Akopsa's Open Salon Blog

Lila Rose, Planned Parenthood and defunding Abstinence Only

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:10:20 -0400

It is being reported that Live Action’s Lila Rose is planning the next step in her ongoing effort to defund Planned Parenthood: take away their sex-ed money. Rose is lamenting the fact that Planned Parenthood got federal money to implement evidenced based comprehensive sex education via PREP - Personal Responsibility Education Program – funding.

In preparation for what may eventually be another Lila Rose grainy expose trumpeted by the Right, it’s helpful to brush up on where millions and millions of tax-dollars are going to pay for sex “education”: ineffective and stigmatizing abstinence-only-until marriage programs.

Study after study has revealed the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs in reducing the number of teen pregnancies and reducing the spread of disease. According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, virginity pledges, a staple of abstinence-only programming, not only did not decrease occurrences of teen STDs, but actually resulted in pledge-takers not seeking medical attention once infected, leading to an increased possibility of transmission.

Abstinence-only programs come under fire for questionable instructional methods and curricula as well. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) periodically releases in-depth reviews of abstinence-only programs and regularly finds that they often rely on messages of fear and shame to encourage abstinence and promote biased views of gender, marriage and pregnancy options.

Yet Americans have spent more than $1.5 billion on abstinence-only programs over the past fifteen years through Title V of theSocial Security Act and other federal legislation. The programs really flourished under President George W. Bush, who created an injection of funding with his Community Based Abstinence Education grants. President Barack Obama did away with this funding stream, but during the fight in Congress over health-care reform, Republicans put $250 million for abstinence-only programs into the Affordable Healthcare Act.

I have covered two abstinence-only groups specifically in the past year, investigating their methods, connections and over $14 million combined in federal and state grants. Project SOS in Florida and WAIT (Why Am I Tempted?) Training – now known as The Center for Relationship Education based in Denver.

Project SOS has received over $6.5 million in federal money since 2002, but the group decided not to apply for funding this year. SOS had ties with the “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda through the one of its most vocal advocates, Pastor Martin Ssempa. The group’s founder, Pam Mullarkey, was an ardent supporter of Ssempa quoted on his website as saying, “Martin Ssempa is the man to watch. He’s the most powerful voice for abstinence in the world and his passion, charisma and character make his vital message irresistible.” Mullarkey says Project SOS was laid out in its entirety to her over the course of five evenings by God. And, like so many other ab-only programs, SOS was cited for peddling erroneous medical information in its curriculum and relying on shame and fear as means of instruction.

WAIT/CRE has gotten over $8 million in federal funds and just this year was part of an end run around former Colorado Governor Ritter – who rejected Title V in favor of PREP – to obtain an additional $233,000 a year for the next three years.

During an assembly in a Colorado high school Shelley Donahue, one of WAIT/CRE’s motivational speakers told her audience: girls’ brains are like spaghetti, boys’ brains are like waffles…boys tuck schoolbooks under their arms at the waist, girls cradle theirs like a baby…boys were made to pursue girls and girls were made to wait to be pursued by boys…we have an entire generation of girls looking for daddy love…you just have to get that viable sperm close to her vagina and she turns on the little Hoover vacuum, because girls are very, very fertile.

At the same lecture, Donahue used a participatory activity outlined in the WAIT/CRE curriculum to show how sex prior to marriage negatively impacts a person’s ability to bond to a mate in the future. Donahue had a boy join her at the front of the auditorium. She instructed him to bare his arm, then ripped a long piece of clear packing tape off a roll and held it up to the audience; the boy’s girlfriend.

Donahue applied the tape to the boy’s arm and rubbed it briskly to ensure that it bonded, talking about how the tape would probably not become the boy’s wife. She then ripped tape from his arm – he broke up with her – and held it up for the students to see. The tape was covered with bits of the boy’s dried skin and hair. Donahue commented on how gross the tape was and repeated the operation over and over again. Each time the tape pulled up more debris and lost more of its ability to make a tight bond.

