I've just posted to the BbW blog an interesting item on gender roles in dating. Kajuana wrote:
In relationships today, all that "sugar and spice and everything nice" crap seems to have been flung over broads' shoulders, out the nearest window, flushed down the drain. Women seem to be all about taking an aggressive stance. "Getting their man" so to speak. Men on the other hand seem more laid back. Men are taking the role of the court-ed while women are stepping up and willingly taking on the role of the court-er. Society is changing. Gender roles are changing. Stars are re-aligning with newly discovered moons.
The result of such a change is confusion. Confusion because there are some of us who aren't re-aligning, and others who are leading the re-aligning campaign. But at the end of the day, we still have the same wiring. Believe it or not ladies, we are not men. This in no way means I believe that we shouldn't vote or work or any of that stuff. We are not supposed to be the pursuers. Not to say we sit by and wait. Nope, not that either. We should be more coy. We should take greater efforts to not be classless in our pursuits of a certain man. We should be setting the pace of the man's pursuit.
Now, I'm a homosexual female (surprise, surprise!) so some of you might think I wouldn't be interested in Kajuana's opinion. Oh, but I am. I'm interested because of the way gender roles have been defined -- or rather, the way Kajuana addresses her frustration with the way gender roles have been redefined. I asked her:
What about gay couples? Are they meant to define gender roles so they (I mean WE) can then figure out who does the pursuing? From what I'm understanding, two women who are interested in each other will never hook up because neither of them is supposed to call the other! If we can refrain from engaging in a homophobic debate about gays and lesbians and look at gender roles in relationships, how do gay couples deal with:
1. phone calls 2. who pays for dinner 3. who opens the car door
those sorts of things. It seems the author's main argument is anchored on defining gender roles, so I'm curious.
Now, I know full well that homosexuals do participate in gender role-playing. Butch/femme in lesbian relationships is a classic example. The butch (one who assumes the supposed masculine role) is the one who traditionally does the pursuing. The femme (one who assumes the supposed feminine role) is the pursuee. Now, throwing a wrench in this equation are the butch/butch couples and the femme/femme couples. Who pursues whom? Who holds the door? Who pays for dinner? Who pays for the Uhaul? Does it matter?
Gender roles in gay male relationships aren't so easy to recognize. Gay men don't submit to butch/femme dynamics as blatantly as lesbians do; however, I have heard gay men call those gay men who are extremely masculine "butch." Gay men write personal ads that say "straight-acting" (masculine) while lesbians write personal ads that say "butch." Do you see the difference?
I would agree with Kajuana on one thing: it gets very confusing. But, the confusion is there only because we allow it to be. If two people are interested in each other, does it really matter who starts the mating dance first? For Kajuana, it matters; women don't start the mating dance, that's the man's job. In my opinion, that's old-school thinking from the good ol' days when women were trained to be wives and mothers, and men were trained be husbands, fathers, and breadwinners. That's what dating rules were there for: training boys to be good providers and training girls how to spot a boy who would be a good husband. It doesn't sound like much has changed for some people.
I've been greatly amused by all the illegal immigrant alien talk coming from the likes of US citizens who are sittin' fat and happy in a country the white man stole from someone else. That's right, let us not forget that this country is stolen property no matter how ya slice and dice it. Not only are people sittin' fat and happy and talkin' shit about illegal aliens, but they have forgotten exactly how this country came to be the great country that would drive so many illegal aliens to want to live here to begin with. Should we insert a little slavery economics here for the truely ignorant? The ones who are European and whose backs did very little to contribute to the development of this country's true economic strength? They seem to be the ones protesting the loudest.
The billboard you see has created quite a stir. People are annoyed that a television station in California is catering its advertising and programming to Mexicans. Folks are really making a huge fuss that "Americans" are beginning to feel isolated at "home." Should I laugh now or later? I wonder how Native Americans who have been pushed to the most remote areas of their own country feel. Isolated, perhaps? I don't give a rat's ass if Americans can't speak the same language of the person sitting next to them on the bus.
My grandma always said "What goes around comes around, and Karma is a bitch." It must be a bitch to be on the other side for a change.
A 9-year-old boy and his 3-year-old sister were found stabbed to death in their home, and authorities were questioning the parents Thursday after finding several knives they believe were the murder weapons, police said.
