04.01.05 (1:13 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
George W Bush wants to offer federal financial rewards to religious groups, while simultaneously allowing them to practice discriminatory employment practices. Doesn't that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Why yes it does! Religious groups are free to discriminate in their hiring practices; however, they forfeit federal funding if they do so. As an MBA grad from Harvard, W should know that. And if he doesn't know that, Condi -- or one of those other thinking people around him -- should know it.
ABC News reports that 10 states will share 40% of $2 billion in taxpayer money allotted to faith-based organizations in Bush's new budget. Nobody asked me if I wanted my money going to faith-based organizations, but Margaret Spellings had a fit about my money being used to fund a cartoon that included a lesbian bunny.
Bush claims religious organizations do a better job of meeting social needs. Could've fooled me. My exhusband's church built a $1 million gymnasium. I wonder what social need that met. But hey, I digressed.
According to the White House figures, grants of more than $100 million for religious groups went to New York, Illinois and California.
The other states rounding out the top 10 were New Jersey, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Georgia and Ohio.
[. . . ]
Bush has urged Congress to pass a law that would allow religious groups to consider religion when making employment decisions while not jeopardizing their federal contracts. The president says the charities are effective because of the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and employees. Critics say hiring and firing based on religion is discrimination.
We are in Iraq fighting for someone else's freedom (supposedly, at least that's what they tell us), while our President is working to allow organizations to discriminate against a person based on his or her religious beliefs. Anybody else see any irony here?
Greg Hammond of California Hammonds is holding a commentathon in memory of his wife, Cheryl, who died of breast cancer one year ago tomorrow. Do you think it can be posted on Blogs by Women - with a link or something? All people have to do is comment once, sponsors have committed to donating money for a certain amount of comments with the goal being $10,000 being donated to getting low-income women the mammograms that they need. Greg has prizes that will be randomly given away, too (like an iPod Shuffle, an iPod mini, and several other things like iTunes gift certificates once an hour, up to ten. The site had the information).
Sure thing, Rae!
If you want to participate, you have to hurry. The Commentathon ends at midnight on April 1. Please, add this entry to your blog and help out if you can.
03.31.05 (6:38 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
I have to disagree with the ACLU on this one. Yahoo News reports the ACLU wants a government website on parenting removed because the site dictates values.
I visited the parenting site myself, and although I was tickled by the marketing image of the smiling Blacks, one Hispanic, 1 Asian, and 1 White couple, I didn't think the site dictated values at all. There are a few things that are a bit annoying.
Single-parent households is listed under the sex-related risk factors -- an obvious assumption that dual parent households produce happy, sexually healthy children. Scratch your head on that one. Oh, and a teenager who has a job and works more than 20 hours a week may also be engaging in risky sex habits -- according to the government.
The abstinence section is sound and reasonable advice -- if a parent decides to take that advice. I noticed the website doesn't specifically state that a parent should preach abstinence. Even when I visited the sexual orientation section, I didn't see anything anti-gay. The section reads:
Think through your personal views on this issue before discussing it with your adolescent.
Address this issue in an age-appropriate manner, possibly when you are discussing other sexuality issues.
State your beliefs and values clearly and calmly.
One of the most disarming ways to discuss issues with adolescents is to ask them what they think. Find out how much they know and understand about homosexuality and related issues and answer questions as they arise.
Your discussions should take into account your adolescent's awareness of alternative lifestyles as well as how common they are in your particular community
If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues.
So, according to this advice, if my child came to me and told me he was gay, I would: think about my values (we all know what those are), then consider taking him to my therapist -- who is also gay.
And for those people thinking there's no talk of birth control or protection from sexually transmitted diseases, think again and again and again.
The section on body art leaned to the paranoid side. Of course teenagers shouldn't be getting body art done in their friend's basement; however, body art can be perfectly safe and many people in various countries around the world have been doing it for centuries. I give the Americans who wrote the body art section for the government parenting site a C+.
The Mental Health section was done very well, and I was immediately pleased with the Parenting section because "W" was for wise, not Geoge W Bush. The converation starters are a bit long and awkward, but for a parent who doesn't know how to talk to his or her child, it's a good start.
I scoured the government's parenting site, and honestly, I didn't see dicatorship. Trust me, I was definitely looking for it.
03.31.05 (11:42 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
CNN reports that Ted Koppel is leaving ABC. Koppel has hosted Nightline since 1980.
Sidenote: Forgive me for not jumping on the story about Terri Schiavo's death. Many bloggers are writing on it, then pinging their blogs repeatedly so the blogosphere doesn't miss the story on their blog. The woman has died. Let her go. Stop capitalizing on it. Shame on you!
03.31.05 (11:01 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Gay leaders are planning a party in Jerusalem. And that, folks, sounds like an agenda:
International gay leaders are planning a 10-day WorldPride festival and parade in Jerusalem in August, saying they want to make a statement about tolerance and diversity in the Holy City, home to three great religious traditions.
It has the gentleman in the photo above a wee bit upset. They say the gay pride festivities will desecrate the city and give the impression that homosexuality is acceptable [to them] (emphasis added by me).
