Billie Jean: Scott Dunbar’s One-Man Band

Meet in the Middle for Equality

I'm the one on the right, loving being with my Asian/Pacific Islander friends - including Lt. Dan Choi!

Rachel Maddow on CA Supreme Court Decision

Pro Prop 8 Demonstration Information

I share this with you so that we all know, but I am firmly committed to non-violence. I know that we will be emotional over the ruling one way or the other–but let’s take the high road and leave the ugliness to those who oppose us. May 20, 2009 Pastors and Christian Leaders, The CA Supreme Court announcement regarding Prop 8 is due by June 3, BUT MAY COME AS SOON AS TODAY OR TOMORROW. In any case, the waiting is almost over. Whatever the ruling, with others involved in the successful Prop 8 campaign, we are planning for rallies on the SUNDAY AFTER the ruling. We are told that those who were opposed to Prop 8 are preparing to rally and march on the Saturday after the ruling, so are avoiding that day. This means our Prop 8 rallies could be held as early as this Sunday, May 24, but might be on May 31 or June 7. Here in San Diego County, we are preparing for one rally at a central site, probably at the San Diego County Administration Building, since that location is well known and ample parking is available. It will probably take place at 2 PM on the appropriate Sunday. Many of you came together at some 200 locations across the state for the webinar conference calls during the Prop 8 battle. We now encourage you now to contact other pro-marriage pastors in your area and being to prepare immediately for a rally on one of the next three Sundays: May 24, May 31, or June 7. Experience suggests you invite a select group of respected individuals to speak for approximately 4 minutes each at a rally lasting approximately an hour, but you might add other elements you know will be successfully received by those who attend. Assuming the Supreme Court upholds Prop 8, then the rally could be one of praising and thanking God, affirming and thanking the workers, encouraging believers to stay in the struggle (as this is just one battle in the long war to defend marriage), and alerting them to what we are hearing regarding the plans of the anti-marriage group to overthrow Prop 8 (now Article 1, Section 7.5 of the CA Constitution). As we prepare for these rallies across the state, we acknowledge there is still a lot of built-in uncertainty. Although we think the court will rule in our favor, it is possible the decision could go against us, so you must consider that in your planning as well. Further, we understand you may decide to hold your rally other than on the Sunday immediately after the ruling – nothing is keeping you from waiting an extra week if that is best. We will let you know as soon as we hear when the ruling will be made – we think we will be given 24 hours notice. We value your input, will appreciate knowing your plans as they progress, and will be happy to share with you what we have learned from past rally experience. Please contact us with a reply to this email, or call us at 619-997-5332 or 619-660-5000 x 5404 with your questions, comments, suggestions, plans, etc. We will do our best to help you spread the word about your event to those in your area who are part of our email list. I eagerly await word from you. Blessings Jim Garlow Pastor, Skyline Church Pastors Rapid Response Team My assistant: Tracy Burger tburger@skylinechurch.org 619.660.5000 x5404

Pastor’s Rapid Response Team | PO Box 28912 | San Diego | CA | 92198

Teenagers have mixed views on gays – and they’re OK with that

From the Los Angeles Times

Sandy Banks 

June 17, 2008

Kye D’Aguilar doesn’t have a traumatic story to tell about coming out. The 18-year-old said he’s always known that he is gay. “My mother told me she knew when I was born.”

“She was like, ‘Whatever.’ “He mimicked her, waving a beefy hand in the air. His mother is a lesbian.

His dad — who has another wife and new set of kids — wasn’t quite as sanguine. “Take the pink out of your life,” he wrote on Kye’s MySpace page. Kye responded with a diss of his own. “I blocked him,” he said.

I met Kye at a Hollywood shelter run by the Los Angeles Youth Network for runaways, homeless and foster teenagers, just a few hours before Los Angeles County pronounced its first Mrs. and Mrs.

I wanted to talk to the generation that stands to benefit most from this historic civil rights advance: gay kids who will come of age knowing that a hookup could eventually lead to a marriage proposal. Just like their straight friends.

Of the 10 teenagers I talked with, three said they were gay. I found the group as philosophically divided as adults, but more comfortable with dissension. They shouted, insulted and defended one another, then settled back in to watch television.

