No post yesterday. I was running around like a madwoman all day trying to get uncooperative pages to magically turn into pamphlets to take with me to focus groups in Pittsburgh this coming week.

Today marks the first day civil unions are legal in Connecticut. Congratulations to all those who are becoming legally united after prolonged periods of waiting. I wish you the best (and when I say best, I mean that I hope eventually that stupid politicians get off their butts and realize that their relationships are no more or less valid than yours and that your relationship, therefore, deserves equal protection under the law, not just different protection, which is what they have offered you now, as you well know).

Today is also our friend Mike’s birthday. I do not have Mike’s email address, or I would say this to him in an e-card. But as I don’t, his wife Shelley (who sometimes reads this blog) will just have to pass along our best wishes for a jam-filled, headache-free birthday weekend.

My plans for today center around relaxing. I have failed the first step — sleeping in. I don’t guarantee that I won’t return to bed, but that’s not really the same thing.

• I will shop — both at the Crafty Bastards arts and crafts fair up the road, where I hope to buy some Christmas presents, and at a grocery store, where I hope in exchange for some money they will give me something to outfit my larder. It’s been looking a bit Mother Hubbardish since we returned from England.
• I will walk. DC’s cultural office is offering a number of cool-sounding historical tours today that sound like they could be fun and informative. If I weren’t sick and in the middle of a frantic crafts project and between two plane flights, I might be adventurous and explore a neighborhood not my own, but as it stands, I think I’ll pick one of the offerings that stays nearby (Georgetown, Embassy Row, Eleanor Roosevelt’s DC life…).
• I will knit. I will knit a lot. This cold/flu/whatever has severely hampered my progress at a critical time. I still harbor delusions of finishing in time for next week’s deadline (thoughts enabled by knitting and non-knitting friends who have seen me beat innumerable deadlines in the past in just the nick of time), but I am rapidly running out of days (and people seem not to understand that I should knit instead of work this week).
• I will watch baseball. It is the final weekend of the regular season, and, while my team is out of contention (although they did admirably well and will end the season with a better-than-.500 record for the first time in a couple of years), Rudi’s team is not. The Sox and the Yankees face off to determine the supremacy of the AL East and whether they can continue to thumb their noses at each other in the post-season. If the Sox lose, I won’t take it personally. I grew up in Connecticut and have no disagreements with the Yankees, except when they play the Mets.

I think that sounds like a busy day, so I’m not going to do anything else (or, at least, plan to do anything else). Posting may be a bit haphazard this week, as I’ll have to do it at Kinko’s in Pittsburgh…

Generally, I remain ambiguous about Starbucks as a company. On the whole, I try not to buy into the corporate chain concept, feeling that they run small local outfits out of business (whether intentionally or accidentally). On the other hand, as far as chains go, Starbucks seems like it tries to respond to local customer demands — shade grown coffee, smaller musical artist playlists, community-based charities, etc.

So, I will go to Starbucks, but don’t go out of my way to choose them if a local option (like Tryst in D.C. or Klekolo in Connecticut) presents itself.

But I might have to up my drink quota if the Concerned Women of America have their way.

They object to an Armistead Maupin quote that appears on some Starbucks “great thoughts” cups:

My only regret about being gay is that I repressed it for so long. I surrendered my youth to the people I feared when I could have been out there loving someone. Don’t make that mistake yourself. Life’s too damn short.

My guess is that if the first sentence hadn’t been included these “concerned” women would have been fine with the sentiment. But because it was associated with being gay, it became something to dismiss and belittle.

I’m fine with these women choosing to boycott Starbucks. That is their choice, just as my boycott of Wal-Mart is my choice. But they should understand that what they’re suggesting is both censorship and discrimination. And as they seem to imply that their own group is both censored and discriminated against, I would suggest that a little more tolerance on their part would make their own request for respect less hypocritical.

Because, if I remember correctly, another great philosopher suggested that the best way to live is to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Don’t you think that would make a great cup?

