How Jezebel Just Lost my Readership, and Maybe Yours

Those of us women over 6' tall in the U.S. (I'm 6'4") only make up 1% of the population. That's about 3.2 million of us out there. It's not a huge number, but here's the thing about that number:

• 99% of us are between the ages of 20 and 50
• We are internet savvy because we had to be (to find clothes, communities, etc.)
• A decent chunk of us tend toward the liberal because, again, we had to (traditional roles don't work with us, we faced a lot of bullying growing up, etc.)
• We are constantly exploring the world around us for innovations (because we're looking for the world to offer things that work for us)

Essentially, we are the perfect demographic for Jezebel. And many of us are readers. In many of the tall communities I'm in, we share Jezebel articles frequently. We are still, above all, women who want to connect with others and the world around us.

Well, Jezebel, you just lost us.

The quick spotlight Clover Hope wrote about the TLC series My Giant Life was bad.

It was dismissive, and the use of the word "gripe" was unnecessarily snarky.

But that's not the problem. No. The problem is Clover Hope and her response to the comments.

One commenter questioned the snark and Clover responded with, "how about you chill," as you can see in the screenshots below:

Kara Brown also commented:

The problem here is the lack of respect for readers. Especially those that represent the population on which are you commenting. Not that I ever mistook Jezebel for serious journalism, but does an outlet like this really want someone with a childish, "I know you are but what am I?" mentality representing them? This is digusting.

There have been over 500 comments in the couple hours since this article was posted. Thanks to Clover's offensiveness, a comment war between short and tall has now started. This is ridiculous.

This is not about Tall versus Short. This is about a wanna be journalist treating an entire population as if they don't matter. Several commenters brought up the similarity to race issues:

 

And now we have race wars. This is extremely unfortunate and I am personally disgusted that a contributor to a national outlet could be so dismissive and disrespectful of an entire demographic, and then not hear the concerns when they offer feedback.

You can read all of the comments here. 

Clover Hope has, in one comment, invalidated any good she has done in the past. I personally will not consume or share Jezebel content anymore, and I'm willing to bet that my sisterhood of tall women, and honestly - just women who have empathy for others - are with me.

And just to educate those of you who don't understand why tall women "gripe" about being tall, let me throw out a very small smattering of how it impacts our lives:

• We are pushed into sports, whether or not we want it
• We get unwanted attention all the time - people constantly comment on our bodies and our lives and tell us what we should and shouldn't be doing with it. 
• We cannot fit into airplane seats, first class is expensive, and in foreign countries that isn't always an option.
• We have to buy bigger cars.
• They don't make pants or shoes in our sizes, we have to make them or wear ugly things. Even when we can find something, it doesn't actually fit right and it's very expensive.
• Dating is hell - not because we want tall men, necessarily, just because of societal standards.
• We get back problems, ankle and knee problems, and circulation problems.
• We never ever ever get to feel "cute".
• We can't hear our friends when we're out standing somewhere.
• Want to go watch that baseball game or that movie? Prepare to have bruises on your knees the next day.
• Our feet hang off the end of the bed.
• The desk at work don't fit us.

The list goes on and on and on...

I've blogged a bit about being super tall before. You can read those posts here, here, and here. 

I don't complain about other populations "griping" about their problems. I try to understand them and empathize. I don't ask that you understand my issues - I just ask that you don't call us out as whiners. We are definitely not among the loudest voice of complainers in the world, and a lot of us have worked to change our world to address our issues.

So sure, Clover - I'll chill. But I'm gonna be chilling without Jezebel because of you.

Not an Uncommon Church Issue

I watch 20/20 on hulu. I almost hate to admit it, but it's a guilty pleasure left over my childhood and time with my mom. The April 8 episode features a girl who was raped and then instructed by her radical fundamentalist church to forgive and forget, to the point where she was basically told it was all her fault and she needed to repent for HER sins. To the point where she didn't turn him in or press charges. This young woman spent her life thinking she did everything wrong and that this guy did nothing wrong. She spent her life thinking she couldn't turn to God or anyone else for help. She was actually told she was lucky that she didn't live in old times because she would have been stoned. She was FIFTEEN when it happened. NO matter her age, This is NOT okay. This is NOT uncommon. This is actually a story I've heard time and time again from fundamentalist evangelical churches, particularly in the midwest. Incredibly sad. I'm livid, but I'm also happy to see this in mainstream media. I think people don't realize how powerful churches can be in the lives of young girls.

You can watch the 20/20 episode of her story here:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/231215/abc-2020-fri-apr-8-2011

The news story hit papers in 2010:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/alleged-rape-victim-accuses-trinity-baptist-church-deacon/story?id=10806348

British Reaction to American Health Care Debate

A couple of friends living in London have made me aware of the reaction there to our current Health Care debate. Many Brits are appalled at the reluctance of Americans to adopt health care reform, and even more so at the falsified information that is being touted about their own system.

I was directed to a discussion on yelp.com, and decided to add my two cents. Thought I'd throw it up here, since I've mostly avoided the discussion up til now.

My post:

I'm approaching this conversation as a fiscally conservative and socially liberal American with decent medical insurance.

What's happening in the town halls and across the middle and rural areas of our country in regards to the health care debate is the result of American pride, a bit of cognitive dissonance, and a big dose of fear. For years we were told we had the best doctors, the best specialists, the best hospitals, the best research, etc. We took pride in having beautiful teeth and state of the art treatments, and told ourselves that we paid so much because it was worth it. We had to justify the cost, and we've spent years cultivating a sense of pride to validate the outrageous costs. We were told (and told ourselves) that if we didn't pay so much, we'd all have bad doctors and long waits and inferior treatment (and the worst of all things...bad teeth!)

