The Equality March: As Missed by the MSM

(Reposted as part of our staff picks from 2009)

Lots more pictures available at Sum of Change

Over the weekend, you probably heard about tens of thousands of people standing up for LGBT rights at the Equality March in Washington, DC. It got some decent coverage, mostly on C-SPAN, but for the most part, the MSM really missed the scene. They missed the personal stories attached to this event. Our own Laura Gilbert was there to speak with the protesters.



The march coincided with President Obama's speech to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). In his speech, President Obama reiterated campaign promises to end discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace, in the military, and in marriage. These promises were made absent any timelines, a fact that did not escape the protesters.

David Mixner, Author and Democratic strategist, expressed the frustration shared amongst many gay rights advocates: "When people tell me to be patient, when people tell me 'Oh Lord, not now,' all I can think about is how many more tears should be shed so that some politicians in a back room can figure out when it's convenient to join us and to fight for our freedom?"

Cindy, marching with her wife Gillian and son Jack, age 3, traveled from Cincinnati, OH for the march. "We are tired of not being represented properly. We want to be part of the visibility of the movement." Cindy is pregnant and due in Novemeber. "Even though we consider ourselves to be married, we are unable to legally wed. In Ohio, we don't have dual adoption and as a result, the non-birth parent has no rights." The New York Times found that, in a best case scenario, a gay couple with two children will pay an extra $41,196.00 simply because they are not a legally married couple. "Our ability to marry has no impact on those who oppose it. But the fact that we cannot marry affects us everyday."



Billie Tadros, seen in the picture above embracing fellow Susquehanna University student Katie Falvo, said "I'd like to have the option to marry the woman I love one day. We're not interested in settling for anything less." Billie "came to be a part of history and work towards equality."

This fight, "is definitively a process, not a one day thing" Billie's girlfriend, Katie, added with a laugh.

Jeremy Griffin, from Ogunquit, ME said, "I am so far from marriage right now. But I'd like to think it will be there for me when I'm ready. I know so many couples who have been together forever and they just don't have the same rights available to them." Jeremy had questioned traveling to DC for this event, seeing as Maine is facing its own version of Prop 8 right now. He decided he would attend this event to bring visibility to Question 1 in Maine and the Protect Maine Equality campaign (this campaign was a featured topic of discussion at the Netroots Nation panel 'From Prop 8 to Full Equality in all 50 States'). Question 1 is up for a vote on November 3rd. If the Protect Maine Equality campaign can pull out a victory here, it would be the first time marriage equality has won at the ballot.

Cynthia Nixon, actress from Sex and the City, hammered the point home:

“Our right to marry is of paramount importance, whether you as an individual gay person listening to me right now, want to get married now or ever. It is important because when a country has different laws for different categories of people, it sends its population a message that the different group of people with lesser rights are somehow inferior and less deserving of respect, and are, in fact, not wholly human. And that message is heard loud and clear by the worst elements in our society. And it instructs them that if they are looking for someone to bully, or beat, or even kill; if they are looking for someone vulnerable to prey upon, gay people are a ready target.

Marriage equality was not the only subject on people's minds this weekend. Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was also prominently featured. Michael Bedwell, of San Francisco, told us that he came to the event in part to remind and inform younger people about his hero and friend, Leonard Matlovich (Seen on the cover of Time magazine in the picture below), a pioneer in the gay rights movement. "It empowers the LGBT community, especially the youth, to know their forebears. Public schools don't teach about these figures."



Lt. Dan Choi, a Unites States Army combat veteran who served in Iraq and the founder of KnightsOut, wasn't born when Leonard first fought the ban on gays in the military. "I hope people understand and decide what they're going to do if Obama is still making promises with no action in 6 months... Until we disrupt their lives and give them motivation to act, I sadly fear the situation is not going to change. It doesn't bode well when nothing is happening, in a situation in which we have such a liberal president, and Democrats have control of both houses of Congress."

The calls for action were partnered with a call to come out as well. Christine McIntire, a law student from Cleveland, OH, said, "I want to encourage people to be brave and come out to their families. Change starts at home." Bruce Babson, a member of the Board of Directors at the HRC, echoed that sentiment in his speech, "Our friends, family and coworkers need to know that when they vote for these bigoted politicians, they vote against us."

