Lou Dobbs is NOT a legitimate reporter or news commentator

Lou Dobbs is making a mockery of CNN and news reporting by claiming that President Obama needs to provide a birth certificate (he already has and posted it on the internet). Would Dobbs be making this claim if the President had more "mainstream" name? CNN needs to censure Dobbs. This is not a freedom of speech issue, Dobbs can say whatever he wants on his own radio show. Its his credibility on CNN that needs to be challenged.

The following is an article from David Brock of Media Matters:

From David Brock of Media Matters:

Recently, CNN's Lou Dobbs has repeatedly used his prominent platform as a prime-time host on CNN, as well as his daily nationally syndicated radio show, to legitimize paranoid conspiracy theories about President Barack Obama's birth certificate. Despite the fact that these fringe ideas have been thoroughly debunked, he continues to mainstream extreme right-wing rhetoric by asserting that Obama needs to "produce a birth certificate" and giving birther conspiracies airtime on his shows.

In response to Dobbs' relentless trafficking in these fringe conspiracy theories, CNN President Jon Klein initially declared the story "dead," saying anyone who "is not convinced doesn't really have a legitimate beef." But less than 24 hours later, Klein caved in to Dobbs, reversing himself completely. He even went so far as to reportedly call Dobb's coverage of the birther movement "legitimate."

Klein's caving to Dobbs raises a serious, troubling question: Who is really calling the shots at CNN? We need your help today to publicly pressure CNN credibly address its Dobbs problem.

http://dobbsconspiracy.com/

Contrary to Klein's description of Dobbs' birth certificate coverage as "legitimate," CNN's own hosts have debunked and ridiculed the story as "ludicrous," "nutty," and "conspiratorial."

Nevertheless, Dobbs has repeatedly claimed on both his television and radio shows that President Obama has failed to adequately address the claims of birther conspiracy theorists. He has said that Obama needs to "produce a birth certificate" and that the birth certificate the president posted online more than a year ago has "some issues." Rather than correct the record in response to criticism of his coverage of birther theories, Dobbs has lashed out at "lily-livered lefties" who criticized him because he "had the temerity to inquire as to where the birth certificate was." He even claims a "national left-wing media conspiracy" is attacking him over the birther issue.

We need to present CNN with an overwhelming public response to Dobbs' relentless promotion of these conspiracy theories tinged with racism.
So, please sign the following petition today and demand that CNN address its Lou Dobbs problem in a credible manner.

http://dobbsconspiracy.com/

Thank you for your help in holding CNN accountable,

David Brock
Founder & CEO
Media Matters for America

Marriage rights

"Legal" marriage is an historically NEW concept. 500 years ago (and less in lots of places) marriages between the lowly peasants did not happen (and lets be honest now, we are not all related to Lords, Ladies, Royalty and Peerage). There was no written document. There was no where to file it, no bureau of vital statistics. People just got married, period. Sometimes a church ceremony, sometimes not. They lived together and provided for themselves & their families. No fuss, no muss, just get married and get on with the business of providing for your family.

Then the "gentrification" of society happened. The industrial revolution, cottage industries, factories, and everyone starts reading and writing. Voila, the ceremony is codified, the procedures and legitimacy sanctified by "registration" with the state.

Ok, I have over simplified the historical perspective. However, you get the idea. Marriage was not always codified as between a man and a woman.

If a white man married an Indian woman, she was no longer allowed to live on a reserve. She lost her Indian status and her children were not deemed to be Indian. In some states a black man or woman could not "legally" marry a white man or woman.

My point: these ideas of marriage changed over time. It changed to reflect the changes in society. Operative word: changed.

We need to ackowledge that people have a right to marry. Period. Get over ourselves as being the sole arbiter of the definition of "marriage". If you believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, then don't marry someone of the same sex as yourself, and leave others alone to do as they wish. No one is going to force you to marry someone of the same sex.