It is only as blogging has become accessible to those for whom this system is not working that we've started to become aware of just how bad it really is. We are now faced with daily (hourly?) reminders of how the American healthcare system has failed the people, and we are reacting to this information with the stage-appropriate denial and fear that you are all seeing. It will take time for the middle of America and rural America to understand what is going on and why this needs to change. The coasts and the cities are starting to understand better, but the reluctance of the more conservative people should not be seen as stupidity or unwillingness to change - it is simply the result of learning that what we thought we were good at really wasn't all that great.

A number of republicans are using fear tactics and distorting the truth to compound this fear. But the democrats aren't helping much, either, by just trying to pull heartstrings rather than offer tangible, balanced solutions that can work in a capitalist society. The fact that there are so many possibilities further confuses the issue and adds to the fear you are seeing from our people.I think if someone could really highlight for people how our system works (because believe me, none of us really understand how it all works in our country, let alone anyone else's), we'd find that we could come to a new system through relatively minor overhauls, and that the new the system wouldn't be so different as to be socialist (which is a bad word here).

I don't know what the new system should look like. I don't know if the NHS is the perfect example of the right answer (although it does seem like a great step in the right direction, and one that could work here). I do, however, know a few things about the fears people have and how are current system addresses those:

1. We are scared of the QUALITY of public systems because we've only seen bad examples. In our cities, community health clinics are supported by the government and private donations, and they are utilized by the poor, the homeless, and those other people who are NOT US. We have an image that they are dirty and inferior and that they cannot attract good doctors. And many of them are, but we do have good community health clinics that are totally supported by the public and by government grants. Clinic Ole, in the San Francisco Bay Area, for example, has become so well known as an excellent provider of health care that the demand from insured patients required them to start accepting insurance when available. The clinic itself serves the entire community on a sliding scale based on your ability to pay, with many free services. If the public could see more examples like this, rather than the images being strewn about by those against reform, they might believe we could adopt something like the NHS and make it work.

2. We are scared of LONG WAIT times and not being able to get the services we need when we need them. But we already have those. How long do people have to wait to get approval from an insurance company to have a procedure? I would much rather wait because the doctor is not yet available to perform the surgery, than be waiting when the doctor says I need it now because an insurance company wants to approve the necessity of the cost first. I had a fairly urgent, but not emergency, surgery 2 years ago. Once diagnosed, I had to wait over a month to have the surgery. Not because the doctor wasn't available, or because there were no operating rooms - but because my insurance company made all of us jump through hoops to prove that it was necessary. However, I was fortunate enough to work for a private funder who happened to be a major donor to the hospital where the surgery was to be performed. Somehow, once that became known, I was immediately booked for surgery within 2 days. The hospital insurance liaison worked with the insurance company to get me approved right away because I was suddenly a VIP. Meanwhile, millions of other Americans were waiting for their insurance companies to approve their treatments. Although thankful for the bump, I find this incredibly depressing.

3. We are scared of bad teeth. I kid, a bit, but seriously...too many people in this country think all Brits have bad teeth because of public health care. Ridiculous, but it is a common perception. But here's the thing...I have pretty good insurance with good dental coverage, and I still can't afford to care for my teeth. Cleanings are covered, sure, but anything else is so expensive that many people can't take care of it. Even root canals that are deemed medically necessary are usually only covered at half cost, if that. A root canal in a city like San Francisco costs a well insured patient about $600 at a mid-range dentist. That doesn't included xrays, diagnoses, and follow-up. So many people forgo them all together. There's a reason we have images of hillbillies with no teeth. We are scared of not being able to access the best doctors and the best treatments, but honestly, most Americans can't do that even here, because the cost is so prohibitive.

4. We are scared of not being able to get treated well when we need specialists, but we don't get the preventative healthcare that would keep us from ever needing it. I currently am working on funding for obesity clinics for children. They need private funding because insurance companies won't insure a child who has been diagnosed as obese. We know that obese children turn into adults with diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. Yet we don't fix it when we can? There are countless examples of how the American system represents sick care rather than healthcare.

Just throwing out what I know. I have a great deal of respect for the pride you take in your system, and am looking forward to our government offering a system that might work for us.

The Autism Vaccine Debate Again

A classmate of mine from way back when posted a couple of interesting articles today that sparked my interest.

The first is a blog on Discover's website:
Discover Blog: Antivax kills.

The second is a publication regarding much of the research that has been done on the autism vaccine link:
Science Daily Vaccine and Autism Article

My classmate made a really good point about how it's easier for people to blame the government than their own DNA. I absolutely think this is the case. It's so much easier for us to believe that we can change things than it is to believe that we are doomed to whatever diseases our body has predetermined.

As in most things, I find myself firmly in the middle here.

Do I think vaccines cause autism? In general, probably not, but maybe in some cases.
Do I think the debate is over? Definitely not.
Do I think parents should avoid vaccines? NO!

This is a difficult situation because the waters are so murky.

First of all, the autism diagnosis is handed to people with a wide array of symptoms. As an ABA therapist I worked with children who many different sets of symptoms. At the time we frequently referred to that as high functioning or low functioning, but I don't think it was just on a spectrum of bad to worse. Some of the symptoms were qualitatively different.

For example, what about the difference between kids with autism only, or those with autism and mental retardation. Is it really that they have both, or is it that they have a qualitatively different type of disorder? We called the first category high functioning, but it's really just totally different. I had one kid who could read, write, draw, speak in sentences after being taught, but could express no emotion. I had another kid who couldn't sit for more than 2 seconds. Yes, they shared some common symptoms - language delay, eye contact, lack of emotional involvement, and a little OCD, but they were very very different and required much different treatment plans. I've got a ton of these types of comparisons.

