Never stop fighting for what's right

Despite the setbacks, momentum is on our side.
TCT - "Hundreds Locally March to Protest Passage of Proposition 8"
New York Times - "Protests Held Over Gay Marriage Ban"
LA Times - "Thousands Gather to Protest Prop 8"
In-Form (North Dakota) - "Gay Rights Protest on Fargo-Moorhead Bridge Draws Large Crowd"
Chicago Tribune - "Chicago Crowd Protests California Gay Marriage Ban"
Andrew Sullivan - Tracking the protests
More photos from the various rallies here and here.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Distracted by history

The City Council last night approved a $238 million budget (a day ahead of schedule), wherein they approved the mayor's request to increase bus fares by fifty cents (boo!), declined to cut funding for the Madison Arts Initiative (yay!), and added money for some community services (yay!).

There's a ton to go over in the new budget--plenty to both laud and whine about--but at the moment I'm too distracted by the fact that there are currently two men alive on this Earth who fought in the trenches of World War I.

I mean, holy crap! That's completely amazing.

If you've been reading this here blog for any length of time, you'll know that I'm a bit of a giant history dork, so you won't be surprised that this fact caught my attention. I was reading Kate Beaton's Rememberence Day post (and if you haven't checked out her history comics yet, do yourself a favor), and she briefly mentioned a Canadian movie about the battle of Passchendaele, and not knowing anything about it, I naturally waltzed over to Wikipedia to get myself some knowledge.

It was on that page that I stumbled across a quote from a fellow by the name of Harry Patch, who had been involved in that terrible, muddy battle. And these quotes were from 2007! Curious as all get out, I followed the Wiki-click-capade over to his page and discovered, much to my amazement, that not only is Mr. Patch still alive and kicking, but there is another man, a one Fernand Goux of France, who also served in the trenches and is also still with us today.

Seriously, this is incredible. Patch is 110 now, and Goux a spry 108. The things these guys must have seen, most especially in the war but just in general--I can't even imagine it. Born near the turn of the last century, they've seen everything from wars, the proliferation of automobiles and the internet, and men landing on the friggen moon.

There are currently only 10 veterans of WWI who are still alive (including Patch and Goux). Frankly, I'm amazed that there are any.

But this brings up an important point, relevent especially near the time of Veterans Day, that we lose veterans of various wars every day (estimates put it around 900-odd for WWII vets). It is important to both recognize and honor them for their extraordinary service, and to make sure their stories are told and remembered for long after they've passed on.

It is equally important to make sure we take good care of those veterans that are still with us. Push your legislators to support bills that would provide the appropriate levels of funding for VA services, physical and mental health care, and education for those who've served. We've had too many instances in this country of short-changing vets, and this is simply unacceptable. Instead of merely slapping a yellow ribbon magnet on a car, we must work to ensure real care and respect are paid to our troops. That includes listening to them, before it's too late.

To be fair

Momentum is on our side, but that doesn't mean the fight will be any less difficult.

Bundle up and join your fellow Wisconsinites (or check for rallies in a state near you) this Saturday at 12:30pm down on Library Mall as part of a national day of protest against the passing of Proposition 8 in California, and in support of gay marriage in general.

I'll let Mr. Olbermann explain why.


See you there?

A study in editorial contrasts - bus edition

The Wisconsin State Journal and the Capital Times have long been held to be opposing voices when it comes to their editorials. The WSJ tends to hang a little to the right, and the Cap Times tends to hang a little to the left. And when the issues aren't necessarily of the partisan kind, they still do a good job of staying as far away from the others' opinion as possible.

Case-in-point: In the debate over whether or not to raise bus fares in the city of Madison to $2, the WSJ argues that yes, absolutely they should go up. The Cap Times, of course, argues the opposite. The language used in both editorials could not be more different. Whereas the WSJ uses words like "reasonable" and "modest" to describe the proposed rate hike, the Cap Times turns to descriptions like "dramatically" and "massive".

Personally, I think both editorials have a few worthwhile points. I also think they both fall flat in other areas.

In addressing a proposed amendment that would add a slight increase to property taxes to help avoid a rate hike, the WSJ complains that "It's time for those who actually ride the buses to contribute a bit more to maintain routes and improve service." While I certainly understand the concern of property taxpayers, I've got two issues with this. 1) Property taxpayers do ride the bus, too (shock! I know!). I know a few personally. 2) I don't think shifting the burden entirely onto the shoulders of frequent bus riders is the right thing to do. It is, in fact, quite insensitive to the facts about a lot of regular riders.

While it's true that a wide range of people from all different income brackets and walks of life use the bus, those who most rely on the service tend to be working class, or handicapped, or students (or any combination thereof). As a society, it behooves us to care for those most at risk. This must be balanced with personal accountability and responsibility on the part of those being helped, absolutely, but we cannot place the full financial burden of something as essential as the bus system on them and not expect it and them to crumble under the weight.

