First, I have some bad news to report: Last week the Speaker of Uganda's Parliament defiantly predicted that Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" will not be withdrawn.

If you're new to this issue, here's the important part: if passed, Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" will make being gay a crime punishable by death. Other "crimes" -- such as working in a HIV/AIDS-focused health organization -- would be punishable by an up to three-year jail sentence.

The international community has already roundly condemned this measure. Earlier this month, the global activist organization Avaaz urged the Ugandan government to drop the bill by handing it a petition signed by 500,000 people across the globe.

In light of the continued intransigence of some key Uganda politicians, however, it's clear that we need to ramp up our pressure.

That's why we're launching StandForUganda.com today, a website focused on stopping the "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" and defending the rights of Uganda's LGBT citizens.

Will you help us spread the word about this new advocacy resource? Here are three things that you can do right now:

1) Visit the site and send your message to President Obama.
2) Share StandForUganda.com on Facebook and Twitter.
3) Email the URL http://StandForUganda.com to three of your friends.

Thanks for taking action! As this new site evolves, we'll continue to post campaign and news updates here on Amplify.

Today, March 8, is International Women's Day.

It's a time to reflect, remember, and respond. In reading the media's many celebrations and retrospectives today, I can't help but approach the day from a personal angle. I think of International Women's Day and think of my mom, a first-generation immigrant who gave and continues to give her kids all the love and resources in the world.

As a Sudan activist, I also think of the resilient women of Darfur, more than a million of whom have completely lost their homes in a campaign of mass killing and systematic sexual violence perpetrated by the Sudanese government. Today, Darfuri rape survivors like Halima Bashir are making their voices heard in halls of power across the world. To date, they have courageously shared their stories at the White House, the UN, and on college and high school campuses -- all in the hope that their testimony will mobilize a big enough response to end the violence in Darfur and South Sudan once and for all.

And you? Who are you thinking of today?

In recognition of International Women's Day, Amplify is hosting an International Women's Week Blog-a-thon this week. We hope you'll take part by writing a blog post and sharing it with our community here.

Feel free to write about any women's issue that interests or moves you. In case you need some topic ideas, though, here are some questions that could use YOUR answers:

- What are issues that young women face in your country that affect the decisions they make about their reproductive and sexual health?
- Who are young women leaders in your community that represent the progress you envision for our future?
- How accessible are male condoms for young women? What about female condoms?
- What about family planning services and different methods of contraception?
- How can women be sustainable agents of change in your community?

We look forward to reading your posts this week!

The question above is the the worry of the Global Health Initiative Working Group, a coalition that includes Advocates for Youth, Partners in Health, Physicians for Human Rights, and The Foundation for AIDS Research.

In a statement released last month, the coalition points out:

"President Obama’s proposed FY ’11 budget underfunds and jeopardizes global HIV/AIDS, women’s, maternal and child health, and tuberculosis and malaria programs, and falls far short of what the experts have identified as essential investments."

Ann Starrs, president of Working Group member Family Care International, adds:

“We recognize that this is a difficult budget year, but by adding relatively small amounts in some areas like maternal and child health while cutting others like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, this budget fails to live up to the promise of the Administration’s Global Health Initiative...[t]he wellbeing and security of nations is based on the health and productivity of their citizens. Failing to scale up successful health programs, which are vital to the prospects of economic and social improvement for local communities, undermines human security.”

Make no mistake. Federal budget-making is not just a game for prognosticator mathematicians. Nor is it something that touches U.S. citizens alone. With the next budget cycle and its Global Health Initiative, the Obama administration can either lift up or close the door on millions of people. Putting it more starkly, the danger is this administration will allow lives to be needlessly lost. Because that's what will happen, for instance, if the U.S. cuts vital programs like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria.

Check out the full press release for a detailed budget numbers breakdown.

It's been over a month since the devastating earthquake in Haiti. So far, we've seen a tremendous outpouring of grief and a strong show of solidarity with the Haitian people, as well as a promising commitment from the international community to help the country rebuild.

Have we given enough, though? And has the U.S. done enough?

I recently revisited an interesting blog post by Nick Kristof, in which writes:

"I was delighted that the White House denounced as "utterly stupid" the Rev. Pat Robertson's suggestion that Haiti had suffered its earthquake because it had made a "pact with the devil," and as "really stupid" the comment by Rush Limbaugh that Americans already donate to Haiti through tax dollars -- which many took to mean that he discouraged giving, a suggestion he has strongly denied..."