‘I don’t like it,” said David, twirling his skateboard wheels and shouting over the others. “Nothing personal, but two dudes ain’t natural. . . . I’m not tripping; just keep it in San Francisco.”

“Hel-lo!,” responded Jazz Lepe, an in-your-face 17-year-old who straddles gender boundaries. “This is Holly-wood.”

Tall and slim with delicate features, Jazz was a boy when she reached adolescence. Now she’s transgender. Or bisexual. Sometimes she’s not sure.

When I visit, she’s wearing tight jeans and a rhinestone-trimmed pink T-shirt. She has long black hair with a dramatic red streak, pink nail polish on slender fingers and eyebrows so perfect I’m dying to ask who did them.

She grew up in group homes and foster families, was taunted at school and on the street. I get the feeling she’s not one to wait on the state’s permission for anything.

“I always had crushes on boys,” she announced, tucking a piece of hair behind her ear. Her mother wasn’t bothered when she came out at 15. “She just doesn’t want me to be a slut.”

I asked if she’d heard about Lawrence King, the Oxnard middle-schooler allegedly killed by a classmate in February for flaunting his homosexuality. She hadn’t. But she had heard about “this other guy that got killed . . . . They tied him to a fence. It was a big deal.”

Jazz couldn’t remember his name, but I could. Matthew Shepard. He died 10 years ago, before Jazz probably knew what “gay” meant.

His death publicly sensitized the nation to discrimination against gays; sparking hate crime laws and public outrage. But it seems not so much has changed in our private relations.

I’m stunned to read that one-quarter of gay teens say that coming out to their parents got them kicked out of the house, or led them to run away.

“The law doesn’t change anything,” said Jenette Hurst, 17, who landed in the Hollywood shelter three weeks ago when she came here from Seattle.

“We’re always going to have this discussion. I’m not a lesbian, but if they want to get married, why can’t we just be happy for them.

“It’s just like blacks and whites,” she said. The older generation “grew up saying things about each other because you didn’t know anybody like that. But we know.

“Like me and Jazz. She’s trans, she’s bi, whatever. I’m not. But I like her. She’s a person, he’s a person . . . whatever. I like her for who she is. Or he is.”

Mercy Molina didn’t say a word during our discussion. From across the room, I couldn’t tell if she was a girl or boy, lounging on the couch with her close-cropped hair, baggy clothes and black piercings hooked through her eyebrow and lip.

Up close, she looked and sounded much younger than her 17 years. She had a soft voice, perfect teeth and a rainbow-colored yarn bracelet neatly braided around her wrist.

Her parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses and reject homosexuality, she said. When she told them she was gay two years ago, “they told me to leave. Then they said ‘If you go, we’ll call the cops.’ “Confused, she stayed.

But when she brought her girlfriend around, the arguments started. So the two ran away, stayed with friends, then wound up living in separate shelters.

Mercy was a tomboy all her life, she said. “I played sports and never liked dressing up or doing girlie things. My friends and my teachers, they were OK with it. I don’t know how my parents didn’t know.”

I asked her what she thought of gays’ right to marry. She smiled and looked away from me. “Me and my girlfriend, we’ve been together for three years. We say we’re engaged.”

She laughed, and when she looked up I saw that same glow in her eyes I see when my daughter talks about the young man she loves. “I don’t know . . . but yeah, maybe we’ll get married.”

And I don’t see a gay kid, but a 17-year-old romantic.

Wait a while, I tell her, thinking like a mother. And hoping, come November, voters don’t take the choice from her.

sandy.banks@latimes.com

 

 

 

 

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-banks17-2008jun17,0,6146666,full.column

Why LGBT Equality Leads to a More Missional Church

The 218th General Assembly in San Jose did a remarkable and wonderful thing. The commissioners discerned a way for theological conservatives and theological progressives to co-exist. Moreover, they found a way for all of us to move forward together in mission as one church. Now you probably didn’t hear that in the news reports from the Assembly which focused on who won and who lost and what’s next. However, I think we will look back on this assembly as the start of a new era in the denomination.