Doesn't it seem possible then, that maybe we've grouped a whole bunch of different things into one lump called autism? Just so happens that mercury poisoning looks a whole lot like some of these kids, but definitely not all or even most. Some cases seem to be more about extreme sensory sensitivity than anything else. Others mimic the isolation and turning inward that happens to some kids after severe trauma. Maybe they differ so much because they are actually different. And if that's the case, doesn't it follow that maybe they have different causes?

And if THAT's the case, then it seems totally plausible to me that SOME cases of autism were caused in SOME part by vaccines. I find David Kirby's hypothesis in Evidence of Harm particularly reasonable. He basically says that some kids are born with a genetic defect that keeps them from processing toxins properly. In those children, when you introduce vaccines containing thimerosal (which contains mercury and other toxins) in high doses, you might get autism-like symptoms. We also see the same thing in small communities where there has been significant exposure to mercury through fish consumption or environmental waste. A genetic problem would also explain differences between communities that aren't accounted for by toxin exposure. Anyway - this is all a MIGHT for SOME of the population, and it doesn't actually state anything conclusive.

What we do know is that children are getting more vaccines than ever before, and that some of them are thought to be unnecessary by some parents. So do we stop vaccinating our children?
NO! I really haven't heard anyone rational state that parents should forgo vaccines. Even Jenny McCarthy suggests an altered schedule, rather than not getting vaccines at all. I personally recommend learning about the issue as a parent and working with your doctor to determine what you feel is safe for your child. Make sure your doctor takes your concerns seriously, and then listen. One mother described this process on her blog about an alternative schedule.

It is irresponsible to not vaccinate your child at all: to your child and to the children with whom he'll come in contact. I think the biggest takeaway here is that there are a lot of possibilities, but reacting out of fear won't help. Educate yourself by reading many sides. Read David Kirby's book, read all the stuff on both sides of the issue, then work it out with your doctor. Ask for thimerosal free vaccines whenever possible. When you get the flu shot, get the pregnancy version (the one with no preservatives). Just be smart about it, don't overreact, and approach it from a middle ground that makes sense. Would you really risk your child dying of diptheria because you were too scared to work out a better way?

Heather Armstrong wrote a great post about her feelings regarding the responsibility of mothers to vaccinate their children.

In the early 2000s in Arkansas there was a huge outbreak of diphtheria because parents didn't have great access to vaccines. I was at a talk with David Kirby and some safe vaccine advocates when a pediatrician from northern Arkansas, who agreed with Kirby about the possibility of vaccine and autism links, begged the crowd to get their children vaccinated. She had just watched a significant portion of her clients die because they just hadn't gotten the shot. Death is not an alternative to a fear of autism. Carrying a disease to another child who didn't get vaccinated is not an alternative to a fear of autism.

Some of my other posts about this issue:

Charity Divided
Missouri Thimerosal Ban
Autism and Vaccinations

I Love San Francisco

And right now, that's why I hate ING.

Everyone knows that Bay to Breakers instituted a Zero Tolerance alcohol policy for this year's race, but does everyone know they also eliminated all floats/carts/vehicles of any kind AND nudity? NUDITY? Who does that hurt?

While I'm not entirely sure any of this really matters, I thought I'd try my hand anyway, so if you want to take some action, here's what you can do:
Write an email (email address below, along with the email I sent).
If you are a fan of Bay to Breakers on Facebook or MySpace or such, remove yourself.
Join the protest groups on said sites. Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=50765922327#/group.php?gid=50765922327
Boycott this year's race.
Boycott ING.

Emails:
mediarelations@ingdirect.com,
ombudsman@ingdirect.com,
marketing@ingdirect.com,
sales@ingdirect.com,
info@ingbaytobreakers.com,
ingbaytobreakers@edelman.com,
gavin.newsom@sfgov.org,
ross.mirkarimi@sfgov.org,
cathy.macfarlane@ingdirect.com

My Email:
To Whom It May Concern,

Bay to Breakers is one of the many reasons I worked so hard to move to San Francisco. The fact that a city supports an annual event where people can run nude, dance on floats, and drink their little hearts out from one end of the city to the other is such a beautiful statement of openness and community. Bay to Breakers is (was) the epitome of what San Francisco is all about. And now that's gone?

The organizers of Bay-to-Breakers have valid concerns over the issues of floats, alcohol consumption, public nudity, and other iconic aspects of the event. However, as loyal registrants of past B2B races, we feel a "zero tolerance" policy is in complete opposition to the spirit of the event and therefore we will not support the organizer's new policy by paying registration fees until a more reasonable solution is in place.

In addition, if this decision is not reversed by the date of the 2009 Bay to Breakers, I personally will be removing all funds from ING and closing my accounts, and I will advise others to do the same.

Sincerely, ...

Real Global Warming Options

As someone who finds myself fascinated with simple mechanisms scientists think might help (like painting roofs white, or sending a giant bomb up into the atmosphere to deflect radiation), I am even more fascinated by a recently released ranking of the various methods.

We hear so many options in different contexts, and they all sound good, so how do we know which ones to actually try?

I am often struck by the fact that many people, when faced with something they are told is a "good cause", react with some sense of obligation to goodness. People not in the field, or not associated with the field, often justify drunken galas or excessive auction spending (guilty!) with the "good cause" clause. As long as it's going to charity, it's good, and I get to feel good about myself...right?

In philanthropy, it's an entirely different world. Because there are so many "good causes", we not only have to determine which issues are most important (to our boards, to our missions, to the world), but also which organizations address those issues best. It's a crazy competitive world involving impact rankings, financial efficacy, and some relationships thrown in for good measure. We never take a good cause as simply that - always delving into it further before supporting it.