Never before have Christians, Jews, and Islamics agreed on anything. But, the leaders of these groups have come together to show that they do agree on one thing: homosexuals. I find that so fuckin' laughable (and a bit embarrassing -- isn't there a country full of starving children somewhere this new coalition can go save? these gentleman look so healthy and well nourished.).
Anyway, that party in Jerusalem sounds like so much fun. It may just put the Pride party in Chicago to shame.
03.31.05 (10:20 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
I saw that headline and I thought, that can't be right. since when? I had to read the article:
A white woman with a bachelor's degree typically earned nearly $37,800 in 2003, compared with nearly $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,100 for a college-educated black woman, according to data being released Monday by the Census Bureau. Hispanic women took home slightly less at $37,600 a year.
And here's the catch:
The bureau did not say why the differences exist. Economists and sociologists suggest possible factors: the tendency of minority women, especially blacks, to more often hold more than one job or work more than 40 hours a week, and the tendency of black professional women who take time off to have a child to return to the work force sooner than others.
A few points from the story:
Black women who receive degrees in the Sciences are a rarity and will see financial gains because of that.
39% of households headed by a single Black woman are in poverty
A white male with a college diploma earns far more than any similarly educated man or woman
There are millions more college-educated white men in better paying jobs than there are black, Hispanic or Asian men
Minorities also suffered more financially as a result of the 2001 recession and its aftermath, as has been the case with past economic downturns
03.31.05 (10:03 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
A recent Supreme Court ruling favors a male coach (Roderick Jackson) of a girls' high school basketball team who claims he was fired after he complained the boys' team received better treatment. The ruling has expanded gender equity laws, and protects whistleblowers who accuse academic institutions of gender discrimination.
"Without protection from retaliation, individuals who witness discrimination would likely not report it, indifference claims would be short-circuited, and the underlying discrimination would go unremedied," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.
Women's groups say the ruling will prompt more reports of gender bias, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Jackson came forward because the situation affected him personally. He was the coach of the girls' team that was treated unfairly; that meant he was treated unfairly also. He complained. The school fired him. Positive things have come out his actions; however, I'm thinking women's groups are celebrating prematurely. Don't expect men everywhere to suddenly become whistleblowers.
03.30.05 (5:45 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
I gotta stop reading Religious News Service. I just read a story about John Connor, a spokesperson for a group called the "Resistance for Christ." Connor believes that radio frequency devices used for identification purposes are the mark of the beast. Connor believes that one day, everyone in the world will be made to wear a tracking device of some sort -- supposedly for our safety. Note my entry on microchips in October.
In February, Cnet.com ran an article about John Connor and his theory that RFID is the mark of the beast:
Few people have actually been injected with VeriChip devices, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved the technology for medical purposes. In addition, an elementary school near Yuba City, Calif., has begun requiring students to wear ID badges containing RFID chips around their necks. And the Department of State is planning to embed RFID devices in U.S. passports
Connor is outraged that elementrary school students are being tracked by radio frequency. Soon, you can bet these chips will be in our drivers licenses; the school IDs are just a test for what's to come. Call me a conspiracy theorist. I don't care. It lacks creativity. I don't understand the necessity of tracking a 6 year old in an elementary school using radio frequency. Where will he run off to? The cafeteria? The bathroom?
The Religious News Service story stated:
A recent Wired News article suggests these various terms for RFID tags in identification documents may indicate that the federal government is engaging in semantic acrobatics in order to call the technology anything but what it actually is. According to Wired News, "The Homeland Security Department is playing word games to dodge the privacy debate raging over RFID tags, which will eventually replace barcode labels on consumer goods
I think I shall continue criticizing our government for its sneaky-like ways. I didn't need Wired News to tell me the government was up to no good with those chips. I said that in October.
Senators Edward Kennedy and Sam Brownback on Genetic Testing
03.30.05 (5:11 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Religious News Service has a story on genetic testing (I promise I'm not a closet conservative). According to the story, Edward Kennedy, Sam Brownback, and James Sensenbrenner have called for the adoption of the Prenatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. This act ensures that pregnant women who screen for various genetic defects and receive positive test results will receive information that allows them to make better choices about how to handle the life of that child -- that's really the simplest way to put it. Those women will "receive up-to-date, scientific information about the life expectancy, clinical course, intellectual and functional development, and prenatal and postnatal treatment options for their child."
Of course, there are concerns about women aborting babies after learning those babies have disabilities. The pursuit of perfection is alive and well, so it doesn't surprise me that women would abort a child after learning the child will most likely be disabled. Even if vanity isn't the issue, economics may come into play.
Whatever happened to the day when you were just happy to learn if your child was a boy or girl?
Gay Group Declines Panel Discussion With Focus on the Family
03.30.05 (4:41 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
They still plan to protest the organization, but they have absolutely no plans to sit down Focus on the Family and discuss how God feels about homosexuals. Soulforce, "an interfaith group urging greater acceptance for gays and lesbians" will demonstrate May 1 - 2 and urged its member to decline invitations to the April 25 panel discussion. Members were advised to accept one-on-one meetings with James Dobson or the organization's new president Jim Daly.
