Friday October 22, 2004
It's beginning to look a lot like donation time
posted by bean
In the next month or so, many people are going to begin giving and making donations to various charities, food banks, and shelters. As someone who works in a shelter, and therefore gets the donations to the people they are intended for, I'd like to make a few suggestions when you're deciding what to give.
Now, let me start by stating that donations are always needed and always appreciated. If the only thing you can afford to give happens to be listed in this post, by all means, give it anyway (with a few exceptions).
I should also state that every place you may be thinking of giving a donation to probably has different needs, so it's always best to check with them to see if they need that particular donation. Most places even have their ""wish lists" (or something comparable) on their websites. Keep in mind that most of these places may have limited storage space, so having "too much of a good thing" is simply not always possible. If one place doesn't need your donation, another place might need it.
With that said, here are some (very general) guidelines you may want to think about when deciding what to donate. [NOTE: If you are donating to a food bank, these guidelines won't necessarily be the same, I'm talking more about donating to shelters or other such programs.]
FOOD:
- The vast majority of donations we get come in during the holiday season. While there are a few (very much appreciated) people who will give donations throughout the rest of the year, most of the donations we live on throughout the year are given to us during November and December. So milk, eggs, cheese, fruit, and meat are always appreciated -- but we also need things that are still going to be good next October.
- If the expiration date has already passed, please don't donate it. I know Kraft Mac & Cheese never really goes bad. And I know the people who use the donations are often in a desperate situation. But no one really wants to eat Mac & Cheese that was supposed to be used by May 2001.
- Mac & Cheese and Top Ramen can be good food -- they last a long time and they're cheap. But people like variety. Try to be a little different when thinking of donations. When everyone gives the same thing year after year, it leaves people with very little choice and very little variation in their meals. Their lives are already in crisis, we shouldn't force them to eat such a limited menu on top of everything else. And, btw, milk and butter may be hard to come by in these situations, so boxed Mac & Cheese will only get someone so far.
- Sugar is good -- it can be used on cereal or in coffee or what have you. Flour, not so good. Let's face it, these people are in crisis, most of them are not going to be baking. Besides -- in order to bake, they'll also need milk and eggs, and the proportion of flour to eggs and milk is incredibly skewed.
- Speaking of coffee -- coffee and tea are always good. Those are probably the most used donations we get. Also considering adding some non-dairy creamer to that list.
- Canned goods are a good donation. But again -- variety!! Most people don't want to eat canned beets every night.
- Baby formula is always good. But, maybe mix it up with different types of formula (I don't know why, but we seem to get an exorbinant amout of soy formula). Also, other kinds of baby food would be nice once in a while.
CLOTHING:
- Used clothing is always good. It doesn't have to be trendy or expensive. But please, stained clothing and clothing with holes is really not needed. Women in crisis are not going to want to sit down with a needle and thread and mend clothes; nor are they going to want to walk around with stained clothing. And please, always wash the clothes before you donate them.
- Socks and underwear: always needed, rarely given. Now, used socks are okay (so long as they don't have holes in them). Used underwear -- think about it -- would you want to wear underwear that has been previously worn? EWWW! Also, if you are donating to a women's shelter, think about donating women's and children's underwear; we really don't need men's underwear.
TOYS:
- Stuffed animals can be okay, but please, they should be new. We really can't use someone's childhood boo-boo bear.
- Games are even better. Or play-dough. Or paint sets. Things that older children can actually use.
Most importantly, think about donating at other times of the year. We greatly appreciate the huge number of donations we get during the holidays. But by summer, it's slim-pickins.
UPDATE: Now that I'm here at work, there are a few other things I thought of, and figured I'd go ahead and them here, since I'm sure that most shelters around the country are also in need of similar types of products.
Things that we are always in desperate need of, but never (or rarely) seem to get them as donations:
- African-American hair care products (shampoo & conditioner made for A-A hair, straightening or curling products, etc.)
- Toiletries, such as tampons and pads, deoderant, toothpaste, toothbrushes
- Gift cards for grocery stores, Target/K-Mart/Wal-Mart, etc.
- Movie passes
- Passes for the zoo
- Bus tickets
- Cell phones (even without a service plan, they can be used to call 911)
Yale psychiatrist says he's "dumbfounded" to be cited by opponents of same-sex marriage
posted by ampersand
Except that Katie is real, and the research the mailer describes about her is imaginary.
