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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.*
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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 penis. It's the truth, girlfriend. Why be bothered by it? That's the kind of behavior that annoys me. Calling a tomatoe a tomatoe isn't a bad thing. Why does Alice keep acting like it is?
Oh, and Jenny's haircut? Give me a break. Too lame. The girl thinks she's suddenly registering on the gaydar scale with the lesbians.
The Washingtom Post has a story on the Army raising the maximum enlistment age from 34 to 39:
The Army is tapping into a new pool of potential recruits for the National Guard and the Army Reserve by raising the maximum enlistment age from 34 to 39, officials said yesterday.
The move, described as a three-year test program, is designed to help the Guard and the Reserve meet their recruitment goals when the Iraq war and other pressures are discouraging young people from joining.
I can count, off the top of my head, at least 5 cocky-ass conservative bloggers who are now eligible to join the military. Let's see if they run right out and do their duty as God-fearing, pro-war Americans. Who's bettin' they're not in any hurry to join the Army and put that pro-war propaganda to the test? I'll keep an eye on their blogs and let you know how many of them decide to close up shop and join the troops in Iraq.
How about all those who are against gays in the military? How many of them are now eligible to go take up an empty space once held by a homo? Lots of them! I'll let you know how many of them are heading to their nearest Army recruiting office.
All those pro-Bush homosexuals should join the Army too. If the Army don't ask, you ain't got to tell.
This new age limit is part of a 3-year plan. A plan for what? And what else is in the plan?
I wasn't going to comment on the Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles wedding, but I have to because the hypocrisy is just blinding.
There's much press about Prince Charles and his future bride, Camilla Parker Bowles. The British are up in arms because Camilla may become Queen after Prince Charles becomes King of England. I suppose all the fuss is because Camilla will always be seen as the other woman (the blazin' hussy) in Charles' life. And, we must hate the woman who lured a God-fearin' married man away from his wife, right?
Wrong. Camilla did not act alone. What's that really cheesy expression? It takes two to tango.
Such is the way society views things when a marriage breaks up due to infidelity: blame the woman. It's a damn shame it works out that way. Camilla Parker Bowles owed the late Princess Diana nothing. Camilla wasn't Diana's husband -- if my memory serves me well. Camilla is disliked so much that there was some talk about changing the Constitution (wonder where they get that idea) to keep Camilla from becoming Queen.
In high school, I remember many fights in the hallway. Most of those fights were between girls, and usually the subject was a cheating boyfriend. Even at my young age, I remember wondering why the girls were fighting each other over who got to keep the cheating boyfriend. Why would either of them want him, was my question. Making it worse are talk shows that make a living out of broadcasting cat fights between two women fighting over a guy who has one tooth in his mouth and sleeps with every woman in the trailer park.
This is the way women are raised. This is the way society raises our girls and boys. I was trained from a very early age to kiss the ground men walk on; they can do no wrong. I watched the boys in my family get away with murder (literally) and sexual abuse (no exaggeration) because the women in my family jumped to their defense, regardless of the situation. My own mother turned her back on my sister after she was sexually assaulted by our brother. Boys can do no wrong, right? And girls are made to suffer because of this ridiculous mentality.
It's a shame Camilla has to constantly work to live down her other woman reputation while Prince Charles is still treated with respect. They were both wrong, yet only one person is really reliving the past: the woman. I suppose we can say Charles is suffering because his new bride may be banned from ever becoming Queen. But, Charles still gets to be King, regardless of who he marries. Why? Because men can do no wrong.
Let's face it folks, we don't need gay rights any more than smokers need rights.
Going further, we need to quit constantly putting qualifiers up every time we refer to someone. Like, so-and-so is gay or so-and-so is an "African" American, "native" American, "Mexican" American, ad infinitum.
I had to scratch my head on the smokers comment, trying to figure out how a deadly habit like smoking relates to gay rights. I suppose the qualifiers Poliakoff speaks of are unimportant to those people who have never been a victim of discrimination because of the those qualifiers. I agree though, much too often we call people "the Black guy" or "the gay guy." We have to remember though, it's the United States and we are very much a classist society. Labeling people with "Black" or "gay" or "fat" is our own subtle way of separating us from them.
Sexual orientation is, after all, more a matter of physio-psychological development from birth, or simply one's personal, private choice, is it not?
To stick it on the bandwagon with race, creed, skin color, facial features or religion is really stretching it too far.
Has Poliakoff paid attention to the continuous discrimination homosexual Americans deal with. If he was aware of these issues, then perhaps he would see the need to associate the struggle for gay rights with other issues -- like race, religion, and gender equality. I "stick [homosexuality] on the bandwagon" because we cannot adequately explain how ridiculous it is to discriminate against someone for any reason, as this country has a long history of doing when it wants to find yet another group of people to control. Just as Americans have long discriminated against Blacks, women, Jews, and others, homosexuals are just one more group that needs protection under law.
By the way, what's with the facial features comment? Anyone?
It would be nice if we could remove all qualifiers and apply the law evenly to everyone -- as Poliakoff, and others before him, have suggested. I fear that's impossible when we live in Jesusland and the religious wrong figures they're the only ones with any say in how the government operates.
ABC News reports a federal judge will not order that Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted:
TAMPA, Fla. Mar 22, 2005 — A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents.
U.S. District Judge James Whittemore said the 41-year-old woman's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments.
And of course, the family's attorney will appeal that ruling -- this time, in an Atlanta court.
Judy Shepard, Matthew Shepard's mom, will speak at a college campus in Topeka, Kansas and Fred Phelps and his clan will be on hand to protest:
"We are coming to inject a little truth and sanity into that orgy of sodomite lies that Judy Shepard is spreading," Phelps said.
Phelps runs three Web sites, godhatesfags.com, godhatesamerica.com and hatemongers.com.
Phelps and his group protested the funeral of Shepard.
"He sinned against god and wound up in hell," Phelps said. "She is using that unfortunate event to propangandize."
If Matthew Shepard's death was an "unfortunate event," as Phelps calls it, why did he and his people organize a protest at Shepard's funeral?
Such lovin' Christians these people are. I wonder if Ms. Barber links to Fred Phelps' site just to annoy the liberals. I wouldn't be surprised. Anything for traffic.
Apology issued by the Bishop who refused to bury a dead gay man:
In a letter to McCusker's family, Bishop Richard H. Brom said, "I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral to John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused. To help rectify the situation, in so far as it can be, I will preside at a mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata."
President Bush's inner circle has become preoccupied with soaring gas prices and its toll on the economy, a well-placed White House source said over the weekend.
Bush has quietly asked for a review of any and all economic fallout on the nation if gas prices continuing racing up and over the psychological line of $3 a gallon, as they have in recent weeks in some locations, the source explains.
Bush's top economic advisers have conveyed to the president that a "nightmare" scenario of $4 a gallon is extremely unlikely in the short term.
"The seasonal run-up of gas prices has been tough this year, but like every year in the past two decades, we expect we will will see some easing," the source claims from Washington.
Will we see $4 gas prices at the pump in time for Spring break? It certainly looks like it's heading that way. Since I drive a shoebox Dodge Neon and never have to leave the house to get to work, I'm not concerned about it. But, all you GOP groupies driving gas guzzlin' SUVs, how's it feel when it costs $30+ to fill up?