The two big themes to come out of the Assembly were the emphasis on creating a missional church and the passage of several overtures to grant equal rights to our church members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT).

Those who see themselves as theological conservatives want us to be a “missional church.” Indeed it is clear from the Assembly that this goal is widely shared across the denomination. But what exactly does it mean to be a missional church? Well for one thing it means to be evangelical – to share the gospel of Jesus with others. “Missional” also means that the church should be woven into the very fabric of the community.

The most recent General Assembly made several important moves towards becoming a more missional church. The Assembly took steps towards adopting a new Form of Government with the goal of becoming more missional at every level of the denomination. The national leadership in Louisville has embraced a missional approach through hiring several leading evangelicals who are dedicated to creating a missional church. Indeed, the General Assembly Council has renamed itself the General Assembly Mission Council and has committed to working with congregationally-based local leadership to find new ways to work together in missions. Creating a more missional church is exactly what we should be doing. It reflects our deepest values and brings us together in a common focus. I believe it will be invigorating for the denomination and life-giving for our communities and the world.

Yet, what was extraordinary about this assembly is that collectively the majority of commissioners seemed to recognize, on some level, that in order to create a missional church we have to grant equal rights to our members who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. The two issues are interconnected. Think about it – if the goal is for the church to be woven into the very fabric of society – we can’t have preconceived notions about our neighbors. We have to go out with open hearts to preach and practice the message that we are to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. Affirming the equality of all God’s people is a prerequisite for reaching out in Christian service to all God’s people. So the GA approved overtures to grant equal rights to people who are
LGBT and also approved steps to create a more missional church. In so doing, I believe the Assembly found a new way forward.

Now this conversation moves to the Presbyteries to either affirm or reject the practical compromise crafted by the Assembly. If a majority of Presbyteries vote yes to approve the revised language of G-6.0106b, I believe we will finally be able to move forward together again as one family in mission. I would encourage everyone in the denomination to read the text of the Boston overture (item number [05-09] from the Church Orders and Ministry Committee) which was approved by the Assembly. Consistent with the Reformed tradition, the revised text affirms the essentials of our faith:

“Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the Constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003), pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions…”

I believe this revised text regarding ordination puts the focus exactly where it should be – on Jesus, the Scriptures, and the Confessions – the essential values at the center of our theological tradition.

Look, I understand that there are going to be some who are resistant to change. That will be true of any change. But after 30 years of discussion, study, and prayer, I believe this GA has come up with a workable compromise that incorporates the best of the conservative and progressive approaches to theology. I think it offers the best hope in a generation for this church to finally move forward together in mission. I sincerely hope that a majority of Presbyteries will vote yes and embrace the opportunity to move forward together once again.

Jack Rogers
Moderator, the 213th General Assembly
August 07, 2008

from http://www.drjackrogers.com/

Let California Ring!

This ad has been showing during the Olympics–at least on my Southern California Direct TV-fed television. Awesome!

LA Times Editorial: Reneging on a right

Reneging on a right

ENDORSEMENTS 2008: By banning same-sex marriages, Prop. 8 would create second-class citizens.
August 8, 2008

It’s the same sentence as in 2000: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Yet the issue that will be put before voters Nov. 4 is radically different. This time, the wording would be used to rescind an existing constitutional right to marry. We fervently hope that voters, whatever their personal or religious convictions, will shudder at such a step and vote no on Proposition 8.

The state of same-sex marriage shifted in May, when the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, the ban on gay marriage that voters approved eight years ago, and ruled that marriage was a fundamental right under the state Constitution. As such, it could not be denied to a protected group — in this case, gay and lesbian couples.

What voters must consider about Proposition 8 is that, unlike Proposition 22, this is no longer about refining existing California law. In the wake of the court’s ruling, the only way to deny marriage to gay and lesbian couples is by revising constitutional rights themselves. Proposition 8 seeks to embed wording in the Constitution that would eliminate the fundamental right to same-sex marriage.

It’s a rare and drastic step, invoking the constitutional-amendment process to strip people of rights. Yet in California, it can be done with a simple majority vote. All the more reason for voters to weigh carefully what would be wrought by this measure.

