Hot Topics

2422536985_5b599f867e

A Letter From A United Nations Medical Officer: “The Suffering of People of Gaza”
Submitted by Neda Laventure

Anyone who is monitoring the quality of life in the Gaza Strip, which has been living under a tightened 18-month siege, will be shocked by the catastrophic humanitarian situation. Unemployment rate has risen to 80% and the majority of the population is living far below the poverty line with one or two dollars a day. As a concerned medical professional, I would like to draw your attention to some harsh aspects of life for the civilian population in Gaza:

First: There are tremendous health problems, which threaten people with either death or life-long disability. There is a severe shortage in medicine and medical equipment. Hospital maintenance and upgrades for X-Ray rooms, labs, pharmacies and operating rooms are desperately in need of attention. People with chronic and serious illnesses such as cancer or diabetes do not stand a chance for recovery or receiving the appropriate treatment. The number of deaths due to inability to receive medical treatment is 257 since June of 2007. Many seniors and children with chronic illnesses such as two-year old Said Al-Ayidy, three-month old Hala Zannoun, fifteen-year old Rawan Nassar and numerous others died because they were denied travel permits for treatment and were simply left to die.

Hospitals in Gaza are anything but what hospitals should look like. Daily power cuts for long hours have caused immense suffering, especially to patients whose lives depend on medical machinery. Hospitals used gas-powered generators as substitutes. Yet, due to the lack of gas and diesel, the generators no longer served their purpose and the problem escalated. Sadly, the only opportunity that patients with serious diseases have is to be transferred either to Egypt or Israel. Often, it is extremely complicated and near to impossible to obtain permission to be transferred to either country. Many are barred from even considering treatment outside of Gaza except for a few urgent cases. Many patients have died while waiting for the official documents to be issued; others have died on their way to Israel or Egypt. Hospitals have been turned into places where patients sleep for several days without any healing or proper treatment due to the absence of drugs and medical equipment. Such supplies are not allowed to cross into Gaza from the commercial border points due to Israeli closure of such borders.

Second: We face another serious problem: sewage and pollution. We live in a densely populated area. The people of Gaza live in poor shanty towns, refugee camps, and crowded neighborhoods, which share fragile and inadequate infrastructure. Lack of fuel supply stops the water pumps that deal with the treatment and sanitation of sewage water. The only solution that the city has is to drain the sewer water into the Mediterranean. As a result, the beaches have been polluted and the fishing season has been significantly damaged.

On rainy winter days, the streets and homes are flooded with water and the already bumpy and unpaved roads become even worse. Sewer pipes often burst and get damaged due to inadequate infrastructure and lack of maintenance and repair. Dirty and toxic water is flooding out from broken pipes into streets and homes. In some refugee camps, the floods were so severe that people were forced to assemble primitive boats and flow over the water. In Jabalia refugee camp, where I work as a physician in a United Nations clinic, people have increasingly reported illnesses and sickness due to exposure to toxic air and chemical wastes.

Water has been flooding our backyard for days. The city public works department is unable to fix the problem because there are no construction materials to replace the damaged utilities. Heavy machinery does not have fuel to operate. We cannot open any windows and we are breathing toxic waste for days until sunny days come around to dry out everything. Streets are covered with mud, pebbles and sharp stones that are hazardous. The city departments are unable to fix any problems because they simply do not have any resources.

Finally, there are numerous problems that face our impoverished war-torn and isolated society, especially our damaged and disabled infrastructures. I did not mention the numerous shortages in food, goods and services, cash and other basic needs because I wanted to point out the health issues, which I am most familiar with as a medical professional. There is a need for urgent help from the international community. Former United States President Jimmy Carter described the siege that Gaza is enduring as a “crime against human rights.”

Can you imagine living like this?

Sincerely
F.M.A (Gaza City, Palestine)
U.N. Medical Officer
8 November 2008

Net Impact’s Business Ethics Panel Podcast

Click Here to Listen!

By Naomi Arnold, Net Impact Co-president

Last Tuesday, four MIIS students attended a CSR speaker panel at San Francisco State University. The guest speakers represented both Gap, Inc. and Starbucks Coffee Company. The event’s announcement was extended through invitation from adjunct professor Bruce Paton, who as part of the Sustainability Academy has co-taught numerous MIIS workshops including one on CSR.

The theme of the panel aligned directly with the raison d’être of Net Impact, a global network of more than 10,000 graduate students and professional members committed to using business to improve the world. As one of the many offerings of the Net Impact MIIS chapter, the SFSU event was made open to the MIIS student body with covered travel expenses. Stay tuned for upcoming podcasts from the NI National Conference, to be held at the Wharton Business School as these will also be publicly shared on The Foghorn.

