I've spent the entire election season passionately bashing both George W. Bush and John Kerry. I view George W. Bush as a man (word used very loosely here) who has spent most of his tenure as the Commander-in-Chief working to remove as many civil liberties as possible: the Patriot Act, the anti-gay ban, abortion issues. I won't go on. The list is too long. I've also believed, since the day W announced the US was attacking Iraq because of their supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction, that he was a man who spoke his own version of the truth. I have had very little respect for the leader who leads by forcing others to follow -- just change the Constitution, write a new bill, change a few laws. That'll get us all in line.
The first time I saw John Kerry I knew I didn't like him. I didn't know anything about him or what kind of politician he was; I just knew I didn't like him. His eyes remind me of George W's eyes. Once I learned more about his political career, I learned there was very little about John Kerry that provoked an immense desire to support him and want this man as my next Commander-in-Chief. Honestly, he really does seem to be swayed by the hot issue of the moment. And frankly, that bothers me. His voting record speaks volumes and I don't believe anyone can deny that it shows a lot of inconsistencies. His views on gay marriage really sealed the deal for me. So I thought.
I had planned to write in Kucinich. When asked who I planned to vote for, I stubbornly replied, "I'm writing in Kucinich, because I hate both Dubya & Kerry." I still hate them. But, of all the issues that have been near and dear to me during the election, none of them are as important as the Supreme Court.
Yes, I would like to see gays and lesbians receive full and equal rights in this country -- rights that will allow us to legally marry as heterosexuals do. Not a civil union as the Kerry/Edwards ticket has offered us as a compromise, but marriage. Yes, I would like to see a strong multi-party system in this country, one that really gives the people a choice. And yes, I would really like to see a Commander-in-Chief who leads by example -- finally! But what I don't want to see is George W. Bush appointing the next Supreme Court justice.
I will vote for John Kerry and John Edwards on Tuesday, November 2. Really, I have no other choice.
I've had so many volunteers knocking on my door this year. It seems like the most important election in a long time. I guess all the effort everyone is making to get people motivated to vote made me think about why this election was so important.
By the way, that paper endorsed Bush, even though it's in Madison, WI -- the capital of WI and the most liberal city in the state. I should also say that Madison, WI suffered very little economically in the past 4 years. It had a very strong economy and a strong job market.
First they came for the homosexuals, and how many of you were silent? The House of Representatives voted to remove an American citizen's right to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. Then, they came for the religious minorities and how many of you were silent? The House of Representatives voted to deny an American citizen the right to challenge the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Now, Dubya and the Republican party are coming after potential disenfranchised and neglected voters arguing only Attorney General Ashcroft has the right to sue to enforce voting rights -- not individual citizens. How many of you will be in that group? How many of you will be outraged? How many of you will be people who weren't members of the first two groups and yet you were silent? How many of you will be members of the next group the government comes after -- and yet you are still silent?
On October 13, The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of a tiny computer chip for implantation in a patient’s arm. This chip is meant to speed a hospital's access to a patient's vital medical records. But, opponents claim this chip poses a huge threat to a person's privacy.
The chips is the size of a grain of rice and is placed beneath the skin in less than 20 minutes. No stitches. No fuss. The chip is read with a scanner. Since the chip can track a patient's whereabouts, critics have raised an enormous red flag. And rightfully so.
In the age of the Patriot Act, an act that dictates the government can have access to an American citizen's private phone records, internet records, and search a person's home (all without ever obtaining a warrant or informing you that the search ever took place), I would be very leery of allowing any doctor to place a chip beneath my skin.
Due to the recklessness of our government officials and the likes of people like Ann Coulter, I would be particularly worried about immigrants and those people whose racial profile fits that of a supposed terrorist. Muslims living in America should be most afraid of allowing a doctor to implant these chips beneath their skin.
Those who support the use of these chips claim the chips are useful and vital because it makes life easier for medically mobile patients since their medical records tend to get fragmented on computers. I'm thinking if a company can create technology as advanced as a microchip that is implanted beneath the skin, they can certainly create a satellite system of sorts that makes transmitting medical records easier -- no microchip necessary.
Is human chip implant wave of the future? : The debate is no longer hypothetical. The same computing power that once required an entire building to harness now can be inserted in your left arm
I'm thinking Dubya might be feeling a bit stupid right about now. Bin Laden's video said a few things today.
1. Bin Laden is still alive and pretty damn healthy.
2. Dubya has no damn clue where Bin Laden is.
3. Bin Laden still has the ability to produce and distribute communication to the US -- communication that contains snide remarks about our Commander-in-Chief.
4. We've spent 18 months in Iraq and looks like Bin Laden has spent 18 months on vacation
Missing explosives disappeared right under our noses. Bin Laden is missing (well, only to the USA because he looks pretty alive, well, and found to me); he disappeared right under our noses. I recall a rather pompous comment Dubya made at a March 2002 press conference: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from [Osama bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Well, since there's nothing to be concerned about, I don't know why everyone's making a fuss.
Speaking of videos, if you haven't seen it yet, watch the other video that makes Dubya look stupid and irresponsible too.
For some percentage of white people, that skin can be covered in an Armani suit and you could be looking at your Rolex through your Serengetti Drivers, and you'll still be an "n". And I likewise don't believe that we should stop using any and all means to achieve equality for minorities (which to me means "equality for all people").
I agree. For some, you could be in an Armani suit, driving a BMW, and living in the biggest house in Beverly Hills. You're still a "nigger."
The solution begins with the self. Yes. But the self must have some sense of self-respect, dignity, and self-esteem to even begin to solve the problem. Where does that come from? What is the reason so many lack that?
Women now make up almost half the working population. Women also make up half of the students in college. At one point in history that was not the case. I have a fictitious analogy that may help explain my viewpoint.
Imagine the US was divided by gender only -- and not race. Race was not a factor at all. No one cared at all about race even though the country consists of many races. Gender was the item that established class.
Now imagine that men decided that women would be the lower class -- the class that would serve the upper class. I mean, let's face it. We live in a world where someone has to be on the bottom.
Now, imagine that women were forced to live in all-female neighborhoods, and men lived in all male neighborhoods. Women could only leave their all-female neighborhoods once they married -- thus creating a third class of married couples (a class that's still above the female only class). Now, since men want to ensure that they remain the upper class, they setup the system in such a way that schools are funded based on the value of homes in your neighborhood.
Ok, so the homes in all-female neighborhoods are worth less than homes in all-male neighborhoods and those neighborhoods that consist of married couples. The schools in the all-female neighborhoods receive little funding so those schools have trouble buying textbooks or even finding good teachers.
Now imagine this system continuing for decades until someone in the all-female class says, "Wait, this is bullshit" and decides to educate everyone around them about how unfair the system is. And the all-male class freaks the fuck out because they've known all along how unfair it was.
Ok, so now they have to come up with some diversions. They now start to make race an issue when it never was before -- divide and conquer the all-female class so they're distracted from their mission. And then, they decide to throw a liquor store on every corner in these all-female neighborhoods. Now you have an all-female class of people that's bitter, disillusioned, angry and drinking through their misery.
In the meantime, let's bring some drugs into the picture. The all-male class knows drugs are becoming a major problem in the country. They make every effort to ensure that their class gets affected as little as possible while they sit back and watch the all-female class suffer. Why? Because the all-female class has started to revolt and they want equal rights and the all-male class ain't having it.
I could go on and on with this analogy, but I think you know where I'm going with it. This is what has happened to Blacks in America. And while many of us are the culprits when it comes to the problems in our lives, let's look at the process it took to get to that. No, I'm not saying white Americans are responsible for our misery, but what I am saying is that so much of the negativity we see running rampant in Black American communities is a direct result of the system that wanna-be-superior-white Americans have worked hard to keep in place. Yes, a lot of people will still view my comments as "woah is me" rhetoric; they will because they suffer from the inability to think critically about issues, particulary those issues that provoke some resemblance of shame.
