Biggest corporate tax dodger – unbelievable

Subject: Biggest corporate tax dodger – unbelievable

Hi,

It’s crazy, but the New York Times reported that while GE made over $14.2 billion in profits last year, they didn’t pay any federal tax. In fact, they got $3.2 billion in taxes back, from all of us taxpayers. I can tell you, as I sit down to do my taxes now, that really had me steamed.

And the tax loopholes that GE spent millions lobbying for keep their profits and jobs overseas, while they cut health care and retirement benefits for American workers. That had me absolutely sick.

The worst part is, GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, was appointed chair of President Obama’s Jobs Council—to advise the President on things like American workers and corporate tax. It’s just perverse. 

That’s why I signed a petition to get America’s Chief Executive Tax Dodger, Jeff Immelt, off the President’s Job Council. Can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/immelt_must-go/?r_by=26713-18149278-xXQXgxx&rc=confemail

Thanks!

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation Fact Sheet

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation Fact Sheet:

Take Action: Defend NPR & Join the “Muppet Lobby”

Take Action:  Defend NPR & Join the “Muppet Lobby”

Well, we’re only a few weeks into the 112th Congress, and already Republicans are trying to pull the plug on public media.  They’ve announced a budget plan to ZERO out all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the nonprofit responsible for funding public media including NPR, PBS, Pacifica and more.

Fortunately, we’re working with our friends at CREDO and a number of other allies to fight back.  And over 400,000 people have already signed our petition to Congress to fully fund NPR and defend public service media.  Wow! 

Join them: Take action, spread the word (forward this email, share on FB, tweet it, etc.), and fight back.

National public broadcasting is remarkably cost effective, providing local news and information free of charge for millions of viewers — while only receiving about .0001% of the federal budget (that’s right — less than one ten-thousandth of a percent).

Oh, and not only is the Republican leadership trying to gut funding, they are openly mocking supporters of NPR and PBS.  Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina not only vowed to pursue the cuts, he derieded supporters of PBS as the “Muppet lobby.”  

Well, we’ve got our own message for Senator DeMint:  Muppet Lobby?  You BET we are!  If we have to choose between “Big Bird” and “Big Oil,” we know where we stand.  

And you can tell him that yourself:  Take action at Left Action, sign our petition, and tell Senator DeMint, “I Stand with the Muppet Lobby!” 

And a reminder, if you want to get even more involved with Left Action, here are other steps you can take:

Thanks again.

Sincerely, 

John Hlinko and the Left Action team

http://LeftAction.com
http://Facebook.com/LeftAction
http://Twitter.com/LeftAction

12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin

12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin

 
Public workers and supporters picketing the mansion of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, February 13, 2011

What’s happening in Wisconsin is not complicated. At the beginning of this year, the state was on course to end 2011 with a budget surplus of $120 million. As Ezra Klein explained, newly elected GOP Governor Scott Walker then ” signed two business tax breaks and a conservative health-care policy experiment that lowers overall tax revenues (among other things). The new legislation was not offset, and it turned a surplus into a deficit.”

Walker then used the deficit he’d created as the justification for assaulting his state’s public employees. He used a law cooked up by a right-wing advocacy group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC likes to fly beneath the radar, but I described the organization in a 2005 article as “the connective tissue that links state legislators with right-wing think tanks, leading anti-tax activists and corporate money.” Similar laws are on the table in Ohio and Indiana.

Walker’s bill would strip public employees of the right to bargain collectively for anything but higher pay (and would cap the amount of wage hikes they might end up gaining in negotiations). His intentions are clear — before assuming office, Walker threatened to decertify the state’s employees’ unions (until he discovered that the governor doesn’t have that power).

But he’s spinning the measure as something else — a bitter pill state workers must swallow in order to save Wisconsin’s government. So the first things you need to know are:

1. Wisconsin’s public workers  have already “made sacrifices to help balance the budget, through 16 unpaid furlough days and no pay increases the past two years,” according to the Associated Press. The unions know their members are going to have to make concessions on benefits, but they rightly see the assault on their fundamental right to negotiate as an act of war.

2. There are already 13 states that restrict public workers’ bargaining rights and it hasn’t helped their bottom lines. As Ed Kilgore notes,  “eight non-collective-bargaining states face larger budget shortfalls than either Wisconsin or Ohio,” and ” three of the 13 non-collective bargaining states are among the eleven states facing budget shortfalls at or above 20%.” 