Mary Ann Bell, of Virginia said that, "We must all have courage and face what diversity really means. And that means orientation; it means culture; it means race." Mary Anne was one of the seven women to fast only on water for 37 days in front of the Illinois State House to support the ratification of the Equal Right Amendment in 1972. She told us that she fasted "to make the point, to witness, that equal rights should be for everyone. And here we are 25 years later, still fighting."

This sentiment was also expressed by Tanner Efinger, founder of Postcards to the President. "We are, all of us, an unrepresented, motley crew of underdogs, who have gathered in struggle from every class, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and background to say that we are done with waiting. And while there is a certain pace to change the we are told we must abide by, our children are on the streets, our lovers are in early graves and our family are in hospital beds all by themselves and they don't have time to wait for politicians."



-Written by Will Urquhart, reported by Laura Gilbert

More pictures available at Sum of Change

From Prop 8 to Full Equality in all 50 States

(Reposted as part of our staff picks from 2009)

From Prop 8 to Full Equality in All 50 States - Netroots Nation Day 1 from Will Urquhart on Vimeo.

We at Sum of Change have been releasing lots of videos from Netroots Nation. We have released some 40 highlights videos, but today we release a panel in entirety for the first time. This was the first panel I attended, bright and early at 9:00am on Thursday, August 13th.

From Prop 8 to Full Equality in All 50 States: Fighting for Marriage Equality and LGBT Rights Across America
Thursday, August 13th 9:00 AM - 10:15 AM
Panel, 311
Time: Thursday, August 13th, 9:00am - 10:15am
Room: 311

From the passage of Prop 8 to the election of Barack Obama to the White House, the 2008 election had a profound impact on the fight for full LGBT equality in all 50 states.

This panel will tackle how we win and defend marriage equality state-by-state and how we build momentum for full LGBT equality across America. What are the lessons learned from the Prop 8 loss in California that Maine and other states can learn in their battle for marriage equality? How will we restore marriage equality to California? And how can the netroots help win these battles?

PANELISTS: Pam Spaulding, Monique Hoeflinger, Michael Wilson, Julia Rosen

I hope you enjoy this video. We will be releasing more coverage over the coming weeks. Visit the Sum of Change Netroots Nation page to see all our NN09 videos and a list of every event we covered. We do not have footage up from every event that we filmed yet, but we are making updates every day, and we will have at least one video from every event that we filmed. Once again, you can find a full list of everything we filmed in Pittsburgh at our NN09 page.

Thanks

Seyyed Ali Mousavi Killed in Iran Protest

Over the weekend, and grossly underreported, Seyyed Ali Mousavi, the nephew of the former Presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, was killed during protests in Iran. It is reported that he was shot by Iranian Security officials. This comes amidst numerous reports of fatalities during demonstrations.

It has yet to be reported whether he was targeted intentionally or shot randomly.

The Gulf Daily News is reporting:

Video footage showed an enraged crowd carrying away one of the casualties chanting, "I'll kill, I'll kill the one who killed my brother." Witnesses said one victim was an elderly man who had a gunshot wound to the forehead. He was carried away by opposition supporters with blood covering his face.

All the while, our main stream media cannot find anything to talk about other than a man who spent too long in the bathroom on an airplane.

The video below apparently shows Seyyed Ali lying in the streets:

Redstate.com Against Filibuster Before They Were For It

Over at Redstate.com, they have a front page post up titled, The Filibuster is Essential For Democracy, where they argue:

The filibuster is essential for democracy, because it protects Americans from a tyranny of the majority, whether that majority be Democrats or Republicans.

What is hilarious, is that they did not even bother to do a quick google search to see what they might have said about the filibuster before:

The magic number is 51. It takes 51 votes to change the rule to ensure that the President's judicial nominations can be confirmed with a majority of 51 votes. From Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO's The Corner comes word that he has heard "that Republicans now have at least 50 votes to change the rules--which means at least 51 if you add Cheney."

(snip)

If Frist doesn't go through with the rule change, though, I'm going to stop accepting his telephone calls.

I mean, seriously. When on earth will mainstream conservatives learn how to use "teh google"?

Lefties Win Against Whole Foods

I am taking a quick break from my Christmas dinner with the family. Today, liberals all across the country got a great Christmas present. The chairman of Whole Foods is stepping down voluntarily as the result of lefty rabble-rousers (we should add that he does still retain his seat on the board and is still a major player at Whole Foods, but we celebrate the message the company is sending):

[Mackey] attempted to capitalize on the brand reputation of Whole Foods to champion his personal political views but has instead deeply offended a key segment of Whole Foods consumer base.

