A recent NPR poll sites that 68% of Americans think this country is on the wrong track while only 23% say it’s headed in the right direction. Sixty-eight percent. That’s an awful lot of people unhappy with the way our country is headed. My question is this- if 68% of Americans are upset with the way things are going, why aren’t 68% of Americans doing something about it?
Yes, I know that we can all say, “Hey, I voted in 2006 for a change in Congress. Look what happened!” It is our country-given right to vote, and that is generally one of the best and easiest ways to make your voice heard. But, that takes about 10 minutes out of your day, once a year (if that). What happens the next day when you rip that “I Voted Today” sticker off of your coat?
If you’re upset with the way America is headed, do something about it. Write to those representatives that you helped get into office. Don’t forget- their sole responsibility is to represent the people who voted them in. If they’re not hearing from those people, they’re going to just assume that everything is ok. It takes about 3 minutes to write an email to your congressperson, and quite a few social change websites (HRC, Moveon.org, Amnesty International, etc.) even write the letter for you and just ask you to plug in your address so they know who to send it to. It’s that easy.
OR, make your voice heard in other ways- peaceful protests are always a good way to get public attention about an issue you hold near and dear. Get creative. Check out the Rainforest Action Network at the Chicago Board of Trade. Or these folks from Greenpeace. Now that’s creative, peaceful protest. These people are trying to make changes because they’re part of that huge 68% of Americans who are unhappy.
A poll isn’t going to scare anyone in Washington or (insert your state capital here). Look at how low Bush’s approval rating has been all year, yet he still continues to make decisions that anger the majority of Americans. If you’re part of that 68% of pissed of Americans, then do something about it. Please, stop complaining and saying how much you can’t wait until 2009, because that’s over a year away, and we all know how much things can change in a year. Stop complaining and get active. It’s your right and duty as a pissed off American to do so.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Whatcha' Waiting For?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Women in the Media
Two steps forward:
Jezebel, a new blog run by Gawker Media (from what I can tell, a media organization that runs 14 blogs that follow a formula of "frequent postings, vibrant design, snarky attitude") is known for its "unvarnished excoriation of traditional female media, slicing through the superficiality to give you the straight scoop on trends in celebrity, fashion, and sex". Even cooler, the editor actually pays some of the writers! I happened upon it through the Chicago Foundation for Women Tuesday Action Alert (which everyone should subscribe to!) and thought I'd take a look at the site.
It sure is snarky, that's for sure, and they really don't hold anything back. What I found particularly fantastic was a contest they ran a few weeks ago. They offered $10,000 to the person who could capture the worst example of Photoshopping/airbrushing/crazy editing of a celebrity on a magazine cover. One brave soul who actually works for Redbook sent in their July issue with Faith Hill on the cover. This post that shows the before and after shots says it all.
Bravo to Jezebel for shedding a light on the fact that not even beautiful goddesses like Faith Hill can look that good, and those women who are desperately trying so hard to look like that won't be able to do it in real life. This should be a lesson to that little voice inside all of us that whispers insecurities about how we look.
Two steps back:
Really, Washington Post? You really find it necessary to publish an entire article on Hillary Clinton's cleavage?!? This is the kind of crap that is going to keep this presidential race on all of the wrong issues and none of the right ones. They might have well just said, "We're not too comfy with the idea of a woman running for president." Yes, I know that may be a little bit of a jump, but seriously. First of all, she was barely showing any cleavage. If she were wearing some tight, short mini-skirt, that'd be one thing. But she was wearing what seemed to me to be a perfectly acceptable outfit for your typical work day. The article continued to talk about her choices of close as First Lady and Senator. Is this really news-worthy? When is the last time we saw an article about Barrack's choice of ties or Bush's controversial choice of sport coat?
"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."
So, basically, what I'm getting out of this is that Clinton is showing off confidence and physical ease and feels that her intelligence and wit are far more apparent than the shirt she wears. Ummm....isn't that the kind of person we want as a president? Confidence? Physical ease? Intelligence and wit?
Sometimes mainstream media makes me really angry. It's a shame that they're mainstream and considered the real source of information for the world. You'd think with that kind of responsibility, they'd spend a little more time on the important issues on this world and not something as trivial as what someone is wearing.
My favorite comment from NOW's website:
Jezebel, a new blog run by Gawker Media (from what I can tell, a media organization that runs 14 blogs that follow a formula of "frequent postings, vibrant design, snarky attitude") is known for its "unvarnished excoriation of traditional female media, slicing through the superficiality to give you the straight scoop on trends in celebrity, fashion, and sex". Even cooler, the editor actually pays some of the writers! I happened upon it through the Chicago Foundation for Women Tuesday Action Alert (which everyone should subscribe to!) and thought I'd take a look at the site.
It sure is snarky, that's for sure, and they really don't hold anything back. What I found particularly fantastic was a contest they ran a few weeks ago. They offered $10,000 to the person who could capture the worst example of Photoshopping/airbrushing/crazy editing of a celebrity on a magazine cover. One brave soul who actually works for Redbook sent in their July issue with Faith Hill on the cover. This post that shows the before and after shots says it all.
Bravo to Jezebel for shedding a light on the fact that not even beautiful goddesses like Faith Hill can look that good, and those women who are desperately trying so hard to look like that won't be able to do it in real life. This should be a lesson to that little voice inside all of us that whispers insecurities about how we look.
Two steps back:
Really, Washington Post? You really find it necessary to publish an entire article on Hillary Clinton's cleavage?!? This is the kind of crap that is going to keep this presidential race on all of the wrong issues and none of the right ones. They might have well just said, "We're not too comfy with the idea of a woman running for president." Yes, I know that may be a little bit of a jump, but seriously. First of all, she was barely showing any cleavage. If she were wearing some tight, short mini-skirt, that'd be one thing. But she was wearing what seemed to me to be a perfectly acceptable outfit for your typical work day. The article continued to talk about her choices of close as First Lady and Senator. Is this really news-worthy? When is the last time we saw an article about Barrack's choice of ties or Bush's controversial choice of sport coat?"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."
So, basically, what I'm getting out of this is that Clinton is showing off confidence and physical ease and feels that her intelligence and wit are far more apparent than the shirt she wears. Ummm....isn't that the kind of person we want as a president? Confidence? Physical ease? Intelligence and wit?
Sometimes mainstream media makes me really angry. It's a shame that they're mainstream and considered the real source of information for the world. You'd think with that kind of responsibility, they'd spend a little more time on the important issues on this world and not something as trivial as what someone is wearing.
My favorite comment from NOW's website:
News break! News break! The Post now attests
that Hillary Clinton has cleavage and breasts!
But take a deep breath and try not to alarm;
she also has lips, and a nose and two arms,
and--news of all news!--they also weren't robed!
In fact, she hung jewelry in naked ear lobes!
And her chin--it was nude of all facial hair
and protruded in space so totally bare
it's entirely a scandal! Politicians and stars
can never be publicly just who they are.
Though "cover ups" might be the nation's disgrace,
it seems the "uncovered" get newspaper space.
So, Washington Post, I hope you will note:
Ms. Clinton has breasts, and has brains, and my vote.
sent in by Debbie W. Parvin
sent in by Debbie W. Parvin
Thursday, July 19, 2007
12 Ways to Shop Fair Trade
Compliments of Co-op America, one of the rock star organizers of the Green Festival:
1. Tea — One of the fastest-growing segements of the Fair Trade market, US imports of Fair Trade tea increased an impressive 187 percent in 2005. Since then, herbal tea products like chamomile, hibiscus, peppermint, and spearmint have gained Fair Trade status. Tea lovers can find teas bagged, loose, and bottled.Look for black tea, oolong, chai, and more in the National Green Pages™
2. Chocolate — The average American eats 12 pounds of chocolate a year, supporting an industry that saw retail sales of more than $16 billion in 2007. If you're among the 46 percent of Amreicans who say they can't live without chocolate, you can avoid the well-documented problem of child slave labor in the cocoa industry, and direct your share of that $16 billion toward chocolate that helps communities and the environment.Look for candy bars, baking cocoa, and more in the National Green Pages™ »
3. Fresh Fruit — In Europe, where Fair Trade fruit has been available since the mid-1990s, Fair Trade bananas have reached a market share as high as 24 percent. In the US, Fair Trade tropical fruits like bananas, mangoes, and pineapples became available in 2004, and their availaibility is growing, especially in natural foods stores and food co-operatives. Find a store near you selling Fair Trade fruit by using TransFair USA's store locator.