Supporters of Proposition 8 insist that the measure is in no way intended to diminish the rights of gays and lesbians, but instead means to encourage ideal households for the raising of children and to put a stop to activist judges. Besides, they say, domestic partnerships provide all the same rights as marriage.

In a meeting with The Times’ editorial board, supporters argued at length that children are best off when raised by their own biological, married mothers and fathers. Even if that were true — and there is much room for dispute — this measure in no way moves society closer to such a traditional picture. Gay and lesbian couples already are raising their own children and will continue to do so, as will single parents and adoptive and blended families. Using the supporters’own reasoning, it would be better for same-sex parents to marry.

Proposition 8 supporters are right that domestic partnerships come exceedingly close to guaranteeing the same rights as marriage, as the state’s high court recognized. Still, there are differences. Some are statutory — domestic partners must share a residence, while married couples can live separately — and others are pragmatic — studies have found that domestic partners do not receive the same treatment or recognition from hospital staff, employers and the public as spouses do.

But it was Ronald M. George, chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who cut through to the essence of the issue in the May 15 opinion he wrote: “[A]ffording same-sex couples only a separate and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples.”

In other words, the very act of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry — traditionally the highest legal and societal recognition of a loving commitment — by definition relegates them and their relationships to second-class status, separate and not all that equal.

To be sure, the court overturned Proposition 22, a vote of the people. That is the court’s duty when a law is unconstitutional, even if it is exceedingly popular. Civil rights are commonly hard-won, and not the result of widespread consensus. Whites in the South vehemently rejected the 1954 Supreme Court decision to desegregate schools. For that matter, Californians have accused the state Supreme Court of obstructing the people’s will on marriage before — in 1948, when it struck down a ban on interracial marriages.

Fundamental rights are exactly that. They should neither wait for popular acceptance, nor be revoked because it is lacking.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-marriage8-2008aug08,0,1229155.story

Wedding update

Things went really well at our wedding, and it was so much fun. About 140 people were present in our relatively small sanctuary. People who cried, people who laughed, people who listened, people who loved us and were so supportive. Family, friends, neighbors, church and church-related people.

The reception was at our home. Almost everyone came over. Some said that they’d come, but just stay “for a little while.” And almost everyone–including those “little while” folks–stayed for hours. We tried to get around to see everyone, but we couldn’t–so it was great to see people from all aspects of our lives talking together and enjoying each other’s company as if they were old friends. When I talked with my brother afterwards, he said, “You have such cool friends. It was such a good party that you didn’t even need to be there!”

Our theme was sort of Hawai’ian, since we love Hawai’i so much. I ordered the cake from a little locally-owned independent bakery here in town.

This was our beautiful wedding cake

It was a day that we’ll always remember.

So, please–if you live in California,
VOW TO VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8!

Who has time for this?

It’s quite funny that my last post was what it was. Over a year ago, and my last post was about the campaign for equal marriage in California. SO MUCH has happened since then. Marriage Equality has become the LAW in California–and I am now seventeen days from my own wedding.

We went to the county offices the first day that licenses were available to same-gender couples. At first Melinda was hesitant, but then she decided that we should go. The night before when we were talking about it, first she was worried about the crowds and the chaos–and then she decided that we needed to go, needed to be part of history; and then she was fussing about traffic and parking, when my brother, who was visiting for a few days, offered to drive us there–at first she declined, and then about an hour later accepted. There were four sites in LA County where we could go, and we intentionally went to the “just folks” location nearest to us. My brother dropped us off, and went away to have his coffee and read the newspaper. We got there well before the offices opened, and got in line with maybe 60 couples ahead of us. As we were talking with the people around us, all of a sudden I saw my car drive by. My brother (very straight, 6′6″ 275# construction worker-type) had gotten so caught up in the whole thing that HE had to be part of history too. He parked the car, greeted us, and then went and sat in the back row to absorb the love of the day.

It was tempting to go ahead and get married that day there at the courthouse. But we had decided a long time ago that when we get married, it would be in church–in our church. And so we came home with our license, and a lot of wonderful memories.