3. This isn’t just about public employees. What even a majority of the protesters don’t know is that Walker’s law would also place all of the state’s Medicaid funding in the hands of the governor.  State senator Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton — one of the Dem law-makers who fled the state to block a vote on the bill — told local media that this amounted to “substantial Medicaid changes” that put “the governor, all of a sudden… in charge of Medicaid, which is SeniorCare, which is BadgerCare …and he has never once said what he intends to do” with those programs. But the provision led journalist Suzie Madrak to conclude that “the end game for all this is to defund state Medicaid programs and make it impossible to serve as part of the new health care safety net.”

4. Health-care costs, rather than workers’ greed, are what has driven up the price of employees’ benefits. But generally speaking, those public sector health-care costs have grown at a slower clip than in the private sector.

5. Public employees’ pensions account for just 6 percent of state budgets.

This has nothing to do with the state’s fiscal picture. Aside from potentially undermining Wisconsin’s public health-care system, it’s really about destroying the last bastion of unionism in the American economy: public employees. As Addie Stan wrote on AlterNet’s front page:

 

Walker is carrying out the wishes of his corporate master, David Koch, who calls the tune these days for Wisconsin Republicans. Walker is just one among many Wisconsin Republicans supported by Koch Industries — run by David Koch and his brother, Charles — and Americans For Prosperity, the astroturf group founded and funded by David Koch. The Koch brothers are hell-bent on destroying the labor movement once and for all.

Consider these facts:

6. Last year, more working people belonged to a union in the public sector (7.9 million) than in the private (7.4 million), despite the fact that corporate America employs five times the number of wage-earners.  37 percent of government workers belong to a union, compared with just 7 percent of private-sector employees.

7. Whether in the public or private sector, union workers earn, on average, 20 percent more than their non-unionized counterparts. They also have richer retirement and health benefits — the “union compensation premium” rises to almost 30 percent when you include those bennies.

That workers can still negotiate from a position of strength somewhere in the US is simply unacceptable to the right, and that’s what this is about. As you might expect, the tool they’re using in their campaign is a pack full of lies and distortions about public employees. Here are some answers to those falsehoods:

8. Public sector workers have, on average, more experience and higher levels of education than their counterparts in the private sector (they are twice as likely to have a college degree). 

9. When you adjust for those factors, they make, on average, 4 percent less than their private-sector counterparts.

10. Like any group of workers with a high union density, they have better benefits, on average. But even including those benefits,   state and local employees still make less in total compensation than they would doing the same work in the private sector.

11. In 2007, the average pension for a public sector worker was $22,000. Not exactly caviar dreams.

12. Many public employees are not eligible for Social Security — those pensions, and whatever they can put away on their own, is all that they’ll have in their golden years.

(Unless otherwise indicated, you can find links to the data for all of the above in my piece, “Right-Wingers Using Public Employees as 21st-Century Welfare Queens.”)

The Right has made great political progress getting Americans to ask the question: “How come that guy’s getting what I don’t have?” It’s the crux of the politics of grievance. Progressives need to get Americans to ask a different question: “What’s keeping me from getting what that guy has?” At least part of the answer is the Right’s decades-long assault on private sector workers’ ability to organize, and the latest battle is being waged in Wisconsin.

 

By Joshua Holland | Sourced from AlterNet

Posted at February 18, 2011, 1:12 pm

submit to reddit
17diggsdigg

2663Share

See more stories tagged with: union-busting, alec, kochs, walker, unions, wisconsin

Public workers and supporters picketing the mansion of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, February 13, 2011

PROGRESSIVE WIRE
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 States With the Worst Eating Habits
Charles B. Stockdale, Douglas A. McIntyre, Michael B. Sauter, 24/7 Wall St.
Chomsky: Uprising in the USA?
Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Democracy Now!

 

America’s Food Sweatshops and the Workers of Color Who Feed UsUS Vetoes UN Resolution Condemning Illegal Israeli Settlements — Will the Palestinians End Up Benefiting From the Move?Are We Headed For Massive Oil Price Spikes? Leaked Cables Claim Saudi Oil Reserves Grossly OverstatedWhy Are Some Pundits and Politicans Hell-Bent on Underminig Social Security, in Spite of Its Success and Strength?Hope Deferred: Life Under Zimbabwe’s Cruel DictatorWhat the Right-wing Assault on Women, Unions, the Environment, Health Care and PBS Is All About The Real Reason Glenn Beck Hates Google12 Things You Need to Know About the Uprising in Wisconsin

How To File A Complaint With GLAAD

How to Report an incident  to GLAAD:

info@glaad.org

Report Media Defamation

GLAAD communicates with many editors, reporters and producers about media coverage both problematic and commendable. GLAAD needs your help in ensuring we are able to respond to the greatest number of important instances of media defamation.

Please report unfair or defamatory coverage by emailing incident@glaad.org with the information below.