A SistersTalk visitor just commented in an old comment thread in which we discussed the possibility of a female President in the United States -- specifically whether people would vote for Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton. The reader wrote:
Personally. I'm all conservative, I hate the Clinton's more then any other liberal imaginable and with Hilary nosing her way into the Republican party like she is, you know, actually agreeing with Bush on the War, and having a press conference with two conservatives. I would rather not have her in office- I'd rather blow up then see Hilary as president. So obviously, I'd vote for Rice. But I agree with some person up there- I'd rather not see a woman in the office of president.
And they call the liberals loonie? This woman would rather blow up than see Hillary Clinton in office. That's some serious hatin' comin' from the Conservative side. I thought it was interesting this reader also would rather not see a female President at all in this country.
Let's just hope our kind female reader isn't raising any daughters, shall we?
Gay-Marriage Bans: The Boomerang Effect . Time features an article on marriage legislation and how it's causing new challenges related to gay and lesbian parenting.
Denise Fairchild was artificially inseminated in 1997. She raised her son with her lesbian partner Therese Leach until the couple split in 2001. Now Fairchild wants to deny her former partner visitation rights, and she's citing Ohio's new constitutional ban on gay marriage. Since they were never legally married under Ohio law, Fairchild claims, Leach does not have the rights of a former spouse. Leach's attorney argues that the amendment doesn't apply to parent-child relationships. "I'm using a piece of legislation that will deny me rights later in life," Fairchild says. "But before I am a lesbian and a member of the gay community, I am his mother."
More misbehaving from the lesbian mommies. I'm really losing all patience there.
Obviously something is wrong when we have teenagers beating a person because he's gay. The New York Post has a brief item on four teenage boys and their gay bashing activities.
While reading, I also ran into Youth Resource's piece on the harassment of gay youth:
Jeremy decided to write a research paper on the harassment of gay youth, from which the Harassment of Gay Youth excerpt has been taken. While working on this project Jeremy's English teacher was the only person to support this endeavor. He faced an especially difficult situation with a faculty member in the computer lab who, upon seeing the word "homosexual" on his monitor, logged him off of the system. She told him he was not allowed to look at "that kind of stuff" at school. When he explained that he was doing his research on the harassment of gay youth and that this is the type of attitude he was trying to shift, she walked away and said in front of the whole class that he was not to visit sites on "gay personals" while at school.
If that had been my child that woman talked to like that, she would certainly pay closer attention to the way she talks to other people's children for now on. That would be the kind of thing that sends me to my child's school in a raging fit. I'm sure the schools my children attend will be more than happy to see my kids leave for good. No more Genia to deal with.
I read an article at the Drudge Report about an editor at Playgirl claiming she was fired after "outing" herself as a Republican. I was tickled by this comment on the press release Michele Zipp, the former Playgirl editor, released to the public:
How could a member of the media who produces adult entertainment for women, advocating sexual exploration, fulfillment and adventure possibly side with conservatives from the red states? Zipp spells it out. "Those on the right are presumed to be all about power and greed -- two really sexy traits in the bedroom. They want it, they want it now, and they'll do anything to get it. And I'm not talking about some pansy-assed victory, I'm talking about full on jackpot, satisfaction for all."
Love the use of the word pansy here. That explains a lot. Also, I'm thinking more gay men read Playgirl than women.
Anyway, we just keep finding out a lot about these conservatives, don't we? First the conservative, anti-gay gay pimp Jeff Gannon, now a conservative porn magazine editor.
Sorry, but I can't muster any tears for Zipp. It was her use of the word pansy that got me.
The Chicago Tribune has a story about a child who passed out crack cocaine, thinking it was candy:
School authorities say they don't expect to discipline a first-grader who found 40 small bags of crack cocaine in his school book bag and allegedly handed the drug out to his classmates, thinking it was candy.
"He was a darling little child; he had no idea of what he had," said Chicago Heights District 170 Supt. Dollie Helsel.
Looks like the USA is losing that war on drugs, but it's winning the war against homosexuals -- so far. I'd like to make an appeal to the religious wrong to do something about this drug problem we have. Or, is that too much to ask?
While doing my latest entry for Blogs by Women, I got caught up in Freelance Mom's blog. The entry that caught my attention was this:
I recently heard a woman say that being called a "work at home mom" was professionally demeaning. Being one myself, my initial reaction was to agree with her. "That’s right, I’m a professional, I’m not just a bored housewife dabbling with a hobby here," I said to myself.
Upon reflection however, I came to realize that I disagree. Deeply.
I am one of those women who can't stand the term "work-at-home-mom" (WAHM). I have children. I work from home. Why does my professional life have to be linked to my status as a mother? Men aren't called "Work-at-the-Office-Dads." What's the term for a Dad who works from home? Women who don't have children and work from home, what are they called? I think it's very damaging to a woman's career to constantly connect her status as a mother to her career, especially if she plans to enter the out-of-the-home workplace eventually. When using the term WAHM, people automatically assume you don't have the time or knowledge for challenging projects.
As I mentioned over on Freelance Mom's blog, the term WAHM denotes a certain lack of professionalism -- whether we like it or not. My exhusband still thinks I'm doing nothing but sitting on my ass being lazy -- because I work from home. Home isn't the place people work, right?
Perhaps it's my experience in the workplace with people who have much disdain for women who have children (and need to leave work to care for them) that has me a little on edge about the WAHM term. Even though men are beginning to take on more responsibility with raising children, women are still denied job promotions because they have children -- especially if the new job will require more time away from home.
I suppose the term WAHM is great for those women who want to illustrate that they can successfully juggle both work and a family; however, many women who don't work from home are showing that can be done on a daily basis. It's always been my thought that many WAHMs use the term to show that they are good family-type women who also contribute to the household income. Being a Stay-at-Home-Mom (SAHM, one who stays home with the children but is not running a business from her home) contributes plenty to the family's household income. Child care is an expense SAHMs don't have to deal with.
Stay-at-Home-Dads increase in number yearly, with more women becoming the sole bread-winner in American households. Many couples make this decision because they want their children at home until they enter school and the mother makes more money. It makes more sense for the father to remain at home with the children. I suppose it will take this new trend of fathers working from home to change society's mentality about work-from-home parents.
As hundreds of people memorialized a gay San Diego nightclub owner yesterday, the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego defended its decision to deny him a Catholic funeral by stating that a pornographic video had been filmed in his club.
That's just laughable. The Church refused to bury McCusker because he was gay. If one believes the Church refused to bury McCusker because porn was filmed in his bar, we would have to assume the Church will refuse to bury those who watched porn from the comfort of their own homes. I'm not believing for one second that Catholics don't watch porn.
So, is the Church now taking a stand against pornography and those who participate in pornography in some way? Perhaps. But this particular situation is about a gay man and pornography. How did the Church learn about these activities? If they decided to snoop into McCusker's personal life before burying him, does the Church also snoop into the lives of its heterosexual congregation before deciding to bury someone? I doubt it for one reason: funerals cost money. The Church would have to refuse to bury a lot of people because of many unapproved activities, with its revenues generated from funerals taking a huge dive.
I just read an article about gay-straight alliance groups in high schools, particularly a school in a small conservative town in Georgia. One gay student who felt the school ignored gay-bashing, decided to form the gay-straight alliance. After she formed the alliance, the religious wrong groups in her community began to protest, causing even more harm for the gay teenagers:
But Pacer said the awkward stares and objections to her sexual orientation have amplified in recent weeks, overflowing beyond the halls of White County High School as religious conservatives in the small mountain town launched opposition to the gay-straight alliance forming.
“Walking around town you get looks — everyone stares at me and my friends when we walk into restaurants and stuff,” Pacer said Monday.