Sign our letter to supermarkets asking them to stock Fair Trade bananas »
Sign our letter to supermarkets asking them to stock Fair Trade bananas »
4. Sugar — Phosphorus run-offs from the conventional sugar industry in Florida have devastaed the ecosystem of the Everglades, and the sugar lobby has worked aggressively to avoid responsibility. Sustainabile alternatives to sugar like locally grown, organic maple syrup or honey can help you avoid the problems in the sugar industry, as can Fair Trade Certified™ sugar, introduced to the US in 2005. Look for Turbinado, cane sugar, and more in the National Green Pages™ »
5. Rice — While most of the white and brown rice consumed in the US was grown on US farms, most aromatic long-grain rice comes to our tables from small-scale farms in Asia where it was harvested by hand. Workers on these farms often find themselves squeezed by middle merchants and sickened by pesticides; Fair Trade rice—most of which is also organic—protects both workers and the environment. Look for Jasimine, coral, Basmati, and more in the National Green Pages™ »
6. Vanilla — Working with a labor-intensive crop that yields a relatively low harvest, vanilla farmers are hard-hit when their market fluctuates, as it has since environmental disasters at key procuction centers in 000. TransFair USA began certifying vanilla in 2006, and new Fair Trade Certified™ vanilla ice cream from Ben & Jerry's arrived in supermarkets in January 2007, joining their previous Fair Trade coffee and chocolate flavors. Look for whole beans and vanilla extracts in the National Green Pages™ »
7. Spices — The European Fair Trade certifying body (FLO) approved standards for Fair Trade spices in 2005. In Europe, products like ginger cookies and lemongrass soap have begun to appear with Fair Trade spices among their ingedients, as hopeful sign for the future of Fair Trade spices in the US. Look for ginger, nutmeg, pepper, and more in the National Green Pages™ »
8. Wine — Introduced to the US market in 2007, Fair Trade wine has been produced in South Africa since 2003, and in Chile and Argentina since 2004. The South African certification process requires vineyard workers to maintain a legally protected minimum 25 percent interest in the winery, in support of the South African government's policies romoting equal land ownerships following Apartheid. Look for Merlot, Grenache, and more in the National Green Pages™ »
8. Wine — Introduced to the US market in 2007, Fair Trade wine has been produced in South Africa since 2003, and in Chile and Argentina since 2004. The South African certification process requires vineyard workers to maintain a legally protected minimum 25 percent interest in the winery, in support of the South African government's policies romoting equal land ownerships following Apartheid. Look for Merlot, Grenache, and more in the National Green Pages™ »
9. Olive oil — The Canaan Fair Trade Association uses the fair trade concept to empower marginalized Palestinian rural communities caught in conflict so they can sustain their livelihoods and culture. Farmers are guaranteed a minimum price, and receivea 10 percent Fair Trade premium above market price, plus a 10 percent organic premium above market price. Look for olive oil in the National Green Pages™ »
10. Sports balls — When the European Fair Trade certification body (FLO) created standards for soccer ball production in 2002, it was the first time a non-agricultural commodity had received certification. Since then, four Pakistani and one Thai producer have achieived certification, ensuring that no child lavor is involved, and that workers receive a living wage in a healthy work environment. Look for soccer balls, volley balls, and more, in the National Green Pages™ »
11. Arts and crafts — Producers of unique, handmade, artisanal Fair Trade products like jewelry, baskets, textiles, and other handicrafts belong to trade associations that screen for internationally recognized Fair Trade standards. For example, our ally the Fair Trade Federation links low-income producers with consumer marketers that pledge to: pay fair wages in the local context, support participatory workplaces, ensure environmental sustainability and public accountability, and suppply financial and technical support. Look for Fair Trade craft products in the National Green Pages™ »
12. Coffee — Available since the late 1990s, Fair Trade coffee is the most widespread and recognizable Fair Trade commodity. Currently, it is the fastest growing segment of the $11 billion US specialty coffee maket, and about 85 percent of Fair Trade coffee is also organic. Look for Fair Trade coffee in the National Green Pages™ »
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Peace Mom Returns
And so soon! After announcing her intention to leave the activism scene in May, Cindy Sheehan has now announced that she intends to run against Nancy Pelosi for her House seat in the San Francisco district if Pelosi does not introduce articles of impeachment for Bush by July 23.
Does Sheehan actually stand a chance against Pelosi? Probably not. But what I really like about this whole thing is Sheehan's point about the "peoples' accountability movement." How many of us complain about those who are serving us in Congress? Rather than just complaining, Sheehan is taking that a step further and trying to do something about it. These people serve us. We elect them. We should expect them to represent us fairly.
``I'm doing it to encourage other people to run against Congress members who aren't doing their jobs, who are beholden to special interests,'' Sheehan said. ``She (Pelosi) let the people down who worked hard to put Democrats back in power, who we thought were our hope for change.''
I commend Sheehan for being active rather than passive, for thinking of a creative way to state her dissatisfaction in Congress, and most certainly for finding the strength to throw herself back into the spotlight.
Does Sheehan actually stand a chance against Pelosi? Probably not. But what I really like about this whole thing is Sheehan's point about the "peoples' accountability movement." How many of us complain about those who are serving us in Congress? Rather than just complaining, Sheehan is taking that a step further and trying to do something about it. These people serve us. We elect them. We should expect them to represent us fairly.
``I'm doing it to encourage other people to run against Congress members who aren't doing their jobs, who are beholden to special interests,'' Sheehan said. ``She (Pelosi) let the people down who worked hard to put Democrats back in power, who we thought were our hope for change.''
I commend Sheehan for being active rather than passive, for thinking of a creative way to state her dissatisfaction in Congress, and most certainly for finding the strength to throw herself back into the spotlight.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Win-Win for Starbucks and Ethiopia?
Back in October of last year, I learned of how the Ethiopian coffee farmers who provide Starbucks with a good majority of their quality, $3 a cup coffee had applied for trademarks for three different types of their coffee beans (Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe) in order to be able to earn more money for their product. After all, they are one of the top five poorest countries in the world with a GNP per capital of $110 and Starbucks made about $3.7 billion just last year. While Starbucks was selling some of these Ethiopian coffees for $26 a pound, the Ethiopian farmers weren't getting anymore than $1.10 of that (doing the math, that's about 4%). I think they could get a little more than that, don't you? Also, they had already successfully registered trademarks in the EU, Canada and Japan. Why does it always have to be so difficult in the US?!
When Starbucks learned of Ethiopia's application to the US Patent and Trademark Office for these coffees, they prompted the National Coffee Association of USA, Inc. to oppose the approval. And, as they say, money talks. The applications were denied, raising a huge red flag to Oxfam America, a non-profit and affiliate of Oxfam International that works to end global poverty through saving lives, strengthening communities and campaigning for change. They immediately alerted the public to this and implemented an international public awareness program that included a Day of Action where volunteers (including myself) went into their local Starbucks stores and politely informed the barista or manager there about what was happening and asked them to put pressure on headquarters to give the Ethiopians what is fairly theirs. They even made a short video of it and released it to YouTube (which, unfortunately, is private an not available for viewing anymore). These events also caused me and my nearest and dearest to boycott Starbucks and let everyone know just why we were doing it.
This prompted some response from Starbucks and the CEO met with the prime minister of Ethiopia to discuss some sort compromise, but Ethiopia stood strong in their stance for full trademarks. Thus, no agreement was reached. Oxfam continued with their campaign, and after months of pressure, progress was being made. It looked as if maybe Starbucks would agree to stop blocking the applications after all.
Finally, eight months after the campaign began, Starbucks announced that they have concluded an "agreement" with the Ethiopian farmers "regarding distribution, marketing and licensing that recognizes the importance and integrity of Ethiopia's specialty coffee designations." Oxfam celebrated this as a win-win situation for both Starbucks and Ethiopia. Now, what does this "agreement" exactly mean?
