Apparently, being an American citizen, he thought he could build a community center. He also though that since his community are Muslims, like him, and much of the funding was coming from his community, it would be ok to include a mosque in this community center. Everything seemed to be going well, he got approval from the zoning board, worked out a reasonable budget and went abouthiring the necessary people to make it happen, everything looked great. He even figured out a way to make it LEED certified.

At the same time, there was a powerful group of politicians who were having a hard time coming up with a winning strategy for the upcoming elections. Their candidates were getting tough questions about why they weren’t looking for ways to cut government spending, even with a $1+ trillion debt. They were being asked what they were doing to sanction BP, and clean up the economic mess BP caused. They were being asked why they seemed to be very content to criticize the President and the Democratic party, but weren’t doing eff-all to actually FIX the problems. It was very uncomfortable for them because their usual answer of ‘poor people want to be poor, it’s easier than working’ wasn’t getting the usual nod of the head from people, their supporters, who have been out of work for a year, or lost their house, or have loved ones who are unemployed. People who used to trust them to make them feel better were suddenly wondering when the politicians were going to make it better. But their oil-company friends, and wealthy supporters didn’t have an answer either.

Then one day — a miracle!

*briinnnnng*  Hello?

Hi, this is Rick Lazio, the guy running for Governor in New York? Yeah, it’s been tough, but look, I have a situation here that might just be perfect. Did you know that an Islamic group is building a mosque — well actually, its a community center, but there will be a mosque onsite! — just TWO BLOCKS AWAY from Ground Zero?

*dancing commences in GOP headquarters*

I hate to be so cynical, but . . . can’t you just see it happening that way? Because suddenly its all about how this community center will be dangerous, if not then in the future. Mr. Lazio, in fact is quoted in the NY Times as saying

“This is about getting questions answered,” Mr. Lazio told reporters. “This is about transparency. This about the safety of the people of New York.” “Religion has nothing to do with this,” he added.

Really? Religion has nothing to do with this? Perhaps that is why there was no problem with the strip club just down the street from Ground Zero. Then answer me this: How is a community center an issue of safety? It’s the pool, isn’t it? You’re worried about people drowning. (See this look on my face? It’s SCORN.)

Being Muslim, being a follower of Islam, doesn’t not equate with being a terrorist. Building a community center does not mean it will be a breeding ground for terrorist training. Or that is a ‘monument to victory.’ There are 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, and 2.1 billion Christians. (There are 1.1 nonreligious/atheists worldwide, but that is beside the point.) Are you telling me that all followers of Islam are terrorists? If so, then I must logically believe that all followers of Christ are pro-life activists who believe that bombing a healthcare facility because it might perform abortions is the right response.  They all also believe that a woman’s true place is in the home and that following the wishes of her husband is her proper moral compass while raising their children.  (And I won’t hold you to everything in Leviticus. Not this time.)  I’m not a Christian, but that’s what the media tells me you believe in.

But, you see, I’m not going to get any more distracted than this by the gadfly of this so-called ‘issue’. It’s not an issue, it’s just more posturing and hand-waving by the GOP so that we won;t keep asking them these hard questions. And looking for answers.

I have to say, I am SO TIRED of the politicians telling me it’s going to get better while they do crap-ola to actually fix the problems. Time to get tough people! This is why we hired you and pay you a good salary. Now, do your job!

Today, February 4, is World Cancer Day. As someone in the midst of the freaking wild ride known as cancer, this is a day to mark. I am celebrating the day by going in for my Oncology Orientation. Isn’t that beautifully ironic?

This year, the theme is ‘Cancer Can be Prevented Too’ and it is a position I heartily endorse. Most illness, including cancer, can be prevented if each of us takes three steps: don’t smoke, eat well, and walk 30 mins a day. That’s it.  Everything else is a flourish on the basic plan and I freely acknowledge that you can spend a lot of time discussing what ‘eat well’ means. For me, it means all foods are viable, but limit anything processed and try to stick with local, in season produce. (If the 1st ingredient is ‘enriched,’ its processed.) I will gladly sit down to a grass-fed steak dinner with salad and baked potato and butter. I’ll even have a glass or two of good red wine. But I don’t do that every night. In fact, most nights my meal is 2/3 vegetables.

