Hi all--

Personal opinion time. Check it out: http://www.sakuramina.com/id210.htm and then tell me what you think. (This especially includes you, Betty.)

Mina Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"

Hi everyone:

Here's a link to an article that talks about the Transgender delegates at the Democratic convention.

http://www.baywindows.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/696415.html

Also, Monica Helms who is one of the delegates and the president of the Transgendered American Veterans Association (TAVA) just sent Morwen (my partner and membership director of TAVA) a private email saying that they met with high level advisors to Kerry. This isn't mentioned in the article. I'm sure I'll be getting the details soon and I'll post them ASAP.

Also, I thought that Heather Harrison was going to be a delegate. Heather, did you make it. I, for one, would love to hear about it if you did.

Things are getting interesting.

Hugs,

Betty

Hey girl's i don't know alot about politics and i wont say i do now, but what i will say is this Gloria you are happy with things the way they are now and ziggy you are voicing your view's.
Maybe you or the rest of the world will never ever agree with who should be president of this country and priminister of that country.....one thing i will say is War is ugly and it ruin's alot of peoples live's i've seen it first hand, but it can stop the repression in alot of country's....so if it take's one or two blokes who we all think are crazy to keep this world safe then so be it.....love JJ xx

Hi Gloria:

Well this has gone off in a different direction than I thought it would take but so be it.

Now let let me get this straight. According to you the Republicans are the party that really accepts us and the Democrats are the real anti-GLBT crowd. Needless to say that this is comes as a major surprise to me.

Maybe I was reading some Democratic propaganda about the Republicans pushing an amendment banning gay marriage. Maybe all those "conservative" so-called "family" groups who are constantly challenging in court the right for gays to marry even in states that have approved it are a bunch of closet democrats.

Or maybe it's just a nasty rumor that the House Republicans are pushing legislation tp prevent court decisions from over riding the "Defense of Marriage Act". Now, although this is not constitutionally possible it sure seems to reflect and anti-GLBT stance.

Even if (and I don't believe it for a second), most republicans are sympathetic to GLBT causes the legislators will continue to pander to the radical right wing and push their causes which are, to say the least, anti-GLBT. It does none of us any good if a politician is personally sympathetic to our plight but continues to support legislation that hurts us by pandering to the radical right wing for votes. Republicans have done this consistently.

You say you feel safer because of what Bush has done. I'm happy for you. I personally have been on edge about Bush being in the White House ever since his "Patriot Act" was put into place. Some of the provisions made it clear to me that they were designed to allow Ashcroft to step on anyone who disagreed with the administration's policies and not designed to fight terrorism one bit. To even want this type of constitutional violation of our rights makes me believe they had more far reaching plans in mind. I for one don't want to find out the hard way what they might be. Add this to just about everything else Bush has done and what I see is a major train wreck for this country. I strongly believe that 4 more years of Bush could finish this country off as we have known it and that what I have loved all of my life could be history.

Just as an aside, a friend of ours once said that "a Transgendered person voting Republican was sort of like a Jewish person voting for Hitler". I didn't disagree.

Hugs,

Betty

I feel a lot less safe with Bush in the White House, even though he has been good for my job security (I work in the defense industry). Bush has given us invasions of privacy, detentions without access to legal counsel, and hatred towards the U.S. at an all-time high. If this continues, none of us will be safe.

------

I was a delegate to the Salt Lake County and Utah State Democratic conventions; they took place in April and May. I did not run for national delegate, but I had the opportunity to vote in the races for national delegate. It is unlikely that I will run for national delegate in the future. I don't especially want to attend a national convention; state and county conventions are enough.

Heather H.

Hi everyone:

OK, here we go. First of all there is something underlying our present day politics that no one has mentioned so I'll say it.

I see you mention John McCain (one of the few Republicans I would vote for) who is , in my opinion, a real man, a stand up person who can be believed because of his honesty and overall fairness. He has faced the same type of danger as John Kerry has and has even spent time as a POW in Vietnam. I know I might not agree with him about everything but I could trust the interests of the whole United States would be his concern.

