Global LGBT Equality: Going All Out

Please watch and feel free to pass this along:



Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with AllOut.org but I really liked this video.  It's been around since last November, but it just got emailed to me today in light of the halted deportation of Brenda Namigadde from the UK.

Update on Mental Health Story

My response from Color of Change:

Natasha, Feb-03 11:54 am (PST):

Dear Michelle,

Thank you for your note. We sincerely apologize for our careless characterization of people with mental illnesses. You're right -- we didn't intend to imply that all people with mental illnesses are dangerous or irresponsible.

The law in question provides that mental health professionals who believe their clients to be a danger to themselves or others can report names to the national background check database. It does NOT prohibit everyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun.

Sincerely,
Natasha L. S...
ColorOfChange.org

I appreciated receiving this response as I have a lot of respect for those who take the time to write back.

Read the initial story here.

Until next time,

Elle

The Stigma of Mental Illness and its Role in the Current Gun Control Debate

I received a message today from ColorOfChange.org asking me to sign a petition to Congress in support of stricter gun control laws prohibiting certain groups of people from being allowed to purchase firearms.  I feel as though the statement I was asked to support was offensive in light of the tone it took.  While I support responsible gun control regulations, I hope that the debate for and against them can avoid relying on sweeping statements that suggest that all those with mental illnesses have a propensity for violence and recognize that there is a real stigma stemming from that which serves to keep people from seeking help.  I'll copy and paste the ColorOfChange position and my response.  I'll be surprised if I receive a favorable response from them or from those who read this post, but I would like to share my view with you anyway.

The email:


Earlier this month we witnessed a tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ, leaving 6 dead, and 20 others — including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — injured. While rhetoric from the far-fight that feeds distrust and hatred towards our politicians (especially among the mentally ill) needs to be called out and countered, another factor jumps out. Someone like Jared Lee Loughner should never have been able to buy a gun.

We already have laws that make it illegal for criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns. But a broken background check system and wide enforcement loopholes -- kept in place by the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association (NRA) -- have made it difficult to keep guns out of the wrong hands. It's time to close these gaps once and for all. You can help.

Please join us, along with Mayors Against Illegal Guns and others, in making it clear to politicians that everyday Americans support common sense reform and will stand with them if they lead in keeping guns from the most dangerous among us; and please ask your friends and family to join as well. It takes just a moment:

http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/guns/

Two commonsense reforms could prevent future tragedies. First, we should ensure that all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying a gun are entered into the background check system. Then we must close the loopholes that allow people to purchase guns with no background check at all. It sounds easy — but the powerful gun lobby, led by the NRA, has stood in opposition.

The attempted assassination of a member of Congress has frightening implications for our political culture that we should take very seriously. But we should also take this moment to remember that dozens of ordinary people are murdered with guns every day.

It’s a problem that everyone should care about solving — but it disproportionately affects Black, poor, and other disadvantaged communities. Black men are 9 times more likely than white men to be murdered with guns. In too many Black communities across the country, gun violence is a constant danger.

The danger is fueled by the easy availability of guns for those who are legally prohibited from possessing them. And it is so easy for dangerous people to puchase guns because of deep flaws in the systems meant to prevent this from ever occurring. One problem is that those who should be prohibited from buying guns, such as felons and the mentally ill, don’t always make it into the federal background check database. That means gun stores who are trying to follow the law may inadvertently sell guns to dangerous people.

But perhaps more troubling, there are huge loopholes in the law that allow people to bypass background checks altogether. For instance, in the well-known “gun show loophole,” anyone can purchase deadly automatic weapons — weapons designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible — from a gun show with no background check whatsoever.

If any lesson is to be taken from the tragic events in Tucson, it is that these gaps can have deadly consequences. Now, with growing public support for change, there is a unique opportunity to strengthen America’s gun laws to keep these weapons out of the wrong hands.