"It provides a framework for mutual cooperation to promote the recognition of the Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe designations and to strengthen the Ethiopian coffee sector, and includes the license of certain trademarks. The agreement allows Starbucks to use and promote these designations in markets both where trademarks exist for the coffee designations as well as where they may not, in accordance with agreed terms and conditions negotiated with Ethiopia."
"Certain trademarks"? I don't get it. I'm not economist, but to me, it seems like either Ethiopia gets the trademarks for their three coffees or they don't. I don't understand this "certain trademarks" thing. I really want to celebrate what seems to be a great victory for fair trade, but something just doesn't smell right to me. I wonder what sort of deals were made under the table, what the press releases are leaving out, and why they just don't say that the three trademark applications will no longer be blocked?
With Oxfam's approval, I can't see why this isn't a good thing. I really, really want to believe that the underdog won this round. But, maybe that's just it. Maybe this is just a round of a much larger match between corporate America and the countries they exploit. While I do celebrate what seems to be progressive steps forward, I can't help but hold my breath, waiting for the other shoe to drop...
When Starbucks learned of Ethiopia's application to the US Patent and Trademark Office for these coffees, they prompted the National Coffee Association of USA, Inc. to oppose the approval. And, as they say, money talks. The applications were denied, raising a huge red flag to Oxfam America, a non-profit and affiliate of Oxfam International that works to end global poverty through saving lives, strengthening communities and campaigning for change. They immediately alerted the public to this and implemented an international public awareness program that included a Day of Action where volunteers (including myself) went into their local Starbucks stores and politely informed the barista or manager there about what was happening and asked them to put pressure on headquarters to give the Ethiopians what is fairly theirs. They even made a short video of it and released it to YouTube (which, unfortunately, is private an not available for viewing anymore). These events also caused me and my nearest and dearest to boycott Starbucks and let everyone know just why we were doing it.
This prompted some response from Starbucks and the CEO met with the prime minister of Ethiopia to discuss some sort compromise, but Ethiopia stood strong in their stance for full trademarks. Thus, no agreement was reached. Oxfam continued with their campaign, and after months of pressure, progress was being made. It looked as if maybe Starbucks would agree to stop blocking the applications after all.
Finally, eight months after the campaign began, Starbucks announced that they have concluded an "agreement" with the Ethiopian farmers "regarding distribution, marketing and licensing that recognizes the importance and integrity of Ethiopia's specialty coffee designations." Oxfam celebrated this as a win-win situation for both Starbucks and Ethiopia. Now, what does this "agreement" exactly mean?
"It provides a framework for mutual cooperation to promote the recognition of the Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe designations and to strengthen the Ethiopian coffee sector, and includes the license of certain trademarks. The agreement allows Starbucks to use and promote these designations in markets both where trademarks exist for the coffee designations as well as where they may not, in accordance with agreed terms and conditions negotiated with Ethiopia."
"Certain trademarks"? I don't get it. I'm not economist, but to me, it seems like either Ethiopia gets the trademarks for their three coffees or they don't. I don't understand this "certain trademarks" thing. I really want to celebrate what seems to be a great victory for fair trade, but something just doesn't smell right to me. I wonder what sort of deals were made under the table, what the press releases are leaving out, and why they just don't say that the three trademark applications will no longer be blocked?
With Oxfam's approval, I can't see why this isn't a good thing. I really, really want to believe that the underdog won this round. But, maybe that's just it. Maybe this is just a round of a much larger match between corporate America and the countries they exploit. While I do celebrate what seems to be progressive steps forward, I can't help but hold my breath, waiting for the other shoe to drop...
Friday, June 15, 2007
Dropping the G-Bomb
Two steps forward:
Massachusetts made it clear that there is absolutely no way that their gay marriage laws are going to be messed with. In an astounding 151-45 vote, the Massachusetts Legislature proved once again, just like in 2004 , that gay marriage is a done deal. It was in November of 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled (in a 4-3 ruling) that denying gay couples the right to marriage (read: marriage, not civil union) was unconstitutional. Much to the dismay of then-governor, now Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the date was set for May 17, 2004 to begin allowing gay marriages. People came in droves, and it is said that about 9,000 gay and lesbian couples have married since. While a few states offer civil unions or similar rights, Massachusetts remains the only state in the country that grants the right of marriage.
After another loss, can the conservative right finally give up this obviously pointless battle? Let's hope so.
Two GIANT leaps back:
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, a member of the Sunshine Project (a Biodefense Research organization) uncovered a 1994 proposal from the Ohio Air Force lab to create a "gay bomb" that contained a chemical that would cause someone to "become gay".
(Now, before I go further, I use the term "become gay" in quotes because it is my staunch belief that we are who we are and we love who we love and that this is all naturally in us; there is no "becoming", only discovering.)
Back to the story: The Air Force lab proposed that by creating a gay bomb, they could cause enemy army units to break down because all of the soldiers would become irresistibly attractive to one another. They proposed that this would cost a mere $7.5 million. Not only was this idea brought up in 1994, but the US military thought it was such a great idea that they also included it in a CD ROM in 2000 and submitted it to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. I can only imagine the look on the faces of those at the National Academy of Sciences when they opened this letter up.
Let's just go down the list of incredible implications that this idea brings on:
- Are they admitting that there is something biological to being gay? If so, then that would really hurt the conservatives and all of the ex-gay camps in the world.
- The idea that being gay makes you unable to perform your duties as a member of the military. Tell that to the 65,000 gays and lesbians serving in the National Guard and Reserves today.
- The idea that gay men are attracted to every single man that walks this earth. A common misnomer amongst the more close-minded folk. Logic would dictate that just as straight men are not attracted to every single woman they see, gay men are not attracted to every single man that walks the earth. Wouldn't it be funny if they actually used this bomb on an army, and it didn't work because nobody was attracted to anyone else in their units?
This is just one of the reasons that everyone else in the world thinks we're crazy (well, except Albania).
This just in: Columbia has passed a bill that grants same-sex couples rights similar to straight couples. It's not marriage, it's not even civil unions, the rights are some-what limited, and you have to live together for 2 years before you get them, but it's still better than what The Land of the Free is offering up. Columbia, for goodness sake!!!
Massachusetts made it clear that there is absolutely no way that their gay marriage laws are going to be messed with. In an astounding 151-45 vote, the Massachusetts Legislature proved once again, just like in 2004 , that gay marriage is a done deal. It was in November of 2003 when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled (in a 4-3 ruling) that denying gay couples the right to marriage (read: marriage, not civil union) was unconstitutional. Much to the dismay of then-governor, now Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the date was set for May 17, 2004 to begin allowing gay marriages. People came in droves, and it is said that about 9,000 gay and lesbian couples have married since. While a few states offer civil unions or similar rights, Massachusetts remains the only state in the country that grants the right of marriage.
After another loss, can the conservative right finally give up this obviously pointless battle? Let's hope so.
Two GIANT leaps back:
Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, a member of the Sunshine Project (a Biodefense Research organization) uncovered a 1994 proposal from the Ohio Air Force lab to create a "gay bomb" that contained a chemical that would cause someone to "become gay".
(Now, before I go further, I use the term "become gay" in quotes because it is my staunch belief that we are who we are and we love who we love and that this is all naturally in us; there is no "becoming", only discovering.)
Back to the story: The Air Force lab proposed that by creating a gay bomb, they could cause enemy army units to break down because all of the soldiers would become irresistibly attractive to one another. They proposed that this would cost a mere $7.5 million. Not only was this idea brought up in 1994, but the US military thought it was such a great idea that they also included it in a CD ROM in 2000 and submitted it to the National Academy of Sciences in 2002. I can only imagine the look on the faces of those at the National Academy of Sciences when they opened this letter up.
Let's just go down the list of incredible implications that this idea brings on:
- Are they admitting that there is something biological to being gay? If so, then that would really hurt the conservatives and all of the ex-gay camps in the world.