The implication is the girl is now dirty, soiled for her future husband. She will go on to have problems in her future “bonding” with another man. This too is common in abstinence-only curricula. The girl burdened with the actions of the boy, responsible for guarding her purity from him. There is lip service paid to the boy’s responsibility but mostly in the form of excuses: raging hormones, constantly producing sperm, the girl’s shirts are too low-cut.

According to one Colorado blogger, an attendee of another Donahue WAIT/CRE lecture reported Donahue told the group that the HPV vaccine “will leave them sterile.” A familiar lie used by the right wing based on their belief that for young women, a potentially life saving vaccine’s most dangerous side effect is immorality and promiscuity.

You can watch the hour long video for yourself. Not only does the gender stereotyping and nonsensical explanations about how one becomes pregnant continue, but also reinforcing heterosexual marriage as the only way to live a happy productive life is the order of the day. And all of this is pulled directly from WAIT/CRE’s curriculum. Donahue says something akin to getting right with God in reference to pre-marital sex and mentions the deity several more times throughout the presentation.

According to a GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network) study “a significantly greater portion of students in schools that used an abstinence-only curriculum reported feeling unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and gender expression—64.8% of these students felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation compared to 57.3% of all other students.”

A new circular issued by the Administration for Children Families, the government agency that distributes abstinence money, recommends Title V grantees, “[Title V recipients] consider the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and how their programs will be inclusive of and non- stigmatizing toward such participants.”

WAIT/CRE’s founder Joneen Mackenzie reported on her state application for Title V funding that, “The American Psychological Association Gay and Lesbian Issues Team have vetted the WAIT Training Curriculum for inclusive language and appropriate activities that include all students…only data driven curricula that is inclusive and not stigmatizing to this population will be utilized in this effort.”

The APA’s Clinton Anderson, associate executive director and director of the APA’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Office says otherwise, “we never conveyed any sort of approval to WAIT Training as being adequately inclusive or appropriate for lesbian, gay and bisexual students.” In fact, the APA supports comprehensive sex education and has made recommendations for inclusive messaging.

As a result of Mackenzie misrepresenting WAIT/CRE as LTBTQ friendly, along with ethical questions about the way the Title V funding was obtained, Colorado Ethics Watch has called for an investigation.

Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch said, “It looks like WAIT violated that ethical standard here by claiming that the APA ‘vetted’ WAIT’s LGBT inclusiveness criteria when the APA says that did not happen. Obtaining government dollars by falsely claiming to be inclusive and tolerant of gay and lesbian youth actually hurts those young people.”

Project SOS and WAIT/CRE are but two examples. They don’t even scratch the surface when it comes to outing the legion of discriminatory, shaming and worst of all medically erroneous abstinence-only programs – but they are unfortunately representative. Fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers and state affiliates of Focus on the Family have received millions of your tax dollars to talk to your kids about heterosexual marriage in the guise of sexual education – probably in a school near you.

There are two bills concerning abstinence funding sitting in the House of Representatives. One introduced by Representative Barbara Lee pushing to end abstinence funding and the other is an appropriations bill to re-up the funding introduced by the Republicans. Due to the state of the economy, rampant unemployment and a burgeoning Occupy Wall Street movement one of these bills – the Lee bill – is likely to go nowhere.

The Republicans, champions of job creation, will probably find time to debate their bill, lobbying for abstinence-only programs because the real problem with the economy is the downfall of the family and traditional marriage – just ask any of the GOP hopefuls. Perhaps the bill’s debate will coincide with the release of Live Action’s expose on Planned Parenthood teaching your teenager how to have dirty out-out-of wedlock sex by showing them how to roll a condom over a banana.

Iowa's 1 year gay-marriage anniversary: Shawn + Maureen

Thu, 1 Apr 2010 12:04:58 -0400

Vintage Shawn and Maureen, 1992

This Friday, April 2 my friends Shawn and Maureen – two upstanding Iowa lesbians – will be tying the knot. Saturday, April 3 happens to be the one-year anniversary of the Iowa Supreme Court unanimously ruling the ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. I was giddy when Maureen spilled the beans but it didn’t take long to catch on to the serious nature of her emails and the tone of her voice. This wasn’t going to be a completely joyous occasion.

