We have had a bit of good news regarding health concerns, and we feel relieved and grateful for that.  Nothing is assured for the future (when is it ever?), but for now the news is good and we feel hopeful, and we are able to live more normally again, and at least for now I will be able to pay more attention here.

Regarding the ongoing conversation about homosexuality and gay Baha'is on the "Big Baha'i Facebook Page" - or whatever it's called, I for the most part have stayed out of that, although I'm glad some from the Gay Baha'is and Allies  have waded in and courageously expressed themselves.  The conversation there is often depressing, and discouraging, and since I don't need that right now, I mostly stay away.  I do think that people there who unknowingly exhibit prejudice, and yes homophobia  are for the most part not malicious, rather they are ignorant, and I do try to remember Abdu'l-Baha's words about educating those who are unaware of a particular truth.  Nevertheless, it's a bit much right now for me to deal with,  so I do appreciate those who have been brave enough to wade in on the conversation there, and am grateful for the occasional supportive voice of others there as well.

What I want to say here is that although I get discouraged with such conversations, I do remember that we are fortunate that the subject is being discussed at all.  Silence has been the great enemy of LGBT Baha'is, and that silence has been broken.  As long as the powers that be could keep LGBT Baha'is separated and silent about the truth of their lives, the prejudice within the Faith had free rein.  Once we begin talking with each other, and sharing our stories, the wall of prejudice within the Faith begins to crumble - because people are listening to those conversations which are public, and they are reading the stories, and those stories/conversations are having an effect.  I remember that old saying that it is impossible to hate someone you really know, whose story and hopes and fears have been shared with you, for it is not possible then to make that person "other."  You have to widen your circle and take that person in, and it works both ways.

So I try to take the long view, rather than focus too closely on prejudiced comments in online discussions.  Change is coming - I don't know when or how, but it will come.   Baha'i is way bigger than the AO - a spirit has been loosed in the world and that spirit will prevail, with the Administrative Order or without.

********************

Not all young women have problems when they realize their sexuality is aimed at girls.  Many slide smoothly through life, backed up by understanding parents, or by an optimistic view of life or by good fortune in the other Lesbians they come into contact with.  Annette recalls how the awareness of her sexuality literally burst upon her and her family some years ago when she was seventeen.

"I had been fascinated for two years with an 'older' woman, Marge, who was a year ahead of me in high school," she said.  "I had played all kinds of games to get her to notice me - and finally all my efforts worked.  She asked me on Tuesday to go to the movies with her on Friday night.  And, of course, I said yes!  I was so excited I couldn't wait to get home after school. As soon as I hit the house I told my mother about my 'date.' 

"'That's nice, dear,' mother said, looking puzzled.  I don't think she quite knew what to make of it.  I was so overwhelmed I really didn't notice her reaction.  Then I told Tom, my older brother.

"'But she's a girl.'

"'So what?'  I bounced away, leaving him open-mouthed.

"I told dad the minute he arrived home from work and left him totally perplexed too.  Aunt Rose was there for dinner and, as I bubbled throughout the meal about Marge - how smart she was, how pretty, how good in debating and athletics - I found my aunt watching me quizzically.  I later found out about the conversation she and mom and dad had had after I'd gone upstairs to study.

"'What in the world has come over Annette?' dad had asked.  "Why should she get so excited over going to a movie with a girlfriend?'

"'It's just a case of school girl worship,' mom thought.  'Marge is older than she.'

But Aunt Rose was not so sure.  'Haven't you doting parents ever noticed Ann's lack of interest in boys and her evident interest in girls?'

"It seems they had," Annette added, "but they really hadn't thought about what these things might mean.  As a matter of fact, neither had I.  But Aunt Rose proceeded to enlighten mom and dad and then later, me.  It worked out well - a total understanding between all of us and never any feelings that I was doing anything wrong or bad.  I sure have a lot to thank Aunt Rose for.  Also Marge, for it seems my instincts were correct.  We became lovers for a while until she went off to college.  We're still in touch with each other, though only on a friendly basis."

***************************

They are to be cherished and protected,

even at the risk of your life.

They will know sadness, but will overcome it.

They will know alienation

for they see past and through this reality.

They will Endure where others cannot.

They will Survive where others cannot.