- The idea that being gay makes you unable to perform your duties as a member of the military. Tell that to the 65,000 gays and lesbians serving in the National Guard and Reserves today.
- The idea that gay men are attracted to every single man that walks this earth. A common misnomer amongst the more close-minded folk. Logic would dictate that just as straight men are not attracted to every single woman they see, gay men are not attracted to every single man that walks the earth. Wouldn't it be funny if they actually used this bomb on an army, and it didn't work because nobody was attracted to anyone else in their units?
This is just one of the reasons that everyone else in the world thinks we're crazy (well, except Albania).
This just in: Columbia has passed a bill that grants same-sex couples rights similar to straight couples. It's not marriage, it's not even civil unions, the rights are some-what limited, and you have to live together for 2 years before you get them, but it's still better than what The Land of the Free is offering up. Columbia, for goodness sake!!!
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Time to Rest, Peace Mom
As many of you have probably heard, Cindy Sheehan, a well-known anti-war activist, has decided to step out of the game. This is truly a sad day in peace activism.
For those of you who don't know her or her story, her son was a soldier in Bagdhad and died in a rocket grenade attack. Devastated, Cindy decided to go to Crawford, Texas and have a little chat with Bush about the war and why her son, and so many other sons and daughters had to die. Bush refused to speak with her, so she decided to camp outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford until he would speak with her. She caused quite an uproar but also started an entirely new chapter of the anti-war movement. Soon enough, Camp Casey was a well-established institution, with a large support network. When threatened with trespassing charges, Bush's neighbor donated 5 acres of his land to Camp Casey so that they could have a permanent place without any threat of being forced to leave. Last I heard, they were developing plans to build a rehabilitation center for those who served in Iraq.
Lots of people painted her as a crazy women, driven mad by grief. The conservative right loved to paint her in the worst of pictures, calling her terrible names and belittling her cause. Other organizations heralded her as a true peace activist. I was actually able to see her speak about 2 months ago in a small church in downtown Chicago. I was shocked by the lack of attendance. In activist circles, she's a well-known name, yet there were maybe 30 people in attendance. I wasn't sure what to expect from her, as I'd only heard stories and read articles. When she entered the room to our singing an anti-war song, I expected big smiles, energetic movement, and an infectious energy that you oftentimes see and feel in well-known activists.
But what I saw was a grieving mother who wasn't made to be an activist but felt compelled to do it anyway. Forced into the activist's life because of the injustice she felt, yet lacking the natural endless energy that you see in other activists. In some ways, though, that made her even more admirable. She was just like everyone else's mother, sister, neighbor, friend. She had just experienced probably the most horrible experience a parent could ever have and felt compelled to do something about it.
She never played the politics. She held both parties equally responsible for the decisions that were made. She found peaceful ways to make her point, such as camping out in front of Bush's ranch (and being arrested for blocking the road once), wearing an anti-war shirt in the House gallery (and again being arrested for unlawful conduct because of it), and many others. She really was an inspiration.
She sacrificed everything to try and convince Americans to help her end this war, including her health, finances and her marriage. All she wanted to do was help save other sons and daughters from suffering the same fate as her own son while also trying to make his sacrifice meaningful. I gotta believe that the past week's happenings in Congress probably had a little to do with her stepping down. She gave everything she had and then some to try and make a difference. I think it's only fair to allow her the ability to say "enough is enough" and claim defeat. Because, really, how different is the Iraq war now than it was 2 years ago? Last time I checked, thousands were still dying and every month is becoming the bloodiest month of the war. We're still funneling billions into it, and there's still no end in sight.
I can't blame Cindy Sheehan at all for making the decision that she did. I only hope that it serves as some sort of catalyst to move others forward, carrying the torch even further and ensuring that all of her sacrificing was not made in vain.
As she said in her final goodbye, "It’s up to you now."
For those of you who don't know her or her story, her son was a soldier in Bagdhad and died in a rocket grenade attack. Devastated, Cindy decided to go to Crawford, Texas and have a little chat with Bush about the war and why her son, and so many other sons and daughters had to die. Bush refused to speak with her, so she decided to camp outside of Bush's ranch in Crawford until he would speak with her. She caused quite an uproar but also started an entirely new chapter of the anti-war movement. Soon enough, Camp Casey was a well-established institution, with a large support network. When threatened with trespassing charges, Bush's neighbor donated 5 acres of his land to Camp Casey so that they could have a permanent place without any threat of being forced to leave. Last I heard, they were developing plans to build a rehabilitation center for those who served in Iraq.
Lots of people painted her as a crazy women, driven mad by grief. The conservative right loved to paint her in the worst of pictures, calling her terrible names and belittling her cause. Other organizations heralded her as a true peace activist. I was actually able to see her speak about 2 months ago in a small church in downtown Chicago. I was shocked by the lack of attendance. In activist circles, she's a well-known name, yet there were maybe 30 people in attendance. I wasn't sure what to expect from her, as I'd only heard stories and read articles. When she entered the room to our singing an anti-war song, I expected big smiles, energetic movement, and an infectious energy that you oftentimes see and feel in well-known activists.
But what I saw was a grieving mother who wasn't made to be an activist but felt compelled to do it anyway. Forced into the activist's life because of the injustice she felt, yet lacking the natural endless energy that you see in other activists. In some ways, though, that made her even more admirable. She was just like everyone else's mother, sister, neighbor, friend. She had just experienced probably the most horrible experience a parent could ever have and felt compelled to do something about it.
She never played the politics. She held both parties equally responsible for the decisions that were made. She found peaceful ways to make her point, such as camping out in front of Bush's ranch (and being arrested for blocking the road once), wearing an anti-war shirt in the House gallery (and again being arrested for unlawful conduct because of it), and many others. She really was an inspiration.
She sacrificed everything to try and convince Americans to help her end this war, including her health, finances and her marriage. All she wanted to do was help save other sons and daughters from suffering the same fate as her own son while also trying to make his sacrifice meaningful. I gotta believe that the past week's happenings in Congress probably had a little to do with her stepping down. She gave everything she had and then some to try and make a difference. I think it's only fair to allow her the ability to say "enough is enough" and claim defeat. Because, really, how different is the Iraq war now than it was 2 years ago? Last time I checked, thousands were still dying and every month is becoming the bloodiest month of the war. We're still funneling billions into it, and there's still no end in sight.
I can't blame Cindy Sheehan at all for making the decision that she did. I only hope that it serves as some sort of catalyst to move others forward, carrying the torch even further and ensuring that all of her sacrificing was not made in vain.
As she said in her final goodbye, "It’s up to you now."
Friday, April 27, 2007
What Will It Take...
...to make Illinois the safest state for women and girls?
That's the question that the Chicago Foundation for Women (CFW) is going to be asking all year long with their What Will It Take? campaign. Thanks to a hefty grant from good ol' G-Rod, CFW has $2 million to spend to help ask that question. They kicked off their initiative on March 8th (International Women's Day in every country but the US) and have been going strong ever since, already having hosted seven town hall meetings around the state (including places like Champaign, Macomb, and the south side of Chicago) and doling out $1 million in grants to organizations helping ask and answer the question, "What will it take?"
There are many amazing things about this campaign, and I'd like to go through just a few of them. First of all, the idea of having an initiative that asks a question instead of giving an answer is amazing. They're stimulating dialogue throughout the state and really trying to get as much input as possible to answer that question. They hope to reach 4 million people by the end of the campaign, and with such a rigorous schedule, I'm confident they will. They launched an intense ad campaign, putting posters on public transportation, producing PSAs for both the radio and television, and taking out full-page ads in many of Chicago's print media. They're getting in our faces about it because it seems like such a silent question- everybody's complaining about it, but nobody's facing up to the fact that the answer to that question is us. We are what it will take to make Illinois the safest state for women and girls, and we are what will make this world safer for women and girls. We just need to own up to it.
Another amazing aspect of this initiative is that they have an entire Men's Initative included in it. CFW feels that men have not really been considered allies in the fight against gender-based violence, and they're right. We are such a victim-blaming society (What was she wearing? Was she drunk? Was she leading him on? Did she deserve it?), that the perpetrators, who are mostly men, are never considered. So, CFW wants to change that by taking the question to men and boys as well. They're asking men what will it take, and they're reaching out to boys to show them early on that gender-based violence is unacceptable. By reaching them earlier, it helps instill the message before they are bombarded by mainstream media and other forms of influence in this society.