Net Impact will be hosting a local MIIS alum speaker panel this Friday, November 7th, from 4-6 pm in Irvine Auditorium. An informal time of Q&A will follow at East Village, in the reserved extension room. This event has an open invitation to the MIIS community. See you there!

www.Netimpact.org

Financial Crises Panel: LISTEN AGAIN!


Did you miss the International Trade and Commercial Diplomacy Club’s, From Wall Street to Main Street, Deconstructing the Financial Crises Panel last night?

If so, you’re in luck and can listen to it from the comfort of your couch or while jogging on the treadmill using your IPOD. That’s right! With help from the Digital Media Commons, you can now download the Podcast from I-Tunes U.

At Long Last, Love?

Is the debate on gay marriage in California – and Monterey County – finally coming to an end?

Posted with permission from the Monterey County Weekly website: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Oct-16/is-the-debate-on-gay-marriage-in-california–and-monterey-county–finally-coming-to-an-end

Posted October 16, 2008 12:00 AM

By Kelley Calvert

Locals gathered at Window on the Bay in Monterey on Sept. 21 to demonstrate their opposition to Proposition 8.

Surrounded by the bright decor of rainbows and the pounding rhythm of drums, Sandy Hamm and Adrianne Jonson held their banner high: First Married Couple Monterey County. As Marshals of the Salinas Valley Pride Parade, they made their way down Main Street with spectators cheering them on… until they reached the second block.

There, a man wearing a tuxedo and a woman in full white wedding garb stood on cinder block-like ornaments atop a faux wedding cake. Next to them, around 30 protestors held signs reading: “Praise God for Mothers and Fathers” and “Let’s not redefine marriage.”

Jonson and Hamm did the first thing that came to mind. They turned to the homophobic protesters, their banner hanging before them. Looking directly at them, the couple said in unison: “It’s OK. We love you anyway.”

The debate on Proposition 8, which would ban gay marriage in California in an attempt to overturn the state Supreme Court ruling upholding its legality, is the latest salvo in the values wars.

This time, though, may be different. California may be on the verge of accepting that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights as everyone else.

“We as a society are coming to a point when we have to ask ourselves if we are a country that extends basic rights to everyone or a country that excludes certain groups from equality,” says attorney and constitutional law professor Michelle Welsh, who has been in the battle for decades. “These books are the California Constitution,” she adds, gesturing to a set of volumes on the bookshelves of her Pacific Grove office.

This document is at the core of the Prop. 8 debate: The initiative would not only eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, it would amend the state constitution through language providing “that only marriage between a man and a woman be recognized in California.’’

“I’ve seen so many changes in my lifetime,” Welsh adds. “Up until the ‘consenting adult’ statute, homosexuality itself was illegal in California.” In 1976, California overturned its sodomy laws, which had been used to criminalize thousands of gay men.

Two years later, Welsh was among those who successfully defeated the Briggs Initiative, sponsored by a right-wing Southern California legislator, which would have made it illegal for schools to hire gay and lesbian teachers.

In 2008, history has come full circle; Welsh is once again fighting another anti-gay measure. If the current mood continues– an Aug. 27 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 54 percent of registered voters oppose a constitutional ban on gay marriage while 40 percent support it– she will win again.

Down the street from Welsh’s office, Adrianne Jonson is opening the doors of Artisana Gallery, a local art cooperative. In the cozy front room, the scent of Nag Champa incense wafts past Ganesha statues, Celtic crosses and indigenous clay pottery. Across town at Peet’s in Monterey, Jonson’s spouse, Sandy Hamm, serves morning coffee.

Hamm and Jonson met a dozen years ago in the Bay Area, and loved visiting the Central Coast. When Sandy heard that Peet’s was opening a store in Monterey, she called her supervisor immediately to say: “I want that store.” Making a seemingly backward exodus from the haven of gay to the haven of gray, the pair have gained iconic stature locally as the first same-sex couple to wed in Monterey County.

When post-wedding photos of the couple outside the County Clerk’s office ran in local papers, Hamm was amazed at the positive response.

“One customer came in and told me that there was a time in his life when he would have thought that my marriage was inappropriate, but that had changed,” she says. “He congratulated us and wished us happiness.”

Away from the public eye, marriage has meant more to the couple than they’d imagined, Jonson adds. “It has deepened our commitment in a much different way than just calling someone your life partner. Marriage makes people more serious about their commitments to one another.”

Kerre Dubinsky and AnnaLisa Wood bustle about their Carmel wine shop, Southern Latitudes. Customers come and go, greeted by the couple’s beagle, Max. The response to their wedding, at Monastery Beach on July 26 was also overwhelmingly positive.

“Both of us thought that marriage wouldn’t be that different because we’ve been together for 12 years,” Wood says. “But it is different. We aren’t just a couple who share a life anymore. We are married.”

