Accepting my human Vulnerability on Two Wheels

by CODY LYON Images below-

I ride my bike pretty much everywhere I go here in New York City. This past year, while living and working in Austin, I pretty much subscribed to the same practice.

I got back to New York the first week of June and since then, have been using my bike as a primary mode of transporation but also, kissing the city I love so much. There's nothing like catching up with familiar sights up and downtown while pedaling from neighborhood to neighborhood each with distinct flavors and sounds. It's also easier to catch the city's waves of infectious street energy while pedaling past the walking masses on their way to meetings, lunch or maybe just the gym. Cyling is the best way to scope out new construction projects across town that could lead to potential new stories for a real estate reporter-like me. And, like a child in a candy store, I've had my I Phone with me everywhere, taking photos and showing them off-in real time- on facebook as well as other social media sites.

But- recent events have reminded me that I've been pedaling sans helmet again. My most recent excuse-fitting-you see, I have a large head. In Austin, it was the heat, oh it gets to hot under there. Then of course,pure vanity, my hair-or, oh at forty something- I'll look dorky? What's really stupid is the fact that the minimal protective armor a helmet provides has been shown to reduce the incidence of catastrophic injury that can occur when skull-bone- meets hard concrete or the steel frames of a moving tons heavy austomobile or truck.

Worth noting- cycling in New York City increased 8% between 2010 and 2011, 102% since 2007, and 289% compared to 2001. During the same time, safety increased for all road users. As recently as 2010-of the more than 6,000 New York City traffic accidents that involved cyclists, 36 people died, according to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Also in New York City- 92% of all bicyclist fatalities occurred as a result of crashes with motor vehicles, and 91% of bicyclists who died were male.

As part of my welcome home to New York City, I've had two close calls on my bike over the past 8 days. The first time-I was behaving foolishly-filming the sights of Times Square while riding on the bike lane. That behavior-despite being called out by a friend who'd spied me texting while riding my bike just days before. Although I was moving slow while obtaining my tourist footage, I wasn't looking ahead or paying full attention to my surroundings. Then suddenly-a cab door had swung open in my path- I hit it- and fell off my bike. That time I landed on my feet. It made for a silly You Tube video moment.

But then on Thursday June 15th at around 730, I was riding my bike along the Hudson west side bike path. At some point, around 105 st, perhaps I was distracted by the beautiful sunset or maybe my chain malfunctioned, as the EMS official later theorized. All I know is that I lost my footing and down I went. No cars, no other cyclist were involved at all-I'd gone against the statistics- this incident was just me and I was not wearing a helmet.

This time, as I flew down to kiss New York in a way I'd never intended, I had horrible and split second fatalistic thought that this was not good. Through the grace of God, I didn't hit my head or land in a way that compromised my upper spinal cord. Instead, my big chin took the brunt. Blood was gushing from my face, I felt the flap of flesh on my chin and rubbed my tounge on my teeth- they were all there.

Several people stopped, but two in particular stayed with me and waited until the EMS arrived to take me to the hospital. At St Luke's hospital, I was cleaned up- x-rayed and my chin was sewn up- 7 stitches. (Sweet folks in that ER.) Funny-but I look like Mike Tyson after a bad fight. Lessons learned- we are fragile creatures, eggshells on two wheels so NEVER ride without a helmet. Also, there are angels among us, like the two who stayed with me until help arrived. And friends like those who called and the one who came to get me and take me home- are to be treasured.

After these days of mishap and a painful but mild recovery but in fact-I'm accepting my vulnerability as a human being- I am only human. I only have one body, and one brain that is housed inside this shell called a skull. My spine allows me to walk and lift my arms and even scratch myself because it allows me to know, I have an itch.

Sometimes, accidents do happen regardless of how carefule we are, but it's probably best to to pay close attention to what I'm doing while riding a bike- and always-always wear a helmet. Otherwise, I may not be able to advocate for what I still believe is the most exhilarating, efficient and beautiful way to get around a city- esepcially the one I love most, New York.

KUT Radio Interview: Austin Water seeking long term Solutions

The city of Austin is revisiting water restrictions that may go into effect next year. As the drought continues, water levels in Lakes Travis and Buchanan drop ever lower. That could mean cutting back on water usage in Austin and elsewhere. In this week’s Austin Business Journal, Cody Lyon reports that the city is working with businesses on a possible rewrite of those rules. He tells KUT’s Matt Largey that no one took into account what would happen, if stringent water restrictions are needed for a prolonged period of time.