The run up to the wedding day has been a mix of emotions for Maureen and Shawn. There was the painstaking composition and multiple revisions of the wedding invitation. How would they announce their marriage to potentially unsupportive family and friends (whom Maureen and Shawn continue to love despite their negative views of same-sex marriage)?

They are having a private, family only wedding in their home even though Shawn and Maureen, both Christians, belong to a church in their own back yard. Their pastor unable - due to the guidelines of the church - to perform the ceremony helped them find a clergyman who could one county over.

Although they have lived as partners for over 18 years (raising four kids between them) in their community, they were too afraid to apply for a marriage license in county. A conservative streak runs through their hometown with a large church and right-leaning newspaper seemingly the sum total of political commentary available. Since marriage licenses are entered into the public record, they decided to file in a neighboring county.

Shawn was in knots during the short ride to Tama County - she was nervous, Maureen told me – having thoughts like what will the clerk say – how will they treat us – will they turn us away? Maureen didn’t admit to being worried, though I suppose focusing on keeping Shawn in her own skin made it easier to stay in hers.

Thinking back, the biggest concerns I had when planning my wedding in Iowa last year were - chicken or roast beef? and - what beer to serve? The only time my stomach was in knots was when dad had to hightail it back to the house to fetch my forgotten bouquet moments before Here Comes The Bride.

The President of the Iowa Family Policy Center lays it out

In Iowa and around the country some people argue that homosexuality doesn't qualify for the protections afforded by the Constitution and claim same-sex marriage isn't a civil rights issue. Bryan English, the Communications Director of the Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC), is one of those people.

The IFPC is the biggest anti-gay PAC and Christian "pro-family" advocacy group operating in Iowa. With ties to the Family Research Council, Ralph Reed and the National Organization for Marriage, they bring a well-funded punch to the fight against gay rights in Iowa.

It is also being reported that the IFPC received funding through the federal Faith Based Initiatives program. Despite the Iowa Family Policy Council’s apparent violation of the no proselytizing requirement to receive funding, they continue to use $3 million of taxpayer money to advance their anti-gay agenda. (Stay tuned for more information on this.)

Regarding the overturning of an unconstitutional law by the Iowa Supreme court to allow same-sex marriage, Mr. English told me the court overstepped their bounds, “They [the Iowa Supreme Court] have no lawmaking ability,” and “That’s why we want an amendment for the people to vote, we don’t want the courts creating more laws.”

He made IFPC’s position clear: no gay marriage, no civil unions, let the people vote. I asked how it’s possible to vote on another human being’s civil rights – like women’s suffrage and the rights of African-Americans. He said my analogies to “real civil rights movements" was essentially disrespectful to the people who waged those hard-fought battles.

Mr. English told me a civil right is something you can see. As an example - you can see gender, a man a woman, an African-American or other non-white person – you can’t see gay. I assumed he had never seen a picture of Boy George.

English says, “This isn’t a civil rights issue it [homosexuality] is a choice in behavior and as a Christian organization we don’t believe this is a right, it is a sin against Jesus Christ.” Summarizing his thoughts, Bryan offers, "Their [gays] behavior first and foremost is inherently sinful.”

He went on to say that same-sex marriage will promote, “Sinful activities,” and “To take something sinful and make it legal keeps people from Jesus Christ, and if it [gay marriage] stands it will make it’s way into the rest of society.”

Mr. English seems to be particularly concerned with Iowa’s school children being exposed to gay people saying, “Promoting gay behavior, teens will choose that lifestyle, make poor choices and become more susceptible to STDs.”

It was around the time this last comment was made that I thanked Mr. English for his time.

Maureen and Shawn were working on the reception menu. Shawn, concerned asked - will we have enough food? Maureen laughed her infectious laugh when she told me this and said, “I reminded her - Shawn, I work in food service - we will be fine!”