I attended one of their town hall meetings the other night and was so impressed with the program. There were multiple performance artists there to speak about different issues in women's lives, such as body image, sexual assault, prostitution, and even men's views of women's issues. They then opened the floor up to everyone in the audience to voice their own concerns and comments about the issues in their lives regarding women's rights. It was great to hear so many men and women talk about what they see the biggest concern is in the fight for women's rights and to hear the different challenges and hopes that exist.
As Hannah Rosenthal, the fabulous executive director for Chicago Foundation for Women said, "Asking a question begs an answer." So, please check out the website for What Will It Take? . Attend a town hall, attend their events, give them your ideas and comments, get involved. Let's all start asking the question; to ourselves, to our friends, our family, our coworkers, strangers on the street, everyone around us. Let's start shouting the questions, screaming the question, until we start coming up with answers and actions that will help make Illinois the safest state in the country for women and girls. Because once we do that, the next step is the country, then the world.
That's the question that the Chicago Foundation for Women (CFW) is going to be asking all year long with their What Will It Take? campaign. Thanks to a hefty grant from good ol' G-Rod, CFW has $2 million to spend to help ask that question. They kicked off their initiative on March 8th (International Women's Day in every country but the US) and have been going strong ever since, already having hosted seven town hall meetings around the state (including places like Champaign, Macomb, and the south side of Chicago) and doling out $1 million in grants to organizations helping ask and answer the question, "What will it take?"
There are many amazing things about this campaign, and I'd like to go through just a few of them. First of all, the idea of having an initiative that asks a question instead of giving an answer is amazing. They're stimulating dialogue throughout the state and really trying to get as much input as possible to answer that question. They hope to reach 4 million people by the end of the campaign, and with such a rigorous schedule, I'm confident they will. They launched an intense ad campaign, putting posters on public transportation, producing PSAs for both the radio and television, and taking out full-page ads in many of Chicago's print media. They're getting in our faces about it because it seems like such a silent question- everybody's complaining about it, but nobody's facing up to the fact that the answer to that question is us. We are what it will take to make Illinois the safest state for women and girls, and we are what will make this world safer for women and girls. We just need to own up to it.
Another amazing aspect of this initiative is that they have an entire Men's Initative included in it. CFW feels that men have not really been considered allies in the fight against gender-based violence, and they're right. We are such a victim-blaming society (What was she wearing? Was she drunk? Was she leading him on? Did she deserve it?), that the perpetrators, who are mostly men, are never considered. So, CFW wants to change that by taking the question to men and boys as well. They're asking men what will it take, and they're reaching out to boys to show them early on that gender-based violence is unacceptable. By reaching them earlier, it helps instill the message before they are bombarded by mainstream media and other forms of influence in this society.
I attended one of their town hall meetings the other night and was so impressed with the program. There were multiple performance artists there to speak about different issues in women's lives, such as body image, sexual assault, prostitution, and even men's views of women's issues. They then opened the floor up to everyone in the audience to voice their own concerns and comments about the issues in their lives regarding women's rights. It was great to hear so many men and women talk about what they see the biggest concern is in the fight for women's rights and to hear the different challenges and hopes that exist.
As Hannah Rosenthal, the fabulous executive director for Chicago Foundation for Women said, "Asking a question begs an answer." So, please check out the website for What Will It Take? . Attend a town hall, attend their events, give them your ideas and comments, get involved. Let's all start asking the question; to ourselves, to our friends, our family, our coworkers, strangers on the street, everyone around us. Let's start shouting the questions, screaming the question, until we start coming up with answers and actions that will help make Illinois the safest state in the country for women and girls. Because once we do that, the next step is the country, then the world.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Two Steps Forward, Two Steps Back
Two steps forward:
This past February, Illinois General Assembly Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the only openly gay and HIV-positive representative in the Assembly, introduced the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. This would make civil unions legal in Illinois. This is a pretty freakin' big deal. It would make Illinois the first state in the Midwest to have such a law, and it's very, very close to taking it's first giant step towards becoming a reality here. I spent this past Wednesday in Springfield lobbying with Equality Illinois for this cause. Lobbying is a really interesting process. Basically, when the representatives are in session and on the floor, you have to go to a roped-off door that leads to the floor. You then hand your business card with your rep's name on it to the security guard there, who gives it to a page, who gives it to the rep on the floor. If the rep is able, he/she comes out to speak with his/her constituent. Sounds like a very calm, regulated process, right? It would be, if there weren't at least ten other groups trying to lobby for different bills. It's pretty much a madhouse with people pushing against each other in a small space, shoving their cards in front of them so someone can pass it on to the security guard.
While my rock star representative is already a co-sponsor of the bill, I decided to visit the white Republican land of Lake County representatives. I tried to speak with the representatives where both sets of my parents live as well as the representative from where I grew up. Unfortunately, I was only able to get one representative, Sid Mathias (R-Arlington Heights) to come out and speak with me. I tried to explain to him how important this bill was, and he told me that he hadn't made his decision one way or another about the matter and that he was waiting for the debates and keeping an open mind. His tone of voice and demeanor gave me the impression that he's already decided to vote against the bill, but you never know.
So what happens next? We've been told that we only need about 12 more strong supporters before they feel comfortable to call a vote to this bill, which will probably happen in the end of May. Next, it goes to the Senate to be voted on some time in November. Once it passes through the Senate, Governor Rod Blagojevich will sign it into law. And that's it, folks. Civil Unions in Illinois for Christmas.
Want to help? Check out Equality Illinois and sign up for their updates. They're the ones with their fingers on the pulse of this issue and will let everyone know as soon as they know who we need to lobby again, when a vote will happen, and other ways to help. This is a huge deal. Please, try and do your part to be a part of Illinois and Midwest history.
Two steps back:
Just one day before we were lobbying for civil unions in Illinois, another bill was being debated on the floor, introduced by the aforementioned rock star representative of mine, Sara Feigenholtz (with help from the ACLU). This bill, called the Vital Records Act would have made easier for people to change the gender on their birth certificate after undergoing a sex change. Currently, Illinois law allows this to happen if the person presents an affidavit from the doctor who performed the procedure. This process, however, does not recognize affidavits from foreign doctors. This bill would have allowed US doctors to examine those interested and sign an affidavit affirming that they'd undergone a permanent sex change through surgery or hormone treatments. The bill failed by a vote of 32-78.
But wait, there's more. Three particular representatives, two Republicans and one Chicago Democrat (!!!), completely demeaned the bill and those it was supporting by saying outrageous comments on the floor, in public view. Here's a little snapshot of the incredibly asinine and insensitive things they said (taken from the Chicago Tribune article linked above):
Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican, said he objects to recognizing non-surgical sex changes. “Maybe you went somewhere and a voodoo doctor said you were now a man, where you had been a woman,” Black said. “I’ve often thought that perhaps I was a female trapped in a male body. I know — it scares me, too,” he said to hoots from his colleagues. “I wish I didn’t have to shave every day. … I’d like to smell better. I’d like to have softer skin.”
The legislation came up shortly after a debate about neutering deer to control their population. Mahomet Republican Rep. Chapin Rose, joked that the state might start issuing sex-change documents to deer. He complained about spending time on the issue when bigger problems, such as electricity prices, remain unresolved. “How do you possibly — possibly — bring this forward when there’s so much this body needs to be considering?” Rose asked Feigenholtz.
Rep. Art Turner, a Chicago Democrat, was presiding over the chamber during the debate and switched to a falsetto voice to ask, “Have all voted who wish?” Turner voted for the measure and said he didn’t mean to offend anyone.
Seriously, these guys run our state? This is absolutely unacceptable. If you live in Illinois, please write your representative and tell them how you won't stand for this kind of insensitivity and bigotry. Here's a sample text you can use:
Dear Representative __________:
The behavior that took place during the discussion of HB1732 is beyond disgusting and has no place in our House of Representatives. Rep. Bill Black (R-Danville) , Rep. Chapin Rose (R-Mohamet), and Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago) should be censored for their comments and actions.