In Pacific Grove, Will Griffin, 23, starts his day at Wells Fargo. In a white button-down shirt and a tie, Griffin could be just another bank employee. But as a gay African-American in a relationship with a white man, the Prop. 8 debate holds special meaning for him.

Griffin also volunteers with the Pacific Grove DARE program, teaching dance classes to middle-school youths. He was elated when he heard about the state court’s decision upholding the right to gay marriage, but expressed some trepidation about the future.

“I was so excited when I first heard,” he says, “but two seconds later, I realized that there would probably be a vote on this issue, like before.”

If Prop. 8 passes, gay couples in the county– the approximately 85 gay and lesbian couples who have been issued marriage licenses here, according to the County Clerk’s office– will pay the price.

Throughout the ’90s, gays and lesbians enjoyed greater acceptance and visibility throughout American culture. Ellen DeGeneres shattered the taboo of gay characters on TV sitcoms in 1997, opening the door for TV programs like Will and Grace.

But such pop-culture advances notwithstanding, in 2000, Proposition 22 became the proverbial two steps back for gay rights activists. The initiative read, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Its passage officially barred gays from marrying.

But the new millennium became a battle ground in the same-sex marriage values debate.

In his 2004 State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush outlined his support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would make same-sex marriage illegal. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who attended the address, was outraged. Newsom called his former chief of staff, Steve Kawa, a gay man with a long-term partner and two children, to tell him enough was enough. Newsom had decided to take action.

In February 2004, Newsom openly defied Prop. 22 by unilaterally declaring that gay marriages would be allowed in San Francisco. The first same-sex marriage license was issued to Del Martin, 83, and Phyllis Lyon, 80, a lesbian couple active in the gay rights movement who had waited 50 years for the moment.

Over Valentine’s Day weekend, hundreds of gay couples flocked to San Francisco to wed.

But the euphoria was short-lived: the marriages were swiftly overturned by decisions holding that the city acting alone could not overturn Prop. 22.

In April 2005, a San Francisco Superior Court judge concluded that California’s exclusion of same-sex couples violated the state constitution. But the ruling was overturned shortly thereafter by the Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 decision, the court said the state’s desire to “carry out the expressed wishes of a majority” was grounds to uphold the marriage ban.

Most recently, the California Supreme Court was once again asked to end the seemingly endless back-and-forth by reviewing whether the ban on same-sex marriage was constitutional.

On May 15, it announced its historic decision: “An individual’s sexual orientation– like a person’s race or gender– does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold rights.”

The wording invites comparison with California’s landmark 1948 decision allowing interracial marriage.

Griffin sees the comparison between the two decisions and hopes that society will begin to reflect the tolerance that the Supreme Court has mandated. “The racial issue has never come up for me individually,” he says. “That’s how I hope gay marriage will be a generation from now– an afterthought.”

But the battle is far from over. As California goes, so goes the nation– an idea that strikes fear in some quarters. The Yes on 8 campaign has raised at least $25.4 million so far, much of it from homophobic groups like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization that advocates reparative therapy (gay conversion camp).

The No on 8 campaign has raised more than $15.8 million. These numbers represent more than the combined total in 24 states where similar measures have gone before voters since 2004.

“All eyes are on California,” acknowledges Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Yes on 8 campaign.

From her San Francisco office, Dale Kelly Bankhead, campaign manager for “Equality for All,’’ which is fighting to defeat Prop. 8, starts work at 6am every morning, answering hundreds of e-mails and spending countless hours on the phone each day. Her commitment to defeating the measure does not come from direct self-interest: Bankhead is “straight.”

She adds that the past few months have been a source of great inspiration.

“It has brought out the romantic in me,” she says. “I have been to so many weddings and it’s like watching hundreds of love stories come true, seeing these couples finally getting the dignity and respect they deserve.”

Weddings are also the source of inspiration for one marriage equality TV ad that has aired since last October. In what begins as a typical perfume or makeup commercial, a blushing young bride looks into the mirror and adjusts her veil while a flower girl rushes by. On her father’s arm, the bride encounters obstacle after obstacle as she makes her way to the altar. She stumbles over the “Just Married” aluminum cans trailing behind a car. A low-hanging branch pulls the veil from her hair. She is tripped by a spectator’s cane as she makes her way down the aisle. The commercial, paid for by Equality California, ends with the bride’s tear-filled gaze looking at her would-be husband and the question: “What would you do if you couldn’t marry the person that you love?”

The Yes on 8 campaign takes a more literal approach in their commercial, “4 Men in Black,’’ opting for a matter-of-fact narration and simple graphics. A black shadow of California floats onscreen while a voice-over reminds viewers that 61 percent of state voters supported Prop. 22 and suggests that “activist judges’’ reversed the will of the people.

More recently, the campaign has aired a spot with a clip of a broadly smiling Gavin Newsom to suggest he is saying that Californians will have to get used to gay marriage– “whether you like it not.’’