Please stand with us and our partners at Mayors Against Illegal Guns in asking Congress to do just that. And when you do, please ask your friends and family to do the same.

http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/guns/

Thanks and Peace,

-- James, Gabriel, William, Dani, Natasha and the rest of the ColorOfChange.org team
   January 25th, 2011

The petition text:

Earlier this month a tragic shooting in Tucson, AZ targeting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords killed six people and injured 20. The senseless attack left us grappling with many questions, but one thing is very clear: Whatever you believe about gun laws, we should all be able to agree that we should do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.

Unfortunately, a broken system of background checks and wide enforcement loopholes make it difficult to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Please join us, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and others in calling on Congressional leaders to enact reforms now:

Below is the message we'll send to Congress on your behalf:

Dear Representative / Senator,

In the wake of the recent shootings in Tucson, I was upset to learn that Congress has long tolerated wide loopholes in the laws meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other dangerous people.  I'm calling on you to immediately close these gaps by taking two critical steps:

1) Get all the names of people who should be prohibited from buying a gun into the background check system.

2) Close the loopholes in the background check system.

Without taking these steps, the gun control laws intended to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals are rendered practically meaningless.  Because Jared Lee Loughner wasn't placed in the database for a previous drug conviction, he was able to purchase the gun he used to target Congresswoman Giffords, kill six, and wound 20.

That is to say nothing of the 34 Americans each day who are murdered with guns -- many of which have not been legally obtained.  We can't accept the flaws in our background check system that lead to these tragic deaths.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]

My response: 

While I have generally felt comfortable supporting ColorOfChange causes in the past, I was very disappointed in the last email message you asked me to send to Congress regarding the Tuscon shootings. This is a quote from your form letter/message that you planned to send to Congress on my behalf: "In the wake of the recent shootings in Tucson, I was upset to learn that Congress has long tolerated wide loopholes in the laws meant to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug abusers, the mentally ill and other dangerous people." I just want to take a few minutes of your time to explain why I found this statement to be particularly disturbing and why I could not put my name on the petition.

You have no reason to know this, but I myself am "mentally ill.” (Actually I prefer to be referred to as a person with mental illness, as my illness does not define me any more than diabetes would define a person with diabetes.) I have no desire to own a gun at this point in my life, but I believe that I am capable of being a responsible gun owner if I so choose, in spite of my mental illness. I am one of those productive, peaceful, “everyday Americans” you mentioned in your email message promoting this petition. I've been able to hold onto a great job in spite of my health condition and have very positive relationships with my coworkers and supervisors. I enjoy the company of friends and family who love and support me and I participate actively in efforts to better my community. By all means, I have been able to manage my condition and live a full, rich life.

It concerns me greatly that your form letter lumps "the mentally ill" in with "criminals, drug abusers...and other dangerous people." Perhaps you did not mean to, but your statement quite unambiguously equates having a mental illness with being a dangerous person. I would certainly reject any insinuation that I am a dangerous or violent person. As I'm sure you agree, the mere instance of mental illness in a person does not make that person dangerous. I'm sure you also acknowledge that the majority of violent crimes committed in this country are committed by individuals who do not suffer from any mental illness. In fact, those with severe mental illnesses are significantly more likely to be raped, robbed, or otherwise violently victimized than the rest of the general population.

So perhaps when you said "mentally ill" you really meant “a person with a destabilizing mental health condition who has a propensity for violent behavior as determined by a mental health professional.” I can agree that there should be a process by which those individuals are flagged for the purposes of gun ownership background checks. However that's not the way your petition is written. It suggests that all or many of those with mental illness are somehow dangerous and a threat and, unfortunately, the letter does not go on to provide any qualifications to suggest that this is not a sweeping statement. Again, I support gun control but I do not believe that an instance of mental illness should be an automatic exclusion from gun ownership.