I have not shopped at Whole Foods in months. My entire family began shopping elsewhere after I came across the calls to boycott online. As a somewhat young man, I have not taken part in many nation-wide boycotts, and cannot remember any specific victories before this.

So today, this Christmas, is a day that I did not expect to remember forever as a significant organizing milestone for me. This boycott brought no health care to the uninsured, it did not make the health care bill stronger, and it had no direct impact on my life or my friends' and family's. It did, however, send a message to anyone who would dare to use their corporate position to further corporate political philosophy: your customers are listening and have no problem shopping accordingly.

Medicare for Environmental Health Hazards?

UPDATE: Hat tip goes out to Jeremy Koulish, of Carrots and Sticks, for running down the CBO numbers and giving us a rough estimate of how many people would likely be covered by this provision of the bill. That number is in the thousands, a few thousand or so. As Jeremy said, "Yeah, not particularly earth-shattering, but obviously great for those 3,000 people." We will be doing some more analysis of this, and should it pass, we will check back to see how this provision is being implemented.

There is something interesting in the new health care amendment, Section 1881A.

MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPOSED TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS.

We have still got a lot of reading left to do on this section of the amendment, but it has raised some very interesting questions.

I will start with what, as my reading leads me to believe, this section of the amendment does. This section allows for certain individuals, deemed affected by environmental health hazards, to be eligible for Medicare in the event that the individual is not eligible for necessary care under other public or private programs. It also allows for the creation of a pilot program to determine eligibility and to provide necessary benefits.

First and foremost, this is not restrictive by age. Meaning, regardless of how old you are, if you are deemed affected by environmental health hazards, you may be eligible for Medicare.

The first question this raises, who is considered an "environmental exposure affected individual"

(e) ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL DEFINED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘environmental exposure affected individual’ means—

(A) an individual described in paragraph (2); and
(B) an individual described in paragraph (3).

(2) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An individual described in this paragraph is any individual who—

(i) is diagnosed with 1 or more conditions described in subparagraph (B);
(ii) as demonstrated in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, has been present for an aggregate total of 6 months in the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration specified in sub- section (b)(2)(A), during a period ending—

(I) not less than 10 years prior to such diagnosis; and
(II) prior to the implementation of all the remedial and removal actions specified in the Record of Decision for Operating Unit 4 and the Record of Decision for Operating Unit 7;

(iii) files an application for benefits under this title (or has an application filed on behalf of the individual), including pursuant to this section; and
(iv) is determined under this section to meet the criteria in this subparagraph.

(B) CONDITIONS DESCRIBED.— For purposes of subparagraph (A), the following condi- 13 tions are described in this subparagraph:
(i) Asbestosis, pleural thickening, or pleural plaques as established by—

(I) interpretation by a ‘B Read-er’ qualified physician of a plain chest x-ray or interpretation of a computed tomographic radiograph of the chest by a qualified physician, as determined by the Secretary; or
(II) such other diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies, except that this clause shall not apply to pleural thickening or pleural plaques unless there are symptoms or conditions requiring medical treatment as a result of these diagnoses.

(ii) Mesothelioma, or malignancies of the lung, colon, rectum, larynx, stomach, esophagus, pharynx, or ovary, as established by—

(I) pathologic examination of bi- opsy tissue;
(II) cytology from bronchioalveolar lavage; or
(III) such other diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies.

(iii) Any other diagnosis which the Secretary, in consultation with the Com- missioner of Social Security, determines is an asbestos-related medical condition, as established by such diagnostic standards as the Secretary specifies.

(3) OTHER INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—An individual described in this paragraph is any individual who—

(A) is not an individual described in paragraph (2);
(B) is diagnosed with a medical condition caused by the exposure of the individual to a public health hazard to which an emergency declaration applies, based on such medical conditions, diagnostic standards, and other criteria as the Secretary specifies;
(C) as demonstrated in such manner as the Secretary determines appropriate, has been present for an aggregate total of 6 months in the geographic area subject to the emergency declaration involved, during a period deter- mined appropriate by the Secretary;
(D) files an application for benefits under this title (or has an application filed on behalf of the individual), including pursuant to this section; and
(E) is determined under this section to meet the criteria in this paragraph.