It is this kind of hurtful language that dehumanizes people and perpetuates and legitimizes a culture of hate. Please let your "colleagues" know that people in your district are appalled. Did they not learn anything during the Imus incident?
Please if this ever happens again have the courage to stand up and stop it -- rules or no rules.
Sincerely,
(Your name here)
These people are in place because we made it so. They have an obligation to listen to us. They're not going to hear us if we don't speak up. Please do your part.
This past February, Illinois General Assembly Representative Greg Harris (D-Chicago), the only openly gay and HIV-positive representative in the Assembly, introduced the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act. This would make civil unions legal in Illinois. This is a pretty freakin' big deal. It would make Illinois the first state in the Midwest to have such a law, and it's very, very close to taking it's first giant step towards becoming a reality here. I spent this past Wednesday in Springfield lobbying with Equality Illinois for this cause. Lobbying is a really interesting process. Basically, when the representatives are in session and on the floor, you have to go to a roped-off door that leads to the floor. You then hand your business card with your rep's name on it to the security guard there, who gives it to a page, who gives it to the rep on the floor. If the rep is able, he/she comes out to speak with his/her constituent. Sounds like a very calm, regulated process, right? It would be, if there weren't at least ten other groups trying to lobby for different bills. It's pretty much a madhouse with people pushing against each other in a small space, shoving their cards in front of them so someone can pass it on to the security guard.
While my rock star representative is already a co-sponsor of the bill, I decided to visit the white Republican land of Lake County representatives. I tried to speak with the representatives where both sets of my parents live as well as the representative from where I grew up. Unfortunately, I was only able to get one representative, Sid Mathias (R-Arlington Heights) to come out and speak with me. I tried to explain to him how important this bill was, and he told me that he hadn't made his decision one way or another about the matter and that he was waiting for the debates and keeping an open mind. His tone of voice and demeanor gave me the impression that he's already decided to vote against the bill, but you never know.
So what happens next? We've been told that we only need about 12 more strong supporters before they feel comfortable to call a vote to this bill, which will probably happen in the end of May. Next, it goes to the Senate to be voted on some time in November. Once it passes through the Senate, Governor Rod Blagojevich will sign it into law. And that's it, folks. Civil Unions in Illinois for Christmas.
Want to help? Check out Equality Illinois and sign up for their updates. They're the ones with their fingers on the pulse of this issue and will let everyone know as soon as they know who we need to lobby again, when a vote will happen, and other ways to help. This is a huge deal. Please, try and do your part to be a part of Illinois and Midwest history.
Two steps back:
Just one day before we were lobbying for civil unions in Illinois, another bill was being debated on the floor, introduced by the aforementioned rock star representative of mine, Sara Feigenholtz (with help from the ACLU). This bill, called the Vital Records Act would have made easier for people to change the gender on their birth certificate after undergoing a sex change. Currently, Illinois law allows this to happen if the person presents an affidavit from the doctor who performed the procedure. This process, however, does not recognize affidavits from foreign doctors. This bill would have allowed US doctors to examine those interested and sign an affidavit affirming that they'd undergone a permanent sex change through surgery or hormone treatments. The bill failed by a vote of 32-78.
But wait, there's more. Three particular representatives, two Republicans and one Chicago Democrat (!!!), completely demeaned the bill and those it was supporting by saying outrageous comments on the floor, in public view. Here's a little snapshot of the incredibly asinine and insensitive things they said (taken from the Chicago Tribune article linked above):
Rep. Bill Black, a Danville Republican, said he objects to recognizing non-surgical sex changes. “Maybe you went somewhere and a voodoo doctor said you were now a man, where you had been a woman,” Black said. “I’ve often thought that perhaps I was a female trapped in a male body. I know — it scares me, too,” he said to hoots from his colleagues. “I wish I didn’t have to shave every day. … I’d like to smell better. I’d like to have softer skin.”
The legislation came up shortly after a debate about neutering deer to control their population. Mahomet Republican Rep. Chapin Rose, joked that the state might start issuing sex-change documents to deer. He complained about spending time on the issue when bigger problems, such as electricity prices, remain unresolved. “How do you possibly — possibly — bring this forward when there’s so much this body needs to be considering?” Rose asked Feigenholtz.
Rep. Art Turner, a Chicago Democrat, was presiding over the chamber during the debate and switched to a falsetto voice to ask, “Have all voted who wish?” Turner voted for the measure and said he didn’t mean to offend anyone.
Seriously, these guys run our state? This is absolutely unacceptable. If you live in Illinois, please write your representative and tell them how you won't stand for this kind of insensitivity and bigotry. Here's a sample text you can use:
Dear Representative __________:
The behavior that took place during the discussion of HB1732 is beyond disgusting and has no place in our House of Representatives. Rep. Bill Black (R-Danville) , Rep. Chapin Rose (R-Mohamet), and Rep. Art Turner (D-Chicago) should be censored for their comments and actions.
It is this kind of hurtful language that dehumanizes people and perpetuates and legitimizes a culture of hate. Please let your "colleagues" know that people in your district are appalled. Did they not learn anything during the Imus incident?
Please if this ever happens again have the courage to stand up and stop it -- rules or no rules.
Sincerely,
(Your name here)
These people are in place because we made it so. They have an obligation to listen to us. They're not going to hear us if we don't speak up. Please do your part.
Friday, April 13, 2007
ACTION NEEDED: Save An AMAZING Local Bookstore
For those of you in the Chicago area, you may or may not know about Women and Children First. It's one of the world's largest feminist bookstores, and it's located right here in Chicago, in the heart of Andersonville. This book store is absolutely amazing: the owners and staff are incredibly helpful and always willing to give suggestions. They host a number of different monthly book clubs, including an Inter-generational Feminist Book Club, A Teen Feminist Book Club, and a Religious Feminist Book Club. They host readings from well-known authors, both local and national, and Eve Ensler, my absolute idol and the founder of the V-Day movement and the Vagina Monologues, has spoken there multiple times. They are true supporters of Chicago non-profits. Every month, they sponsor a different non-profit that affects women's lives and not only set up a display of information about that organization, but they also donate 10% of their profits from that month to them.
But, as many of you may or may not know, local bookstores are in a total crisis right now. Due to super bookstore conglomerates like Barnes and Noble, Borders and Amazon.com, people have forgotten about their local bookstores, which were there, providing books loooooong before Barnes and Noble or Borders ever set up shop (Hey, wasn't there a movie about this?)
Here's an excerpt from an article in the amazing Windy City Times:
“People don’t know perhaps the breadth of our stock. They may well find things that they don’t expect to,” said co-owner Ann Christophersen. “Our identity has shifted a bit since moving to Andersonville. We still are a specialty—a feminist store. We carry a lot of books by and about women in a depth and breadth that you just won’t find at other general bookstores. But, since moving to this location, we’re functioning more as a neighborhood bookstore and Women & Children First doesn’t quite capture that fact. It just shows our focus, but not our entire store.”
Underscoring that statement is the fact that the store’s customer base is about 40 percent men. W&CF has a diverse stock of books, including some sports titles that, no doubt, would appeal to male consumers. W&CF also has a deep selection of contemporary politics and loads of fiction titles.“We certainly have a lot of male customers these days. Heck, there are times when there are only male [ customers ] in the store, and that wasn’t the case in the early days,” Christophersen said. “Our male customer-base has risen significantly over the years because we carry a very diverse selection of books.”
The staff at W&CF includes two full-timers, including Bubon, as well as six part-timers. The staff is knowledgeable, helpful and friendly. One thing that has affected independent bookstores over the past few years is a decline in sales—and W&CF is no exception. “At the end of the 1990s, we were at a good place [ financially ] ,” Bubon said. “We maintained [ that level ] for the first few years [ of the 2000s ] , but the last three years have been a downward trend in sales.” One factor hurting sales at W&CF is competition, of course. Borders Books & Music, for instance, has four locations—all within four miles of W&CF. The Internet is also a significant factor because it’s made book-shopping simple and cheaper, especially for those who know exactly what they want. “It’s extremely hard to compete with [ the Internet ] ,” Bubon said.