Our church is a small Presbyterian church that is committed to justice issues, including LGBT inclusion. We have been members there for almost all of the 15-plus years that we’ve been together, and part of the leadership there for most of that time. So it was no surprise to the pastor when we approached her about performing our wedding. She was ready right then, but in the Presbyterian system, the governing body (the Session) is a party to such decision-making; when the pastor brought it to the Session, they unanimously approved our request.

So then we chose a date. August 2, 2008. The invitations went out a few weeks ago. We started getting responses almost immediately. Everyone who has responded has been enthusiastic and excited for us. We’ve only had one marginal reaction, no overt negative ones. And we have a great variety of people who are coming: church people, neighbors, family members, work friends; Democrats and a few Republicans; gay and straight; young and old (our youngest guest is 6, and our eldest is 94); and people of all colors–European-Americans, Filipinos, Mexican-American, African-American, and a number of multiethnic individuals (as well as multiethnic couples).

All people who want to say yes to us, and yes to love.

So now there are a million things to do. We’re having the wedding at church, but the reception is going to be in our back yard. We’ve sort of figured out what we’re doing about food and beverage, but we have to make it happen. An artist friend is helping with the decor at both the church and home. Others have said that they’ll help, they’ll bring food. One dear friend told me early on that “this thing will take on a life of its own” and that people will offer to help–and that we should accept their offers. We have, and it really helps me to stay in a more-or-less calm place, and even the often-frantic Melinda is doing quite well.

Now I have to go. I have a service to write!

Getting Closer All the Time

Equality California is launching a campaign to get LGBT people involved to share their stories about marriage in a variety of ways.

“Forgive me if I’m not patient. I don’t want to be ‘other’ anymore. I want to be married.” 

In society and in the church, in many ways, it is our voices that have been left out — systematically and intentionally — and it is time that we insist on telling them. After all, no matter how much “others” love us and support us, no one can tell our stories in the same way that we can. As Henri Nouwen said, “We have to trust that our stories deserve to be told. We may discover that the better we tell our stories the better we will want to live them.” So whether we tell our stories in written form or orally, we just need to tell them and tell them — and to know that they are valid and they are useful, and the telling of our stories is something that we are supposed to do. It is a way of claiming our lives as our own, and as legitimate.

Today was a big day for us. The House passed Hate Crime legislation despite the major opposition of the “Religious Right” and the threat of a veto by that guy who occupies the White House. It goes to the Senate next: if your Senators are fence-sitters, you MUST contact them to let them know how important this is; if they are opponents, call them and tell them that you are a constituent who is negatively affected by their vote; and if they are supportive, call their office and thank them. The Capitol switchboard phone number is (202) 224-3121. They’ll transfer your call to the appropriate office. Or go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt to find out how to contact your Senators.

And Deb Price’s column lists the progress that we have made for marriage equality THIS MONTH alone.

Gay Lawmakers Help Give Nation an Astonishing April

Deb Price

When Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye’s turn came to speak about the need for her legislature to approve gay marriage, she tearfully recalled her devout Catholic father’s loving participation in her civil union ceremony, then described the pain of being excluded from actual marriage.

The freshman lawmaker recounted filling out a health-care form: Her choices were “married,” “divorced,” “widowed,” “single” or “other.”

“Forgive me if I’m not patient,” Bye told Connecticut’s joint House-Senate Judiciary Committee. “I don’t want to be ‘other’ anymore. I want to be married.”

Bye’s touching plea helped create a wonderfully lopsided victory — the 27-to-15 committee vote that endorsed opening marriage to gay couples. Gay marriage now goes to the full state House and Senate. (To watch Bye’s moving testimonial, go to lmfct.org.)

Connecticut’s breakthrough is just one of a series of astonishing gay advances in the past three weeks. The headline-grabbing victories stretched from coast to coast and shared one thing in common: A gay lawmaker played a key role.

“We have seen in the last month at almost every major win, almost always there is an openly gay legislator behind that story,” says Denis Dison of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which helps elect openly gay or transgender officials, who now number 370.

Here’s a quick tick-tock:

April 12: Connecticut’s powerful Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly approves same-sex marriage.