I don't trust the organization and I agree with the one-on-one discussions instead. I don't see the point in a panel discussion, unless there's an agenda there. Hey, I've started using the conservatives' favorite word. Agenda. Agenda. *giggle.*
03.30.05 (4:19 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Conservative publication BreakPoint has a non-fiction story that the Supreme Court will eventually rule that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional:
It was a shocking—yet not unexpected—decision by the Supreme Court. Speaking for the 5-4 majority, Justice Kennedy wrote that laws barring same-sex “marriage” infer “that the disadvantage imposed is born of animosity toward the class of persons affected.” Thus—by the stroke of a pen—the Court struck down state laws banning gay “marriage.”
Actually, the BreakPoint editorial asserts that this scenario is extremely possible, therefore Congress must act quickly to ban same-sex marriage -- rendering this scenario impossible. What makes the writer so certain the court will favor same-sex marriage? The sitting court overturned Romer v Evans -- a Colorado law that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect the rights of homosexuals. Of course, the way the case is worded in this editorial makes the case look like the court made special accomodations based on a person's sexual orientation:
Okay, it hasn’t happened—yet. But if the words sound familiar, it’s because they come from Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Romer v. Evans. That’s the ruling in which the Court overturned a democratically enacted Colorado law barring special civil rights protections based on sexual orientation. While the Supremes have not yet imposed gay “marriage” on America, they will the minute they get the chance. That’s why the Congress must act immediately on a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
In January, I was frustrated that 3 gay couples dropped their challenge of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because they were afraid they would lose and set a precedent. It was my opinion that they should move forward. One SistersTalk reader felt their decision was the right thing to do because she too was afraid they would set a precedent. I thought we should take our chances. It seems the conservatives are the only ones who are sure the Supreme Court will rule in favor of gay marriage:
The stage is already being set. In a recent California case, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that laws barring gay “marriage” impermissibly deny the constitutional right to equality. That case could soon reach the high court. Or challenges to one of the thirty-eight Defense of Marriage Act statutes that have been enacted across America could come before the Court at any time. It is not a question of if; it is a question how soon.
At that point, does anyone think that the Supremes will not declare gay “marriage” a constitutionally protected right on the very grounds that Kennedy has already stated in Romer? Or they might choose to rely on Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the Court struck down a Texas anti-sodomy statute on the grounds it denied the rights of “two adults who [engage] in sexual practices common to homosexual lifestyle.”
I also cited the Lawrence v Texas case as a sign that the sitting court would lean on the side of legalized gay marriages, but I received very few nods of agreement.
A sidenote: I noticed conservatives often write gay "marriage", placing the word marriage in quotation marks -- a sign they don't see a marriage between people of the same sex as a real marriage. Maybe we should start putting the word religious in quotation marks when we say "religious" right. I think it's entirely appropriate.
03.30.05 (1:34 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
I'm working on my overprotectiveness with my children. Recognizing it is the first step. Yeeeah!
I have two boys, ages 12 and 10. They're currently enjoying Spring Break. Yesterday, I was brave and allowed them to ride their bikes to the river (about 1/2 a mile from home). I first placed them in the car and drove the path I wanted them to take. I pointed out the bike trail they were to use; gave them rules of conduct to follow about strangers; told them they were to go from Point A to Point B (with a stop at Dairy Queen) and no place else; and informed them to be home no later than 1:00 pm. I handed them $10, waved goodbye, and said a little prayer.
1:30 arrived and the boys weren't home. I. was. livid. I suppose I was really more afraid than angry, but I didn't recognize that at the time. I got in my car and drove off to look for them. I saw their bikes outside the Dairy Queen and pulled alongside them. The boys came out to meet me.
"What time is it? I asked
My oldest looks at the watch on his wrist.
"Oh, I lost track of time," he said.
Later at dinner, I asked the boys what kept them past their 1:00 curfew. My oldest just smirked, so I turned to my youngest and repeated the question. He explained they ran into my son's friend Nina.
"Aah, so you saw Nina?" I asked, looking at my oldest.
"Yeah, we talked to her for awhile," he said.
The youngest piped in.
"We walked to her house."
"Did you have permission to walk to her house?" I asked.
They both said "no" in unison.
"When we return home we're having the talk," I told my oldest. I then turned to my youngest and said, "You'll be joining us, because someday, you too will do stupid things for women."
We had "the talk." We discussed condoms, pregnancy, masturbation, homosexual urges, sexual frustration, girls, HIV, herpes, gonnorhea, syphillis, more on girls, more on pregnancy, my refusal to raise my own grandchildren because my boys are teenage parents, and doing really stupid things for girls. I told them I could certainly relate.
I heard parenting gets easier when your kids are about 25 years old. Heaven help me.
03.29.05 (5:20 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Michael Medved of Jewish World News reports that Mrs. Jada Pinkett-Smith caused quite a stir at Harvard when she gushed over her man while making a speech at the elite institution. She said a woman "can have it all — a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career." Medved says Ms. Smith's comments angered the BGLT organization because of its "hetero-normative" content. Medved also went on to state:
This controversy reveals the radical nature of the so-called gay rights agenda, with its determination to obliterate all relationship norms and to strike back at anyone who speaks warmly of the traditional family.