W&CF was one of the first Chicago-area bookstores to sell online, and it still does.“We’re working as smartly and operating as smartly as, frankly, we know how to,” Christophersen said. “We have done everything we can think of to cut our operating costs, including my salary.” Things have gotten so bad at W&CF that both confirm the store must now plan month-to-month, not long-term. And the possibility that W&CF might close before the end of the summer is very real, they confirmed. “What it ultimately comes down to is: whether people in the community, and the city as a whole, decide it matters enough that we exist and then make their shopping decisions based on that,” Christophersen said. “We want people’s support, and we need it now. By that we mean, that they buy their books here. “What we offer that none of the Internet sites offer is: an actual place where people can look at books they may be interested in, see other people, and hear book suggestions.”
Here are some helpful tips from one of the owners on how to save this store:
1. Choose to shop at our store. Besides great books, we also carry a hand-picked selection of new release independent music by women, jewelry, buttons and bumper stickers, all the cool magazines, and a children's section we are famous for.
2. Talk us up to your friends, or, better yet, bring them in.
3. When you attend free programs at our store, please buy a book! This not only supports our programming endeavors, it also supports the writer and tells the publisher that it is worthwhile to send their authors to us.
4. Sign up on our website for our free e-newsletter to keep up to date with what's happening at the store: www.womenandchildrenfirst.com
5. Be our MySpace friend and subscribe to our MySpace blog for same reason as above.
6. Become a bookstore member. Annual membership costs $25 and gets you 10% off of all your book purchases, plus inclusion in the annual member's-only sale and a free subscription to More Books For Women(a $35 value!), a monthly round-up of recommendations from feminist bookstores around the country. Keep up with the latest new releases!
7. Show your love: put us in your top "My Space" friends.
8. If you are in a position to do corporate gift giving, consider our "Books by the Box" program. We offer direct to business delivery and substantial discounts on 20 or more copies of a single book.
9. Support the Women's Voices Fund, our not-for-profit programming arm, which helps sustain our active free programming schedule. Donations of over $50 are tax deductible when made out the the Crossroads Foundation (they manage the Women's Voices Fund). This also helps insure the future and diversity of feminist programming in Chicago!
10. We can offer bulk discounts to libraries, social service organizations, schools, and more. If you have a bulk book order to place, come to us first.
11. Tell us what we need to do to be your dream bookstore. If there is anyway that we can serve you better, let us know. Your opinion matters to us. Our ability to meet your needs is essential right now to our survival. Help us make that happen!
12. For birthdays and holidays tell your friends and family that you want a Women & Children First Gift Card!
13. Repost this with your own testimonies, and share this info with your friends, colleagues, classmates, and strangers on the street.
My life in Chicago would be drastically different if it weren't for Women and Children First. This is just as much a local business and sustainability issue as it is a feminist issue. Please, try and help a struggling star stay burning bright admist the vast array of shiny, cold corporate supernovas.
But, as many of you may or may not know, local bookstores are in a total crisis right now. Due to super bookstore conglomerates like Barnes and Noble, Borders and Amazon.com, people have forgotten about their local bookstores, which were there, providing books loooooong before Barnes and Noble or Borders ever set up shop (Hey, wasn't there a movie about this?)
Here's an excerpt from an article in the amazing Windy City Times:
“People don’t know perhaps the breadth of our stock. They may well find things that they don’t expect to,” said co-owner Ann Christophersen. “Our identity has shifted a bit since moving to Andersonville. We still are a specialty—a feminist store. We carry a lot of books by and about women in a depth and breadth that you just won’t find at other general bookstores. But, since moving to this location, we’re functioning more as a neighborhood bookstore and Women & Children First doesn’t quite capture that fact. It just shows our focus, but not our entire store.”
Underscoring that statement is the fact that the store’s customer base is about 40 percent men. W&CF has a diverse stock of books, including some sports titles that, no doubt, would appeal to male consumers. W&CF also has a deep selection of contemporary politics and loads of fiction titles.“We certainly have a lot of male customers these days. Heck, there are times when there are only male [ customers ] in the store, and that wasn’t the case in the early days,” Christophersen said. “Our male customer-base has risen significantly over the years because we carry a very diverse selection of books.”
The staff at W&CF includes two full-timers, including Bubon, as well as six part-timers. The staff is knowledgeable, helpful and friendly. One thing that has affected independent bookstores over the past few years is a decline in sales—and W&CF is no exception. “At the end of the 1990s, we were at a good place [ financially ] ,” Bubon said. “We maintained [ that level ] for the first few years [ of the 2000s ] , but the last three years have been a downward trend in sales.” One factor hurting sales at W&CF is competition, of course. Borders Books & Music, for instance, has four locations—all within four miles of W&CF. The Internet is also a significant factor because it’s made book-shopping simple and cheaper, especially for those who know exactly what they want. “It’s extremely hard to compete with [ the Internet ] ,” Bubon said.
W&CF was one of the first Chicago-area bookstores to sell online, and it still does.“We’re working as smartly and operating as smartly as, frankly, we know how to,” Christophersen said. “We have done everything we can think of to cut our operating costs, including my salary.” Things have gotten so bad at W&CF that both confirm the store must now plan month-to-month, not long-term. And the possibility that W&CF might close before the end of the summer is very real, they confirmed. “What it ultimately comes down to is: whether people in the community, and the city as a whole, decide it matters enough that we exist and then make their shopping decisions based on that,” Christophersen said. “We want people’s support, and we need it now. By that we mean, that they buy their books here. “What we offer that none of the Internet sites offer is: an actual place where people can look at books they may be interested in, see other people, and hear book suggestions.”
Here are some helpful tips from one of the owners on how to save this store:
1. Choose to shop at our store. Besides great books, we also carry a hand-picked selection of new release independent music by women, jewelry, buttons and bumper stickers, all the cool magazines, and a children's section we are famous for.
2. Talk us up to your friends, or, better yet, bring them in.
3. When you attend free programs at our store, please buy a book! This not only supports our programming endeavors, it also supports the writer and tells the publisher that it is worthwhile to send their authors to us.
4. Sign up on our website for our free e-newsletter to keep up to date with what's happening at the store: www.womenandchildrenfirst.com
5. Be our MySpace friend and subscribe to our MySpace blog for same reason as above.
6. Become a bookstore member. Annual membership costs $25 and gets you 10% off of all your book purchases, plus inclusion in the annual member's-only sale and a free subscription to More Books For Women(a $35 value!), a monthly round-up of recommendations from feminist bookstores around the country. Keep up with the latest new releases!
7. Show your love: put us in your top "My Space" friends.
8. If you are in a position to do corporate gift giving, consider our "Books by the Box" program. We offer direct to business delivery and substantial discounts on 20 or more copies of a single book.
9. Support the Women's Voices Fund, our not-for-profit programming arm, which helps sustain our active free programming schedule. Donations of over $50 are tax deductible when made out the the Crossroads Foundation (they manage the Women's Voices Fund). This also helps insure the future and diversity of feminist programming in Chicago!
10. We can offer bulk discounts to libraries, social service organizations, schools, and more. If you have a bulk book order to place, come to us first.
11. Tell us what we need to do to be your dream bookstore. If there is anyway that we can serve you better, let us know. Your opinion matters to us. Our ability to meet your needs is essential right now to our survival. Help us make that happen!
12. For birthdays and holidays tell your friends and family that you want a Women & Children First Gift Card!
13. Repost this with your own testimonies, and share this info with your friends, colleagues, classmates, and strangers on the street.
My life in Chicago would be drastically different if it weren't for Women and Children First. This is just as much a local business and sustainability issue as it is a feminist issue. Please, try and help a struggling star stay burning bright admist the vast array of shiny, cold corporate supernovas.
Maybe This Will Help Grease the Wheels...
