Therapy was cancelled due to the death of my wife's mother early Tuesday morning.
Services will prevent my attending the congressional district convention on Saturday. I believe I can still attend the state convention, but I lose out on this opportunity.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Nontransferable, Transacting, Transcript, Transcribed, Transferable, Transparency
For what it's worth, I will be going to the Virginia State Convention this year. I was selected to be one of the people who select the four delegates who will go to the national convention. Yes, there are more than four delegates from Virginia; the rest are chosen by elected officials and other important people, not us grassrooters. The actual total for Virginia is 132. Of the four, two men and two women are selected at the convention.
I actually have no idea as to what is expected of me, so I started doing a bit of research. I found a document called 2012 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention. This is a generic document that describes how each state chooses their delegates.
I expected to find a one pager or, at most, a short document. This is, after all, just for how the states choose delegates, not for the actual convention.
It is 98 pages long.
I read past the Non-Discrimination section and the Affirmative Action section. When I got to page 7 and rule 7, Inclusion Programs (one long paragraph), I saw the first reference to LGBT:
The Democratic National Committee recognizes that other groups of Americans in addition to those described in Rule 6 may be underrepresented in Party affairs. These groups include members of the LGBT community, people with disabilities, and youth. The National and State Parties shall adopt and implement Inclusion Programs in order to achieve the full participation of members of these and other groups in the delegate selection process and in all party affairs, as indicated by their presence in the Democratic electorate. As is already the practice in some states, State Parties may use goals to achieve these ends; however, in no event may such participation be accomplished by the use of quotas.
On page 17, in the convolutedly entitled Regulations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee section I found Regulation 4.7, Rules 5.C, 6.A, and 7. Paragraph B reads:
Rule 7 requires State Parties to develop a plan intended to secure the full participation in the delegate selection process of LGBT Americans, people with disabilities, youth, and other groups the State Party may deem necessary, commensurate with each group’s participation in the state’s Democratic electorate. Consistent with this rule, State Parties must take reasonable steps to determine the participation of these groups in the state’s Democratic electorate.
and paragraph C.iii. says:
A program to achieve full participation by additional under-represented groups as required under Rule 7 [Inclusion Programs, copied above], provided, however, that in lieu of a separate inclusion program, a state plan may establish goals, with methodology, and timetables for the under-represented groups identified in Rule 7 (LGBT Americans, people with disabilities, and youth), as well as other groups the State Party determines to be underrepresented.
It doesn't bother me that LGBT seems to be closely tied to "and people with disabilities." At least they didn't write "and people with other disabilities."
They're trying hard to list under-represented groups so they can maybe someday possibly get them off the list of underrepresented groups. It bothers me more that we're in an "underrepresented group" list.
I did a search through the document for "trans." The results of that search is the subject of today's post.
We have a long way to go.
I actually have no idea as to what is expected of me, so I started doing a bit of research. I found a document called 2012 Delegate Selection Rules for the Democratic National Convention. This is a generic document that describes how each state chooses their delegates.
I expected to find a one pager or, at most, a short document. This is, after all, just for how the states choose delegates, not for the actual convention.
It is 98 pages long.
I read past the Non-Discrimination section and the Affirmative Action section. When I got to page 7 and rule 7, Inclusion Programs (one long paragraph), I saw the first reference to LGBT:
The Democratic National Committee recognizes that other groups of Americans in addition to those described in Rule 6 may be underrepresented in Party affairs. These groups include members of the LGBT community, people with disabilities, and youth. The National and State Parties shall adopt and implement Inclusion Programs in order to achieve the full participation of members of these and other groups in the delegate selection process and in all party affairs, as indicated by their presence in the Democratic electorate. As is already the practice in some states, State Parties may use goals to achieve these ends; however, in no event may such participation be accomplished by the use of quotas.
On page 17, in the convolutedly entitled Regulations of the Rules and Bylaws Committee section I found Regulation 4.7, Rules 5.C, 6.A, and 7. Paragraph B reads:
Rule 7 requires State Parties to develop a plan intended to secure the full participation in the delegate selection process of LGBT Americans, people with disabilities, youth, and other groups the State Party may deem necessary, commensurate with each group’s participation in the state’s Democratic electorate. Consistent with this rule, State Parties must take reasonable steps to determine the participation of these groups in the state’s Democratic electorate.
and paragraph C.iii. says:
A program to achieve full participation by additional under-represented groups as required under Rule 7 [Inclusion Programs, copied above], provided, however, that in lieu of a separate inclusion program, a state plan may establish goals, with methodology, and timetables for the under-represented groups identified in Rule 7 (LGBT Americans, people with disabilities, and youth), as well as other groups the State Party determines to be underrepresented.
