Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980

Newspaper Endorsements

I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Recently, I was sent a link by a reader to our town's newspaper and an "endorsement" interview for the office of school board. What was unique was the fact the interview was filmed and posted on the newspaper's website, under it's "Opinion" section, and what's more, the narrator conducting the interview provided the name of everyone present, including those on the Editorial Board. Now, why that may not sound like a big deal, it is, in fact, quite a big deal for us. For as long as I can remember, the Editorial Board, until recently, rarely, if ever filmed the interview process and posted it, and heaven forbid, provided the names of the interviewers present.

Since 2004, I've been on a campaign regarding the endorsement of candidates by the media. As some of you know, I've been active in politics for well over 35 years, and over the years I've heard numerous stories about the interview process. Many cited it as biased or unfair or outright lies. Personally, I just thought they were just mad because they didn't get the endorsement; "sour grapes" as they say. However, it wasn't until I first ran for office that I learned firsthand what they meant. Not only were my comments misconstrued, some taken out of context. Take for instance one question concerned drainage, a major issue in my part of the county. I was asked what I would do about overflows and flooding. Not only did I provide a very detailed answer based on my interviews with key country sewer and drainage supervisors, I suggested that after the election, those of us elected to represent this part of the county should form a mini-caucus to examine long term approaches to fix the drainage and subsequent flooding matter once and for all. In their endorsement, the Editorial Board took my statement out of context and then accused me of trying to "balkanize" the Metro Council! Oh, and my opponent, who had little knowledge the extent of the drainage issue, suggested digging deeper ditches!

Another key issue at the time was the Fairness Ordinance which related to non-discrimination regarding sexual orientation. I strongly supported it, as did the Editorial Board, while my opponent didn't, and while I was constantly under attack by his supporters, that issue was never addressed by the Editorial Board. Meanwhile, additional comments on other various issues were misattributed, and although my knowledge on other topics exceeded that of anyone in the room that day, I didn't get their endorsement (fortunately, however, the Fairness Ordnance passed). Naturally, I wasn't too bothered. Given the newspaper's lack of popularity, especially in my part of the county, not getting their "endorsement" has usually been considered a blessing. What disturbed me the most, however, were the misquotes, omissions, and failure of the Editorial Board to even mention who was present; something I thought the public was entitled to know. Apparently, some of those grapes weren't as sour as I had originally thought.

When I ran for office a few years later, I wasn't even interviewed; never questioned once about my position on the issues while my opponent, a long time incumbent with something of a declining and lackluster record, was automatically endorsed, and again, without further explanation to the public! Now, up until then, and before I was a candidate, my "Letters to the Editor" were routinely published. It got to the point where I sometimes was even given the byline and had a section all my own, complete with an illustration! Not bad. But, after I started questioning the endorsement process all that stopped. All of my "Letters to the Editor" were ignored. My posts online were deleted almost as quickly as I posted them. I became a persona non grata as far as they were concerned. I guess I was supposed to simply disappear like everyone who had publically complained had before. Of course, I didn't thanks to you dear readers, and that was the start of Another Opinion.

You see, what I was questioning wasn't whether this or that candidate should be endorsed, but whether a newspaper should be endorsing anyone. To me, it was the role of the media to provide the public with balanced and impartial news. What we didn't need was a newspaper trying to manipulate public opinion and force their agenda on them, whether that agenda was Liberal or Conservative, which they appeared to be doing as I saw it. What I believed, and still do, is that newspapers, which are the only news oriented medium which "endorses" candidates, should provide the public with basic information about each candidate; their position on key issues in their own words; how to contact them, and then back off and let the public decide for themselves who to vote for. It is my opinion that we don't need to be told what to think or how to vote. Besides, how would feel about Fox, ABC, CBS, or even CNN endorsing candidates based on their board of director's political agenda? Not particularly happy I bet. That's not the role I want to see for the media, be it print or electronic.

Therefore, I began my campaign to end endorsements by the media, in particular newspapers---a self-appointed role they took upon themselves as "the public's protector" well before there was a literate or connected America and long before the days of radio, TV, the Internet, or alternative media and other means to obtain information. Just provide the public with a balanced picture and let them make up their own minds. Barring that, what We the Public deserved was to see the interview process unedited. Let us see and hear from the candidates themselves. Secondly, tell us who was present. Who are the individuals "judging" the candidates allegedly on our behalf; what are their names and what are their roles at the newspaper? Lastly, in partisan elections, the public deserves to know the political affiliation of those individuals. If only Democrats were being "endorsed" was that because those making that decision Democrats too? To do otherwise is complete dishonesty in my opinion.

