Posts Tagged ‘activism’

Last month I posted about how I was raising money for the Children’s Miracle Network through the Buckeyethon fundraiser at Ohio State. Well, I’m still raising money for the event, which is Valentine’s Day 2014, and since I didn’t lose any followers after I asked for donations in that last post, I’m posting again to try and get donations.

What Children’s Miracle Network does is that it raises money around the country for research into curing juvenile cancers. They host a number of events designed to raise money, one of which is Buckeyethon at Ohio State, where students raise money in order to attend a 12-hour dance marathon. I attended last year, where we raised over six-hundred and twenty-three thousand dollars, and I’m doing the event again because I want to be part of the effort again, and this year I’m hoping to raise past my minimum of $100 and get as many donations as possible.

If you wish to donate, you can follow this link here to my donation page. And if you want to donate but you don’t have the time to do it at the moment, I’d recommend writing yourself a reminder so that you don’t forget. I can think of a couple of people who promised to donate last month but haven’t done it yet (you know who you are).

Of course, you don’t have to donate if you don’t want to, but I’d appreciate it if you did. It would mean the world to me, even if you donated just a dollar.

Thanks, and have a lovely evening.

Looks like someone in Texas is actually looking out for its women.

You may recall a few months back that Governor Rick Perry of Texas called in two special sessions of the legislature to put forth numerous restrictions on women’s access to abortion by regulating everything from specifications on what sort of room an abortion can be performed in to restrictions on the doctors themselves in performing the abortions. Pro-life activists claimed that the legislation was to protect the lives of women, while pro-choice advocates said that the laws would shut down all but six of Texas’s abortion clinics.

If you ask me, the move was just another attempt for politicians to thrust their noses into places they don’t have any right to be in, and apparently a large number of Texans agree with me. During the first special session, state senator Wendy Davis went on a 13-hour filibuster that ended when the legislature forced her to step down on account of some really stupid technicalities. The outrage was so terrible that the booing crowds kept the legislature from voting before the end of the deadline, giving Texan women a reprieve. However the second session they weren’t so lucky, as the restrictions were passed.

However now a judge in Texas is calling the restrictive legislation unconstitutional and has blocked the measures from going into effect tomorrow.  District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote that his decision was based that he couldn’t find a rational relationship between the measures and protecting both the lives of women and the fetuses they’re carrying, and therefore the measures have been halted. Texas’s AG says he plans to appeal the ruling as soon as possible, but for now it seems that women’s rights and bodies in Texas are safe.

And to those who will comment on this blog and say the judge is overstepping his bounds or that these measures will help women, I have this to say: the judge in question was given the power by the federal government to determine whether or not the measures were constitutional. Therefore he was doing his job when he blocked the measures, so he’s not overstepping any bounds, he’s just disagreeing with you. And these measures don’t help women, they just make it much more difficult to get a safe abortion in the state of Texas, which will cause many women to look for alternatives, sometimes unsafe alternatives. Who exactly is that helping?

And by the way, James Holmes, Son of Sam, and several killers were all legal owners of guns. If you believe we should make abortion clinics more heavily restricted because this one clinic in Virginia was unsafe, shouldn’t you also agree that guns should be more heavily restricted along the same lines because of how many people die of guns every year?

Think about it.

I just read a report online that said that since the Sandy Hook massacre in December, aproximately niney-nine hundred shooting deaths have occurred in the United States. Yes, that’s correct. 9,900 deaths have occurred in the United States since the Sandy Hook massacre ten months ago. And that’s just the reported deaths. According to Slate.com, which keeps a tally of gun deaths in the United States, suicide by firearms aren’t usually reported in terms of gun deaths by police and the media, so the official number of firearm-related deaths may actually be much higher.

But still, 9,900 deaths is pretty steep. It’s over three times the number of deaths that the United States sustained during the September 11th attacks. And what has been done about it? Have any laws been passed that aim to stop gun deaths? States like New York, Vermont, Maryland, and Colorado have adopted much more stringent gun control measures in order to prevent more tragedies, and President Obama issued over twenty executive orders regarding gun control in the wake of the tragedy. However measures to fight gun violence have dried up somewhat, especially on the national level.

Why? Because a small but extremely vocal and well-funded group of people, some of whom are very out of touch with the organizations they head, believe that any measure to curb the sales or ownership of guns is a violation of the Second Amendment. Yet we still fund millions of dollars to take out terrorists overseas who in recent years have caused far less American deaths than guns have.