What Black Americans need to recognize, first and foremost, is the root of the problem. You can't deal with the problem unless you know what it is. And so many people don't want Black Americans to know what it is; instead they want us to internalize all blame. From there, we have to work our asses off -- oftentimes harder than most. Nobody's giving us anything, and really we shouldn't expect it. That's not to say I don't support Affirmative Action because I do. I support Affirmative Action because some people and institutions just won't do right and they need a swift kick in the ass. Once we truly value education and we know how to play the game wanna-be-superior-white-A mericans created -- better than they know how to play it -- we will make huge strides towards securing a better future for our children. Wanna-be-superior-White-A mericans already know this. It's time we know it, and live it.
I read the article We As Blacks Are Our Own Worst Enemy and I wanted to address a few issues Mr. Adams, the author, discussed. The author's basic premise is that Blacks are the reason Blacks are having a hard time in this country; white Americans are not the enemy, Black Americans are. The author asserts that Blacks have little respect for each other, have little respect for authority, and do not see the value in education. I disagree with Mr. Adams's assertion and I view it as a form of self-hatred and loathing of one's own race.
Mr. Adams stated:
[Blacks] rent from rent-a-center, without thinking that $19.00 a week to rent a VCR, is $80.00 a month, probably the cost of the VCR itself. Why, when a black designer comes out with our everyday clothes, they cost us the price of a mortgage? Why is it that when my cousin got a settlement check of 20,000 dollars, he spent it all on a BMW (that was repossesed) and didn't have a house to live in?
I'm not sure how these examples equate to Blacks -- as an entire class -- acting as their own worst enemy. Whites, Hispanics, and Asians rent from Rent-A-Center. White designers charge just as much as Black designers for high fashion. It's high fashion, that's what I expect. I don't expect a Black designer to charge me less just because I'm Black. Airports and businesses are filing bankruptcy on a regular basis because they can't pay their bills. There are homeless white people in this country; there are homeless Black people in this country. Financial problems are an equal opportunity problem. It appears to me that Mr. Adams has exaggerated the financial problems of some Blacks in an effort to make it appear as if these issues contribute to the success or failure of all people within the Black race.
Mr. Adams also said this:
[Blacks] get a high paying job, and we make it hard on blacks. If a black person is under a black person, the black worker doesn't want to respect the black person, while kissing the white persons behind. WE have the problems. I for one, am not looking for anybody white to give, or do anything for me.
While Mr. Adams is not expecting a white person to do anything for him, this statement (along with other statements made in his opinion piece) suggests that he does expect a Black person to do a favor or two. When those favors aren't performed, Mr. Adams views that perceived defiance as detrimental to the advancement of all Black people.
Mr. Adams pointed to music and what he calls "pimp movies" as another tool Blacks use to destroy each other:
We have to make our entertainers stop degrading ourselves, its just blacksploitation part 2, first it was the pimp movies in the 70's that messed us up, now its nasty degrading words in our everyday songs....who's gonna stop it? Not the record companies.
Rock music didn't destroy white teenagers in the 50s any more than Black entertainers are destroying Black people and Black culture. There are a number of Black artists who produce works that many people find offensive -- people of all races; however, there are so many more Black artists who create works that promote a healthy appreciation of art, music, education, and the self. I support the freedom of artistic expression, even if certain expressions conjure up very little appreciation. Perhaps Mr. Adams should be more supportive of his Black brothers and sisters even if he doesn't appreciate the work; afterall, these are Blacks who are not buying from Rent-A-Center and don't have to worry about where they will sleep at night -- a couple of Mr. Adams's biggest concerns. Good parenting will offset most negativity Black children view in offensive art. Why should we, as Black parents, expect the record companies, or the artists, to raise our children?
Mr. Adams asked "If pro is the opposite of con, what's the opposite of progress?" I would argue that Mr. Adams's opinions offer a very good example of the opposite side of progress. He has engaged in and exemplified the divide and conquer strategy at play -- and has been applauded enthusiastically by several people who don't care to hear someone like me demand that politicians work more to address issues important to Blacks in this country -- like the AIDS epidemic among Black women and the enormous gap in unemployment rates between white workers and Black workers. Mr. Adams has not pointed to the Black elected officials in the House and Senate as a sign of progress; instead, he's chosen to complain about how little those few Black representatives have done for him lately. Mr. Adams has not acknowleged the progress Blacks have made to secure management positions in top firms; instead he's chosen to complain about how little they've done to help him lately. Mr. Adams has not acknowledged the fact that Blacks can enjoy artistic freedom someplace other than Paris; instead, he's chosen to complain about the lyrics. It seems to me that Mr. Adams himself is a Black man's worst enemy -- not the entire Black population itself.
They Divide Both to Conquer Each: . . . a closer look reveals that these divisions are deliberately fostered in order to prevent the exploited from uniting against the minority of rich exploiters.
I finally read the article about Ann's pie surprise. I read she was paid $20,000 to talk her smack. Man, I'm tellin' ya. She does that for the money. There are enough people in this world who want so badly to be able to say what Ann says, so they gladly pay her the money to do it.
Think about it: she's a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe. Or is she really? There are a lot of people in this world who are too afraid to stand up in the middle of a room and say nasty things about women. But Ann will do it. She blamed the presence of women in the military for the Iraq prison abuse scandals. I mean, come on! How many men would have the guts to do that? Ok, Rush Limbaugh would, but he's fat and ugly (and you know he is, so don't deny it). That's Ann's appeal; she's easier to look at. She's a 100 pound blonde bitch who talks a lot of shit. And as much as men hate to admit it, they love a good bitch who knows about something other than hair and makeup.
Ann knows that and she has marketed that persona so damn well. She's appealing to all the angry white men who are pissed off about Affirmative Action. Sorry guys, I know it sucks to have to step aside finally, but those are the breaks. It's been 200+ years, dontcha think it's time to let someone else into the club? Ann appeals to the men who have wounded egos because their women make more money than they do. So, instead of the men saying, "honey, stay at home and be a pregnant housewife so my manhood feels big and strong," Ann does it for them. Ann appeals to the homophobic men whose sexuality is threatened by the mere presence of a gay man in the same room. Ann appeals to the Christians who want so badly to win all heathens over to God. Ann appeals to the conservative housewives who absolutely hate that bitch next door (and you know who you are) who has it all: a husband, a job, 2.5 kids, a house, and a picket fence. Ann appeals to the housewives who are jealous of the single woman who ain't got a man, don't want a man, and could care less if she found one because she has money of her own, makes her own rules, and lives her life the way she wants to. Oh, Ann has appeal all over the place because there are so many angry and jaded people in the world.
The "politically correct" environment we are living in has created a market that is perfect for the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world. There are so many wimpy ass Americans who can't just say what they have to say, so they pay Ann Coulter $20,000 for a 2-hour time slot so she can say it for them. I won't even get started on the equally wimpy ass ditto heads who just love some Rush Limbaugh. They're the ones who come to the SistersTalk blog and make nasty, rude, homophobic, racist comments -- incognito of course. Losers. If you have an opinion, say it and say it loud. Put your name next to it, too. And put your money back in your pocket. Stop paying someone else to do your talking for you.
Links Related to Creating Your Brand Image for Business:
Brand - Marketing : A short introduction into branding - What is a brand? What makes up a brand identity?
IDENTITY AND BRAND IMAGE: While an Identity and a Brand Image are somewhat connected, it takes a lot more than a name and a graphical logo to establish a Brand. An Identity is merely one aspect of building a recognizable Brand Name.