You see, what I've been after is nothing less than fairness of and honesty in the "endorsement" process itself. We are going to the polls to choose individuals who will represent us; who will make decisions regarding our jobs, our schools, our roads, our police; our taxes, our social safety net, and in some cases, whether or not to send our husbands, wives, sons or daughters off to war. I am not asking much, but what I am asking for we deserve to know. If you agree that as voters, we deserve to see the interviews with the candidates unedited; to know the names of those allegedly "judging" the candidates on our behalf; and lastly, to know what vested political interest they have in making their recommendations, or better yet, to simply give us the basic facts and allow us make up of own minds, then please contact the editorial boards of your local newspaper or other media outlets if they make "endorsements" and demand it. Otherwise, perhaps it's time we start looking for endorsements from ESPN. At least it would be more entertaining!


And on a Personal Note...

First, I want to thank all our many readers around the world for their years of loyality. Without you, A/O would have never have become as successfull as it has. To reflect our success and growth of Another Opinion, I am pleased to tell you that A/O is now officially incorporated! Yelp, we're all legal now, which will allow us to further expand into different avenues. And to reflect, I want you to know that we will continue to provide you with the balanced and honest content you've come to expect from Another Opinion. We will continue to remain a Centrist non-partisan blog, which remains ranked among the top 25 in the US, and we promise to provide you with the same top notch bookreviews, guest articles, and polls that we always have. So, thank you ever so much our dear readers for making this possible.

Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legal?

Did hear the comedian Wanda Sykes was gay? Well, it’s been all over the entertainment news sites recently, but frankly I don’t care. Don’t get me wrong. I like Wanda Sykes. She’s a hilarious comedian, but I really don’t think I need to know who she or anyone else for that matter likes to sleep with. And as for folks like Rosie O’Donnell (remember when she was considered sooo sweat and nice? She even had her own doll. Now we have “mean” Rosie), Ellen Degeneres (a friend of mine calls her “Ellen Degenerate”), Clay Aiken, and all the rest. Who cares? Get over it.

Sexual preference is about as personal and private as it gets. What you like is your business and no one else’s as long as it involves consenting adults right? However, children are another matter, and one that should never ever be tolerated. Punishment of pedophiles should be swift and severe. I couldn’t care less if it’s “humane” or not---that’s my opinion at least. You don’t abuse kids. Period). So, where am I going with this? The answer is gay marriage. Should a couple of the same sex, who happen to be in love, be allowed to marry just like everyone else?

Certainly gay relationships have been around since the beginning. Remember Xerxes of Persia and his Immortals? How about King Phillip of Macedon and his Companions? Of course, there was his son, Alexander the Great. In fact, Socrates, Plato, and most of the Greek philosophers were believed to be gay, or at least bisexual. It wasn’t out of the norm at all in ancient Greece. The great Homer wrote about it in his epics. In Rome, it wasn’t unusual, though a bit more frowned upon in certain circles. Gay relationships were all but unheard of in the more “barbaric” lands occupied by the Germans and Celts, and later, among the Vikings and Huns (for that matter, in the Mongol East either).

Throughout the Middle Ages, gay relationships existed, though (ironically) hided from view from the Catholic Church (where it ran amok or is that a monk?). In fact, it continued down through the Victorian and Edwardian Periods where it was slightly vogue and risqué (does Oscar Wilde rang a bell?), down to the modern period. But throughout, it almost always in the shadows. Many an actor and actress was rumored to be gay, but “forced” to marry as “cover” by the Hollywood studio moguls eager to cash in on their stars. The point I’m trying to make is that gay relationships have and continued to exist, but never, to my knowledge, did gay marriages ever take root. Why?

Marriage has always been seen as a fundamental building block of civilization. It provided the safety net for creating, nurturing, and protecting a family. But many of those aspects have gone. No longer is it necessary for a male to provide for or protect a female. No longer is necessary for a female to even be married when deciding to have children. A doner is all that is required. Women today are quite capable of taking care of themselves in every way, and men are just as adapt as roles traditionally set aside for women. So, does marriage, therefore, carry the same weight that it did originally? For that matter, does it carry the same weight it did just 50 years or 25 years ago?

From the gay perspective, they are just like anyone else in love, and should be allowed to marry…just like everyone else. Recent ballot initiatives seem to indicate that voters disagree. While there are sporadic exceptions, voters have come out in huge numbers to reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. In California for example, where you would expect the gay marriage initiative to pass, voters defeated Proposition 8 by 52%. In 2004, Kentuckians voted 74% against gay marriage, along with 10 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). Why?