"First, a fact check. In 2008, the most recent year for which we have figures, the United States donated 92 cents per American to Haiti. Granted, any year can fluctuate, so look at three-year totals. The United States contributed $2.32 per American to Haiti over the last three years for which we have data (about 80 cents a year). That's much less than other countries do, even though Haiti is in our hemisphere and has historic close ties to the U.S. For example, Canada contributed $12.13 per person to Haiti over three years, and Norway sent $8.44."

Kristof's numbers breakdown reminds me of one of the most widespread misperceptions in U.S. policy and politics: the absurd belief that the U.S. government "gives away" an excessive amount of foreign aid every year. Rush Limbaugh might use an extremist bullhorn, but unfortunately his views on foreign aid are shared by many across the political and social spectrum.

Consider a striking survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which found that 41% of those polled believed that foreign aid is one of of the two largest areas of U.S. federal spending. (While the survey was done in 1995, its results still largely reflect widely held American beliefs and attitudes, as confirmed by more recent representative polling.)

What's the truth about U.S. development and humanitarian efforts? According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, in 2006 the United States spent a sum of $27.6 billion on development assistance (with over a third of that going to Iraq reconstruction efforts). In absolute terms, this 2006 figure looks big, but it is absolutely tiny compared to the $620+ billion that the U.S. spent on defense-related items that same year. No matter what you think about our government's budget-making, this much is clear: too many of us have a warped picture of what our country does in the international aid arena.

***
While ordinary Americans' collective response to the Haiti earthquake has been largely inspiring, I think there's a danger that we will forget Haiti's crisis given our misperceptions of what constitutes enough and too much in the practical and moral universe of foreign aid. In other words, if we think that our tax dollars are being spent very heavily (and too heavily) on international assistance, then we're more likely to advocate for a dangerous stinginess in foreign aid over the longer term.

Your thoughts?

File this one in the "Absolutely Crazy" folder: Belgium's brand new Catholic Archbishop, Monsignor André-Joseph Léonard, recently shared this elegant, Solomonic analogy via a national television broadcast:

"Homosexuality is not the same as normal sex in the same way that anorexia is not a normal appetite."

What a wonderful introductory lesson to impart to Belgium's estimated 7+ million Catholics.

As someone who attended Catholic school for more than 10 years, I can't say that I ever heard any of my teachers compare eating disorders and being gay. That said, I do remember teachers linking being gay to the following:

- Bestiality
- Promiscuity and unassailable lust
- Tragic susceptibility to disease

What is it with these people? As a corrective, I would love to see some influential Catholic leader or community call out Archbishop's Léonard's brazen ignorance. There are countless devout Catholics who know that their LGBT brothers and sisters aren't "disordered." It's imperative that these folks stand on the side of love and human dignity and hold their religious representatives accountable whenever they say something stupid.

(Thanks to Michael Jones at Change.org for bringing this story to our attention.)

"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible."
-George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"

Earlier this month John Aravosis at AMERICAblog weighed in on an interesting poll:

CBS just found that if you ask Americans how they feel about "gay men and lesbians" serving in the military, a large majority support it [about 70%]. But if you ask people whether "homosexuals" should be allowed to serve in the military, support drops [to about 60%].

Bottom line: Homosexual is a nasty, clinical-sounding word with nasty connotations for far too many Americans. It's what I've argued for years, and have been routinely beaten up by some in the gay community who claim I'm nuts -- namely, that no one should use this offensive word and we should correct anyone who does. It now appears I'm not so nuts after all.

Does Aravosis have a point? Would more Americans support full or fuller equality for U.S. GLBTQ citizens if activists and advocacy organizations simply banished the word "homosexuality" from their day-to-day vocabulary? I'm not sure.

In any case, there is a much larger issue here, and it has to do with the language of politics and the politics of language. In the very first place, how are such terms appropriated? How do such terms get stolen and semantically corrupted?

A long time ago, the adjective and noun "liberal" was broadly seen as a label that most anyone could admire, or at least respect. The philosopher John Stuart Mill was a foundational free-market capitalist, feminist, and all-around freedom lover. And he was an unabashed liberal.

Nowadays, though, a large segment of America hears or reads "liberal" and thinks of godlessness, getting taxed to death, and other evil things. If you didn't know better, you'd think that a liberal was that guy hanging out with the devil in Dante's innermost circle.

Of course, language is ultimately nothing more than language. It is the plaything of culture and society -- the briefly agnostic Lego set that can be (gradually or instantaneously) turned into something attractive or something hideous. So, to any of you who think that rights activists should be using "gay" and "LGBT" instead of "homosexual," I completely understand your point. We should all be political pragmatists. What if avoiding the term "homosexual" translated into an election win for a pro-marriage equality candidate? Would we criticize this person?