The green movement, however, throws most of us back into the uneducated category. We all want to do something good for the world. We want to address the issue, so we grasp at anything we can. We step up our recycling, we promote windmills, we install solar panels, and we might even paint a roof or two white. But are we really doing the right things?

Well, Wired Magazine just featured a recently published scientific paper that collects the different ways in which we could address global warming, and how effective each of these methods would be. VERY informative article with some great graphics and a pretty comprehensive and easy to understand list of potential solutions.

Here are a few of the more interesting ones, with rankings:

1. Inject enough sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere to reflect the small percentage of sunlight necessary to offset increased warming caused by carbon dioxide. This scheme is akin to the cooling induced by large volcanic explosions.
2. Manufacture sea salt spray to change the way clouds form over the ocean to increase their reflectivity.
3. Cover the earth's non-sandy deserts with a material composed of a white polyethylene top and an aluminum bottom. That would increase the albedo of those surfaces, cooling the earth.
4. Use chemical processes to pull carbon dioxide out of the air and sequester it in geological reservoirs.
7. Create charcoal from biomass, effectively sequestering the carbon in the plant matter, and bury it.
9. Breed or genetically engineer shinier crops to increase the reflectivity of the world's farmed land.
12. Plant massive amounts of trees across the Earth and count on them to sequester more carbon dioxide naturally.
16. Cool down huge amounts of water with large pumps to form and thicken sea ice that would in turn cool the sea water. That water would descend to the depths, taking a bit of extra carbon with it.
17. Make cities considerably more reflective by, say, painting roofs white.

Check out the complete Wired article, including awesome graphics.

At the very least, I feel a bit less guilty about not secretly splashing white paint on all the roofs of the city.

A Positive First Step

I remember the day I learned that Bush had implemented a policy to deny funding to all international aid groups that offered the option of, or even counseling about, abortion. It was one of his very first acts in office - and that day I hated him, perhaps more than I had hated anyone.

I was a sophomore in college, which goes to say that I was really a kid with a lot of fight in me ready to protest all the ills of the world. I had campaigned for Bill Bradley, then Gore, and although I would later come to respect some aspects of the Bush presidency after 9/11, on that day I hated him.

His act to showcase his strong pro-life stance and satisfy the fundamentalists who furthered his campaign also happened to cut funding for organizations that provided emergency protection for victims of oppression, abuse, rape, and war all across the world. Aid organizations in Africa assisting refugees of the war could no longer accept U.S. funds because they would counsel a woman on ALL of her options in a pregnancy (often as a result of an assault). Across Asia and Eastern Europe, budgets were slashed for organizations helping women in all kinds of perilous situations. Medical services groups like Planned Parenthood, that often serve as the primary health care provider for low-income women, couldn't rely on help from the U.S.. In my eyes, it was a devastating day.

I won't get into the argument about abortion - to me that's not what this is about - the U.S. was NEVER funding abortions. The idea of cutting funding to a group that offers counseling on abortion is a message that the U.S. will not help a fellow human because of an ideological belief. We will not help you with this concern, because the organization that is helping you will also tell someone else the truth about her choices. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, limiting NECESSARY healthcare because of this is ridiculous. It's like telling my coworker I won't work with her on a project because she disagreed with me on a personal issue. It's a petty punishment that has no place in the world relief conversation.

Obama changed that today.


I don't know that Obama is going to be a great president. I hope. I hope he will be, but I don't know that his leanings toward community organization and socialist principals will be the answer. Maybe. I do know, though, that this act is an incredible step in a good direction. We are telling the world that we will not let ideology get in the way of our place as a world power - we will help regardless of religious belief or ignorance about world situations.

A response

This will be slightly out of context to some, but I want to put it all in one place. In response to a constant ongoing debate about Prop 8 through various facebook comments and posts, I had a little hissy fit tonight (albeit an extremely justified one). Here's my piece:

I try to remain very civilized here. I try to express my opinion while respecting others. But now I'm done. That last comment was the straw on this camel's back, Mark, and here's a little dose of reality.

The people advocating for gay rights want nothing more than to draw upon common ground. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that these are the people who are outlining differences. The people who do outline the differences are those who interpret a couple of lines of the OLD TESTAMENT in an extremely restrictive way that has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ. You know Jesus Christ never once mentions homosexuality? Not ONCE. Most gays only want the same rights and respect, and to be seen exactly the same, as straight people. Most gays just want the love they feel for one another to be equal to the love that every man and woman who are married feel for each other.

Given the freedom and lack of expectation to be married of gays, those couples who do want to get married have fought extremely hard for each other and are very devoted to a lifelong commitment. Many couples I know are far more committed, loving, and realistic than the straight couples I know.

And don't give me that bullshit civil union talk. That's ridiculous. You know what that is? It's called "separate but equal". We tried that in this country once. We had different water fountains for "coloreds". They had a great water fountain. It was just like our water fountain. Hell, it was even called the same thing. They didn't make some fancy word for it to make it different. But it was still a different water fountain. Separate, but equal. That's what civil unions are.

And sure, you can argue that it was still a man and a woman, and that's not an "abomination of God" like sodomy is. (And let's not even get into how anything other than your routine missionary sex could be considered an abomination of God, too. Guess God must have been playing some cruel mean trick when he made the human body so damn pleasurable. That's the God I know. Yep - mean and cruel and just trying to get us to slip up. Riiiiight.)

You know what marriage was in the Old Testament? Marriage was commitment, with sex. It had nothing to do with a ceremony. It had nothing to do with a title of being married. It had nothing to do with any kind of government recognition or rights. It simply meant that two people said, hey, let's be together, and they were.