The high school junior attempted to dodge controversy by changing the name of the gay-straight alliance to Peers Rising in Diverse Education, or PRIDE. But a group of Cleveland ministers banded together to criticize the club in local newspaper articles, and during a Feb. 14 meeting with White County School Superintendent Paul Shaw.
Ten days later, about 300 people packed the White County High School gymnasium. Most were there to voice their outrage against the proposed gay club to the White County school board.
And earlier this month, eight members of Westboro Baptist Church — the Topeka, Kan., congregation known for protesting the funeral of slain gay college student Matthew Shepard — descended on Cleveland [Georgia] for a three-day protest against the after-school club.
I don't see too much love of your fellow human being going on here. I thought that's what Christians did best, right? Love and acceptance. Lately, Christians seem to be perfecting the art of religious bullying. And damn if that doesn't sound like the same thing terrorists do!
We're living in a period where Christians aren't Christians; they're people who use God's name to force people to submit to a lifestyle they personally approve of -- as if the world should give a rat's ass if the Christian next door approves. Protesting the creation of a safe place for homosexual teens is just hateful. Protesting the funeral of a dead gay teenager is just hateful. Refusing to bury a man because he was gay is just pathetic.
We ought to be ashamed to be the same country that can't seem to stay the hell out of everybody else's business (because we claim we're spreading freedom and democracy) yet every day one more religious wrong group has to protest a gay-straight alliance group for teenagers. What kind of hypocritical American bullshit is that?
I certainly hope the rest of the world is watching. Watching and shaking their heads in disgust. Watching and ridiculing the good ol' United States for being a land of hypocrites. Watching and laughing at the almighty USA.
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed for a third time. Her family has been able to convince Washington to step in, as the House of Representatives will vote to reinsert Terri's tube until the family's appeal could be heard by the federal court. Most of us, on both sides of the political spectrum, can agree that Terri's husband should be stripped of his right to decide Terri's fate; he's moved on, he's living with another woman, and he has children with that woman. It is possible that Michael Schiavo wants Terri dead for reasons other than what he stated. It's also possible that he wants to respect what he claims Terri told him. She didn't want to be kept alive using artificial means.
I agree. Michael doesn't shouldn't have the right to determine Terri's fate. Where I have a problem is the amount of times this woman's feeding tube has been removed then replaced. If Terri's family is successful with this recent move to have Congress intervene, Terri's tube will be reinserted -- again.
The sad realization is that because of the way our country defines marriage, Michael Schiavo has rights he shouldn't have. Terri's family has asked the courts repeatedly to reconsider how much influence Michael has over Terri's life because, to them, Michael isn't Terri's husband anymore. If the family succeeds in getting the federal court to reassess Michael's rights as the man Terri is married to (yet has moved on with someone else), how will this affect the definition of marriage in its totality?
While I do not support Michael's right to decide Terri's fate, I am equally disturbed that the family will continue putting Terri through this in-and-out-with-the-feedi ng-tube until they've exhausted all options. How will Terri's body respond to this? If Terri really is as functional as the family claims she is, the continuous in-and-out of her feeding tube will only cause more damage to her body.
It really is time for someone to let go -- for Terri's sake. Both parties claim they are doing what's best for Terri. It's so obvious Terri will be in the middle of this nasty battle for years to come. What person -- who really cares for Terri -- will allow that to happen?
WASHINGTON - Women at U.S. military academies say they have faced 302 incidents of sexual assault since they enrolled, a figure the military says is comparable to civilian schools.
"We are about where college campuses are, tragically. That's not, frankly, terribly surprising," said David Chu, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. "These young men and women come from civil society."
I suppose we just expect better behavior from young people who will soon be officers in the US military. Perhaps we give the military too much credit to begin with. It's those damn military recruiting commercials. We've been sold on the idea that young people who join the military are one notch above everyone else when it comes to honor and respect. And if they don't join the military with those characteristics, the commercials make us believe the military will teach those things.
Brushing the situation off by saying, "oh well, these kids come from the real world. we'll have these problems," only enables abusive military personnel to continue as such. Note this story, this story, and this story.
"When you go there, you have to be prepared for war," she says. "And then you have to be worried about being raped by your own people."
The former Army specialist is one of dozens of military women who say they faced some kind of sexual harassment while in the combat theater in Afghanistan or Iraq.
A recent survey shows that 1 in 7 females who join the nation's military academies suffer some kind of sexual harassment or sexual assault. Perhaps it's time the pro-war conservatives start paying better attention to those who fight those wars. I thought the military's problems with sexual harassment were pretty-well handled after the military was embarrassed world wide by the Tailhook Scandal of 1991. I guess not.
I found a rather interesting opinion piece on The L Word. After I read it, I thought, "I couldn't have said it better myself."
Doesn’t the gay and lesbian community feel a little stereotyped? Why is it that, with every new edgy sex-themed melodrama, they have to amp up the hormone levels and attack?
Umm, yeah. I do. Except those women don't look anything like me and I'm betting we'll see very few Black characters during the show's duration. But yes, that's what I've been saying for some time. Stereotypes all over the place. It shows a serious lack of creativity.
Where this show fails to connect is that it displays all the characters as wild-eyed, sexually driven people ruled by their hormones and lost in personal conquests loosely related to the gay and lesbian community. All this is lost to the Sapphic delusions held by the straight community (i.e. that gay people are only interested in sex — a grotesque misrepresentation.)
Loosely is a good word. I like that word. It's quite fitting in this context. Are we so desperate for television representation that we eat up any show that gives us lesbian sex? Now, I do know many gays and lesbians who are ruled by that thing below the waist. But, the same can be said of a great many heterosexuals. As my former marketing professor once said, "if there's a demand for a product or service, organizations will meet that demand -- for a price." Several of my friends started subscribing to Showtime just to see The L Word.
In this show, there is only a hinted concern over sexually transmitted diseases, which all persuasions battle with on a regular basis, and there is no anxiety about HIV or AIDS when the characters “hook up.”
How many people pause their sex fantasies in mid-thought to ask their partner to wear a condom? The L Word is a continuous stream of sex fantasies on your television screen -- week after week. I had a conversation with a reader who didn't want me to analyze The L Word to death while I spoke to her; it ruined the fantasy element for her. I suppose if viewers suddenly saw Bette use a dental dam, it would really ruin all those L Word generated fantasies.
“The L Word” is portrayed as a group of people who have dysfunctional lives and are tortured by the world that surrounds them. They chop up the misconceptions of public sentiment and attack like rabid dogs at the heart of what people misunderstand about alternative lifestyles.
I might have to disagree a bit here. I see much dysfunction in real life gays and lesbians. I see much dysfunction in real life heterosexuals too. I can't believe Jerry Springer is still on the air.
I can't knock The L Word too much though; that show gives me the opportunity to rant quite often. That's absolutely priceless.
(Ithaca, New York) The "gay adolescent" soon will disappear, predicts a Cornell University expert on teenage sexuality in a new book.
Ritch Savin-Williams, professor and chair of human development in Cornell's College of Human Ecology, says that these adolescents will still have the same desires, fantasies and attractions, he writes, but they no longer will need or want to identify themselves as gay.
"The new gay teenager is in many respects the non-gay teenager," says Savin-Williams, in his new book, The New Gay Teenager.
From that I gather from this article, gay adolescents will cease to exist because gay teens will simply stop calling themselves gay.
That's interesting. I wonder if I stop calling myself "poor" will that mean I'm suddenly rich?