George Orwell was right then and he is right now: "political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible." To this, though, I would add: we have a moral responsibility to tell the truth nested behind the words. In his seminal essay "Politics and the English Language," Orwell writes that "the whole tendency of modern prose [including political prose] is away from concreteness." When some bigot warns about the consequences of the "homosexual lifestyle," it is our responsibility to be concrete in our responses. In truth, these lost souls who you demonize are couples who have long loved each other. They are kids who shouldn't be tricked into believing that they house a festering mortal sin. And they are soldiers who would lay their lives down for their country in a heartbeat.

Whether you call them gay or homosexual, they are who they are: citizens who deserve an equality that is already owed to them under the law. No amount of boogeyman marketing or spin should ever hide this core fact. And no amount of perceived pragmatism on our part should make us afraid to describe unflinchingly why we're fighting and organizing for basic human rights.

The following is a video recording of Moses, a young gay man from Uganda, speaking at yesterday's "American Prayer Hour" media conference in Washington, DC:



This testimony demonstrates the grave extent to which Uganda's LGBT community has been singled out for brutal discrimination and violence. Because Ugandan media have a track record of targeting LGBT people by publishing their names, photos, and home addresses for all to see, Moses, who is currently seeking asylum in the U.S., wore a paper bag on his head out of concern for his personal safety.

Ultimately, Moses' courageous remarks and this inaugural American Prayer Hour event could not have come at a better time. As stated on its campaign website, the Prayer Hour's overall purpose is to offer a compelling alternative to the National Prayer Breakfast, an event organized by the secretive fundamentalist organization The Family (aka The Fellowship). As numerous observers have pointed out, The Family is directly tied to those spearheading Uganda's "Anti-Homosexuality Bill," which seeks to make homosexuality a crime punishable by death.

Speaking of this bill -- very shortly President Obama will have a prime opportunity to condemn it. Despite widespread calls for a White House boycott, the President will be headlining at The Family's Prayer Breakfast tomorrow morning, in front of a slew of Senators, Representatives, and national religious leaders.

More...

Just a friendly reminder from our very own Sarah Audelo:

Check out this HUGE opportunity. The U.S Department of Health and Human Services is inviting youth to join a network of Regional Youth Sounding Boards. The goal here is to get young people's valuable input on prevention and education messages around sexual health. Applications for board membership are due this Friday, February 5th, so be sure to apply now!

Click here (Word document) to download the Youth Sounding Board application. For more info, please see this PDF flyer.

As a long-time Sudan advocate, I hate to admit this, but I don't think it can be denied: in more than a few cases recently, popular culture has willingly turned the situation in Darfur into an object for entertainment and entertainment alone.

I'm not talking about celebrity efforts like George Clooney and Don Cheadle's awareness-raising trips to Darfur (efforts which I admire). Rather, I mean to reference phenomena like Sacha Baron Cohen's 100% unfunny "Darfive" joke in Brüno. Or Uwe Boll's upcoming feature-length film on Western Sudan, which is sure to trivialize the suffering of the over 2.5 million Darfuris who have been violently displaced from their homes by Sudan's authoritarian government. (Boll, after all, is the guy who first made his name directing a movie adaptation of a video game where the main objective is to kill zombies.) Or the exploitative seventh season of 24, which featured Jack Bauer fighting ethnic cleansing in "Sangala," a made-up African nation that shares some family resemblances with Darfur.

More...

I'd like to say that this is a cultural "blip," but unfortunately it's the exact opposite. When you're a public figure running a city of over 10 million people -- one of the largest metropolitan areas in the entire world -- your words on the political stage matter. Especially when you demonize a huge part of your own citizenry.

Meet Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov. Last week, he officially banned this year's gay pride parade in the city, threatening punishment for anyone who dares to march.

In justifying the ban, Luzkhov said, "It's high time that we stop propagating nonsense discussions about human rights, and bring to bear on them [the gay rights marchers and pride parade planners] the full force and justice of the law."

He also said, "A gay parade...cannot be called anything but a satanic act." Apparently Luzkhov felt the need to repeat himself: he first called the parade "satanic" in 2007.

Despite the mayoral warning, the parade's chief organizer Nikolai Alekseev made clear that the event will go on. The 2010 "Moscow Pride" is scheduled to take place on May 29.