Frankly, I don’t know. I think political scientists and all those talking heads on the various news programs will be analyzing the results for months and perhaps years to come in some cases. I don’t think the vote was meant to be “anti-gay”, but it may be that people still believe in the institution of marriage as it was originally intended. It could be a reflection of their parent’s morals or dogma taught by their churches or synagogues, either of their youth or where they currently attend (especially among mainstream and conservative religious institutions). Those on the Religious Right would say that G-d (or Allah, Buddha, etc) abhors homosexuality and by extension, the concept of gay marriage.

However, those who support gay marriage would argue that they shouldn’t be held to the criteria of someone else’s religion. Besides, what if there was a church willing to marry them? After all, should the government be allowed to impose restrictions on religion? What about the concept of separation of Church and State? I think that until the US Supreme Court finally rules on the issue, we will see other states open marriage to those of the same sex, only to be reversed later. What will prove to be interesting to watch is if whether a gay marriage from one state will be recognized in another state where it’s still illegal.

While we’re on the topic, what about private businesses who want to offer insurance to same sex couple like they do to heterosexual couples? Should a company be allowed to provide the same health or survivor benefits to a couple regardless of gender? After all, we’re talking about an estimated 1.2 million gays in the US according to the 2000 Census. Should this be strictly an internal corporate decision? What about gays teaching in public schools? Is it appropriate, and if so, should there be any restriction on who or what grades or subjects they teach? How about adopting children? Of course, there is the question of whether gays should be allowed in the military.

Personally, I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe in treating someone as I want to be treated (as a disclaimer before proceeding further, I’m strictly uber-hetro). I believe in the traditional roles of marriage between a man and woman. I think a male and female role model is critical to the well rounded upbringing of a child. Two daddies or two mommies just aren’t going to get it from my point of view. The law already provides for survivorship. Caretaker or “next of kin” issues are up to the individuals in involved (or should be). If a board of directors decides to provide insurance that cover same sex couples or live-in hetro couples that‘s their decision. Of course, that also means that you or I don’t have to frequent these same institutions if we disagree. When I was in the military, all I cared about was whether the person next to me did their job. What they do on their on their own time and off base was none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect unit cohesion and efficiency. Teachers are there to teach. In short, my main focus is keeping government and other groups out of my personal life as much as possible. Of course, I’m the first to acknowledge there are exceptions to most everything I’ve said. So, now, I’d like to hear from you. Do gays have an inherent “right” to marriage? If not, what about civil unions? How did you arrive at your decision?



Fluency: Leading in the Midst of Change
By Phoebe Eng, keynote speaker at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009

Some of you may remember the 1985 hit song, "We are the World," produced by Quincy Jones and an inspiring cast of musicians who sang about working together, past our differences. Or perhaps you remember the tremendously successful United Colors of Benetton ad campaign back in the 1980s, celebrating young faces of every color, signaling the look and feel of a world without borders. Media images like these showed us the world and nation, as we wanted ourselves to be -- pictures and soundbites of many races cooperating, communicating, and sharing opportunity and fortune.

If only it were that simple. Almost 25 years later, we are still struggling to make that vision real -- in our business practices, in the running of our cities, and, now, in the context of great cultural, demographic, and economic changes brought on by globalization.

As 21st century leaders, you know that building, guiding, and sustaining truly diverse communities is tremendously difficult work. Over the last decade, city populations and workforces have changed faster than at any point in history -- job relocation, mobile commerce and ease of travel have changed our cities' demographics quickly and often. Immigrant and new communities continue to influence and change the culture of our cities. Young families and children supplant the aging baby boomer generation, again, changing the character and priorities of a community.

At the same time as we become a more diverse, more prosperous nation, our cities have also become more segregated. In fact, studies from SUNY Albany, UCLA, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education have reported that segregation of our children has worsened over the last decade, even as we live in more integrated areas. As newcomer groups grow in critical mass, so does the tendency to organize along racial, ethnic, or other group-affiliated lines. Changing demographics and the growth of ethnic enclaves have made race awareness and identity politics an effective means of voicing the needs of some of our cities' otherwise marginalized groups.

Amid all of this, civic and corporate leaders are confronted with difficult choices every day. Worthy projects from different community sectors must compete for limited resources. Appointments and commissions must be assigned in ways that satisfy all the interests represented in our constituency groups, assuring each of them adequate representation. From time to time, leaders also face crisis-fueled change, forcing them to guide their communities quickly through controversies.

Does this sound stressful? Indeed, scenes of a diverse community can be those of chaos, fiefdoms, even balkanizing, as some futurists and scholars predict. Alternatively, some see these times as momentous, opening the door to the grandest and most inspiring of challenges.