I'm getting a bit tired of hearing fundamentalists preach some gospel that's more republican than Christian. This gospel of less government - "don't let those socialists take over, don't let them take our money to take care of anybody, blah blah blah", but then when it comes to basic human rights (remember "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?) they want more government than anyone else. You guys don't want the government to have the budget to take care of the elderly, the sick, or the poor, but you want the budget to go kill some of those Arabs and to poke your nose in on my relationship, my bedroom, and my body. Quite a contradiction. Then again, fundamentalists are frequently masters of hypocrisy. Yep, that was a bitchy comment. You know what? I earned it.

I've earned the right to say this piece in whatever way I see fit. I devoted my life to the church. I devoted everything I had. I scrimped and saved and gave every penny I could to help build a monstrous building off a highway between Ozark and Springfield because as a child I was guilted into thinking I would live a poor life and I would send my parents to the poor house if I didn't. I spent 7 days a week at church, but when I spoke up and thought I should have a shot at being a pastor someday, I was told I was too outspoken for a woman. I taught pre-school kids, I served in the nursery, and I worked with the junior high kids, but when I wanted to aspire to be a pastor, I wasn't good enough. I wasn't submissive enough.

I didn't even so much as kiss my high school boyfriend, but later, when another male friend betrayed me, my pastor told me it was my fault, and my church abandoned me.

So you know what? I get to say this. I get to call you out on your hypocrisy. You say you live God's love, but you don't respect your fellow humans. That is shameful. That is a human rights issue. A basic human rights issue. And it's not a Christian vs. Non-Christian argument. It's a self-righteous intolerant Christian vs. humble loving Christian argument.

If you think civil unions should be good enough for gays, then they should be good enough for everyone else. NOBODY should be allowed to get married in the eyes of the government. The word itself should be abolished from any legislative documents. Marriage should be within a church, within a family, within a home. That piece of paper you sign? guess what? that's bullshit in terms of what "marriage" is really supposed to be. That's your civil union.

If gays can't get married, why can people who don't love each other? why can people who are just getting married to cover up the pregnancy they got into because their parents refused to talk to them about real life? why can muslims, or buddhists, or hindus? And to that end, honestly, why can you? What makes you so friggin pure that your love is better than anyone else's? You think God thinks you're better? Show me where it says that in the Bible.

I'm sure I've alienated some people. I can deal with that. if I have hurt anyone personally, I sincerely apologize. Please know that I am speaking from truth, and also from sincere hurt that anyone could be filled with so much hatred, and yes, bigotry. I've been depressed since 8 passed. And honestly, I don't actually have a stake in this at all. I wouldn't campaign one way or another. But I'm just devastated by the fact that so many people are so filled with hate that they won't let others recognize their love and devotion to one another.

I have been so careful up to this point. But I just can't be anymore. It's not about not hurting anyone's feelings or not pissing anyone off. This is about LOVE. LOVE. know that word? LOVE OTHERS. LOVE LOVE LOVE. The movement against homosexuality is not based in love. It is NOT based in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is based on one often misinterpreted line in the old testament (alongside all the other ones that so many people choose to ignore), and it is ridiculous. What Would Jesus Do? Jesus would not let politics affect his beliefs. He wouldn't force others into practicing under his beliefs. If we know anything from the Bible, we know that.

So yes, I'm sorry to go off like this, but it had to be done.

Honestly, this is bull, and I'm tired of hearing the ignorant overly religious remarks on my facebook page. I am extremely proud of where I come from. I am a Missouri girl in so many ways, and I love it. I am proud to have experienced what I did with the fundamentalist churches back home. That said, there's a reason I left. And after 23 years of hearing this shit over and over, I will not tolerate it in my space. I hope only that everyone can look into their hearts, look to their God, and look at their fellow humans, and forgive me my brashness and maybe hear some tiny piece of what I'm saying.

That's Got to Feel Good!

Congratulations to Asa on being cleared of all charges!

Charges Dropped on ABC Reporter

Help Direct Charitable Donations!

I voted for Pets Unlimited.

California Hunger Crisis

I've been working on a proposal to address the California Hunger Crisis, and I thought I'd share some of the background info here.

Hunger in California
Before the recent economic downward turn, 4.2 million Californians (12% of the population)
were considered “food insecure”, which means they had to make choices between food and other
living expenses. A much larger percentage was considered to be living in “marginal food
security”, which means they were sometimes threatened with these choices while frequently
facing the lack of a healthy balanced diet. This population is constantly vulnerable to becoming
food insecure when circumstances change.

Families with children are much more likely to be food insecure.

The Current Food Crisis
Nationally, food banks are reporting a 15-20% increase on average in the number of people
turning to them for help now compared to one year ago.

Decreased Support
Food banks receive the bulk of their food from the food industry, including producers,
distributors, and grocery stores. Usually this food is donated because of surplus inventory or
slightly damaged product. Increased efficiency in the food industry, and thus decreased surplus,
along with the proliferation of bargain grocery stores that will purchase dented cans for resale
has led to a major decrease in food donations from this previously steady source.

Since 2002, USDA commodities distributed nationwide has decreased more than 60% - the
equivalent of 45 million lost meals in California. The low dollar has increased food exports,
which has further decreased USDA donations over the past year.

Rising Food Costs
The United States is experiencing the worst food inflation prices since the 1970s.
The federal consumer price index (CPI) for the cost of food rose 4.7% from March 2007 to
March 2008. The CPI for the Thrifty Food Plan, the basis for Food Stamp allotment, increased
even more at 5.6%. The Thrifty Food Plan includes items that will feed a family at the lowest
possible cost while providing basic, although not adequate or healthy, dietary needs. In 2007, the Thrifty Food Plan cost $320 per month for a family of two. Changes in the price of items in the Thrifty Food Plan present a more accurate description of the stresses felt by low-income
families.