As the RSVP deadline finally came allowing them to finalize the food count, Maureen wanted to share a note from a friend RSVP’ing “no” (spelling and grammatical errors original to note):

Maureen, you know that I love you and consider you a dear friend. Also, I need to share with you that due to what I believe the Bible says, I just can't congratulate you on what you are about to do. I am commited to love you, but I can't agree with you about something I believe the Bible holds sacred between a man and woman. I can give you scripture that has nothing to do with whether or not God loves you. Of course, He does. He loves all of His creation, but He has set boundaries that produce consequences should we choose to do it our way. I hope this will not hinder our friendship, but I can not attend this event in your life. I really wonder if you have stuidied this in the Word of God to see what He thinks. It really is not imp't what I think but what He thinks is right and holy is what we should follow. I believe you would agree with that, right? You see, I could choose to love another man and that would not be right either. God has just said "yes" to some things and "no" to other things. His Word says, "That if I regard sin in my heart, the Lord will not hear me (my prayers)". Sin is when we willfully break one of God's laws. I know I fall short and am not perfect so I do not sit in judgment of you, only that you prayerfully consider what He says about your choice. I love you, unconditionally and He does too but there are consequences to choices we make. They can be far-reaching to our children or grchildren. I will continue to keep you in my prayers. PLEASE let's keep our friendship imp't...ok?

Justin Uebelhor, Communications Director for One Iowa, the leading LGBT civil rights group in the state, is happy about a recent Des Moines Register poll showing that support of gay marriage has grown in the year since the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Since the ruling last year, we see a trend toward acceptance,” he tells me during our phone conversation. According to the poll, Justin says Iowans’ concern over gay marriage ranks somewhere below texting while driving.

One Iowa TV spot supporting the Supreme Court ruling

One Iowa's support was crucial when Lambda Legal brought the lawsuit on behalf of six gay couples that led to overturning the same-sex ban in Iowa. They put together a compelling video interviewing and spending time with the six couples and their families in the run up to the hearing that is worth viewing even after the ban was overturned.

Justin tells me “Massachusetts is 5 years out from their ruling with public opinion trending toward more and more support for it [gay marriage] and we see that same trend in Iowa.”

The further Iowa gets out from the April 2009 ruling, the better chance same-sex marriage has of surviving any attempt to put an anti-gay amendment on the ballot. Iowans want their legislators spending time on the economic crisis and finding ways to create jobs to drive the Iowa economy, not on laws that shame the constitution.

I asked Mr. Uebelhor if he has any concerns about Ralph Reed’s recent trip to Iowa to rally support for Republicans running for state office. Reed was the director of the right-wing Christian Coalition in the 1990’s. After a fall from grace snuggling up with Jack Abramoff, Reed seems to be making a comeback stopping through Iowa along the way.

Uebelhor is concerned, “When we see Reed asking for $500,000 to start an election program in Iowa like the one he started in New Jersey to defeat Corzine, we have to worry. Reed makes a habit of supporting anti-gay legislative candidates, and we have to make sure we get support and funding for our side.”

The good news for same-sex marriage and One Iowa is that there are a lot of good legislators on their side. Justin is quick to praise those members of the congress who have “stuck their neck out” for same-sex marriage.

“Speaker of the House Pat Murphy and Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal have taken their share of heat but have been very strong in supporting their decision [supporting same-sex marriage] with a joint statement throwing support behind the Supreme Court ruling and by asking everyone ‘what took so long?’”

In phone conversations over the last few weeks with Maureen talking about the wedding and this piece, I almost asked her a question I would never dream of asking my straight friends: why did you decide to get married?

The answer should be obvious: because they love each other, of course.

Shawn & Maureen, 2009

Sources, information, more reading:

One Iowa
Iowa Family Policy Center Blog
The Iowa Independent
The Des Moines Register
Reed and Abramoff Washington Post Article

KCCI TV Iowa 2000 Poll released this past February shows Iowa voters lining up like this when it comes to gay marriage: Favoring an amendment to overturn current law allowing same-sex marriage in Iowa: All polled - 39% favor an anti-gay marriage amendment, 42% disagree with an anti-gay marriage amendment and 19% of all polled are unsure.