In this socially conservative country where domestic violence is common and women earn much less than men, the two top parties have selected female nominees, virtually ensuring that Chile will get its first female head of state.
Opinion polls show the two women, Michelle Bachelet and Soledad Alvear, commanding huge leads over all other rivals for the Dec. 12 elections.
It seems almost a certainty that Chile will have a female president after this election is over since both of the top parties elected women as their candidate of choice. It seems almost shameful and embarrassing that Chile got to that point before the United States did, especially since Chile doesn't preach "land of the free and equal" the way we Americans do.
While approving another site for the jane network, I found this:
Shakespeare’s Sister, during email conversations with upper-tier bloggers under the condition of anonymity, finds out why women aren’t linked more often.
Women don’t give me much linkable material.
Women write on subjects that don’t interest me.
Women don’t know how to compromise on abortion rights.
Why don’t women post about Social Security? It affects them, too.
Women don’t write commentary, don’t come up with new ideas.
First, I want to highlight the fact that these male bloggers made these comments behind the safety of anonymity. Perhaps that's because there are many, many female bloggers linking to their blogs? So while our material may not interest them, they certainly get much attention from us.
Next, I want to say a few things to the women who are waiting for the men to show them some props: get over it. Ain't gonna happen. Showing you props only sends their corporate advertisers to your blog -- hoping to find a better advertising deal. Besides, the good ol' boys club has to resurface somewhere since it's pretty much damned in the workplace -- and at home.
Know a good blog written by a female? Drop a link in the comments. And don't be shy. Plug yourself, girl!
An interesting move by Anglican bishops in the US:
The American bishops are saying, in effect, "If we can't have gay bishops, we're not going to have straight ones either."
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams says the decision by US Anglican bishops to impose a year-long moratorium on episcopal consecrations is "constructive".
Although the bishops have not repented for consecrating the openly gay Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, they have repented for not consulting.
Dontcha wish we could do that with everything? No gay marriage? Well, no marriage at all, ya rat-bastards.
(San Diego, California) The Roman Catholic bishop of San Diego has decreed that a prominent gay businessman cannot receive a Catholic funeral in any parish in the diocese.
John McCusker, 31, died suddenly March 13 of an apparent heart attack at the Mammoth Mountain Ski Resort where he was on vacation.
McCusker's family sought to have his funeral at his alma mater, the University of San Diego, which is associated with the diocese.
Initially, the university agreed to hold the funeral and then suddenly declined. When they were turned down stunned family members approached two parish churches and were rebuffed.
In a statement released Thursday, Rodrigo Valdivia, chancellor for the Diocese of San Diego, said that no parish in the diocese would hold the funeral because McCusker had owned two gay nightclubs.
I guess one dead person is more important than another dead person.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - The Friday night lights in Texas could soon be without bumpin' and grindin' cheerleaders. Legislation filed by Rep. Al Edwards would put an end to "sexually suggestive" performances at athletic events and other extracurricular competitions.
"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," said Edwards, a 26-year veteran of the Texas House. "And then we say to them, 'don't get involved in sex unless it's marriage or love, it's dangerous out there' and yet the teachers and directors are helping them go through those kind of gyrations."
News about the south is always good for a laugh. While Edwards is at it, I wish he'd do something about those football players slapping each other on the ass. That's just too much for our children to see.
I think I'll file this in tblog's Entertainment section. I wish I had a DumbAss category. This story would be perfect.
A recent story discusses Virginia's charming legacy of being the one state with the most anti-gay bills:
American University law professor Jane Dolkart, who specializes in gender and sexuality, said Virginia is the only state that has a law banning private partnership contracts for homosexuals. "I am quite certain that it is unconstitutional ... to ban contracts (between homosexuals)," she added.
"There are other states that have passed constitutional amendments that cover not just same-sex marriage but domestic partnerships as well. I admit that this legislation seems to go well beyond," said Dolkart. "It's so vague that it's hard to know how to interpret it."
I'm guessing Mississippi and Alabama aren't too far behind Virginia, but I haven't done the research to know for sure.
A quick plug for myself:
Please check out the Blogs by Women project. Sorry fellas, ya can't join us. But, you're free to support the girls all day long everyday. We ain't hatin'. I promise.
Happy St. Patrick's Day . Kiss me, I'm really Irish. I snagged this from Google because I thought it was great and I always collect their festive logos:
I'm more than a little irritated this morning. I had my entire post typed and my browser just closed. No warning. No lagging. It just closed. It's probably a spyware malfunction. I want to see lawmakers go after those rat-bastard spyware people -- especially blog services that embedd it into their websites **cough, cough** without telling their members.
And since I'm bitching, I want to rant about the jackass who drove around my car as I was dropping my children off at the school cross-walk this morning. Dead kid. That's all I could think about. I ended up following this guy to the Walgreens two blocks up (what the fuck? you almost killed my kid so you can get your bitch ass to Walgreens). I pulled along side of him when he go out of his gas-guzzling, I-wish-my-penis-was-this- large, SUV.
"Did you not see me dropping my child off at the cross-walk?"
"What?" he said. Looking down at me dumbfoundedly.
"The school back there. I was dropping my child off and you drove around me, instead of waiting and letting him cross."
He started walking off. I started driving slowly, keeping up with him.
"That's a school zone back there. You shouldn't be driving like that in a school zone," I told him.
"Fuck you," he said.
"Oh, you are just as dumb as I thought," I told him.
He kept walking, entering the Walgreens. He never looked back at me.
Now, I realize it was pretty stupid to follow this guy. Road rage ain't pretty. But I'm so damn tired of these impatient drivers who don't give a damn about people's children when they have someplace to be. What was so damn important at Walgreens at 7:55 am that this guy threw all good judgement out the window?
It's snowing. It's March 17 and it's snowing. This of course has nothing to do with the dumb driver, but it adds to my irritablity. When I moved to Wisconsin from Florida (what the hell was I thinking?) 8 years ago, it was snowing. That was April 4, 1997. I'm a southern girl whose used to walking barefoot as often as I want and never owning a heavy coat. When we moved here I had to buy boots, a thick coat, gloves, a scarf, earmuffs, an endless supply of cold medicine and cough drops, and lots of clothes. "Layers," they say. That's the best way to deal with the cold weather. I disagree. The best way is to move to Florida.
GLAAD's new media director, Damon Romine, had this to say:
For 20 years, GLAAD has closely monitored LGBT media images. The entertainment industry, by and large, has churned out images of gays and lesbians, and GLAAD has made great strides to ensure these groups are represented fairly and accurately. Transgender images are not as common and represent a community that's still misunderstood and ridiculed on screen and off.
Even within the gay, lesbian and bisexual community, transgender people continue to be disenfranchised. We all need to demand the same respect for transgender people as we demand for gays and lesbians. As GLAAD's new entertainment media director, I've noticed something that could be the beginning of a disturbing trend: In a span of two weeks, the popular animated shows "The Simpsons" and "South Park" featured transgender representations that were considered offensive to the trans community. We should all be offended.
I would agree with everything Ramonie said except there have been too many times GLAAD's actions have turned my stomach. It's difficult for me to read this piece as anything other than a small part of GLAAD's strategy to snag some of HRC's spotlight while HRC continues digging the organization out of its recent mess.
Why do I say this?
