Sunday, November 16, 2008

Bless The Beasts & The Children


Bless the beasts and the children
For in this world they have no voice
They have no choice

Bless the beasts and the children
For the world can never be
The world they see

Light their way
When the darkness surrounds them
Give them love
Let it shine all around them

Bless the beasts and the children
Give them shelter from a storm
Keep them safe
Keep them warm

For the first time ever, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) endorsed a candidate for President: Barack Obama. Obviously the Humane Society is comprised of many kinds of people who are animal lovers & pet owners, and I'm sure they represent nearly every kind of ideology on the political spectrum, so the HSUS has resisted making presidential endorsements, although they do endorse congressional candidates.

Per Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) President Mike Markarian, in regard to political endorsements:

One of the guiding principles of the Humane Society Legislative Fund is that we evaluate candidates based on a single criterion: where they stand on animal protection policies. We don't make decisions based on party affiliation, or any other social issue, or even how many pets they have. We care about their views and actions on the major policy debates relating to animal welfare.

In breaking with their long-standing tradition of refusing to endorse any candidate for the Highest Office In The Land, the HSLF explained on their website that

...in an era of sweeping presidential power, we must weigh in on this most important political race in the country. Standing on the sidelines is no longer an option for us.

The HSLF Board of Directors (comprised of both Democrats and Republicans) was unanimous in its support of the Obama-Biden ticket. In urging their members to vote for the Democrats, they stated simply:

The Obama-Biden ticket is the better choice on animal protection, and we urge all voters who care about the humane treatment of animals, no matter what their party affiliation, to vote for them.

And, when the Humane Society urged a vote for "them", they meant them! In speaking of the next Vice President of the United States, the HSLF proclaimed Joe Biden

...a stalwart friend of animal welfare advocates in the Senate [who] has received high marks year after year on the Humane Scorecard.

As you may remember, President-Elect Obama, during his victory speech after winning the election, had promised his daughters, Sasha & Malia, a puppy when they moved into the White House; he even addressed the issue in his first post-election news conference.

He has said he’d also like to adopt a hypo-allergenic breed because of Malia’s allergy. Apparently there are quite a few breeds to choose from. He also said he’d like to get the girls a shelter dog, many of whom (in the future President’s own words) “are mutts like me.” I honestly had no idea that our next President is such an animal lover! For me, it just shows that Obama not only has a great mind, but a great heart, too, and that’s just icing on an already fantastic cake!

Oh yeah, if she’s not already been adopted, I personally would vote for Baby (the dog in the pic above).

According to Care2, a 9-million member online social network that helps to connect people who want to help with deserving causes:

The above photo shows Obama with "Baby," a three-legged dog that lost its fourth limb following years of mistreatment at a California puppy mill. The toy poodle spent much of its life locked in a small wire cage. The breeders cut out Baby's vocal chords so that they would not have to hear her cries. In cages next to her, other dogs literally went insane, spinning repetitively with blank stares. Still others were gravely ill, maimed and had filthy, matted coats. A number was tattooed on the inside of Baby's ear, marking her as just one of many dogs at the mill

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Surely, You Jest!

The Associated Press reports that Sarah Palin has just sounded the clarion call for the newly (and much deserved) diminished Republican Party to be the watchdogs of the new strengthened and widely-voter-approved Democratic majorities:
Sarah Palin called on fellow Republican governors to keep the new president and his strengthened Democratic majority in check on issues from taxes to health care as she signaled she'll take a leadership role in a party searching for a new standard-bearer.
Wha..The...?

The party which, for 8 years, not only eschewed any oversight & manipulated any & all levers of government to deflect the light of day from the ill-conceived schemes & shenanigans of their "good ol' boy" network but who--eyes wide open--recklessly maneuvered our country into the the sorry economic ditch in which we now find ourselves actually believes that it is in any position to play referee for a game to which elephants haven't even been invited? Just goes to show that the pachyderm party has still not come to terms with the fact that the American public cannot love a political party that it cannot trust.

And Sarah Palin's claim that she could become the party's "new standard-bearer"? All I can say is that it couldn't happen to a better group of unwitting soon-to-be-if-not-already-almost political has-beens! If our Mrs. Palin is trying to position herself as the archetype leader of the brand new Grand Old Party, and the true believers & movers & shakers of the Far Right fall for it, maybe American voters will mercifully put the this poor deluded band of political blood brothers & sisters out of their electoral misery once and for all.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

"...the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America"

If you haven't seen this yet, please take a few minutes to watch this interview conducted by Charlie Rose of Mitchell Gold (founder of Faith in America), who wrote the book Crisis: 40 Stories Revealing the Personal, Social, and Religious Pain and Trauma of Growing Up Gay in America.

The interview is broken up into 2 clips.

I think & hope it will bless you, as it did me.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Happy Veterans Day!

I didn't want to let this day pass without honoring the real-live American veteran-heroes who gave so much , so that we may ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves & our posterity.

We, as a country, could never ever be thankful enough for those who placed their own personal lives in harm's way, so that we can all continue to enjoy the fruit of their hard-fought labors.

"Thank you" seems so woefully inadequate in expressing how much we appreciate our true American heroes giving their all in service to the country they so deeply love.

So Happy Veterans Day to all of you who shed blood, sweat & tears & to their families back home for making such a sacred sacrifice for an always-grateful country.

Thank you, Keith.

Just. Thank. You.



Transcript:

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8, and I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics; this is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did, or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them, "No You can't have it on these terms; maybe something similar--if they behave, if they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, "No, you can't marry." What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that: If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized. You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman.

The sanctity of marriage.


How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term meaningless?

What is this to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love, but don't you, as human beings, have to embrace...that love? The world is barren enough: it is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate...this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe He represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this, and then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate: you don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know, it is, in fact, the ember of your love for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have, and the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."