(Via Bookslut)

Today in 1920 American women were finally granted the constitutional guarantee of a right to vote* — the 17th nation to do provide gender equality in the voting booth. The process had taken 72 years. The 19th Amendment reads:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I’d like to take the opportunity today to thank the women (and men) who came before me who worked hard so that I have the right to vote. The reality of the matter is that while I, as a D.C. voter, still lack Congressional representation, I do not lack voting rights in presidential races nor in local politics.

And remember — if you have the legal right to vote and you do not take advantage of it, you don’t get the right to complain.

———
*While technically all women were given the right to vote in 1920, the fact remains that many minority women did not gain their suffrage until the 1960s.

According to today’s Hartford Courant, the Groton Sub Base will remain open.

This is good news for the economy of southeastern Connecticut, which depends heavily on the military families who reside there to stay afloat.

I’m not sure that a steady long-term diet of casinos, the military, and the pharmaceutical industry is a healthy one, but until a better solution is devised, I am pleased to see that Groton and its surrounding areas will not have to drop off the map.

Science is an interesting subject to follow.

(more…)

Once upon a time, there was a city. The half million people who lived there asked not to have guns roaming their city. They felt that guns increased the likelihood of crime, already a problem in their hometown. In a rare instance of civic agreement, the clamor was nearly unanimous. A bill was passed. There was much rejoicing.

Thirty years passed. During that time, the crime rate went up (as it did in many cities), but, gradually, it went down again. The citizens remained in favor of the ban. The mayor supported it. The city council supported it. Local Republicans supported it. Even the chief of police supported it.

So, this story ends happily, right?

Well, no.

Because, you see, a Congressman from Indiana (500 miles from the city) and a Senator from Texas (1,400 miles from the city) decided that the citizens should have guns. And these two officials decided this even though they would fight tooth and nail to not inflict random laws that were unpopular and dangerous on their own constituents.

And why was this a big deal? Elected officials from far away have no power outside their own jurisdiction, so what a senator from Alaska feels would be best for Baton Rouge, for instance, is of little consequence. Right?

Generally. But not in this city.

You see, this city is Washington, D.C., and, in addition to having no voting rights in Congress (you remember that from high school civics, right?), Washington also does not have final say over its own laws.

So when Rep. Mark Edward Souder and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson get together and decide they feel like altering our laws, they have that right and we, the residents and duly elected officials of the city, do not. And yesterday the House passed the measure — for the third time.

In previous years, the measure has not passed the Senate, but Hutchinson (who seems to feel she would sleep better at night if someone could shoot her) and Souder tied it to a spending bill that must be passed, making it more likely that the Senate could approve it.

This is where you come into the story. If you live outside of Washington, D.C., and in one of the other 50 states, you have voting representation in Congress. It’s too late to do anything about the House. But it’s not too late to influence the Senate. So please call or email your senators on behalf of me and the other 550,000 residents of Washington, D.C. Ask them to vote down Senate Bill 1082 IS, otherwise known as the “District of Columbia Personal Protection Act,” or any version of the bill that is presented as an amendment to the federal spending bill. Remind them you want them to be focusing their energies on making your state better and not on forcing an unwelcome and dangerous law on people who are perfectly capable of making their own laws. Remind them this is a double-standard they should not uphold.

Section 4 of the Act entitled “An Act to prohibit the killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of Columbia,” approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; section 1-303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.” [Emphasis mine]

Remind them that if Congress tried to restrict your state from enacting laws, as this bill does for D.C., that you’d be furious. And be furious today for me.

And give this story a happy ending.

Update:
The House bill that the amendment is attached to is HR3058, which the Senate will probably consider sometime after the July 4 holiday break. The amendment is not as far-reaching as the original Souder/Hutchinson bill, but does forbid the use of federal funds (all D.C. budget monies are considered federal funds) to enforce section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.