Now in the US, there are over 1,000 federal statutes that will affect the government's and a person's rights and responsibilities, based on the definition of marriage. This fact alone suggests to me that there is a HUGE difference between a civil union and a marriage.

Same sex unions happen. They are NOT illegal any more. Lets recognize the fact that marriage is a right and a responsibility, not an operation of prejudice and bigotry.

Happy Pride :)

In Praise of Social Workers

This is in Praise and Thanks of All Social Workers and
Specifically: Irena Sendlerowa, (aka Sendler), 1910 - 2008

Social Workers often have a negative public image. This is in part because they are often the source of separating children from their families. This is not the “fault” of the social worker. It is an option of last resort to remove a child from their family home. It is not taken lightly. However, when a child is at risk, it must be done. The brave women and men that have this task are social workers. In my mind, they are all heros.

The other part of why the negative image continues is because they don't have a good public relations director. No one speaks for them, takes their side or backs them up. Its much more fun and "interesting" to find and report on the bad examples than those that do a great job and save lives.

This article is my little attempt at tipping those scales. Tipping them in favour of social workers.

A group of Kansas high school kids also tipped those scales in favour of social workers. They undertook to find out about a Polish social worker hero of World War II, Irena Sendlerowa. They wrote and produced a play called “Life In A Jar” about this social worker. Their work was then used as the basis for a Hallmark Hall of Fame movie, “The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler”, televised on April 19, 2009.

There is now a biography of Ms. Sendlerowa’s life and her heroic efforts saving the Warsaw children. It was written and published in Poland in 2004.

Ms. Sendloerowa's story is a glorious one, especially given that she did not take all the credit for what she helped accomplish. She claimed that saving the children was a team effort and that she simply did per part.

Irena Sendlerowa was a Polish Catholic social worker in Warsaw during World War II. She was one of the visionaries that saw the writing on the wall, and started a campaign to take Jewish children out of the Warsaw ghetto and place them with Polish families, orphanages and monasteries. She worked with the Zegota (Council to Aid the Jews) to provide 2,500 children with new identities and to keep them safe. Ms. Sendlerowa kept the true details of the children in glass jars buried in her friend’s garden.

When the war was over, Ms. Sendlerowna dug up the glass jars from the garden, and helped to re-unite the children with their families. Many of the parents died at the Treblinka death camp. There is no doubt that the children she helped to rescue would have had a similar fate.

Ms. Sendlerowa faced many risks and was eventually captured by the German Nazi’s. She was tortured and sentenced to death. Ms. Sendlerowa managed to escape with the help of the resistance (the Zegota) and remained in hiding for the rest of the war.

That was not the end of the story for this brave woman. Ms. Sendlerowa was persecuted again by the Polish communist government. She was sentenced to death again, and saved again. Her story could not be told until recently for fear of further persecution.

One of the most poignant facts about this heroic lady was her insistence that she did not do this work alone. She said that it could not have happened without the help of the other people working with her to save the children. She was the co-ordinator, but all of them were essential.

Ms. Sendlerowna has been honoured by the International Federation of Social Workers. She received the Order of the White Eagle from Poland, and is an honorary citizen of Israeland. The Israeli Yad Vashem institute honored Sendlerowa with the Righteous Among the Nations medal. There is now an Irena Sendler Award for “Healing the World”.

Kansas has dedicated March 10 as Irena Sendler Day

There are rumours that Ms. Sendlerowa was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, but “lost out” to Al Gore and the Climate Change Panel. However, these are only rumours. Nobel Prize nominees are not revealed for 50 years after their consideration. So, we won’t know this for another 48 years. Nobel Peace Prize Awards are not given posthumously.

What can you do?

When you say your daily prayers or meditations, or you need help with a child, any kind of help, ask Irena Sendlerowa to pray on your behalf. It is a kindly way to remember her heroic and humble feats, and help you as well.

You can also help to spread the word about social workers generally. They really are a good lot. Theirs is a difficult job, but our society is better for it.