But Bankhead says even the language of the new ballot initiative seems to suggest that gay rights’ opponents are on the wrong side of history.

The state has chosen to describe Prop. 8 as an initiative that “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry,” despite Kerns’ contention that it really means “that marriage is best defined as being between one man and one woman.”

“We are not asking for anything that opposite sex couples don’t have,” says Wood. “We are asking to be equal and to be equally dignified and respected. We don’t want special rights, just equal rights.”

If there is one thing both sides agree on, it is that the vote will be close. Despite the change in public opinion suggested by polling, Bankhead is cautiously optimistic at best. “At the end of the day it’s going to be a dead heat,” she says, perhaps spinning to beat the expectations game. Kerns agrees: “There’s no doubt about it; it’s going to be close.”

A Sept. 25 poll of 670 likely voters by Survey USA contradicted previous results by indicating a 5 percent lead for Prop. 8; with a margin of error of 3.9 percent, the poll reflects a statistical photo finish.

According to a poll conducted Oct. 4 and 5 by Survey USA on behalf of four California television stations, support for Prop. 8 is rising. The latest figures show that 47 percent now support the initiative, with 42 percent opposed. (The last poll from the same group, released on Sept. 25 had found 44 percent for the measure and 49 percent against.)

Prop. 8’s supporters and opponents, however, caution that such polls are extremely volatile, and that right now the race is just too close to call.

Wood and Dubinsky considered going to Canada or Massachusetts to marry before the state Supreme Court’s ruling but decided against it.

“I was born and raised in California,” Wood says. “I should be able to marry in my own state where I have my life and family. I want my own state to accept me.”

Recently, she came face to face with the opposition in her own neighborhood.

On Sept. 11, members of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Prosperity lined the corner of San Carlos and Ocean in Carmel. Wearing red cloaks, the protestors held banners reading, “Californians support traditional marriage” (though the group reportedly consisted entirely of Pennsylvanians). Wood approached the protest, which took place a few blocks from her store, but her arguments fell on deaf ears.

“I tried to talk to one of them, but he cringed and pulled away,” she says.

After a similar encounter with anti-gay demonstrators during Pride, Hamm and Jonson reacted the only way they knew how: with love.

“Over the years, I’ve even gotten my nose broken simply based on how I look– and I grew up in the Bay Area,” Hamm says. “I’ve found that we can accomplish more through conscious love than through hate.”

2008 © Monterey County Weekly

An Open Letter from Queers and Peers to MIIS Faculty

Like all great educators, MIIS faculty members teach by raising authentic situations and examples in the classroom. This is particularly true at the Monterey Institute, where many of our courses focus on the acquisition of a non-native language. Our professors often ask us to talk about our own lives as part of an overall pedagogical strategy.

In many countries, one of the most common subjects for teachers to ask students to talk or write about is romance. What student hasn’t been asked, at some point in their academic career, to talk about their first love or to describe their ideal mate, especially in the language learning classroom? We recognize and appreciate our instructors’ good intentions, but also wish to advise that asking students questions about their love lives in the classroom can cause severe emotional anguish to some gay and lesbian students.

Most if not all gay and lesbian people have lived some part of their life in the closet. Gay people around the world risk varying degrees of rejection, isolation and even death when they choose to – or are forced to – come out. Many of us in the queer community here at MIIS are out as lesbian, gay or bi. But there are also a number of us – from every corner of the world, including this country – who choose not to come out for a variety of personal, professional, and other reasons. Queers and Peers asks MIIS faculty to be aware of the intense pressures unleashed against these students when they are asked to talk about personal romantic issues in the classroom.

One might ask, “What’s the big deal? A gay student who’s in the closet can just make something up.” Indeed, that’s precisely the point. For many gay people, living a lie is part of everyday life. When our professors ask us to talk about our romantic lives in the classroom, they force those of us who do not wish to come out to lie – an unhealthy practice which, for many gay people, leads to depression and internalized self-hatred. For gay and lesbian students who choose not to come out, being put on the spot about personal romantic issues in the classroom can have a deep negative impact.

Queers and Peers is not asking MIIS faculty never to raise personal relationships in the classroom. Instead, we ask that if you do raise topics such as “ideal spouse,” “first love,” etc., please make it one of two options for students to choose from. Offer a second topic – for example, “greatest accomplishment,” “worst day ever” – that students can talk or write about if they prefer. You might be surprised. Even straight students who don’t want to talk about their relationships will appreciate this.

October 11th is National Coming Out Day. Above all, coming out means controlling your own process of coming out. Queers and Peers respectfully asks our professors to show consideration for the LGBT community at MIIS by taking this simple but effective way of eliminating heteronormativity from the classroom.

QUEERS AND PEERS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: