Anarchist banana

What does power look like?

2010-07-23T10:36:00.005-04:00

This is for the event People First: Empowering People With Disabilities.

What would it mean if people with disabilities were "empowered", or had power?

Disabled folks would be seen as real people, not as objects to be pitied or used for inspiration.

Disabled folks would be respected as worthwhile people, not dismissed as "useless eaters".

And then, maybe...

Institutions would take access and accommodation seriously.

People with disabilities would be able to get jobs.

Children with disabilities would be raised and educated with love and understanding, not with abuse and restraints.

Disability would not be seen as a fate worse than death.

Depressed people with disabilities would be directed to suicide prevention, not assisted suicide.

In which cowboy boots are manly, and a candidate misses the point

2010-07-22T11:23:00.003-04:00

According to a Washington Post article (or blog post or something), Senate candidate Ken Buck thinks voters should support him because he doesn't wear girly shoes. Specifically, "She has questioned my manhood; I think it's fair to respond. I have cowboy boots on."

To begin with... Cowboy boots are about the most femme men's shoes in existence. They're pointy at the end. They have decorations all over them. And, yes, they have heels.

Aside from that, his opponent Jane Norton has supposedly "questioned his manhood" by 'decrying third-party spending on behalf of Buck's campaign and urging Buck to "be man enough" to run the ads himself'. It's difficult to seriously see that as an attack on Buck's masculinity. It's pretty obviously an attack on his courage, couched in admittedly sexist slang. But I guess responding to substantive criticism is harder than bragging about your manly high heeled boots.

Harold and Clay

2010-04-20T13:21:00.003-04:00

I've recently heard about a case (Greene v. County of Sonoma et al) in which a local government confined two men to separate nursing homes and confiscated all their belongings when one of them was hospitalized. The best description that seems to be available is here: http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/sonoma_county_ca_separates_elderly_gay_couple_and.php

This is being billed as a "why we need same-sex marriage" case. But clearly that's not the only issue. It is just as much a "why people shouldn't be forcibly institutionalized" case, and a "why unmarried couples shouldn't get screwed over" case. This wouldn't have been okay if Harold and Clay had been able to get married, and it's not okay to force someone into a nursing home against their will whether they're partnered or not.

Once we can get some more information on this case (i.e. how exactly this happened), LGBT activists should invite anti-institutionalization activists and advocates for unmarried couples to join us in demanding justice for Clay.

Queering the Census

2010-02-18T11:39:00.003-05:00

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is running a campaign called "Queer the Census". They want the U.S. Census to include a question that asks if people are LGBT.

The campaign does not appear to have a proposed wording for the LGBT question they advocate adding to the census. Instead, they're encouraging people to seal their census envelopes with pink stickers that say "Are you (check all that apply): Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, A Straight Ally".

This is rather silly, for a number of reasons.

The census has a total of 10 questions. 2 of them are name and telephone number. 4 are about housing status. The other 4 questions cover age, race, and sex, making those the only demographics the census cares about. The general trend over time has been to decrease the number of questions in the census, not increase it.
In the absence of an actual proposed wording, the wording of the stickers appears to be the wording they want added to the census. And it's ridiculous. Any serious proposal would need to include other terms people might use to describe themselves. For example, some older people identify as "homosexual", even though that's not what most of us prefer. It's the same reason the census still has "Negro" in the race question. People actually write it in for themselves. Also, nobody cares if you're "A Straight Ally".
For a campaign with "queer" in its name, it's not very queer. Why isn't there a "queer" checkbox on my pink sticker?
Throwing a question about sexuality or transgender status into the census will not get us accurate data about LGBT people. People who aren't out to their family or roommates won't out themselves as LGBT on the census. Parents of queer teens are likely to vastly under-report the LGBT identity of their children - because they don't know, don't approve, or are worried about someone finding out in 70 years.

Here's what I think would be a better way to queer the census, and get the data we want:

Make the "sex" question more trans-friendly. Lobby to change it to "gender", and include an "other" option with space to write something in.
Look into adding a queer question to the American Community Survey, which is a longer form with a lot of personal questions on it already. Make a serious investment in writing the question well, by talking to a variety of queer communities and survey experts.
Get together with some other groups and start a national sexuality survey. This would get us all the data we could possibly want, and working with other groups would increase the response rate and accuracy while decreasing costs. I'm sure Planned Parenthood, for example, would love to have this sort of data. So would HIV/AIDS groups. And some researchers have successfully asked questions like "how often do you have sex with your wife?" -- we should talk to them.