They know love even when it is not shown to them.

They spend their lives trying to Communicate

the love they know.

"I am an Indian, a woman, a lesbian, a mother, a grandmother, a medicine woman.  I am a spiritual teacher for all women, all people.  I want to help you remember; it is all there inside you; listen and remember.

Thought Woman is the mother of us all.  She has been and still is a part of Indian culture, recognized today by those of us who remember the way of 'the people.'  She is the one who gives us breath; she sang life into each of us.  She has many names and many faces, and is recognized by all tribes, all people, in every nation of the world.  When we strayed from her teachings, she sent us a messenger - White Buffalo Calf Woman, Rainbow Woman, Day Woman, Spider Grandmother - these and many more.  She sent them to remind us who we are and where our spirits came from, and the direction we need to be taking.  She is sending us teachers now to remind us that as women we are the hope and life-force of this world.  That we as women have within us the answers and the knowledge to unite all people with the rest of creation, to live in peace and harmony as she intended.  We are the spiritual and physical leaders.  This is our birthright.

But we need to listen and remember where our power comes from, that 'soft power' of woman, which is the power of love, wisdom, introspection, and innocence given to us by Thought Woman, as opposed to the power of fear and domination by which we are led now.  We need to forget fear, for fear makes us weak.  From our weakness comes domination and wars.  In our weakness we try to conquer and control other people as well as nature.  Then we lose respect for all life, even our own.  We need to be led by 'love,' spiritual love, the love Thought Woman used when she sang life into us.  When we allow that love to come from us we allow ourselves to become complete, balanced human beings.  When we let our physical body unite and become one with our spiritual self, we are no longer a society of warriors led by our fears.

We who are lesbian women need to accept the gift given at birth, the strength to be leaders.  We need to allow ourselves to show that love in us, placed there by Thought Woman.  We need to become the teachers in society.  To do this we have to rid ourselves of the labels and games of this society.   And in doing this we can change ourselves and allow others to change.  They cannot change without our help.  We must realize we are woven together by Spider Grandmother's web of interconnection.  We need to unite our love and expand that web of love to include all people, all of nature, indeed the world.  We are the hope of this world.  And we need to accept the responsibility of our own lives.  We need to change the way we see ourselves.  We are capable of all things.  We must not limit ourselves.  We are a very special part of creation.  We as women were created in the likeness of Thought Woman.  And we as lesbian women were created to lead others to that knowledge within each of us.  Lesbian women were from the beginning the spiritual leaders, the healers, the medicine women, the sacred chosen ones of Thought Woman. 

I am here to teach what was taught to me as a child and through young adulthood.  I am no different from you, I have simply been taught to remember.  And I want to teach all women to remember the knowledge that we are born with, and in that instant of remembering, to accept the responsibility of giving that knolwledge to make a better world.  I am here to put in place that 'soft power' of woman.  So that while the Earth Mother is cleansing herself, we can prepare ourselves for our role as leaders in our new society.  By accepting who we are we create new communities that include all of Thought Woman's creation.  Remembering that we are the same as the four-leggeds, the winged ones, the plants, the rocks, the fish; indeed, all things she created are sacred and they are equal.  I am here to remind each one of you that to become true leaders we must be complete beings.  We must use introspection when making decisions, and we must respect all points of view.  We each have a part of the whole but we need to unite and share our knowledge, putting together each piece to make our new communities.  We cannot force our ideas on others. If we try we have not changed, but are still led by fear.

As the earth's cleansing of itself increases, we will be united out of our need to survive.  Then we must be ready, replacing fear with love, a love that will fill the world.  This love comes from being spiritually and physically balanced.  We become women of soft power by allowing our spiritual/feminine side, which comes from Thought Woman, to unite with our ego/physical/masculine side, which comes from humankind.  And we then become one within the sacred hoop of life.

I am sending my voice to Thought Woman, that this sacred hoop of life we are renewing will continue to grow and encircle this entire universe.

Unite, my sisters, and remember - send your voice with mine and we shall be heard - for she listens.  For we are her children, the children of true happiness."

Janet Spotted Eagle began her training in the Old Ways of the People at age eight.  Part of her purpose has been to heighten the spiritual awareness of women by teaching the Old Ways of the Spirit, the ways of the Indian before the arrival of the dominant culture.