John McCain is everything GW Bush is not and never will be. This includes the fact that John McCain is a real Republican while GW Bush is not. GW Bush is a Neo Con which is a very different animal than a Republican. Although he runs under the Republican umbrella, what GWB stands for and what his goals (if he has any) are in no way reflect what a true Republican would do. Just witness how freely he has run up our deficit. Is that the economics of a Republican? I dare say it isn't.

The overall purpose behind these Neo Cons is still hidden but I'm sure it won't be much fun if it has a chance to materialize.

The Neo Cons in power now have kept way too many secrets and these secrets had nothing to do with National Security. They want no discussion and no opposition to anything they do or say. Is that the trait of a true Republican or even an American? Again, I would say it isn't.

It seems to me they want the power of a virtual dictator which explains why they added the "Anti-American" provisions of the Patriot Act and have fought like mad dogs to keep them in there when the best they could manage in the House was a tie vote which prevented a majority from removing them.

If a Democrat in power did these types of things I would be just as alarmed as I am now. I detested Lyndon Johnson (a Democrat) for his handling of Vietnam.

I think it may be time we stop being swayed by labels and start looking at what the real choices are. Do I agree with John Kerry on everything? Not really but I do trust that he would have the United States of America's interests at heart. I respect his bravery and service to this country both in Vietnam and in the Senate even if I didn't agree with everything he did. I trust that he won't have a hidden agenda that is being kept from the people of this country. I also trust that he could change course if something wasn't working out and have the courage to take responsibility for what goes wrong as well as what goes right instead of looking for someone else to blame it on.

As I see it. GWB in no way shape or form belongs in the White House no matter which party he says he running under. He doesn't have the tools either in the form of character or intellect for this job. Mostly I just don't trust his hidden agenda.

BTW, the concept of God and Country is not unique to the Republican party (and is non existent with the Neo Cons) by any stretch of the imagination.

Hugs,

Betty

Hi Stevie:

Thanks for sharing. Personally I think you'd be a great delegate.

Just one small thing. I, for the life of me, can't begin to understand why anyone would think we're safer with Bush in the White House. I just think he talks a great game but has effectively been terribly inadequate at taking real steps in fighting terrorism. Imprisoning a bunch of American men because they are of Middle Eastern decent and violating our rights in a way that doesn't do a thing to combat terrorism just doesn't cut it. To me Bush's fight against terror is just like everything else about him which is just one spin after another. There is no substance to this man as far as I can see.

After 9/11 any fool would have increased airport security and surveillance. This was no act of genius. As for all these idiotic terror alerts they love to keep us on edge with I'd just like to ask one question. What in the world do they expect us to do when they put these things out besides keeping everyone on edge. Do they expect us to go out packing a fire arm or not go to work? These things just don't make sense unless they want us on edge or maybe have us think that mighty GW is out there protecting us.

Personally, my thoughts are that if GW was really doing his job (other than talking about it) I wouldn't have to worry at all but that doesn't appear to be the case as far as I can see. Add to this that he has woefully underfunded the Department of Homeland Security and by attacking Iraq (not associated with the fight against terrorism) has created far more people who absolutely hate our guts. This doesn't exactly make me feel more secure.

That he has cut funding for Firefighters and police (our first responders) doesn't strike me as the act of someone who is truly serious about protecting us from terrorists. You might ask yourself why he so vehemently opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission to investigate what happened and how it might be prevented in the future. This is not exactly a security bell ringer for me. I think he was more afraid that it might make him look bad than he was concerned about getting some real education on the issue.

In short, I'd say GW just wants to look good without necessarily doing what it really takes to fight terrorism and I will be ecstatic with someone who is way more serious about protecting us from terrorists and is far more competent at doing it.

Hugs,

Betty

Here ya go Gloria. This is Monica Helms account of the meeting between Transgendered delegates and officials with the Kerry Campaign. I'll let Monica's summation stand on it's own. I would have nothing to add to her analyses of the meeting. I can't wait to hear from the Transgendered delegates at the Republican Convention.