Based on all the things I've read about Mrs. Smith, her husband, her children, and her career are really the only things she ever talks about during interviews and speeches -- in that order. Politics, news, or current events don't seem to take up too much space in her conversations. What did these Harvard students expect? I would have expected her to talk about nothing but her family.
As for Medved, I'm wondering how he defines "traditional family" when the United States is looking at a 50% divorce rate, blended families, single parent households, children raised by grandparents, children in foster care, and children raised by gay parents. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but conservatives are in the painful process of fighting to re-establish some resemblance of a traditional family. Who the hell is Medved kidding?
03.29.05 (4:50 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Some Catholic Churches are now refusing to allow homosexuals to become members of the Church. A lesbian couple was rejected by a Catholic Church displaying a sign that said "All are welcomed," but was later accepted by a different Catholic church.
Now, I may not know everything there is to know about Catholicism, but I do know what Jesus said about the Church. He said the Church is His house and all are welcomed in His house. I can take a good guess about how Jesus feels about those who turn people away from His house.
03.29.05 (2:59 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
While working on the Blogs by Women project, one thing has become abundantly clear: as things change, they remain the same.
While checking the blogrolls of self-identified feminists in the blogosphere, I've noticed that many of these blogrolls are full of white feminists who share the same ideology.
Certainly Black feminists exist in the blogosphere, and certainly those feminists who are not Black understand how race and culture -- as well as gender -- affect social and economic divisons. There are a few feminists in the blogosphere who have done a good job of addressing race and culture in their writing; however, I was disturbed by the many (and in the past week I've read many) who have largely ignored those factors.
Benita Roth of the University of Georgia wrote, "case studies of the second wave [of feminism] have all but ignored the feminism of women of color." I think we can see that in the blogosphere by simply locating feminist blogs and cruising the content or the blogrolls.
Many feminists will suggest that the absence of Black women's issues on their blogs rests in the fact that Black women bloggers just don't write on political issues. Let's follow that logic. If there's at least one Black female blogger who writes on politics, that should be enough motivation:
During the lengthy "Where are the Women Bloggers?" discussion on the blogosphere, the question Where are the African Women Bloggers?" surfaced. I noticed there was very little response to that question (4 comments to be exact), although the question pops up in Google under many variations of the keyword phrase women bloggers. The "Where Are The Women Bloggers?" question, well:
Trish Wilson lists 9 additional bloggers who wrote on the "Where are the Women Bloggers?" question.
By the way, where are the Black female bloggers you ask? Right here is a place to start.
Perhaps one of the problems is the way feminism is defined as feminists of the blogosphere read blogs written by Black women. I realize my beliefs may not scream feminist to those who consider themselves true feminists. I see no point in spelling women with a Y; I'm amused by anti-male feminists who are married, stay-at-home Moms -- raising 2.5 kids in a big house enclosed by a white picket fence; I'm losing all patience with feminists who insist all prostitutes are victims; I've grown bored of feminists who associate with nothing but other feminists who define everything with a word that ends in ISM.
I will not define feminism for others. I am a feminist as others have defined themselves as feminists. I wish I had the time to address other women of color, but I know I wouldn't do any of them justice. I know there are many Latina women, Asian women, Jewish women, and African women (women from the continent of Africa) writing on politics and social issues. A link in the comments would be appreciated.
03.28.05 (4:25 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Dana, played by Erin Daniels, finally dumps her fiancee Tonya, in one of the worst displays of sympathy I've ever seen, but Tonya doesn't care because she's found herself a new professional lesbian tennis player to suck up to. Before all this happened:
Kit slept with the oh-so-see-thru seminar man. Yuck! He ain't even cute.
Helena stopped by to visit Tina while she was singing and dancing and decorating the guest house with Alice, wearing relaxed pregnant-lady clothes and lookin' quite ragged. Alice asks her if she's sleeping with Helena after Tina expresses her embarassment at being caught by Ms. High Fashion lookin' like Ms. Wal-Mart.
Jenny and Shane discuss Carmen and Mark butts in the conversation, shocked that Jenny is now interested in someone Shane once dated. Hey Mark, don't you know lesbians are very incestuous? We sleep with the women our circle of friends have slept with. Don't trip ladies. You all know it's true.
Alice tells Dana she's not sneaking around with her anymore and asks Dana to break up with Tonya. Dana agrees to break up with Tonya after the upcoming tennis tournament. Little do we know, Tonya plans to dump Dana right about the same time. Ha!
Bette visits Tina at the guest house and tells Tina she wants to have a place in their baby's life. Tina has the nerve to say she'll think about it. Excuse me? I think my hearing is going bad. Did she say she'll think about it? Bette reminds Tina that she used the sperm they collected together from a friend who is actually Bette's friend; if they were a married couple the child would be hers. Touche! Ain't no thinkin' about it, girlfriend.
And one of the worst moments on the show came when the creators played on the recent story about the Playgirl editor who claims she was fired for being a Republican. The editor gave a series of interviews in which she stated "Republicans were hot." Carmen's character on the show stated, "Republicans are fuckin' hot" when asked by Mark if she would fuck a man for a million dollars. Carmen said would sleep with a Republican for a million dollars. Can we say "lame?" I wonder which L Word writer is a Log Cabin Republican.