LINK TO KUT STORY

VISA Program Draws Mexican Investors looking to escape Cartel Violence; Link to KUT.ORG

FROM KUT.ORG; A program that provides U.S. visas for small-business investors from overseas is becoming more attractive to well-to-do Mexicans. Cody Lyon writes about the EB Immigrant Investor program in this week’s Austin Business Journal. He tells KUT Ian Crawford about the effect of drug violence is having on well-to-do Mexicans, and why may are looking north to invest their money..

The types of people that were looking to invest this money are people who are successful in Mexico – they have drivers, they have maids, they have ways of life that they can afford there. But they are targets of cartel violence. As I was told by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce here in Austin, it’s almost impossible to succeed in business in Mexico and not be a target of some sort of retribution.

You can hear the rest of the interview by clicking the audio player above.

Interview on KUT Radio Austin (Cody Lyon)

FROM KUT AUSTIN:</b> Three major hotel development projects are making progress in downtown Austin’s Central Business District. The area lacks a sufficient amount of rooms needed to house convention-goers, but a number of plans to remedy the issue of room stock have already fallen by the wayside.

Cody Lyon of the Austin Business Journal explains:

Smith Travel Research Inc. lists nine hotel projects as active in downtown Austin. If they were all built, they would add 3,219 rooms to the area. But a lack of financing has many experts counting them out of the running.

“I would be very surprised if half the rumored projects in Austin actually get built over the next three years due to on-going difficulties in the debt markets and the increased levels of required equity that many developers are simply not capable of producing or committing to,” Yiankes said.

According to Lyon, the district’s room stock will increase from 7,674 to about 10,000 if the three projects continue as expected.

LINK to KUT

Cody Lyon on KUT talking about Bastrop County Land Values post wildfires

LINK TO AUDIO

In this week’s Austin Business Journal, Cody Lyon looks at Bastrop County land values that could be cut in half as the real estate market faces dramatic ups and downs resulting from the wildfires that scorched almost 35,000 acres.

Dramatic value dips would be problematic for many landowners, but they could yield opportunities for investors looking to employ a patient buy-hold strategy while this patch of Texas recovers.

“We’re confident there will be some devaluation in the acreage charred by the fires,” said Cameron Boone, director of research at Lewis Realty Advisors Inc. Lewis Realty estimates the value of land directly impacted by wildfires could drop by up to 60 percent.

This might open the door for what some call vulture investors, who swoop in and offer pennies on the dollar for damaged properties, Boone said.

Click on the player to hear KUT’s Emily Donahue talk with Lyon about his report.

Being interviewed by PR over Coffee

Link to podcast

Labor Misinformation and Union Slap-Downs in America

The Public and the Importance of Unions

OPINION- by Cody Lyon

On February 28, “The New York Times” published the article ‘Public Unions Debate How to Save Bargaining. ’ Inadvertently, the story raises deeper and very fundamental questions about the evolution of American attitudes towards work, compensation and the concept of job security. In particular, an assertion, that several new Republican leaders say they feel strong constituent support for taking on public sector unions, since private sector workers no longer enjoy the job protection, health benefits and, especially, pension plans that many state and local workers still have.

While some private sector resentment of public sector job security maybe understandable in this era of economic uncertainty, high unemployment and an increasingly less solvent Federal safety net for old age, one could argue that a lot of the ill feelings directed towards unions are misdirected, perhaps based on misinformation and collective short memory, due in part to the lack of solid, full reporting on union history. There are telling facts and statistics behind this story that Americans may want to keep in mind. Besides that, while many new Republican leaders may claim that much of their constituency is anti-union, there are many among the same community who would probably beg to differ.

Regardless, an exception to any real or perceived dearth of information was “The New Yorker’s” Hendrik Hertzberg who noted in a dramatic March 7 Talk of the Town piece called "Union Blues" that ‘organized labor’s catastrophic decline has paralleled-and, to a disputed but indisputably substantial degree, precipitated-an equally dramatic rise in economic inequality. “ He points out that back in 1980, ‘the best off one tenth of American families collected about a third of the nation’s income. The top one percent is getting a full fifth, double what it got in 1980. A quick look at data from the United States Department of Commerce and the IRS appears to confirm much of Hetzberg’s statistical assertions. Hertzberg also points out that these days, more union members are government workers than private employees.

