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

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

Why Don't We Care About the 9/11 First Responders?

So, I love these little animated movies people make with XtraNormal and upload to YouTube.  You know which ones I'm talking about - with the little animated characters and computerized voices.  Well, I finally have a free weekend, so I decided to play around with this site and made a video.  Enjoy:



Until next time,
Elle

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