References:

www.irenasendler.org

Snopes.com

Wikipedia Article on Irena Sendlerowna

Social Work & Society, The International On-Line Journal, article on Irena Sendleowna

Nobel Prize Webpage

Project InPosterum, Preserving the Past for the Future, Chapter 4, The Konrad Zegota Committee

BC Referendum on Voting System - The Results

British Columbians did not vote to pass the Referendum for changing the way we vote in this Province. The Single Transferable Vote did not win the necessary number of votes to become binding on our new government.

There are 75 electoral districts which have completed their initial count, and 10 districts left to report. However, it seems that the preliminary voting results will stand.

The following is directly from Elections BC (http://results.elections.bc.ca/REF-2009-001.html):

For BC-STV to be selected as the preferred electoral system and for the result to be binding on government, two thresholds must be met:

1. At least 60% of the valid votes province-wide must be cast in favour of BC-STV
2. In at least 51 of the 85 electoral districts, more than 50% of the valid votes in the electoral district must be cast in favour of BC-STV

If either of these thresholds is not met, the result of the referendum is not binding on government.

As of May 13, 2009 4:00 p.m. the preliminary results are:

% of valid votes province-wide in favour of BC-STV

38.74%

Number of electoral districts with 50% or more of the valid votes cast in favour of BC-STV

7

We did not want the suggested change to the way we elect member to the Provincial Legislative assembly. We may be asked again at the next election. If we are, we will need more information.

We will also need more options. We need a solution that is as unique as British Columbia. What we were offered was simply a carbon copy of a system used in other parts of the world.

We have a large land mass. Different parts of the Province have differing needs. Those needs have to be addressed. Are they being met by the type of representation we currently use? Clearly, the people of BC did not think that the proposed “first past the post” or “single transferable vote” system would serve them.

Yet, also clearly, the people of BC do want some type of political reform. People want to know that their vote counts. They want to know that they are represented.

Will this be an end to the question of election reform? The STV Referendum may have failed, but that may not be the end of the issue. Will we want a new look at the whole question?

There were only 2 questions put before the electorate. The original committee’s mandate could not look beyond this question. Does that mean we to broaden the issue.

Or do we leave this issue for a while and focus solely on the economy and its recovery?

BC has a history of having unique political frontiers, even in types of adversity. We are often viewed as being in a political “LaLa” or “Lotus” Land by the rest of Canada. They think we are politicially nuts. Perhaps we are.

However, some of our "crazy west coast" political initiatives have become the staple of mainstream politics. We were the first province to embrace the green movement, including the Green Party. We were the first to do a referendum on Senate Reform. We were even the first province to (unofficially) call our Premier the Prime Minister (remember Wacky Bennett?). Ok, maybe that went too far.

We have not heard the last of political reform in BC. The First Past the Post or Single Transferrable Vote system was not accepted by British Columbians on May 12. That does not mean that the question is dead. Mark my words, we will see it again. Hopefully, in a form that fits the uniqueness of British Columbia. Stay tuned.

BC Referendum on Voting System

This ballot is going to be given to you at the upcoming election in British Columbia on May 12.

Its another referendum vote, and its an important one.

It is going to ask for your opinion about which electoral system BC should use for MLA’s:

• Keep the current system (they call this "First Past the post”, more about this later); or

• single transferable vote (they call this “BC-STV”, and I’ll discuss this later too).
  

Each group, “First past the post”, and “BC-STV”, received funding from the provincial government (about $500,000 each). Its REALLY important that we (the voters & taxpaers) get our money's worth in this referendum! The best way to do that, is to get as much information as is available, then make a choice, and MOST importantly, FILL OUT THE BALLOT!

Here is some ways to get information:

Pro BC-STV
The site for those that want BC-STV: http://stv.ca/join

Here is a short synapsis of how advocates of the BC-STV say the system will work:
http://stv.ca/how-does-stv-work

The following is a video created by the pro STV group, and it explains the benefits of the STV system: http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/flash/bc-stv-full

Also, you can google “BC STV” or go to YouTube and do a search there for “yes STV”.