Working from what's now "a considerable body of research on the subject," writes Charlotte J. Patterson, professor of developmental psychology at the University of Virginia, "Not a single study has found children of lesbian and gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
That's why in July, the American Psychological Association concluded, "Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents," and voted to support such families having access to marriage.
The Measure 36 mailer cites one researcher, Kyle Pruett, a Yale child psychiatrist. Thursday, Pruett responded, "It is a distortion of my position. . . . I was quite surprised, even a little dumbfounded to see my name listed."
(He also said, "I am numbed by the narrow-minded arrogance of the entire argument," which may be a different point, but the Measure 36 backers brought him up.)
In other words, even in a particularly truthless election year, the main argument of the supporters of Measure 36 is strikingly, unquestionably a lie.
By an amazing coincidence, what Dr. Pruitt told The Oregonian isn't far off from what British demographer Kathleen Kiernan told me when I pointed out how anti-SSM folks were using her work. (She called it a "misuse" of her work, and said that in her opinion the data contradicts claims that same-sex marriage causes any harm.) It's almost as if the opponents of SSM have a pattern of distorting legitimate social science...
Homophobes Stole Our Mailbox
posted by ampersand
I actually think this is pretty funny. I'm tempted to get a t-shirt printed up that says "homophobes stole my mailbox."
Nonetheless... On Monday, someone came into our yard, knocked over our "No on 36" sign, and stole our mailbox (with Monday's mail inside it).
I doubt this was just random vandelism; Oregon mailed out voter ballots last week (Oregon does the vote entirely by mail), and a huge number of Oregonians got their ballots on Monday. So I think someone grabbed our mailbox and ran hoping that they'd get our ballots and thus keep us from voting agianst measure 36.
As it happens, we got our ballots on Saturday. But I doubt I'm the only voter this has happened to. If you're a registered Oregon voter, have a "no on 36" sign and haven't yet received your ballot, it's possible that your ballot has been stolen by some jerky "yes on 36" person. Wait a few days, and if you still haven't received it, call your county election office and ask for a replacement ballot to be sent.
(Actually, all registered Oregon voters should do that if they haven't received a ballot by early next week, regardless of if you have a "no on 36" sign up or not.)
Same sex marriage: replies to me from Joshua Baker and Maggie Gallagher
posted by ampersand
Earlier this week I posted a repsonse to Joshua Baker - Joshua's original post is here, and my response is here.
Now there are two responses to me on marriagedebate.org, one from Joshua himself, and one from Maggie Gallagher. I'll probably post a response to them early next week, but meanwhile I thought I'd put up a pointer to their rebuttals.
MoveOn is looking for a few good geeks
posted by ampersand
An "Alas" reader asked me to link to MoveOn's search for computer-savvy volunteers. What they need is folks who'd be willing to volunteer from their homes to provide tech support for other, less tech-headed MoveOn volunteers. If you've got the tech skills and are looking for a fairly painless way to volunteer in the 2004 election, check it out.
Thursday October 21, 2004
Objectively speaking, Bush supporters are ignorant
posted by ampersand
I'm often bewildered as to why anyone supports Bush at all. Here's part of the answer. (Thank Charles for the tip).
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
These are some of the findings of a new study of the differing perceptions of Bush and Kerry supporters, conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, based on polls conducted in September and October.
Another interesting fact: Bush's supporters, more often than not, don't know what Bush's positions are. Check out this chart from PIPA (and via Kevin Drum):
It's Schadenfreude Time! (Or is it?)
posted by ampersand
From the San Francisco Gate (and via Bush v. Choice).
The suit was dismissed in 2002 by a San Diego judge who rejected the plaintiffs' claim that a connection between abortion and cancer was scientifically established. The three plaintiffs were ordered to pay the organization $130,000 to cover legal fees under a state law that provides attorneys' fees to targets of merit-less suits that seek to thwart free expression.
Actually, I'm not sure if I should be feeling schadenfreude or not. It's possible that the three women suing are actually such idiots that they didn't think it was possible for Planned Parenthood to disagree in good faith about the issue (which is what they'd have to believe to think that PP had engaged in false advertising). In that case, they're three fools fooled by the pro-life movement, and I feel sorry for them.