April 19: Oregon Senate votes, 19 to seven, to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in housing, employment, public accommodations and public education. Two days earlier, the House did as well, 35 to 25. Oregon’s House also passed a domestic partner bill, 34 to 26, on April 17, which would grant gay couples all the state-level rights of marriage. The Senate is expected to follow suit. Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, promises to sign both bills.

April 21: Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, a Democrat, signs a domestic partnership bill, giving gay couples important marriage-like rights.

April 24: Out gay U.S. Reps. Barney Frank, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., help reintroduce legislation to ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation and for the first time include gender identity. The bill’s prospects of passing Congress are encouraging.

April 25: Iowa’s House votes 59 to 37 to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity at work and many other places. Hours later, the Senate agrees, 34 to 16. Democratic Gov. Chet Culver says he’ll sign the protections into law. (Iowa and Oregon will bring to 19 the states prohibiting anti-gay job discrimination and to 10 the number banning anti-trans discrimination.)

April 26: New Hampshire’s Senate follows its House by embracing civil unions, 14 to 10. Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, says he’ll sign it. So, New Hampshire, which hosts the first 2008 presidential primary, will be the fourth civil union state — joining Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey. New Hampshire is the first state to act without being prodded by a lawsuit.

April 27: Five years after a gay state senator began pushing for marriage equality, New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, becomes the first U.S. governor to introduce gay marriage legislation.

If you ever wonder whether it’s important for gay people to risk being out at work, just review this wonderful list. Gay lawmakers, out at work, are rocketing our country forward.

Deb Price of The Detroit News writes the first nationally syndicated column on gay issues. To find out more about Deb Price and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/deb-price.html?columnsName=dpr

Two thousand seven hundred forty dead. Today. Same tomorrow…

Africa Malaria Day 2007

© UNICEF/ HQ04-1276/Giacomo Pirozzi

Katuwala Saruwai, 10, embraces his sleeping baby brother Kalu at a local health clinic in the Trobriand Islands in Milne Bay Province. Ten-month-old Kalu is suffering from severe malaria, a primary cause of child deaths in the country.

Malaria kills over one million people each year worldwide. More than 80 per cent of these deaths take place in Sub-Saharan Africa and most are among children under five years of age. An African child dies of malaria every 30 seconds.Malaria is one of the biggest killers of children in Africa, accounting for nearly one in five of the continent’s child deaths.

Yet this disease is both preventable and treatable. The solutions are available. For just US$10, a child can be protected against malaria by a long-lasting, insecticide-treated bed net (ITN). And an infected child can be treated with Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs).

The good news is that there was a ten-fold increase in ITN distribution in sub-Saharan Africa between 1999 and 2003, and surveys in 2005 and 2006 are expected to even more progress. Countries such as Malawi, Rwanda, Senegal, Togo and Zambia have made great strides on the percentage of children sleeping under ITNs. Ethiopia, a country with around nine million malaria infections each year, quadrupled the number of ITNs distributed from 1.8 million in 2004 to 8 million by the end of 2006. This year’s target: 20 million.

But challenges remain, including the challenge of reaching children in remote areas with the prevention, testing and treatment that they need. Then there is the funding gap. An estimated US$ 3.2 billion is needed worldwide each year to fund the fight against malaria in the countries with the highest disease burden – US$ 1.9 billion for Africa alone. While funding has increased over the past decade, thanks to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria, the US President’s Initiative, the World Bank, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and others, estimates suggest that international funding for malaria control stood at only around US$ 600 million in 2004.

UNICEF is not only calling for greater resources for malaria control, but also for an integrated approach to combat the disease. Malaria control should be part of integrated, community-based health programmes. UNICEF supports integrated child survival programming, including ITN distribution alongside measles vaccination campaigns and routine immunization and as part of antenatal care and early detection and improved treatment through the integrated management of childhood illnesses, looking at the health needs of the child as a whole, rather than focusing on one specific health issue.

UNICEF works closely with national governments and with partnerships such as Malaria no More and Roll Back Malaria to scale up the availability of ITNs and ACTs and ensure that malaria is high on every national health agenda.

UNICEF is the world’s largest procurer and deliverer of ITNs, with over 24 million ITNs procured in 2006. More than 90 per cent of these were long-lasting, requiring no re-treatment.