In the first quarter of 2008 crop prices were up 20%, and livestock prices were up 10%.
The CPI for cereal and bakery products increased by 4.4% in 2007 and is projected to rise 8% in
2008. Price of milk is up 30% and bread is up 16%

Rising Fuel Costs
The cost of gas has led many families to make choices between going to work and purchasing
groceries.

The increase in cost also has great impact on Food Banks. The cost of distributing food is greatly
increasing the overhead required of these programs, particularly in outlying communities and
areas where food banks have had to close.

Economic Crisis
The recent economic crisis, including home foreclosures and job losses, has disproportionately
affected citizens living in marginal food security. This has led to those families that previously
were able to subsist without assistance to turn to food banks in recent months.

In early 2007, California’s Central Valley experienced a devastating freeze that destroyed crops
and caused widespread economic hardship. Many families have yet to recover.

Several California food banks have reported that past donors and volunteers are now turning to
them for help. The number of first time aid recipients is up an estimated 26-50%.

Insufficient Utilization of Federal Aid
Of the Americans eligible for food stamp benefits, only 65% are enrolled nationally. In
California this number is even lower at 50%. In the subgroup of working families, nationally
57% eligible households are enrolled, while in California it was 34%. California ranked 50th in
the nation on this measure (including D.C., we only performed better than Colorado). Even if
California aims only to participate at the national average, the state is currently forgoing $1
billion in federal funds for its citizens each year.

Food Stamp benefits are entirely federally funded and provide economic stimulation to
communities in California. Every $5 in new food stamp benefits generates $9.30 in community
economic activity. Every additional dollar in food stamps generates up to $0.47 of new spending
on food.

Food Bank Response
The recently passed Farm Bill will deliver some relief in October, but the new level of funding
will still not return food supply to the 2002 level and will certainly not address the excessive
increase in demand.

Food Banks across the country are responding by decreasing programs while dipping into
reserves. Several food banks have closed in the past few months. Most food banks, however, are
avoiding closure by limiting programs. Food pantries and soup kitchens across California have
decreased from five to seven open days per week to one to five days open every two weeks.
Distribution programs are reporting that they have been forced to decrease handouts from seven
days of food to two days of food.

Most commonly, though, food banks are simply depleting their reserves in order to supply the
needed resources to communities. This will have a devastating effect in the coming months and
years.

The federal budget does not currently allow for a comprehensive plan for addressing hunger in
America, and the California budget deadlock further incapacitates state and local agencies in
efforts to help. Food banks are completely dependent upon private donations to weather this
crisis and work toward a more sustainable future.

Please consider donating what you can. Volunteer time, non-perishable food, and of course, cash, are always valued and greatly needed.

Resources

Information

Food Crisis Effect on Food Banks

“Food Agencies Go Hungry in San Francisco” San Francisco Business Times

“Potato Chips Beckon as Food Prices Rise” San Francisco Chronicle

News Articles Regarding Current Crisis - LA Food Bank


Donate/Volunteer

San Francisco

Alameda County

Contra Costa/Solano Counties

Peninsula and South Bay

Marin County

Sonoma County

Napa County

An Unfortunate Wine Boycott

For the first time ever, I am boycotting a specific set of wine brands.

Many will think I am doing this out of disagreement on a single issue, but in truth, I am boycotting Don Sebastiani's businesses because I think he is using his vast wealth to manipulate the democratic system in a way that I cannot support by contributing to that wealth.

Many, after hearing about Don Sebastiani's contributions, will want to boycott him simply for his choice in what he supports. More power to those people! I, however, am not one to be inspired to boycott anything (especially wine), over a difference in viewpoint. Abuse of power is another story.

The current issue arises because of the proposed amendment to the California constitution regarding parental notification of teens seeking an abortion. There are a number of reasons that I do not support this law, but that is not the point of my boycott. If you'd like to learn more you should check out this article about the pros and cons of parental notification laws, which I think offers a fairly unbiased view of both sides. Also see the additional resources at the end of this post. Please note these extra links are completely biased in favor of my views.

Regardless of what the current issue is, Don Sebastiani, Sonoma wine bigwig and former California State Assemblyman, is abusing the system.

In 2005, Jim Holman of San Diego newspaper fame and Don Sebastiani financially backed Proposition 73 "Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification". The measure was defeated 52.7% to 47.3%.

In 2006, Holman and Sebastiani backed another proposition, this time it was numbered as Proposition 85. It was defeated 54% to 46%.

Holman decided he'd had enough. Until, that is, Sebastiani donated $500,000 to back the measure that is now on the ballot for 2008's November election. Now Proposition 4 "Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative", is up for vote again even though the public has voted against it twice. Non-profit advocacy groups and and health clinics are being forced to use funds to work against this once again, simply because some rich old fart up in Sonoma decided he wasn't happy with controlling only wine interests (I swear I'm not a bitter person).

Now it's being called (by supporters only), the Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act: Sarah's Law. I love the personification with the girl's name and all. We haven't seen that in ridiculous laws in California before. *cough* Jessica's law, anyone? The rest of the language refers to the idea that old men prey on young girls and then force them to have abortions, and that parental notification of abortions would stop these predators. Funny, I thought statutory rape was already illegal. It also seems to me that the kind of family in which a child would feel comfortable approaching their parents about abortion might also be the kind of family that would already have an idea that their teen was spending time in bad company, which really makes the protective factor of this law a moot point.

Back on track: my whole point here is that a rich person should not be able to get something back on the ballot that the public has already voted against twice in the last 3 years. How long will this continue? Perhaps there should be a window between elections that include a similar measure? I guess what bothers me most about this is that it really is driven by one man and his massive amounts of money.

