SistersTalk


Blog For Free!


Archives
Home
2009 January
2008 December
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 August
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 April
2006 September
2006 August
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images


Sponsored
Blog



Retro vs. Metro: How the Republicans Maintain Power
11.30.04 (7:58 pm)   [edit]
If you missed the Retro vs Metro webinar tonight, you missed a very informative event. Dr. Suzanne Helburn, Dr. John Sperling, and Amy Goodman presented a live web-based seminar on the various issues dividing the nation. Viewers could call in or email questions that were answered on the show. Various polls were also provided during the one-hour webinar.

Helburn and Sperling described Retro states as those states characterized by "religiosity; social conservatism; an economic base of extraction industries, agriculture, nondurable goods manufacturing, military installations; and a commitment to the Republican Party," while Metro states are "loosely held together by common interests in promoting economic modernity and by shared cultural values marked by religious moderation; vibrant popular cultures; a tolerance of differences of class, ethnicity, tastes, and sexual orientation; and a tendency to vote Democratic." Helburn and Sperling mentioned that most of the Metro states tend to pay more taxes than they receive in federal revenue, while most Retro states pay less taxes than they receive in federal revenue. No big surprise there. It's also interesting to note that Retro states tend to have "high levels of social and economic class disparities, [with] political power firmly based in Caucasian communities." Well now, that certainly helps explain why Republicans want to remain in power in Jesusland.

Other interesting subjects addressed on the webinar: corporate farms donating big money to the Republican party while the small farmer suffers; how the Democratic party can pull it together for 2008; voter fraud in Ohio and why John Kerry is doing nothing so far; John Kerry's campaign really was a poor campaign; and what should we do about the electoral college?

Keep your eyes open for the next webinar series. It's a must-see.

| Link to this post |
 
One More in Bush Administration Takes His Leave
11.30.04 (10:29 am)   [edit]
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge will announce his resignation today.

What the hell is going on? Lots of flight goin' on in that Administration. We all know that if this were the Clinton Administration and he had that many people heading for the hills, conservatives would have a field day talking about it. But don't mind me. I'm just stupid and causing trouble.

I've reserved comments on Gutierrez's nomination until I learn more about him.


| Link to this post | |
 
HRC Executive Director Cheryl Jaques Fired?
11.30.04 (9:03 am)   [edit]
I received this tip from Christian Grantham:

Cheryl Jacques, the Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign, has been fired. According to sources that wish to remain anonymous, HRC's Board of Directors voted to replace Jacques with Hilary Rosen as interim executive director. The vote took place in an emergency conference call Monday night.

Regular SistersTalk readers know how I felt about Cheryl Jaques. Now, I want to see the Task Force's director replaced. Let's get something accomplished around these parts. Enough of this bickering between those two groups.

Thanks, Christian!

| Link to this post | |
 
Gay Scoutmasters Ban Backfires on Military
11.30.04 (1:23 am)   [edit]
And the latest developments in Jesusland:


A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, found that educational institutions have a First Amendment right to keep military recruiters off their campuses to protest the Defense Department policy of excluding gays from military service.

Colleges Can Bar Army Recruiters


Looks like that decision allowing the Boy Scouts to ban gay Scoutmasters backfired on the military. Oops!


The 2-to-1 decision relied in large part on a decision in 2000 by the United States Supreme Court to allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmasters. Just as the Scouts have a First Amendment right to bar gays, the appeals court said, law schools may prohibit groups that they consider discriminatory.


Poetic justice. Oh so priceless.

| Link to this post | |
 
Black Female Republican Against Hate Crime Laws, Big Surprise!
11.29.04 (11:00 am)   [edit]
I read a blog written by LaShawn Barber, a Black female Republican who is against hate crime laws. Big surprise there! She feels hate crime laws are stupid and redundant. She also feels hate crimes ignore all those crimes that men commit against women. I got lost in her argument because (1) it's so simplistic I wondered if I was missing something, and (2) there were too many unrelated issues. There are already many, many laws on the books designed to protect women (domestic abuse laws, rape laws, hell, even stalking laws!) and many organizations that have worked for decades to protect women's rights. Women's issues are not getting ignored, contrary to what Ms. Barber would like to make people think. Besides, if Ms. Barber is against hate crime laws because they focus on race, religion, and sexual orientation, it's safe to assume she would be against a hate crime law that specifically addressed gender-based bias also. So who is she kidding?

In addition, I wondered if Ms. Barber really knew anything about hate crimes other than what her Republican counterparts have been spoon feeding her. While reading her arugment, I noticed she put the words protected classes in quotation marks when she discussed Blacks and homosexuals -- as if it killed her to even say the words protected classes. I wonder if it bothered her to have homosexuals in the same class as Blacks -- something that certainly wouldn't surprise me since Ms. Barber is not only a Black Republican, but a "religious" one as well. I wonder if she read about any of these hate crimes:

  • Private First Class Barry Winchell, 21, of Kansas City, Missouri, was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat on July 5, 1999 after rumors that he was gay spread around the post


  • Steen Fenrich, 19, was killed and dismembered by his stepfather in a homophobic rage, his body found March 21, 2000


  • Juana Vega, 36, shot in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, November 11, 2001 by her girlfriend's brother, for "turning his sister gay"


  • Gwen Araujo, a 17-year-old transgender woman from Newark, California, savagely beaten to death on October 3, 2002 by a group of boys at a party


  • Sakia Gunn, 15, fatally stabbed at a bus stop in Newark, New Jersey, May 11, 2003 after her assailant was told she was a lesbian


  • Fred Martinez, Jr., a 16-year-old Native American high school student from Cortez, Colorado, found beaten to death, June 21, 2001, his skull crushed with a rock.
    His 19-year-old killer was heard to have said proudly, "I bug-smashed a fag."


  • Examples from Jesusland by Max Gordon

    Ms. Barber assumes that hate crime laws are nothing more than another liberal attempt to put a politically correct face on how the law deals with criminals. It's a damn shame that Ms. Barber has over-simplified such an important issue. I guess the government's decision to convict members of white supremist groups for murdering Blacks and Jews was a PC move also. I mean afterall, the KKK and white supremist groups commit crimes only because they are biased against one group or another.