AllAboutBranding: Extensive glossary on branding and creating a brand image.
I've been fascinated with the Supreme Court since taking a class on the court's makeup at my alma mater, Beloit College. The one thing I remember the most about that class was Justice Scalia and the book he wrote on constitutionalism. He's a strict constitutionalist -- so he claims. So, I'm guessing if Bush has to replace Rehnquist, Scalia would be his choice. Heaven help us all. Also, since Cheney and Scalia are quite chummy, that's another ace in the hole for Cheney's personal Halliburton shield.
The Supreme Court's makeup has been one of the hot issues during the presidential election, but I don't think too many of us have paid as much attention to it as we should. It's been noted that at least one Justice plans to retire within the next four years -- maybe even as many as three Justices. If I have to choose the person I want to replace those Justices, it wouldn't be George W. Bush.
The makeup of the court is an extremely important issue to me. I dislike Justice O'Connor with much passion. I'm hoping O'Connor, Thomas, and Scalia can accompany Dubya back to Texas in January. I would say the Supreme Court's makeup is even more important to me than my desire to see the Democratic party dismantled and reassembled.
Perhaps our elected officials are somewhat worried that John Kerry will appoint the next Supreme Court Justices. After all, the House of Representatives has made a rather bold move to strip the high court of its ability to rule on "under god" in the pledge of allegiance and it's moved to strip the high court of any ability to hear cases that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. Was this all in preparation for a Supreme Court that just might consist of a liberal majority in the near future?
Constitutionalism: Constitutionalism is the idea, often associated with the political theories of John Locke and the "founders" of the American republic . . .
Eminem has just released an anti-Bush video designed to encourage people to get out and vote. I'm not a huge Eminem fan, but I thought the video was interesting to say the least. It's definitely making a huge statement. You may have some problem getting to the video. It took a few tries for me to view it.
Update Octber 28, 2004: The video works great now. Please, take a look.
Fence-sitters. Closeted-dykes. We have all sorts of names for bisexuals, don't we?
I made a new friend online the other day and we were discussing women who are bisexual because their husbands and boyfriends want them to be. I insisted those were not bisexuals, they were only women who were engaging (pathetically, I might add) in bisexual behavior just to please a man. How many of you conservative women reading this have done that? Don't lie either. I have it on good authority that there are plenty of you who have. If a woman has to "become" a bisexual to keep her husband interested in their sex life, that woman needs a new husband. But hey, people have to do what they gotta do, right?
Those bisexuals don't usually concern lesbians because they're usually running in packs together -- looking for other married bisexuals. The ones who usually suffer the brunt of our harsh criticism are the ones who we feel are just playing with women until the right guy comes along. When I hear a lesbian say, "I don't date bisexuals because I don't want to have to worry about her leaving me for a man," I just cringe. Excuse me. What does it matter who she leaves you for if she's plannin' on leavin'? I guess it would equate to the same ego blow that men receive when their wives leave them for one of those women they were playing around with. Ouch!
The insecurity of bisexuality. I think that's the problem so many lesbians have with bisexuals. I can't think of anything else. It would explain why someone like me (once married, mother of two, now lesbian) receives a much different reception among lesbians than a self-proclaimed bisexual woman does. Because I have identified as a lesbian, there's less risk that I would suddenly decide that a woman isn't what I want. Now, Sinead O'Connor blew that theory straight to hell when she removed herself from the last Lilith Fair tour and announced she was marrying a man. Talk about a surprise!
I'm trying to figure out the best way to word this. I'm thinking relationships are at their strongest when two people enter them with the best intentions. The country is sitting at a 50% divorce rate, so obviously even heterosexuals can't get the relationship thing right. For lesbians though, I suppose the added worry is that bisexuals throw an extra wrench in the equation because now there's a variable that's really beyond your control at play. That's making a huge assumption (an unfair assumption) that bisexuals are flippant and less committed to their relationships than lesbians are.
What I don't understand about our disdain for bisexuals though is that we embrace celebrities like Ani DiFrano who is bisexual, married to a man, and has a man running her record label. We call her a lesbian and we call her music "lesbian music." I'm not an Ani fan, by the way. I think her music is total propaganda, created to appeal to those people who want so badly to see her as a lesbian feminist. That's another blog entry entirely though. Also, there's Margaret Cho, who if you listen to her words carefully, always speaks more for and to male homosexuals. Don't get me wrong, Cho is funny as all hell and she's done much for promoting awareness of LGBT issues. But ya can't see her biases through your laughter.
It's really bad to see so much strife in what's often called a community: the LGBT community. The lesbians have it in for the bisexuals. The gay men have a problem with lesbians (don't act like you don't). The lesbians sitting in their corner bitchin' about the gay men who kiss them to say hello: "if one more fag kisses me . . . " And everybody bitchin' about the transgendered people. We're not all putting knives in each other's backs, of course not. But there's enough of us behaving like that to where it makes enough of a difference.
Robert of Let's Try Freedom, one of my BlogRolling partners, sent me a link to one of his posts called Why I Am Pro Life. He sent me two links actually. The other was We Are Citizen Soldiers. My first instinct was to skip the Pro-Lifer one and just read the other one because I'm Pro-Choice. But I'm a curious one, so of course I read the Pro-Life one first. Here's why he's Pro-Life:
Isn't she so damn cute? That's Stephanie. There's a picture of Stephanie in the womb, at age 1, and age 2 on Robert's blog.
I was in the process of commenting on Robert's blog that I was going to pass on the Pro-Life issue and instead move on to the other post, but then I reconsidered. I haven't talked about this yet and now is as good a time as any.
I have 2 children of my own -- boys, ages 12 and 10. Tonight I had a rather interesting conversation with my 12 year old -- one that reminded me of all the times when I must have made my mama crazy with anger. Ever had one of those? Ever hear yourself talking to your child and you think, "oh my gawd, I sound like my mother!" Yeah, one of those. Anyway, I was thinking of the good ol' days when all he did was smile at me and think I was all that. That ended at about age 3.
I remember telling my conservative Christian boyfriend I was pregnant. I was 19. He was 21. I was pretty surprised to hear him utter the word "abortion." And utter he did too. I said, "Are you crazy? My mama and grandmama would kill me." I'm from a rather large family of single mothers and the thought of having a baby on my own didn't bother me. My boyfriend wasn't having any girl walking around with an illegitimate child of his, so 8 months later we finally married.
While I would never have an abortion, I support a woman's right to choose; however, I do believe people need to make better decisions so abortion is never an issue. I'm not talking about cases of rape or incest. I'm talking about cases of plain stupidity and unprotected sex -- like in my case. And ladies, guys do lie. You may want to put the condom on for them yourself to make sure it's done -- and done properly.
I hesitate getting into the moral issues of the hows and whys of unwanted pregnancies because now we're bordering on privacy issues. A 15 year-old girl who shows up at a clinic wanting an abortion shouldn't be subjected to questioning about how or why she's pregnant. There might be something really deep going on with a pregnant 15 year-old, something that might require years of counseling. I mean, why is a 15 year-old having sex to begin with?
We could talk about that same 15 year-old giving her child up for adoption instead of having an abortion, but what if the 15 year-old is African American? What are the odds that the child would be adopted in its infancy? Statistics show that children are harder to adopt as they get older because people usually want to adopt babies, not toddlers. Now what? We have a system full of children in foster care?
There are no easy answers. And because of this I support a woman's right to choose the answer she feels is best -- even if it's not the one I would choose.