Your name and email address
The city and state you reside in
Your phone number (optional)
Date of the incident
Detailed description of the incident (please include web addresses/URLs if possible)
We thank you for your help in fighting defamation in the media.

Are you reporting an incident on Facebook?
If you find words or images that violate Facebook’s terms of service , please take the following actions before reporting it to GLAAD:

1. Click “Flag” under the comment or photo.
2. Click “Report” to report it as abusive.
3. Choose “Contains hate speech or attacks an individual”, then choose “Targets based on gender or orientation” (or choose another category if appropriate).
Your reports will be sent to Facebook’s monitoring team, and they will remove violations of the terms of service–which include threats of violence and graphic photos. After you have reported the incident to Facebook using their reporting tools, please wait 24 hours to see if the offensive content has been removed. If it has not, please report it to facebook incident@glaad.org with the information below.

Your name and email address
The city and state you reside in
Your phone number (optional)
Date of the incident
Web address (URL) of incident
Please see Facebook’s Network of Support  for more information.

Thank you

Tell the U.S. Supreme Court to Condemn NOM’s Abhorrent Tactics in Iowa

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) set its political bulls-eye on three Iowa Supreme Court justices who were part of the unanimous 2009 decision which found that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. All three lost on Election Day.

This was a cruel and calculated warning shot to judges nationwide: Either rule according to our radical, anti-gay ideology or we’ll come get you.

Please add your name to our open letter calling on U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to condemn NOM and its allies – and declare that judges must not be intimidated into ruling based on biased special-interest politics.

After you sign the letter, you’ll be able to share this on Facebook and Twitter.

Dear Chief Justice John Roberts,

As you know, three of Iowa’s Supreme Court justices lost their seats last week in the judicial retention election. All three were aggressively targeted by a cynical political campaign run by the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its allies because of a single, unanimous ruling. In 2009, the full court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Iowa.

You might also know that the three justices, who faced a barrage of television ads, refused to mount a counter attack because of the message it might send to litigants who appear before them. The judicial retention election, established in 1962, was designed to address gross misconduct, not punish judges for one ruling. In fact, only four other judges have lost their seats and, until last Tuesday, none of them from the state’s highest court.

NOM’s non-stop campaign made voters believe that ousting the justices would destroy same-sex marriage in Iowa. Of course, same-sex marriage remains law in Iowa and will not be impacted by whomever the new governor selects for the bench.

In fact, NOM admits its Iowa campaign had nothing to do with Iowa. This one judicial retention election, the organization said, would “send a clear signal to the Supreme Court and other judges that they don’t have the right to make up the law out of thin air. If the people of Iowa… remove these judges, there will be reverberations throughout the country all the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

This is clear intimidation meant to be heard hundreds and thousands of miles away from Waterloo, Des Moines or Dubuque. It’s meant to shatter judicial independence everywhere.

The Iowa State Bar Association had determined that each of the three justices was “well qualified,” meaning all three “avoid undue personal observations or criticisms [and they] decide cases on the basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence.” This was nothing short of a political ambush on our courts.

NOM bludgeoned the very foundation of the American jurisprudence court system on Election night. We urge you to condemn the National Organization for Marriage and its allies for this type of dangerous and unprecedented attack on an independent judiciary. We ask you to remind Americans that a judiciary attacked and brought down by such biased politics threatens our very democracy.

 

Add your name

*Required fields

Choose a Country United States Canada Mexico Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia-Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Fiji Finland Former Czechoslovakia Former USSR France French Guyana French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Great Britain Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe (French) Guam (USA) Guatemala Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Ivory Coast (Cote D’Ivoire) Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kuwait Kyrgyz Republic (Kyrgyzstan) Laos Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macau Macedonia Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique (French) Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia Moldavia Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia (French) New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands North Korea Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Island Poland Polynesia (French) Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion (French) Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts & Nevis Anguilla Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Tome and Principe Saint Vincent & Grenadines Samoa San Marino Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles S. Georgia & S. Sandwich Isls. Sierra Leone Singapore Slovak Republic Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Tadjikistan Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom Uruguay USA Minor Outlying Islands Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Virgin Islands (British) Virgin Islands (USA) Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zaire Zambia Zimbabwe

1.  
  We’d like to know more about our members and supporters. Please take a moment to answer these quick questions. Your information is strictly confidential; it will not be shared with any third parties.
2.
Please select response Man Woman Woman/Transgender MTF Trans Man/Transgender FTM Genderqueer Prefer not to say
3.
Please select response Lesbian Gay Bisexual Heterosexual/Straight Queer Other Prefer not to say

You’ll receive email updates from HRC. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Message

Appalling actions

Dear Human Rights Campaign,

Dear Chief Justice John Roberts,

As you know, three of Iowa’s Supreme Court justices lost their seats last week in the judicial retention election. All three were aggressively targeted by a cynical political campaign run by the Washington, D.C.-based National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and its allies because of a single, unanimous ruling. In 2009, the full court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Iowa.