Now on to the other current reality. While there’s no doubt that many city and state public service unions are going to have to deal with new, in some cases, grim economic realities, there are more realistic sacrifices members can make and government leaders might consider, rather than the radical dismantling of the negotiating tool. For whatever reasons, a number of states and cities are dangerously teetering on the brink of broke. And, there's no doubt that the generous compensatory benefit, say a teacher or cop gets to work 20 years, and then gets full retirement benefits, well, that seems a bit 'far fetched' and generous to many taxpayers today in this new economic atmospher. And, it would be unrealistic to sugar coat or romanticize the often checkered past of private sector union culture and its rashes of corruption throughout American history. It hasn't all just been one big Norma Rae story at the Cotton Mill.

Still though, it might also serve Americans to call upon the greater spirits of worker history in this nation and remember too, that it wasn’t unions who over time stripped private sector workers of any sense of collective bargaining power over the years, it was the company hunger for a better bottom line on Wall Street. Although they've been blamed for it, unions didn’t decimate entire cities and regions of the nation when they closed up shop for cheaper, some might say, less than moral working pools of cheap labor in lands across the sea. And it was not unions, who began to dilute and destroy the dignity of the bargaining tool, those fundamental negotiations between a company and its workers who all, in the end, had a vested interest in that company’s product quality and its financial well being. Not to be to simplistic, but after-all, it was those negotiations that created many an American dream, those countless stories of job security, health benefits and allowed entire swaths of Americans living less worrisome and more dignified ‘golden’ years. The hope is that the private sector American worker lucky enough to be employed is not simply settling on contentment with a system that takes it for granted.

A NewsJunkie's Nightmare

(opinion)
by Cody Lyon

Recently, I had what I think was a news-junkie nightmare.

So for atmospheric purposes, take a second, imagine you are watching one of those sixties sitcoms, like Gilligan’s Island, and someone like Gilligan himself, drifts off while lying in his hammock and you the viewer are whisk away by this swirling visual effect accompanied by trippy music that shuttles you over into this other world, the dream scene.

I have no idea what got me to this vivid nighttime experience other than ambien, red wine or maybe to much consumption of the news from Egypt.

What I can tell you is that my head created its own version of the BBC World news channel and I happened to be watching when a new program called Coffee Talk made its debut. Immediately, even as I slept, my stomach fell to its knees as visions of a British and couched version of SNL’s Linda Richmond sipped coffee and loudly exclaimed fear for western travelers escaping Cairo. Worse yet, a chit chat fest like those on morning local news affiliates;

Bill the host: "As gas prices go up, so do tempers across the nation.

Jane the co-host; "We find out why!"

Narrator; "tomorrow morning on Bill and Jane on Living large at 5 a.m. on Channel Five."

But this being BBC, they don’t really raise their voices, and besides that, don’t they like hot tea? Perhaps this program should have been called Tea Talk. But that was irrelevant, truth be told, my brain couldn’t fact check or ponder accuracy at that hour, after all this was, just a dream.

As luck would have it, the instrumental version of John Barry’s “You Only Live Twice” a James Bond film, served as the theme music. In addition to loving news, I happen to be a James Bond junkie too. Composer Barry had died earlier that day, January 31, 2011.

Opening narration to this new BBC program was provided by a British version of that man who narrates PBS Frontline, you know who I’m talking about. During the introduction, he tells viewers they’ve reached Coffee Talk. He says, “here at Hazel’s coffee house, the real story behind the story is discussed, debated and always settled in purely caffeinated truth, by Hazel Meredith Jackson.”

My guess is that Jackson serves some matriarchal role among the British investigative Journalism corps. She probably earned her stripes back during the Cold War days by going under cover for BBC as a Russian call girl behind the iron curtain in East Berlin, where she exposed secret deals between British oil interests and shady Eastern European officials that accelerated the fall of communism.