I’m not arguing we shouldn’t go after terrorists. But guns are causing more deaths than terrorists right about now, and it’s only going to get worse if nobody does anything. And I know that for certain Americans having a gun is a way of life. It’s consider sacred. But guess what? The United States is losing innocent lives because people are using firearms in ways they shouldn’t be used or have access to firearms that, in other nations, would be restricted to use by military personnel only.

And don’t say that gun restriction will lead to a totalitarian state. Governments are more capable of incompetence than controlling every aspect of the citizens of an entire nation. Look at the shutdown if you want proof. And don’t say gun control led to the Holocaust, because numerous factors led to the Holocaust, and so far in my Holocaust class I haven’t seen a single reference to gun control being apart of Hitler’s rise to power. And saying gun control laws don’t work because anyone determined to get a gun can is like saying traffic laws or stealing laws don’t work because people will still speed through red lights and will still take money from your wallet if they can get it.

Besides, Australia has done very well with gun control, so why can’t the United States do well? We’re both a nation that overthrew British rule, have had or still do have problems with people of certain ethnicities, and have had massacres in the past that have devastated our people.

So I’m asking anyone reading this that if you think gun violence is out of control in the United States, please say something. On your blog, to your congressman or senator, to the local newspaper or in your church/synagogue/mosque/temple/whatever. Try and make your voice heard if you’ve had enough of people dying and want the killing to stop.

We need a change. We need to be the change. And I’m not going to stop shouting about this till I see some change for the better.

For the kids, is the motto.

Some of you may remember back in February I participated in something called Buckeyethon. It’s a charity event here at my lovely Ohio State University that’s done every winter that raises money for juvenile cancer research. It ends with a dance marathon lasting twelve hours and where the guests of honor are kids we are helping.

I had a wonderful time last year, raising money for the event, dancing and seeing friends, and meeting the kids I was actually helping out. And at the very end of it, everyone who raised money–over two-thousand students–learned we’d raised over six-hundred and eight thousand dollars for charity. And I want to do it again. Only this time, I’m going to raise a hell of a lot more than I did last year.

Now I know that self-published authors asking their readers for money is considered really tacky. I avoid doing anything like that. I don’t even tell people to buy my books! I encourage it, but I don’t say “buy it or something bad will happen, even something just as minor as I not being able to write anything in the future.”

But this isn’t for me. It’s for charity purposes. it’s for helping children. It’s for curing diseases that takes kids and puts them through hell they shouldn’t have to go through. So that’s why, although I have serious misgivings about going on my blog and asking for people to help me meet my goal and beyond, I’m going to ask. I just hope that afterwards, nobody who reads this blog regularly will be put off and decide not to follow me anymore because I asked for help in this.

Okay. Here I go.

Will you please help me raise money to cure juvenile cancers? If you want to donate, please follow this link to donate. If you don’t want to donate, that’s your choice and I totally respect that. And if you don’t want to read this blog anymore because I asked for money on a blog, I disagree with you but it’s your choice.

Thanks for your help, and I really appreciate it. All donations are accepted up till (as far as I can tell, because I haven’t received a deadline date yet, and I’m sure donations will be accepted up until the last minute) February 14th. Yep, February 14th. Valentine’s Day.  What a way to show kids that you love them no matter what.

So thanks for the help. I really appreciate it. And I hope you continue to read this blog, no matter what.

I may or may not have mentioned it before, but I’m a fan of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (or these days, The Daily Show with John Oliver, seeing as Jon Stewart is in the Middle East directing a drama). The show makes digesting politics a bit easier for me, the way they lampoon everything that’s happening in our broken political system. No subject is safe or free from exploration, and that can sometimes lead to some very interesting epiphanies on our society in general.

Last night I had one of those epiphanies. The show’s two women correspondents (and considering that every correspondent has at least a dozen different correspondent titles, from tax reform to royal family to fishing and wildlife to weird news, they really are the women correspondents for the show), Samantha Bee and Jessica Williams, did a segment on how people are afraid to talk about race and racism in this country, and how far we are from eliminating it. If I am successful, the video should appear below. If not, I apologize and I advise you to follow this link.

Although very funny, this video shows some incredibly thought-provoking things. For one thing, those who don’t experience racism on a day-to-day racism in New York–those with white privilege, in other words–feel that because of President Obama and other factors, racism is on its way to being eliminated. However those who experience racism on a daily basis–the members of the black panel–have a much more cynical view. And why shouldn’t they? They face discrimination, profiling, problems getting good jobs, and utter cluelessness on the parts of certain members of the white panel. I mean talking about race exacerbates the problem? Black people should be interested in your fashion-related job?