On a totally different note, Don Sebastiani is a self-stated Napa wine hater. Granted, I don't love the elitist attitude of Napa in general, but Sebastiani has stated again and again that he doesn't drink California wines, and finds them inferior to the French wines he regularly consumes. It's all well and good to have an opinion on this topic - but he's a California winemaker!!! I definitely have a bone to pick with someone who makes their money selling something they can't back. He doesn't have to like it, or even pretend to like it - but he should try to refrain from down-talking it. He's like a slimy used-car salesman that tells himself if someone will buy that lemon all is well. Blech. So even if you don't give a hoot about his political tinkering, know that Don Sebastiani is a man who doesn't enjoy the wine he makes, but is happy for your money to go into his pocket, which apparently allows him to control the California constitution.

Given all of this information, I've decided to boycott all Don Sebastiani wine brands. I simply can't support such a slimy person. I've included a list of all of his wine brands with links to pictures of the labels so that you can join my efforts if you so choose (and so I can keep track of the many many brands he controls).

Aquinas
B Side
Hey Mambo
Kono Baru
Leese-Fitch
Mia's Playground
MooBuzz
Pennywise
Pepperwood Grove
Plungerhead
Screw Kappa Napa
Smoking Loon
Used Automobile Parts
The White Knight

And no, for now I won't be boycotting Sebastiani Vineyards. It seems Don gave control to his sister back in 2001, and the worst thing they've done with their political contributions is donated to Rudy's campaign. :)


Additional Information
or, why laws mandating parental notification don't make sense

Center for Reproductive Rights: Mandatory Parental Consent
Center for Reproductive Rights: Current Restrictions by State
Center for Reproductive Rights: Forced Parental Involvement
The New York Times: Scant Drop in Abortion Rate if Parents are Told
MedScape: Overview

Sustainability in Wine Consumption

Sustainable wine has been a hot topic in the Bay Area for several years. The California Sustainable Wine Growing Alliance unites those producers who wish to think responsibly about their impact on the environment, and wine bars like Yield are popping up to offer green wines to the conscious consumer. Terms like organic, biodynamic, green, and sustainable are being tossed around in the wine industry as much as everywhere else, and oenophiles are adding these considerations to the already long list of qualities that are desirable in a good wine.

A recent paper from the American Association of Wine Economists, however, demonstrates the minimal impact of these efforts in comparison with simply applying a rule of local consumption. The paper proposes a green wine line that separates the United States into two regions based on whether the lighter carbon footprint comes from drinking wines from Napa or Bordeaux.

The paper is a bit more academic than most like wish to read, but Mental Floss has an excellent summary on their blog.

Time to VOTE!

Make sure to vote for your favorite Bay Area finds at San Francisco Bay Guardian's Best of the Bay Reader's Poll. Personally, I know I will be voting for long stretches of sun and warmth as my favorite new weather phenomenon.

Now get to it!

No-Kill Shelters

Supporting the Milo Foundation, and other organizations just like it, is even more important with the controversial change in policy at the SFSPCA that seems to be allowing more and more euthanasia for weaker reasons.

Milo Foundation Closing Without Your Help

An email I received from the founder of Milo Foundation:

Summer, 2008

Dear Milo Friends, Adopters, and Fellow Animal Lovers:

It is with a heavy heart that I have to let everyone know that Milo must severely cut our rescue operations and we will not be able to continue our work here in the Bay Area. Sadly, to have a no-kill organization and a sanctuary in California is proving to be too costly.

While the red tape in Marin County and San Rafael has been nothing like our experience on Solano Avenue in Berkeley, it has been, nevertheless, a time consuming, costly and draining experience. We finally received our permit to function and be open to the public with animals for adoption, and with the hanging of a new exit sign, we would meet with the fire marshal’s last requirement and finally concentrate on our mission of rescuing and finding good homes for animals in need. However, we are out of funds.

Sadly, as we hang a new lighted exit sign, it is ironic that the EXIT sign illuminates our departure from Milo Marin – before we could even have a sign out front saying THE MILO FOUNDATION. Milo simply can't afford to maintain an indoor adoption center and rescue facility here in the Bay Area.

We had a successful Montclair Pet Fair yesterday placing 16 animals, and we look forward to the Bay Area Pet Fair at the Marin Civic Center in September – a terrific event and possibly one of Milo’s last . . .

At its June meeting, the Milo board voted 2 to 3 that we must close down Bay Area operations to insure that the heart of Milo, our Sanctuary in Mendocino County, can continue to thrive. At this time, we don’t have the resources to have two locations.

Tragically, this means the end of rescuing and placing more than a thousand animals every year. Not having an indoor permanent space to show animals really means the end of rescuing adult cats and many dogs. We have installed our show cages in the front room in Marin, and we have many momma cats in foster care with their litters of kittens . . . how we will find them homes is just one of the current concerns. Think about it - to be in one of the country’s most affluent and animal friendly counties made so much sense and to now have to close down is more than heartbreaking!

Although we operate Milo on a bare bones budget, the escalating costs of insurance, vet bills, workers comp, coupled with the past years decline in adoption fees and donations while we waited for permits in Marin and concentrated critical staff time on developing protocols and systems, this very painful decision was made – before we could even get our doors open!