The same sample were then asked - regardless of their opinions on same-sex marriage – if they favor or oppose allowing same-sex couples the same benefits as heterosexuals, the numbers were even more clear: 51% of respondents agree that same-sex couples should be afforded the same benefits as heterosexual couples, 40% oppose equal treatment, and 9% remain unsure.

Conversation with Pastor Garner on his Glenn Beck pushback

Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:03:39 -0400

Pastor Ron Garner in his Long Island church © Dan Wilby Photography 2010

It was sunny and 70 degrees when I pulled into the municipal parking lot out back of Wantagh Memorial Congregational Church (WMCC) in Wantagh, Long Island. Spring had arrived in New York; the lawn of the church was already green. Felled tree limbs from a recent storm waited in piles throughout the lawn for collection. Wantagh is a fine sized New York City suburb, about ten minutes north of Jones Beach and by and large, conservative and insulated in it’s politics.

But Wantagh and Wantagh Memorial made national news last week when Pastor Ron Garner of the WMCC decided to take on conservative FOX News personality, Glenn Beck, by calling him out directly on busy Wantagh Avenue:

The brouhaha that launched a media storm and sparked Pastor Garner into action is the now very public face off between Glenn Beck and the Reverend Jim Wallis, founder of Sojournersand long time political activist.

On March 2, Glenn Beck said on his radio talk show:

“I beg you, look for the words ‘social justice’…on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can. They are code words….social justice is a perversion of the Gospel.”

Wallis, in response posted an open letter, asking Mr. Beck for a sit down:

“I know you are used to a monologue on your show and elsewhere, but let’s have a dialogue—civil, reasonable, respectful, moral, and above all, biblical — to discuss what you have charged.”

Wallis went on to call for a boycott of Beck’s show and Beck lobbed a somewhat creepy response to Mr. Wallis, warning him that the “hammer is coming” and announcing he has been gathering “information” on Wallis for months. The suggestion being, Beck is going to out Wallis in some as yet unknown, irreversibly damaging way. (On a side note, read up on Wallis’ involvement with ACORN – this will likely make up the meat of Beck’s information.)

Pastor Ron greets me at the back door of his church situated just north of the Long Island Railroad stop. His handshake is firm and his welcome, sincerely warm.

We make small talk in the vestibule, me thanking him for his time, telling him I would love to live this close to the beach. Ron says he takes full advantage of Wantagh’s proximity to Jones Beach to take his Lab puppy – Jones Bitch – out to run and play fetch. He tells me, laughing, “That's her name, it’s on her papers!” His smile and laugh are infectious, his welcoming face accentuated by his scholarly, round tortoise-shell glasses.

Garner leads me down the hall to his office stopping to introduce me to Cheryl, the church secretary. She greets me, and then says to Ron, letter in hand, “Got something for you!” She excitedly gives Ron a letter with a check enclosed — not a large one, but a donation nonetheless.

This is one of a handful that have come in since Garner posted the Beck push back. Ron seems pleased. His message that Glenn Beck is terribly mistaken in his understanding of Jesus and social justice is finally getting out.

"Response [to the sign] has been mostly positive," says Garner. WMCC's weekly newsletter puts the percentages like this: 80% positive, 10% negative and 10% undecided.

Pastor Garner chalks up Glenn Beck’s raving assertions to fear. Garner and his wife lived in England, working at a church in Bath for about 8 years. “We weren’t in the US for 9-11 and when we came back, we had no idea how fearful a society we had become.” We were afraid of a car back firing, politicians railed against the “other," we willingly gave up a host of civil liberties with the sweeping language of the Patriot Act. Our rightful post 9-11 fear had given way to a dangerous paranoia. Garner’s observation of a post 9-11 America is simple and salient when analyzing Glenn Beck’s - and other pundits - fear mongering.