We should be encouraging more people to use mass transit, not vice versa. That means keeping it affordable, and finding other ways to fund it. Alders Brian Solomon and Satya Rhodes-Conway have proposed an amendment to the Mayor's budget that would do a lot (not all) to address this issue.

It would "delete the fare increase and save money in other ways. For example, Metro could bring in $40,000 in extra revenue by eliminating free rides on Clean Air Action days" (not sure how I feel about that, but if it helps keep fares low, it's worth considering). They also propose reallocating $100,000 in fuel savings, as apparently fuel costs were not as great as anticipated this year. The amendment also calls for an expansion of service, better marketing, and the implementation of new security programs at transfer points (which apparently involves a $25,000 cut, so that warrants further scrutiny).

While these measures may not be the end-all-be-all of the problem, they are a good example of the kind of creative and innovative efforts to reorganize so that the burden is not on the riders themselves.

Back over at the Cap Times editorial, while I generally agree with their ultimate point, their doom and gloom language does feel a little over the top. While I, and others, strongly suspect that a rate increase would have adverse effects on riders and ridership, until actual studies on the subject are done, no concrete conclusions can really be reached. Still, rather alarmist-ly, they ask:

Did right-wing critics of mass transportation take charge, in coalition with global warming deniers? Are the fantasists who would have us believe that our bus system is underutilized and unnecessary pulling a silent coup? Has a once progressive city suddenly forgotten that mass transit decisions go to the very heart of questions about equity and access for all to employment, education and culture?

I really don't get the impression that this all stems from some vast right-wing conspiracy. Rather, it strikes me as an honest debate over how to best address the severe budget shortfalls the city is facing. While there are some on the pro-hike side of the argument who seem to think that bus riders are all lazy liberal professors, the majority, I believe, are really trying to do the right thing. It's a complex issue, and one without an easy answer.

Ultimately, I do believe that it's in the best interests of the city to make sure public transportation is as affordable and convenient as possible. People rely on it to get to work, school, and other commitments. An employed, educated citizenry benefits everyone.

Don't be That Guy (or Girl)

I went to see My Brightest Diamond perform this weekend at the Orpheum Stage Door Theatre here in town. I was there both because I really enjoy their music and because I was reviewing it for 77 Square. And while I generally had a good time and thought the musicians did an excellent job, there was one exception.

You know the one. That ridiculously drunk and/or high individual in the crowd who decides that the show should be about them, and not the band on stage.

Oh yes, there's one at every show. Somehow, too, I have the unfortunate ability to always end up right next to them. It was a girl this time, about three people to my left, and she was rip-roaring drunk from the beginning of their set to the end, when someone finally, mercifully, pulled her out.

Experiencing That Person at a show is an interesting study in sociology, both for how that individual acts and why, and also for how the people around them respond. Most of the time, especially at quieter shows like this one, the prevailing attitude seems to be one of passive aggressive annoyance. If she'd been at a metal show, she'd have been drowned out by the music. A person causing trouble at a punk show would have been rewarded with an elbow to the stomach or a boot to the junk.

In our case, though, passive aggressive annoyance reigned. During any break between songs, or just a particularly quiet section of music, she'd blurt out things like "Thank you for coming to the Orpheum Stage Door Theatre! Wisconsin loves you!" and "You are the best singer of 2008!" as though she had been hired to provide running (if painfully dull) commentary. And through all of this, there were two people who I was pretty sure were friendly with her, and they too failed to do anything to get her to stop.

It wasn't until the final song of the night--a particularly mellow and heartfelt piece--that the crowd began to actively shush her. And her reply? "They want me to shut the fuck up!" shouted really loudly.

I guess I just don't understand the mindset that leads to this kind of attention whoring. Even at my drunkest (which, admittedly, doesn't happen very often) I don't feel compelled to yell out inanities in the middle of shows. There are plenty of drunken fools who can keep quiet and/or be relatively inoffensive in public. So what leads that select few to show up and attempt to fuck things up for everyone else? And why must there be at least one at every g'damn concert I go to?

I'm tempted to start treating all of these situations as though they're punk rock shows.

But I end with this: Please, please, for the love of all that is good in this world, don't be That Guy/Girl. No one is there to see or hear you. At best, you tick off a whole crowd of people who will secretly hate you forever. At worst, you get kicked in the junk. Why risk it?

Sunday Brunch: Stand By Me

I'm in such a good mood about the election, so I feel like this video is appropriate for our brunch today. If only things were as simple and beautiful as sharing a song. And the idealist in me asks, why can't they be?

Our common destiny

Canadian journalist Barbara Kay doesn't have a very high opinion of the gays. In fact, she argues in her latest opus in the National Post, people arguing that gay rights are a civil right and therefore akin to the struggles of racial minorities are all wrong and likely in need of a good spankin'.