For a pink-lit TV studio set, the place looked a bit drab compared to the spic and span modern American Suburbia standards we see on domestic news talk shows. The walls were cluttered with books, old nicks and knacks and a few tables dotted the interior, one with a young man and woman, both reading a newspaper and then, behind the counter, stood Hazel herself. Hazel wore a simple blue dress adorned with a mod looking broach. She looked sort of like a British version of Germany’s Mrs. Merkel. As the narrator made his introduction, she appeared to be steaming milk at an elaborate looking gold pipe festooned espresso machine.

This was a news program that must be a bit scripted.

The template we see in most U.S. news talk-show programs appears to be pretty predictable despite being “basically” un-scripted. Observers of television viewing patterns have said, viewers often flock to these programs because they identify with personalities, enjoy spontaneity and tend to enjoy a drama-laden sense of unpredictability that comes with the un-scripted debate these shows often highlight.

The truth is, as cable news channels expanded, so too did the chat shows. Oddly enough, budgets for international bureaus and overseas reporting, shrank. And Lord knows, news-papers have been hurting for years. The truth is, talk is cheap, easy to produce and certainly a lot less risky than sending reporters out on the field and ‘arranging the kind of ‘stripe earning’ work that eventually led Hazel to her new ‘dream’ job at this BBC News coffee house news in my head.

These days, the morning news chat template requires chatter between a somewhat dry male host and what is usually a more compassionate appearing female counterpart.

The conversations are often peppered by other chats with celebrity guests promoting movies, books or causes; bullying pundits that repeat talking points and themes; or low level political figures, since the big fish usually wait til the Sunday Morning grill fests.

At night, especially in the late evening, the fare seems a bit more honest when a bevy of sharp witted comedians go after politicians, public figures and the events of the day often pointing out the ridiculousness of the ways that news got reported.

As to the actual news or enlightenment ‘value’ of either format, who knows?

Meanwhile, back in my late night dream show Coffee Talk, Hazel has just welcomed her first guest into the coffee house. It’s none other than former United States secretary of state Madeleine Albright! She's dressed in a red dress adorning an American Flag pin.

Hazel welcomes her with raspy, years of smoking cigarettes English accented prose. Albright, exclaims to Hazel, she’s so impressed with the new career choice. (clearly scripted) Hazel thanks Albright saying, it’s here in the world’s coffee houses where human dialogue and the ‘real’ meaning of the news of the day gets deciphered and moves us all forward as a people.

The former secretary nods in agreement, saying, “Hazel, you've always been quiet the star.”

Then, Hazel asks Albright about her caffeine of choice simultaneously saying’ “Madame Secretary, please have a seat.”

“Thank you Hazel,” says the former secretary of state, who tells Hazel she’ll have a double espresso with some equal on the side.

Hazel magically emerges from behind the counter already holding Albright’s espresso and her own large mug with the word NewsJunkie making her way over to the table. The couple that had been sitting at the other table has since gone away.

As she sits down, puling out the stiff creases in her simple blue dress, she utters, in an oh so British fashion, ‘Madame Secretary, the events in Egypt signal’ and then suddenly, Dang!, I wake up.

For some odd reason, my brain is actually aroused from its sleep by the words in my dream. It’s simple curiosity, perhaps. But I grab the blackberry charging by my bed and quickly turn to the real BBC where I see thousands of human beings gathering in Cairo’s Tahrir Square for what promises to be a monumental historic event.

The massive protest is just part of a greater unfolding movement in Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle Eastern region.

And, the fact is, no one can say with any degree of certainty what the outcome of any of this will be. And, that’s where one finds the real, un scripted drama.

Maybe too, that’s why the real and serious news of the day, when fully reported, is much more entertaining and genuinely interesting than a news-jukie’s nightmare like Hazel’s Coffee House.

Cody Lyon's Reflections on an earlier time in NYC

Back in the Day (from Portfolio.com)

by Cody Lyon Apr 26 2010
A New Yorker’s reflection of an earlier time in Manhattan, back when nightclubs were more than $300 bottles of vodka and when restaurants weren’t part of chains. Now, those were fun times.

Read more:


http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/2010/04/26/cody-lyon-on-past-new-york-city-clubs-and-restaurants

Cody Lyon's View of NYC...well a photo at least....

View from 51st Street and 10th Avenue in the "Hell's Kitchen" section of Midtown Manhattan.
12/15/2008

Tyranny of a Straight Majority?

by CODY LYON-Opinion


On the day after the historic election of Barack Obama as President of the United States and once the tears of joy had stopped flowing from eyes across the nation, a dose of sadness and disillusionment settled upon many members of the country's LGBT community.