You may ask me why this wording matters so much to me and you may even feel as though I am nitpicking. As someone who regularly deals with the stigma of mental illness, I can assure you I am not. There is a significant amount of shame and ridicule associated with mental illness in this country and it makes people feel like they can't reach out for help and treatment without it negatively impacting their jobs, social life, and family relationships. This is a vicious cycle that can lead to worsening of a person's symptoms and diminish their quality of life. Wording is important and when certain ideas become a regular part of the way we use language, it can have a damaging effect. I believe that the wording you used here is a reflection of this stigma and has the very real effect of perpetuating the shame associated with mental illness in our country at a time when I hope that your intent is the opposite.

Again, as a person that believes in effective gun control and agrees with the idea of requiring extensive screenings prior to gun purchases, I agree with the general sentiment of your comments. However, as a person who knows what it's like to be stigmatized, I implore you to choose your words more carefully in the future. I hope that you understand how this type of wording is hurtful. I implore you to consult the NAMI website from information about the stigma of mental illness.

Thank you for your time.

I welcome your thoughts.

Until next time,

Elle

Mecklenburg County Commissioner Thinks Homosexuals As a Group Are Sexual Predators

This is a very long post, but if you care at all about LGBT issues, DADT repeal, and/or the U.S. military, I promise it's worth slogging through all of it.  I received an "action alert" from a progressive group called CREDO this morning about Commissioner William James, who stated the following in an email response to a coworker who wanted to send a letter of thanks to Congressional leaders from North Carolina who voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell:

"Homosexuals are sexual predators. Allowing homosexuals to serve in the US military with the endorsement of the Mecklenburg County Commission ignores a host of serious problems related to maintaining US military readiness and effectiveness not the least of which is the current Democrat plan to allow homosexuals (male and female) to share showers with those they are attracted to."

Usually I wouldn't bother even discussing this on my blog.  Like I do for many issues brought to my attention by many different groups, I would send out an email, then notify my Twitter following and Facebook friends that they can do the same.  Today, however, is different because I got an almost immediate response from Commissioner James.  Very few times do the emails I send result in a real response from the official, so I want to make sure everyone who reads this understands that it's a big deal.  Here's our full discussion and I hope that you'll weigh in with your opinions (while of course being respectful both to me and to Commissioner James):

First email* :

December 31, 2010

Commissioner Bill James,

Your recent rhetoric calling gay and lesbian Americans "sexual predators" is
hate speech, plain and simple.  Regardless of your views on the recent
repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, it is utterly unacceptable for a public
official to denigrate an entire class of people by labeling all gays and
lesbians "sexual predators."  I demand that you apologize immediately.

For the record, your position on Don't Ask Don't Tell does not make any
sense.  You must realize that the point of the policy was to allow gays and
lesbians to serve in the military in secret.  This means that gays and
lesbians in the miltiary already shower with and share living facilities
with heterosexuals, and it has had absolutely zero negative impact on
military readiness and effectiveness.

I'm truly embarrassed to come from a state that tolerates hate speech from
its elected officials.  In the future, I and the rest of the citizens of
this state who believe in equality and personal freedom would appreciate it
if you keep your bigotry private.

Sincerely,

Michelle Carmon


*The italics indicate the part of the email that Credo provided in the template.  Anything not in italics, I added myself.


First Response:
Homosexual behavior is illegal in NC (NCGS 14-177). We arrest about 250 of
them a year here in Mecklenburg alone.

If you don't like that change the law. Democrats have run Raleigh for 40
years (more or less) and never could muster the votes to do so. The GOP  in
Raleigh won't change it either.


Second Email:


As you've seen with the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, changes in the law can take many years.  Cohabitation is illegal in North Carolina, but with the growing number of people my age doing just that prior to or instead of marriage, I expect that law may change in my lifetime as well.  Please remember that for a long time it was illegal for a man to marry a woman of a different race, but that law was overturned in 1967 because it was morally unjust.  Going back further, it is written in the United States Constitution in Article I that 3/5 of the slave population should be counted when determining representation in Congress.  It took a Constitutional amendment abolishing slavery almost 100 years later for that law to be changed.  I'm certain that very few people would accept a proposal that would take us back to the original law and make slavery and disproportionate representation legal again - this was an immoral law that changed with the times.