Authorities suspect the mother may have killed the children, especially since their deaths come 5 years after the couple's 3 month old died in a fire that's been left unsolved.
I am curious how certain bloggers will treat this issue, especially since the mother's race is unknown -- at least to those of us who don't watch television. Here we have a middle class mother who may have killed all three of her children. Which way will the debate go on this issue? Black conservative blogger La Shawn Barber is known for being extremely harsh with Black criminals, while using lighter keystrokes, avoiding the word "thug," and limiting her snide remarks while discussing white criminals.
If my memory serves me correctly, I'm guessing we'll talk a lot about mental health issues -- if this woman is white. We discussed a woman who heard a call from God to kill her children. Much of the talk in the blogosphere was she had mental issues. Maybe she did. I just wonder why we're don't offer Black women and men such convenient excuses as quickly.
I found some rather interesting reading that I'm a bit apprehensive about pointing to. The website discusses the book The Myth of Male Power. I almost laughed at the title, but there was something worth noting:
. . . female violence is much more hidden from view. This makes it terribly easier for us to pretend it doesn't exist -- the FBI profile of serial killers is distinctly male even though female serial killers each rack up more corpses because no one suspects them -- and also pretend that female violence is a bizarre, incomprehensible aberration when it does happen (which is why it's often easier to blame a nearby man).
I once had a SistersTalk reader ask me why I was so determined to draw attention to stories about women who violate and abuse others. I feel it's necessary to do that because women are always preaching that we can not remain silent about abuse. Those who preach the loudest should be held to the highest standard.
[b]Update 10:45 pm[/b]: AOL News reports Tonya Vasilev has been charged with murdering her 2 children. Police haven't stated Vasilev's motive.
I read a story 2 days ago on 365gay.com about a gay bar in San Francisco called Badlands. An investigation into the establishment has determined that the owner systematically discriminated against Black customers. This is San Francison, CA -- not Small Town, AL.
I checked around looking for different articles on the issue and I was completely irritated with a Gay.com article, which read more like an ad for the establishment. The first thing I noticed about the Gay.com article was the picture of the 2 boys doing the "bump and grind." The Gay.com article talks about how many people have visited Badlands and how great business is for Badlands, despite the discrimination claim. Not once did the writer mention this:
After a 10-month investigation, the commission found the club required multiple forms of identification from some black customers, used discriminatory hiring practices, applied a dress code only to black patrons and denied entry using other policies rarely applied to whites.
People are often shocked when I tell them we have quite a bit of racism in the gay "community." I don't know why that shocks them. Gay people are raised by straight people who were raised in a country that is laced with horrific problems caused by strained race relations. How can it be a surprise to anyone that gay people can be racists?
A quick check of the gay blogosphere was a huge disappointment as well. Very little talk of the issue. Rosenblog asked Are some gays intolerant?. Why yes. Yes we are.
365gay.com reports that David Parker was arrested after he refused to leave his son's school where he was demanding they remove a book with gay characters. Parker learned his 6 year-old was in possession of the book "Who's in a Family." Parker visited the child's school to protest, demanded that the book be removed from the school library, and also asked that his son be removed from all discussions about homosexuals -- planned or spontaneous discussions. The school superintendent refused to honor either of Parker's demands. After the meeting, Parker refused to leave and officials called the police. What was he expecting to accomplish anyway by refusing to leave? Is this the new bullying tactic in action?
The book discusses various non-traditional types of families, including gay and lesbian families. I'm sure the "religious" right will say this book is all a part of some sinister plot to turn all little children into homosexuals; however, the book is meant to be all-inclusive when discussing non-traditional families. There is no gay agenda here, folks. And they call us conspiracy theorists.
Parker feels a parent is the only one who should be discussing homosexuality with children. The book Parker is protesting isn't discussing homosexuality; it's discussing different types of families. To claim that the book discusses homosexuals just because gay and lesbian families are in the book is to also claim that the book discusses interracial relationships just because multi-ethnic families are in the book. That's not the case. Parker has made a huge leap and definitely on purpose. He's anti-gay and doesn't want his child to even begin to see that gays and lesbians exist in any realm of normalcy.
Parker, who is a member of the Article 8 Alliance, which supports the ouster of four judges on the state's Supreme Judicial Court who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage, demanded that the book be removed from the school library and that his son be pulled from discussions about homosexuality whether they are in planned lessons or arise spontaneously.