First off, does talking about the things in your life that can cause you depression exacerbate the problem? Therapists don’t believe so, and they’d advise you to discuss it rather than not talk about it. And as for black people not being interested in your job despite the job being fashion, does it seem a little stereotypical that you think that they should be? I mean, there’s more to white people than the clothes they wear, so why can’t it be the same for minorities.

And like the one panelist said, this affects more than just black people. Hispanics face the stop-and-frisk policy too, and crooked police will use this policy to intimidate, hurt, and deport Hispanics unfairly and on bulls**t charges. Muslims, particularly Arab Muslims, face a constant PR campaign to let the world know that only a tiny minority of Muslims actually have radical leanings, let alone terrorist ties or inclinations. And in many areas of the country, the LGBT community has to struggle not just for marriage rights, but for the right to housing, jobs, insurance, security, and other rights that their straight neighbors taking for granted.

And finally, to the fashionista in the white panel, even if an issue doesn’t affect you, you should still take part in it! Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. I’m pretty sure that the genocide in Eastern Europe during the 1940s didn’t affect mainstream Americans, but still it became a part of the war effort to stop Germany. And for a more modern example, though the tsunami in Indonesia, the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan, and the ongoing genocide in Darfur (yes, it’s still happening, and rapes over in that area have skyrocketed with it), we still intervene, even though it doesn’t directly affect us. Why? Because we have a moral imperative to do so.

So even if you’re not directly affected by the plight of minorities because of your race, your religion, your nationality, your ethnicity, your gender, your sexual orientation, or any other factor, you should still try to help. Otherwise, when you’re affected by an issue and nobody’s speaking up for you, you’ll feel pretty ashamed that you didn’t do a single thing to help others out in their time of need.

So let’s start that discussion about race. Here’s a start: racism is still a long way from being eliminated in the United States, no matter what race you belong to or where you’re from. What is something you can do in your community to fight against racism and foster equality?

Yesterday I saw a video on a Freshly Pressed post on pregnancy in science fiction and fantasy, particularly the “mystical pregnancy”. The full video is below:

This video got me thinking. First I started thinking about all the instances not mentioned in this video: Nymphadora Tonks in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Scully once again in the seventh-eighth seasons of The X-Files, Amy Pond in the sixth series of Doctor Who, Ruth Gallagher in the second book of The Age of Misrule trilogy, Lady Gaga in the Born This Way music video and live performances, Padme Amidala in Revenge of the Sith–you can stop me anytime, you know.

Then it got me thinking about the use of pregnancy in fiction, particularly the TV shows, movies, and books I like. It was a bit of a shock, how transparent and flat these women can become when they are impregnated by their writers. Some are barely there at all as characters. It’s a little sad, and kind of sexist, reducing an entire complex being to the process of pregnancy of birth. And if you need a great example, take a look at Padme in Revenge of the Sith. She gets maybe twenty minutes of screen-time, has very few significant lines, and in the end dies of heartbreak after giving birth. I think her most memorable line from that movie was “So this is how democracy ends: to the sound of thunderous applause.”

To reiterate, this wasn’t what fans were hoping to see.

But after discussing things with the Suspense/Thriller Writers group I belong to on Facebook and sleeping on the subject a bit, I came to a realization that while pregnancies, and mystical pregnancies as well, are used perhaps a bit too much in fiction, it’s the portrayal of the characters that matters the most. For example, Padme’s pregnancy is a very bad example of how badly the subject of pregnancy can be handled. However there are better examples, such as Aeryn Sun from Farscape. According to writer David Lucas: “Aeryn: surrounded by enemies, gives birth. Later, with the baby in a sling, emerges even stronger as a character and as a fighter as she has something even more precious to fight for.” Note this part of a FB comment, so that’s why there’s two colons there.

Two other writers, John Saunders and Annette Wright, points out the character of Sarah Connor in the first two Terminator films. In the first film, Sarah is naïve and has to struggle a lot. But her pregnancy and its aftermath helps hone her into a fierce fighting machine, pun totally intended.

Don’t mess with Sarah Connor, people.