GLAAD is the same organization that thanked ABC for its eye-opening depiction of real-life anti-gay prejudice when ABC aired an episode of Wife Swap that included a Christian couple and a lesbian couple during sweeps. GLAAD conveniently forgot to mention this "feeding-the-lesbians-to- the Christians" real-life anti-gay depiction came during sweeps week, but publicly thanked ABC for its good deed (**cough, cough**) anyway.
South Park and The Simpsons are two cartoon comedies that have always pushed the envelope, caring very little about political correctness. Both shows are full of sexist, racist, homophobic, and downright crude humor. To thank ABC for its actions, yet condemn South Park and The Simpsons for something they've been doing forever seems contradictory. ABC used homosexuals for ratings; South Park and The Simpsons used transgendered people for laughs. I don't see much of a difference here. Apparently, GLAAD does.
Are transgendered people the new joke? Absolutely not. Transgendered people have been the punchline for as long as I can remember. Does anyone remember the cross-dressing character on MASH who pretended he was crazy so he could get out of the Army and leave the war? I certainly do. And his character was always good for a laugh. I won't get on Bugs Bunny again, I promise.
I sympathize with transgendered people. I really do. But if we have to protest South Park and The Simpsons for its tacky portrayal of transgendered people, we must also criticize their constant racist, sexist, and homophobic jokes also. Who wants to be first?
Sorry my comments on this week's L Word are so late.
Episode 4 of season two ended with Jenny getting a haircut after her new roommate (Mark) mentioned there was something in the lesbians' haircuts (among other things) that made him think of them as gay. Mark asked Jenny if she was gay and she said she didn't know. Mark told her if he saw her in a bar he wouldn't think she was gay. Soooo, ol' girl cut off all her hair. I can't figure out if this is a part of her "identification" process or if this is Jenny just being Jenny. A haircut ain't gonna make ya gay. I'll circle around and talk about all the lesbians around here who chop off their hair and start dressing in traditionally-masculine manner once they bust out the closet.
Before Jenny had her identity crisis . . .
Bette goes to New York on business and ends up in bed with a strange woman she met at a bar. Can we say "what the fuck?" Or should that question be: "Are you now carrying around an STD?" It was really fuckin' great to see my theory in action though; lesbians do mindless, brainless, pick-up-a-chick-in-a-bar- sex -- even though we like to say we don't.
Alice goes on a blind date with a guy and doubles with Tonya and Dana. Dana gets upset while watching Alice flirt with her date. Tonya, Dana's fiancee', set her up on this blind date. What I found kinda funny was Alice was ticked because Tonya didn't tell her it was a guy. PFFT! Give me a fuckin' break. Alice's character is bisexual. What difference does it make if the blind date is a guy or a girl? I mean, really! Isn't Alice always the one who keeps defending her bisexuality and insisting that no one will force her to choose between men and women? Can we say hypocrite?
Tina's attorney hits on her and Tina flips out. Well Tina baby, ya shouldn't be shackin' up in this woman's house and leaving her flowers. It sends mixed signals. I can't believe Tina couldn't figure out her attorney was a snake before she put the moves on her.
Shane continues to be my favorite character, although she's so much better looking with her clothes on.
Still no sign of Ivan this episode. I miss him.
Now, about this short hair thing and lesbians. One thing I noticed with the lesbians around here is that a lot of them cut their hair immediately after they come out the closet. They also start wearing baggy jeans, men's dress shirts, and rings on their thumbs. I watch a woman go from Barbie to Ken, right before my eyes. It's the most incredible thing.
I've read two articles recently that call into question what seems to be blatant hypocrisy on the part of the United States as it relates to the way Americans define equality. I was going to link to one website yesterday and discuss the issue, but after cruising the site a little more, I grew annoyed by some of the content and decided to skip it. Today, I found Natalie Davis' (writer of All Facts and Opinions) On Equality and Compromise:
Merriam-Webster defines equality as "the state or quality of being equal." Digging further, it defines equal as "having the same quantity, measure, or value as another; some subdefinitions include "having the same privileges, status, or rights: equal before the law," "being the same for all members of a group: gave every player an equal chance to win," "adequate in extent, amount, or degree;" "impartial; just; equitable."
You can't have some people in society -- at least under law -- considered more equal than others. Equality can not be compromised: Either everyone is equal *under law* or equality doesn't exist. That's it; that's all. It is the mere statement of fact.
That reminds me of an interesting discussion we're having about religion/spirituality (Kabbalah to be exact) and the politics of defining things and ideas. Equality certainly has many definitions in this country. Some are more equal than others.
It's no surprise I agree with Natalie's assessment that gay rights isn't about religion -- as so many people often rely on their religious beliefs to define what rights Americans should have. That sounds vaguely like the mindset terrorists use, yes? Are we a nation of neo-terrorists? Defining people's rights based on our own religious beliefs? It sure sounds like we are.
ONEONTA — A former Marine who served in Iraq and became a veteran for peace spent Wednesday warning students and parents about recruiting techniques and desensitization of military service.
"I was in a controlled environment for 12 years," Staff Sgt. Jimmy Massey, 33, said. He said unethical recruiting techniques and the shooting of civilians in Iraq have prompted him to speak out against the U.S. government.
...military service can be honorable, except that when the government is deceitful, it can be dangerous to democracy.
During his 12 years in the Marines, Massey recruited soldiers for three years. Marine recruiters use lies and intimidation to sign up recruits and meet quotas of two "bodies" in the winter and three in the summer, he said. Massey said he signed up 75 recruits.
Recruiters target teens from single-parent families, who are poor, at risk of dropping out of high school or getting into trouble with the law or looking for a way to attend college, Massey said. He said one question that counselors or parents could pose to help students reject a recruiter’s pitch is, "Is an education worth you dying?"
It's a given that the military would target teens from single-parent homes and those who are looking for a way to pay for college: that was my profile. I am also an African American who had a better chance of becoming a single welfare mother than I did of ever graduating from college with one degree, nevermind the Masters I recently obtained. So, I joined the Navy 'cuz the recruiters sold me on that free education. That was my choice; however, what 17 year old thinks she may never see college if she sees a war first? I did ask my recruiter what the chances were that I would end up in a war. He said "Slim." Less than 7 months after I joined the Navy, the first Gulf War began.
But, how many teenagers would join the military if you told them they may go to war and die? That's not exactly the best marketing strategy. How many Army commercials do we see that show young soldiers being shipped off to a war? None. But, we do see Army commercials of soliders getting an education or learning the value of team work and self respect. It's all about marketing. Marketing is most often deceptive, regardless of the organization -- be it McDonald's or the United States military.
Would I suggest my children join the military? Yes. But, I wouldn't want them joining the military if they only wanted to join for education benefits. There are other ways to pay for college. Just as I feel the world could use good police officers and I wouldn't mind seeing my children become police (although I have much disdain for officers of the law), I think the world could use good military people -- especially those who do it for the right reason.
You want to fight terrorism? You want to live in a country where nobody lives in fear?
Get the troops back from Iraq, work on your fucking social institutions, provide some goddamn assistance to people who's lives are falling apart and who feel they have no way out. Nurture a culture that *REALLY* preaches how valuable each actual LIFE is - you want to save life, protect quality of life, maybe you should start with actual children, go volunteer to teach actual people how to read, spend a couple days a month sorting files for Planned Parenthood. Become a counselor. Help people.
Violently lashing out cause you're pissed off violates the human rights of an actual person. People who've got families. Lives.
Real fucking people.
*That's* terrorism, and if we'd spend even a quarter of the money dealing with that bullshit as we are bombing foreign countries, we'd be living in a lot less fear of ourselves.
