by aggieric, Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 03:21:58 AM EST
In a little over a year, I may have to quit my job, end my 20 year career in US higher education, say "goodbye" to my family, and abandon my country. All because I fell in love with a citizen of the Czech Republic.
There's been a great deal of focus in the progressive blogs recently on specific pieces of LGBT-positive legislation and/or policy - The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), The Matthew Shepard Act (Hate Crimes legislation) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
They are all important, but lost in the wash is a piece of legislation near and dear to my heart; lost because, arguably, it inherently impacts the fewest numbers of the United States' LGBT citizens: The Uniting American Families Act. Formerly known as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, the UAFA would give LGBT citizens the same rights heterosexual citizens have regarding bi-national relationships.
Make the jump to learn how you can take action to help your fellow LGBT citizens achieve just one more of their fair and equal civil rights:
by aggieric, Tue Jul 15, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EDT
I've made no secret here of the fact that I supported Clinton, and that Obama has yet to gain my confidence; regardless, I believe that the best hope for our nation lies in Democratic control of the government, because we're in a hell of a mess. And yesterday, that was the theme of one diary to which I posted some comments; the diarist ended by posing the question "what can we do?".
My intent is to answer that question, and I started by proposing some of "my" answers in one comment. But first, I need to work through a bit of my own political - or perhaps social - belief system.
The diarist was suggesting that we're in such a financial mess that no one - Obama included - might be able to get us out of the mess without sacrificing some of the things progressives believe in, including what the diarist referred to as "entitlement programs".
I made three comments in that diary, two of them relevant to this one: the one mentioned above, which I'll get to, but in my first comment, I expressed some dismay at the idea that a self-described progressive seemed to have "bought in" on the Republican meme/talking point of "entitlement" programs. The diarist actually used the words "entitlement spending spiraling out of control", particularly with regard to things like Medicare.
by aggieric, Tue May 27, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EDT
I recognize that, under the guidelines, this is not a "real" diary. But, it's clear that the guidelines are being violated left and far-left (we are all progressives, after all, aren't we? Don't answer that - we know that Hillary supporters are really just DINOs - no apostrophe there, please) I'm writing for permission to troll rate. Specifically, I'd like permission to troll rate (maybe even permission to 'hide rate') every "Is this snark?" comment that comes along.
You see, since yesterday's "purge" (please forgive my usage of such an indelicate word) of ratings abusers, they've taken up the phrase "Is this snark" as a battle cry in much the same way that the Texicans took up the phrase "Remember the Alamo!"
I realize that it's just what they do, when they have no other constructive comment to make; problem is, it now appears in every second or third diary and, to be honest, it's really just lost it's charm as a phrase.
And so, Jerome, may I? Pretty please? May I have permission to troll rate? If you say yes, I promise I won't go to the extreme of hide rating. Well, maybe occasionally. It seems like it would be worth it to hide rate tedious, repetitive offenders. If you say yes, I promise I won't ask for anything else. Ever. Until the next time we have a crisis, anyway. Pretty Please?
by aggieric, Tue Mar 18, 2008 at 11:44:17 AM EDT
Pollster John Zogby was a guest yesterday on the Wisconsin Public Radio Ideas Network show "Conversations With Kathleen Dunn", primarily to talk about the poll released by his company recently, showing Nader at 5%. However, Zogby also made a bold prediction, much to the astonishment of Dunn:
Zogby predicted that neither Obama nor Clinton would end up being the Democratic nominee coming out of the convention. Since neither seems likely to win outright based on pledged and super delegate support, Zogby predicted that "party elders" would gather in Denver (he mentioned people like Jimmy Carter, Nancy Pelosi, etc., and danced around the idea of Gore being present, because Gore, he noted, might benefit from the outcome of such a meeting) and ultimately submit a compromise candidate for the Convention to nominate.
Certainly it's an intriguing idea, and it surprised the heck out of Dunn, and Dunn's following guest, Rachel Sklar, the Media and Special Projects Editor for HuffPo. Not surprisingly, Sklar dismissed the prediction as pure fantasy.
The podcast is here: http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cf
at the 9:00 am timeslot.
Cross-posted at DailyKos.