Iran

2010-02-11T22:25:00.004-05:00

Today is Victory of the Revolution Day in Iran. The holiday is dedicated to freedom. Unfortunately, the current government of Iran is more interested in repression than in freedom. Today, security forces overwhelmed protesters in Iran.

There have been some good suggestions on how the U.S. should approach Iran. Do negotiate. Don't impose sanctions that would hurt the people more than the government. Don't strengthen the government's hand by threatening military action.

Links:

Seclusion and Restraint bills

2010-01-29T10:49:00.003-05:00

Ongoing issue: Students, especially disabled students, are often "disciplined" violently in public schools. Students have died after being locked up or restrained as punishment. In several cases, children with a history of abuse or neglect were subjected to very similar abuse, then punished when they reacted to it.

In December, two bills were introduced in Congress that banned seclusion and restraint except in cases of immediate danger. The bills are H.R. 4247 and S. 2860. Please keep an eye on these bills, and ask your representatives to cosponsor them. Lives are at stake.

Links:

The Supreme Court campaign finance decision is not the end of the world.

2010-01-29T09:51:00.003-05:00

Over the past week, most liberals have been freaking out over the outcome of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. We've heard that it's the end of democracy as we know it, that corporations will now be allowed to flood elections with their money, that the five justices who supported the decision are evil. This is all rather strange, because most people don't seem to know what the decision actually was.

The decision struck down a prohibition on corporations using their own money to produce campaign ads. It also struck down a prohibition on corporate or union ads for 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. But it left in place a ban on direct donations from corporations to candidates. And it did not change rules on disclosure of donors, or the rule that ads have to say who's responsible for them.

First of all, campaign ads are very clearly political speech. As such, they are unambiguously protected by the First Amendment. So the decision is actually fairly obvious. Restrictions on political speech are clearly unconstitutional. It is disturbing to see so many self-identified liberals and progressives objecting to the First Amendment.

Second of all, this is unlikely to change much of anything. Before this ruling, a corporation that wanted to influence electoral politics just formed a PAC. More likely, it waited until after the election, and then ~~bribed~~ lobbied whoever won. Corporations, by and large, don't want to openly support one candidate or another - it makes them look bad, and if their candidate loses, it makes it harder for them to influence the winner.

So please, calm down, and respect the Constitution. Principles are a good thing.

Links:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (Wikipedia)
What the Supreme Court struck down and kept in place with campaign finance ruling (Washington Post)

Study debunks the basis for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

2009-11-12T08:35:00.003-05:00

According to a new study by the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida, the main argument used to support DADT, that repealing it would "harm unit cohesion, readiness, and morale", is crap. Specifically, in a survey of soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, the known presence of a lesbian or gay person in the same unit had no correlation with ratings of unit cohesion, readiness, or morale. Quality of equipment, officers, and training were much stronger indicators.

Curiously, about 75% of respondents indicated comfort in the presence of LGBT people, but 40% of respondents favoured keeping DADT. That means that, as self-reported, there are some people who are cool with LGBT people, but don't think they should be allowed to serve openly. I'd like to know what their reasoning is for supporting the ban, because if they were being honest, it isn't personal fear of serving with a gay person.

Links:

Survey raises doubts on ‘don’t ask’ policy (Boston Globe)
Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service
Members (this is the paper on the study)

Legality of abortion does not affect abortion rate

2009-10-20T09:57:00.002-04:00

According to a recently-released study, "abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted". When abortion is illegal, women go elsewhere or have unsafe abortions. The overall abortion rate has dropped over the past decade, though, mostly due to improved contraceptive access.

Links:

Bans 'do not cut abortion rate' (BBC)

Confusing Barack Obama with Pete Singer

2009-08-11T09:33:00.003-04:00

Sarah Palin has recently been claiming that the health care reform currently under consideration will deny care to the elderly and disabled. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Yes, if that happened, it would be evil. There's just one problem, of course: No plan currently under consideration is proposing such a system.

The language Palin is up in arms about is the proposal to let Medicare pay for optional "end-of-life counseling" for seniors. Which simply means discussing living wills and the like. It's specifically forbidden from presenting suicide as an option. As it should be.