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 12:564 -0400
>
>
>Report from Georgia Stonewall Democrat Monica Helms
first transgendered delegate from the South to a Democratic National Convention representing JOHN KERRY
>
>Editor's Note: Monica begins by referring to a proposed amendment to the DNC platform that would have added trans-inclusive language. As it is, the platform only mentions gay, lesbian and bisexual people.
>
As you know, we withdrew the amendment to the DNC platform to get a meeting with top officials in the Kerry campaign. That meeting took place on Thursday afternoon, and we had the ear of some top people, people who will be working in the West Wing if Kerry gets elected. We presented some of our issues to them, chief amongst them was more direct access to the White House and Congress without being filtered through gay and lesbian organizations.
>
>Because of my position with TAVA (Transgender American Veterans Association), I was the one to briefly discuss the problems that transsexual veterans are experiencing with the VA. Out of all the things we talked about, that one seemed to be something they wish to hear more about. The woman there in the Kerry campaign wants to sit down with me and get more details on the problems we face with the VA. It was the one item that seemed to spark their interest the most. I'll keep you all informed on what comes out of the future discussion.
>
The delegates did a lot of educating at the convention, and got the chance to speak with some individuals. These are the people I spoke to:
Carol King, Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Janet Reno, John Glen, Jerry Springer, Jimmy Carter, Max Cleland, Tammy Baldwin (MN), Barney Frank (MA), John Lewis (GA), Sanford Bishop (GA). Other TG delegates spoke with some of these and others. When Ben Aflec spoke at the GLBT Caucus meeting on Wednesday, he used the word "transgender" seperately from "gay and lesbian."
>
Babs Casbar had 200 buttons made up that said, in beautiful font and colors, "2004 Democratic National Convention Transgender Delegate." It had an American Flag and the transgender triangle as well. They were the hottest button at the convention. People were willing to trade three or more buttons for them. I came home with 5 extra. I know that people like Jerry Springer got one, as did Ben Aflec, Tammy Baldwin and Howard Dean got two. I also gave out a lot of TAVA cards.
>
This was an experience of a lifetime. I was treated with respect wherever I went, and when introduced at GLBT events, we would get long applaused. At the first GLBT caucus meeting on Monday, three non-trans people got up and asked why transgender people were not included in the platform or with other issues. It was nice to see that strong acceptance.
>
On Wednesday, the transgender delegates presented Scott Safier an award for all that he did for us in the platform committee. (Editor's Note: Gay delegate Safier made a speech about trans inclusion in the platform.) It is called the "Jane Fee Award," named after the first openly transgender delegate at the 2000 DNC. It will be a rare award, only given out every 4 years to one person. Scott deserved it.
>
>Did we come away with solid gains for transgender people? Not really. Did we open the doors of access? A little. Did we educate? Indeed we did. Will it be better in 2008? Absolutely. And, it will take many of you to work toward becoming delegates in 2008 to really make that impact happen.
>
>Monica

Hi Mina:

I absolutely agree with you on just about everything. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm mostly concerned about having someone in power that gives us chance to get what every other American has as well bringing this country out of the depths it has fallen into with regard to a number of categories.

Monica's account of the meeting is interesting in that they seemed extremely interested when it came to Transgendered veterans. If this is what it takes to help boost rights for everyone then so be it.

The Democrats may not be moving as quickly on some things we want but at least they seem to be inclined to listen and at least not work against us. This is a start.

Hugs,

Betty

Betty--

We agree?

My heart! My heart! I can't stand the shock!

All kidding aside--thanks. It's a shame we can't get a TS elected....

Mina

Mina:

Just give me some time.

Hugs,

Betty

I have to agree that neither party is especially eager to grant us our basic rights.

However, there is a huge difference. The Republicans are openly hostile to the entire GLBT community. As long as the Brimstone Brigade controls that party, it will not be a place for us. The Democrats, on the other hand, are mixed. The door is open to us, but many Democrats are reluctant to count us among their numbers because they are afraid that we may scare some other people away. Given a choice between the two, the Democrats are clearly the better choice.

At the Salt Lake County and Utah State Democratic conventions, I was one of two openly transgendered delegates. This is very good for such a conservative state. I felt like I was treated with respect, and while some of the candidates and party officials do not share all aspects of my agenda, at least I was welcome there and was part of the debate. I strongly doubt that the Mormon-dominated Utah Republicans would have welcomed me.