Given that anti-gay violence and arbitrary arrests have marked the previous four parades, I can't help but admire the courage of Moscow's LGBT community. Over at Change.org's Gay Rights blog, Michael Jones writes of Moscow Pride's organizers and participants:

"Talk about a group living out that Gandhi quote, "In a gentle way, you can shake the world." Through annual perseverence, gay rights groups in Moscow have not only brought out Mayor Luzhkov's true colors, they've gained the confidence of the world to work for the transformation of Russia, even if it happens in baby steps."

Exactly. To which I'll add: international leaders outside of Russia should stand in solidarity with Moscow's LGBT community. In the U.S., government officials simply have too many powerful levers at their disposal (high-profile public speeches, State Department human rights reports, bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, etc.) to stay quiet in the face of state-sanctioned bigotry.

Earlier this week Colorado Congressman Jared Polis introduced H.R. 4530, the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), which would prohibit discrimination against public school students on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.

Rep. Polis is clear about why he's taking the lead on this bill:

"Every day innocent students fall victim to relentless harassment and discrimination from teachers, staff, and fellow students based on their sexual orientation...[t]hese actions not only hurt our students and our schools but, left unchecked, can also lead to life-threatening violence. Like Title VI for minorities in the 60s and Title IX for women in the 70s, my legislation puts LGBT students on an equal footing with their peers, so they can attend school and get a quality education, free from fear."

The SNDA is a significant advance in the struggle for GLBTQ rights -- albeit a partial one, since achieving real victory means getting this bill passed. Congressman Polis and the sixty original co-sponsors of the SNDA should be applauded for defending an essential moral right: a quality education, free from fear.

More...

I've read and seen some offensive things in my life. But the comic strip above...now that's an example of Tier One Offensiveness.

The Observer, Notre Dame's student newspaper, published this piece earlier this month. Here's how US News and World Report's Jeff Greer describes it:

"The comic strip, called The Mobile Party, featured a saw with eyes, feet, and hands telling a human a joke. The saw says, "What's the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?" The answer: "a baseball bat." The original version of the comic strip had the same two characters, only the saw's punch line -- if you can call it that -- was "AIDS" instead of a baseball bat. The newspaper editors rejected the first version but published the second."

By now, numerous newspapers across the country and the blogosphere have covered the fallout. The Observer's Assistant Managing Editor has resigned, following a formal apology from the publication's editorial staff as well as a statement from Notre Dame itself, which denounced "the implication that violence or expressions of hate toward any person or group of people is acceptable or a matter that should be taken lightly."

What can we learn from all of this? I want to highlight two things:

1) Common hate is still morally objectionable hate. In its public apology, the Observer's editors wrote:

"Unfortunately, the language of hate is an everyday reality in our society. Earlier this week, surprising comments made by Sen. Harry Reid about President Barack Obama’s accent and skin color were made public and caused uproar. Now, at Notre Dame, a comic strip including hurtful language was printed in this publication, also causing -- and rightly so -- serious concern."

As the Notre Dame Progressive Faculty and Staff Alliance mentioned in a follow-up Letter to the Editor, Observer staff are attempting to minimize their moral culpability via their bizarre reference to Senator Harry Reid. It's their way of saying: what we did was bad, but don't you see that there are bad things all around us? Point taken, but you've got to remember: your neighbor's individual mistake does not make your own wrongdoing any less blameworthy.

2) Young people must fight to make change. Because no one else is going to do this for us. There should be more outside journalists writing about what Notre Dame's GLBTQ community is doing right now -- because it's something that deserves broad-based support and encouragement. In response to the outrage and widespread debate generated by the comic strip, GLBTQ students at Notre Dame are taking the lead in demanding that their school add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination clause. These students are asking their administration: If a leading Catholic institution like Boston College can expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then why can't Notre Dame? What's it waiting for?

(And for that matter, what do Catholic umbrella groups have to say about these developments at the U.S.'s most celebrated Catholic university? For all of its railing against health care reform, you'd think the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would take the time to speak out against a moral shame born in its own neighborhood.)

I hope that these petitioners' efforts gain immediate traction. Their proactive response is inspiring and heartening. And it's certainly a good bookend to what began as a wretched story.

If you’re interested in helping out victims of the earthquake in Haiti, check out these organizations:

Save the Children
Save the Children is the leading independent organization creating lasting change in the lives of children in need in the United States and around the world.

The Clinton Foundation
The William J. Clinton Foundation focuses on worldwide issues that demand urgent action, solutions, and measurable results -- global climate change, HIV/AIDS in the developing world, childhood obesity and economic opportunity in the United States, and economic development in Africa and Latin America.