Proposition 8 had passed in California. The amendment essentially overturns an earlier California State Supreme court decision that had extended the rights provided by legal marriage to same sex couples.

Leading up to the election, the hopes for an Obama victory were enhanced by the belief that another high profile pothole might be filled on the highway to true equality for gay and lesbian people. Publicly, blame for Prop 8 passage is being directed at a number of entities like the Mormon Church, well organized and moneyed efforts by conservative and right wing organizations from outside California while some have engaged in unfortunate knee-jerk tactics , laying blame on the heavy African American turnout and the tremendous influence of the Black church has in that community.

Before the vote, disturbing whispers of infighting among LGBT organizations who were attempting to lay blame for worrisome poll numbers on various interests, organizations and individuals for not staying focused, careful and on point so as to sway public opinion.

But, after some pause and reflection, one could in fact argue, that despite some truths in the above, most of these charges are simplistic, maybe even lazy but motivated by understandable, justifiable and reactionary anger at what the voters themselves wrought.

The massive No on 8 public relations campaign that sought to impact the California majority's attitudes about same sex marriage was somewhat hasty, perhaps idealistic and maybe even too hopeful. That despite the newfound sense of activism bubbling throughout the LGBT nation, the gay community was set up for disappointment especially since the battleground was California, a state most see assumed to be more socially liberal, a place many assumed to be more tolerant and accepting.

In the end, despite the joy of Obama's landslide, millions of gay people found themselves feeling let down, left behind, it was as this vote was a referendum on all gay people, as if the inclusive mosaic the election seemed to paint along with the supposed more compassionate and progressive tidal wave the election signaled, did not fully include them.

Truth be told, deep inside the souls of countless gay people, little voices were whispering, you, gay person, are still a second class citizen. And, the voices doing the talking were the people, at least the majority so far, who have shown in state after state, they are unwilling to accept the idea of same sex marriage.

The fact is, what happened in California was a reality check. California, the west coast trend setting home of Hollywood and the gay promised land of San Francisco, proved that despite how far the gay rights movement has come and attitudes changed, the majority is, at least now, not willing to extend the legal rights conveyed by marriage to same sex couples. No matter how one spins it, no matter who one seeks to lay blame on, the facts are what they are.

True, the Right played dirty, and no doubt the hyperbole they spewed played a role in the outcome. Funded by millions of dollars from across the right wing stratosphere, all manner of insidious ads, pulpit pleas and viral campaign tactics attempted to spook, prejudice and misinform voters into doubt on Tuesday. There was even the always reliable Anita Bryantesque use of the children, as rumors and lies were spread that, if Prop was not passed, the state's schools would be teaching students about the joys of gay coupling.

But, does all of his beg a greater question about who and how equality is dispensed in America?

Most supporters and experts have said that the road to full marriage equality will be a years long process that travels a highway of state by state activism and struggle. The consensus being, that the courts will pass it off to an eventual federal solution, most likely the Supreme court, provided there is an evolution of public opinion in the ballot box.

But, as indicated by the sobering California vote on Proposition 8, the majority is not always willing to take the necessary steps towards full equality.

At the risk of sounding simplistic, imagine if it had been left up to the majority white population to dispense equality to African Americans in America.

While it would be wrong to equate efforts to secure full marriage equality and the tremendous years long struggle for individual equality, dignity and the ladders of opportunity that were built as a result of the 1960's civil rights movement, there are are clues from history that might be worth studying.

First, it took heroic efforts, foot soldiering and the activism of black leaders who along with thousands of individuals, bravely stood up through countless marches, beatings, demonstrations and tragedy which along the way forced America to look in the mirror and confront the cancer of racism and all it had wrought. Every square inch of the Southern United States region, was essentially segregated.

History shows, the majority of whites, stirred on by segregationist leaders coupled with a fundamental sense of denial that was cushioned by the false comforts of separate but equal, were unwilling to take it upon themselves and tear down the barriers the segregated South presented. It was not until the courts and judges took on cases and allowed morality to rule over what had become the tyranny of the majority in the South.

In 1956, at the time of the Montgomery bus boycott, there was no state wide vote, after then US District Court Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Frank Johnson, ruled in the Browder v Gale case that Brown v Board decision applied to public transportation as well as public schools, effectively integrating the state capital's bus system.