Shane receives flowers and the delivery girls gets laid! Later, we learn it's all a setup -- compliments of their slimeball roommate Mark. Mark records the whole thing. He's been recording everything in the house for awhile. Are the creators trying to make us hate men? That was actually the worst moment of the show.
Alice writes a script for Dana to use to dump Tonya, but Dana decides not to use it; instead she adlibs. In the locker room, she starts her breakup speech but is interrupted when Tonya's new girlfriend walks in! Ouch! Dana looks shocked and asks her, "Are you even gay?" Of course, the new girlfriend responds with one of those "I love the person, not the gender" comments in a 100-miles-per-hour tone of voice, while wringing her hands and swinging her blonde hair. Could the writers have made her look any more wishy-washy?
And Tina sleeps with Helena -- after Helena lures her away from a dinner for all the Peabody recipients to an adjacent pool. I don't like that Helena. I think she's just using Tina to annoy Bette. Other powerful women bother Helena. I think she prefers those who are vulnerable.
Now that Dana and Tonya are together and the excitement of sneaking around is gone, let's see how long it lasts. The look on Dana's face at the end of the episode was priceless. Shane's pointing and laughing at both Dana and Alice as they drove home was beautiful.
Pharmacists Refuse to Fill Birth Control Prescriptions
03.28.05 (12:17 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
The Washingtom Post reports that pharmacists across the country are refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control pills and morning after pills, citing it goes against their personal beliefs:
The trend has opened a new front in the nation's battle over reproductive rights, sparking an intense debate over the competing rights of pharmacists to refuse to participate in something they consider repugnant and a woman's right to get medications her doctor has prescribed. It has also triggered pitched political battles in statehouses across the nation as politicians seek to pass laws either to protect pharmacists from being penalized -- or force them to carry out their duties.
I'd like to revisit this image for a moment:
(and no, I don't give a damn who has a problem with that graphic)
There's a serious problem in this country when pharmacists decide to refuse to distribute birth control because they have decided they are moral authorities in this country --providing birth control to a woman only if she's married. What right does a pharmacist have to ask a woman if she's married?
Pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions are not doing so because they feel the medication harms a woman's body; they are doing it because they disagree with an unmarried woman having premarital sex. That is not the same as a pharmacist exercising his or her right to refuse to distribute a medication that he or she feels is harmful to a woman's body. Because the same pharmacist who refuses to fill a birth control prescription for an unmarried woman will willingly fill the same prescription for a married women, it is clear these conservative pharmacists are abusing certain rights granted to them to exercise their personal convictions.
More and more people on the right are growing balls of steel and exercising ghost-rights -- assumed rights they feel they have just because George W. Bush won a second term in office by riding a wave of morals and values. It's absolutely incredible the shit those on the right are doing. It's as if they are trying to see just how much they can get away with. In the meantime, there's still that nasty war in Iraq that needs attention. Did they forget about that while they were worrying about refusing birth control pills to unmarried women?
Nah, they didn't forget about it. It's just one more thing on their list of war distractions. It's listed under Terri Schiavo. We were certainly distracted by her for some time.
Bush Provides Great Benefits for Fortune 500 Companies
03.27.05 (11:52 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
While in an advanced finance class taught by a banker (approximately 2 months before the election), we discussed why business owners preferred Republicans. The instructor said Democrats usually tax businesses heavier than Republicans. My instructor made it pretty obvious, without coming right out and saying it, that he was going to vote for GW -- mostly for financial reasons. He also mentioned something about how it would be embarassing if we just pulled out of Iraq without "finishing the job." While the rest of my class liked the instructor because "he was a pretty funny guy," I thought he was a 4'11" jerk who insulted people and hid behind humor to do it. He was paid to teach a class for 4 hours and he always ended the class about an hour and a half early -- every night. That's really why the class liked him so much.
Why am I rambling about this midget? No offense to the nice short people. I read an article in Yahoo! News that reminded me of him:
Fortune 500 companies that invested millions of dollars in electing Republicans are emerging as the earliest beneficiaries of a government controlled by President Bush and the largest GOP House and Senate majority in a half century.
Must be nice, eh? Now, I need to compile a list of Fortune 500 companies I will never work for. Wal-Mart was already on that list. Why does it not surprise me they contributed to the Bush campaign? I'm sure they were more than grateful for all the help Bush provided with those class action lawsuits since they certainly have had more than their fair share.
Racist Chicago Firefighters Exam: Misguided Opinions
03.26.05 (4:49 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
A SistersTalk reader sent me a link to this. I was too annoyed to ignore it.
Barber just commented on a case in Chicago in which a judge ruled on a 1995 firefighters exam . She said:
a federal judge has ruled that a 1995 Chicago firefighters entrance exam is biased because too many black applicants failed it. As a result, taxpayers may have to shell out $80 million in “damages.”
First, the Blacks related to the case did not fail the exam. Those Blacks fell into the "qualified" category, while three times as many whites fell into the "well-qualified" category. Her commentary is misleading from the very beginning.