If anyone in Congress was suggesting denying care to the elderly and disabled, I'd be up in arms too. But the main person advancing that argument is Peter Singer, who has been advancing it for his entire career. The only notable development there is that the New York Times saw fit to run a long essay by Singer a few weeks ago.

Links:

Palin Paints Picture of 'Obama Death Panel' Giving Thumbs Down to Trig (ABC)
FACT CHECK: No 'death panel' in health care bill (AP)
Peter Singer: Why We Must Ration Health Care (NYT)
Health Care Reform Hysteria - and My Own Version of Reality (Not Dead Yet blog)
Peter Singer in the NY Times: Disabled Lives Worth Less, Hypothetically (Not Dead Yet blog)

Inclusive ENDA introduced

2009-08-07T08:13:00.002-04:00

Barney Frank, Tammy Baldwin, and Jared Polis have introduced an inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Hopefully this time it will stay inclusive.

Links:

George R. Tiller shot dead in church

2009-06-01T12:33:00.004-04:00

On Sunday morning, Dr. George Tiller was shot dead while handing out bulletins at his church. Tiller was one of the country's few providers of late-term abortions - most of them medically necessary. The shooter has been found and detained.

Regardless of how you feel about abortion, it's wrong to kill people. It's wrong to kill someone, even if you think the person has killed other people. (See also: the death penalty)

Links:

Abortion Provider Shot Dead In Church (Washington Post)
Suspect Is Identified in Killing of Abortion Doctor (NYT)

Find the cost of freedom

2009-06-01T09:16:00.007-04:00

I spent Memorial Day weekend in a militaristic, conservative semi-rural area. War in general was cast as necessary to "protect our freedom", because otherwise the police would be raiding churches during Sunday morning worship.

You frequently see proponents of war claiming that "freedom isn't free". War, it seems, is the price of living in a free country.

My response has always been "Actually, it is free. That's the idea. You should try it sometime." But there is something valid in the idea that freedom comes with a price. It's just that the price of freedom isn't war, or the loss of civil liberties.

In a truly free country, we don't destroy everything we believe in for the sake of security. The price is that sometimes people will be hurt, or even killed, when the freedoms of our country allow someone to plan violence undetected. But in a mature free country, we accept that risk, we prepare for bad things, and we recover when they happen.

In a truly free country, we value freedom of speech. The price is that sometimes people will say really awful things. But in a mature free country, we trust people to see ridiculous arguments for what they are.

In a truly free country, we let other people live as they see fit. The price is that we, or our children, might be exposed to things we find distasteful or even immoral. But in a mature free country, we trust ourselves and our children to make wise decisions.

Spread the Word to End the Word

2009-03-31T13:31:00.002-04:00

Today, a number of people and groups are organizing against the "R-word". That's "retard" or "retarded", when used in a derogatory way.

Calling someone or something "retarded" is like saying "that's so gay". Whether or not you mean it that way, it tells people around you that you don't like people with intellectual disabilities. It might just be meaningless slang to you, but it is hurtful to other people.

Links:

Spread the Word to End the Word (Special Olympics)
The “r” Word Campaign

Ada Lovelace Day

2009-03-24T08:49:00.002-04:00

Ada Lovelace Day is an international day of blogging to draw attention to women excelling in technology.

This is about Josephine Cochrane, whom I just found out about on Wikipedia. Cochrane invented the dishwasher. She threw a lot of parties, and she wanted a machine that could wash the dishes faster than the servants could. But such a machine hadn't been invented yet. According to legend, she exclaimed, "If nobody else is going to invent a dishwashing machine, I'll do it myself!"

Links:

Ada Lovelace Day
Josephine Cochrane (Wikipedia)

US endorses UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity

2009-03-20T07:10:00.003-04:00

On Wednesday, the Obama administration formally endorsed the United Nations declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity. The United States has now done what every other major western nation did in December when the declaration was introduced.

This statement calls for an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It also specifically opposes the criminalisation of homosexuality.

It's unclear whether the declaration will have any tangible effect -- part of the US's issue was whether it affected our laws -- but 67 countries endorsing the general idea of equality for LGBTQ people is certainly something.

Links:

US endorses UN gay rights text (AP)
US supports UN gay rights declaration (Wikinews)
UN declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity (Wikipedia)

Prosthetics for elephants

2009-03-17T20:24:00.002-04:00

Two years ago, an elephant stepped on a landmine and lost a leg. She wasn't expected to survive, but she received a prosthetic leg. Now she's doing so well that she's outgrown the original prosthetic, and just got a new one.