And there are plenty of other examples where female protagonists and other characters have used their pregnancy to grow as characters rather than become one-dimensional breeding machines. For example, Adalind Schade from Grimm becomes even more of a schemer and antagonist, because now she has something over the other characters: the birth of a new prince. Ripley in Alien 3 had a chest-burster growing in her body, but instead of letting the men do the work, she worked proactively to defeat the Dog Alien and kill the Queen growing inside her (and yes, I’m counting that as a mystical pregnancy). And there are probably loads of examples I can’t even think of, showing that portrayal is most important in using pregnancy in science fiction and fantasy.

This was a woman who didn’t let an alien baby get in her way!

So for future reference, I’ll make sure to take a look at pregnancies in fiction and see how it’s portrayed, what works, what doesn’t work, and what can make up a positive or a negative portrayal. I may even write an article on this for Self-Published Authors Helping Other Authors, if I can find the time.

Plus I’d like to check out the other videos in that Tropes vs. Women series. It looks interesting, and I might just learn something important that’ll improve my fiction writing in the future.

As always, thought and comments are welcome on this subject. What is your take on pregnancy in fiction, particularly mystical pregnancy?

I think, now more than ever, I like Pope Francis.

In a stunning reversal of traditional Catholic policy, Pope Francis I took a more positive approach to homosexuality than his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. While speaking with journalists on the plane ride back to Rome, the Pope was asked how he would react if he were to learn that there was a cleric in his ranks who was gay but not sexually active. His reply: “Who am I to judge a gay person of goodwill who seeks the Lord? You can’t marginalize these people.”

God bless the Pope!

I’ve always been a little wary of the Catholic Church as an entity, though I know and I am friendly with regular Catholics. There’s a deep-rooted history of animosity between the Church and Judaism, exacerbated over recent years when Holocaust-denying clergy were allowed to continue practicing in positions of power. That, plus their views on LGBT and  women’s rights, mixed with pedophilia scandals have really made me and other people, if not detractors, then angry with it.

But with the election of Pope Francis, who sets out to be a reformer of the Church like his namesake St. Francis, I have had some new thoughts. This pope seems much more down-to-Earth and of the people, and he’s already instituted a number of reforms in Church policy. This latest change really makes me happy. Not only does it signal a possible change in the Church’s policy towards the LGBT community–which has regarded homosexuality as a disorder, and in recent years barred gay clerics from practicing–but it also signals a change for the Pope, who as a cardinal wrote a few papers condemning people who were LGBT.

If this is an indication of which direction the Pope might go in terms of the Vatican’s relationship with the LGBT community, it could signal a major change around the world. In several nations, from Iran and Russia to Uganda and Zimbabwe, there are laws in place or in process that would seek to rob the LGBT community of their human rights, and in countries where laws support the LGBT community, such as England, France, and certain areas of the United States, there is still an uphill battle to give the LGBT community the same rights as their straight neighbors. If the Pope’s statement signals a reversal in policy, several countries may face a rise in support for the rights of LGBTers.

And another thing that I’ve noticed is that the Pope said “You can’t exclude these people.” While I do note that calling an entire community that spans the globe “these people” sounds a little exclusionary in itself, to me the greater message sends out more powerful vibes. For years, exclusion of those unlike yourself or the main part of a group has been a too-widely accepted policy. It was believed that if you excluded someone unlike yourself–because of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc.–they would either change their ways, learn their place, or go away. But nowadays most people don’t bow so easily to the majority, and everyone from women to gays to Hispanics to everyone in between is speaking up for their rights, and it is working for the most part.

Something like this in the future would be nice.

If the Church is going to end its exclusionary policies, then that could lead to better relations between them and gays, particularly those who want a relationship with God and the Church. And it also shows that those who want to exclude gays from society or outright ban them may have lost a powerful ally in the Church. Which if you ask me, can only be a good thing.

I look forward to seeing where the Pope goes with this. Hopefully it’ll lead to more pro-gay reforms in the Church policy, making Catholicism and possibly Christianity in general more accepting to the LGBT community, and to people in general.

In the meantime, I’d like to say a prayer from Judaism that is said when something that hasn’t happened before happens for the first time: Baruch atah Hashem, Elocheinu Melech Ha’olam, Shehechianu v’kiamanu v’higi’anu lazman hazeh. Blessed are You, Lord Our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has granted us life, sustained us, and enabled us to reach this occasion.

An occasion I hope will lead to something good.