Not smoking is a major factor. As an ex-addict I know exactly how hard it is to quit. Try. Try it again. Keep trying until you quit. You don’t want to end up like me, who could only stop when she needed cancer cut out of her body.

Walking every day is entirely possible. Get an iPod or (old school!) Walkman, and go for a walk. Get a friend or drag your partner up from the coach and go. Walk in the rain, the snow, and sun. Walk. I’ll eventually be allowed to do something more, but even then I will continue my regimen of waking every day.  If you are really super busy, walk 15 mins and do it twice a day.

Cancer is preventable.

As y’all know, a few weeks ago, I wrote a bluntly scathing letter to the Humane Society letting them know that I strongly disapprove of their ‘free blanket’ campaign to raise funds.

Yesterday I got another blanket thing from them. This one is even better — it’s in a plastic envelope. So now I get to add ‘bad for the environment’ to my next scathing letter. Which will go out tomorrow at the latest.

Luckily, both of these blankets will go to help dogs at the local shelter. Along with a bunch of Sasha’s old (and still good) chew toys the like. (She quickly outgrew the ‘puppy’ kongs, which will make a small dog or another puppy quite happy.)

That is: things that really irritate me.

#1 Guilt, in all of its forms. From the subtleties of obligations and expectations to full blown guilt trips.

#2 Rudeness.

#3 Complacency.

One day I may address points #2 and #3, but today I’ll just share the text of two letters I am sending to, of all places, the Humane Society of the US and the SPCA.

Dear <appropriate person who theoretically sent me the money request>,

I am writing to express my extreme displeasure at <the organizations’> recent ‘fleece <gloves or throw>’ fundraising campaign.

I am an animal lover, an owner of cats and now a dog who strongly advocates enacting laws against animal cruelty, puppy mills, and other forms of animal abuse. In short: I am your ideal donor.

However, the profligate waste of resources embodied in the ‘fleece gloves’ fundraiser is staggering. Moreover, it is based on turning a gift into a guilt trip, and I find that appalling. I have donated the item to the local Goodwill.

Times are tough, for both your potential donors as well as the organizations, like yours, that survive on people’s generosity. I honestly believe that guilt-tripping people into donating is a poor tactic – let your organization’s successes and exquisitely low overhead be a shining example of a good place for us to spend our donation dollars.

Perhaps I am a lone voice protesting a fundraising campaign that raised a significantly larger amount of money for HSUS/SPCA. Perhaps you have received nothing but praise from donors for the thoughtful gift.

Nonetheless, you have lost me as a donor, perhaps forever.

At this time, please see that I am removed from your database(s) and do not include me in future mailings. At some point in the future I will review your organization, its financials and its fundraising tactics. At that time I will make a decision as to whether to make a donation.

Yeah, it made me angry. Mostly because they must have spent an enormous amount of money — even if the item is  incredibly cheaply made-in-China-by-slaves and they got a fantastic bulk discount. The mailing costs alone would have been significant. Moreover, they sent them out, ostensibly as a gift, and then followed up with a mailer asking for a donation “because I’m sure you are enjoying <said item>.” So, it’s a waste of money and resources AND a big ole guilt trip.

Grrrrr.

If you blog, or read blogs; have a Facebook account, Twitter, read news online, have a web page . . . in short: if you do anything online — you care about the EFF.

Right now you can do two things to support them and it won’t cost you any money.

1. Sign the Open Letter to President Obama. When President Obama took office, he promised to usher in a new era of government transparency, and instructed federal government agencies to comply with Freedom Of Information Act requests “promptly and in a spirit of cooperation.
Today, however, some of those agencies are working overtime to prevent the release of important records which deserve the sunlight of public scrutiny.

2. Vote for EFF. After you sign the letter, vote for EFF at CREDO. The 50 nonprofits on CREDO’s 2009 list will divide $3,000,000 based on the percentage of votes received from CREDO customers and activists. CREDO will give you 100 points to vote — give all 100 to EFF! (Signing the petition allows you to vote at CREDO, even if you aren’t a member of their network.)

I’m a supporter of the EFF, you should be too — all they care about is protecting civil liberties online and in the digital world. If you want to know more about what they do, please see their website.

An unexpected part of the drama that is my cancer life (as opposed to my real life) is the realization that I need to go through a number of legal hoops to ensure that, if necessary, J. can speak on my behalf when I can’t. For example, when I am unconscious during the upcoming surgery.