I strongly believe that the government has a responsibility to uphold the law, but it is clear simply by looking at our nation's past that just because a law is still on the books doesn't mean it's morally acceptable, nor does it mean it is the most appropriate law for our current times.  Therefore, citing the law really does not give you a license to denigrate an entire class of people who are simply trying to live their lives with dignity.

Homosexual behavior does not automatically make one a sexual predator, and saying so is morally wrong.  I am shocked that you think that somehow because a person's choices in their private sexual life are to have sex with adults of the same gender that they are somehow sexual predators.  I know plenty of gay and lesbian individuals and they are certainly not in a class with pedophiles or rapists who perpetrate sexual violence.  As a victim of sexual assault, I find it personally insulting that homosexuality is ever equated with sexually predatory behavior - I can assure you that they are not equal in any regard.  Scientists as far back as the 1970s and 1980s agreed that homosexuality is not even appropriately defined as mental illness.  Current, objective analysis of research that has been done over the years has shown that there has been significant bias and misinformation in prior studies.  The general consensus within the scientific community is that at this time, there is no objective (unbiased), scientific evidence showing that homosexuals are any more likely than heterosexuals to engage in sexually predatory activities, such as child molestation or abuse.

The reason speech like this is harmful should be quite evident.  We have had at least half a dozen children across the nation commit suicide this year because they were bullied by those who thought their real or perceived same-sex attractions made them worthy of ridicule and unbearable harassment.  There are countless others who endure every day in silence.  Speech like yours, that puts these minority children in a category with sexual predators, gives bullies of any age an excuse for treating these people disrespectfully.  I don't want my state to become a place where confused LGBT young people are forced to suffer in silence and shame or even resort to killing themselves because they believe what they are told by authority figures such as yourself - that their attractions, which they have little if any power to control, will cause them to become degenerate sexual predators.  There is simply no evidence that such an accusation is true, but perpetuating this belief can cause real harm.

I confess I am not very well versed in conservative politics, but as I understand it the Republican Party prides itself on advocating for less government intervention and fewer restrictions on personal freedom.  It seems to be a core conservative principle, reaching across party lines to Libertarians and independents, to keep government regulation to a minimum and to get it out of the way of individuals and business so that our economy and our country as a whole can prosper. So not only is the stance that homosexual activity should be banned and the homosexuals prosecuted severely misguided, but it appears to go against the basic principles of personal freedom and small government for which Republicans and conservatives are supposed to fight.  Perhaps the objection to homosexuality really stems not from an empirical, scientific basis but from a fundamentalist religious perspective, which is seen to trump the ideals of limited government.  I certainly believe that every American should be able practice their religion freely, but I do not believe that our laws should be based on religious doctrine when that doctrine serves to marginalize and criminalize a minority group.  It is every person's choice to determine whether or not they wish to discriminate in their personal lives or in their churches, but to extend such discrimination to laws that govern private citizens like myself seems to clearly violate the separation of church and state, a core principle that allows our country to be one of the freest nations in the world.

At any rate, I appreciate that you took the time to send a response.  I have respect for those elected officials who are willing to respond to criticism and explain their actions.  Of course, I do pray that you may one day have a change of heart, or at the very least decide to keep such incendiary speech out of the public sphere.

Sincerely,

Michelle Carmon

Raleigh, NC

Second Reponse:

You’re welcome. Attached is my specific write up. I don’t think ALL are sexual predators but I do think the ‘group’ has problems and that homosexual leaders refuse to address them.

If DADT is gone then protections should be afforded heterosexual military.

If gay leaders were truly moral and upright they would condemn the MBLA but no…………. just excuses about ‘freedom of speech’.