You might also know that the three justices, who faced a barrage of television ads, refused to mount a counter attack because of the message it might send to litigants who appear before them. The judicial retention election, established in 1962, was designed to address gross misconduct, not punish judges for one ruling. In fact, only four other judges have lost their seats and, until last Tuesday, none of them from the state’s highest court.

NOM’s non-stop campaign made voters believe that ousting the justices would destroy same-sex marriage in Iowa. Of course, same-sex marriage remains law in Iowa and will not be impacted by whomever the new governor selects for the bench.

In fact, NOM admits its Iowa campaign had nothing to do with Iowa. This one judicial retention election, the organization said, would “send a clear signal to the Supreme Court and other judges that they don’t have the right to make up the law out of thin air. If the people of Iowa…remove these judges, there will be reverberations throughout the country all the way to the United States Supreme Court.”

This is clear intimidation meant to be heard hundreds and thousands of miles away from Waterloo, Des Moines or Dubuque. It’s meant to shatter judicial independence everywhere.

The Iowa State Bar Association had determined that each of the three justices was “well qualified,” meaning all three “avoid undue personal observations or criticisms [and they] decide cases on the basis of applicable law and fact, not affected by outside influence.” This was nothing short of a political ambush on our courts.

NOM bludgeoned the very foundation of the American jurisprudence court system on Election night. We urge you to condemn the National Organization for Marriage and its allies for this type of dangerous and unprecedented attack on an independent judiciary. We ask you to remind Americans that a judiciary attacked and brought down by such biased politics threatens our very democracy.

Signed,

A Message From the William J. Clinton Foundation

 

  View this email as a web page.
Clinton Foundation

Gail,

Last week, hundreds of people sent thought-provoking questions and thoughts about the world’s most pressing challenges. And now, in a special YouTube appearance, President Clinton has some answers.

Watch President Clinton answer questions in his new video about the challenges our world faces.

President Clinton
And it’s not too late to send us your thoughts about the issues confronting your community and your planet and have them answered by luminaries like Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times; Lance Armstrong, Founder and Chairman of LIVESTRONG; President of Haiti René Préval; and more at this year’s Clinton Global Initiative plenary sessions.

You can even tune in to see these panels in action on Tuesday and Wednesday — and maybe even hear the answer to your question — online at www.clintonglobalinitiative.org.

President Clinton founded CGI in 2005 with the hope of finding real solutions to some of the most dire global problems. Every conference attendee — influential business leaders, heads of state, entertainers — is asked to make a commitment to solve a specific global challenge and then to deliver on that commitment.

Your question could be the one that inspires an entire panel of leaders as they make their own commitments to act.

Check out President Clinton’s YouTube video.

And then, send in your own write-in or video questions today.

For 5 years, the Clinton Global Initiative has been pioneering a new brand of international activism — the kind that goes beyond heady speeches and results in concrete solutions. But the best answers start with one common denominator: a good question. Please ask yours today.

Thank you!

The Clinton Foundation

P.S. Watch President Clinton answer some of Jon Stewart’s own questions in his Daily Show appearance last week.

Sign Up for Email UpdatesDONATE  TODAYForward To A Friend

Share on: Twitter   Facebook     Digg


The Clinton Foundation seeks to address some of the world’s more pressing challenges — from global climate change to extreme poverty — through collaborative and systematic effort.


William J. Clinton Foundation • 55 West 125th St. •  New York, NY 10027

This email was sent to . If you no longer wish to receive emails from us, please unsubscribe.

Johnny Weir Wins Visibility Award From Human Rights Campaign

 
 
Source for this Blog:  Human Rights Campain Seattle
AsOne
Guest Speakers & Award Recipients
Johnny Weir Johnny Weir
Visibility Award Recipient

At the age of 26, three-time U.S. champion and two-time Olympian Johnny Weir is one of the superstars of figure skating and an emerging pop-culture icon. Fans all over the world love his elegant yet edgy style both on and off the ice. Born in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, Johnny did not start skating until the relatively late age of 12, when he taught himself how to skate on frozen cornfields behind his home. Just four years later, he won the gold medal at the 2001 World Junior Championships.

Remarkably, Johnny claimed his first senior U.S. national championship in 2004, and successfully defended his title in 2005. In 2006, Johnny captured his third consecutive national championship, earning a spot on the U.S. Olympic team. At his very first Olympic Games in Torino, Italy, Johnny placed an impressive second in the short program, and finished fifth overall. Johnny evolved as a media darling during the Games, and was described by many journalists as "the best quote at the Olympics."

