Home » Users » Amy Buttery » Blog » DFA Campaign Academy (2-day...
Democracy for America personal blog for Amy Buttery
DFA Campaign Academy (2-day training) comes to Lansing
Linked to groups: Michigan Democracy for America, Justice Caucus PAC, MidMichigan Democracy for America
Mid-Michigan DFA is pleased to offer the DFA CAMPAIGN ACADEMY, a 2-day training opportunity, in Lansing this June 7-8.
The DFA Campaign Academy mission is to focus, network, and train grassroots activists in the skills and strategies to take back our country, manage successful campaigns or run for office themselves.
Our Campaign Academy weekends are 16 hours of interactive workshops bringing hundreds of local activists, campaign staff and candidates together for 2 days of intensive campaign training. Experienced campaign professionals lead sessions in voter contact, fundraising, communications, on-line organizing and much more to empower progressive activists with the skills to win in November and beyond.
Attendees also meet with dozens of local progressive candidates and learn about exciting job and volunteer opportunities in their area. And of course, everyone receives their own copy of DFA's 180-page Campaign Training Manual.
The fee for this event is $60 or $30 for students or people of limited income. Some scholarships are available--email for details. Help with overnight accomodations may also be available. ASK!
For more information or to register, visit http:/democracyforamerica.com/campaignacademy
(Click on Lansing, MI in the list of events)
or
Dr. Bernadine Healy (CBS)
Healy On Vaccine-Autism Link
"Only On The Web": In an exclusive interview, former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy tells CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson that the question of a link between vaccines and autism is still open for debate. | Share/Embed
Healy On Vaccine-Autism Link (5:54)
Autism Linked To Vaccines? (3:05)
Eye To Eye: Vaccines & Autism (5:26)
(CBS) <!-- sphereit start --> CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson wrote this story for CBSNews.com.
<hr />
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml
Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link
Dr. Bernadine Healy
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml
That absolutely was a response to Paine's comment that both Dean and Edwards would uphold the ruling of the court.
it will be interesting to see what happens at the federal level ~ there are many states that have passed anti-civil union/same-sex marriage ~ and the first bill introduced in the Senate this session was to make it illegal for federal courts to hear cases on this and other issues.
Fred ~ I believe it's a matter of semantics. The terms civil union and marriage mean different things to different people and are defined in laws differently depending on the state. Whatever it ends up getting called, the same term should be used for all people as far as I'm concerned.
One must click on the reply button for the appropriate commenter
or suffer the choler from being ingnored...
If your State believes one should be 18 years old, you cannot force all States to recognize a marriage between 16 year olds. if that is what you are driving at, maybe you are thinking like Roe v Wade, but that is a completely different matter.
I am not in favor of overturning Roe v wade, but I think it was a bad idea at the time and would have been against it. Even "Roe" lied about the foundation of events for the plaitiff, and personally has had a battlefield conversion" - NARAL multiplied illegal abortion statistics to being totally false, and to this day have prevented studies to see what is the motality and morbidity rate of legal abortion.
Look at the Pandora's box it has opened. Six States had legal abortion at the time and new ones were being added. Forcing the every State to change was not a good thing IMO. Each State should have had its own vote.
Yes, marriage laws vary from state to state - and so long as the marriage was performed according to another states' laws, the remaining 49 recognize it as legal. e.g. In MA one has to get a blood test to get a marriage license, in IL one doesn't need a blood test ~ yet MA recognizes marriages performed in IL...
LOL, no, I wasn't thinking of Roe v Wade at all.Won't bother to get into another saled tossing other than to say (borrowing Paine's phrase)
the state's rights
...meme is a baiting distraction.
We're talking civil rights which is a federal issue.
- Sorry, I don't have time to open anothe can of worm
By Fred from Oregon on May 15, 2008 10:35 PM EDTBut there is a parallel, and far-sighted as I am, it seems to me nothing would make activist happier than a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the terminology, which is nothing more than taking it to the next level.
It is trying to condition society to a terminology - Civil Right for gays must be addressed by legislation. Changing the definition without that legislation will do nothing more than bring in a slew of court challenge as to what that definition implies.
If calling it a civil union implies the same rights and benefits as married people, it is no longer a matter of civil rights.
In the normal course of events, the law, as it applies to individual behavior is prohibitive. That is, it prohibits behavior that is socially injurious. Abortion is a natural process and not socially injurious. Even the medical or chemical induction of the process is not socially injurious. Therefor, there is no justification for the prohibition. Ditto for the association or individual commitment we refer to as marriage or civil union. It isn't injurious and so should not be prohibited. It is useful for the state to know that some people have entered into a mutually supportive relationship and so the state has been authorized to issue permits in recognition of such a relationship. However, as Justice Kennedy made clear, the issuance of a permit is not a matter of grace. If the proper steps have been followed, then the permit must be issued.