The commissioner's write up mentioned above was sent to me as a PDF attachment.  For ease of sharing the statement with you, I'm just going to copy and paste the text below (apologies in advance for the block of text, but the formatting isn't going to copy over):

The Red Phone

As you might have noticed, liberals and homosexuals are all up in arms at the thought that anyone would state the truth that homosexuals are predatory. Not that every homosexual is, but as a group, yes.

With the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) immorality has gained a foothold in the barracks and showers of the US Military. Liberals say ‘There have always been homosexuals in the military and nothing has happened’. True, but like a whore in church, homosexuals have been on their best behavior because that behavior was illegal and they didn’t want to risk being kicked out. Now that DADT has been repealed, Congress and the Citizens of the US need to develop rules to protect young heterosexual military members from such predatory behavior by homosexuals.

I can hear liberals screaming into their monitors: “They aren’t predators!”

I disagree. Go down to the Dowd YMCA and let them show you the ‘red phone’. They had to put it in to stop homosexuals from ogling straight business men in the showers and changing rooms. The same upper-crust of Charlotte who claim to be for diversity have to install special equipment to protect themselves from the predatory behavior of homosexuals in a place that should be safe, if homosexuals were not predatory. This isn’t news but it is hypocritical of Charlotte’s Observer elite. Charlotte’s red phone isn’t the only one. All across the US there are procedures in place to prevent homosexuals from preying on men at the Y.

Take a look at the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police records and they will show you that the police run ‘sting’ operations to target homosexuals who gather in parks. In most of the last few years, 250 homosexuals have been arrested each year by the CMPD for ‘soliciting a crime against nature’. Homosexual conduct is still illegal in NC but even though it is, the red phone and sting operations are still necessary.

A few years ago the County had to spend big bucks redesigning Kilbourne Park so that it did not attract homosexuals. The County Commission spent your tax dollars to protect you and your kids from homosexuals and joined with the police to run a sting operation to identify and arrest them.

Ultimately, the louder liberals yell; the more irrational homosexuals froth at the mouth; the more I am convinced that I am correct to speak about the matter as the next Congress will have to debate and adopt rules to insure that heterosexuals in the military are not targets of unwanted sexual advances.

This all started because NC Senator Burr (a Republican) voted to repeal DADT without even working out the details on how to protect young service members. Shame on him. The attention on this was focused in media articles because of an ill-conceived letter request from BOCC Chair Jennifer Roberts and my comments that service members would be at risk now that DADT was repealed.

As you might imagine I have received a lot of mail, including some from overseas military. One service member said:

“I am currently in my second tour in Iraq, and I have a ….. address. Thanks for having the courage to speak up. I am afraid that from now on, in the military, I will be punished for speaking up now that immoral conduct is condoned. I prayed that this would not happen, but my prayer was not answered in the way that I wanted it to -- maybe God has other plans for the USA that I do not understand.”

Senator Burr, who voted for this has an extra-ordinary responsibility to fix this and protect heterosexual military men and women.

Currently, Men and Women are separated because it would cause sexual problems if men showered, changed, and maintained personal space with women. That is common sense and basic biology. Now that homosexuals are in the military ‘out and proud’ the US Government (and Burr Specifically) should insure that those that ogle men are separate from those that do not, and those that want to ogle women are separate from those that do not.

If you had a 18 year old daughter (let’s call her ‘Buffy’) and she wanted to serve in the military to afford college (G.I. bill) and serve her country would you want her to share a shower with some 35 year old butch lesbians who ogle her (or worse)? That is what is at stake with the repeal of DADT.

Repealing DADT was a left-wing political move made before Christmas by a lame-duck Democrat Congress. That vote comes with some severe consequences for military readiness. The left-wing of America and radical homosexuals will be out in force to try and prevent any rules that would protect Buffy or her male counterpart, Wally. Young kids who enlist will become sexual targets in the new US Military.

Parents with kids in the military (especially in the enlisted ranks) should band together to demand rules to protect their kids from unwanted advances in personal spaces (barracks, showers, and other areas). They can’t put a ‘red phone’ in every military shower but they could separate homosexuals and put them with their own.