First of all, thanks to Robby for showing me this article in the most recent issue of Mother Jones:
The Gay Marriage Stimulus Package
Cameron Scott March 01 , 2007
Gay marriage is usually cast as an issue of human rights (for supporters) or immorality (for opponents), but what about fiscal responsibility? Herewith, some of the annual economic benefits of legalizing gay marriage:
- Same-sex couples marry and move into a higher tax bracket, boosting federal taxes by: $400 to $700 million
- Newly formed gay households move up in income and are cut from programs such as Medicaid, resulting in savings of: $50 to $200 million
- Uninsured gays and lesbians, whose health care costs are now paid by the government, join their spouses’ insurance plans. If a third do so, federal costs drop by: $190 million
- If half the same-sex couples now living together get married (the rate seen in Vermont and Massachusetts) and spend a quarter of what straight couples do, it results in a wedding-industry boon of: $2 billion
- TOTAL: Up to $3.1 billion
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Williams Institute
Who thinks that will help convince Congress? Anyone? Funnily enough, these stats were developed using information from the Congressional Budget Office, meaning that those folks up there on the hill have access to it pretty easily. I wonder why it hasn't come up at all?
In more local news, I'll be down in Springfield next week with Equality Illinois lobbying for the passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Union Act, which would extend legal recognition and many benefits of civil marriage to same sex couples. The fact that it made it his far in the Illinois government is pretty exciting. Check out the Equality Illinois site to see what you can do to help.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Forcing Your Opinions on Your Offspring
I was walking down Madison St. the other day on my way to work from the train station, just minding my own business and letting the cold city weather wake me up, when, after crossing over the river, I found myself face-to-face with a 6-ft. tall anti-abortion sign. It was an enormous poster of a dead fetus next to a ruler with the words ABORTION written across the top. I look another five feet down the street and see another sign, and then another, and another, every five feet going down Madison. Some of the protesters had pamphlets that they were handing out to passers-by, but most just stood their defiantly with their signs. Not something I really want to be seeing at 8:00 am on my way to work.
Now, I respect every American's right to protest and understand that there are many others in the world that don't have such a right. I've been a part of a few myself, and hope to be part of many more in the future. I even respect the rights of those whose opinions I disagree with 1000%, such as the group mentioned above. That's not what this post is about. As I turned the corner off of Madison, I passed a pile of the abortion signs all on the sidewalk, waiting to be picked up by more protesters. On top of this pile of signs was a boy who couldn't have been older than eight or nine years old. Sitting on top of pile of 6-ft. signs with aborted babies on them. This is what I found to be extremely inappropriate. First of all, it was a pretty chilly morning, so this kid couldn't have been very happy. Second of all, he's just a kid!! Thank goodness he was sitting on a pile of graphic pictures of aborted babies rather than listening to rap music or watching The Sopranos.
I'm all about parents educating their children about the ways of the world, but I think there's a tactfulness to it that obviously the parent of this child was missing. Let them grow and develop their own views instead of forcing them into a very controversial issue that they won't understand for years. I love my parents and am unbelievably grateful that they tried their hardest not to force their values on me and instead let me be influenced by them in my own way. While we have our disagreements and differences of opinion, there is always a respect that I believe was fostered when they let me figure things out on my own. If this kid is getting this kind of rhetoric shoved down his throat at age nine, is it really going to help their cause, or just push him to the "other side"?
Now, I respect every American's right to protest and understand that there are many others in the world that don't have such a right. I've been a part of a few myself, and hope to be part of many more in the future. I even respect the rights of those whose opinions I disagree with 1000%, such as the group mentioned above. That's not what this post is about. As I turned the corner off of Madison, I passed a pile of the abortion signs all on the sidewalk, waiting to be picked up by more protesters. On top of this pile of signs was a boy who couldn't have been older than eight or nine years old. Sitting on top of pile of 6-ft. signs with aborted babies on them. This is what I found to be extremely inappropriate. First of all, it was a pretty chilly morning, so this kid couldn't have been very happy. Second of all, he's just a kid!! Thank goodness he was sitting on a pile of graphic pictures of aborted babies rather than listening to rap music or watching The Sopranos.
I'm all about parents educating their children about the ways of the world, but I think there's a tactfulness to it that obviously the parent of this child was missing. Let them grow and develop their own views instead of forcing them into a very controversial issue that they won't understand for years. I love my parents and am unbelievably grateful that they tried their hardest not to force their values on me and instead let me be influenced by them in my own way. While we have our disagreements and differences of opinion, there is always a respect that I believe was fostered when they let me figure things out on my own. If this kid is getting this kind of rhetoric shoved down his throat at age nine, is it really going to help their cause, or just push him to the "other side"?
Monday, February 05, 2007
Conservatives: Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
From CNN Today: Ballot Measure: Straight couples, procreate or else
Basically, these people in Washington are saying, "OK, fine. If marriage is all about the procreation, let's see it." I think this is a great example of creative thinking and turning some one's words against them. I understand that most conservatives have other issues with gay marriage, but I feel like this addresses a large part of the argument. There are plenty of married couples without children in this world, and the number is rising:
Basically, these people in Washington are saying, "OK, fine. If marriage is all about the procreation, let's see it." I think this is a great example of creative thinking and turning some one's words against them. I understand that most conservatives have other issues with gay marriage, but I feel like this addresses a large part of the argument. There are plenty of married couples without children in this world, and the number is rising:
- In 1970, 27.4% of women ages 50-54 had at least one minor child of their own in their household. By 2000, it had fallen to 15.4%.
- In 1976, one in ten women in their forties was childless. In 2004, it was almost one in five women who were childless.
So, there it is. Marriage isn't about procreation anymore. It's about a lot more than that, and if you don't agree, then sign onto this bill in Washington and see how many marriages become annulled, or even worse, how many married couples have children even though they didn't want to, just to prove that marriage exists only for procreation.
No worries- even the people who introduced this bill know that it's absurd. But they're making a point and they're making it loud and clear. Just the other day I was lamenting about how our generation lacks the passion and the energy that was found in the activists and protests of the 60s. These kinds of happenings gives me hope for our generation.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
A Great Day in Women's History
I'm sure most of you know what today was- the swearing in of the 110th Congress, which is pretty historic in its own right (1st Democratic majority in what, 12 years?). However, the most important part of this day would definitley be the election of Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House (Check out her inspirational speech here). Did anyone catch the fact that she's the first woman to hold this position?
Guess what that means? That's right. She's third in line for the presidency. Now, I know that there has never been an instance where the Speaker has had to assume the position of the President, but with so many organizations formed solely to impeach both Bush AND Cheney, it really makes you think. I know that these organizations have very, very, very little chance in succeeding to impeach both Bush and Cheney, especially with only 2 years left of this reign of terror, but there's still that question lingering in the air: Is America ready for a female president?
An interesting note: Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Unlike other Dems like John Kerry, she has never expressed regret over it or a wish to change her vote. Some say that it's because she's a woman who may be running for president. If she says she regrets the decision or wishes she could change her vote, that paints her as a big wishy-washy woman. Chew on that.
I'm working on a big Hilary vs. Barack blog, but I'm gonna wait until one (or both) actually declare candidacy. Until then, I'll leave you with my gut feelings so far: At this point, it's not a question of whether or not America's ready for a female president. It's about whether or not America is ready for Hilary Clinton as president.
Guess what that means? That's right. She's third in line for the presidency. Now, I know that there has never been an instance where the Speaker has had to assume the position of the President, but with so many organizations formed solely to impeach both Bush AND Cheney, it really makes you think. I know that these organizations have very, very, very little chance in succeeding to impeach both Bush and Cheney, especially with only 2 years left of this reign of terror, but there's still that question lingering in the air: Is America ready for a female president?
An interesting note: Hillary voted for the war in Iraq. Unlike other Dems like John Kerry, she has never expressed regret over it or a wish to change her vote. Some say that it's because she's a woman who may be running for president. If she says she regrets the decision or wishes she could change her vote, that paints her as a big wishy-washy woman. Chew on that.
I'm working on a big Hilary vs. Barack blog, but I'm gonna wait until one (or both) actually declare candidacy. Until then, I'll leave you with my gut feelings so far: At this point, it's not a question of whether or not America's ready for a female president. It's about whether or not America is ready for Hilary Clinton as president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