According to White House and Washington Beltway insiders, the Bush administration, worried that it could lose the presidential election to Senator John F. Kerry, has initiated plans to launch a military strike on Iran's top Islamic leadership, its nuclear reactor at Bushehr on the Persian Gulf, and key nuclear targets throughout the country, including the main underground research site at Natanz in central Iran and another in Isfahan. Targets of the planned U.S. attack reportedly include mosques in Tehran, Qom, and Isfahan known by the U.S. to headquarter Iran's top mullahs.
For once, I'm hoping the conservatives are right. I really hope this is a wild conspiracy theory. If it's not, the USA will be engaged in a war with both Iran and Iraq at a time when the federal government has reached it debt ceiling. How can we finance two wars like this?
99% chance of attack on Iran: Amman - A prominent Jordanian journalist on Monday expected the United States or Israel to launch a "pre-emptive strike" against Iran in September or October with a view to enhancing President George Bush's re-election chances. Article dated August 30, 2004
The C-I-A has reportedly moved as many as a dozen prisoners out of Iraq in the last six months, which could violate international treaties.
The detainees were removed without notification to the International Red Cross, congressional oversight committees, the Defense Department or CIA investigators, the newspaper said in Sunday editions, citing unidentified government officials.
I haven't seen much blogging on this yet. So, if anyone has any links to blogs on this issue, please post them.
We have been told by several avid Bush supporters that the days when newspapers publish editorials without personal repercussions are over. As publishers, we have printed editorials for decades, and have endorsed candidates, both Republican and Democrat. When Bush was endorsed four years ago, the Gore supporters did not respond with threats, nor did Democrats when we endorsed Reagan twice. Republicans did not threaten us personally or our business when we endorsed Carter and Clinton for their first terms.
It's gettin' dirty and it appears that Dubya and his team are playin' the nastiest. I read in a local paper today that Dubya has started requiring that people sign an oath of allegiance before they attend any of his rallies. I'd also heard that on a radio station out of Ohio last week when both Bush and Kerry were scheduled to visit a high school in an unknown area in Ohio (I didn't catch the name of the town). The woman being interviewed said she was disgusted that she had to sign something pledging her allegiance to Bush just to attend the rally.
It's not just the Republicans who are playin' nasty. Some Kerry supporters are gunnin' for Ralph Nader -- posting on their blogs Nader's supposed connection to a cult in Ireland (I believe that's where it is, I stopped paying attention). Even if it's 100% true, what good will that do Kerry? Nader isn't the reason Kerry is struggling to gain/maintain a lead in the polls -- John Kerry is the reason. Nader isn't the reason Al Gore lost in 2000, Al Gore is. If there weren't so many disenfranchised Democrats in the country, Gore might be sitting in the White House. Should we blame Nader for feeling obligated to offer the people a real, true, progressive candidate in 2000? Should we blame Nader for feeling obligated to advocate change in our political system? Should we blame Nader because Gore really sucked? I mean honestly, he did.
I was reading a rather lengthy post on Alena's blog. It was a rant by Michael Moore. In this rant, he said:
If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. He went on to say:
Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have.
And that's what a lot of people are doing. Settling. That's what we've always done. Settled. Because we've settled (for what feels like forever) for whatever the Democrats present to us, a candidate like Ralph Nader was able to come along and say, "aren't ya tired of settling?" And somebody heard him. A whole lot of people heard him -- not enough to get him in the White House, but enough to obviously cause a stir. I heard him for sure, but I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for Bush or Gore either.
I'd rather see Kerry in the White House. I won't deny that. But that's only because I'd hate to see Dubya there for four more years. Since that's the only reason I could come up with for wanting to see Kerry in the White House, I decided to do a write-in again this election year. I'll do write-ins forever, or until the person I feel is best for the country is already listed on the ballot.
So, after the election is over, regardless of the outcome, the new task will be snatching the House and Senate away from the Republicans. I'm not sure how advantageous that will really be since there was quite a bit of legislation passed under Clinton that I wasn't happy about. I'll try to remain optimistic though.
Nader and the Newmanites: What in the world is Ralph Nader doing in bed with the ultrasectarian cult-racket formerly known as the New Alliance Party?
The Guardian profile: Ralph Nader : Former Nader's raiders are determined to stop the man they believe lost the 2000 election for the Democrats doing so once again. He says that if the US constitution means anything, it is his right to put his name on the ballot paper
Ann Coulter has released a book of opinion pieces and articles that were rejected by various magazines and newspapers. MediaMatters pulled the following excerpts from Ann's book, entitled How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter
The real reason I loathe and detest feminists is that real feminists, the core group, the Great Thinkers of the movement, which I had until now dismissed as the invention of a frat boy on a dare, have been at the forefront in tearing down the very institutions that protect women: monogamy, marriage, chastity, and chivalry. And surveying the wreckage, the best they have to offer is: "Call me Ms." [p. 324]
Now, I have no dispute with gay men, but I consider an evening out sorely incomplete if it does not include at least one heterosexual member of the opposite sex. [p. 327]
Didn't I tell you that bitch was just pissing people off to earn a living? If I didn't have it on good authority that Ann Coulter was suffering from some very serious Conservative male penis envy, I'd think her book was just comic relief -- something you sit on the back of your toilet when ya just need a good laugh. The woman is already one of the biggest conservative asses I've seen in all my days. She would be the ugliest if she came complete with a penis and a deep voice. Oh, she can dream can't she?
FOX News Channel host and radio host Bill O'Reilly remarked about lawsuits filed in connection with an allegation of sexual harassment against him on the October 18 edition of The Radio Factor:
CALLER: One quick thing. My money's on your side in this unfortunate lawsuit you're going through.
O'REILLY: Well, thank you. I appreciate that.
CALLER: You gotta take Sister Mary Peters with you when you're with single women.
O'REILLY: Listen, I have to say this -- I had to protect my family, this is my fault. I was stupid, and I'm not a victim, but I can't allow certain things to happen. And I appreciate your support, we get thousands of letters, but I'm not -- I am stupid. I am a stupid guy, and every guy listening knows how it is. That we are very stupid at times.
But there comes a time in life where you gotta stand and fight. And I knew these people were gonna do this, I knew they were gonna do everything they could to try to destroy me and the channel. And I just made the decision that I'm just gonna ride it out. And I'm gonna fight 'em, because what's right is right.
Andrea Mackris, an associate producer for "The O'Reilly Factor," filed a sexual harassment suit against O'Reilly alleging he made inappropriate sexual comments to her detailing his sexual fantasies -- over the phone, during dinners, and in person.
O'Reilly's attorney states "he does not believe that anything alleged in the suit rises to the level of illegal activity." Notice, he did not say O'Reilly did not make inappropriate sexual comments. O'Reilly himself did not deny making those inappropriate comments. He called them "stupid," but won't call them "illegal."
The definition of sexual harassment, according to Webster:
The making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts, especially by one in a superior or supervisory position or when acquiescence to such behavior is a condition of continued employment, promotion, or satisfactory evaluation.
Now folks, why is it that O'Reilly feels he can make stupid comments of a sexual nature to any woman he works with? Oh! Oh! (raising my hand) It's those selective Conservative morals at work again. Let's not even deal with the legality of the issue. Let's look at the ethics of the issue -- since Conservatives like to look at ethics and values so much. We'll play this one their way.
Is O'Reilly married? Yes.
Was Andrea Mackris a coworker? Yes.
Was Andrea Mackris a woman who deserved respect? Yes
Does O'Reilly's scared heterosexual marriage deserve some respect? Yes (I had to throw that one in there. I'm still jaded over the gay ban attempt)
What kind of example was O'Reilly setting for the children? That it's okay to make stupid sexual comments to women as long as you don't get caught? (had to throw that one in there too since he's always so concerned for America's children!)
This one is right up there with that other Conservative hypocrite (what's his name? oh! Rush Limbaugh) and his drug problem. What's with these Conservatives talkin' out the side of their mouth, preachin' to the world about right and wrong, and yet hiding their dirty little secrets?
By the way, I don't believe for one second that Mackris is extorting money from O'Reilly. I think O'Reilly pulled a Dubya preemptive strike to make himself look good because he knew she was coming after his arrogant, self-righteous ass. And even if she was extorting money from him, O'Reilly himself said it best: "I am stupid. I am a stupid guy, and every guy listening knows how it is. That we are very stupid at times." Looks like Michael Moore was right.
The Republicans have gotten this distraction thing developed into a fine art. Nevermind distracting the country from the mess going on in Iraq by getting the country wrapped up in the whole gay ban debate, but now the Republicans are scrambling to keep the nation occupied with Mary Cheney's sexuality so we don't notice these three things:
Bush blatantly lied during the final debate when he said "I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden." Bush indeed said at one point that he was not worried about Osama Bin Laden. At the March 2002 Press Conference, which can be found on the White House's website, Bush said this: "Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from [Osama bin Laden]. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
So, Operation Distraction continues with Dubya's good little Conservative soldiers hard at work-- manipulating and deceiving the public.
"I cannot say the world is safer when you consider the violence around us, when you look around you and see the terrorist attacks around the world and you see what is going on in Iraq,'' Annan told the ITV network.
I would agree with Annan, we're not safer. And I would agree with the fear itself that Dubya and Cheney are spreading throughout the country; however, l'm thinking the source of that fear is the Bush Administration. The Iraq war has made things worse, not Al-Qaida. Not terrorists. The Iraq war.
As the Conservatives like to tell us, the poor will always exist. That's their excuse for not providing funded educational programs. Terrorists and extremist groups will always exist -- particularly those with much disdain for the USA. It's the FBI and CIA's job to keep a watchful eye out for terrorists and extremist groups, ensuring that the country is always protected. From what we learned during the 9/11 hearing, the FBI and CIA did a very poor job of it. So how did we respond? We launched a preemptive strike against a country that wasn't involved in 9/11 and had no WMDs because our CIA and FBI failed to do their job. Are we safer because of it? No. But we have managed to piss a hell of a lot of people off.
We tortured innocent Iraqi prisoners.
28 soliders killed 2 Afghanistan prisoners by beating them to death.
We have spent over 18 months in someone else's country tearing it apart and killing innocent civilians in the process.
I will not ignore the good deeds the USA has done: freeing the Afghanistans and ridding the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein, but that was definitely not out of the goodness of our hearts -- it was for purely selfish and self-serving reasons. No one can deny that. Had 9/11 not happened, Afghanistan women would not be free and the people of Iraq would still suffer under Saddam's rule. No one can deny that. We are not a nation of selfless people. We are not fighting a war in Iraq out of the goodness of out hearts, we are fighting a war in Iraq because we are self-serving.
That is why we are pissing off nations of people. That is why we are no safer today than we were pre-9/11.
Conservatives are the first to tell me that my words sound like "poor Black me" rhetoric when I say things they don't want to hear, yet they're the first to scream "they don't like us 'cuz we're Americans" instead of dealing with the truth behind anti-American sentiment. It's not because we're Americans, it's because we're "busy-body, can't keep our nose out of other people's business, because we're #1" Americans. Wait, that's unless it's a nation of people we could care less about -- like Africa (just one example because they don't have a damn thing we want, especially not their AIDS epidemic).
Many will argue the world is safer, or on its way there, because Saddam's reign has ended and Aghanistan is free. But, the troublemaker these days is the USA. The new rulers of both Iraq and Afghanistan are in the USA's pockets. One false move for these rulers and the people in both these nations will transfer much of their hatred for these rulers over to the USA. What kind of trouble do you think that will cause for the USA in the long run? What kind of resistance groups do you think will emerge from the masses? We're not safer. If anything, we've created a situation that's ripe for much more trouble in the years to come.
While listening to the October 15, 2004 broadcast of Democracy Now, I learned that 28 active duty and reserve soldiers were implicated for killing 2 Afghanistan prisoners detained at a US military base in Afghanistan. The men died after suffering blunt force trauma to the legs. The Afghan men were chained to a ceiling and beaten by multiple soldiers. One man was chained by the waist, the other was chained by the wrists. The Army Intelligence Chief shows his support by allowing Major General Barbara Fast to head the Army Intelligence school, even though she was the highest ranking two star General tied to the scandal. The Army Intelligence School overseas how the military conducts interrogation and teaches proper conduct for interrogation procedures and prisoner treatment.
This investigation originally started in March 2003. The men involved in this scandal were a part of the same unit that set up the interrogation unit in Iraq.
This is some of the USA's work out of Afghanistan the Conservatives aren't bragging about.
I've been jumpin' all over the place calmly discussing liberals with a couple of conservatives and I'm famished. In lieu of that, I'm not posting ranting about anything tonight on the SistersTalk blog because I've done enough of that everywhere else. I won't let ya down though. I have some shameless plugs to shout out:
Check out the folks who brought you this great bumper sticker: Sojo.net
And take a look at the
We are an emergent self-oganized network of independent citizens and activists whose broad agenda includes world peace, human rights, sustainable development, environmentalism, and social justice. We do not identify with a singular nation, but rather our world society as a whole. We recognize that on a fundamental level we are all one. Blogging is our medium; our message will be the story of a new world. Join us.
And please check out Leanne Franson, a fabulous children's books illustrator, with her illustrations displayed on kiddie books worldwide. Visit her kiddie book illustrations page here: Leanne Franson, then jump over to her great daily comic Liliane, the Bi-Dyke. I've been talking to Leanne and she's just as quirky as her comics.
And feel free to use this thread as an open forum to talk about whatever you like. Post a link to your website or your blog. Let us know where you came from. Toss odd questions out there for G.D. Frogsdong to respond to. He'll love it!
I thought this was just the funniest thing to see. The Lone Star ICONOCLAST, a paper out of Crawford, Texas ( Bush's hometown) has endorsed John Kerry:
The endorsement reads in part:
Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would: • Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits. • Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay. • Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent. • Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure. • Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids. • Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and • Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.
Please, go read the rest: Kerry Will Restore American Dignity, 2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement. It's so hard not to find the humor in the sheer irony of it all. That's just plain embarassing to the Commander-in-Chief. What was it that Cheney said to Edwards during the VP debate? "Your hometown has taken to calling you Senator Gone." Perhaps we should all call up the White House and tell the Dubya/Cheney team that Dubya can't even get a second endorsement from his hometown.
Cheney is angry that Kerry made a reference to his lesbian daughter at the last presidential debate:
In answering a debate question about whether homosexuality is a choice, Kerry said it is not. "I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as," Kerry said.
Cheney needs to get off his high horse. It took Dick Cheney and his wife [b]months and months [/b] to finally stand up and speak out against the proposed constitutional ban against gays and lesbians -- well after it was defeated in the Senate (a lot of help that did us!). And now, Dick and his wife are angry that Kerry made a reference to their lesbian daughter, who I might add was paid $150,000 a year to help the very duo that fought for the passing of that legislation.
Cry me a river for Mary Cheney. Mary will be fine. All she needs is a little massage at the country club and a quick vacation in Tahiti. She'll be her old self in no time.
**cough, cough** Doesn't the USA have excellent relations with Saudi Arabia? And umm, aren't Dubya's staunch supporters screamin' "victory! victory!" about Afghanistan's women having the right to vote (as if they care) -- using that as one of the very few positive things they can say about Dubya in an attempt to shut us liberals up? Try saying liberals in a Texas accent. It sounds pretty funny.
This is one of the examples of "selective morals" we see Dubya and his supporters practicing on a consistent basis. We see them tossing out their "let's spread democracy and freedom around the world" rhetoric while we continue to do business with Saudi Arabia. Let's just be honest and call the war in Iraq what it was, because it certainly wasn't an effort to spread democracy and freedom around the world. If it was, then why are we so chummy with Saudi Arabia? I wonder why Cheney didn't mention the fact that women can't vote in Saudi Arabia during the VP debate, while he was hammerin' home their dumb-luck victory in Afghanistan.
Oh, by the way. . . I don't think W Stands for Women at all. Ask the women in Saudi Arabia.
So, I've been listening to the news about Sinclair Broadcasting's sudden need to respect this democratic nation we live in. Sinclair representatives state they will not pull the documentary about Kerry's anti-war days because "it would be unconstitutional." Well now, as I recall, just this past April, Sinclair Broadcasting ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Ted Koppel's "Nightline" episode that would honor the fallen in Iraq because they felt "ABC [was] politicizing the war."
So let me get this straight: it's unconstitutional to censor a Kerry documentary about his anti-war activity, but it's not unconstitutional to censor Ted Koppel and ABC's effors to honor the nation's fallen military? I smell low-down dirty dealings. Anybody else?
By the way, I've yet to see any Conservatives protesting Sinclair Broadcasting's recent decision to move forward with the Kerry documentary (blatant anti-Kerry propaganda). Thou doth not protest when the shit layeth in someone else's yard.
Rachel Ann, a SistersTalk visitor, sent me an email with several engaging questions. She was afraid of asking the questions in the "When Did You Know You Were a Homo" thread, not for fear of our wrath, but because of the seriousness of the issues:
I happen to think that homosexuality/heterosexua lity is both biological (though not necessarily genetic--it could be environmental in terms of the womb) and a product of nurturing/environment outside the womb. I have a difficulty believing it is genetic because that would indicate it is inheritable to some extent. I suppose it could be recessive; but again, I would think that we would see more inheritance and from what I've read in the past, the percentage of children born to gays or lesbians are not significantly more likely to be gay or lesbian themselves. However, the possibility still exists.
Here are my questions and fears; if homosexuality is biological what comes with the day when one could test for it? I know who the Nazi's picked on first and I am not such an optimist to believe it can never happen again. Moreover, if abortion on demand still exists there would be a segment of parents who would abort a child who had a tendency toward homosexuality. And what if someone developed a "treatment" to cure or prevent homosexuality prior to the child's birth or while the child is young. I am talking a medical treatment.
I responded to Rachel Ann, in part, with this:
These are all VERY good questions actually. I think the questions should be asked now, because more than likely, you're not the first to ask them.
As for genetics. Funny you should ask. I know a family that consists of Mom, Dad, and 4 kids (none are twins). 3 of the 4 children are gay. Now, in that same family, the Mom has a brother who has 4 kids. One child is gay, one child is bisexual (but is now an ex-bisexual) and the other child, I swear, is struggling with his sexual identity.
Rachel explored the possibility that if it ever became possible to test for a homosexual gene in children before they were born, that some parents would abort that child because they didn't want a homosexual child. I find it hard to think of a day where a parent would abort an unborn child just because the child is a homosexual. Now, Conservatives would argue that women abort for other reasons they deem unreasonable; however, I would argue that most of the people who rally that strongly against the mere existence of homosexual people are Conservatives, and most of the people who are pro-life/anti-abortion/an ti-choice are Conservatives. I can't see a Conservative going against everything he believes -- just to abort a homosexual child, unless that Conservative feels a homosexual life is less significant than a heterosexual life.
With all this talk of stem cell research, it scares the hell out me the things scientists are messing with. If I believed stem cell research was being carried out all in the name of finding cures for deadly diseases, I'd be the loudest and best cheerleader for the cause. But, in the age of the Patriot Act and a government that spends too much of its time removing freedoms instead of protecting them, I'm more afraid of the knowledge these scientists have in their hands. Also, since our government seems to miss a lot (oh, like Bin Laden's coherts being trained on American soil right under our noses), I'm just a wee bit afraid of scientists with that much brain power having the ability to clone anything.
I received this earlier today in my email but I've been so busy that I didn't get a chance to post it. I thought it was very, very interesting because it really sheds some light on the importance of the neck-and-neck race Dubya and Kerry have been running. According to Terry M. Neal's Talking Points column on October 13, 2004 in theWashington Post, it's a good possibility that Kerry could win this one. Here's why:
"Anecdotal and quantitative evidence suggest that Democrats and independent groups that support Democrats have done a better job than Republicans at registering new voters in key battleground states. In a normal year, the difficulty in getting the newly registered to the polls might mitigate this advantage. But anti-Bush passions on the left are running exceedingly high, making it more likely that marginal voters -- people who rarely or never vote -- will turn out this year. ...
"Aside from new voter registration, many Democrats and even some nonpartisans believe the polls are not accurately reflecting the intensity of passion felt by those on the left, many of whom will be motivated to vote for the first time out of anger at Bush and his policies. . . .
You'll have to register to read the rest of the article, but it's great and worth the extra few minutes.
I hadn't really thought about the issue this way before. I've had several Dubya supporters stop by and tell me, as politely as they could muster up a comment because they know I'll just be a bitch and delete them, that when Dubya wins I'll be singing the blues. It wouldn't matter to me who wins because a liar's a liar's a liar, but I'm actually quite curious now after reading Terry's column. I'm almost convinced that Kerry has a snowball's chance of winning -- as long as it's not too hot in hell.
Oh yeah, I have 9 gmail invites to give away. He/She who asks first, shall receive.
I ran across a retired Navy Warrant Officer's blog in which he wrote a "Happy Christopher Columbus Day" post yesterday. I live in WI and this state doesn't recognize the "national day off" since there are many, many Native "American" settlements here. It would be a bit of a slap in the face, eh? Hell, a lot of towns here in WI are named after Native "American" tribes.
Anyway, the Warrant Officer (by the way, the sheer notice of that title still grates my nerves from my Navy days) said that Columbus was the 3rd in line behind the Native Americans and the Vikings, but he then went on the say "Right now several of the politically correct generation trying to rewrite our history and heritage would like to see Columbus Day go away. Why, you may say? Well because Columbus discovered the America's he must be responsible for all of the Spanish conquests that followed."
Screeching halt! Christopher Columbus did not discover America. I replied to him with this:
You contradicted yourself completely. You said: "Though he probably came in third discovering the New World, Indians first, Vikings Second, he was the first to get it into the mainstream news of their day." You then said, "Well because Columbus discovered the America's. . . " No. He did not discover America. You said that. He came in 3rd. You don't discover something that isn't yours to be found. Here's a conversation I had with my son the other day:
Me: "Did you take those pennies out my pen jar?"
Son: "Yeah. It was just a couple of pennies."
Me: "Did they belong to you?"
Son: "I found a coupla pennies, geez mom."
Me: "You found? What's the definition of stealing?"
Son (as he roles his eyes): "Taking something that doesn't belong to you."
Me: "Well then I guess you didn't find anything, did you?"
Christopher Columbus was a thief. He didn't discover a thing. I really wish the public schools in this country would teach history as it really happened.
There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Christopher Columbus came in 3rd (and maybe even 4th or 5th). Saying that is being "politically correct?"
Telling the truth isn't being politically correct. It's being correct. No one is trying to re-write your damn history. All we want to see is the truth. Not falsehoods. Not grandiose statements about the good ol' days. As I see it, the history you operate within is inaccurate to begin with. The generation you speak of that wants to see the truth laid out there completely naked (I would be a part of that generation) wants public schools to teach our children the truth in grade school, middle school, and high school -- not force us to pay for the truth in college. There are so many adults who didn't attend college (and whose children didn't attend college), walking around with a head full of garbage. Lies. Distortions.
If that makes me anti-American -- so be it. I could really care less. If lying to my children makes me any less of a patriot than those who choose to spread falsehoods and ignore horrific wrongs done to several races and ethnic groups, then so be it. I expect to be deported anytime now.
Now, when I took my 10 year old to the doctor for his yearly check-up yesterday, I had the doctor check to make sure his immuniaztions were up-to-date. According to the Interactive Bible online, there is a vaccine for homosexuality that my doctor must have missed. My 10 year old might not mind that too much since the penalty for missing vaccinations is a 10-day school suspension; however, his metrosexual, Republican, Christian (the jury is still out on that), conservative father may be a bit perturbed I let that vaccination slip by.
So, this educational website mentions several items that made me wonder what kinda self-proclaimed Christian sits down and writes out so much stupidity. Ok, so Christians don't have to be smart. Anyway, here's one of the items I thought was a "why did the chicken cross the road?" kinda joke:
"Why does almost every movie have a Jewish person and a homosexual in it?
Answer: Jewish people control the money, Queers (as they call themselves) control the content, Christians are the idiots! (at least that’s the way Hollywood portrays Christians)"
Besides relying heavily on outdated research (1959, 1962, 1969, 1978, 1983, 1987) and other material ridden with psychiatric research most likely influenced by cultural bigotries, the website's writer clearly looked for resources to support his/her own theory. I noticed the webmaster did consult a recent report (2004), but only because it helps to support his argument: homosexuals are made by their parents. To immunize your children from the homosexual disease, you must have an adequate relationship with your child. Mothers must be loving, but not too loving. Mothers must not be overbearing. Mothers must shower most of their love and attention on their husbands, not their children --especially not the male children. It makes them sissies. Fathers must remain in the home and provide an example for young boys -- show them how to be men. This, everyone, is how you prevent the spread of homosexuality.
I've been reading a lot of lesbian and gay blogs lately. One particular blog provokes so many feelings in me that I can't even accurately describe those feelings. [site edited] is blog that chronicles a gay(?) man's journey to heterosexism. I think I worded that correctly. The author is becoming a heterosexual: an ex-gay.
I visit that blog and read the entries on occassion. I'm not sure why. Waiting for the author's miraculous revelation that he's a homo and always will be? I don't know. Sometimes I feel so sad for the author because it appears he really is struggling with his sexuality -- mostly because of societal influences, whether he wants to admit it or not. That's a shame. No, it's not a shame. It's sad. That's all. Just sad. It's not for me to judge the author and the choices he makes, I know that. It will be interesting to see where his journey leads him. I'll expect an invitation to his hetero wedding -- if he ever has one.
Anyway, his blog made me wonder when my lesbian/gay/bi visitors knew they were queer (I know, some people hate that word, but humor me). I think I always knew, but I read this book once when I was 11 years old. I had my first period and my Mom gave me books to read because she was too damn embarrassed to sit down and talk to me. The books had the worst "old" smell. There was a chapter on homosexuality and I remember it saying that all young children go through a phase where they are attracted to other children of the same sex. Ok, so there! It was just a phase. It would go away. I was so damn relieved.
And at age 15, when I had a crush on my sophomore English teacher (I fell in love with literature!), I was still waiting for the phase to pass. Her name was Sherri and she was tall and handsome and butch. She announced she was the new cheerleading coach. Although I had absolutely no interest in cheerleading, I was at tryouts that afternoon.
And at age 19 when I was still waiting for the phase to pass, I married a tall, pretty, blonde white boy who was more girly than any woman I've ever dated! Dear lord. Here I am at age 32, divorced, a flamin' homo, and I figure this phase won't go away. I'm liking it a lot anyway.
I debated whether I should respond to a press release the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) released on Tuesday, October 5, 2004 in response to Dick Cheney's comments during the vice presidential debate. Part of the comments read as follows:
"Tonight we saw the worst kind of flip flop. Vice President Cheney said he supported his daughter, but then said he supported President Bush's effort to discriminate against her. John Edwards affirmed his and Senator Kerry's support for protections for same-sex couples and chastised President Bush for using the Constitution to divide the American people."
I am completely disgusted by the HRC's spin on the comments both candidates made in relation to gay marriage. The HRC conveniently excluded the quote by John Edwards that hammered home the Kerry/Edwards belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman." I don't know how many times Edwards said that. I counted at least 4 times.
The HRC has become the ring leader in this misguided support for the Kerry/Edwards ticket among the LGBT community -- criticizing Dubya and Cheney at every turn and praising Kerry and Edwards all the way. I refuse to accept this logic that Dubya and Cheney are worse about LGBT rights because they have openly worked to write discrimination into the constitution, while Kerry and Edwards have simply chosen a side of the argument that appeals to the group that doesn't want to be stuck with Dubya another 4 years. That's all Kerry and Edwards have done -- chosen a side of the argument that casts them in the best light possible. That pathetic Democratic duo doesn't have any plans to work for equal rights for the LGBT community any more than Dubya and Cheney do. In my eyes, that makes them just as bad as the pathetic Republican duo.
The HRC, led by Cheryl Jaques, should be ashamed of itself. Its rhetoric on this particular issue is becoming quite tiring to listen to.
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Singer Melissa Etheridge has been diagnosed with breast cancer and has canceled upcoming tour dates to undergo treatment, her publicist said Thursday.
In college as an undergrad, I became really obsessed with this issue after a very frustrating Womyn's Studies class. In hindsight, I understand the seemingly ignorant comments coming from what I considered the radical LUGS (lesbians until graduation). We had a rather lengthy discussion about domestic abuse and there was much talk about men and the psychological and physical abuse they inflict on women. The conversation seemed to move to what I consider a typical discourse about marriage being a very submissive/dominant entity that sets women up for abuse. Needless to say, I didn't keep quiet long.
I said, "Ya know, women can be just as abusive as men." The room fell dead silent for a minute or so, but then one student piped in to say that women were not prone to abusive behavior nearly as much as men. I challenged the assertion because I wanted to know what it was based on: stereotypes? assumptions? lack of research?
Since I needed a subject for my independent project, our professor suggested I do some research on the subject and present my findings to the class. I chose the subject [i]Domestic Abuse in Lesbian Relationships.[/i] My research confirmed what I already knew: domestic abuse is quite prevalent in lesbian relationships and women are indeed just as prone to abusive behavior as men. We just hate to admit it.
Suggested readings:
Naming the Violence: Speaking Out About Lesbian Battering, edited by Kerry Lobel
Whatever it is that makes an abuser an abuser (male or female), it's definitely something that needs to be addressed. But, it can't be addressed if we can't first acknowledge that all people are capable. I remember seeing a domestic abuse movie once about a heterosexual couple in which the wife was the culprit. The husband kept quiet about the abuse for fear of being labeled weak. I imagine he kept quiet for other reasons also -- the same reasons women keep quiet: shame, guilt, low self-esteem. Add to that the societal pressures for the man to be the stronger sex and it's enough to make any man hide the fact that he's a victim of domestic abuse in a heterosexual relationship.
The lack of resources and information for lesbians who are victims of domestic abuse (and men who are victims of domestic abuse) only adds to the problem. I'm thinking it's time we work towards providing better resources, on a local level, for everyone.
A couple of weeks ago, I read on CBSNews.com that Jeb Bush's Terri's Law was struck down by the Florida Supreme Court. This law blocked Michael Schiavo from removing his wife's (Terri Schiavo) feeding tube. The court ruled "the law wrongly allowed [Jeb] Bush to intervene in a matter of personal privacy and was improperly used by the governor to override a court decision with which he did not agree."