    Mr. Barber assumes that Blacks are exempt from hate crime laws and have free reign to do as they please to each other and white people. In 2003, the FBI reported that of all the hate crimes reported, 21.2% were committed because of anti-white bias, while 66.3% of those crimes were committed because of anti-Black bias. In addition, 16.4% of the hate crimes committed in 2003 were due to religious bias; of these religious-based hate crimes, 68% were due to anti-Jewish sentiment. Of all hate crimes committed, only 16.3% of those crimes were related to sexual orientation. Of all the known offenders of hate crimes in the United States in 2003, 62.3% of those offenders were white and 18.5% were Black. At least 10.7% of the offenders were of an unknown race.

    Ms. Barber is adamantly against any law that convicts someone who commits a crime based on bias. No wonder Ms. Barber has such a large white following kissing her ass. The KKK must love her; they hate Blacks, Jews, and gays. Perhaps they'll make her an honorary member someday, yes?

    Ms. Barber and her ditto heads are blowing hot air. Hate crime laws may be redundant, but there's obviously a need for them since people can't seem to figure out on their own that their hate for an individual does not justify their desire to cause harm. It's a crime to drive while drunk, but offenders receive a harsher sentence if they drive while drunk and kill someone. I don't see much of a difference with hate crime laws. It's a crime to cause bodily harm to someone, but you receive a harsher sentence if you do it because the person is Black, gay, Jewish, or Hispanic. I think it's a fair system. Unless, of course, Ms. Barber sees drunk driving laws as nothing but liberal bullshit also.


    | Link to this post |
     
    Christian Homosexuals
    11.28.04 (10:49 am)   [edit]
    I always answer "spiritual" when asked about my religious affiliation. I believe there's a power greater than me and I believe that power takes the shape of a God of some sort. Is it the Christian God most Americans worship? Perhaps.

    Can a homosexual become a Christian? I'm not sure I worded that correctly, but you know what I mean. Since we've been taught since childhood that God condemns homosexuals, most people would say that homosexuals can't be Christians. I can't imagine what someone who has been a Christian all her life goes through when she realizes she's also a homosexual.

    Initially I became anti-religious after I came out. Eventually though, I figured if everything I'd learned about God was true (He's a loving, all-knowing God), then He knew before I was born that I was a homosexual.

    And here's where the religious right (who is neither religious nor right) will proclaim that God knew alcoholics were alcoholics too; that doesn't mean He approves. I agree. The difference? Jesus never talked about homosexuality in the Bible; however, He did discuss gluttony. I see the bible bangers rushing to their bibles to look up scriptures addressing homosexuality. What they will find is that Jesus did not deal with sexual morality, except when telling the woman who committed adultery to sin no more. Jesus also addressed men and their behavior with other men's wives. So, all the anti-homosexual Christians have to go on is "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" -- a comment that illustrates the intelligence level of the person using it.

    I've read all the supposed scriptures that condemn homosexuality. It's quite interesting to see people translating these verses with exact preciseness. Various religious affiliations can't agree on how to worship (Pentecostals, Lutherans, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, ect), but they can all agree that homosexuality is a sin. Very interesting indeed.

    Resources:

    Whosoever: Christian Homosexuals

    Adult Christianity: The Christian Bible and the Homosexual


    | Link to this post |
     
    Gay Porn Virus and GREAT Picture of Rumsfeld
    11.25.04 (6:39 pm)   [edit]
    Oh dear lord. I've just eaten dinner for the 4th time today. Shh, don't tell anybody.

    A friend called and asked if I wanted to get up and go shopping with her at 3am -- you know, that first official Christmas shopping day. [i]"Hell no!" [/i] I replied. What the hell is wrong with people? There are so many other things I'd rather be doing at 3am. I'm a bad friend, I know.

    I've had wine, so I'm about to ramble. Bear with me. I love wine, but I can only drink the cheap stuff. Riunite Lambrusco. No laughing. If anybody wants to send me some for Christmas, let me know.

    Read all about the gay porn virus:


    the worm slipped through the Senate's firewall, ensuring that no staffer could access his or her computer without being confronted with images of gay sex


    I never had that kinda fun at work.

    Does anyone remember the slut from Golden Girls? Blanche was her name. She's a gay icon. I didn't know that. It seems she's most popular among gay men. What is up with that?

    Alright, I have a crush on this guy and this guy -- the older version. Now, imagine the type of women I'm attracted to (minus the facial hair).

    Dumbya is at it again. His administration is constantly pushing their religious agendas on the nation:


    "We don't need a study, if I remember my biology correctly, to show us that those people who are sexually abstinent have a zero chance of becoming pregnant or getting someone pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease," said Wade Horn, the assistant secretary of Health and Human Services in charge of federal abstinence funding.


    No one is disputing how babies come to exist, dumbass. Even my 10 year old knows how that works. Those of us who don't have our head up our asses are concerned about the real world -- the reality that kids have been having sex outside of marriage since long before Donna Reed was the hottest thing on television. For some reason, Dumbya and his people think they will be the ones to come along and change how every teenager in America feels about sex. What the hell is wrong with these people? Wait, don't answer that. We could be here all night.

    And while the Dumbya Administration is working their asses off to tell the world how to live their lives, the administration has let yet another important issue fall apart:


    Facing a record budget shortfall of about $250 million and about 475 uncompleted sites, the nearly 25-year-old program aimed at protecting Americans from industrial contamination is in crisis. Program managers are scaling back their spending requests and slowing cleanups. Republicans and Democrats agree that the program needs more money, but its budget has been stagnant for a decade and its original industry-funded multibillion-dollar trust fund is broke.