But it's also possible that they knew full well that their suit was a nuciance suit with no merit, in which case they're three jerks who deserved what they got.
New to the Blogroll
posted by ampersand
How did I miss this? Frequent "Alas" comment-writer Mythago has a blog - not too frequently updated, alas, but (as you'd expect from reading Mythago's comments here) what's there is well worth reading.
Also, I've added two new blogs to the "blogs that frequently discuss same-sex marriage" section: Marriage Matters and Gay American.org. Both of them are solid pro-equality blogs, so if you enjoy the SSM posts here you'll probably enjoy reading those blogs, too.
Wednesday October 20, 2004
Quote of the Day
posted by bean
This morning, while going through an unbelievable number of canned goods, I was listening to KBOO which featured a talk with my idol, Arundhati Roy. The entire thing was worth listening to -- and made even the most mundane task (like sorting canned goods) bearable. But there was one quote that really stood out (this is paraphrased from memory, but it's pretty close to verbatim):
MTV's Marriage Rights Commericals
posted by ampersand
Andrew Sullivan is probably right to say that these MTV ads for equal marriage rights won't have much impact - since the youthful MTV-watching crowd is probably overwhelmingly for same-sex marriage already.
But still, the commercials were loads of fun to watch. "Threats" and "permission" were my favorites. You should probably skip the first one if you're squicked by piercings, however.
The Myth of Social Security's Bankrupcy: Blame Clinton, Too
posted by ampersand
Kevin Drum writes:
So why do Republicans waste time pushing private accounts? Because lots of people — especially young people — are convinced Social Security won't be around by the time they retire. But why are they afraid it won't be around? Because Republicans keep peddling scare stories about how Social Security is heading toward bankruptcy.
Kevin's correct to say that Social Security is in no real danger (except the danger that Republicans will "fix" it by destroying it). But he should reserve at least some of the blame for Democrats, and in particular Clinton. After all, republicans have been calling Social Security an unworkable ponzi scheme for decades. As long as Democrats were arguing that SS was fine and only needed minor fixes, they still had the better side of the argument, and removing or privatizing SS was something that few serious candidates could advocate.
What changed all that, and what made "SS is going bankrupt" the Conventional Wisdom, was Clinton deciding to seek a short-term advantage in the tax policy debate by claiming that SS was going bankrupt and needed to be saved.
Sympathy for Homophobic Parents
posted by ampersand
As I blogged yesterday (here and here), there is a current, ugly push-poll being used by anti-gay folks in Oregon to convince voters to support a ban on same-sex marriage. One of the questions the push-poll asks, as quoted in the Oregonian, is:
I wrote earlier that I didn't know exactly what Massachusetts policy the push-poll question referred to. My friend Robert Hayes suggested that they're probably referring to this policy (thanks to Charles for the link!). Robert wrote:
So that's what they're talking about in their push poll.
I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, and I'm not concerned that someone's children might be taught tolerance. I am concerned about what values my children are taught; fortunately, I have lots of recourse in that department. There are a lot of people who don't have my options, though, and I can understand why they would be upset.
Amp, if you had kids, and the only school you could afford to send your kids to taught values that were morally wrong to you, wouldn't you be upset? I think that folks on all sides of the fence have to understand the special status of public schools. They're the school of last resort for all, and the school of only resort for many. Regardless of the merits of a particular piece of social advocacy, using the schools for such advocacy is inevitably going to trample on someone.
First of all, I want to point out that Trey of Daddy, Papa and Me has responded to Robert's comment. I agree with Trey completely - his response to Robert is better and more interesting than my own - but I can't find a good bit to quote out of context, so please go read Trey's post.
My response to Robert: It's far from clear that the particular policy Robert is talking about - which says only that students be able to "Define sexual orientation using the correct terminology (such as heterosexual, and gay and lesbian)" - can be correctly described as "advocacy." If it's advocacy, it's only so in the same way that teaching evolution is advocacy. And in any case, the policy predates SSM in Massachusetts by five years, so suggesting that this policy is caused by SSM (as the push-poll did) is dishonest.
However, what about schools that include a book like Heather Has Two Mommies in the curriculum? A book like that (to repeat Robert's distinction) goes beyond teaching tolerance to advocating normalization.