But Garner doesn't stop there. He calls out almost all religions for their history of fear making as flock management and uses his own experience as an explanation of his view.

Ron grew up in a Fundamentalist home in Indiana. He struggled with the harsh faith of his born-again Christian parents. He says the God he was raised with was something to fear: fire, brimstone and the lot. Ron calls this bad religion. An even finer point is put on Ron's bad religion theory through the experience of his mother, aging and gripped with dementia.

"My mom is tortured by the demons of bad religion. I talk to her on the phone, she believes there are men in her room, trying to take her to hell. She tells me she prays to Jesus to not let her go to hell," he says.

This, according to Ron is the product of his mother's "bad religion" and proof to him how it can damage people, sometimes forever. He admits much of his mother's claims can be credited to the dementia but Ron points out, "Those thoughts, ideas, they had to come from somewhere."

For Ron, social justice as his Jesus intended it, is nothing to fear but something to be embraced spiritually and politically. “Beckian theology regarding social justice is easy and accessible to people,” Ron tells me, “it is the true application of Biblical social justice that takes time, research and discussion to understand.”

So what is social justice to Pastor Garner? If it isn’t, as Beck claims “code” for Nazism, cause for unbridled fear and, reason alone to run like a scalded dog from your local church — then what is it?

Ron uses the Bible, and his gut to guide him, “Matthew 25, talks about who are the poorest, who is not welcomed and who is it that makes up the least of these?” Jesus was an outsider, Garner tells me, he was one with the peasantry, the oppressed, walking the Earth as the “other”. He was a radical that empowered the people to speak up and push back against their oppressors, to seek true justice. According to Garner, Micah (6:8) wasn't just talking to the individuals he challenged Israel with these words:

"God has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does God require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

Pastor Garner was quick to point out Glenn Beck does not subscribe, at least publicly, to any of these divine imperatives.

What will come of his statements about Glenn Beck? Pastor Garner doesn't venture a guess. The response may be no more than people like me showing up at his church's back door looking for a conversation. And that's all right by Ron, because in his view, a real conversation - not one led by television ideologues - about a loving and just God in our civil society is long overdue.

Sources, further reading:

Pastor Garner's blog
Family Research Council - Tony Perkins to Beck's rescue
Jim Wallis' - Sojourners
Glenn Beck
The United Church of Christ, of which WMCC is a member, is an "open and affirming" church. I admitted to Ron I had no idea what that meant - religiously speaking. He said it means the Church is open to all, and affirming of a person's lifestyle and being. It is the kind of belief system that allows same-sex parents to have Garner baptize their children. It embraces the LGBT community in the arms of God.

Coffee Party or Coffee Klatch? Kickin' it off on Bleecker

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 09:03:19 -0400

Saturday, March 13, was a crappy, wet day in New York City. The rain not only fell from the sky, but also seemed to fall up from the asphalt, attacking me from all sides. There were mangled umbrella skeletons blown across Lafayette Street, just around the corner from the Bleecker Bar, where one of the NYC Coffee Party kickoffs was taking place. Despite the bad weather (I only live five blocks away and had the "go? not go?"conversation with myself) people from Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and at least one New Jersey-ite ventured out to attend.

When I first heard of the Coffee Party a handful of weeks ago, I was excited. People had finally sprung up en masse to counter all the yelling and screaming of the Tea Partiers. But, after doing some research, and finding little in the way organizational or action strategy, I worried it was a movement in name only.

Is the Coffee Party Movement the product of a simple Facebook post that overtook its poster to become the nation wide response to the Tea Party Movement? Or, is it a calculated, mid-term election tool to mobilize Independent and disenfranchised Democratic voters to come out against Republicans and “Blue Dogs” in the fall?

I spoke with Jeannine Stepanian, a Coffee Party Media Liaison on Friday afternoon — the day before the kick off event. Jeannine was very friendly; a volunteer donating her time like many others involved in the Coffee Party, but had little to offer in the way of articulating a platform or a plan of action. Instead of being a top down organization deciding on platforms and issues with implementation strategies at the outset, they are bottom up. Their platform will depend on what their members want, as determined by the outcome of Saturday's kick offs.