The louder they scream the more I know I am right to bring the matter up and Challenge Senator Burr to fix this. The fate of thousands of young military men and women (not to mention the military readiness of the US) hang in the balance.

Regards,

Commissioner Bill James (R, District 6)

Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners

600 East Fourth Street, 11th Floor

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

HTTP://billjames.org

Facebook: Meckcommish

Now that you're aware of our two diametrically opposed positions on this issue, I'd appreciate your thoughts. If you'd like to comment directly to Commissioner James, you may do so through CREDO (which I've verified does get a direct, prompt response) or through one of his publicly posted contact methods.  I look forward to hearing your perspective!

Until next time,

Elle

Artic Love, President Obama, and the Sierra Club

I've got one more week exactly until I take the LSAT.  In fact, in a week's time I'll already be in the middle of the first section of the test.  In spite of my furious practice, I do take time in the mornings to check my email.  I got this cute one from the Sierra Club so I thought I'd share the video with you.  Hope it makes you smile:



If you want to electronically sign the card to President Obama about this issue, you can do so here.

Until next time,
Elle

Sierra Club - Protect Local Communities from Toxic Coal Ash

Environmental issues are near and dear to my heart.  I was an activist for Greenpeace and for the NC Conservation Network both on and offline, but have had to curb my involvement this year due to other priorities.  Somehow I found myself on a different Sierra Club email list than I've been on in the past and this one gives supporters ways to participate in online campaigns.  As I discussed at length a couple of weeks ago, I'm very involved in online campaigns now because they are a non-time consuming way to contact legislative and other government figures about the issues that matter to me.

This online letter campaign is directed at the EPA.  They are considering public opinion on federal regulations for toxic coal ash, and as usual, coal lobbyists are hitting them hard to not pass these needed regs.  I adapted the text of the letter and sent it off this afternooon:

I appreciate this opportunity for public comment on the proposal for new federally enforceable standards surrounding coal ash disposal.  I am sure that you are receiving a lot of push back from the coal industry, but here is my point of view as a private American citizen with no ties to the industry.

First, thank you for recognizing the serious problems posed by toxic coal ash left from the burning of coal. Communities across the country are exposed to heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury seeping from ash storage sites into our drinking water, rivers and streams. The result -- increased risk of cancer, learning disabilities, birth defects and other illnesses.

As you well know, coal ash is hazardous but less strictly controlled than household garbage. The EPA must adopt enforceable federal safeguards, not suggested guidelines for states, to protect our communities.  This citizen stands behind your efforts to do just that.

If the BP oil disaster and the Tennessee coal ash tragedy taught us anything, it's that we can't just take the polluter's word for it anymore. I urge you to stand up to industry pressure and issue strong, federally enforceable safeguards quickly under Subtitle C to protect communities from toxic coal ash. Continuing to ignore scientific and safety concerns comes at a high cost to our families, communities and economy.  I trust that the EPA will be able to do the right thing by Americans and enact these safeguards.

Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to share my concerns.


If you're interested in sharing your support for these regulations or even just learning more about this issue (which I encourage you to do before you sign on to anything), please check out this link: Sierra Club Coal Ash Rule Resources.  Educate yourself and then click the Take Action tab if you want to send a letter.

Until next time,
Elle

P.S. For those friends who have been following my weight loss journey, I have lost 15 pounds.  I do not look or feel any smaller but I am very encouraged by the results.  More to come on that whenever I take another break from the books. ;)

Letter to Congress: Support NPR not Extremists

I write letters or sign petitions all the time about issues that are important to me.  I'm on the email list for the NC Conservation Network, Planned Parenthood, both of our nation's main political parties, Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, HRC, and several others.  In the past I've done some volunteering and protesting with Greenpeace and participated some in the 2008 Obama/Biden campaign, and more recently my county's Progressive Democrats group.  I wanted to get more involved in this year's elections, but I decided that studying for the LSAT so that I can meet my short-term goal of getting into law school starting in 2011 had to take precedence over everything else.