Missouri's 4th District Congressman, Ike Skelton, stated this week he wants to avoid any national discussion on homosexuality.

"What do mommies and daddies say to their 7-year-old child," he asked?  Well, Ike, I suppose that depends on whether those mommies and daddies are straight or gay - or whether they are tolerant or intolerant of families different from their own.  A simple answer to his question is one that I give my preschoolers - "some of our friends have a mommy and a daddy, some of our friends have two mommies or two daddies, some of our friends only have a mommy or only have a daddy, and some of our friends don't have a mommy or a daddy."  That usually ends the discussion because their little wheels get to spinning so fast you really don't need to explain further.  And eventually they understand - we're all different. 

I suppose I could ignore the question.  That seems to be Congressman Skelton's preferred method any time an uncomfortable issue arises.  Unlike Ike, though, I prefer solving problems instead of ignoring them.  Ike wants "Dont Ask Don't Tell" to remain U.S. military policy, despite the nearly 80 percent of Americans who support its repeal, because he doesn't think our soldiers should be engaged in a "social experiment."  And [recently] we discover Ike not only wants to keep "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military; he would rather society as a whole implement the policy.  What does that solve?  Ignorance is bliss?  Well, it's not.

The acceptance of blacks, women, and all religions in the military have illustrated that social experiments in our military can have a positive outcome.  And since I suppose Ike isn't advocating for an all-male, all-white army, I'll have to assume he's worried about the timing of this experiment.  But Ike fails to realize that it's never the wrong time to do the right thing.

Ike's revered by members of his party from one end of the spectrum to the other for his leadership.  And rightly so.  So, I wish Ike would put his leadership to work to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Leadership is responding to challenges in the face of adversity.  Pretending the issue of gays in our military - or gays in general - doesn't exist is the opposite of leadership.

What I find even stranger than Ike's decision to ignore this issue is the decision of others close to him to accept it.  Ike's gay staff member(s), his liberal colleagues, all turn a blind eye to his intolerance.  If Ike is going to refuse to have this conversation, fine.  But those of us who believe in treating all human beings with an equal amount of dignity should not accept his position.

Fortunately, it is not up to Ike whether our nation engages in a national discussion about equal rights.  It's up to teachers, parents, journalists, and anyone who believes in equality to start the discussion.  And eventually Ike will realize that the world has evolved forward, and he has stood still.

{end of article}

Barb

The website will be checked daily, or nearly so, and any new stories posted.  We recommend you re-check the links page, perhaps watch some of the movies listed, and check any of the other links you may have missed before.  The Revoked link (Daniel's website) has a new entry almost every day and there are lots of old entries to check out.  Letters of the Living is frequently renewed as well - Amanda's imagination always finds a new way to stir our own.  Be sure to check out her archives - there are some great past entries.   And if you haven't signed the petition yet, consider doing so!  There may be an occasional new post on Quotables or Heritage pages, or an entry here.  Elsewhere, Talisman9 and Baha'i Rants provide interesting discussion on various Baha'i subjects.  Sen McGlinn's blog is always of interest, as is Sonja's.

We visited our cabin in the woods yesterday, and heard the whippoorwills for the first time this season.  Fireflies and night sounds were healing, and a welcome change from the sometimes too serious thoughts that occupy our minds here and on various discussion groups.  Gay Pride Day is coming up, and we expect to attend local events, as we usually do.  Come fall, we hope to be refreshed and ready to tackle the task of continuing to provoke thought and promote dialogue in the Baha'i community regarding gay rights.  The issue is not going away, and neither are we.

Keep those stories coming!

Barb

By homophobia I do not mean that we quake in our boots and run for the nearest bomb shelter when a gay man or a lesbian walks by.  But if we believe that homosexuals are "problem humans,",  that homosexual relationships are abhorrent to the ultimate good, the Creator of all mankind, that homosexuality subverts the very purpose of human life, that it is a threat to marriage and family life, and to the very foundation of human civilization - that is some serious fear.