Links:

New leg for mine blast elephant (BBC News)

President Barack Obama

2008-11-06T13:01:00.001-05:00

Barack Obama has won the presidential election by a landslide.

I look forward to a new era of peace and freedom in America.

Angry Renter?

2008-05-16T16:49:00.008-04:00

Congress is working on a plan to help homeowners facing crippling mortgages and foreclosure. And before you go, "but these people were irresponsible!", note that many of these mortgages were sold on misleading terms, by bankers who knew the homeowners probably couldn't pay, and then jacked up the rates ridiculously. Further note that people sometimes have unexpected financial crises - a medical catastrophe, a lost job, etc. Those can make it hard to keep up with payments. Also, even if they were irresponsible, do we really want a society where we punish poor financial sense with homelessness?

Opposed to this plan, some wealthy Republicans created an AstroTurf campaign called "Angry Renter". The gist of it: "I'm not in horrible mortgage debt, because I rent. I am responsible and have not bought a house I cannot afford. I don't see the government giving me free money, therefore it should not help indebted homeowners either." I certainly understand wanting free money - we could all use a little in this economic climate - but that's a tad selfish, isn't it?

On the other hand, government is not exactly good to renters. We're constantly reminded that homeownership is morally superior to renting. Apparently we're bad people for not owning houses - never mind that we can't afford them, or know we're moving in a year, or maybe just don't want to take care of a lawn. And government efforts to help people with housing costs often leave renters behind. Is it any wonder some people buy houses they can't afford? Is it any wonder some renters are legitimately angry?

So, sure, be an angry renter. But not the kind that's easily manipulated by million-dollar Republican think-tanks.

Links:

Edit: A month later, someone says the same thing (more eloquently) in the New York Times:

Home Not-So-Sweet Home

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

2008-05-16T09:37:00.002-04:00

Yay!

One odd point: "In a dissent, Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the majority should have deferred to the Legislature on whether to allow same-sex marriage." As I recall, the Legislature has voted to allow same-sex marriage twice now, and it's been vetoed by a Governor who thinks the courts should decide. So, um... so much for that argument.

Now we just have to defeat a ballot measure. Chances of it passing? I have no idea. But I'm hopeful. The public has matured on this issue since 2004 when people were going crazy over it.

Another important note: The court said discrimination based on sexual orientation is subject to the same strict scrutiny as discrimination based on race, religion, and sex. This is also a big deal, as no court has done that before.

Links:

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban (NY Times)

The Speech

2008-03-20T08:12:00.005-04:00

By now everyone is aware that Obama recently gave a speech about race in America, and that it was in response to the huge mess that erupted when some old remarks by his former pastor Rev. Wright got publicized.

Obama supporters are saying this speech was the best thing since MLK. Angry people are saying he didn't do enough to denounce Rev. Wright. I think it's too early to tell on the first count. On the second, I must also disagree. The comparison to his grandmother, who was important to him personally and generally a good person but occasionally said inappropriate things, was apt. If you believe strongly in someone's mission and message, you can overlook the occasional mention of a conspiracy theory or rhetoric that goes over the top.

And there's context. If Wright had just walked in one day and yelled "God Damn America!" and walked out, that would have been a lousy sermon. You'd expect it of an angy teenager who knows everything that's wrong with the country, doubts anything can change, and doesn't care who ze offends. But when you put it in the middle of a sermon that denounces covering up very real problems with "God Bless America"s, it's not pointless anger and it's not really anti-American. I think we need to retire the word "anti-American" if we're going to be honest with ourselves as a country.

I'm also not sure why people are claiming that Rev. Wright is racist. Show me one statement where he says something bad about people of a certain race and I'll believe you. But "racially charged" is not the same as "racist". Saying "this country is run by rich white men, and it treats black people badly" is not racist. It is pretty close to the truth.

So, the speech. From what I've heard it was pretty good. I'm incredibly glad that Obama took the opportunity to address real issues around race, instead of falling over himself to say what a bad, bad man Wright is. Is it historic? Time will tell.

Shades of Gattaca? Or just another way for insurers to be evil?

2008-02-28T17:12:00.004-05:00

So we've got these DNA tests. Take a test and find out if you're at risk for cancer, emphysema, or a handful of other conditions. Cool, right? This should help doctors provide better care, right? Not necessarily. If you test positive, and your health insurance company hears about it, you might have trouble getting the insurance you need.