This comes from several recent editorials (and the opinions of many, I'm sure) concerning the high percentage of African Americans who voted in favor of Proposition 8 in California, the proposition aimed at amending the state constitution to strip gays of their right to marry.

Most of the editorials are dumbfounded that a group that has suffered so much at the hands of discriminatory laws and attitudes would turn around and vote to do something similar to another minority group.

However, Kay (who is white) claims, "...black people just can't get too worked up about the "discrimination" of gays who haven't had any rights taken from them, can have legal sex together, live together, buy homes wherever they want, socialize wherever and with whomever they choose, and flip back through their family albums for any number of generations without finding a single slave."

Where to begin? First of all: Kay has apparently decided to conveniently deny the fact that plenty of homosexuals are also people of color. I'm sure some of them could "flip back through their family albums" and find a few ancestors who were enslaved. She is, like many others like her, marginalizing the experiences of some of the most marginalized people in our society. Way to go, Kay! That's very charitable of you.

Secondly: gay people haven't always been able to "have legal sex together" - they had to fight to overturn several draconian state-level laws that forbade this very personal and intimate act, even as recently as 2003, when the Supreme Court finally struck down the Texas anti-sodomy law. The ruling had a broader effect, too: it wasn't just Texas that still had the complete ridiculousness on the books, but 12 other states as well.

Sometimes, when it comes to the basic human and civil rights of people, you simply cannot leave it up to the states. Our Constitution is supposed to grant all of these rights and protections for everyone already, but still we have to fight for further clarification, for people who can't quite seem to grasp its full meaning.

Thirdly: It's so kind of Kay to allow that homosexuals can "live together" and "buy homes wherever they want." Though I have a sneaking suspicion that she'd rather that weren't so, I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and simply point out that again, this wasn't always so (and still isn't so in some places). Throughout history, homosexuals have had to hide their true selves else risk being ostracized, abused, and even killed simply for loving differently. And unlike what Kay surreptitiously claims, this isn't all the result of a "mere sexual preference" (a convoluted way of saying "choice") - we're talking inborn traits that are as much a part of people as their need to breathe.

There are so many points with which to take issue in this article (she calls the push for gay marriage rights "political entitlement that has been fabricated from whole ideological cloth" for instance), but I'll end on this one:

African-Americans, Jews, aboriginals, the Roma people and other historically disadvantaged ethnic or racial groups experience their collective memory through the narratives they inherit from their parents and grandparents and ancestors. Indeed, they are a true identity group because they have a collective history and common memories. The sufferings they endured are directly related to who they are historically, to characteristics and events they cannot change, to their skin colour and bloodlines, to the deeds of their ancestors. Where is their commonality with individuals disconnected from the great chain of human history, whose "identity" isn't a culture, an ethnicity, a race or a civilization - just a mere sexual preference that rules out both a collective past and a collective future, the sine qua nons of a true identity group.

What a load of bull. All of these groups have unique histories and cultures. There are some shared qualities where rampant discrimination and the struggle for fair treatment comes in, but ultimately this is all a comparison of apples and oranges. I think few gay rights advocates are arguing that African Americans and homosexuals are just the same, and that the former should support the latter because of that. The incredulity stems, I think, from the idea of one traditionally oppressed minority group turning around and oppressing another. This isn't to say that all African Americans (or Latinos, or Christians, or Mormons, etc.) are against gay marriage, because they aren't. But I think it's fair to wonder why such a large percentage of them voted for Prop 8, and what we can do to change perceptions and attitudes so that everyone can get on board with the crazy notion that everyone deserves equal rights under the law.

That's not political entitlement. We're not asking for anything more than what everyone else already has. I really, really don't understand what's so hard to understand about that.

It's time, I think, we all started being honest with one another. What really scares and/or puts off those who so vehemently oppose gay rights? So many of them couch their feelings by claiming not to have any problems with gay people, just gay people getting to take part in the "institution of marriage." Well I'll tell you what: you're so keen on that "traditional institution," why don't you bring back arranged marriages, dowries, and the utter male domination of women (no divorce rights, no parental rights, no financial rights, etc.)? Because that's your "traditional institution of marriage" right there.

The great thing about history is that we can learn from it and improve upon ourselves and our society. We keep around what worked, and throw out what didn't. Discrimination, oppression--that doesn't work. Equal rights, freedom to be who you really are--that works.

I'm going to end with the words of Mormon church spokeswoman Kim Farah, who issued a statement in response to the recent uproar by anti-Prop 8 activists against the church for so heavily supporting the proposition. She probably wouldn't like me using her statement in this way, because it's clear her intent was fraught with hypocrisy, but the sentiment is still good: "No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information." [emphasis mine]

Amen, sister. Barbara Kay? You'd do well to take that to heart.