What's with the gay boys ganging up on Madonna lately? First Elton John, now Boy George.
I have to say I agree with Boy George's assessment of Madonna's business practices:
According to Femalefirst, Boy George had called Madonna a hypocrite, pretending to be bisexual for years, and performing a series of headline grabbing lesbian stunts - including her infamous girl-on-girl kiss with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera - while following Kabbalah which considers homosexuality a sin.
"It's ironic that she's joined an organization that says homosexuality is a disease that can be cured and no one picks her up on it. After making all those millions of dollars out of gay people, pretending to kiss girls, pretending to be a lesbian, I think she's cynical", Britain's Times newspaper quoted him as saying.
My list of phonies grows daily. Madonna is right there at the top of the list. But, I do give Madonna props for being one of the strongest female figures in the music industry. Men exploit women all the time, making a fortune on their bodies and their sexuality; I don't see Madonna's exploitation of homosexuals (particularly female homosexuals) any different. Madonna is the diva of publicity stunts; her behavior is never a surprise. Gay men keep Madonna living in the lifestyle she's grown accustomed to. I'm putting Madonna on the shelf, next to Angelina Jolie and Ani Difranco. Yep, I went there about Ani Difranco -- again.
Madonna responded to Boy George's comment stating her religion Kabbalah does not condemn homosexuality. For the most part, she's right; however, the teachings definitely don't embrace homosexuals either. Many homosexuals practice religions that people believe condemns homosexuality, so I wouldn't care if Madonna suddenly became a strict Catholic. Boy George's condemnation of Madonna's spiritual faith seems very self-righteous because a person's spirituality is very important to them; however, I'm with him when he slams her oh-so-obvious exploitation of homosexuals. The Truth or Dare video was really over the top, but she made money and that was the point.
Dennis, whose lowish voice is now the lone betrayal of her birth gender, is a foot soldier on a new political frontier: the campaign to establish gender-neutral bathrooms in public places.
The idea is to make sure that transgender people (an umbrella term that can include transsexuals, cross-dressers and those with a fluid, androgynous identity who do not consider themselves completely male or female) can use bathrooms without fear of harassment. Dennis is one of 250 or so members of People in Search of Safe Restrooms, a group founded in the Bay Area three years ago. It reflects a small but active movement, in which the bathroom, that prosaic fixture of past battles against racial segregation and for the rights of the disabled, has become an emotional and at times deeply personal symbol of a cultural and political divide.
I recently had a couple of conversations related to this topic. While using the restroom at our local gay bar, I walked out of the stall and a gay man who does drag on occassion was in the bathroom -- as a man. I was not happy about that. Yes, he's gay, so he had no reason to be in the women's restroom other than to use the facilities. He certainly wasn't there to hit on me. But, I was still annoyed and I couldn't figure out why. Typically, when I enter the restroom and there's a drag queen in there (in drag) that doesn't bother me. But this, I felt, was an invasion of a woman's space.
A couple of weeks later, I had a discussion with someone about Michigan Womyn's music festival. I was explaining how I've boycotted the festival because of the organization's ban on transgendered male-to-female (MTF) participants. The rule states all participants must be female-born to attend; transgendered women are not considered female-born. This person said she supported the organization's stance because she didn't want to share a restroom with a MTF who maybe hasn't had a complete transition. So I said, "Ok, so why not establish gender neutral showers and restrooms?" She then said, "Well people walk around naked too and I don't want to see that."
So, now we know what her problem with MTF transgendered people is. But, what's the problem with MTF transgendered people being at festival? Is it about the showers and restrooms?
I admit my annoyance about a man being in the ladies' room was a bit much. It's just a toilet. But, there are some comfort issues to consider -- for everyone. Gender neutral restrooms (clearly labeled as such) is the answer. If I knew I was walking into a public restroom that was a gender neutral restroom, then the shock isn't there when I walk out the stall and find a man.
When Melissa Etheridge appeared bald at the Grammys, lesbian health advocates raved about how Melissa managed to connect the words "lesbian" and "cancer" in mainstream media. It was suggested that Melissa Etheridge accomplished something that lesbian health advocates had been trying to do for years. It was my opinion that Melissa was able to reach so many women because her actions crossed socio-economic boundaries -- something lesbian health advocates haven't quite figured out how to do. It's always been my opinion that lesbian activism is very much restricted to academia and upper-middle class to upper class women. One reader, a self-identified Mautner volunteer, was insulted by my opinion. She suggested I was ill-informed.
Am I?
In my email today was a press release from Mautner. That press release stated that income and lack of adequate healthcare coverage is the number one reason lesbians don't seek proper healthcare:
According to a new national online survey, health care costs (50%) and the lack of adequate health insurance 43%) are cited as the most common reasons why lesbians have delayed obtaining health care. When asked to identify what current health issue deserves the most attention from health care professionals and public policy makers from among a list of 14 issues, two in five 41%) lesbians said that health insurance coverage, followed by nutrition/exercise (14%) and obesity (12%) deserve the most attention.
I don't think it took a survey to figure that out. Not if you're approaching the world with your eyes open. Healthcare costs seems to be the number one reason a lot of people avoid receiving proper healthcare -- be they gay, straight, Black, White, or whatever.
We had a discussion on obesity and one of the few things SistersTalk readers could agree on was income often determined whether people had a proper diet. If income often determines your diet, I think it's a safe to state that income will probably determine how often one visits a doctor.
It is very nice to see Mautner heading in the right direction. You have to know why lesbians don't seek healthcare before you can figure out the best way to reach those who don't. The SistersTalk reader who stated that Mautner does its part by placing flyers at Bed & Breakfasts all over the country ought to be re-thinking whether a B&B is the best place to reach low-income lesbians. My guess? Probably not.
I received a copy of a rather tacky email (accompanied by 13 photos of naked women) that is being forwarded in chain-letter style among our nation's military personnel:
FORWARDED IN THE NAME
OF PATRIOTISM
We all know that it is a sin for an Islamic male to see any woman other than his wife naked, and that he must commit suicide if he does.
So next Sunday at 4:00 PM Eastern time, all American women are asked to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists.
Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this antiterrorist effort. All men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not terrorists, and to demonstrate that they think it's okay to see nude women other than their wife and to show support for all American women.
And since the Koran also does not approve of alcohol, a cold six-pack at your side is further proof of your antiterrorist sentiment.
The American Government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti terrorist activity.
God bless America
and
GOD BLESS AMERICAN WOMEN!
IT IS YOUR PATRIOTIC DUTY TO PASS THIS ON
Such nice military personnel we have taking care of the country.
I'm one of the few lesbians who isn't all that impressed with AfterEllen.com or AfterElton.com, but I leave them be because they're services the gay community could use. I grew bored of AfterEllen pretty quickly when I realized the site would spend its time doting on white lesbians with an occasional token article about ethnic girls every now and then -- just like every other lesbian website out there.
Black Entertainment Television (BET) is pretty much black programming as if it was created by white supremacists. It’s an endless stream of videos and sitcoms featuring the crudest of African American stereotypes: gangstas, pimps, and whores. And there’s something more than a little ironic about a minority network that uses a geographic loophole so it can pay its stand-up comics a sub-standard wage.