I posed an obvious question to Jeannine about the name Coffee Party. She acknowledged that the original formation of the group was in direct response to the divisive, angry language and actions of the tea partiers. But, she was careful to point out that they are not interested in being known only as the reaction to the tea baggers.

But with media outlets like NY Daily News proclaiming: "Coffee Party kicks off movement to take on the Tea Party," and CNN reporting, "New party bills itself as an alternative to the Tea Party," Coffee Party as anti-Tea Party may be difficult to shake. Here's a video from AOL news from the Coffee Party I attended. The reporter enthusiastically sets up the scene with a rather dramatic analogy between Coffee and Tea:

Click to watch AOL reporting from one NYC kick-off party

The Coffee Party, as well as the Tea Party, are 501 c 4 organizations, similar to a 501 c 3 non-profit organization in that they are both tax exempt. However, if I plunk down a $20 donation to The Coffee (or Tea) Party, I can't take that as a deduction when filling out my taxes next year.

Another major difference between "3s" and "4s" is that 501 c 4s are created specifically to act politically: "A 501 c 4 is a tax exempt, non-profit organization that can engage in lobbying or political campaigning." The next logical step could be the formation of a PAC depending on which way the Coffee Party decides to go.

When I finally dragged my soaked self into the Bleecker Bar at the corner of Lafayette and well, Bleecker, there were only 5 or so people sitting at a table. One of which was the AOL reporter with a camera already in someone's mug. I flashed the "am I in the right place" smile and a woman said, "yes, this is it!"

5 people? I had a flash back to the Tea Party convention and coverage of the event claiming there were more reporters than attenders. But, in typical "sorry I'm late" New York fashion, people finally started to trickle in (about 25 or so) including local organizer, Amanda Martinez. She is a bouncy, middle-aged gal enthusiastically running around handing out packets about what the kick-off event, and the Coffee Party, was all about.

Martinez quieted the crowd, asked the bartender to turn the music down and read a few ground rules. We must be civil. There would be no name calling or any raised voices. There was a civility pledge to sign, she said, though I never actually saw one (there is one on the website). Our goal for the day? Photographs. We would break up into small groups, decide on an issue, write it on a giant piece of paper (Coffee + Healthcare! Coffee + Filibuster Reform!) then, take a photo with it to send to mission control.

My Coffee Party group (L-R) Lamar, Tyler, David & Chuck (Jean had to scoot early)

I crowded into a booth with Lamar, a researcher, Tyler, an anthropologist who studies and attends Tea Party rallies, Jean a law student and activist (in the video, above), David a computer guy and Chuck, a doctor. We exchanged pleasantries, gave the who what and where of ourselves, and then enjoyed the silence. We all smiled a bit, communicating to each other telepathically “what are we supposed to do now?”

We finally just started talking. At first about making our sign — what should it say? What would our issue be? Each of us talked about what was currently important to us: healthcare, the war, the log jammed congress. At first, all that was said could have easily been sound bites and talking points seen during a clip on Rachel Maddow or even FOX news.

But how would these things come about? That is where the conversation stalled for a bit and became a gripe session. And, rightfully so, we have a lot to gripe about these days when it comes to the action and in-action of our government. And in this gripe session, I found the beauty of the Coffee Party.

We were people, similar in our political beliefs — though not a single person in my group mentioned party affiliation — talking through what pissed us off about the government. We asked each other questions, we spoke our individual truths, we shared our experience (if any) with political activism. I saw clarity — or at least affirmation — come across faces of many in attendance. This to me was the real success of the Bleecker Bar Coffee Party kick off.

As the meeting was wrapping up, Tyler scratched out COFFEE + FILIBUSTER REFORM in pink highlighter pen and David wore out a couple sheets of paper trying to fit COFFEE + HEALTHCARE on one page. They were already talking about setting up a Brooklyn Coffee Party, though they, like me were leery of the Coffee Party title. They preferred "Beer Summit". Catchy, familiar, and I say, whatever works.