As a result, people aren't taking tests that could benefit them. Doctors aren't getting results that could help them treat patients. Researchers studying genetic diseases aren't getting test subjects.

Fortunately, there's some legislation floating around the U.S. Senate that addresses this. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits insurers and employers from discriminating on the basis of genetic information. It seems to be stalled in the Senate, though.

Dear Senate: please fix this.

Links:

Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests (NYT)
Genetic Discrimination: Not Just Science Fiction (Huffington Post)
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Wikipedia)

I decided to vote for John Edwards and it had nothing to do with race or gender.

2008-01-31T11:39:00.001-05:00

Unfortunately, I decided this two days before he dropped out of the race. I'm not sure who to support now.

My reasons:

Edwards talks about policy and ideas, not about who represents "change", "experience", or any other buzzword.
Edwards appears to care passionately about the poor.
Edwards was first with policy proposals for things like health care.
I'm very tired of hearing about the same two candidates I've been hearing about for over a year now. Especially when their campaigns have degraded to who might have said something offensive the previous week.

Over a year ago, the first time we only had Clinton and Obama (sorry Gravel, nothing personal), I predicted noone else would be able to seriously break into the race. Looks like I was right. So I'll repeat another sentiment from then: I would love to see a woman or a black person as president. But I will not vote for someone just because ze's black or female. I'll vote for the person I think would make the best president.

I've got some deciding to do. Again.

Links:

Abruptly, Edwards Ends His White House Bid (NYT)

"Ransom Notes" is over.

2007-12-20T10:17:00.000-05:00

If I'd posted this two weeks ago when I meant to, I'd be telling you that this ad campaign was about to start, and asking you to join me in protesting it.

If I'd posted this a week ago when I meant to, I'd be highlighting the arrogance of a man who received our complaints and took them as evidence that his ad campaign was "working".

But I'm just getting around to posting now, so the campaign has finally been pulled.

Sponsored by the NYU Child Study Center and created by BBDO, it portrayed children with ADD/ADHD, autism, Asperger's, OCD, depression, and bulimia as having been "kidnapped" by their conditions. The ADHD child was "a detriment to himself + those around him". The Asperger's child was destined for "a life of complete isolation". The other ads weren't much better.

Apparently, the Child Study Center wants to "reduce stigma" around these conditions. Somebody forgot to tell them that being called a "detriment" is pretty damn stigmatizing.

20 disability groups and a whole bunch of individuals got together and asked the center to stop the campaign. The response, initially, was that this proved the program was "edgy and provocative" and therefore, well, cool. We were just oversensitive if we got our feelings hurt. The reality of "psychiatric disorders" was far more shocking than their ads.

As of yesterday, they changed their minds and decided to pull the campaign. Apparently 70% of the feedback they got was negative. Oopsie.

They're looking for a new campaign now. Supposedly they're going to ask for the input of self-advocacy groups. That'd be nice. Hopefully the next "awareness" campaign will be the right kind - the kind that focuses on accommodating differences, or treating conditions that actually are inherently problematic (like depression and bulimia).

Links:

Transgender Day of Remembrance

2007-11-20T14:57:00.000-05:00

Today is the 9th annual Transgender Day of Remembrance. The Transgender Day of Remembrance was set aside to memorialize those who have been killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. The event is held in November to honor Rita Hester, who was murdered on November 28th, 1998. Rita Hester’s murder — like most anti-transgender murder cases — has yet to be solved.

Rampant, extreme violence against trans people is still going on. So is blatant disrespect. After people have been brutally murdered, the news media goes out of its way to refer to the victims by the wrong names and the wrong pronouns, when it's not calling them sick and depraved just for existing. How hard can it be to show a little respect for the dead?

Then again, this is consistent with the lack of respect for the living. When was the last time you saw a trans person on TV who wasn't presented as a freak? How many times have you heard jokes where the ultimate punchline is "but she's a he!"? The "gay" jokes are getting less acceptable these days, but making fun of trans people seems to be all the rage.

It's this sort of environment that breeds hatred, and ultimately violence. So I'm begging you, do something about it. If you don't know anything about trans issues, educate yourself. Stop making transphobic comments, and speak up when you hear them. Stand up for the gender-variant people around you. Challenge gender roles and rules.