    Interesting, there's a Clinton project the Conservatives aren't rushing to take care of so they can brag about it. Why is that? Hmm, a 25 year old project. Who was president? Reagan for 8 years. Then the first Bush for 4 years. Then Clinton for 8 years, then Dubya. So . . . in 25 years, there was 16 years of Republican rule and we still have problems with these cleanup programs? Tsk, tsk boys. You're slackin'. That reminds me, we had 16 years of Republican rule to get rid of Saddam too. Let's not forget that Reagan lifted sanctions on Iraq at the same time that Saddam came into power.



    Isn't this a GREAT shot of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam in 1983? He's sealing the deal that Reagan made with Iraq. Damn I love the internet!

    U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES


    I gotta go. There's apple pie with my name on it somewhere.

    | Link to this post | |
     
    Fag Hags, How Come I Don't Get One?
    11.24.04 (1:48 pm)   [edit]
    A new gay bar opened here in Beloit about 2 weeks ago. It's very spacious. Nice location. Great mixture of homos, straights, clueless people (they kinda wandered in and don't know it's a gay bar) and fag hags -- in a class all by themselves. For those of you who don't know what a fag hag is, it's a straight girl who follows gay men around and drools. Ok, she doesn't drool, but she might as well. She dotes on him, strokes his ego, and makes him feel oh so fabulously queer.

    I want one! Why is it that lesbians don't get those? Trust me, I don't want to sleep with a straight girl any more than a gay man does. So her virtue is safe with me. I can dance just as well as those guys can and I have great clothes, too. Hook a sistah up, why dontcha?

    [i]Shameless Plug for the Holiday Weekend: [/i]

    Read all about lesbians and their ethics. Chris, an attorney from the San Francisco Bay area, has been working on an article about lesbian ethics since 1988. Wooo wee! I understand completely why it's taking so long, girlfriend.

    Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Eat enough for me.

    | Link to this post | |
     
    The Politics of Medical Marijuana
    11.23.04 (7:52 pm)   [edit]
    Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a coalition of patients and doctors who advocate legal medical use of marijuana, announced a few weeks ago that it would challenge the Department of Health and Human Services's policies on medical marijuana use. The ASA says the Department places "politics over science on the issue of medical marijuana." According to the ASA, there is extensive research that supports claims that marijuana can effectively treat pain, nausea, loss of appetite and spasms caused by various medical conditions. The ASA believes the Department of Health and Human Services has knowingly spread inaccurate information about the effective use of marijuana for medical purposes.

    A teenager can walk into any grocery store and purchase cold medicine without a prescription, without showing an identification card to verify age, and without parental consent. A January 2004 report from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy stated "adolescents are increasingly abusing DXM," a key ingredient in cough medications, in an effort to experience hallucinations. In 2003, poison control centers nationwide received over 3200 emergency calls related to DMX overdoses. Recently, the government's scientific advisers decided that anti-depressants must come with a warning of suicidal risk in teenagers -- yet doctors are still allowed to prescribe anti-depressants. David Murray, an analyst for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy stated that it is "beyond dispute" that marijuana has been assessed and identified as having beneficial uses. So, why is it that doctors are not allowed to prescribe the drug for what they deem as effective medical treatment?

    Opponents of medical marijuana use claim that marijuana is a lethal drug with harmful side effects, thus marijuana has no accepted medical use. In 1998, Judge Francis L. Young determined that a marijuana smoker would have to inhale approximately 1500 pounds of marijuana in order to suffer lethal side effects. FDA statistics show that unintentional overdoses of acetaminophen -- the active ingredient in Tylenol -- cause as many as 100 deaths and 13,000 emergency room visits each year. I hardly believe these people consumed even as much as 1 pound of the over-the-counter medication to cause these dangerous accidents.

    It's time the government stopped waging its war on marijuana and allowed doctors and researchers to take full advantage of marijuana's medical benefits. While the government can allow pharmaceutical companies to push their anti-depressants on our nation's youth -- while slapping a simple warning of suicide risk on the back label -- it can certainly allow cancer patients to use marijuana to relieve the nausea caused by chemotherapy.

    Reprinted from Genia's blog at the Wisconsin State Journal

    | Link to this post | |
     
    Black College Admissions Drop
    11.23.04 (7:34 pm)   [edit]
    Universities saw a decline in Black enrollment this year, despite winning the battle to do away with Affirmative Action -- a battle waged by, well, we know who.


    The pattern is by no means uniform -- both the University of Maryland and the University of Virginia report steady numbers of African Americans enrolling -- but it is sufficiently widespread to cause concern among university presidents and students alike. State flagship institutions appear to be experiencing the biggest declines, while some private universities and many community colleges and second-tier state schools are reporting an increase in minority enrollment.


    Well, we know who's not alarmed. I attended a private school for my undergraduate degree. I'm also attending a private school to receive my MBA. If some people want to continue fighting Affirmative Action, let them. I see the private institutions benefiting tremendously.

    In June 2003, the Supreme Court decided that universities had to change their entrance procedures -- no longer automatically awarding extra admissions points to minority students. Because of the ruling, many Black students decided to attend historically Black universaties -- something I'm certain doesn't bother a lot of people.

    While those who oppose Affirmative Action think they are reducing race-based admissions and financial aid based on race, their actions have also resulted in changes to the way financial aid is dispursed to those who are low-income students. Many universities are now providing financial aid based on merit, not need. That means even poor white students won't get the funding they need, unless they meet the minimum grade requirement.

    Affirmative Action may not be the best answer for leveling the playing field; however, it was definitely an attempt to provide a solution to complicated social and economic problems. Opponents don't seem to have any better ideas. They just keep whining about reverse discrimination.

    entry edited to correct typo. Please, don't leave a link to your blog in my comments section if you're going to be an ass. I'll just delete it.

    | Link to this post | |
     
    Mission Accomplished, Mr. President
    11.22.04 (9:52 pm)   [edit]
    Anyone remember this lovely gesture from May 2003?

    $388B Budget Is Lean, but Trouble Lurks

    The Budget Mess Bush Can No Longer Ignore

    The Cost of War: Currently, the Cost of War calculator is set to reach $152 billion at the end of 2004

    Rumsfeld Knew: Iraq Prison Abuse Part of Pentagon-Approved Black Ops Program

    Iraq prison abuse 'widespread': An American news agency says it has seen official papers suggesting that prisoner abuse in Iraq took place at four sites other than Abu Ghraib

    Fleeing Falluja: Families speak out: "There are all kinds of rumours about what has happened to people who stayed in Falluja. Of course many people must have been killed. We heard that the Americans took many people prisoner, not only fighters. "

    Mission Accomplished, Mr. President.


    Does anyone else have any testimonials to share? We want to give the President all the credit he's due.

    | Link to this post |
     
    Court Says Both Lesbians Are Legal Parents
    11.22.04 (12:03 pm)   [edit]
    Lisa and Janet Miller-Jenkins are enjoying all the equalities and headaches any other divorced couple experience while engaged in a custody dispute. The couple, once partners by civil union in Vermont, have split and are fighting over custody of a child conceived via artificial insemination. The court ruled:


    "parties to a civil union who use artificial insemination to conceive a child can be treated no differently than a husband and wife, who, unable to conceive a child biologically, choose to conceive a child by inseminating the wife with the sperm of an anonymous donor."

    Court Says Both in Gay Union Are Parents

    The child lives with one mother in Virginia, while the other mother lives in Vermont. A Virginia court ruled that the mother in VA is the biological mother and had all rights to the child; the court in Vermont said otherwise.

    I can see so many people who are against gay marriage (and gay parenting) using this case as an example of why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. I can also see those same people using this case as an example of why gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to adopt children. Nevermind the fact that heterosexual couples go through custody disputes on a daily basis -- and have been doing so for many, many decades.

    This case should be interesting to watch.

    | Link to this post | |
     
    Matching Driver's License Against Draft Registration
    11.22.04 (11:52 am)   [edit]
    Now that tBlog is back online . . . (no comments from the disgruntled tBlog users, please)

    I just spoke with my younger sister who is an inactive member of the reserves. She informed me that her boyfriend went to renew his driver's license and was told he had not registered for the draft. How would the DMV know that? And why are they checking?

    My guess? We can expect to see a draft soon.


    | Link to this post |
     
    Gay Marriage: The Right to Be Miserable & Greedy
    11.20.04 (7:11 pm)   [edit]
    Joy Parks has been writing about lesbian books for more than 20 years. While reviewing the book Gay and Lesbian Weddings: Planning the Perfect Same-Sex Ceremony, she writes:


    I realize that saying anything that doesn’t support the majority line on legalizing gay and lesbian marriage is tantamount to treason and punishable by an immediate shunning. But I simply don’t understand why we, as a people, want anything to do with an archaic institution, historically based on ensuring the legitimacy of heirs. Has anyone looked at the divorce statistics recently? Are we really so arrogant as to believe we’ll do a better job with it? Check your u-Haul™ receipts before you answer that one. The “legal protections” argument is horrifically naïve. Just talk to anyone who ended up on the wrong end of a pre-nup. And while the “rights” argument, human or civil, is hard to contest without looking like a real schmuck, all it suggests to me is that we should have the right to be miserable, greedy and conform to other people’s expectations just like straight people. And, as far as this issue being some form of resistance from growing conservative political trends, let’s be objective enough to realize that much of the anti-same-sex-marriage bullying from the current administration is a sneaky way of avoiding the issue of dead soldiers. We’re simply pawns and we’re playing the role as well as expected.

    Read the rest: For whom the (wedding) bell tolls. . .


    | Link to this post | |
     
    The Great Divide: What's Dividing the Nation?
    11.20.04 (1:01 pm)   [edit]
    Amy Goodman, host and Executive Director of Democracy Now; Dr. John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix; and Dr. Suzanne Helburn, professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Colorado, Denver are presenting a series of free webinars about the critical issues dividing the nation. Perhaps these three professionals will give us more insight about the reasons Americans are heading to Canada in droves! I just signed up for the web-based seminars as I plan to offer a review here afterwards. You can sign up by clicking the Metro America ad to your left.

    If you sign up and decide to blog on the seminars, can you come back here and provide us a link to your entry?

    | Link to this post | |
     
    Just What is This BDSM Stuff?
    11.19.04 (12:41 am)   [edit]
    In the spirit of keeping the SistersTalk blog a little less political, on to the next sex subject.

    BDSM. How many of you are flinching? I've gotten somewhat interested in the subject in the past 18 months or so, and I've heard all sorts of interesting comments from my friends. None of them are remotely interested in any aspect of BDSM and none of them have a clue what it's all about. The word abuse immediately comes to mind for most of them.

    So, this is an open forum on the subject. Do you know what it is? Care to share any good resources? Do you write a BDSM blog?

    Please ladies and gents, no nudie pics in my email box this time. I know where to find them if I want them. Thanks!


    | Link to this post | |
     
    Black Republicans the Newest Talkin' Head
    11.18.04 (7:25 am)   [edit]
    Everytime I see a conservative blog praising a Black Republican, I laugh . . . and then I feel sick. Then I laugh some more. It's as if those conservatives are saying, "See! Even the niggahs get it!"

    These are the same people who rejoiced when Arnold the Terminator joined their team -- his wife is from one of the most famous Democratic families in the United States. They could care less that Arnold actually agrees with their ideologies; this is all about winning. The more people they can pull from the other team, the better. As Arnold will soon find out, he's still Arnold, his wife is still a member of the Kennedy clan, and he's still a foreign-born citizen. He'll have a rough road ahead in his pursuit to move his family into the White House.

    And all these Black Republicans, they're still Black. A Black Republican will always need validation from a white one -- not a Hispanic one, not even a female one, but a white male conservative one. The very thing that breathes life into a Black Republican blog is the fact that the writer has chosen to align himself/herself with a group of people who will validate them only because they share the same ideology, tow the line, and they don't rock the boat -- at least not the conservative boat. And at this point, conservatives are runnin' things in Jesusland so that's probably the best boat to be on -- for now. The Titanic was supposedly indestructible, too. We all know where it's sitting right now.

    Are Black Republicans sell-outs? Absolutely not. They know how the game works, they know who the key players are, and they know how to do what they gotta do to take care of #1. That's the smartest way to go about living in the world, really -- if you were the only one in it.

    I am not promoting blind allegiance to the Democratic party. I would be the last person to suggest such a thing because I am completely unhappy with the Democrats right now. But pledging allegiance to the Republican party isn't exactly the better alternative. I'd rather walk out in front of a moving train. Just because Bush threw a few dark darker faces in his administration than any other Republican president doesn't mean the Republican party has changed. It just means the Republicans knew enough Black folks would be dumb enough to think it had. It worked like a charm, I must say.

    As far as I see it, I don't see either major party concerning itself with issues that are important to the continuous economic development of Blacks and other minorities. And no, I'm not listening to that "you're responsible for your own destiny" song. That record is scratched and gettin' on my nerves. That logic serves as nothing more than an attempt to place all blame on minorities for their economic development. If we really are soley responsible for our troubles and the government is resolved of all blame, the civil rights movement of the 60s was really unnecessary.

    The Democrats have maintained a strong hold on the Black vote for decades and have done very little to earn it, while the Republicans have made every move possible to see that Blacks get very few allowances for 200+ years of wrongdoing. Why should we pledge allegiance to either party? I hope to see major changes in both parties within the next 20 years or so, and hopefully the addition of a strong third party.


    | Link to this post |
     
    Sweet Jesus Condi, Breathe Sistah!
    11.17.04 (10:59 am)   [edit]
    When I read this back in April, I thought it was mere gossip, not worthy of gracing the pages here at SistersTalk. But, the more I think about it, the more I'm thinking there might be some truth to the story. Besides, I'm not above a little gossip now and then.





    img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/sistersta lk/ricebush.jpg"




    So, is it possible that Condi has a thing for Dubya?

    What does that look remind you of? She's closing her eyes. Breathing deep. Inhaling the scent of her man. I mean, the First Lady's man. Alright, enough already.


    Rice was reportedly overheard saying, “As I was telling my husb—” and then stopping herself abruptly, before saying, “As I was telling President Bush.”

    Yeah, yeah. I know. I've stooped to sexualizing her relationship with Dubya. The photos are great, how could I resist? How many photos do we see of Bush hugging men and provoking that kind of longing expression? Hmm. . . if you find any, send them to me, please.

    Thanks to Michelle and Corrente for the photos.


    | Link to this post | |
     
    Testing Theory on One-Night Stands
    11.15.04 (9:27 pm)   [edit]
    I'm curious about something. I have no problem with one stands. Do you? Why or why not?

    Please state your gender and sexual orientation when you answer. Thanks!

    comments still available, please review

    | Link to this post | |

     
    Colin Powell Leaving, Rice Next?
    11.15.04 (7:35 am)   [edit]
    Well this doesn't surprise me. Conservatives who want so desperately to claim that Powell had plans to leave the Bush Administration even if Bush was re-elected are just reaching -- pathetically, I might add. Here's why:

    "I serve at the pleasure of the President. The president and I have not discussed anything other than my continuing to do my job for him ."-- Colin Powell

    And other statements here will clearly show that Powell himself never planned to resign, but was aware that he may not be invited back.

    It became pretty obvious to me that Powell wouldn't be invited back. His statements too often contradicted with Bush's statements. Note the date on both articles.

    Oh, but nevermind me. I'm just spinnin' the truth. I'm expecting Commi Condi Rice to leave next -- on her own, of course. You know how that works.


    | Link to this post | |
     
    President Arnold Schwarzenegger '08?
    11.14.04 (11:49 am)   [edit]
    Bush has been quiet about the push Arnold's friends are making to see him and other foreign-born citizens become President of the US. It's been pretty quiet on the Republican front about the issue. Things are about to heat up and Arnold's colleagues in Washington will have to take a stand one way or the other. Proposed amendments are circulating in Congress and interests groups are beginning television commercials to advance the issue.

    Me? I plan to sit back and watch the Republicans dance around the fire. One of their own is so blatantly obvious about his desires to become President. To do that, he needs a Constitutional amendment because he's a forgein-born citizen. I plan to watch the Republicans issue to Arnold the same speeches about tradition that they issued to the people who want to see "Under God" removed from the Constitution. If they don't, I will be sorely disappointed. Actually, I won't. And I won't be surprised either because the Republicans have a consistent record of inconsistency.

    As for Arnold. I noticed his lingo about gay marriage start to change from "marriage is between a man and a woman" to "I don't mind gay marriage as long as the Constitution allows it." Yeah, you son-of-a-bitch, I see where that was going.

    A Constitutional amendment that would allow Arnold and other foreign-born citizens to take the big chair in the White House needs congressional approval and ratification by 38 states. With that knowledge, who do you think we'll see first as President of the US: a Black citizen, a female citizen, or a foreign-born citizen?


    | Link to this post | |
     
    Create a Gay Sim Life
    11.12.04 (5:30 pm)   [edit]
    If you haven't seen it yet, check out MyGaySimLife, the first online virtual world dedicated to gay men. Hmm. . . I'd be curious to see the lesbian version of this game. Let's just hope the porn industry doesn't create it.

    The disclaimer should be enough to entice the best of ya:


    myGSL is an uncensored online virtual world. This means that you may see nudity and even avatars engaging in sexual acts within the world at times. We do not restrict our members to politically correct "moral" behaviors - as such, you MUST be at least 18 years of age to enter.


    I am so there.

    If that's not enough, every 100th member automatically receives a free iPod mini.

    | Link to this post | |
     
    This Entry Has No Title
    11.12.04 (8:27 am)   [edit]
    Random Items to Keep Ya Busy This Weekend:

    The Republicans are preparing for 2025 as we speak. They always have a plan. Gotta hand it to 'em.

    [i]Shameless Plugs for Blogroll Partners:[/i]

  • If you're tired of politics, or you're one of the closeted dykes who ended up here doing a keyword search for "lesbian sex," check out The Lesbian Lifestyle: a storytelling blog written for and by lesbians and or any woman who has ever fallen in love with another woman. Leave your bras at the door ladies, it's gonna get hot . . .


  • More lesbians wantin' babies, I tell ya. Trust me, people, they're cuter when they're younger. I can send you my kids on a rotating basis. Who's first? There's a picture on that blog of a really cute girl with the fattest cheeks -- the baby, not the blogger.

  • The name of this blog just grabs your attention: ThatColoredFellasWeblog. Good name. Good reading.


  • That should keep ya busy for a little while. I have a couple of other blogs to update (no I won't give you the links) and I have to start working on my Capstone project this weekend. It's the home stretch folks. The last 3 months of classes and I can tack MBA after my name. How exciting. (I see you yawning, G.D.) From there, the goal is PhD. Thanks to all my advertisers who have helped fund my education. It's very much appreciated.

    Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. Oh, I do have one question: how soon do you start Christmas shopping? Me? December 22 at the earliest.


    | Link to this post | |
     
    Limbaugh: No One Said Iraq Was Connected to 9/11
    11.11.04 (11:19 am)   [edit]
    A quick item about my favorite jackass (oh, there's that name-calling again) of conservative talk radio:

    Rush Limbaugh said on the November 8 edition of his show:


    "The fact that there's no -- no relationship to Iraq and -- and 9-11 -- nobody ever said there was. You guys just believed the myth out there that was -- that was -- that was promulgated. Nobody ever said there was.

    What we said was, there's a connection of terrorism in Iraq, and the voters believed this."



    So, now that Dubya has won the White House for a second term, the "technicalities" spin has began. The Bush Administration constantly stated that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda. Ok, Al Qaeda was connected to 9/11. The Bush Administration implied constantly that Iraq was connected to 9/11 and never explicitly stated that Iraq was not connected to 9/11. By continuing the war in Iraq and linking it to the argument that "Iraq is connected to terrorism and Al Qaeda" the Bush Administration perpetuated false claims of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Limbaugh has pretty much admitted that -- and doesn't seem to mind that Bush did it since he won the White House for a second term.

    I'm waiting for the ditto heads and other conservatives to call Limbaugh a liar. How will they spin Limbaugh's comments? Or, will they just follow along, nod, agree, and say, "He's right, no one ever really said Iraq was connected to 9/11."

    | Link to this post |
     
    I Can Say I Was an Eye Witness
    11.10.04 (8:56 am)   [edit]
    By the year 2025, the US's majority population will consist of Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and other non-whites who are naturalized citizens. Gotta love that immigration. Perhaps the conservative white males --who desperately cling to power using Jesus as their common ground -- were already afraid of that very statistic. With Governor Arnold's push to see naturalized citizens win the right to become Commander-in-Chief, we may even see an Elian Gonzales in the White House. Wouldn't that piss off a good ol' fashion Republican redneck? I don't care what rhetoric the "christian" Republicans give ya. They don't plan to step aside anytime soon to let any naturalized citizens take over the White House. We'll see that as soon as they let go of their racial profiling at airports and their vehement mission to see the Partiot Act enacted completely without restrictions. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

    I can finally find a little peace in Bush's win on November 2, 2004. The year 2025 will bring about major changes to the US's demographic makeup. I'll let the Republicans continue to grunt and high five each other like the washed-up-high-school-qua rterbacks-who-never-made- pro they will become.

    So gloat, motherfuckers. Gloat. Relish in your short-lived power. Roll around in it. Put your trophy on your mama's mantle to collect dust. I'll take a picture for ya if you like. Hell, I need a few pictures for myself. It's history in the making -- the last days of happiness for the religious white right. I can say I was an eye witness.


    | Link to this post |
     
    Yeah, I Used Artificial Insemination
    11.09.04 (9:59 am)   [edit]
    So I was talking to a lesbian online via instant messenger who was extremely excited about the birth of her newborn child. A boy. Her little man. She lives in my area, so I was kinda curious if it was someone I knew. She mentioned she used artificial insemination; she mentioned it several times actually. So, I took the bait.
    [i]
    Me: Why would you do that when it's much cheaper to go the other route?

    Her: I couldn't find a guy I thought would make a good father.

    Me: So you would have done it the other way if you had found someone you thought would be a good Dad?

    Her: Well, no.

    Me: But that's what you just said.[/i]

    Not much later, we exchanged pictures and it was definitely someone I knew already. We didn't really like each other much so we were polite and said our quick goodbyes. Her little man was pretty damn cute. I don't believe for one second she paid for artificial insemination. Unless this woman suddenly began attending AA meetings, learned to keep a job, and learned to stay out of jail -- all in a matter of less than 2 years, I'm putting my money on a pregnacy via the good ol' fashion way. It costs $300 - $700 per cycle attempt (only if you use your partner's sperm). Trying to get pregnant using artificial insemination with an anonymous donor's sperm can get costly. At any rate, things change though and I know I shouldn't be so judgemental.

    But, I know lots of lesbians who lie (like a rug) about how they became pregnant. Personally, I see nothing wrong with saving your cash and going au naturale to produce a beautiful newborn (who turns into a raging adolescent who talks back and thinks he knows everything). I did it twice. I'm certainly not promoting rampant heterosexual activity in the lesbian community -- oh no! But I am suggesting that if you're barely holding on to your middle class standing, you might want to invest the money you would have spent on countless attempts at artificial insemination in a college fund for your mini-me. And when you're asked how you got pregnant, be proud of the decision ya made. The cost of college is rising steadily.

    I'm working with a few things here. For the most part, I see very little negativity voiced about lesbians like me: divorced with children. I see lots of negativity about bisexual women. And, I see self-identified lesbians (who have been out for some time) who have sex with men --strictly for the purpose of procreation -- hiding that and lying about it. Something isn't making sense here.

    Does this have anything to do with our need to proclaim to the world that we don't need men? Someone like me has already seemingly detached from men. I'm divorced, identifying as a lesbian, and I already have children -- most likely I won't have a need for a man anymore, not even for child bearing. A bisexual woman still likes men. And a lesbian woman who wants children still has a "need" for a man in some way -- child bearing, whether she does it au naturale or artificial insemination.

    I used to talk to someone quite frequently about all the things that just don't make sense to me about what is kosher among various lesbian subcultures and what is not. She viewed my line of reasoning as a string of "technicalities." Maybe there are technicalities and I just don't get it. Maybe there is something uniquely different about a lesbian who has been out for years who suddenly has sex with 1 man, and a lesbian like me who had sex with men for years, bore one man 2 children, then came out as lesbian. Whatever that "technicality" is, it sure is driving a lot of lesbians crazy because a whole lot of them are lyin' and hiding the fact that they had babies au naturale. Where's the shame in that?




    Related Links

    How to Have a Child in a Gay/Lesbian Relationship : Clear Instructions on How to Do (just about) Everything

    Politicians fight Lesbians : But the Stork Fights Back

    ARHP Health & Sexuality Lesbian Health : Fertility and Childcare Issues in the Lesbian Community



    | Link to this post | |
     
    Frightened into Silence in 2008?
    11.07.04 (2:37 pm)   [edit]
    A preview of what's to come in 2008:


    President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the White House, advised Kerry in a phone call early in the campaign to find a way to support the state bans. Kerry never considered abandoning his principles to that extent, but he also didn’t take seriously enough the threat. Expanding the definition of “values” beyond opposition to gay marriage and abortion is the challenge for Democrats. Nader points to the fact that initiatives calling for an increase in the minimum wage won in Florida and Nevada. What if the Democrats had gotten behind those initiatives with the same fervor Republicans backed same-sex marriage bans? Paying people a decent wage can be framed as a moral issue.

    Nader Was Right


    Good ol' Slick Willie. Ya can always count on him to do good for the homosexuals. I still argue that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a clever law designed to appease Republicans (while pacifying gays) and was never intended to help gays in the military. Was I supposed to jump at the opportunity to put his Vice President back in the White House? Fat chance.

    To think, people like Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force claim the gay marriage issue had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's win this election year. I wrote Matt a very nasty email, mostly because I've had enough of his hypocrisy for the year. Seems like Matt is most concerned about the Task Force (and all the work the organization did this year towards securing equal marriage rights) being associated with the Bush win.

    So, will this be the GOP strategy in 2008? If so, will the LGBT community be frightened into silence for fear of having another Republican president in the White House? Will the same Democrats who threatened potential Nader voters threaten the LGBT community to keep quiet about gay rights to ensure that a Democratic president wins the White House in 2008? It sure is a possibility and I certainly wouldn't be surprised. Will organizations like the HRC and NGLTF cave to the pressure? The caving began already in 2004 with their vehement support of a candidate who wasn't willing to support full marriage rights, but instead civil unions -- knowing full well that civil unions do not provide the same rights under federal law as marriage.

    The GOP has found a strategy that works. It works because there are enough people in the world who have decided they have the right to dictate the morals and values of everyone else in a society. And why would they feel they have that right? Because we live in a world where people think everybody's business is their business.

    I see much tension between LGBT groups and Democrats in 2008. If the race is anything like the 2004 race, I don't see Democrats compromising at all on gay issues in 2008 -- not if they want a Democratic Commander-in-Chief.


    | Link to this post | |
     
    We Don't Wanna Look Stupid, Do We?
    11.07.04 (9:50 am)   [edit]
    I'm thinking about something my Advanced Managerial Finance instructor said in class Thursday night when we discussed Bush's re-election. I was almost convinced he voted for Bush, but I didn't like him even before that. Besides using terms like "barbaric" to define the people in Iraq who are fighting back because they don't want us in their country, he said something like, "We can't really pull out of Iraq without finishing the job. We don't wanna look stupid. "

    Now, of course you know me. I was livid. This comment coming from a man who has an MBA and is the Vice President of a bank, yet had no damn clue that Saddam attacked the USS Stark while Ronald Reagan was president and we did nothing about it -- after Ronald Reagan himself lifted sanctions on Iraq. Shows how informed even the "smart" people are, ey? I thought that made us look pretty damn stupid, but what do I know?

    "We don't wanna look stupid." I wonder how many other Bush supporters have the same mindset and just haven't admitted it. I mean honestly, it's the most pathetic reason to continue a war and continue killing off civilians, but this guy had no problem whatsoever admitting that. It makes sense though.

    We are so determined to prove America is #1. To back out of this war now would scream we're not. And no redneck, patriotic American is havin' that. Oh no! No conservative, flag-wavin', Nascar-lovin, stay-at-home Mom is havin' that. You see where I'm goin' right? And stick it if you think my comments are stereotypical, I really don't give a shit.

    We are so disillusioned to believe we will defeat people who are so used to fighting and are accustomed to continuous death around them. What will we do? Continue the battle until we have killed off all the people? Because that's what it will take. If 18 months in Iraq hasn't proven that, I think we look pretty stupid already.

    One of the issues conservatives had with liberals and progessives was the fact that we spoke out against Bush during a time of war. In their mind, we were obligated to show solidarity -- so the US didn't look stupid. So the President didn't look stupid. But he is stupid. He sent 40,000 troops to Iraq without the proper equipment and without an exit plan. With all those supposedly educated, talented, experienced people in the Bush Administration who advised Bush on the war, I find it incredibly stupid that none of them thought to make sure those troops had the proper equipment and none of them thought to come up with an exit strategy. Do you think the rest of the world is thinking the same thing? Of course they are! But, we expect those people to follow stupid and jump feet first into a war when even Bush has no clue what he's doing. And when they don't follow stupid, we call them cowards. We want everyone to follow stupid so stupid can be #1 at all times.

    I think not. If stupid jumped off a bridge, would you follow?


    | Link to this post | |
     
    It's the Nader Virus
    11.04.04 (7:42 pm)   [edit]
    In 2000, those who supported the Democrats had Nader to blame because Gore lost the election. Well, that and the infamous hijacked FL votes. I still argue that if Gore had performed better during his candidacy, FL would have been a non-issue because he would have won plenty other states. But, no one ever listens to me when it's easier to blame Nader.

    Election 2004 has a new Nader to blame. No, not Ralph Nader, the Nader virus:

    1. [i]noun.[/i] the causative agent of an infectious disease that spreads among angry democrats and causes said democrats to find various people to blame for a Democrat's election loss. Named after Ralph Nader (1934 - )

    Any regular SistersTalk reader knows I did not support John Kerry's candidacy until the last few remaining days before the election. If Justice Rehnquist had not taken ill, I would not have felt obligated (to my children and yours) to support the candidate who had at least a hair of a chance to beat George W. Bush. It's still a free country (for now) and I am not obligated to support any candidate. I can vote any damn way I please. I can write in J. Lo if I want. I'm not quite sure where any Democrat got the idea that citizens are obligated to vote for the candidate who's most likely to win. I shall consult my history books on that one (one more time) because I have never seen that written anywhere in all my 20 years of education. So, blaming me and any other progressive voter who spoke freely about John Kerry's shortcomings throughout the election is not only uncalled for, but it goes against everything a democracy stands for.

    Democrats had four years to pull it together and find a candidate who would appeal to Democratic voters and would be most likely to beat George W. Bush. Read that sentence again. I'll pause while you do.

    What did the Democrats do between 2000 and 2004? They suffered horrendously from the Nader virus. They played the blame game. The Democrats would have been more productive, and perhaps victorious in 2004, had they focused their energy on finding and presenting to the people a great, if not pretty damn decent, Democrat for President. Instead, their plan was to exterminate Nader, push anybody upfront, and bingo! Mission accomplished. **Buzzer goes off** Wrong answer.

    I certainly hope the Democrats get over this Nader virus by 2008. Finding blame in the progressives and attempting to bully us into submission won't work. It didn't work in 2000. It didn't work in 2004. And it won't work in 2008. I will certainly continue to run my big mouth and promote change at every turn. Like it or not.

    No one is more saddened than I by the events of the past 2 days. I am a productive American citizen who pays her taxes, works every day, and served my country in the military. How dare another American citizen tell me I don't deserve equal rights because I am a homosexual American citizen. But, I will not let that keep me from insisting the Democrats do better for the people who want better -- even if they lose another election.


    | Link to this post | |
     
    The Good News About the Election
    11.03.04 (7:12 pm)   [edit]
    I suppose the election is "officially" over since Kerry and Edwards have conceded -- although all the votes weren't really counted. I tried explaining that concept to my children while simultaneously explaining how a democracy works. They were confused, too. I had to think about this entry (notice how long it took me to get to it?) before I finally decided on the issues I want to address.

    [i]Black religious leaders who motivated Blacks to vote Republican because they were against gay marriage.[/i]

    This is an issue that makes me very ill. It's why I haven't stepped foot in a Black Baptist church since I could decide on my own if I wanted to attend church at all. I've always found the ones I attended to be hypocritical, hateful, and well, pretty damn self-righteous. It doesn't surprise me at all that Bush was able to sway members of these churches to come out in droves to support his agenda. Now, when Bush knocks on their door, smiling pretty, preaching the word, and asking them to hand over their sons and daughters first for the draft, they better not breathe one damn word of protest. Let them support that agenda just as quickly.


    [i]Gay marriage ban passed in 11 states[/i]

    Bush carried all but 2 of the 11 states that passed the gay marriage ban. It's so obvious the Bush Administration's agenda was to use the gay marriage issue to win votes. It worked. I take this as a personal insult. I pay my taxes. I work hard and I work every day. I don't ask anybody for anything, I've earned everything I have. I raise my children to be good people. I am not a criminal. I served my country in the military. All these things give me the right to marry any adult I damn well please. Just who do these people think they are? God?


    [i]Not really voting FOR Kerry[/i]

    Let's be honest, please. So many of us voted for Kerry because we wanted to vote against Bush. That spelled failure from the very beginning of his campaign. I never felt he was a strong enough candidate to beat Bush -- no matter how flawed (and oh how flawed) he is. I think that's what motivated my frustrations about Kerry up until the final days before the election. The democratic party has been on a steady decline since the last election -- spending most of its time blaming Nader for election 2000 instead of focusing on how to win election 2004. In 2000, the people sent a loud and clear message to the democratic party: "We want change. We need progress. Give it to us or else." I'm not too sure the democratic party was listening because Kerry was the strongest they could come up with? Let's see what they hand us in 2008.

    [i]The Good News[/i]

    Yes, there's good news. The country will have plenty happy, cheerful, willing Bush supporters to support his draft. 59 million Americans voted for Bush. I think all the ones between 18 and 26 should get drafted first. That should be enough so that the rest of us can kick back and blog about it at home. And those of you who have children not quite old enough yet, you better make damn sure your kids make it to the post office to sign up or I will be very disappointed in your allegiance to your Commander-in-Chief.

    So, let's take a vote. All in favor of the Bushies getting drafted first, say "aye!"


    | Link to this post | |
     
    Election Day Coverage 2004
    11.02.04 (6:15 am)   [edit]
    Election Day Coverage: Updated Throughout the Day
    [i]All times Central Time[/i]

    8:15am

    They're desperate. Oh so desperate. No president has ever been elected without winning Ohio, so Dubya's people are stationed at the polls in OH challenging the legitimacy of those who turn out to vote. Quite interesting.

    It's 8:15 am and I've cast my vote already. I'm in one of the battle states (WI), so I'm anxious to see how things turn out here. It was nice to see voting at my son's elementary school. They've been really interested in the election.


    Read the rest of the coverage here: Election Coverage. Tracked until approximately midnight. Comments have been moved also.

    [post edited. visitor corrected Edward's hometown. see comments]