It doesn't bother me that LGBT seems to be closely tied to "and people with disabilities." At least they didn't write "and people with other disabilities."
They're trying hard to list under-represented groups so they can maybe someday possibly get them off the list of underrepresented groups. It bothers me more that we're in an "underrepresented group" list.
I did a search through the document for "trans." The results of that search is the subject of today's post.
We have a long way to go.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Don't Mess With Texas
It's already a mess, and getting messier. And I apologise for the politics, but this is important.
If you haven't been following, Texas is rewriting their history curriculum, and rewriting history at the same time.
They're removed references to Thomas Jefferson (that deist!), and separation of church and state, and even the fact that Hispanics died defending the Alamo. They added sections on the "conservative resurgence" of the 80s and 90s, but no reference to liberal ideas. They raise Reagan to superhero. They teach McCarthy was a good guy, just terribly misunderstood.
Why should non-Texans care? Because Texas buys a lot of textbooks, so the publishers are likely to try to sell them to other school boards. These are the children who will be running the country some day. I'd rather they didn't use their false view of history to run the country into the ground. I'm an unabashed liberal (I've been bashed, but not abashed) and if they tried to publish books that gave a false lefty view, I'd be against that too. The key word is false. If they wrote that the Kennedys saved America and slavery existed up to the civil rights movement of the 60s, and conservatives were a failed genetic experiments, I'd object. We can't compete in the world if our children are taught rubbish. The publishers assure us "it's so easy to print different books that this will be the Texas edition and it won't affect the thinking parts of the country." I paraphrase. After Citizens United, we were assured that that ruling would only have a minor effect on elections. That lie will be in the next Texas history book, I guess.
Why should you and I care? Here's what one of the perpetrators of this crime said:
Board member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, objected to a standard for a high school sociology course that addressed the difference between sex and gender. It was eliminated in a 9-to-6 vote.
She worried that a discussion of that issue would lead students into the world of “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else.”
As a who-knows-what-else, I'm concerned. A discussion of differences among people! Heaven forbid!
Long live the master race.
If you think I'm exaggerating, read this article in the Statesman. There are lots of other stories from major publications as well.
If you haven't been following, Texas is rewriting their history curriculum, and rewriting history at the same time.
They're removed references to Thomas Jefferson (that deist!), and separation of church and state, and even the fact that Hispanics died defending the Alamo. They added sections on the "conservative resurgence" of the 80s and 90s, but no reference to liberal ideas. They raise Reagan to superhero. They teach McCarthy was a good guy, just terribly misunderstood.
Why should non-Texans care? Because Texas buys a lot of textbooks, so the publishers are likely to try to sell them to other school boards. These are the children who will be running the country some day. I'd rather they didn't use their false view of history to run the country into the ground. I'm an unabashed liberal (I've been bashed, but not abashed) and if they tried to publish books that gave a false lefty view, I'd be against that too. The key word is false. If they wrote that the Kennedys saved America and slavery existed up to the civil rights movement of the 60s, and conservatives were a failed genetic experiments, I'd object. We can't compete in the world if our children are taught rubbish. The publishers assure us "it's so easy to print different books that this will be the Texas edition and it won't affect the thinking parts of the country." I paraphrase. After Citizens United, we were assured that that ruling would only have a minor effect on elections. That lie will be in the next Texas history book, I guess.
Why should you and I care? Here's what one of the perpetrators of this crime said:
Board member Barbara Cargill, R-The Woodlands, objected to a standard for a high school sociology course that addressed the difference between sex and gender. It was eliminated in a 9-to-6 vote.
She worried that a discussion of that issue would lead students into the world of “transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else.”
As a who-knows-what-else, I'm concerned. A discussion of differences among people! Heaven forbid!
Long live the master race.
If you think I'm exaggerating, read this article in the Statesman. There are lots of other stories from major publications as well.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Mardi Gras 2005 ~ Show Us Your....