Over the past month we’ve seen a great battle going on in the state of Texas, one whose epicenter is in the Texas legislature in Austin and whose influence has far-reaching implications. Twice, Governor Rick Perry has called in a special session of the Texas legislature in order to pass a far reaching anti-abortion bill, which would effectively reduce the number of clinics that provide abortions from forty-two to six by requiring each clinic to be almost like its own little mini-hospital and banning abortions after 20 weeks, despite the Roe v. Wade allowance for an abortion in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The first session the bill was not passed, due to the heroic efforts of Senator Wendy Davis, who stood for eleven hours in a true-to-form filibuster where she talked about how dangerous this bill was to women and how it wasn’t motivated by a desire to actually help Texas’s constituents. When the GOP-controlled legislature forced her to step down because they didn’t believe talking about Planned Parenthood or ultrasounds was related to abortion, the crowds of protestors raised a fury so strong that the midnight deadline passed and the bill couldn’t be passed through all the noise.

This woman’s a hero. She will do great things someday.

That should’ve stopped the bill right there and then. Obviously if a bill is so unpopular that one woman would stand and talk for eleven hours and protestors w0uld scream and shout within the confines of the statehouse to stop it, then it should’ve been put to sleep. But no, Rick Perry called the legislature back again and issued a stern warning to all protestors that they shouldn’t disrupt the legislative process.

The result was the bill was passed. But you know what’s got me really upset? Is that the GOP and the pro-life groups claim that this sort of bill, which makes it near impossible to open an abortion clinic in the state of Texas, is “good for women”. How do they justify this logic? Well, a man named Kermit Gosnell was convicted in Virginia for doing some illegal practices that resulted in the deaths of some fetuses and one woman. Now Gosnell’s a reluctant poster-boy, a symbol of all that is supposedly wrong with the abortion industry and what is needed to “improve” it. “Improve” it.

And that’s what’s crazy. The pro-life factions and their reps in the Texas legislature say they are protecting women from horrible practices that they believe are rampant in every abortion clinic nationwide. The thing is, Kermit Gosnell was a lone example. Yes, he did some horrible things, but that doesn’t mean every abortion provider is the same. You want a whole industry with terrible practices, try the meat industry. The animals are treated terribly, the employees are working in just-barely safe conditions, and the meat is not inspected enough to insure safety, which causes a ton of outbreaks of E. coli and other diseases.

Of course, these same pro-life lawmakers have considered punishing the activists who expose the ugliness of the meat industry through legal means, so I’m not sure what pointing this out will get me from the pro-life groups. But you see the point I’m making, right?

And more interestingly, this bill doesn’t help women at all. All the clinics left after this bill goes into effect are going to be located in East Texas, which will be a pain for people living in other parts of Texas, especially communities where access to running water and electricity, let alone a good car. So these women, the women who could actually benefit from an abortion, can’t go get one, because the nearest clinic is several hundred miles away from home. Doesn’t matter if they don’t want to be pregnant. Doesn’t matter if the pregnancy will endanger their health. Doesn’t matter if the pregnancy was a result of incest, or even rape. Nope, they’re stuck with the baby because the nearest clinic is hundreds of miles away.

Or is that so? We know before Roe v. Wade, women would get abortions through illegal providers or by going through drastic measures (kitchen utensils and hanger wires, anyone?). So despite the fact that what pro-life groups really want is to save as many alleged “lives” as possible, what they are doing is actually putting women’s lives in danger.

All while ensuring that the children they think they are saving are still going to be aborted.

But if you are a woman in Texas, that won’t be a consolation. No, that doesn’t help at all. You feel upset that men in Austin are deciding your fate, and when women and activists who think like you voice their objections, the men just text or play Candy Crush on their computers, and the women who work with these men seem so willfully ignorant of the facts, it hurts.

And I could tell you a few more tales about how Texas doesn’t care about its women–including how a man wanted an escort to prostitute herself and killed her when she didn’t, but wasn’t convicted of murder (crazy, right?)–but I think I ‘ve made things clear. So women of Texas, my heart goes out to you. I’m so sorry that men who are ignorant of your lives are making decisions about your health. And I can only hope that the eventual Supreme Court trial that will occur from this–and believe me, a trial will occur from this–will end with the judges ruling in favor of you women.

God bless, and I hope the best for all of you.

It’s sometimes difficult for me to find a subject that gets me incensed enough that I write a post about it. Usually it’s related to women’s rights or gun control. Today, it’s a combination of gun control and wondering how stupid our leaders can get!

He got away with murder, and I don’t know why.

If you’ve been paying attention to the news lately, George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. I find that hard to believe, seeing as Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watchman, saw Martin walking home at night in a neighborhood he lived in, thought that because he was black and in a hoodie he was suspicious, called the police who told him not to follow Martin, followed him anyway, got into an altercation with Martin, and then shot him. In addition, Zimmerman has had prior brushes with the law, including assaulting an ex-girlfriend and a police officer!