Subsequent decisions by Judge Johnson led to the integration of Alabama's public accommodations, libraries and agricultural services.

But, it was a later decision that brought out the true rage of many white Alabamians at the time,

After the 1954 Brown v Board Supreme Court decision ruling that separate but equal public schools were un-constutional, throughout the South, individual school districts continued to take their time on full integration. In 1963, most districts in Alabama were still balking at the ruling. But, when faced with the Lee vs Macon County Board of Education case, Judge Johnson issued Alabama's first statewide desegregation order. Johnson bravely endured death threats and other insults as he went against the majority of his home state.

Had it not been for the sense of urgency and the thirst for equality and justice by activists and leaders of the movement coupled with the actions of courts and judges of that time, America may have taken a slower path to the moment we witnessed in this years election.

Interestingly, the very idea that Judge Johnson's decisions would have ever been put before voters is nothing short of laughable.

There are plenty of Southerners, who today, will seek to explain, why, in all the years preceding the Civil Rights movement, they simply believed this was the way we lived, we knew nothing else and sometimes, they will say in no uncertain terms, we were in a state of denial about how difficult it was for a black person to exist with any sense of dignity in the deep south much less to get ahead in a white world.

But, they will also share, that they were taken aback, when they had to be forced to accept that that this way of life, was no longer acceptable, that everything segregation in America stood for, was in fact, the antithesis of what this nation supposedly stood for, that it was in fact unconstitutional. Black people in the south were living in a society where the tyranny of the majority stood firm. If it had not been for the efforts of the movement's soldiers, but also what today might be called by certain politicians, activist judges and courts, the majority may have maintained that un-just status quo even longer.

It appears that most Americans support the injustice of denying same sex couples the almost 700 federal rights and privileges that marriage conveys. But, it also appears that vast portions of the lesbian and gay community have been slow to recognize what passage of amendments like Proposition 8 say about the nation we call home. Perhaps California was a wake up call. Perhaps too, the California decision offered evidence that this section of the fight for full equality may not be won in the public's courtroom of opinion. Instead, the Prop 8 decision might be a call for more intense activism that seeks to challenge the status quo through the courts with the goal being an eventual Supreme Court ruling.

The Anti Gay Bias Of U.S. Immigration Policy

By CODY LYON
On a cold night this past February, around 20 New Yorkers gathered in an upper west side brownstone to view and offer support to filmmaker Sebastian Cordoba and his latest project, a documentary film called “Through Thick and Thin.” The movie details the uncertain plights of seven bi national gay and lesbian couples, who, under current U.S. immigration laws, often face devastatingly difficult choices, including if and how to stay together.

The film takes on added relevance after Federal legislation was re introduced this past week in Washington that seeks to address the issues illustrated in the film.

Unlike heterosexual bi-national couples who can choose to get married, and then legally sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes, the legal options available for gay and lesbian bi national couples are virtually non existent, often resulting in daunting choices with uncertain outcomes.

“You meet somebody and you fall in love, maybe you move in together and then you both realize, that perhaps you’ll either have to move, or even worse, separate” said filmmaker Cordoba of a current common scenario among bi national same sex couples in the United States.

But, this past Tuesday May 8^th, New York Representative Jerrold Nadler re-introduced the Uniting American Families Act, or UAFA, formerly known as the Permanent Partners Act or PPIA. If UAFA were passed into law, a new option would be opened for such couples.

UAFA would provide a mechanism under the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents in bi national same sex relationships to sponsor their foreign born partner for immigration benefits to the United States.

Under the UAFA, to qualify as a permanent partner, a person would have to show commitment, financial interdependence, exclusivity, the inability to marry in a manner that is “cognizable” under the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the absence of blood relationship.

As current immigration law now stands, bi national same sex couples in the United States are sometimes forced to relocate to the country of the foreign partner, if that country offers immigration benefits to same sex partners, or, face long periods of separation or even still, face what some would say is a cruel and imposed breakup

“The most cruel form of anti-gay discrimination is to physically separate a couple from one another” said Rachel B. Tiven, a lawyer and Executive Director at Immigration Equality, a national organization that seeks to end discrimination in U.S. immigration laws.