How does one lead a community, whether local or global team, in the midst of huge demographic and economic shifts? How do leaders create communities where all constituents feel included, counted and equally receiving of the opportunities offered by a community? And how do we have difficult conversations that turn our best intentions into action and accountability, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves?

The answers to these questions are certainly many and varied, depending on a community's specific composition and the issues it faces. Nevertheless, one of the most important skills of a leader through changing times will be a skill set of cultural fluency. This is not necessarily language fluency, as that term is usually used. Fluency is the skill set of understanding and being understood past apparent borders. To know one's constituents and address their needs effectively, 21st century leaders must practice and hone their fluency skills.

Over the past few years, I've talked to many fluent leaders: opinion shapers, thought leaders in business and communities, artists, teachers, media creatives, all who understand that their ultimate success depends on how deeply and quickly they can identify common ground and transcend boundaries between their constituents. Fluent leaders are servant leaders who willingly assume the place of liaison, the diplomatic negotiator, the arbiter of compromise.

What are some of the qualities of a fluent leader? They understand the value of nuance. They readily deal with complexity, knowing that solutions to real problems require many levels of information and analysis. Every one of the fluent leaders I've interviewed is also insatiably curious. They are lifelong learners who have honed their vision and their life's purpose through constant exposure to different experiences.

Perhaps most importantly, these leaders also understand that the practice of fluency is not a Pollyanna-esque, naive vision of the world, where a handshake, a kind word, or a dabble into a diversity program will suffice. It is quite the opposite. Fluency work is hard "detail" work that requires courage. To be a fluent leader means having some enemies, crossing boundaries, and entering into the necessary struggles to challenge leaders and systems that benefit from closemindedness, fear, and simple formulae.

As we work toward uniting our communities, we have shown that we want to trade together, learn about one another, work side by side, make money together, and even build our families -- across cultures and across our differences. Yet without knowing how to bridge what are often daunting chasms across race, religion, class, and culture, creating workable diverse alliances can often be impossible. Basic misunderstandings can thwart our earnest attempts at generating commerce and a vibrant exchange of ideas. Communications break down. Relationships fail.

In our quickly changing communities, the art of fluency becomes a crucial leadership approach for anyone wishing to become an aware global citizen and an effective global leader. And it is the only way forward if we are truly committed to creating a world, and a nation, where all can flourish to their fullest potential.


Author Bio
Phoebe Eng is the Director of Creative Counsel and the 1000 Voices Archive, a national collection of leadership stories from cities across America. As a strategist, she has presented to and advised a wide range of groups from the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, many Fortune 500 companies, chambers of commerce, and universities. Eng has worked with the Ford Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for Women and on several UN World Conferences. Eng will be presenting a keynote address at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta on March 16-18, 2009.

Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009, is the nation's premier event on best practices in diversity and inclusion. For more information or to register call 781.402.5555 or visit www.linkageinc.com/div


Breaking the Cycle of Violence:

Survivor Corps is a global network of people helping each other to overcome the effects of war and conflict and give back to their communities.

In 2008, Survivor Corps grew from Landmine Survivors Network. The organization has expanded its mission to help all survivors of war. Landmine Survivors Network was co-founded in 1997 by two landmines survivors, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford. From the late Princess Diana of Wales to Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan the organization received support, praise and partnerships at the highest levels.

Survivor Corps focuses on the unique contribution and leadership of conflict survivors because we believe no one is better equipped and motivated to break cycles of violence than those who have survived war.

Our programs currently help survivors in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Uganda, Rwanda, United States and Vietnam.

Our signature peer support program connects survivors with survivor role models to offer encouragement and motivation. This is crucial to helping new survivors find hope, get jobs, and get on with their lives.

Through our community building programs, survivors rebuild communities broken by war by connecting diverse survivor groups and former enemies through collective action.

By training and organizing survivor advocates to campaign for their rights, survivors change the world by raising their voices together and addressing the challenges they face in life after war and conflict.

Our Campaigns Make History:

• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty survivors helped negotiate what was the first arms control agreement in history to include provisions to help victims of the weapon.)

• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.

• The Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.