You see, although he is my life partner he has no legal right to speak for me, to be at my side during my hospital stay. We may own a house together, a dog our shared responsibility, numerous possessions, and have been together more than 6 years . . . all of that means nothing because we are not married.

So get married, some might say. Sure, I have that option because we happen to be of different genders. What about the many 1000s who are in EXACTLY the same situation but are of the same gender?

Why do I get to have a benefit that others don’t?

Marriage is many things. First and foremost, it is a declaration to one’s community that two individuals are now united, and that that unity must be respected. Secondarily it also represents a collection of shared rights and the attendant responsibilities. Lastly, and not always, it may be a religious covenant, depending on one’s beliefs.

We are a (theoretically) secular nation, according to the Constitution and the first two meanings of marriage (unity and responsibilities) are accepted and allowed, We run into trouble when we bring religion into the situation. At this time, one set of spiritual beliefs actively denies the cultural and legal rights of those who do not agree.

As a pagan, specifically a witch, there is no church for me to marry within; only a legal authority can pronounce me married. I can, of course, devise my own religious ceremony even act as my own priestess or call upon one of my friends to act as a Priest/ess in his/her own capacity. In doing so I can declare to my community that the two of us are no one. But of course, anyone can have a commitment ceremony and make this public declaration of unity.

But I’ll still get the rights and responsibilities of marriage if I get the legal pronouncement, because I am a female and my partner is male. I fail to see the legal rational for gender to come into the discussion. That’s like saying that men can’t work in nurseries because they can’t bear babies. And in this day and age it getting more absurd to base legal decisions on gender. I personally know a lovely woman who was a biological male (an Eagle Scout no less!) who married a lovely woman. Several years after their marriage, he decided he was more appropriately a SHE and underwent the full conversion, including surgery. They are still married; but they are now both female-gendered. Was the marriage nullified? At what point? Pre-surgery? Post-surgery? When she changed her name?

Is the marriage of two people who never have sex with each other,but exclusively seek sexual relationships outside the marriage, any less a legal marriage than the couple who devotedly share their lives only with one another? If a homosexual man and lesbian woman marry, is it illegal? They are male and female, after all. Or is it that such a relationship doesn’t count because marriage must be for the purpose of having children?

Is there a time limit? If no children are produced within 5 years of a marriage, should the marriage be dissolved? Life is busy, lets make it 10 years. Or do you have until the woman hits menopause? Do we need to start forbidding marriage in partners too old to have children (like the seniors who are widowed and remarry)? What if one partner is barren? If they adopt, does that count? What about artificial insemination? Because those alternatives to man-woman procreation save the sanity of many otherwise childless couples — and are just as available to same-sex couples.

Marriage is always an announcement to the community: we two are now one.

Marriage gives each person rights, and responsibilities. Denying those rights, and responsibilities, to any group — at all — is discrimination. How dare we?

Marriage may be a spiritual rite of passage, in which case that needs to be the business of the people in the marriage, and perhaps their community, or some part of it. That’s it, end of story.

I’m a little late with this posting, but I want to alert all of the authors and publishers in my circle about a project the EFF is putting together.

From their website:

We are hoping to present a strong list of authors and publishers who can truthfully state that they fear that Google’s tracking of online book browsing, reading, and purchase will have a “chilling effect” on their readership. Our argument, first to Google — and if we cannot convince it, to the court overseeing the lawsuit — is that the settlement does not sufficiently protect authors and publishers because it fails to provide the same privacy protections for readers in the digital world that apply to reading physical books from libraries, bookstores, etc. These include protections from subpoenas, law enforcement investigations, and other forms of surveillance and profiling.

You can still participate financially in the settlement even if you join our group. We will be filing an objection, which asks the court to fix the settlement but which does not opt-out any participatory author or publisher.

Their deadline was August 22, but I think they would still welcome your input.

read more at: http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy/google-book-search-settlement-for-authors-and-publishers.

Here is the letter I sent to them:

My apologies for missing the deadline, but I want to add my name to your list of authors who are concerned about Google. I am the author of two books, The Virtual Pagan (Red Wheel/ Weiser, 2002) and Magickal Connections (New Page, 2007).