She says current U.S. immigration laws create a situation by which the benefits of American citizenship are being denied because of one’s sexuality.

“The end consequence is that they lose the person they love the most in the world” said Tiven of scenarios where couples are forced to separate.

In 2006, after his organization Human Rights Watch compiled a 196 page report on the plight of same sex bi national couples in the United States, Scott Long, Director of the organization’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights program, said that “Discriminatory U.S. immigration laws turn the American dream into a heartless nightmare for countless U.S. citizens and their foreign partners.”

In the same report, Human Rights Watch noted that U.S. immigration policy has deeply rooted anti-immigrant policies where sexuality has long played an exclusionary role. For instance, from the McCarthy era until 1990, U.S. law barred foreign born lesbian and gay people from immigrating into the country.

Around 35,820 of the 594,394 “unmarried” same sex couples counted in the 2000 United States census included one U.S. citizen, and one non-citizen. According to a report by Gary J. Gates, Phd., at the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation at The University of California in Los Angeles, 79 percent of those bi-national couples include a foreign partner who comes from a country that does not provide immigration benefits to same sex couples.

Currently, 19 countries recognize partners of same sex couples for immigration purposes, including, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Spain Sweden and the United Kingdom.

But, in United States, the tone is not as accepting. In fact, some observers have gone so far as to warn gay foreigners with non-immigrant visas in same sex relationships, that they should avoid local domestic partner registrations, civil unions, commitment ceremonies or any other public acknowledgement of a coupling, because this would signal immigration officials that the foreign partner is planning, or desires to, stay in the country, which is grounds for deportation.

The current UAFA legislation introduced this past May 8, does not have any status outside of immigration laws. It would not create any kind of relationship recognition separate from the immigration benefits. In other words, the policy is not a step towards gay marriage, a fear expressed by those who oppose any legal sanctioning of gay couples.

As filmmaker Sebastian Cordoba points out, of those countries that do recognize same sex partners for immigration purposes, only three have legally sanctioned gay marriage.

One of the couple’s highlighted in Cordoba’s film are Mark and Fred of Harrisburg, New Jersey. Fred, a native of France, has been able to stay in the United States through work and student visas. But, when Fred’s last work visa came to an end, the couple, who have two children, faced tough choices, they would have to find an employer that would be willing to go through the process of sponsoring Fred, or the couple would be forced to move to France.

After a great deal of contemplation, the couple is planning on moving to France this summer.

“We don’t want to move to France, we do much better here in Harrisburg if we’re both working” and if we do move, “I won’t be able to work” which Mark worries will put a real financial strain on the family of four.

Mark, who’s been a registered Republican most of his life, often finds himself discussing his situation with conservatives. He says that he just deals with the facts based on tax and laws.

“I don’t go into the emotions” he said noting his argument doesn’t go near gay marriage or other hot button social issues. He speaks of the contribution Fred makes as an educator, teaching people a new language, and the fact that they both contribute to their community, pointing out that most of his friends and neighbors are heterosexual and don’t understand why the couple has to leave in order to obtain some sense of normalcy.

“Fred can’t work, even though he has his doctorate in education” noted Mark of his highly skilled partner who he can’t sponsor for a green card.

But, then, during the same conversation, basic human emotion seeps in, as Mark shares the pain and fear of what could happen to the couple and all they’ve tried to accomplish together “all I’m talking about is two people staying together, all we want is to just stay together” he said as his voice cracked.

“One of the rights of Americans is to pursue happiness” said Mark

“I don’t even have a chance to pursue it, if my partner and family is taken away from me, one of my fundamental rights is gone” he said of the current immigration laws that do not allow him to continue living life in the United States with his partner of 15 years.

And, Mark says he is concerned about his children, ages 3 and 6, who are used to life in small-town United States, and how the cultural adjustment to France will affect them.

Regardless, he says he’s exhausted from worrying about it all and has given up on the struggle to try and stay in the United States legally.

“The life if the fight is gone, which is sad for me” he said with a sigh.

Back in 1996 when the Senate approved and then President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA, marriage for all purposes of the federal government was defined as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

A consequence of DOMA’s quick passage was the foreclosure of any possibility that foreign, permanent same sex partners of U.S. citizens could be recognized as “spouses” under current immigration laws.