For further information, please contact:

Angela Hawke, Press Officer, UNICEF NY: Tel + 1 212-326-7269; email ahawke@unicef.org

Jessica Malter, Press Officer, UNICEF New York: Tel +1 212-326-7412; email jmalter@unicef.org

Related press releases and news notes:

28 March 2007 – Spread the Net purchases 33,000 anti-malarial bed nets for Liberia ¹

27 November 2006 – Fight against Malaria – A priority in Guinea-Bissau ²

9 November 2006 – Belinda Stronach and Rick Mercer launch anti-malarial bednet campaign:“Spread the Net” with UNICEF Canada ³

6 November 2006 – Serena Williams joins the fight against malaria in Ghana ⁴

28 September 2006 – Ethiopia can beat its biggest killer with historic push – UNICEF ⁵

8 July 2006 – Partners team up in Kenya to fights measles and malaria

NOT Off the Table — Strategies to Impeach Bush AND Cheney

Despite Nancy Pelosi’s early assertion that impeachment is “off the table,” it’s clear to me that we as a nation have moved beyond that initial statement. It’s bigger than any one person (in this case the Speaker of the House). Bush and Cheney are inept and corrupt and evil, and those they have put into decision-making positions are likewise inept and corrupt and evil. They all need to be swept from power, while there is still an America, and still a world.

As of last Friday, the number of dead Americans serving in the military in Iraq in April was sixty-five. Ten of those were from my home state of California, including two from the nearby town where I grew up, and one from the nearby town where I go to church. The average age of these dead soldiers was 24.84 years old. The youngest was 18 years old: Steven Walberg from Paradise, California (an irony in itself); the oldest was Philip Murphy-Sweet, a 42-year-old from Caldwell, Idaho.

George Bush and his meaningless war killed these heroes. This war is a series of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was never time for Bush to be IN office, and now it’s clearly time for him — and all of those in this administration — to go.

Urge your representative in Congress to do the right thing and impeach — and convict — these officeholders.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

ANALYSIS: US Rep. Kucinich’s Shift Towards Impeachment

By Matthew Cardinale, News Editor and National Correspondent,
Atlanta Progressive News
April 23, 2007

(APN) ATLANTA – US Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) is about to unveil Articles of Impeachment against Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney at a press conference tomorrow, Tuesday, April 24, 2007. Both Kucinich’s Campaign and Congressional Offices have thus far maintained a veil of secrecy about the rationale for the Articles.

Kucinich’s step is certainly bold and substantively appropriate, but it is only one stage in what has been the Congressman’s shifting in political posture towards impeachment as a remedy to the abuses of the Bush Administration.

This, of course, may still not be the end of the shift, because Bush himself still hasn’t been recommended for impeachment yet in this Congressional Session.

To illustrate this shift, consider the Congressman and Presidential Candidate did not cosponsor H Res 635, the bill in the 109th Congressional Session, which had 39 total cosponsors and would have created a Select Committee to look into the possible grounds for impeaching Bush. The bill charged Bush with misleading the public on the need to invade Iraq, retaliating against public officials who disagree with him, and encouraging torture.

Kucinich was one of 31 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who chose NOT sign on to H Res. 635 at the time. The other 31 members, or exactly one half, of the Caucus did sign on.

The 39 total co-sponsors of H Res. 635 were US Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), Rep. Jackson, Jr., (D-IL), Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Rep. John Olver (D-MA), Rep. Major Owens (D-NY), Rep. Donald Payne (D-NJ), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN), Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Hilda Solis (D-CA), Rep. Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA), Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Dianne Watson (D-CA), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), and Rep. David Wu (D-OR).

Kucinich also did not cosponsor former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s bill which called for Bush’s impeachment. Congresswoman McKinney shifted towards the idea of impeachment herself, telling APN that she first considered the idea in 2001 and her mother begged her not to do it.

Over the last year or so, Atlanta Progressive News has asked multiple sources as to why Kucinich chose not to support impeaching Bush.

One source close to the Kucinich Campaign told APN that Kucinich did not want to impeach Bush because of his belief in forgiveness and redemption and that even Bush could be redeemed.