Survivor Corps
2100 M Street, NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037
Yahoo! Map | MapQuest Map | Google Maps
(202) 464-0007 - Telephone
(202) 464-0011 - FAX

Geneva Office
rue de Cornavin, 11
1201 Geneva
Switzerland
+41-22-732-2841 - Telephone
+41-22-732-2842 - Alternate Telephone
+41-22-732-3882 - FAX

Please direct email contacts to: info@survivorcorps.org

Web Address: http://www.survivorcorps.org

A Fond Farewell and Endorsements

Recently Louisville lost a larger than life community leader, Anne Braden. Ms. Braden was fixture in the civil rights and social justice movement since the 1950s. Heck, she was nothing short of a legend. People seemed to either adore or hate her with equal passion. Indeed, she was a woman of passion. If there was a fight to be fought, Ms. Braden was there. No questions asked. I had the occasion to meet Ms. Braden a couple of times after moving back to Louisville in 1979 from San Francisco. I remember attending a County Commissioner meeting several years ago. Ms. Braden, who was quite petite, and some of her friends sat down behind me. She leaned over a whispered a question to me. I really can’t recall what it was. Well, one thing lead to another and we started quietly talking. Shortly, Ms. Braden asked my name. With big eyes and a wispy smile, she sat back and said “Oh, I’ve heard of you!” Slightly embarassed and barely able to subdue a smile of my own, I replied that I knew who she was too, which I thought was much more impressive! This provoked a little chuckle between the two of us. But this chance encounter cemented my impression of Ms. Braden. She wasn’t someone seeking personal glory. She was a woman trying to set things rights. And she did succeed in setting many things right.

The Greater Louisville Central Labor Council (GLCLC) has completed its candidate endorsements for the upcoming May election. Here are some of the more interesting ones I thought you might be interested in:

For Mayor, the GLCLC voted not to endorse “Mayor-for Life” Jerry Abramson (D). In fact Jerry faced some tough questioning about hiring key administrative positions from outside of the community and on local transportation issues. It appeared from his responses that Jerry doesn’t like his decisions questioned. Frankly, that’s just too bad.

While there was no recommendation taken for District 1, and no action in Districts 9, 11, and 19, Mary Woolridge (D-3), David Tandy (D-4), Cheri Hamilton (D-5), and Neville Blakemore (D-7) were all endorsed.

In Metro Council District 13, Vicki Welch (D), though obviously far less qualified than any of the other candidates, got the nod. Her Democratic opponent, John Gatton, dropped out of the race. Vicki says she’ll keep former Councilman Weston’s aide, Steve Clark on board. On the Republican side, Sharon Woodring didn’t bother to show up or even answer the questionnaire, but Renay Davis did. Renay, who has done a lot of work on behalf of some of the member unions, made a pretty good showing for herself. Renay has got the practical experience, intelligence, and energy, and she'll represent everyone throughout the District 13. For those of you living in this district, go with Renay Davis. You'll be glad you did.

In District 15, there was no recommendation in the race between Democrats Marianne Butler and Kevin Triplett. Both candidates did well in their interviews, but Kevin, who has been serving as the aide to the current councilman, did a little better. Kevin also has a stronger grasp of the needs of the district. I think Kevin would serve the residents of the 15th much better.


No action was taken in the District 17th race between incumbent Glen Stuckel (R) and William Cohan (D). To no one’s surprise, Dan Johnson was endorsed in District 21. John Sommers (D-23) was endorsed over incumbent James Peden (R), who got a good butt chewing for his failure to sign a petition to oppose current “Right-to-Work” legislation after he said he would, if he had known about it. Bad move Jim. These folks know their stuff. Political newcomer, Erin Ryan (D) will get GLCLC backing in her race against Republican incumbent Doug Hawkins in District 25. Erin has very little in why of experience, be it community or political. While she’s a delightful gal, she’ll be no match for Hawkins.

For State Representative, Charlie Miller (D-28th), Kevin Bratcher (R-29th), Tom Burch (D-30th), Steve Riggs (D-31st), Mary Lou Marizan (D-34th), Jim Wayne (D-35th), Tim Firkins (D-38th), Dennis Horlander (D-40th), Tom Riner (D-41st), Reginald Meeks (D-42nd), Darryl Owens (D-43rd), Joni Jenkins (D-44th), and Larry Clark (D-46th), Amy Shir (D-48th) all got the nod. There were no recommendations for the 32nd, 33rd, or 59th State House seats. On the State Senate side, there were no recommendations in the 10th, 26th, 36th, or 38th seats.

Mike Weaver got the GLCLC endorsement for the US 2nd District, as did current Commonwealth Attorney, Dave Stengel (D), County Attorney Irv Maze (D), Sheriff John Aubrey (D), and candidate Russ Salsman (D). For the US 3rd District, there was no recommendation. Interestingly, there was no recommendation for Property Valuation Administrator. However without a doubt, Melvin Ratchford (D) was by far the most qualified of all candidates.

Remember, the Primary is Tuesday, May 16th. Please be sure to get out and vote! We can't change the system unless you do.