And yet because of Stand Your Ground laws and doubts on Martin’s role in the tragedy, Zimmerman gets off scot-free and gets his gun back, despite everything that’s happened! If you ask me, George Zimmerman not only got away with murder, he showed how dangerous Stand Your Ground laws are. These laws say that I’m allowed to use a firearm within the state, and if I claim self-defense, I can’t be punished for it. And that’s even if I go into a bar with a loaded gun and deliberately pick a fight. It’s a law that allows you to get away with murder.

I’m sorry, but aren’t we supposed to stop murderers, not help them?

And not only is the law nonsensical, it’s not applied equally. Right around the same time of the Zimmerman verdict, a woman of African American heritage was convicted. Why? She had fired a shotgun at the ceiling of her home in order to defend herself against her violent boyfriend. Under Florida’s laws, you think she would be protected and her boyfriend prosecuted for assault. You’d be wrong. Despite the defense’s use of Stand Your Ground, she got convicted and sent away for 20 years.

So a murderer get’s away with murder and get’s his gun back after killing a black teenager, but a black woman who didn’t kill anybody and was actually defending herself gets 20 years? What the heck is going on down there?

Looks about right, doesn’t it?

And despite how ineffective, unequally applied, and dangerous these laws are, Governor Rick Scott says he won’t call in a special session of the Florida legislature to review Stand Your Ground laws. Instead, he asks protestors to “talk to your legislators” and is calling for a day of prayer on Sunday.

Prayer? That’s your solution? You’re going to pray for a solution to just magically pop into your lap, Governor Scott? Why not take some action and act like a leader? Or would your NRA backers be cranky if you did that?

Honestly, I don’t blame Stevie Wonder for wanting to boycott the state. I’ll boycott it too while these crazy laws are in effect. And I hope the protestors down in Florida who want Stand Your Ground laws repealed and are the ones who are really taking action are able to enact some sort of change. Because honestly, how many more people are we going to let die for the sake of people who fear their profits will be slashed or that an all-powerful dictatorship will emerge by putting a few comon-sense restrictions on the Second Amendment?

I’ll try and write some more later. I’ve got some anger to vent over the situation in Texas, and boy, will I enjoy writing that!

Whether I’m feeling particularly patriotic on Independence Day in the United States depends on a number of factors. For one, my homeland is always Israel, so although I was born and raised in America, Independence Day isn’t as big a deal for me as it is for others. Also, this country has its problems, and how those problems are being handled and who’s handling them can decide whether or not I want to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance or if I just wish it would be over so we can get on with the football game.

However this July 4th I’m feeling particularly proud. President Obama’s still in office, and while he’s not the perfect President (who is?), he’s a lot better than some other aspiring executive leaders I could name (but I won’t because I’m polite that way). Also, the Supreme Court (probably the most popular branch of our federal government) said last week that gay marriage must be recognized by the federal government, which means that I can now work for my own state of Ohio to adopt the practice. Not easy, considering that the rural communities are very conservative. But heck, Columbus is the LGBT capital of the Midwest, so that’s something to count in our favor.

And although the United States has some definite problems, including inequality, hungry children, an economy that’s constantly on the edge of another recession (seems like it, anyway), we’re a lot better off than some other nations in the world. In Egypt,  Morsi was ousted from the Presidency despite being democratically elected, and now key members of the Muslim Brotherhood, Morsi’s party, are being arrested. While I don’t approve of the Muslim Brotherhood’s policy towards Israel, America, and religion and government, I can’t help but detect a whiff of dictatorship rising from all this.

And if you go northeast to Syria, you’ll see people still fighting after several years just to gain the right to even experiment with democracy. Meanwhile hundreds die everyday, and no meaningful action has been taken to quell the fighting.

And in other nations, democracy is marred by powerful interests, religious intrusion, rampant corruption, and several other problems. It makes me glad that I’m able to live in a nation where, at the very least, I have rights and access to things I desperately need to survive, such as food, water, shelter, and healthcare. I also have a shot at an education and maybe a job afterwards. And while I have all these things, I can work to fight for others who don’t have the same rights as me, both at home and abroad.

That’s something to be proud of, especially when strides are being made to rectify that inequality. Not many strides, but some good ones. And while I celebrate today, I’ll work to keep these strides coming tomorrow.

Happy Independence Day, everyone.