If individual liberty is the default, then any limitations must be justified by some greater good.
But let's render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to personal matters what are personal matters. One is free to call their union whatever they want to call it, but there is no denial of rights on how society defines such a union. That is not done by decree. It is done by the democratic process.
Calling it a civil union or a marriage is not for the majority of gays to decide, it is for the majority of the voters to decide.
Calling it a civil union is not a derogatory term, nor does imply a denial of benefits, as a matter of law.
so I don't really understand what this ruling implies except that it is legislating from the bench.
don't recall anyone saying it's 'for the majority of gays to decide' ~ 'course not.
Agreed, civil union is not a derogatory term ~ it's just a term with many definitions
Disagree VERY much that it's legislating from the bench - it's the court interpreting the laws of the land.
Recently that they wanted to define marriage as between a man and woman. It does not matter what you and I think, that is the law. The court overturned that by creating a principle which in effect says, not calling it marriage discriminates. They basically overturned the will of the people. That is writing a law to overturn another law.
All this is going to do is make a push for a constitutional amendment to overturns the ruling. What will have been accomplished?
When society is ready to call it marriage they will. You cannot force social change by law. Comparing that argument to the civil right movement is silly. I would not compare the situation of gay people today to that of Jim Crow. It is vain by comparison.
Pa-lease!
The Court ruled on a point of law. I haven't read the ruling, nor any article refering to it, but that ...
legislating from the bench
...meme is a baiting distraction.
Most of the judges were Republicans. This is not a partisan principle. Paine, I am suprised to see you shape people's opinions by the legal terminology they use.
We don't like it when neo-conservatives legislate from the bench either.
Didn't get to decide. . . . how *they wanted to define marriage.
didn't they? I recall hearing they submitted to the Federal will.
Don't think in terms of "us" and "them" on the issue. My favorite inlaw is gay. An no evidence that all gays want to be "married" as it were.
It is a social issue, and the leap to being a civil rights issue by virtue of terminology is an argument I simply don't buy.
And tell people who we were. We won a seat in MS this week, and look at this poll from Alaska.
From the new polls commissioned by Daily Kos, and conducted by the non-partisan firm Research 2000:
Senate
Begich (D) 48%
Stevens (R) 43%
House
Berkowitz (D) 50%
Young (R) 40%
Sample size: 600 likely voters.
Margin of error: ±4%.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2102
Excerpts at the link from Return of the Angry Man, and Inside Agitator.
We STRUCK DOWN that ban, lol:)))))!!!!!!!!!!
and the freepers are havin' fits;)
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great day in history:))))
All because of Howard Dean :-)
does someone need to walk you through another remedial?;
- "It's about human dignity. It's about human rights. It's about time in California,"
By * cChalfonte* on May 15, 2008 10:23 PM EDTSan Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, pumping his fist in the air, told a roaring crowd at City Hall. "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."
California has no residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license, meaning gays nationwide are likely to flock to the state to be wed, said Jennifer Pizer, an attorney who worked on the case.
now California will fall into the Pacific Ocean, fer sure, Man!
- That requirement is for same-sex couples only
By Thankful2Thankful4Dean on May 15, 2008 11:01 PM EDTand seems to vary by town?
"The City of Boston can only issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples from out of state if the couple intends to reside in Massachusetts after the marriage."
but the town of Belmont site doesn't state such a restriction.
In general, there's a 3 day waiting period from application to issuance of the license. (1 day in IL.)
Paine, hee hee;)
well....we'll die free, then.
Just a word or two before bed -- I will be so very very happy if Conyers actually does arrest Karl Rove or somehow actually gets the guy under oath testifying. Wouldn't it be something if they sent the Sgt at Arms to arrest him and keep him under arrest in the House of Representatives? I think that would cause dancing on my street.
Nature lesson for today - I was looking out the spare room window and lo and behold a flock of fledgling cardinals were taking flying lessons in the big dieffenbachia type plant. Also today and yesterday I've seen the little brown/green lizards all puffed up with the orange thing in their throats -- not an expert on biology lol but figure it must be lizard mating season, especially since I saw a pair 'doing it' on the screen porch last week.
Nite kiddies - that was your bedtime story :~)
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade today but there is still that pesky ordeal of the right wingers in the rural parts of CA trying to get an initiative on the November ballot to challenge today's ruling. Arnold is vowing to fight the initiative. He finally is going to do something right.
I'm glad to be living in a state that constantly is a model for the rest of the nation.
You are too, Thankful and Paine!
Good point, Denise. There are also several versions of bills in Congress at any given moment to deny the right of marriage to some of our citizens. Many battles yet to wage...
This is about civil rights and the court ruling today upheld them. Pretty simple to comprehend. That's what Supreme Courts do. They defend constitutional rights and interpret if laws infringe upon them.
- Dean and Obama are first
By Fred from Oregon on May 15, 2008 9:06 PM EDT