I'll be honest - in a way that makes me feel like an ideological hypocrite.  Let me explain.  I publicize issues I care about by emailing my representatives and sharing articles and petitions via Facebook and Twitter, but I'm not out canvassing, donating vast sums of money, or rallying for sanity.  I guess I really shouldn't beat myself up - I'm not really a part of the oft-criticized social media crowd that allegedly only cares about issues enough to sign up for a "if 1 million people join this, I will..." Facebook group and never think about them again.  I can't find the article I read criticizing this online phenomenon, but here's a rather popular article that sparked a lot of response (mostly from people disagreeing with the writer's claims that online activism isn't really a solution): http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell.  I don't think that anyone should try to minimize the impact that writing to your elected officials can have, so I'm trying to get over my misplaced guilt.

While I definitely feel conflicted about online activism and while I really wish I had the time, money, and ability to do more, I will never stop standing up for what I believe in.  I will continue to promote issues I think are important via my Facebook profile, Twitter, and any other social media I deem appropriate.  I will continue to write my legislators, both in state and in Washington, to let them know where one of their constituents stands on the issues.  I will never stop emailing officials, political organizations, religious groups, and outspoken bigots like Focus on the Family regardless of where they are located if their actions and ideological stances are bad for our country.  I will sign petitions in favor of net neutrality, comprehensive bullying education and sex education in public schools, the protection of benefits like unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare that mean so much to the low-income clients I serve at my job every day, and legislation that requires insurance companies to provide women coverage for any type of prescription birth control they may want or need.

I thought it might be an interesting experiment to save the messages that I send online about these issues.  I'm going to try and remember to add to the blog the text of the emails and letters I send as another way to promote awareness and spark discussion.  I hope you'll provide me with your feedback on some or all of them.  I sometimes (but not nearly as often as I should) get responses from the people to whom I write.  I have to put in a good word here for Senator Richard Burr, R-NC for being the only politician that has consistently responded to my concerns in writing, even though we quite often disagree on the issues.  I respect and appreciate that so when I can I'll try to post any responses I receive.

Okay so, that was a rather long segue into my first blog post documenting a emailed letter/petition signature I sent to Congress.  The issue is regarding the call to action by Senator Jim Demint, R-SC and former Governor Sarah Palin to end federal funding for NPR.  If you're not familiar with the Juan Williams situation, you can find more information via Google - there are articles galore.  For an insider's perspective, check out this NPR employee's post.  I first heard about the controversy via email from both Free Press Action Fund and Credo Action.  Here is the petition I signed and the one from Credo.  The text of my message is below:

I rely on NPR to provide me with news and political commentary. I don't know where I'd be without them. I grew up listening to Car Talk on Saturday mornings with my father and news during the week when he took me to school. In college, I used to listen to NPR stations to have stimulating classical music to listen to while I studied. Now as a professional adult, I listen to NPR to get my news and stay updated on current events that matter to our nation. My almost 23 year love affair with public radio is just one of many stories, but I share it with you to let you know what a broad and diverse impact public radio has. Even though my needs have changed over the years, NPR has always been there for me to meet them.

Public radio is extremely important to me and to millions of Americans. I understand that some are upset over the recent firing of Juan Williams. I am not going to support or disparage that action. I will say that I do not see that firing someone for perceived bigotry is an offense that should be punished with decreased funding.

Public radio relies on the funds you are considering eliminating in order to function and bring the news, music, political commentary, and entertainment to 30 million Americans across our great nation. Please do not let political pontification at election time cause you to rashly eliminate funding that NPR needs to continue functioning at its current level. Stand up for what's right and defend the public's right to have access to public radio.

Thank you very much for your time.

Some people are arguing that even if this funding cut does happen, NPR won't be affected all that much.  I'm not willing to take that chance.  Please let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Until next time,
Elle