Untangling the source of homophobia is a challenge.  It seems to me, from observation, that many males have a deeply emotional, visceral fear of homosexuality, apparently related to a fear of women and of their own feminine shadow that lies hidden within their masculinity.  Why else the fear among boys of being considered "girly?"  Why consider gay men as "pansies," "fairies," "soft"?  For some reason, many men appear to be very insecure in their own masculinity and that masculinity is easily threatened, something which must constantly be asserted by macho behavior - this despite the fact that many "macho men" are gay, and many effeminate men are not.  Still, there is the stereotypical association of femininity with gay men.  Heterosexual men also seem threatened by lesbians because they feel they cannot control or dominate them, or demand their attention,  in the way they think men should be able to if they are "real men" - otherwise, again, their masculinity is threatened.

Women's aversion to homosexuality seems to me to be, in general, not the deep, visceral reaction that men have.  Rather, it is an aversion secondary to the fear that men have - since women are often dependent on men, they fear being labeled lesbian lest their male support turn against them.

These are generalizations, of course, but one has to start somewhere when untangling a knotty problem. 

Another aspect is the traditional patriarchal religious view of homosexuality - if homosexuality is abhorrent to God, the greatest good and our ultimate salvation, then we must guard against it, i.e. be afraid of it - there must be some fearsome potential for evil in it that we do not understand.

Whatever the roots of homophobia are, how do we go about healing ourselves of this social disease?  On purely anecdotal evidence, it seems that a lot of social interaction with people who are openly and proudly gay is a start.  Once you become close friends with gay families, for instance, it is a little hard to consider them as a threat to civilization.  So familiarity with the object of your fear is certainly a factor in overcoming the fear.  Trying to walk a mile in their moccasins is another factor - try to imagine yourself gay, familiarize yourself with the restrictions society places on gays as if they applied to you.  Sort of a "Black Like Me" approach to understanding homophobia.  Imagine that tomorrow morning you will announce to close friends and family that you are a gay man or lesbian.  Sound scary?  Aha! - that might be a sign that there is such a thing as homophobia.

As an aside, there is a very interesting early science fiction story relating to homosexuality and homophobia.  The story is The World Well Lost, by Theodore Sturgeon, published in the 1950s.  A synopsis of the story is available here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Well_Lost.  It's a great story, if you can get hold of it.  It is in Volume 7, I think, of the collection of Sturgeon's short stories that is being published incrementally by North Atlantic Books (I think I have that publisher's name right?).

Now Gary will contribute some of his thoughts...

Barb

   Another aspect in the generation of this prejudice could be that many men subscribe to the notion that heterosexuality is an achievement which has to be earned, and not a development that was inevitable for them.  Many gays have found that shaming and exclusion, earnest prayer, psychotherapy and cold showers could not change their attractions to other men. If all that doesn't work to reverse homosexuality what could possibly cause heterosexuality to wear off?  Surrounded by heterosexuals as gays have been, all their lives, it just failed to rub off on them.  However, there seems to be the fear that the small minority of gays could somehow disturb the sexual orientation of the general public.

   So where did this idea that heterosexuality is so fragile and in constant need of reinforcement come from?  Well, to start with our highschool coaches and staff sergeants somewhere got the idea that being born a man is not enough, and that young males, in particular,  need to pass through all kinds of tests and ordeals in order to prove that they really are what they were already. Threatening men with the loss of their sexual identity turns out to be an excellent method for controlling them, and so this method gained momentum from that cause as well.  Influenced early in life by these masculine authorities, I suppose, Sigmund Freud and C.G. Jung along with almost all of the other early psychoanalysts and developmental psychologists decided that developmental stages were some kind of trial needing to be passed, and that in particular, some abject failures among us flunked early tests, and the result of being such flops made us turn out gay.  Hence the idea that a gay male is a failed heterosexual seemed to be confirmed by science. (But has later been thoroughly debunked).

   It is only natural, group psychology being what it is, that part of the process of convincing oneself that one represents the epitome of mental and physical development, involves scapegoating and tormenting those who are tagged as sexually malformed.  There is reinforcement in contempt.  But what if that reinforcement turns out to be unnecessary because there is no need for all that developmental hard work in the first place? 