Can I feel sympathy for a family that is "upset" that their child is reading Heather Has Two Mommies in public school? Well, I can certainly understand why they're upset. But from my perspective, they're upset for the same reason that an anti-Semitic family might be upset when public schoolchildren are taught that Jewish holidays and traditions should be accorded the same respect as Christian holidays and traditions.
I can understand that, too. On an intellectual level, if I try, I can even sympathize with the pain and distress such parents must feel. But it doesn't mean that I'm inclined to want those folks setting policy.
(Charles also brought up an interesting question: How does Robert feel about the pro-capitalism bias of virtually all public schools in the USA, since this may distress those parents who are socialists?)
Returning to what is (for me) the central issue of my earlier post, I can understand the distress anti-gay parents feel. However, that distress doesn't excuse using fear of the "gay lifestyle" being taught in schools to drum up support for an anti-gay measure that has nothing to do with what's taught in schools. In fact, because I can understand that distress, I think that telling lies designed to aggravate that distress is particularly scummy.
(I'm not assuming that Robert disagrees with me on this point; he hasn't yet commented either way).
Tuesday October 19, 2004
Superintendent of schools says Anti-SSM arguments are full of crap
posted by ampersand
From an article by the AP (and via Marriage Matters):
David Crowe, the Restore America founder, said Castillo "hasn't done her homework.... There is plenty of information out there, plenty of evidence to show that even right now, homosexuality is being encouraged in our school systems."
When asked, Crowe said he could not immediately cite any specific instances in Oregon.
"The point is, this is what will come if Measure 36 does not pass," he said.
In fact, there are no state statutes that require districts to teach on such topics, said David Conley, an education professor at the University of Oregon.
"There is nothing in state statute that even remotely implies that schools would have to teach a specific curriculum around those issues," Conley said. "It is entirely a local school district's choice. It is something you would have to take up with the 198 local school districts."
Translation: The backers of Ballot Measure 36 are worried that they're going to lose the vote, so they've decided on a strategy of implying that public schools are going to subject your children to graphic discussions of gay sex, and/or try to recruit children to "the gay lifestyle." It's the recycling of old anti-queer bigotries, to try and stir up hatred and resentment.
If this ballot measure passes, it will be nothing to do with the "protection" of marriage; it will be a simple, straightforward endorsement of bigotry.
Update on the anti-gay push polling in Oregon
posted by ampersand
The push-poll phone call I discussed earlier came from FEC Research - The One True B!X has more information about FEC Research, which seems like a pretty sleazy outfit, and links to other folks who received the call. Check it out.
ACTIONS: Why not call the Yes on 36 campaign - 1 (877) 203-9595 - and let them know what you think of their bigoted little push polling campaign? Even if it does nothing else, it'll take up a little of their time. It's a free call (well, free to you, not to them), so call even if you live far, far away from Oregon. Heck, call them frequently. Call just to chat. Call from Europe.
But if you do call them, be polite. I'm not saying this because I'm a prude (although I am) - I'm saying this because if the "yes on 36" campaign receives a lot of abusive or threatening calls, that could help them, if they can get the press to write about it. Just politely tell them that campaign calls pretending to be neutral polls, and appealing to bigoted stereotypes, are unethical and make all of us worse off.
Even better, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE take out your credit card and contribute to the no on 36 campaign. Oregon is the only state besides Massachusetts where the good guys have a real shot at fighting off the anti-marriage-equality campaign. If you can afford to give even $10, then it's worth your time to contribute, and it helps keep ads like this one on TV.
How the GOP feels about lesbians and gays
posted by ampersand
Stephen Miller, of the conservative Independent Gay Forum, collects some recent quotes from Republican leaders:
- Rep. Tom Coburn (the GOP Senate candidate in Oklahoma): "[L]esbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they'll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that's happened to us?"
- Rep. Jim DeMint (the GOP Senate candidate in South Carolina): "If a person wants to be publicly gay, they should not be teaching in the public schools."
- Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas): "Marriage is a privilege the State should protect, but it is not a right for same-sex partners, multiple partners, or any configuration of people and animals that express love for one another."