Barber then goes on to say:
Once again, I’m embarrassed and appalled that lowered standards based on skin color is cause for celebration.
I am humored by that statement, because (1) Barber is appeasing her readership. "Hey, I'm one of you. These affirmative action programs annoy me too!" And (2), her critical thinking skills are severely lacking even though her rhetorical writing skills have improved greatly over the months.
Anyone who knows anything about the schools in Chicago know they are heavily segregated because the neighborhoods are segregated. So, let's use our thinking caps, shall we? If the schools are segregated, we can guess that Blacks, Hispanics, poor whites, and other minorities are not receiving the same education that middle class and upper class Whites (and other middle class and upper class groups) are receiving, yes? People still attend schools in the neighborhoods in which they live. Those of us who don't have our head in the sand are aware of that. And those of us who aren't kissing ass with the GOP are still aware that schools are funded with property taxes; the richer your neighborhood, the better education your child receives.
[between 1995 and 2000] five Chicago Housing Authority developments used federal funds to demolish and redevelop existing housing. Most of the 5,669 elementary school children who left their schools during that time moved to schools in mostly poor, black neighborhoods.
This illustrates the important link between housing and education. It also illustrates that many of the students in Chicago are poor and Black.
I'm irritated by the people who point a finger at Blacks and people who point a finger at those who want to give Blacks equal opportunity. Ms. Barber is embarassed and her embarrassment is misguided. She should be embarassed by the system that has placed Blacks in this situation to begin with. She should be embarassed by the segregation that persists. She should be embarassed by the system controlled by her white friends -- the system that keeps thousands of poor Black children in poor Black schools, perpetuating the status quo decade after decade. Instead, she is embarrased because she feels people are looking at her and associating her with the nigger who has "failed" the firefighters exam. That's really what this is about. She should really just call it what it is.
*Update: Some links removed. Use Google to find whatcha need.*
03.26.05 (3:37 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Image compliments of the White House: Wearing matching [sic] T-shirts, a group of future retirees wave during the President's visit to Shreveport, La., Friday, March 11, 2005. White House photo by Paul Morse. Full story
I wonder how much these children were paid to promote Bush's Social Security plan: $200,000 each? I sure hope so.
Rape Fantasies: Having the Power to Relinquish Power
03.26.05 (2:33 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
I just realized what's missing from the SistersTalk blog: sex. I haven't talked about sex here lately. While bouncing from blog to blog, I found an interesting entry on rape fantasies at Purging Poison. The blogger writes:
I have come to the conclusion that I am....... ....a sick puppy.
What's been running through my head? Sex, of course. What else?
It occurred to me that it just simply isn't normal to enjoy the fantasy of being forced in a sexual encounter when I have been raped so many times in my life. I was thinking I can't be the only person who feels this way so I browsed a couple rape information webites to see if I was alone.
I won't begin to psychoanalyze the blogger, but I can honestly state that healthy people are turned on by rape play in the BDSM community. Some of those people were sexually abused at one point, others weren't. For many, the sexual excitement comes from willingly giving control over to another party. That's the key: having the power to relinquish power.
Obviously, one shouldn't be engaing in rape play with someone you don't trust and you certainly shouldn't be doing it without agreeing on a safeword. Things can get a little dangerous.
I'm sure many will cringe and protest, claiming rape play is both physical and psychological abuse -- and any woman who engages in rape play needs therapy of some sort. I don't agree with that, but I do think some people who engage in it are doing so for the wrong reasons. I would hope that any person (male or female) who engages in rape play does so while free of alcohol and drugs and is relatively emotionally stable.
03.26.05 (11:34 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
A recent report about Tsunami says rape and forced marriage has been a residual result of the disasaster. More women than men died in the storm, so those women who are left are being made to suffer:
LAMSENIA, Indonesia - The tsunami that overwhelmed Asia in December killed three times more women than men, and the resulting scarcity of female survivors has led to reports of forced marriages and rape, the British-based charity Oxfam International said Saturday.
It's more than a damn shame that men behave this way when there's a "limited supply" of women. It's savage-like behavior. Will the United States run to the rescue? Will we step in and rescue these women? Of course not. We only pretend to liberate the Afghanistan women.
An article at Jang.com talks about women who are subjected to violence in exchange for food and aid:
Fear of sexual violence has been reported to limit women's and girls' mobility in search of new economic opportunities," says the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in its report, citing the increased cases of rape and abuse against women and children in Sri Lanka and Indonesia; this includes instances of some authorities involved in food distribution demanding sexual favours in return for the aid.
Reports of rape and violence against women and children in the affected areas have been accumulating, but women also face basic health problems due to a lack of personal hygiene products and maternal care.
03.26.05 (10:09 am) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
I'm a little concerned about a new bill -- introduced by John Kerry (big surprise) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) -- that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and accomodate religious groups in the workplace:
Kerry and other supporters — including gay-friendly U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), a possible Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 — have characterized the Workplace Religion Freedom Act as a bill that would protect people from being penalized for taking time off to observe religious holidays or from being discriminated against for wearing turbans, headscarves or other religiously required clothing.