   Why is it, if heterosexuality is so frail, that all the straight men didn't suddenly develop erectile dysfunction as soon as Massachusetts legalized gay marriage?  Why didn't all our sons run off with their best male friends for gala weddings in Provincetown?  Why didn't all the straight families suddenly fall apart?  The answer, I suspect, is that heterosexuality and families are not at all the flimsy affairs that some fear them to be.

   Now for a guess about why this idea of frail heterosexuality gets traction in the first place.  Isn't it obvious?  Men, and men alone, can fail in sexual intercourse in all kinds of ways, which I will not bother the reader in enumerating.  Let's just say that it is a short hop from any one of these kinds of failure experiences to the conclusion that erection, timed ejaculation, etc. have to be "achieved" rather than just being allowed to happen in their own times and places.  And of course, these natural functions can be interfered with by the perception of pressure to "achieve."  But the realization that a man is vulnerable in "performing" the act of sex (the idea of "performance" itself in this arena is noxious) does not logically entail the conclusion that heterosexuality itself is a matter requiring constant performance, maintenance and reinforcement.  It does not need at all to be protected by a mass of macho character armor.  Quite to the contrary, a change of locale, a little pill, a little less alcohol, an argument settled and the heterosexual male is soon fully functioning again; but not, we notice, with a member of the same sex.  In truth, these little setbacks in the act don't amount to a heap of refried beans where sexual orientation is concerned.

   Men, we can't be forced or seduced to be who we aren't and we don't have to work forcing ourselves  to be who we are.  We get our sexual identities for free.

                                Gary

   As for facts in the world, we do feel that we often know them for sure, but our knowledge of them, even in science, is of a different order and much less exact than our certainties about mathematics.  For example, statements about the world are less likely to be true the more exact they are.  If I tell you that I weigh between 68 and 75 kilos, or that the coast of England is between X and Y thousands of miles long, what I say is much more likely to be true than if I give you an exact number.  In fact, no exact number will be true of such things.  For another thing, we now know that some realities cannot ever, in principle, be determined exactly, such as the position and velocity of subatomic particles, or the state of a subatomic particle in quantum uncertainty.

   This has to do with three problems.  First, the world is always changing and exact statements about it do not change with the facts.  Secondly, words do not correspond to objects in any precise one to one fashion.  We perceive and experience objects as bundles of qualities, and we have words for some of these like "solid," "heavy," "hot," "deformable" etc. but it is obvious that these words do not capture the phenomena in and of themselves, with the exception of some poetic words that yield the qualities they describe, such as the word "hissing" does a bit.

  Translation is the third problem.  The word "love" in English, or the word "know" or the word "infallible" for that matter, may not translate well into another language.  It may mean different things in different contexts, and at different times.  If, for instance, I said "James is mad" in 1750 in England it would mean something different from my saying it now in the USA.  And think of the phrase "I love you" as it has been said in many languages, in many times and to many different people.  There is no single, univocal meaning to that phrase!

   In the realm of values, the term "infallible" is simply not applicable.  Take any commandment, such as Thou Shalt Not Kill, or Thou Shalt Not Covet, or any proverb such as "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."  You can think of situations in which such statements are apt and of others in which they are not.  Volumes could be written about possible meanings of "to kill" or "to covet" just for starters, and then volumes more about when such ambiguous concepts should apply and in which sense. 

   I see moral aesthetic and spritual life as simply too fluid, too ambiguous, and too bound up with quality and emotion for any set of pronouncements to be infallibly, or absolutely, or eternally correct.  "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth:  so is every one that is born of the spirit."  John, Chap. 3 verse 8, King James Version.

   Here is a paradox to chew on:  The wise are only certain of being uncertain.

     Sincerely, Gary.

Regarding the question of homosexuality and a more just society for gays/lesbians, Baha'is run up against this mistaken understanding of infallibility - a secretary writing on behalf of the Guardian gave an "infallible" interpretation of Baha'u'llah's intention, and our life experience or education or awareness of dissonance with a scientific understanding of homosexuality count for nothing in the face of this "infallible" statement.  We use infallibility as an excuse for not independently investigating the facts for ourselves and using our God-given conscience and intelligence to arrive at the truth of the matter.