They asked if I would be attending another Coffee Party. The answer I gave them was I don't know.

As individuals, we are all free to pick up the phone and call our local, state or federal elected employees. I can invite friends and neighbors over for spirited political discussions to help hash out our differences and find common ground. I can and do share information on how to contact representatives, how to write letters, draw up petitions and take small actions here and there.

For me, that is where I find I do my best work, one to one, person to person. I would happily join a march on D.C. or support any legislation or action the Coffee Party proposes if it is in line with my values. But when the rubber hits the road, I can't wait for consensus.

Save Taylor's Maid-Rite: The Plea

Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:03:35 -0500

Behold

Some people call them loose meat sandwiches. My people, Iowans, simply call them Maid-Rites.

Taylor's Maid-Rite in Marshalltown, Iowa is an institution. I grew up eating this ambrosia on a bun: steamed ground beef, lovingly churned by employees - some young, some a bit grizzled - served with your choice of onions, pickles or mustard, but not ketchup. Never ketchup. Sloppy and delicious, served wet or dry, wrapped whether you are staying or not. A spoon is not optional.

Cliff Taylor and family, keepers of the Maid-Rite legacy

Cliff Taylor bought the "Maid Rite" franchise in 1928 for the whopping sum of $300. Along with his family, Cliff operated Taylor's Maid-Rite, baking home-made pies, slicing pickles from a Marshalltown pickler and buying fresh buns from a local bakery. When Cliff died in 1944, his son Don and his wife, Polly, took over to keep it in the family.

Every time I go back home to visit, we take a trip to the Maid-Rite. It is always a matter for discussion between the out of town siblings, when we are going, how we are getting there (car pool? separate cars? meet up after a trip to the mall?), how many Maid-Rites are we are going to eat and whether it will be a malt or a shake this time.

A requirement for any man brave enough to date one of we three Kopsa sisters was a pilgrimage to Taylor's upon the first visit to meet my parents. These unknowing men from places like Chicago, New York or say, Edinburgh, Scotland, had no idea why the women they were dating went wild at the mere mention of Maid-Rites. Until they had one, of course.

When I asked my daughter what food she wanted at her high school graduation party this is the list she came back with: a chocolate fountain, Skittles and Maid-Rites. I thought that was a brilliant idea. The crowd went wild (for the Maid-Rites, I don't have any data on their reaction to the fountain or Skittles).

We take these sandwiches very, very seriously.

The reason Taylor's Maid-Rite is at risk is because the cooking method they use - a giant steamer essentially - is at odds with the parameters set forth by Iowa Environmental Health Association.

Iowa Senator Steve Sodders of State Center introduced an amendment that would allow Taylor's method to be grandfathered in, keeping the taste we love alive. Here is his youtube plea, complete with an old timer's testimonial:

Steve is a friend of mine. I so loved his hutzpah in introducing this amendment, I had to ask him to share a happy Taylor's Maid-Rite memory.

Here it is: "When I was a kid, my mom took us to the Maid Rite in Ames just off of Main St. I remember it was set up just like Taylor's with the red swivel seats and the horseshoe counter. We used to go Saturday mornings and watch Saturday morning cartoons."

Senator Sodders went on to say, "I'm just trying to keep a piece of Americana intact. I am proud to word for the people in my district."

Whatever Steve is doing, it is catching on. The "Save Taylor's Maid-Rite" Facebook page has over 8,000 members.

Help me save Taylor's Maid-Rite for small town and big city landmarks everywhere. Iowans, pass the word around. Everyone else, visit the Facebook page. Or better yet, order up some delicious Maid-Rites for yourself - they ship everywhere. See what it is we are talking about, oozing about, and trying to save. Share the joy, spread the word.

Maid-Rite info:

WHO TV 13 Des Moines reporting the story
Taylor's Maid Rite homepage
Travel & Leisure article on Taylor's
Save Taylor's Maid-Rite Facebook page