The Kucinich Campaign also responded to an inquiry from one APN reader who contacted them several months ago, asking why the Congressman wouldn’t support impeachment.

“I have been watching intently the tally of Congress people who have signed on as sponsors or co-sponsors of H. Res 635, which would create a Select Committee to look into the grounds for recommending President Bush’s impeachment. So far there are 36. I notice that you are not among them and I find this to be virtually unfathomable. Is there some reason you are reluctant to do this?” Lyn Bernstein sent in an email to the Kucinich Campaign on May 02, 2006.

“It is my understanding that Congressman Kucinich is working for major systemic change rather than mere personnel changes. Also, he does not support efforts which are basically set up to rip people apart,” replied Kucinich volunteer, Gail Heyn, adding she did not speak on behalf of the Congressional Office.

A few weeks ago, the Kucinich for President 2008 Campaign released a remarkable YouTube video in which the Congressman asks Americans to provide him with feedback on the question “Is it time” for impeachment.

In the YouTube video, Kucinich said he was troubled by the prevailing idea in Congress that impeachment should be “off the table,” while an invasion of Iran should be left on the table.

At that time, it wasn’t clear why Iran was seen as a reason for impeachment now, when the Invasion of Iraq–which has been equally atrocious as well as fraudulent–was not mentioned as a potential reason.

Now, it’s not clear why Cheney is the sole target of impeachment and not Bush.

It will be fascinating to see which Members of Congress, if any, will support Kucinich’s bill. It will also be interesting to see whether the discussion of impeaching Cheney leads to possibly also impeaching Bush.

One function of Kucinich’s introduction of the Articles will be break the silence on the “I” word, which had been demanded by US Rep. Pelosi. It was largely viewed that US Rep. Conyers, the original sponsor of H Res 635, dropped his bill out of respect to Pelosi and his desire to be appointed Chair of the Judiciary Committee. Moreover, several Members of Congress have stated that they have followed in Conyers’s steps in choosing not to introduce similar bills of their own.

According to APN’s analysis, there are currently four (4) Members of Congress who would be willing to support impeachment. US Rep. Kucinich has been one of the people on the list for some time and we can now reveal this to our readers. US Rep. John Lewis told an Atlanta-based radio station WAOK that he would support Articles of Impeachment should they be introduced, although he did not support his colleague Cynthia McKinney’s bill when it was introduced. The other two Representatives cannot be named at this time.

One of the main arguments against is impeaching Bush is regarding the possibility of a President Cheney; however, the bill to impeach Cheney would eliminate this issue.

At the same time, when Pelosi said impeachment was off the table, implicitly she meant the impeachment of Bush.

For Kucinich to introduce Articles of Impeachment against Cheney is, thus, in a way, dispelling the stigma of impeachment, because many Members of Congress may be more inclined to support impeaching Cheney. It also brings up the general idea of impeachment into the mainstream media dialogue.

The corporate media almost completely ignored H Res 635. US Rep. Conyers recognized Atlanta Progressive News on his blog for being the only media outlet at the time to regularly cover this bill.

Last week, it was actually a blog on the WashingtonPost.com website, which revealed that Kucinich had sent a letter to other Members of Congress indicating his intent to file the Articles of Impeachment against Cheney.

Kucinich’s Congressional Office declined to comment at this time, and his Campaign was not expected to respond prior to the official announcement.

About the author:

Matthew Cardinale is the News Editor and National Correspondent for Atlanta Progressive News and may be reached at matthew@atlantaprogressivenews.com.

The Bloodiest Day… part 1

In no way am I downplaying the importance of the story at Virginia Tech this week. It sickened me. I watched the television coverage until I was so numb that I couldn’t watch it any longer. I haven’t seen any of the material that was sent to NBC–and I don’t care to see any of it.

But where is the parallel outrage, where is the sorrow over the Iraqi people who are dying? More than 140 people dead, and another 150-plus injured in one incident. (see post)

And then… there have already been 50 Americans who have died THIS MONTH in Iraq. (see post)

Where is the righteous indignation about the perpetrator of THIS violent act? One that, unlike the one in Virginia, will not be ending soon.