signs the contest's outcome will be close.
It will certainly be costly — the two sides say they plan to spend at least $25 million combined on the campaign.
"The people who want to defeat the amendment are going to have to work very hard to be successful — harder than the people who want the amendment to pass," said Charles Gossett, a California State University-Pomona political scientist who has analyzed a decades worth of poll numbers on the issue. "But I don't think its impossible."
Though the state has a history of being on the vanguard of gay rights, California residents have polled slightly against same-sex rights in recent years.
The most recent polls, conducted in 2006 and 2007, found that 51 percent and 49 percent of survey respondents opposed making gay marriage legal, while 43 percent and 45 percent endorsed the idea.
In any case...
PDF of the Ruling
And as a breakdown...
The California Marriage Ruling: What it means and what it doesn't mean
The Presidential Candidates respond:
Obama, Clinton and McCain are distinctly unenthusiastic about this development. Clinton and Obama talk shit about state rights, McCain talk shit about activist judges
Please note the takedowns of the States Rights Bullshit down by Melissa of Shakesville One:three years after Connecticut legalized civil unions, same-sex couples are finding (quelle surprise) that "the measure had not delivered the equal rights it had promised." It's one thing to promise to guarantee "the same rights" as mixed-sex couples, but, in practice, it's not so easy; the regulations of public and private systems and services (e.g. healthcare, pensions, tax laws) recognize "marriage" but not "civil unions" as a determinative category for qualified participation, and administrators of those systems and services often have no idea what to do with "civilly unionized" couples. And that's to say nothing of the general second-class caste of civil unions.,
Two:The lesbian couple lives in Rhode Island, and was married in Massachusetts, which allowed them to marry because no law specifically bans same-sex marriage in Rhode Island. However, "The Rhode Island Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, said the family court lacks the authority to grant a divorce because state lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman.",
Three:Two More Examples of why we need Federal Equality,
Four:So…those New Yorkers’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they’re still not legal in New York. And Rhode Islanders’ marriages are still legal in Massachusetts, although they are not currently legal in Rhode Island, but may be at some point. Is your head spinning yet?
Meanwhile, residents of Massachusetts who are legally married are not recognized as such by the federal government, so they are denied federal benefits like tax breaks and survivors’ benefits. And, naturally, a couple who resides in one of the few states recognizing same-sex marriage/civil unions are required to stay there forever, lest they lose the legal recognition of their relationship and attached rights.,
Five:For the first time the surviving spouse of a member of Congress is being denied death benefits.
Dean Hara, who married former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds shortly after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, has been disqualified for benefits under the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Studds, he first openly gay member of Congress died Saturday due to a blood clot in his lung. He was 69.
And THREE CHEERS for activist judges...
Paul Sakuma / Associated Press
In this March 4, 2008 file photo, California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George listens to arguments in San Francisco.''
Three cheers for activist judges!!! Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.
"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."
Via: Pams House Blend
Three cheers for activist judges!!! Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.
But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.
"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."
Via: Pams House Blend
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2008 10:09 pmFrom here
Via: Prometheus 6.
May 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Let’s Be Serious
By BOB HERBERT
The general election is about to unfold and we’ll soon see how smart or how foolish Americans really are. The U.S. may be the richest country on earth, but the economy is tanking, its working families are in trouble, it is bogged down in a multitrillion-dollar war of its own making and the price of gasoline has nitwits siphoning supplies from the cars and trucks of strangers.
Four of every five Americans want the country to move in a different direction, which makes this presidential election, potentially, one of the most pivotal since World War II.
And yet there’s growing evidence that despite the plethora of important issues, the election may yet be undermined by the usual madness — fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting (Ohmigod! They’re getting married!) and the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex.
In his book, “Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?,” Jared Bernstein reminds us that the economic expansion from 2000 to 2006 was something less than nirvana for working people. The economy grew by 15 percent during that period, and the official rates of joblessness and inflation were low. But as most of us know, the benefits of that expansion were skewed to the high end of the economic ladder.
Mr. Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, writes: “Over the course of this highly touted economic expansion, poverty is up, working families’ real incomes are down and some key prices are growing a lot faster than the average.”
Steven Greenhouse, the labor correspondent for The Times, has also written a book that examines, among other things, the imbalance in the way the benefits from the expansion have been distributed. In “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker,” he says:
“This is a decade during which the American economy has thrived by many measures, with corporate profits and C.E.O. salaries soaring, yet wages have languished for most workers, and health and pension coverage has grown worse.”
Let the candidates wrestle with this issue of increasing economic inequality, rather than President Bush’s spurious and deeply offensive rant comparing advocates of international diplomacy with those who appeased Hitler and the Nazis.
Let the candidates wrestle with the war without end in Iraq that is not just destroying lives but is taking a toll on this nation’s soul. The war is sapping the resources and energy needed for the hard work of putting the U.S. back on a sound socioeconomic footing.
And the way we are treating the troops belies the pretty words that never get farther than a bumper sticker.
The country that professes to be so proud of its men and women in uniform is playing Russian roulette with their lives by sending them into the war zone for three, four and even more tours. Stop-loss, the involuntary extension of an individual’s term in the military (making them subject to still more combat duty), is another dangerous affront to those who have already given so much.