- Mel Martinez (the GOP Senate candidate in Florida): Blasted his primary opponent as "anti-family" and "the new darling of the homosexual extremists" because he supported a hate crimes bill that included gays.
Of course, as Stephen has frequently pointed out, the Democrats - while not as openly full of hatred - have certainly been underwhelming in their support for lesbian and gay rights.
Via Stephen, Chris Crain in the Washington Blade praises the Log Cabin Republicans for their political courage in criticizing Bush; and takes their Democratic counterparts the Stonewall Democrats, to task for their nonstop toadying to Kerry. He's got a damn good point.
Push-polling from Gaybashers
posted by ampersand
I just got a polling phone call. The "pollster" was a prerecorded voice controlled by a computer, which could recognize if I said "yes" or "no." This is a paraphrase, but I think I've got the gist of it.
POLL: "Are you planning to vote 'yes' on Measure 36, the measure to stop gay marriage?"
ME: "No."
POLL: "In Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, the schools are now teaching the gay lifestyle to children in kindergarten classes. Are you concerned this might happen in Oregon if Measure 36 fails?"
ME: "No."
The recording then thanked me and hung up. (I wish I had answered "yes" to the last question, to see what the follow-up was....)
I suspect the recording (if it has any factual basis at all) was referring to some liberal Massachusetts community where "Heather has Two Mommies" or something similar is read to schoolchildren. But it's safe to guess that liberal Massachusetts communities would be doing that regardless of if same-sex marriage existed or not. "Heather has Two Mommies," after all, was being assigned in some schools for many years before the Goodridge decision.
But that isn't the point. The point is, the Measure 36 people want you to be afraid that gay pedophiles are coming after your children! Everyone knows gays recruit children!
It's no different from the covert appeal to racism in the "Willie Horton" commercial, or the way anti-Semites refer to the "blood libel" myth when insulting Jews. When push comes to shove, the Measure 36 folks are just another group of hateful bigots.
The anti-same-sex-marriage movement is not being driven by ivory-tower concerns about the divorce rate or the state of marriage; it's being driven by a huge mass of Christian fundimentalists who believe they have the duty to force everyone else in the USA to abide by their religion's rules, and who can't stand the idea of children being taught to tolorate different kinds of families. For more on the subject, check out the Village Voice's article on the "Mayday for Marriage" rally, and Salon's article on Ohio's anti-gay ballot measure.
P.S. The "poll" call came from 571-522-1899. Is there any way to find out who owns that number?
The UN's Panel on Maternal Mortality
posted by ampersand
This was forwarded from an email list. It's now moot - the action it called for ended at noon EST - so I'm hiding most of the entry.
Continue reading "The UN's Panel on Maternal Mortality"
Vote Watch 2004
posted by ampersand
Eriposte has created a good clearinghouse site of examples of fraud, vote suppression, voting irregularities, and voter intimidation in Election 2004. Check it out.
More on denial of hospital visitation
posted by ampersand
Trey at Daddy, Papa and Me comments on whether or not hospitals really refuse to allow visitation by same-sex partners who are legally barred from marriage:
And hospital rights? i have a first hand account of that.
Go to Trey's site to read his story.
One of the primary functions of marriage is to be able to legally make a family that courtrooms, police, hospitals and other public institutions are obliged to acknowlege. Right now, heterosexuals are able to point to their life partner and say "this person, this person here - s/he's now my closest family in the world, for all legal purposes" and (99.99% of the time) make it stick. Lesbians and gays don't have that right. And real-life experience shows that the ability to write up a personalized contract is no match for the ability to form a legal family.
Of course, the "non-homophobic" spokespeople of the anti-SSM movement - a handful of well-meaning intellectuals who are useful tools of the anti-SSM movement, but don't actually have any influence within it - may object that domestic partnership laws could serve the same purpose.
That's an ironic argument, because recent ballot measures and other developments have made it clear that the leaders of the anti-SSM movement not only want to ban gay marriage, they want to ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, and any other attempt to "create or recognize a legal status" for same-sex couples (to quote Ohio's ballot measure). "Legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for... one man and one woman." They're using opposition to same-sex marriage to camouflage their real goal, which is denying lesbians and gay families any rights at all.
Monday October 18, 2004
Are we ready for electronic voting?
posted by bean
After all, there are some scary possibilities. :p