Pro First Past the Post
This is the First Past the Post site: http://www.nostv.org/index.html

The First Past the Post organization has concerns about the proposed STV system. In a nutshell, they say the system is complicated, and it is difficult to understand how your vote will be counted. Have a look here: http://www.nostv.org/count.html

Here is a video about the concerns of STV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omTILekHRyI

Other No to STV Sights
http://www.stvnothankyou.org/index.html#nogo

http://community.netidea.com/ccbc/singletransferablevote.htm this is Mike Culpepper’s site on the Single Transferrable Vote question. It has lots of resources and information for further edification.

Bottom Line:
Learn as much as you can about this topic AND THEN VOTE!

Political Integrity

Yes, that's right. Political Integrity.

There is a large part of our population that believe that the phrase "political integrity" is an oxymoron.

I do not.

I have worked for politicians, in BC, the Yukon, and Alberta, and have to say that there are many politicians with integrity.

The majority of politicians are truly public servants.

While I didn't always believe in their policies, I know that they did, and that is sometimes what matters. Underlying even their policies was a desire to make where we live a better place for the citizens. To me, that is integrity.

President Obama has integrity. There are some historical Canadian politicians that have integrity: Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Tommy Douglas; and world leaders: Mohandas Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., President Nelson Mandela.

Use your imagination to think of more. Not just politicians that you like or agree with, or were charismatic. Recall them from the broader spectrum: from the left, the right, socialist, capitalist, even historical and religious leaders like Jesus, and Buddha. They too were politicians.

I do not suggest that there are no politicians without integrity, of course there are. However, this is not about them.

How do you tell whether a politician has integrity? Easy: are they honest? Do they keep their word?

Are they willing to stand up and face tough questions?

Do they acknowledge the little people in their community?

Do they work to make life better for their constituents?

Do they propose solutions or do they sling mud?

Are they accessible? Do they answer the important questions from the people they serve?

Take the time to find out. That's your job. Don't just dismiss all politicians. Remember that you have a responsibility too. It is not just about whether you show up in the voting booth (but that is an important component too), its about making an informed choice.

Don't be afraid to find out who has and who does not have integrity.

Take part. If you don't have the answers, ask questions. Then listen carefully to the answers.

There are politicians that have integrity. They do exist. Find out who they are and what they are going to do for your community, for your country. Support them. They need you just as much as you need them.

Be an citizen with integrity. You may be surprised that you will discover politicians with integrity. They exist. They want to serve.

BC Homelessness

Homelessness in BC is in the news... must be an election looming...

The BC Liberals have decided to arbitrarily change the definition of “homeless”. They are doing this without so much as a “by your leave” with anyone, especially those with a vested interested in providing assistance to the homeless.

Why?

The election of course.

So they can bandy about numbers to support their blatant inaction in dealing with the issue of homelessness. Inaction, except in changing the name of course.

The Ministry of Housing & Social Development, has now issued their definition of homeless.

Couch-surfing is no longer part of the definition.

Sleeping in a doorway is no longer part of the definition, unless you have been there for more than 30 days.

Next, will they be changing the definition of 30 days? Will it be consecutive days? What about weekends?

If you are homeless for 30+days, will a stint on a friend’s couch for a weekend mean that you are not homeless any more?

Transition houses, houses without adequate or running water and no heat, second stage housing in shelters are all considered “housing”. So those living in these circumstances are now “housed”.

Tents?

Shacks and lean-to’s?

Looks like they mean you are now "housed" and not "homeless".

Here is a good article about this specific issue: http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/30/HomelessNumbers/

Also, on April 19, Pivot Legal Society and SFU are jointly presenting a day long film review and discussion about homelessness ($3 -$5) Doors open @ 11:30 a.m., SFU Harbour Centre (see poster here: http://www.pivotlegal.org/comingevents.html)

Here is the Ministry directive (have a look, it will likely disappear in the next week or so): http://www.gov.bc.ca/meia/online_resource/program_administration/homelessness/procedures.html#1