It seems to me the bill is redundant because Americans are supposed to already have those religious freedoms. In addition, I fear religious extremists will use the new bill as a disciminatory measure in the workplace. For example: one religious group will feel it has the right to post anti-gay flyers on workplace bulletin boards citing the new bill as justification to do so. The ACLU addressed that concern in the article I linked to. The HRC also discussed that concern. I agree with both groups -- for once.
When looking at the issue, it really seems like this is an attempt by the Democrats to kiss ass, playing the religion card -- something Democrats scored poorly on during the last election. Who are they kidding, really? This move couldn't be anymore transparent.
03.25.05 (3:28 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Recently, my local school district approved a puberty curriculum , after debating for some time about the parents' right to be in the classroom while teachers present the material. I apologize for not linking to the article. The page where the article used to be now has an item on Bush taking up the page.
There was some discontent that the teachers were being treated unfairly because they are provided a script they have to use to teach the material: "What are we doing with our school system?" [Georgina Stenstrom] asked. "I find this very, very alarming. These are professionals. We've gotten it down to an iron-clad script." Also, according to writer Rebekah Danaher, "Board members disagreed on how much authority to grant educators in discussing puberty topics and about whether parents whould be permitted to sit in on classroom discussions of the topic." I don't think there ever should have been a question about whether parents are allowed to sit in a classroom -- regardless of the subject matter. One suggestion was to have the parents view a video of the material taught in the classroom instead of allowing the parent to sit in the class. Absolutely not.
I have had my issues with the Beloit School District, so my opinion here will be very biased. I've seen a distinct difference in the way different racial and social groups are treated. If a parent wants to sit in a classroom and ensure a sensitive subject is taught the way it should, I'm all for that -- especially since I'm drawing from my own personal experiences. Besides, what are they hiding? Why is the parents' presence in the classroom even an issue?
One answer to that question was to protect the privacy of the child whose parent was not in the classroom. To that I laugh out loud. If there's anyone who violates a child's privacy it's a teacher. Again, I'm basing my opinion on personal experience. My exhusband and I were going through a custody dispute and it was the teachers who spread my son's business all over the school, including rumors that he was living in foster care when he really wasn't. Some of the teachers at my son's school are a bunch of gossip-lovin' wenches. I can't put it any simpler.
Should the school or the parent teach this material? Should the school teach a child all about those changes in the adolescent body? I talk to my children about everything. And I do mean everything. But, some parents don't. That's the sad realization. Children have to get this information some where. Right now, school seems like the most logical place.
Are the teachers being treated unfairly? I don't think so. Providing the teachers with a script only protects the school district and the teacher from future lawsuits. The teachers who have a problem with the script need to set their egos aside. Even lawyers have a script they must go by in court. They can't just say whatever they want.
03.24.05 (6:26 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
Dear lord. It just never ends. Officials in Alabama are making plans to ban school textbooks that are considered too gay. Don't be shocked, folks. This is the state with the most embarassing and cruelest history during the Civil Rights movement (high pressure water hoses turned on children and a Black church burned down, killing 4 young girls). How can we expect that in 42 years those bigots in Alabama would have changed . . . even just a little. It was only 42 years ago, right?
State lawmakers in Alabama are proposing a bill to cut funding that would rid libraries and communities of books and plays with homosexual characters or themes.
The bill is one of the first introduced to this year's Alabama Legislature and could be discussed when the session begins Tuesday.
If the bill becomes popular - like November's multiple-state banning of gay marriage - it could pose a problem for universities.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that kind of behavior doesn't make the United States look like freedom fighters, as the writer of Yankee Pride claims we are with this statement: "And we, America, are at the forefront of this freedom spreading." We, America, are at the forefront of spreading hate, bigotry, and inequality for all.
03.24.05 (5:38 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
On the Blogs by Women (BbW) blog, I posted the following:
Back in 1972, near the end of Vietnam, out of 192 countries existing on this planet, 44 were considered free or some form of democracy. Since then, 45 more countries have seen the torch of liberty lit in their land. ....they've gained political rights and civil liberities and another 32 are partially free, for a grand total of 123 countries, who have embraced the American ideal and dream of freedom. And we, America, are at the forefront of this freedom spreading.
I wasn't going to comment on the item because it's a post on a blog I hope will remain bipartisan. But, I posted this hours ago on BbW and it's still bugging me.
Why have Americans decided that everyone must live as we do?
03.23.05 (10:03 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
This story had me yelling at my monitor as I read it.
The attorney for a man who beat on his live-in girlfriend has successfully convinced a judge in Ohio that domestic violence law no longer apply to unmarried people. Frederick Burk's felony domestic violence charge was changed to a misdemeanor assault charge after his lawyer argued that Ohio's gay marriage ban doesn't allow any legal recognition of unmarried couples living together as husband and wife. Before the gay marriage ban, Ohio's domestic violence law applied to unmarried heterosexuals who lived together.
Burk fought to change the way the state viewed domestic violence because he has a previous domestic violence charge. Had Burk been convicted again, he was facing up to 18 months in jail.
Previously, Ohio's domestic violence law was not limited to married people. Judge Stuart Friedman has decided that, for now on, it should be.