Johnny went on to win the bronze medal at the 2008 World Championships-the only medal won by a member of Team USA at that competition.

In 2010, Johnny made the U.S. Olympic team for the second time and represented his country in the Olympic Games in Vancouver, once again capturing the hearts of millions. Post-Olympics, Johnny has put his fame to good use, appearing at various benefits and charity events across the U.S. while also performing in skating shows throughout the world. He is the star of his own reality series, Be Good Johnny Weir, on the Sundance Channel, for which he won the 2010 NewNowNext Award for Most Addictive Reality Star. Most recently, he won U.S. Figure Skating’s 2010 Readers’ Choice Award for Skater of the Year (Michelle Kwan Trophy). He is the only skater other than Michelle Kwan to be honored with this award more than once.

Johnny is known around the globe as the "people’s skater," and continues to win the hearts of new fans with every appearance.

Janice Langbehn Janice Langbehn
Equality Award Recipient

Janice Langbehn was born and raised in Spokane, WA. She is a 1986 graduate of Lewis and Clark High School. Following HS, she attended the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma. While attending UPS, she met Lisa Marie Pond in 1988 and then began dating in 1989. Lisa graduated from UPS with a BA in Psychology in 1989 followed by Janice in 1990 with a BA in Psychology also. Janice as well as Lisa dedicated their early careers to working with Developmentally Delayed adults in Group Homes, Apartment settings and respite providers. On October 12, 1991, Janice and Lisa were united in Holy Union with friends and family present.

Janice and Lisa knew they wanted to start a family together and realizing the enormous need for foster parents, became the first openly gay foster parents in their county in 1992. Within 3 days of receiving their license, they had a 14yr old girl placed with them. They eventually became Rose’s legal guardians even though they were only 10 years older than her. Rose went on to Graduate from school and now is employed in the Child Care industry. Over the years Janice and Lisa foster 25 children. When they began adopting in 1996 it was clear that Lisa wanted to be a ‘stay at home mom’ and so on just Janice’s income, Lisa dedicated her life to raising abused and neglected children. Of the 25 children they fostered, they adopted 4 children – 2 sibling groups. Their children all have special needs from drug exposure to HIV exposure to developmental delays.

Janice began working for DSHS for the State of Washington for the next 16 years first as a Sex Offender treatment provider in a juvenile prison. Seeing the need to interview earlier in a child’s life, Janice became a Child Protection Social Work in Tacoma and worked there until promoted to a SW supervisor. While working full time, Janice completed her first Master’s in Public Administration in 1995 while Lisa was working tirelessly with their guardianship daughter, Rose. Janice continued to move up in Child Welfare Services including numerous individual and team awards for outstanding work statewide. In 1997 in the middle of adopting their 4 children, Janice was accepted to the University of Washington Master in Social Work Program. Again, Janice worked full-time, Lisa remained at home actively involved in every aspect of their children’s lives which allowed Janice to attend her Master’s at night which she completed in 2000.

Janice was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis in April 1999 on the day of their last adoption. While the couple still fostered children, they decided given the uncertain nature of MS, they would not adopt any more children. From 1996 until Lisa’s untimely death in 2007, she was so involved with their children lives. She did all the younger children’s HIV appointments in Seattle (both were determined to be HIV negative). Lisa taught all the children’s first communion classes at their Catholic Parish. Lisa also volunteered several hours in each child’s classroom every week. Lisa then became the volunteer coordinator for the children’s elementary school. At the same time she had started a girl scout troop when Danielle, their oldest daughter, was in Kindergarten. In the end, the troop swelled to 27 girls at the time of Lisa’s passing.

In October 2006, Janice surprised Lisa and the children with a 15 year anniversary gift with a trip to Miami for February 2007 and then a cruise on the Rfamily cruise to the the Bahamas. Janice, Lisa and 3 of their children traveled to Miami in mid February 2007. After boarding the cruise ship, meeting Kelli Carpenter and having lunch, Lisa went to watch the children play basketball on the top deck. Within 20 minutes, the kids were banging on the stateroom door to alert Janice that Lisa was ill. Janice knew immediately from her own ER work as a social worker that her life partner was gravely ill. The ship was held up at the port and Lisa was transported to Jackson Memorial Ryder Trauma Center. Janice and the children followed minutes behind. Upon arrival, Janice’s first contact with a staff at JMH was the trauma Social Worker who informed Janice was in "an anti-gay city and state" and would not know of Lisa’s condition or see her. Janice and Lisa had prepared for any medical emergencies given Janice’s MS diagnoses. Janice reached friends who faxed the couples Medical POA within 20 minutes of hearing from the social worker. However what happened over the ensuing eight hours became the defining moment for the Langbehn-Pond family and ultimately, Lisa was forced by JMH to die completely alone without her partner or children by her side to comfort her. Lisa died on 2/19/07. Lisa’s wishes were to donate her organs and her heart, liver and kidney enabled four individuals a second chance at life.