No, no-one asked. We're a pretty mellow group. :)
There were about twenty people when I arrived. The hostess, J, opened the door, looked at me and suddenly looked shocked. I said "see? I told you I had nice legs." She laughed and asked what name I wanted on my name tag. She suggested a female variant on my male name, but instead she just put my real name (and voting district) on my tag. She then pointed me at the food and drinks, introduced me to one of the other women there and went off to run her party. I chatted with this woman a bit, and she was the first of three who said "I didn't know you were a guy until you opened your mouth" which is close to nirvana.
While we were chatting, a woman, E, whom I had known for about a year came in. I said, "E just walked in. She's looking around and she looked at me and paused but kept looking." E was still standing by the door, talking to someone I didn't know and she did that twice more. I think she thought "I know her" but she couldn't place me. After about ten minutes I went up to her and she looked at my name tag. I said "you kept looking at me"! She said "well, you looked familiar".
In this blog, I have briefly mentioned that I am a "classic introvert". Lots of people say they're introverts; most are not. I know; I've said I don't like labels and here I am stamping my forehead with one in large block letters.
An extrovert gains energy from crowds and attention. An introvert gains energy from solitude.
Sometimes I can tolerate crowds, but you're more likely to find me away from the group. At a party, I'll spend too much time getting a drink, or food, or focusing on some room decorations because it keeps me away from people. I've had situations where I had to just leave, at least for a while, to regroup. If you put me in front of a hundred people and say "talk about
But at the party, I went up to a few people I didn't know, or barely knew, and said hi and chatted about politics and the food and the nice house and common friends. For at least that night, Meg forget she was an introvert.
My state delegate, C, showed up with his family for a brief visit. My biggest mistake of the evening: not getting a picture of the two of us, with me giving him a hug or putting my arm around him or SOMETHING. Even just standing next to him, or talking to him! Meg has a lot to think about and forgets things like that and regrets them for a long time (at least five years, apparently).
Anyway, C knows me. He knows my name, he knows where I live, and he knows me well enough that when I was at a county inauguration he came in, saw me standing on a balcony two levels up and waved to me. Yes, I was on the balcony to avoid the crowds (see earlier paragraph).
C looked at me. I put out my hand. He shook my hand and looked at my name tag. Then he said loudly, "
I told a couple of the women "I almost didn't make it. I was rushing to get ready and I thought 'opaque' meant 'can't see through'. I put on the 'opaque tights' and my hair showed through, so I had to shave my legs. Then I put on the blouse and didn't realise that the sleeves were kind of see-through so I had to shave my arms". I think I was trying to justify this for myself more than anyone else. I "had to" for the costume. I "didn't know" girl things. It's only a costume.
Denial is a deep deep river.
One experience I had that I wouldn't have had if I was just out trying to pass among the civilians: I could make a bit of "girl talk".
I had fun talking to the women about my back hurting from that extra weight and the pain of clip-on earrings (the hostess gave me these purple glitter half-sphere clip-ons to replace mine ~ they were hideous but I dutifully put them on), and other "woman" stuff. E said "you've done this before" and I said, "I always do this when the family's away." I also talked about doing it again the next day and going shopping. Of course, E, like everyone else knows I'm kidding.
It's good to have a reputation as a kidder.
The picture is of me before I left for the party. Click to enlarge.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Politics and Neanderthals
This article has been sitting in my queue for a month, but I wanted to share. It's not about crossdressing per se, but I commonly hear some variation on "we femulate because we respect and admire women". This guy does neither and is proud of it. The headline says it all, but there's an embedded video if you want to see the context.
Male Senate candidate: Vote for me 'because I do not wear high heels'
If I was in Colorado, I wouldn't consider voting for this guy. Gene Weingarten is a humour columnist I've chatted with on occasion and fellow prosopagnosia sufferer. He stated my political position best: "I am so liberal I should be tried for treason, and executed. "
But this guy probably lost all of our votes with this one. Sadly, he won the primary and may be in the senate next year. I'm a political junkie. I'll be watching this one.
Male Senate candidate: Vote for me 'because I do not wear high heels'
If I was in Colorado, I wouldn't consider voting for this guy. Gene Weingarten is a humour columnist I've chatted with on occasion and fellow prosopagnosia sufferer. He stated my political position best: "I am so liberal I should be tried for treason, and executed. "
But this guy probably lost all of our votes with this one. Sadly, he won the primary and may be in the senate next year. I'm a political junkie. I'll be watching this one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