The first thing I thought was, "Oh no they didn't go there!" And then I thought, "Do these people even watch BET?" Obviously not. Let's review what BET actually broadcasts:
Nightly News (ya might find some thugs here) College Football (no gangstas, whores, and pimps there) Bobby Jones Gospel (definitely no whores and pimps during the gospel hour) Girlfriends (A sitcom -- no pimps and whores, damnit!) Lift Every Voice (more gospel music -- they love their gospel) BET Style (a show on fashion, movies, celebrity events)
To view BET's full schedule, click here. You'll see The Parkers is shown all day Saturdays -- when the kids are home from school! Uncut videos (the pimps, gangstas, and whores) are shown at 2am (when the kids are in bed), and there's a lot of gospel programming -- which AfterElton didn't mention. In addition, the viewers often pick the videos that are shown -- another item AfterElton didn't mention.
So, I think AfterElton.com (owned by AfterEllen.com) is full-o-shit and out of material to write about. I'm also a little annoyed there was no mention of MTV's overuse of reality shows to pad its time slots, but AfterElton dogged BET.
Item originally found at: Christian Grantham. Sorry, Christian, but I'm bothered by your use of the word ghetto as it's associated with BET. WHY must people always go there?
It was interesting to note that one of the nation's Supreme Court justices thinks same sex marriage will lead to beatiality. And I thought Supreme Court judges were supposed to be smart. Ron Reagan writes:
But then, Justice Antonin Scalia dropped the b-bomb, saying that same sex marriage would lead to bestiality. Apparently, the far right spends a disturbing amount of time thinking about sex with animals.
Two obvious thought arise: First, the two issues are entirely unrelated. On the one hand you have two humans wanting to get hitched; on the other, a drunken farmer and outraged sheep. Second, these people need help and we're not talking a trip to the petting zoo.
The beastiality comment, as it relates to homosexuality, is as old as the "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" bit -- and just as stupid.
Let's beat this dead horse one more time while the lesbians are still popular.
If you're curious about the overdone controversary about the PBS show "Postcards from Buster," go watch the video. But ya gotta hurry; Family Pride will only air the episode on its website until March 13.
When I read this article, I laughed and laughed because I know of at least 2 gay Republican bloggers who advertise on Conservative Voice -- giving this website money so it can continue to promote such nonsense. Since the article posted is actually a cut-and-paste press release, I will reproduce it here in full:
Homosexual Groups Unite to Push Agenda - Public Schools Must Do More
(AgapePress) - For those who ridicule the whole notion of a homosexual "agenda," a recent press release from a new coalition of lesbian, "gay," bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) groups was unwelcome news.
In a joint statement released January 13, an alliance of 22 organizations spoke of a "shared vision," which includes the legalization of same-sex marriage, the continuation of promotional efforts throughout the nation's public school systems, the inclusion of "sexual orientation" in federal hate crimes and nondiscrimination laws, and an end to the ban on homosexuals in the military.
The coalition consists of LGBT groups such as the Human Rights Campaign; Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the American Civil Liberties Union Lesbian & Gay Rights Project.
"The speed with which our movement is advancing on all fronts is absolutely historic -- and it hasn't happened by chance or by accident," said the press release. It cited the LGBT movement's "instruments" of change: "lobbying, electoral politics, impact litigation, grassroots organizing, public education, media advocacy and more ...."
The statement also accused pro-family groups of continuing to "confuse, distort and subvert the public debate," even while homosexuality continues to become more acceptable in the hearts and minds of the American public.
Example: PFLAG Pushes Agenda in Schools A pro-homosexual organization began 2005 with a demand that the public school system do more to normalize "gay," lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered lifestyles. The group Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) released a study in January that claimed public schools were failing to educate students about homosexuality and were failing to protect LGBT students.
According to PFLAG's numbers, 95 percent of school counseling departments had little or no resources for homosexual children, and 70 percent of schools did not train faculty to stop harassment of LGBT students.
Nevertheless, some parents think their schools are, in fact, already pushing the homosexual agenda too far. In Massachusetts, one mother is upset that at her kids' school, John Glenn Middle School, a rainbow flag flies overhead and pink triangles adorn classroom doors.
Also in Massachusetts, that state's legalization of same-sex marriage may be emboldening homosexual teachers within the public school system to promote their own lifestyle to kids. For example, according to an interview on National Public Radio (NPR) All Thinks Considered, lesbian eighth-grade teacher Deb Allen said she explicitly teaches her students about lesbian sex, including the use of sex toys.
NPR reporter Tovia Smith said, "Already, some gay and lesbian advocates are working on a new 'gay'-friendly curriculum for kindergarten and up."
But this is not just a phenomenon occurring in the liberal northeast section of the U.S. In Kentucky, a federal judge ordered Boyd County middle and high schools to require all teachers and students to attend diversity and tolerance classes on the subject of homosexuality. The decision came after a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, after the county school system refused to allow a Gay-Straight Alliance student group to meet on campus.
So, the homosexual "agenda" is to promote tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals and this annoys the hell out of the religious wrong. I'm so proud to be an American, where we can send our people to other people's countries to fight for and preach about something we don't know a damn thing about ourselves: equality.
I guess Agape's press release was meant to warn the world that the homosexuals are advancing the gay agenda. Agape did not link to the original press release issued by this coalition (a press release I commented on here at SistersTalk in January). Instead, the organization picked phrases from the coalition's press release and strategically placed those phrases in their own press release. The usual scare tactic used by these types of conservatives. I thought it was a great move to wait until March to address this "dangerous" press release that was issued on January 13, that way you can hope no one goes looking for the original.
Kit, played by Pam Grier, finally re-opened The Planet (the gang's favorite hangout). I found Alice's comments about the new and improved Planet a bit hysterical because the comments played so close to stereotypes about what kind of music lesbians listen to. I half expected Shane and Alice to suggest a musical lineup that consisted of Melissa Etheridge, The Indigo Girls, and Ani DiFranco. In the end, the only thing stereotypical about The Planet's supposed live performance was that it was an all-girl band.
Kudos to Carmen for landing a figurative smack to Shane's face. Carmen saw Shane lip-lockin' with another girl and ended up kissing Jenny -- who was more than happy to slink her way into Carmen's good graces. One SistersTalk reader seems to think Jenny is getting more mature about how she deals with relationships; I think Jenny has what we call "transferable skills" in the employment industry. Whorin' with men, whorin' with women. It's all the same and requires the same skill set. Jenny has those skills.
I can't believe Tina told Alice she was pregnant, but she still hasn't told Bette. Alice's lawyer is sexy as all hell, but a lawyer she is. To make sure Alice and Bette don't reconcile, Alice's lawyer provided her with a place to live. A very nice place I might add.
Alice and Dana had what resembled a lovers' spat. If ya ask me, I think Alice wants everyone to find out about her and Dana. Get that Dana/Tonya engagement over with. And what was up with Alice dreaming about Tonya's tits? I'm tellin' ya, I don't like that Alice person.
No sign of Ivan this episode. Damn! Ivan-as-a-girl is hot. Some of Ivan's masculine skins are attractive, but the mullet has gotta go. Death to mullets.
The first corporate-sponsored lesbian wedding? Yep! Tonya (Dana's fiancee) has it all under control. She's turned their wedding into a corporate event. But before anybody flips the fuck out about that, take a deep breath. Influential heterosexual couples are often provided expensive gifts by large corporations. You don't think Donald Trump and his bride got their share? And what about all these heterosexual wedding shows (The Bachelor, The Bachelorette) that are nothing more than corporate sponsored events? So yeah, before any of you lesbians trip about Tonya's actions, call up ABC and demand The Bachelor be removed from the air.