Janice began speaking out about the horrendous treatment just 4 months after the tragedy. Since 2007, Janice has spoken out to groups large and small to change the policies at Jackson Memorial and other hospitals so that no other family faced the homophobia they did. Janice became a client of Lambda Legal and a Federal suit was filed against JMH in June 2008. However, the Judge dismissed the suit on 9/29/09. While the Judge agreed the treatment the Langbehn-Pond suffered at JMH was "unbecoming" there was no Florida law to allow for Remedy. Not deterred from this set back, Janice continued to speak out about the injustice as more stories surfaced from around the country of similar mistreatment of same sex families in hospital settings.

On April 15, 2010, Janice received a call from President Obama who apologized for the treatment her family received and described the Presidential Memorandum he had sent to HHS to direct Federal Regulations to change to allow same-sex couples the same hospital visitation rights as other families. While this change could have ended Janice’s desire to speak out, she feels it is the first step in the educational process in equality for all.

DJ Barbarella DJ Barbarella
After Party DJ

The glamorous DJ Barbarella is one bonafide life of the party. Her magnetic smile and decadent style is the perfect match to her infectious selections on the decks!

An unforgettable backpacking trip to Europe in 1998 exposed DJ Barbarella to the explosion of underground club scenes that inspired her to dive headfirst into dance and electronic music. Within the next year, Barbarella went from promoter to club owner in Seattle. Miraculously, she never picked up a record or headphones until 2005, when she joined a swanky yet festive DJ residency called Secret Agent Sundays at Seattle’s Capitol Club. Within a year, Barbarella’s enthusiastic presence behind the decks and insatiable appetite to expand upon her ever-growing record collection compelled her notoriety to deeply permeate the Seattle club scene.

Never one for simplicity, Barbarella expertly plays a wide array of genres to get the party started right. From electro to soul, disco to house, and funk to indie dance, the Barbarella sound knows no boundaries – yet can adjust for the party you want to have!

Barbarella has played Neumo’s, Re-bar, Chop Suey, Alibi Room, War Room, Heavens, ETG, Funhouse, Bellevue Arts Museum, and the Pampas Room at El Gaucho. She has shared the stage with an amalgam of DJs and performers such as L.A. Kendall, Julia, Mark Siano & the Freedom Dancers, People’s Republic of Komedy, Get Loaded, Anita Goodman Experience, Problematic, Queen Lucky, Deejay Jack, Verse, Recess, Edis, Wasabi, DJ Joy, among many others.

DJ Barbarella is truly outta this world!!

http://www.djbarbarella.com
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/djbarbarella
http://www.myspace.com/lisadamm

 JOIN US volunteer 
Every 3rd Thursday we meet to plan the big night. Stop by and be a part of the fun!

 EMAIL US
 dinner@hrcseattle.org

Of Fake Messages and Internet Nastiness

I have had a rough couple of days.  Many of my online friends understand why, however not all of them do.  Since a nasty incident in another forum a couple nights ago I have experienced two days of some of the nastiest tweets and name calling I have come across in sixteen years of accessing the Internet.

A few hours after the problems a couple evenings ago I found out that one of the troublemakers in the other forum was telling many other people I had sent someone a racist private message.  I didn’t take it all seriously at first, because I certainly knew I had done no such thing.  I assumed either the person who had supposedly received the message lied, or the person claiming they had been told about it had lied.  The next day I had numerous Tweets in my Twitter feed calling me all manner of names, about the nicest of which was ‘racist douchebag’.  I did what some people naturally want to do in this sort of situation, I considered answering every Tweet; however I changed my mind.  I did the intelligent thing, I screen shot captured every single Tweet, I saved the links, I blocked everyone involved, and then I reported them to Twitter. 

Late last night I did something that, at the time, may not have seemed like such a hot idea.  However, it worked out in a sense, because the person the racist message was supposedly sent to provided me with a screen shot copy of this message.  I was shocked by two things; 1) the content of the message, and 2) that someone would try to claim I actually sent it to someone.  Not only did I not send this message, but I have no clue who did. 

This is the message this person claims to have received from me:

Now, at first glance this message looks pretty bad for me.  However, take a second look at it.  There is obvious incorrect spelling; there are obvious grammatical mistakes, problems with capitalization, and it also looks patched together.  The differences in tone, grammar and language between several of the sentences also indicate it was written by more than one person; and the grayish background behind the letters is an indication it was either Photoshopped or cut and pasted by some other manner.