03.23.05 (2:11 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
The Michael Jackson case is just too damn weird. It gets stranger everyday, with Michael showing up to court late -- and in his pajamas!
The more I read about the case, the less certain I am that he did it. I'm beginning to think the man is just guilty of being a little on the freak side. Ok, a lot on the freak side.
What do you think?
=http://freepolls.com CLASS=ivanL_FP TARGET=Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com
03.23.05 (1:04 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
A newly released Social Security report is all the buzz today. According to the press release I found, the report contains:
The first two articles present opposing personal views on President Bush's proposal to introduce individual accounts to Social Security. Sylvester Schieber, director of research and information at Watson Wyatt and a member of the Social Security Advisory Board, argues in favor of private accounts. Eric Lofgren, who retired last year as head of Watson Wyatt's worldwide retirement practice, lays out his reasons against them. The remaining six articles provide an in-depth look at Social Security in terms of its history, funding, functions and outlook:
-- "Social Security Crisis: Real or Ruse" describes what's ahead for the system and who would be most affected by delaying reforms. -- "The Proposal to Index Initial Benefits to Prices Rather Than Wages" explains how this proposed reform would affect benefits. -- "Insurance Protections of the U.S. Social Security Program" discusses the valuable insurance features of our current system. -- "Social Security Financing Problems, Yesterday and Tomorrow" describes the system's pay-as-you-go funding - when it has worked, when it hasn't, and why. -- "Pension Finance and Savings" tackles issues at the heart of the Social Security debate: funding mechanisms, real versus bogus savings, and spending. -- "Transition Costs Associated with Social Security Reform" examines why transition costs will be considered regardless of what reform is agreed upon.
I haven't viewed the original report, but if anyone has a link to the report (or has a copy), please let us know in the comments.
The L Word: A Surprise for Bette; Dana Sleeps With Alice
03.23.05 (12:21 pm) posted by Genia
vote for me on digg and reddit
The L Word: Season 2, Episode 5
I received an email from a SistersTalk reader who's been waiting for me to post my comments on TLW. Here goes:
Ok, so Tina has moved back home, except she wants to be home but pretend she's not really home. Bette is still groveling like a love sick puppy. Really, this is getting ridiculous. Bette is so happy to have Tina "home" again that she doesn't even notice that Tina is bigger than a house with that pregnant belly. Later, when Tina prepared a lovely dinner for the two of them (specifically so they could talk about something), Bette goes on and on about work. Perhap's Bette's inattentiveness should be addressed in couples' counseling, yes? Tina mentions Bette's self absorption has always been a problem in their relationship. Perhaps Tina's passive aggressive nature is a problem as well.
That Mark guy is so fuckin' annoying I can't stand to look at him. He's actually beginning to make Jenny look decent. His behavior reminds me of why I refuse to engage in chat with straight men who message me out of the blue on the AOL messenger. They're up to no good.
Shane is just too much sometimes. I love her more and more with each passing episode. Shane asks Carmen to hook up with Jenny. WTF?! I mean, I think it's really cool that Shane can be so laid back about it, but Jenny? Oh dear gawd.
A very junior-high-school-like scene goes down between Alice and Dana. Remember Dana? The girl engaged to Tonya. Yeah, that Dana. Alice and Dana are discussing what they thought of each other when they met. Alice uses the word "hottie" and I damn near threw something at the screen. WTF is up with lame ass lesbians and that word "hottie?" I hear it a lot around here and it so reminds me of high junior high school. Anyway, Dana and Alice finally have sex. Yeah, Dana, the woman engaged to Tonya. So, should we now think poorly of Dana and Alice (since Alice was so hard on Bette for cheating on Tina)?
There's an interesting scene between Helena (remember Ms. Snake -- whose mama was doin' the Italian stud in episode 4? Yeah, her.) Helena notices right away that Tina is pregnant and oops! Damn if Bette doesn't finally find out. It's about damn time. Tina uses Helena to make Bette jealous and Helena obviously has plans for Tina. Drama, drama, drama.
At Dana's bachelorette party, Alice makes a toast to her "friends" Dana and Tonya (with friends like Alice, who needs enemies) and tells Tonya she's the luckiest woman in the world. Whatevah.
Jenny and Carmen get comfy with a dance while Shane gets drunk. Excellent work Shane accomplished with putting her boss lady in check earlier in the episode. I think her boss may end up having a thing for her eventually. But, who doesn't fall for Shane? There was yet another random woman in Shane's bed by the end of the episode. Geez, Shane. Slow it down, cowgirl.
No sign of Ivan -- again -- but Kit is getting cozy with the god-awful seminar guy from episode 4. PLEASE don't go there, girl. Please.
By the way, Alice is really starting to annoy me with the fence-sitting-like behavior. Earlier in the episode there was a sex shop scene in which Alice was a bit annoyed that Tonya suggested she liked
liberal bloggers
Dana, played by Erin Daniels, finally dumps her fiancee Tonya, in one of the worst displays of sympathy I've ever seen, but Tonya doesn't care because she's found herself a new professional lesbian tennis player to suck up to. Before all this happened:
The L Word: Season 2, Episode 5