Baha'is are stuck in the 1950s regarding homosexuality.  I flinch at the ignorance of a Baha'i's statement (heard recently) that gays are spiritually "diseased."   I shake my head when a Baha'i speaks of changing one's sexual orientation with effort and prayer and the help of a physician.   I am further amazed when Baha'is who make such statements go on to profess to others their belief in unity in diversity, the oneness of mankind, independent investigation of truth, elimination of prejudice, and the necessary unity of science and religion.   These contradictory positions would be funny if they weren't so tragic.  Our position is similar to that of the Catholic Church, which took a few hundred years to catch up to Galileo, because of "infallible" guidance.  Enforcing celibacy on gay Baha'is will result in just as much trouble for the Baha'i Faith as the principle of celibacy for priests has for the Catholic Church.  Heterosexual Baha'is have the choice to marry or remain celibate.   Gay Baha'is have no such choice - there is no provision for a legal, committed same-sex relationship in the Baha'i Faith.   BNASAA, the Faith's attempt at some sort of justice for gays, lumps homosexuality together with substance abuse, AIDS, alcoholism, and promiscuity - guilt by association, hardly an honorable point of view, and they leave no room for committed, healthy, same-sex relationships.  There has even been talk of, in future, preventing gay folks from ever being birthed.  Trying to imagine a world without gay folks, I always think of Rita Mae Brown's statement, "If Michelangelo were a heterosexual, the Sistine Chapel would have been painted basic white and with a roller."

Let's be frank about this - any "infallible guidance" which leads to feelings of shame regarding the essence of one's being  and thus to suicide attempts for young Baha'is is guidance in error.

This morning at breakfast I read a New York Times article in the Dining section - White House Pastry Meets Policy, about Bill Yosses, the openly gay pastry chef for the Obamas' White House (he was hired originally by Laura Bush in 2007).  Mr. Yosses, described as a cheerful, perfectionist though patient veteran of New York restaurant kitchens, is obviously a happy and well adjusted human being, doing the work he loves, and always willing to teach others what he knows, and he happens to be in a long-term, committed relationship with another man.  After I finished the article, I sat and imagined the Baha'is telling Mr. Yosses that he suffers an abhorrent spiritual condition, which he must struggle to overcome if he wishes to become a Baha'i.  Of course no well adjusted, self-respecting gay person would want to join such a backward (on this subject) religion.  And those who find themselves already Baha'i and  realize they are gay, and begin to understand the implications of Baha'i teaching about homosexuality, are caught in a terrible conflict.  Understandably, many of them - perhaps most, drift away from the Faith.  Some of our young gay Baha'is attempt suicide.  The same predicament holds for heterosexual Baha'is who are supportive of gay rights and realize their supposedly progressive and forward-looking religion has a terrible blind spot.  Who can support gay rights and be supportive of the Baha'i approach to homosexuality? 

A story posted just this morning, from Sean, is reminiscent of the words traditionally attributed to Martin Niemoller, a German pastor who at first supported Hitler because he was anti-communist, and then when he realized the nature of Hitler's regime, opposed the Nazis, and was later thrown into a concentration camp:

They came first for the Communists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a  Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and by that time no one was left to speak up.*

(* There are a number of different versions of this quotation, slightly different and mentioning different groups.)

The idea that it is possible to have one right, infallible (in the sense of free from error) position on any moral question leaves the way open for religious animosity and violence, to say nothing of self-righteousness.  It does not leave the way open for a contribution of scientific investigation or life experience to the solving of a difficult question.  If we could refer any moral/religious question for an absolute, free-from-error answer, what would be left for us to do but obey?  And if we are created only to obey, why do we have reason and moral conscience as the very nature of our being?  Why humanity at all?  Why not a race of robots to carry out the Will of the Creator?  Why do we seek infallibility, certainty, perfection?  Because it relieves us of the personal responsibility of decision-making, of wrestling with the meaning of life, as did Job?  "The perfect is the enemy of the good" is written inside my prayer book, just to remind me.

Having someone pat my head and say "There, there, dear - don't worry your pretty little head about it, we'll take care of those knotty moral problems" doesn't appeal.  Haven't we been there and done that?  Having everyone march to the same drummer scares me a lot more than the thought of  some people hearing their own tune and dancing to it. 

The Universal House of Justice was designed for flexibility and growth  - times passes, things change.  What a wonderful notion.

Barb (email barbruthw@sbcglobal.net)