When I deal with Twitter, and sometimes with text messages I will use shorthand and abbreviations, and I don’t always capitalize every place I should.  However, anyone who knows me also knows I am a stickler for spelling, punctuation, grammar and correct capitalization.  I have been known to delete and repost posts and even Tweets because of spelling or grammatical mistakes.  I have been known to repost entire chapters of fiction stories I write because I later find one tiny grammatical mistake, or one incorrectly spelled word or the wrong form of a word I missed while doing spell check. 

In addition to the spelling and punctuation, I have no corresponding outgoing message from my personal mailbox.  Of course one could attempt to explain I simply deleted it, however I did not.  I could not, because I never sent it in the first place.  I do not know if this person faked this message themselves, or someone else faked it and allowed them to believe I had sent it.  However, I can guarantee it did NOT come from me.

On a personal level I abhor the sort of language and name calling you see in the above message.  I find it personally insulting and sickening that someone would:

1) send this message in the first place;

and

2) claim it came from someone else, in this case me.

In addition, the person who sent this obviously knows nothing about me personally.  Not only do I not agree with what is said, my family is part Mexican.  So, basically whomever sent this message, I mean faked this message; is accusing me of not only being a racist, but by extension of insulting my own family, not to mention all the friends and acquaintances I have who are also Mexican or of Hispanic or Latino descent.  Therefore the person who sent this faked message is not only insulting and attacking me, but by extension my family, and many of my friends and acquaintances.

No one, I repeat, no one, had the guts to say anything to my face about this phantom racist message; they simply went around telling people I had done it, and didn’t bother to even ask me about it, or to confront me about it in any way. That is completely and truly pathetic and trashy.

Earlier today I was out running errands and feeling just a little depressed about everything that has been going on lately online.  It seems like some people want to ruin things for everyone else for whatever reason.  It doesn’t seem as if simply blocking or not communicating with those you don’t agree with is enough for some people; they also have to attack them, try to get them banned, send fake messages about them, get people who don’t know them involved, and try to destroy any fun anyone is having with anything by stirring up trouble.

While out on my errands earlier I sent the following Tweets via my cell phone:

Guts Tweet




Stupidity Tweet




First Amendment Tweet




Smear Campaign Tweet




When I sent these Tweets I had not yet seen the copy of the racist message I supposedly sent.  Now that I have, the above Tweets seem somewhat prophetic.         

Why I Don’t Support Boycotts

Recently I went a few rounds on Facebook with someone I went to high school with. Generally we get along fine, at least partly because we share some similar political beliefs. We don’t agree on everything, but what two people do agree on everything? Our latest scrape lead to him ‘unfriending’ me on Facebook, though I have not unfriended him. My friend is a big supporter of boycotts; and I, in general, am not.While I don’t have an issue with advocating a boycott of Glenn Beck, for example, I do have a problem with wholesale boycotts of entire companies or states, for example. If you advocate a boycott of Glenn Beck, you are possibly affecting an individual and perhaps a few people within their circle. When you start to support a boycott of an entire company, such as Exxon or BP, you are affecting a huge number of people. The problem is how are those people being affected?

The problem with these boycotts is that the people affected the most are those with the least amount of power. It takes a lot for the upper echelons of a big corporation to be affected by a boycott, though some become concerned more quickly than others do and respond better.

I remember years ago after the Exxon Valdez disaster up in Alaska there were many suggestions of boycotts against Exxon, and a number of these boycotts were carried out. In particular I remember a news story about demonstrators picketing an Exxon gas station somewhere in the Los Angeles area. A man who just happened to be driving by decided to go through the demonstrators and into the gas station to purchase some gas. When asked by the reporter why he had done so he responded that he had not been planning on purchasing gas, but on the spur of the moment had decided to come into that specific station when he had seen the demonstrators. When the reporter asked him why he had made that decision the man stated he had done it because the station owner was not Exxon, he was an independent owner who sold Exxon petroleum products. He was a businessman, not an Exxon executive, and he had very little control over the actions of the Exxon corporate machinery. As a local businessman who had had nothing to do with the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the customer had felt the station owner needed and deserved his support. In my opinion the customer made the correct decision.

The issue that caused the problems between myself and my friend was his advocating of boycotts of the State of Arizona over the recent passage of SB 1070, the immigration bill that has received so much attention across the United States and into other countries. I always find it interesting when there is a hot button issue involved such as immigration or, in this case, illegal immigration, that so many people weigh in without even knowing what they are really talking about a good portion of the time. I saw groups created and advertised on Facebook that tried to recruit members by claiming SB 1070 REQUIRED law enforcement officials in Arizona to stop anyone who MIGHT be an illegal alien. Not only is this not true, it’s idiotic to even suggest such a thing. Celebrities have weighed in, politicians have weighed in, people all over the world have weighed in, and I can’t help but wonder how many of them have even read the bill?  You can read the text of SB 1070 here , and nowhere does it suggest law enforcement MUST stop individuals who MIGHT be illegal aliens.