Terri has been kept alive using a feeding tube for 10 years. Michael states Terri told him, at some point during their marriage, that she did not wish to live if she had to be kept alive artificially. Jeb Bush rushed through Terri's Law to block Michael from removing the feeding tube because Terri did not leave written instructions. Florida law states a patient's wishes must be honored, even if they are expressed verbally. Jeb Bush blatantly stepped over the boundaries of his office as Governor and rushed through a law just because he did not agree with Michael's plans to remove Terri's tube. Terri will remain alive while Jeb Bush appeals the court's ruling -- even if that is not what Terri wants.
The one thing I wonder is, with all the noise Conservatives make about protecting the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, why did Jeb Bush dishonor Terri and Michael's heterosexual marriage by stating that Michael's word was suspect because Terri did not leave written instructions? Did she need to leave written instructions? Michael says he was honoring his wife's verbal instructions. I believe there's most likely no one else in the world who knows what Terri wanted better than her husband. I would not wish to be kept alive for 10 years using a feeding tube. I would expect the court to honor my wishes, even if I did not write them down.
I think I like the moderator, Gwen. At times, she was much more interesting to listen than the two candidates. During the Cheney/Edwards debate tonight, I noticed a few interesting things.
Lots of scare tactics at work in this debate. Cheney did what he does best: scared the hell out of the nation. He insisted on making a connection between Iraq and Al-Qaida. I'm not quite sure what reports Cheney's been reading, but all the investigations have concluded there is no connection.
Edwards spent a lot of time trying to maintain the momentum Kerry had established during last Thursday's presidential debate. He made sure he spoke highly of Kerry, and he slammed the Bush/Cheney team as often as he could get a jab in. Cheney got his share of attacks in and appeared quite annoyed, several times, while doing so. It seems Edwards worked hard to speak to Ohio voters quite a few times during the debate.
Cheney spent some time campaigning directly to women. He used the fact that women in Afghanistan now have the right to vote and get a better education. It was so obvious Cheney was trying to maintain the lead Bush has with women voters. Of course Edwards came back with the fact that Afghanistan provides 75% of the world's opium and that the country is run by drug lords. Of course, there was all the talk of Iraq. Edwards kept throwing out the Halliburton issue and Cheney kept tossing out Kerry's flip-floppin' issue.
The one subject that made my stomach turn was the same-sex marriage issue. Cheney, personally, looked much better on the issue; however he admits he supports the Commander-in-Chief. Edwards insisted (several times, actually) that marriage is between a man and a woman, but the Kerry/Edwards ticket supports benefits for gay and lesbian couples.
I think Edwards worked hard to appeal to African American voters by making sure viewers were aware that Cheney voted against a holiday for Dr. Martin Luther King. Both candidates seemed very uniformed about issues related to African Americans.
One thing Cheney did well was laugh and claim he didn't know where to start with his response when he really just looked stumped to me. It came off much better than Bush's flustered responses on Thursday.
I thought both candidates did very well, although Cheney's physical appearance, next to Edwards, really worked in his favor. Cheney looked so much more mature, responsible, and experienced. I'm thinking Cheney may have saved Bush's ass.
Apparently the Department of Justice (DOJ) disagrees with U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero's ruling that the FBI needs a warrant to gain secret access to your internet and phone records. The DOJ plans to appeal the ruling that defines this provision of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. It seems almost elementary to me that even the FBI would need a judge's ok before they can gain access to any citizen's private internet and phone records, but I guess the FBI is exempt of illegal search and seizure laws -- or so they think.
The USA Patriot Act not only empowers the FBI to demand that telephone companies and Internet service providers give them secret access to your records, but it also makes it illegal for internet service providers and telephone companies to ever discuss with you that the search ever took place.
Is this necessary to protect the country from terrorist activity? Is it necessary to not only gain secret access to your internet and phone records, but then deny you the right to ever learn the search took place? And who are they watching exactly? Anyone who has changed his or her name to "Islam" and donates large sums of money to charities?
I saw a remark above about not wanting a daughter to get drafted. Too bad, women wanted, and received full suffrage, and guess what, with rights come responsibilities. When the men in the military don’t want women serving with them, you hear cries of sexism. But suggest that woman should be required to render service to das state the same as men, and watch the tear drops start. When you’re willing to give up the vote, then we can talk about not forcing woman to be drafted. EQUALITY means equal in every way, not just the ones you want.
I'm not sure the comment Repa refers to was meant to imply that the person didn't want her daughter drafted; the parent was stating she didn't want her child drafted. The child just happened to be a daughter.
But, it's an interesting subject -- one I've had with several women before. I hesitate even approaching the subject of a draft that includes women and all the "oh nos!" associated with the idea. I agree with Repa, women have fought long and hard for equal rights; with equal rights come equal responsibilities. But, this is probably one of the very few issues where I see shades of grey.
The discussion on this subject can get as nasty as abortion rights debates. I start to get a huge headache when thinking of all the people who will argue against a draft that includes women. I can see an equally passionate group of people who will argue that women should indeed be included in any future draft. And dear lord, let's not forget the people who are against a draft of any kind.
As I see it, women have fought for equality and made tremendous progress. And thanks to the good manners and good will of the good ol' boys, it only took us 228 years to get here. Not too shabby. Women in other countries are still working to get where we are. We ought to be damn gracious enough to smile pretty and run to the post office on our 18th birthday, right?
And here's where I see shades of grey. I could talk about the alarming number of single mothers who are age 18 - 26 in this country, but I can't talk about that without the Conservative, Religious fanatics railroading the discussion and using that very argument against a draft for women to demand that women get married before they have children. And from there, the feminists step back into the discussion and talk about a woman's right to choose to have children outside of marriage. And from there, the anti-abortion people step in and start discussing what they perceive to be the reason why we have so many abortions in this country --women having children out of wedlock.
So, no draft for single mothers? A part of me would agree with that. The part of my character that disagrees is the part that refuses to allow Conservatives to use motherhood as an excuse to force us to stay home until the children are out of school before we go out and get a job.
If forced to cast a vote, I'd vote to include women in any future drafts. We have equal rights; we share equal responsibilities; and we can do what men can do, only better. Do I agree with women being included in the draft? Well, sorta.
Jerry, author of Emrooz corrected me in one of the comment threads by saying that Bush appeals to the emotions. He's right. I decided not to watch the debate, but to instead listen. I realize that both Bush and Kerry have a demeanor that really just annoys me, so I wouldn't be able to separate that from what either candidate actually said.
While listening to the debate, I couldn't help but notice all the emotional words Bush used during the debate. I was reminded of his presidential addresses. One particular segment that I recall was really over the top with emotion was the question "Has the war in Iraq been worth the lost American lives?" (and I don't think I got that question exactly right) Bush replied with words and phrases like these:
every life is precious prayed sacrifice worthy spread liberty spread freedom distinguishes us from the enemy it's hard work being the president
He even gave a brief story about a wife and her husband and the sacrifice he made for his country (all of this in 2 minutes). Somehow he got his answer in there within the last few seconds. I don't recall what it was though.
Kerry came back with a rather forceful response -- much to my surprise. Very few emotional words. He spoke about better training and having a plan for what to do next -- implying that Bush really has no clue what to do now, except "more of the same." In response to Kerry's comments, Bush responded with a couple of "umms" and "uhs" and got back into his "I know what it's like to be Commander-in-Chief-let's- wave-the-American-flag mode.
Jerry thinks Kerry lost voters, I'm thinking he gained some ground, if not much. So, looks like Bush has some more praying to do for Round 2.
The same House of Representatives that voted to keep Americans from ever having the right to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, just voted to NOT allow a ban on same sex marriages. Something's up. I don't trust 'em. I venture to guess it's because they're certain their crafty Marriage Protection Act will make any ban on gay marriages an unnecessary move anyway. Any other guesses?