As a pagan author, I am a minority, a person who lives on the fringes of society. It is (sadly) easy for those of us here on the fringes to be singled out as ‘other’ and subject to specific scrutiny and persecution, simply because we espouse beliefs different from the norm. My readers are minorities as well, and if they are worried that their reading/purchasing habits may become part of a list they may decide to not display their preferences.

One example might be the teenager who wishes to quietly explore a religion that is different from that of his family. At this time there is no way to know what he is reading, and he is secure in his exploration. If Google succeeds, his explorations may become a matter of public record, causing him problems should he try to explore, or even making his decide not to even look because of fear.

If my books are not read because of fear of persecution, it hurts me financially, of course, but it also places a heavier burden on me to convince potential publishers of my future works to invest in my writings. In which case, a minority opinion and viewpoint becomes further marginalized.

Thank you for taking on this case. I am spreading the word (albeit belatedly) among the Pagan authors and publishers of my acquaintance.

Lisa Mc Sherry
www.cybercoven.org
author, Magickal Connections, The Virtual Pagan

And a very happy EFF member!
~*~Create structure where needed, avoid  specific rules whenever possible.~*~

I will also be sending an email to all of the authors and publishers I am acquainted with.

I have a number of politics/freedom related posts to upload, but here’s a quickie.

The ACLU reported today that the Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in an ACLU lawsuit challenging Florida’s law banning lesbians and gay men from adopting. This was a response to Florida’s challenge to the 11/25/08 ruling by the Juvenile Court that a gay couple could adopt. (The full post is here.)

I want to draw your attention to something in particular:

Despite these admissions by DCF, the agency responsible for child welfare in Florida, the State’s lawyers put on expert witnesses who offered an outlandish menu of justifications for the exclusion. They argued primarily that the exclusion is warranted because gay people are prone to problems like psychiatric disorders, drug abuse, and unstable relationships. They also asserted that gay parents cause their children to be gay and that gay people should be excluded from adopting because society is prejudiced against them and their children might be exposed to that prejudice.

What if the word ‘gay’ was changed to ‘black’ or ‘asian’? Or ‘elderly.’ You would hear the howls of outrage from coast to coast. (Never mind the incredible circular logic of that last sentence.)

I’m beginning to think that an ongoing test of discrimination is to replace descriptor nouns with similar ones for a diferent population.

As regular readers know, I’ve had my share of issues with the USPS. That said, I have always praised them to the high heavens for what they DO get done, so (relatively) efficiently.

Apparently, that may be about to change for the worst. A friend turned me on to this post, which reads in part:

Basically, some people in the USPS are pushing fast and hard to change the USPS radically, closing many, many locations and potentially subcontracting for retail and delivery services. This is so not okay. Without a federally protected mail service, we have no strong federal guarantees that our mail will get where it is going, let alone in a timely fashion, or that it will arrive safe and unopened.

At the bottom of the post she gives links so you can verify that she’s not exaggerating.

I also believe this is a credible threat. We may be an email-based world, but my grandmothers (in New Jersey and Maine) are not. With out affordable mail service I’d never hear from them (and vice versa).

I too urge you to contact your congressperson and let them know that this is not acceptable and to support Support HR658. (Link is to a gov website and then one for the American Postal Workers Union.)

This popped into my inbox the other day:

With help from a proposed class action settlement, Google is planning to dramatically expand its Book Search service so that millions of books will be available for browsing, reading, and purchasing online. But in designing this new service, Google is leaving reader privacy behind. Without strong privacy protections, all of your browsing and reading history may be collected, tracked, and turned over to the government or third parties without your knowledge or consent.

Email Google CEO Eric Schmidt and demand that Google Book Search protect your freedom to read privately. You should be able to read about anything — from politics to health — without worrying that someone is looking over your shoulder. Demand that Google pledge it will not stockpile information about who you are and what you read and will not become a one-stop shop for government fishing expeditions into the reading habits of Americans.

While you’re at it — send a bit of money to the EFF. Like the ACLU, they are a non-profit legal group dedicated to keeping electronic free speech, anonymity, innovation, privacy, transparency,  and intellectual property rights from being infringed upon. A more detailed explanation of what they are doing is here: http://www.eff.org/work.

(Full disclosure: my sister is a Senior Staff Attorney at EFF.)