To loosely quote a friend of mine,

People have died. Give a damn.

Links:

Transgender Day of Remembrance website
List of names for this year
NCTE website (Has Day of Remembrance message at time of posting)
A reflection from 2000

Yay Montgomery County!

2007-11-14T09:53:00.001-05:00

Okay, so I'm from Montgomery County, which makes this twice as cool.

The County Council just unanimously passed a law to "prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity". This is good. Very good. This is the kind of thing we need everywhere.

There's nothing I can add to this.

Links:

Non-inclusive ENDA passes

2007-11-08T06:20:00.000-05:00

For those of you just tuning in (or who haven't been obsessively following this for weeks):
ENDA is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This is something the LGBT community has been working on for years. The original version introduced this year, H.B. 2015, prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. There was broad support for this. Several weeks ago, house leadership (mainly Barney Frank) got scared that H.B. 2015 would fail, and introduced H.B. 3685.
The main difference was
that the gender identity language was removed. There were other differences. The vast majority of the LGBT community rallied against this change. Just about every LGBT group (except HRC) came together to denounce the watered-down bill, and demand the original. This coalition is called United ENDA. Tammy Baldwin introduced an amendment to restore the gender identity language.  Yesterday, HRC endorsed H.B. 3685, and told representatives that it would be included on their scorecard.  Meaning, longtime allies of the LGBT community, who voted
against the non-inclusive bill because it lacked trans protections,
would lose their 100% rating from one of the  country's largest LGBT groups.  Soon afterwards, H.B. 3685 passed, with no vote on the Baldwin amendment.

So we finally have a bill that says you can't be fired for being gay. This should be one of the LGBT community's happiest days.  But it's not.

It would be one thing if we had only had H.B. 3685 in the first place, and people had just decided yesterday that it wasn't good enough. But we had a bill that was good enough in H.B. 2015, and then it got screwed up. This is the problem.

It would be one thing if LGBT groups were having a civil debate on the best tactics to fully protect our entire community. But we're not.  Barney Frank thinks supporting H.B. 201 5 is so idealistic it should be illegal. HRC thinks they're superior to everyone else for "staying at the table". Trans people and their allies aren't just disappointed, we're being insulted.
This is the problem.

I hope the LGBT community can heal. I hope we can hold people to their promise to "eventually" get a trans-inclusive bill. It's unlikely ENDA will get anywhere in the Senate this year, and Bush has already promised to veto it. I hope that when ENDA is reintroduced in 2008 or 2009, it is a robust version with protections for all LGBT people.  It's time to start working on that.

Links:

House Approves Broad Protections for Gay Workers (New York Times)
HRC Support Job Dicrimination Measure in Spite of Misgivings (The Advocate)
NCTE's analysis (from yesterday before the bill passed. Read through the end of the "Motion to Recommit" section.)

Harm Reduction Lesson 1: People never get it.

2007-10-24T21:34:00.000-04:00

You've probably heard about the recent brouhaha surrounding the school-based clinic in Maine that's going to start prescribing birth control pills sometimes. (If not, read the first article on the list below.)

Some notes:

No, it's not 11-year-olds. No, they're not handing out the pill in the hallways. No, they're not saying "yes, please, have sex, come get your pills here". From what I understand, there is a physical and counselling required first, and it's 14 and 15 year olds.

Furthermore: This isn't about wanting young teens to have sex. This is about not wanting them to get pregnant. That's called harm reduction. It may offend people's morals, but it saves lives.

I'm no longer near middle-school age, but I'm young enough to still remember that when you're a teenager you don't tell your parents everything. Especially if you know they won't approve and won't understand. That's why confidentiality clauses exist.

Thank you, Maine, for understanding.

Links:

'The pill' decision a matter of health

Decision on birth control controversial

Erik Steele: Adults must act like adults to talk about sex with teens

Anarchist banana

2007-10-24T21:02:00.000-04:00

Yeah. Blog-type thing.

Whatever I put in this post will sound silly in a few months, so I'll go ahead and say things instead of trying to sound cool.

The anarchist banana has strong leanings towards social anarchism. The banana part doesn't mean anything.

This anarchist banana is in favour of all kinds of rights (human, civil,
queer, disability, etc.), freedom (duh), the environment, and common sense.
The banana does not support any kind of violence, bigotry, or ignorance.

P.S. - Anyone know how to fix the screwy line breaks?