The legislation broadens federal reach to protect those physically attacked because of their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or a disability. Current law is limited to crimes motivated by race, ethnicity or religion.

The Senate approved the measure on a voice vote immediately after voting 63-28 to overcome Republican-led opposition to considering the measure an amendment to a defense spending bill. Sixty votes were needed to clear that procedural hurdle.

Yay.

Here’s hoping it becomes law!

At issue this time is a new WIPO treaty that would allow free international trade of book copies made in formats that reading-impaired people could use. This can only be a good thing, right? More readers, and thus a bigger market, and thus more sales?

Well, no, because that would mean that publishers wouldn’t have absolute control over the distribution of “their” works. So, as usual, Big Media is doing its “but but but PIRACY BLKAHRFAUHGUORHEG” dance in order to maintain its ever-threatened cultural gatekeeper status, and, as usual, the US government is buying the, err, “argument.”

And so, on Big Media’s say-so, the US and other rich nations are opposing an effort to make it easier for the reading-impaired to read books. Great. As if our reputation wasn’t already in the toilet.

When is this copyright-absolutist nonsense going to end?

Please spread the word about this, and link people to the original BoingBoing post (as usual, Cory Doctorow is awesome).

(H/T: Shakesville)

Telegraph: Abu Ghraib abuse photos show rape

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

These are the photos the Obama administration is censoring, because, apparently, the consequence of releasing them “would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” Gee, ya think? But I’ll tell you what will inflame anti-American public opinion even more, Mr. President: not releasing the photos, thus looking like you’re trying to sweep this under the rug.

I mean, I don’t ever, ever want to see these photos, but now that we know what they show, they really do need to be released. It’s an essential step towards showing the rest of the world that we know what we did was wrong, and that we’re changing.

I mean, that’s what we voted for, right? Change?

*long, heavy sigh*

Some examples:

(more…)

One of the frustrations that comes with having various mental disabilities (in my case, “high-functioning” autism and clinical depression) is the way other people refuse to believe you have them.

My teachers and doctors always knew I had issues, and begged my parents to get me an official diagnosis so I could get further help, but they always refused–they always insisted, loudly and emphatically, that I was Perfectly Normal and there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with me. Even after I tried to kill myself and they could ignore the depression no longer, they still pooh-pooh’d the doctors who pegged me as autistic. They simply would not allow for the possibility–after all, no child of theirs was going to be disabled, not if they had anything to say about it!

I’ve gotten the same from many friends and acquaintances over the years–people who insisted that, since I rarely showed visible signs, I could not possibly be disabled in any way. Sometimes this comes across as accusations of “trying to get attention” or “stealing taxpayer money,” but usually, it’s worded more like, “But you look/sound fine to me!” (More than once, I’ve had people say to me something like, “I can’t believe you’re autistic. I think too highly of you for that.” Umm… wow. And I mean that in the worst possible way.)

On the surface, what’s going on is that, when people say they don’t see me as disabled, what they mean is that they don’t see me as lesser. Which, I guess, is good to know–I sure don’t like being seen as lesser–but the clear implication is that disabled people are lesser, and so their attempt to say that I’m “not really disabled” is actually a manifestation of their disablism. This bugs me.

I think there’s more to it than just the obvious, surface disablism, though.  I think that another reason people have such a hard time accepting my disability is because I don’t fit The Narrative.

(more…)

So, since I feel like jumping in with both feet, here are some of my views on what it means (and doesn’t mean) to be pro-equality:

(more…)