The Houston Chronicle did a long takeout on Sunday on the suicide in March 2007 of an Army recruiting sergeant, Nils Aron Andersson — just one day after his marriage to Carry Walton. Sgt. Andersson, 25, had spoken of the many horrors that he had encountered in Iraq and was deeply depressed. He shot himself while sitting in his pickup in a parking garage. Distraught, Ms. Walton bought a 9-millimeter handgun at a sporting goods store the next day and killed herself.
Suicides have become a big problem for the military. Combat does terrible things to people. An independent study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of the troops who returned from tours in Iraq or Afghanistan reported symptoms of major depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.
Let the candidates talk about these things. Let them talk about the fact that the Bush administration, which has pushed the troops so unmercifully, opposes a bill (sponsored by Senator Jim Webb and widely supported in Congress) that would expand the education benefits of veterans who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
Let them talk about health coverage, which is a scandal, and the vanishing American pension. Let them offer competing plans for rebuilding the American infrastructure and creating real employment opportunities for the newest generation of workers. Let them go at it over energy policy.
Forget the foolishness for a change. No Willie Hortons this year. No Swift boats. No attacks on John McCain like the mugging he endured at the hands of the Bush crowd in South Carolina some years ago.
For once, let the election be serious. Show the hacks and the hypocrites the door. Argue substance. And then let the people decide.
Via: Prometheus 6.
May 20, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Let’s Be Serious
By BOB HERBERT
The general election is about to unfold and we’ll soon see how smart or how foolish Americans really are. The U.S. may be the richest country on earth, but the economy is tanking, its working families are in trouble, it is bogged down in a multitrillion-dollar war of its own making and the price of gasoline has nitwits siphoning supplies from the cars and trucks of strangers.
Four of every five Americans want the country to move in a different direction, which makes this presidential election, potentially, one of the most pivotal since World War II.
And yet there’s growing evidence that despite the plethora of important issues, the election may yet be undermined by the usual madness — fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting (Ohmigod! They’re getting married!) and the wholesale trivialization of matters that are not just important, but extremely complex.
In his book, “Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed?,” Jared Bernstein reminds us that the economic expansion from 2000 to 2006 was something less than nirvana for working people. The economy grew by 15 percent during that period, and the official rates of joblessness and inflation were low. But as most of us know, the benefits of that expansion were skewed to the high end of the economic ladder.
Mr. Bernstein, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, writes: “Over the course of this highly touted economic expansion, poverty is up, working families’ real incomes are down and some key prices are growing a lot faster than the average.”
Steven Greenhouse, the labor correspondent for The Times, has also written a book that examines, among other things, the imbalance in the way the benefits from the expansion have been distributed. In “The Big Squeeze: Tough Times for the American Worker,” he says:
“This is a decade during which the American economy has thrived by many measures, with corporate profits and C.E.O. salaries soaring, yet wages have languished for most workers, and health and pension coverage has grown worse.”
Let the candidates wrestle with this issue of increasing economic inequality, rather than President Bush’s spurious and deeply offensive rant comparing advocates of international diplomacy with those who appeased Hitler and the Nazis.
Let the candidates wrestle with the war without end in Iraq that is not just destroying lives but is taking a toll on this nation’s soul. The war is sapping the resources and energy needed for the hard work of putting the U.S. back on a sound socioeconomic footing.
And the way we are treating the troops belies the pretty words that never get farther than a bumper sticker.
The country that professes to be so proud of its men and women in uniform is playing Russian roulette with their lives by sending them into the war zone for three, four and even more tours. Stop-loss, the involuntary extension of an individual’s term in the military (making them subject to still more combat duty), is another dangerous affront to those who have already given so much.
The Houston Chronicle did a long takeout on Sunday on the suicide in March 2007 of an Army recruiting sergeant, Nils Aron Andersson — just one day after his marriage to Carry Walton. Sgt. Andersson, 25, had spoken of the many horrors that he had encountered in Iraq and was deeply depressed. He shot himself while sitting in his pickup in a parking garage. Distraught, Ms. Walton bought a 9-millimeter handgun at a sporting goods store the next day and killed herself.
Suicides have become a big problem for the military. Combat does terrible things to people. An independent study by the RAND Corporation found that nearly 20 percent of the troops who returned from tours in Iraq or Afghanistan reported symptoms of major depression or post-traumatic stress disorder.
Let the candidates talk about these things. Let them talk about the fact that the Bush administration, which has pushed the troops so unmercifully, opposes a bill (sponsored by Senator Jim Webb and widely supported in Congress) that would expand the education benefits of veterans who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
Let them talk about health coverage, which is a scandal, and the vanishing American pension. Let them offer competing plans for rebuilding the American infrastructure and creating real employment opportunities for the newest generation of workers. Let them go at it over energy policy.
Forget the foolishness for a change. No Willie Hortons this year. No Swift boats. No attacks on John McCain like the mugging he endured at the hands of the Bush crowd in South Carolina some years ago.
For once, let the election be serious. Show the hacks and the hypocrites the door. Argue substance. And then let the people decide.