There are two methods by which fringe groups and "undesirable" minorities work to improve their status. One is to work outside of the political system, forming their own groups, demonstrating, or sometimes withdrawing from general society and making their own way. The second is to work within the political system, gradually infiltrating one or both of the political parties, and ultimately gaining a voice from within. Both methods are desirable and necessary at various points of a civil rights struggle, but I have chosen the second method; it fits my personality and my way of doing things better. Of course, the second method requires a choice of a lesser of two evils, but some good can result from it. I am encouraged that we have some transgendered people, both in Utah and nationwide, working to gradually gain a foothold in the Democratic Party. Maybe one day, if the religious crazies can be sent away from the leadership of the Republican Party, there will be a place for us there too.

Heather H.

Look a little harder!

Hugs,

Betty

Hi Wendy:

That is an interesting way to see POW's but I wouldn't be too hard on John McCain. He was an injured/downed pilot and was probably surrounded by quite a few North Vietnamese soldiers. There was little future in putting up a fight.

GW Bush basically deserted the National Guard. First he didn't show up for training. Second, he refused to take his required physical exam. Rumor has it he didn't want to take the drug test. Third he says he received an "early out" to attend Harvard Business School. I was in the national Guard and I can tell you unequivocally that there IS NO EARLY OUT for the National Guard unless you're killed or severely injured. As I see it Bush played the "spoiled rich kid" while his daddy covered for him.

Kerry on the other hand charged enemy fire, saved a fellow soldiers life and was a decorated war hero. All this in spite of a few lying rich right wing texans (who weren't even there) who say otherwise. I read an article where it was either Ted Koppel or 60 Minutes actually went to Vietnam to get the Vietnamese take on what happened that day. They actually remembered the incident because it was such a ferocious battle as they described it. In virtually every detail what they remember backed what Kerry and the men on his boat said and not what the lying texans were claiming. The Vietnamese didn't even know Kerry was running for president and had no political interests at all.

Now I know who I want to defend this country and it isn't the deserting weasel who has been pretending to be president for the last 4 disasterous years. Personally, I want a real man and a war hero defending me (oh my!).

Hugs,

Betty

As I've stated before, I agree that we're (USA & the West, in general) safer, both short-term and long-term with Bush in office (instead of Gore or Kerry), so I won't go into that in detail again here. Still, we have a long way to go in the war against terrorism, and we still have safety issues here at home, and I think that is the main issue in this election.

Regarding GLBT issues, I haven't really seen much actual support from either major party, but I have seen GLBT groups and individuals get USED by those two parties, one way or another. I don't think the Democrats care that much about civil rights, they just want to consolidate power wherever they can, by pandering to whichever group is speaking the loudest at the moment. If they really cared about our rights, we wouldn't have all of those unconstitutional anti-gun laws on the books.

As for Republicans, many of them are socially conservative, so they're not doing much to ensure equal rights for anyone who's GLBT. Many of them are stuck on the concept of marriage being a religious matter (and therefore, a hetero union only), but the fact is that it's a legally binding contract regulated by the state, and we can't just pick and choose which rights we'll recognize and defend based on our personal preferences. All of our rights must be applied equally, or none of them mean anything.

Regarding the comparison between McCain & Bush and who's a real Republican, could we make the same argument about Lieberman being a real Democrat instead of Kerry?

As for being a TG delegate, I might try to be one in the Libertarian Party, someday. Not being full-time, It's just a bit scary to do something like that.

As an outsider, who won't be called upon to vote (and who has also consumed an awful lot of good French wine this evening, my money is on Kerry.

Why? Two factors so far. Firstly, having seen the two of them in their televised debate, I thought that Kerry most definitely came out on top (even though the press still said they were neck and neck).

Secondly, Kerry is in the fortunate position of talking up stem cell research just a few days before Christopher Reeve died.

Bush was dead against it.

That looks like another feather in the Kerry cap to me.

There's still time for things to change though and this one could (like the last one) go right to the line.

Hope my old neighbors in Florida are ready!

Hugs,

Katie x

Elizabeth,

In order to become a POW you usually have to surrender (unless disabled enough to not be able to fight) I'm not sure that is who I want as commander in chief of the US armed forces. Unless John McCain falls into that category, I would not want him as President. I want someone who will fight, when necessary, and I want the other side to know that about my president. I want someone who won't flinch when staring down the barrel of a gun. Naturally, I also want a President who does not waste US and foreign lives in an unnecessary conflict.