That is a lot of language to say that, essentially, an "environmental exposure affected individual" is someone affected by asbestos or someone in the geographic area where an "emergency declaration aplies."

I am going to ignore the part about asbestos, for now (it comes back up at the end). How do we define whether or not an "emergency declaration applies?"

(2) EMERGENCY DECLARATION.—The term emergency declaration’ means a declaration of a public health emergency under section 104(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

In other words, a Superfund site that has been deemed an emergency. So this amendment would make it so anyone affected by a health hazard, who lives in an area designated a Superfund site under an emergency declaration, would be eligible for Medicare if they are not already eligible for the needed care through other public or private entities.

Not a huge deal. Especially considering how rarely a Superfund site is deemed an emergency.

But there was one part that caught my eye, when I came across the section on pilot programs:

(b) PILOT PROGRAM FOR CARE OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS RESIDING IN EMERGENCY DECLARATION AREAS.—
(1) PROGRAM; PURPOSE.—

(A) PRIMARY PILOT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program in accordance with this subsection to provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care under this title to individuals described in paragraph (2)(A).
(B) OPTIONAL PILOT PROGRAMS.—The Secretary may establish a separate pilot program, in accordance with this subsection, with respect to each geographic area subject to an emergency declaration (other than the declaration of June 17, 2009), in order to furnish such comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care to individuals described in subparagraph 15 (2)(B) who reside in each such area.

"Other than the declaration of June 17, 2009." What declaration was that? None other than the first, and only, emergency declaration by the EPA under the Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.

And now is when I will bring back the asbestos stuff that I chose to ignore at the beginning. This emergency declaration happens to revolved around problems with, you guessed it, asbestos. So, now I am confused.

Does this bit about excluding the declaration of June 17th exclude all these people from being eligible for Medicare, or are they included by the bits about asbestos?

We are working on getting in touch with Senator Baucus's office (given that it is the weekend, and a crazy one at that, we may have to wait for Monday) to help us tackle some of these questions. I hope you will join us in trying to figure out this peculiar section of the amendment. Check back for updates.

Deanna Zandt on New Media, Race Relations, and the Power of Storytelling

There was a moment in Deanna Zandt's speech at the Organizing 2.0 conference that I wanted to highlight:



The power of storytelling must not be underestimated. I will use the Obama campaign as an example, since storytelling played a larger role than anything else, I would argue, in their message strategy.

The campaign had introduced a rather different candidate to the world, an improbable campaign. They clearly recognized that he would not be able to win on issue statements alone, he had to reach out to people who agreed with him on policy but were questioning, "Who is this different looking guy with a funny name?" Through telling his story, he was able to bridge whatever divides existed between himself and millions of Americans.

Although the campaign officially began years later, we can really trace the 2008 Presidential campaign all the way back to the 2004 Democratic National Convention when, then a candidate for U.S. Senate, Barack Obama was introduced to the country when he gave the keynote address. What he did in that speech, more than talk about issues, was that he told his story. He told where he came from, and through that we learned why it was that he was supporting Senator Kerry for President. Without question, it was the most memorable moment in the 2004 Presidential campaign. And that is exactly what President Obama trained his volunteers to do. As an organizer for the campaign, I told my story 8 trillion times. I repeatedly told volunteers, "You may not be an expert on every issue, or on any, but you are an expert on who you are and why you support Barack Obama, and that is what you need share with your neighbors."

What anyone working the campaign will tell you, we would not have won without storytelling. The polls showed that President Obama was right on the issues, but everyone knows that is not enough when it comes to politics. People need to be able to trust their President. And trust, as Deanna Zandt mentions in her speech, is developed through sharing stories with one another. What the campaign realized is that it was not enough to have President Obama's story out there, he needed to expand the reach exponentially by turning every volunteer into a little storytelling machine themselves. President Obama's story is "uniquely American," and it was not enough. What the campaign demonstrated, and what sounds obvious, is that your neighbor's story is more likely to impact you than a candidate's.

They had members of the community talking with their neighbors, sharing struggles of a failing economy and failing health care system, together. And this made all the difference. During President Obama's speech on race, back in PA during the primary, he ended his speech on the power of storytelling:

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."

"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.