Partners in Health
Through service, training, advocacy, and research, and by establishing long-term relationships with sister organizations, PIH strives to achieve two overarching goals: to bring the benefits of modern medical science to those most in need of them and to serve as an antidote to despair.

Or for more options, check out this blog post on the Huffington Post: Haiti Earthquake Relief: How You Can Help.

Former Florida Gators quarterback and Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow has finished taping a new $3 million anti-choice television ad, which is set to air during this year's Super Bowl broadcast. The ad was created for the group Focus on the Family, whose founder James Dobson is infamous for claiming, among other gems, that comprehensive sex education "strips kids...of their modesty" (my emphasis).

Sara Libby at True/Slant has this to say about the Tebow commercial:

"So, there you have it, ladies. It doesn’t matter what your personal circumstances or beliefs compel. You should choose life no matter what because you never know whether your unborn child could turn into a Heisman trophy-winning football player. And I thought those Sobe ads with the computer-generated dancing lizards were bad."

Now it would be too easy to dismiss this ad as a case of some football player preaching to an anti-choice choir. Given Tebow's immense popularity and the sheer size of a captive, glued-to-all-of-the-new-commercials Super Bowl viewership (in 2009, over 98 million Americans tuned in to Super Bowl XLIII), we should feel some cause for concern. Ignorance can be influential, especially when its vehicle is a friendly athlete with an apparently soft-spoken demeanor.

How should the defenders of reproductive rights respond? Fighting fire with fire (format-wise) is one option, but understood in the narrowest sense this would mean enlisting another figure from popular culture to argue against Tebow's claims. I think that it would be better to combat gloss and celebrity with the plain and stark truth: What if rights defenders created an ad featuring ordinary people talking about the danger of returning to a world of back-alley abortions? Our movement might not be able to distribute such a message on air during the Super Bowl, but perhaps that's o.k. The point is that we need to craft a forthright and passionate answer to this attack on choice. Your thoughts and ideas?

Three cheers for Rep. Tammy Baldwin -- the Congresswoman will be chairing a Congressional Human Rights Commission hearing next week on Uganda's proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill, which would make homosexuality a crime punishable by death. This is a follow-up to Baldwin's October 2009 letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in which she urged the U.S. to "use every means possible to convey to Ugandan leaders that this bill is appalling, reckless, and should be withdrawn immediately."

POLICY UPDATE: Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni is now distancing himself from the discriminatory measure, which was introduced in the Ugandan Parliament in October 2009. (For more background, check out this post on the Advocates for Youth blog, as well as this backgrounder by Amplify contributor dandaman6007.)

BBC News reports that Museveni has "admitted coming under international pressure." The president has received phone calls from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, all urging him to help stop the legislation. (To quote from Museveni's unfiltered remarks: "Ms. Clinton rang me. What was she talking about? Gays.")

This development represents a victory for human rights defenders across the world -- but it's only an intermediate victory. To explain, we might scrutinize the current state of affairs in terms of the good, the bad, and the downright ugly:

The Good: Grassroots pressure is working. The news media's latest round of Uganda updates focuses on the exertion of high-level power – i.e., the fact that high-level diplomats are now leaning on the Ugandan government -- but the real story here is the work of ordinary people of conscience across the globe. Here in the U.S., your countless protests and rallies, petitions, and call-ins against the Anti-Homosexuality Bill have created a swell of political will, which in turn has moved Congress and our foreign policy establishment to action. Secretary Clinton, for instance, condemned the Uganda bill as an “instrument of oppression” in a forthright speech on global human rights last month.

More...

Hello! My name is Nikki Serapio, and I'm the new Manager of New Media Strategies at Advocates for Youth.

I'm really excited to be a part of Amplify's active and inspiring grassroots community. Whether it's fighting for LGBTQ rights at your school, telling truth to power in the halls of Congress and your state legislatures, or forging offline and online coalitions in order to promote reproductive health and justice across the world -- whatever it is, your work and your stories are absolutely vital. So, first of all, thank you for all that you're doing!

As part of my job, I'll be blogging here regularly. I'll also be helping to add resources to Amplify's core activist hub and Amplify's growing presence across the social web. Look out for updates to our Facebook Page (become a fan!), YouTube channel, MySpace profile, and Twitter stream soon.

You should know that I'm obssessed with all things internet. In particular, I'm passionate about using technology for social good. In college I helped build an online clearinghouse for anti-genocide activism, and before Advocates I helped nonprofits and community organizers create and distribute viral video campaigns.

I'd love to hear from you! Have ideas for improving Amplify? Want us to add a certain feature or action kit to the site? Email me anytime at nikki [at] advocatesforyouth.org.