The current legislation proposed by Congressman Nadler in the House (HR-3006) and Senator Patrick Leahy in the Senate (S-1278), would add “permanent partner” to sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act where “spouse” now appears.

On background, some political observers expressed some doubt that the law would see passage while the current administration is in office. But, they noted that with Democratic majorities in both houses, as well as increased public awareness of the often cruel outcomes that immigration policy bias has imposed, there was still hope.

So far, most Democrats appear to be on board with the current proposal including House Speaker Pelosi.

“The speaker supports Congressman Nadler’s efforts in this area and has co-sponsored the measure in the past” said Drew Hammill, Deputy Press Secretary for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While most supporters of the bill agree, that part of the key to successful passage is the education of Americans about current policy, some worry that the gay community itself has not been exercising its own political activist connections in seeking eventual passage. They point out that current immigration policy is one of the most blatant, clearly spelled out examples of lesbian and gay inequality in the United States.

“The first thing is to tell gay people that this point in time, they are not equal to straight men and women in the United States” said Sebastian Cordoba.

“To educate America at large about this painful issue, is just too much for one little film” he said of his film “Through Thick and Thin”.

Cordoba hopes his film reaches, and inspires the gay community to be more actively involved in politics, and that all Americans who see it are able to relate to the basic human emotions communicated by its subjects.

If the tears flowing down faces at the viewing this past February were any indication, the film’s doing its job in showing the devastating impact that politics can have on human beings and their day to day lives.

Now That Scooter Libby's Name Is "Patsy"

by CODY LYON

Now that Scooter Libby’s name change to “Patsy” is complete, the perfect opportunity has arisen for Democrats to wake up, take a shot of testosterone, and open a real, binding investigation as to why the United States was led into the quagmire of Iraq.

Mr. Libby’s guilty verdict on four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice is certainly good to see. Hopefully Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson will sleep better at night now that it’s clear Libby was carrying out dirty deeds for higher ups in the White House. But ultimately, Libby’s trial will probably go down in history as a simplistic, un-ambitious but certainly entertaining Washington soap opera. Players from journalists to lower level White House officials stole this show, as the focus of the event changed quicker than the day’s top stories at CNN. Unfortunately, the trial of Scooter Libby was a diversion from where the real digging should have been taking place, which is in the halls of Congress, a dig for real truths about what has proven to be a tragic turn of events, on view for all Americans to see.

The Libby trial was a diversion from the more serious questions that still need to be answered and aired before the public. In the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, was the White House angry that its intelligence assessment was being challenged, and if so, why?

Today, Congress, a body with subpoena power, has a wide opening of noble but difficult opportunity. Members on both sides of the aisle could eat humble pie, take a deep breath and dive right into what could prove to be a national epiphany. A complete investigation of the actions by players in the White House, could turn out to be a very valuable lesson for the most important players of all, the American people. But, understandably, a number of those in Congress continue to wallow and whine in a sea of denial, blame and embarrassment tainted by self-serving politics regarding the decision to follow the Pied Piper to Iraq.

As it stands now, come January 2008, Libby will get his pardon, and the current crew in the White House will scurry off into their private financially secure lives, leaving behind the mess they led us to in Iraq. And, the administration also leaves behind, several thousand maimed, blinded, limbless souls, another several thousand dead sons and daughters, who, God only knows, what they may have contributed to this world, had they lived and not been sacrificed in a war that was based on arrogance, manipulated intelligence and fear, sold to a people shattered from an attack carried out by individuals who had absolutely no connection to the country called Iraq.

Scooter Libby’s trial spelled out the obvious, that Vice President Cheney was upset the Bush Administration message of fear was being challenged. Without fear, the White House didn’t have a case for the invasion of Iraq. Congress, afraid of constituent reaction for challenging a popular White House, fell for, or at least went along with the message, as did a large portion of the media, and hence, the public, the rest is history.

But painful as it may be, it would be nothing short of sinful for Congressional leaders, here and now, to not seek out all facts and come clean on the allegedly lie filled road to Iraq. In the same way that individuals learn from their mistakes, so too do governments.

And, Congress has a duty to the men and women of our armed forces to prove that the system of checks and balances has more meaning than a simple sound bite. Sticking one’s head in the sand and carrying on as if looking back and airing the truth stifles progress or corrupts morale, will in the end, only grow the putrid distrust that many Americans now feel about Washington.