A city councilman in Los Angeles made a statement that he needed a passport to travel to Arizona, and if he did come to the state he might be deported if he didn’t have one. It’s difficult to know if that was a statement of ignorance of the bill, an attempt to ignite emotions, a pathetic attempt at humor, or if it was just plain stupidity. There was so much mis-information floating around that the Arizona Republic tried to help clear things up by publishing the bill’s entire text plus an interpretation of it. The article they ran alongside the full bill contained quotes from several politicians and celebrities who admitted they had not read the bill, and in a couple of cases had read only part of it.

Seriously, how can you make a decision on whether or not to support or oppose something if you haven’t even bothered to find out what it is you’re supporting or opposing?

The gist of this bill is that being an illegal immigrant is now a state crime in Arizona, and if you are stopped for something such as a traffic violation, law enforcement officials CAN ask you to prove you are in the country legally.

 The hysteria surrounding this issue is completly ridiculous. I’m not a supporter of the people who introduced, voted for, or signed this bill into existence; however, I’m also not much of a supporter of the way many people are opposing it. 

The President of Mexico weighed in on SB 1070 (this bill also does not specify ethnicity of the illegal immigrants law enforcement is allowed to question); however he is the President of a country that has one of the more restrictive immigration policies in existence, and it is somewhat hypocritical for him to critique the immigration policy of another country.

Opponents of the bill who did not like the fact he hadn’t come out in opposition of the bill more forcefully publicly took a prominent Latin-American entertainer to task. This celebrity was taken aback at first, but then he made a point of saying no one tells him what to do or how to think, and that he would not be forced into anything.

Phil Jackson, coach of the Los Angeles Lakers, was taken to task by opponents of the bill for suggesting that sports organizations such as the NBA or MLB should stay out of political issues.

Arizona was considered a front runner to land both the Democratic and Republican national conventions in 2012, and suggestions they should receive neither began almost immediately. The state has since lost the opportunity to host the Republican convention, and the political fallout continues.

The MLB All-Star Game will be held at Chase Field in Phoenix in 2011 and opponents of SB 1070 have suggested MLB should pull the game from the city. So far MLB commissioner Bud Selig has not agreed. There were demonstrations at Arizona Diamondbacks games in Chicago and other cities, and picketing of Suns games in Southern California.

The issue that caused the rift between my friend and myself was that he supported the economic boycotts of Arizona. As a resident of Arizona for twenty-one years, I do not. I do not like boycotts in general, but I especially don’t like a boycott that is targeting an entire state. I think this boycott of Arizona was not well thought out, and was not based on any real understanding of what this bill is about or why anyone felt it was necessary. No matter how many times I told him and his other friends they didn’t seem to get the fact the ones hurt the most by boycotts are those with the least power. He said he chose to not spend his money here in Arizona, and that’s his business and his right. However, to advocate that no one spend their money in Arizona, in my opinion, is not only wrong, but also unfair. One person said she thought the boycott ‘was great’, and I responded with, ‘Of course you do, it doesn’t affect you.’ I had said something similar before, and after my latest response I was ‘unfriended’.

I have been thinking about this issue for a long time, but I didn’t actually get around to writing much about it until I read an article in the Arizona Republic Saturday June 5th describing how some Arizonans have decided to change their summer vacation plans.  As far as I am concerned this is just one more example of how boycotts often have unintended effects or hurt the wrong people. Some Arizona residents, not necessarily supporters of SB 1070, stung by the boycott of Arizona and not sure how their Arizona license plates would be received in California, have decided not to spend their vacation time and dollars in our neighboring state. The City of Los Angeles and several other cities in California decided several weeks ago to put a stop to doing business in Arizona as part of their protest against the bill. The City of San Diego criticized the bill but did not advocate the economic boycott of Arizona. Many of the Arizonans who are now deciding not to spend their money in California would have gone to San Diego. This could potentially hurt the area for several million dollars. At a time when so many people in so many areas are hurting financially, the potential fallout from these idiotic economic boycotts is reaching far beyond the borders of Arizona.

Those people within the state of Arizona who are trying to repeal this bill deserve support.  What they do NOT need is an economic boycott that hurts them as much as those who support SB 1070, if not more.   Boycotts often hurt those who can least afford to be hurt, and those how have the least power to change things.  That may not be the intended effect of an economic boycott, but it is one of the effects that should be considered.

 

Previous Older Entries