I won't even apologize for neglecting SistersTalk this weekend because I had the best weekend I've had in a very long time. I completed all the course work required for obtaining my MBA last Thursday. I then spent a week in shock. Now, I'm looking for a PhD program that fits my interests and career goals. Anyway, the official graduation ceremony is May 15. I'll post pictures, but if I'm too drunk after celebrating and I look like shit, forget it.
Back on track. . . .
I'm not sure how I ended up on Incoming, but I thought the blurb on Dan Rather was great:
Congratulations, assholes. You forced Dan fucking Rather off the air, sort of -- he's still going to be a talking head, but nobody will let him hold fraudulent documents. Anyway, tomorrow morning, the proprietors of RatherBiased.com and Rathergate.com should sink into post-victory depression as they ponder what the fuck else they can do with their free time. Here's an idea: get to work on getting Robert Novak sent to prison.
You know I loved the blurb because the writer made excellent use of the "f" word. Beautiful.
Outsports.com has an article on the 1,159 words you can't use on a personalized NFL, NHL, or MLB jersey. Most of the words are pretty offensive, but there are a few on the list that have ticked off gay sports fans.
One thing that bothers me about the article is there's no way to check the list yourself because Outsports didn't provide readers with a source.
Lou Novak, vice president of the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound in Washington State, said "Looks like it's anal sex week," as a group of visitors from the Life Long AIDS Alliance walked through the capitol building. A member of the Alliance followed Novak into the cafeteria and asked him what he said. Novak repeated the remark and added that people shouldn't engage in irresponsible sex acts then ask for public funding.
Susie Saxton, executive director of an AIDS advocacy organization, said that while people are allowed their private opinions, Novak's actions should be considered a hate crime. Here's where I have to ring the bell and send everyone to their respective corners.
Novak's comment was ignorant and insensitive (because children were present), but it was not a hate crime. Saxton may be getting a little too caught up in her job if she views that comment as a hate crime. If that's the case, I could be charged with hate crimes all day because of some of the insensitive things I've said about the Bush Administration, his 1 million gay Republican supporters, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and the rest of those annoying GOP cronies (see, there I go again).
The FLASHDANCE icon admits she would marry her THE L WORD co-star KELLY LYNCH if she was aroused by members of her own sex - but she would have no desire to get intimate with the GIRL, INTERRUPTED actress [Angelina Jolie].
Beals - who plays a lesbian in the hit TV show - says, "She's the last person I'd marry, or anybody should think about marrying. I mean, come on."
I thought that was worth a laugh or two. Do I hear the extension of claws? Seems I'm not the only woman who's not an Angelina Jolie fan. I guess I do have something in common with at least one of the straight girls on L Word.
She was a successful journalist who spent her days pining because all she really wanted to do was create comics. Today, Paige Braddock spends her time deciding what to do next with the quirky comic characters she's brought to life in Jane's World.
SistersTalk had the opportunity to ask Ms. Paddock a few questions about Jane, her time working with Charles Schulz (creator of Peanuts), and how she deals with gay and lesbian stereotypes through the humorous antics of her Jane's World characters.
ST: I've read in a few places that you were trained by Charles Schulz, the creator of Peanuts. Can you tell me a little about that experience?
PB: Unfortunately it was short lived. I only got to work with Mr. Schulz for about 6 months before he passed away. He was working with me so that I could revamp some Peanuts children's books based on the early animated specials. After he passed away, I took over as Creative Director. We manage all the art direction for licensed Peanuts products worldwide from this office -- to the tune of about 8,000 pieces a month.
ST: On your website you mentioned you created many comic strip concepts before creating Jane's World. Which of those concepts brings back the fondest memories and why?
PB: This one comic character that I did when I was in 6th grade: Captain Lightning. Very clumsy super hero. Like those cape scenes from the Incredibles he was always getting his cape caught on things.
ST: Will you tell me a little about how Jane came to exist?
PB: Jane started as a single panel titled "See Jane" and then over time, maybe a year or two, I realized I kept ending up with a set cast of characters so I changed the name to Jane's World and turned it into a story strip. A single panel format doesn't give you much creative room to build well rounded characters.
ST: I'm sure you've been asked this before, but I'll ask again: does fiction imitate life? How closely does Jane's life resemble her creator's life?
PB: Sometimes closer than others. I think I mix enough fiction in so that readers probably wonder sometimes how much is true and how much is made up. Of course, I've never been abducted by aliens or turned any of my friends into monkeys, but sometimes real life discussions do end up in the strip. Authentic dialogue is hard to fake.
ST: Of all the Jane's World characters, which was/is the most fun to develop?
PB: Probably Chelle. Although, there's a new character of late that I'm really having fun with: Jill. People keep emailing me to find out if she's based on a real person (I think they want her phone number) but she's not. She's completely fictional. But it makes me feel good that she seems so real to readers.
I wasn't surprised to read Ann Coulter's opinion piece on Jeff Gannon -- her rush to defend one homosexual, even though her usual rhetoric about homosexuals involves comments far more repulsive than even something you would hear coming from a KKK member.
As I mentioned in one of my former postings about anti-gay conservative writer Jeff Gannon, I knew conservatives would defend him, even with his naked body and penis staring you right in the face on one of his own e-commerce gay websites. But, I think Ann Coulter's defense is perhaps the most hypocritical, if not oddest, of all of them. I don't expect much better from Andrew Sullivan. That gay blogger writes about anything gay and always takes the conservative approach; that's what pays for his often extended vacations several times a year. But Ann, she's a piece of work:
The heretofore-unknown Jeff Gannon of the heretofore-unknown "Talon News" service was caught red-handed asking friendly questions at a White House press briefing. Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon may have run some years ago.
[. . . ]
Liberals keep rolling out a scrolling series of attacks on Gannon for their Two Minutes Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may be gay.
Notice how she starts working her lawyer talk in an attempt to cast doubt on the whole Gannon affair. She makes a rather useless attempt to make people believe:
(a) Gannon's actions took place years ago and are therefore irrelevant (b) He may not be the GAY anti-gay conservative writer (c) The whole situation is irrelevant (nevermind the fact that she enjoys talking about the sex life of every Democrat whose name she can pronounce)
Obviously, Coulter didn't read the overwhelming evidence against Gannon. Or, she read it and set about the usual task of diversion -- those conservatives and their diversion tactics. She claims Gannon didn't write about homosexuals; but she also states Gannon was pretty much an unknown to her before this incident. So, how does she know what he did and didn't write about if she didn't know who he was and didn't read his website?
Coulter's intent in her opinion piece is to make readers believe Gannon is a nobody that no one ever heard of. She works really hard to do that too by using her usual style of humor and misinformation to divert people's attention from a very real and serious issue. Remember Valerie Plame? I didn't see her name mentioned in Ms. Coulter's editorial, yet our gay anti-gay conservative nobody was the person who received that top secret information. Those conservatives and their diversions. Dontcha just love it?
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
I wasn't going to comment on the Camilla Parker Bowles and Prince Charles wedding, but I have to because the hypocrisy is just blinding. 
Found at the 
Sorry my comments on this week's L Word are so late. 
According to Femalefirst, Boy George had called Madonna a hypocrite, pretending to be bisexual for years, and performing a series of headline grabbing lesbian stunts - including her infamous girl-on-girl kiss with Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera - while following Kabbalah which considers homosexuality a sin. 
The L Word: Season 2, Episode 3
She was a successful journalist who spent her days pining because all she really wanted to do was create comics. Today, Paige Braddock spends her time deciding what to do next with the quirky comic characters she's brought to life in