In hearing this news, a few friends of Milo who have been waiting eagerly for us to OPEN in Marin have offered to help. One generous donor wants to pay the rent for two months, another is donating a restored, classic vehicle for Milo which will fetch a handsome price . . . Our landlord renegotiated and lowered the rent in an effort to help. A couple of Milo volunteers have offered to help maintain activities there and care for the animals, help with adoptions, and answer phones . . . we could maintain it on a fairly low budget for awhile, but in order to even contemplate keeping our facility in Marin, Milo needs further monthly support in the form of $25, $50, $75 and $100 monthly sponsorships, or annual memberships.

https://www.milofoundation.org/frm_donate.cfm?member=1

HERE’S THE BOTTOM LINE: TO AFFORD TO OPERATE IN THE BAY AREA, MILO NEEDS TO RAISE AN ADDITIONAL $100,000 BEFORE THE END OF THE SUMMER, AND THE BOARD CAN ONLY RECONSIDER THIS DRAMATIC DECISION IF THERE ARE SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENTS BEFORE THE END OF JUNE.

MILO HAS RESCUED MORE THAN 16,000 ANIMALS IN OUR 14 YEAR HISTORY. We have impacted more than 100,000 individuals and families with our services. If you have adopted, or have been helped with an animal, please consider a significant donation today and/or a membership, so that we might continue to help other four-legged furry friends in need! http://www.milofoundation.org/donate.cfm.
You can designate your donation for a specific use -- to directly help save lives in danger at California’s high-kill shelters, to fund emergency medical care, or to help maintain the lives of the animals at our sanctuary.

I will continue to lead Milo’s rescue and adoption services, but the future for Milo’s rescue and adoptions is unknown at this point - we will only be able to rescue a trickle of animals from Lake and Mendocino Counties at the Milo Sanctuary. We will continue to utilize our volunteers and have animals in foster care in the Bay Area, but honestly, depending solely on mobile adoptions for placement is nearly impossible to maintain year round. I welcome the chance to discuss this situation by phone, email and/or in person.

On a positive note, I am pleased to announce that Davide Ulivieri, who has worked at our Sanctuary for the last 5 years, will step into a CEO role for the Milo Sanctuary. Under Davide's leadership the Sanctuary is in good hands.

Since founding Milo in 1994 so much has changed in the rescue community – there have been some positive changes. This year promised to be one of HOPE, however it is now very uncertain. I am extremely proud of the remarkable success of Milo and I know now that for this to continue it needs many more people who can step up to the plate and make a significant contribution. The critical need for these critters has not gone away. There is nothing else I want to be doing, but as with any business, we’ve got to mind the bottom line. Milo and the thousands of animals who we can rescue need your help today!

Please, dig deep, and give what you can, and also forward this email to those you know who may be in a position to help. As always, thanks so much for caring.

Sincerely,

Lynne

Lynne Tingle
Founder
www.milofoundation.org
lat@milofoundation.org

The Milo Foundation
PO Box 6625
Albany CA 94706

Neeeeiiggghhh!

Not to beat a dead horse, but the dead horses are in the news AGAIN. Doesn't this tell us something?

After this weekend's race, and all the controversy around Big Brown running with a quarter crack, the issue of endangering race horses is everywhere!

I admit, embarrassingly, that I watch Animal Cops: Houston. Anybody who has every seen that show knows that a horse with anything resembling this kind of hoof would be taken into custody and the team would talk about how cruel and terrible the owner was before taking him to court. But in racing, it's okay?

The press is reporting more and more now on the implications of breeding these horses to be the best, and the drugs used to help them along.

For a timeline depicting major horse catastrophes, check out NPR's slideshow.

I hate to go all PETA-y, but I just can't let this one go.

Horse Racing Injuries Making the News

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article today about renewed interest in the lack of safety in horse racing. What was most interesting to me about this article is that nobody seems to be saying "don't race" as an absolute must, they just seem to be proposing stipulations. (Actually, rather smartly, I think, PETA is saying don't race, but is recognizing that's not going to happen and proposing reasonable reforms instead.) I guess making it safer to race might make me feel better about it, but it would really have to change the death and injury count quite a bit. These are PETA's proposed changes:

Newkirk, in a letter to the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority (KHRA), urged regulations that were described as a "bare minimum for horse safety."

•Thoroughbreds under the age of 3 should not be permitted to race.

•Synthetic surfaces or turf — which result in fewer injuries — should be mandated at all race courses.

•Whipping should be banned.

I guess even the PETA understands that most people like to indulge in $1 beers, $1 hot dogs, and cheezy cover bands once in awhile.

Kentucky Derby Day

Pete and I walked down Polk tonight and found ourselves in the midst of a giant Kentucky Derby party with lots of women in dresses and big hats. I felt a little sad knowing that my newly discovered feelings about racing wouldn't let me participate. Then they wouldn't move out of the way and I had to barrel through their drunk asses.

But then we got home and Pete opened the Drudge Report. I don't feel bad about missing those parties anymore. Another horse down. RIP Eight Belles.

Echo Cat

Last night we went to Bay Meadows for what may be one of the final Fridays Alive if the racetrack is demolished for future developments.

We enjoyed it, as always, but we decided to leave before the races were finished so we could get back to the city and home by midnight or so.

The last race we watched, I bet on Echo Cat, and was disheartened when the horse didn't even cross the finish line. Then we noticed, however, that she had gone down around the last curve. My heart broke a little because I was afraid she may have broken a leg, but then we tensely joked about her being shot thinking that there's no way it was that serious. We talked about horse euthanasia, and that transitioned into a conversation about Animal Cops, which kept everything light-hearted.

Thinking I wouldn't find anything, I googled Echo Cat today. I'm devastated to report that she was, in fact, euthanized last night. All because she was performing for our pleasure. Poor Echo Cat.

I'm really torn about whether it's okay to watch horse races now. It seems that horses are injured and thus euthanized every race. There are many organizations devoted to documenting the deaths in the UK, but the industry itself seems to hide this information. In the US, the only information I can find is from a blogger devoted to checking up on all the horses that went down on the track. She keeps a historical list at http://scrollsequus.blogspot.com/.

how friggin' depressing.