The fact that he doesn't want his child to hear even spontaneous conversations about homosexuals signifies, to me, that he wants his child to always view homosexuals as sexual deviants. To discuss homosexuals in casual day-to-day conversations is to move us from that proverbial black, smokey, closet to the open air where people see us as normal human beings with normal lives. That's exactly what Parker doesn't want his child to see.
I've seen the Gender Brain Quiz quite a few times. Today, because I'm in that kind of mood, I decided to take the quiz. And in my usual overanalytical style, I thought I would show you what my score was then question every single last one of the questions used to come to that result. As I took the quiz, I remembered sitting through a Left Brain Right Brain lecture in grad school that was designed to offer more insight into how male and female business executives make decisions.
So, here goes:
1. Looking fashionable is important to you.
False
True
My answer was False. Umm, this is so stereotypical it ain't even funny. I know plenty men who can't leave the house unless they look like something out of the Abercrombie & Fitch flyer -- and they're not all gay! --
2. You are better at:
Understanding what is being explained to you
Explaining things you understand
My answer was "Explaining things to others," although I am good at both since I have a background in Training & Development. You can only choose one answer though, so there's one flaw in this quiz. I know quite a few men who wouldn't know how to explain how to open a box of cereal. --
3. Do you tend to remember your dreams?
No
Yes
My answer was yes. I once heard if you remember your dreams, that means you're not sleeping well. WHAT does this have to do with anything? Are we implying that women tend to live in fantasy land? --
4. If you have a problem, you tend to
Ask for imput
Solve it yourself
I solve it myself. I hate troubling people. That also speaks to my fierce independence.
Now this question . . . are the creators of this quiz implying that women are always asking for help instead of taking care of things on their own? --
5. In an argument or heated discussion, you find it most important to:
Drive your point home
Come to an understanding
Depends on the person. If I don't know you and could care less who you are, I won't give you the time of day. If it's someone I care for, I attempt to come to an understanding. I see the "women are naggin' bitches" stereotype in this question. --
6. Would you ever try an exciting new drug if it were illegal?
Depends on what it did
No - you prefer to obey the law
My answer was, of course, "Depends on what it did." Now here, you can look at this a couple of ways. Personality assessments that companies use like it when employees take risks. They want to see that kind of behavior in top management; however, if you take the wrong risks, your ass is burned. In this question, it's implied that women tend to play it safe while men take risks. --
7. If someone you know is acting strange...
You try to read between the lines
You ask for an explanation
I ask for an explanation with, "WTF?" --
8. You tend to notice when someone has poor etiquette
False
True
My answer was False. I have to know proper etiquette before I recognize poor etiquette.
I know plenty men and women who are caught up "appearances" and etiquette, so I'm not sure where this question is going. --
9. If a friend who's gained weight asks you if she's gotten fat, you
Are completely honest
Would consider sparing her feelings
I'm completely honest so my friends never ask me these types of questions.
This question is just LAME! How many men ask their male friends, "do these jeans make me look fat?" --
10. When talking with your friends, you're more likely to discuss
What's going on in your lives and people you know
Politics, sports, or news
Depends on the friends! I hated this question the most. I have friends who would rather walk over hot coal barefoot than discuss politics. I have friends who would rather discuss politics than watch football and drink beer. I chose "What's going on in your lives and people you know."
Women tend to talk about people and men tend to talk about sports, politics, and news (hey, let's be honest folks). That's just a given. Yes, there are lots of women who talk politics and sports, too. But, how many times have you heard a group of men gossiping about the neighbors? --
11. Even if you aren't one yourself, you can understand how some people can be vegetarians
True
False
My answer was True because I mind my own damn business.
Now this question, who wants to guess why this question is here? --
12. If a friend has a problem, it becomes your problem as well
False
True
My answer was False. My friends are usually capable of handling their own problems.
How many men get all caught up in their friends' problems? Have you ever heard a guy chattin' it up about his friends' problems? --
13. If you were to pick up a book for some relaxing reading, it would be:
Fiction
Non fiction
My answer was non-fiction. Besides a lot of non-fiction I read these days is fiction anyway: Time Magazine being a good example.
Ok, how many men read romance novels? --
14. You could marry for money... if the person was a billionaire.
True
False
My answer was False. I wouldn't marry George W. Bush for all the money in the world. I used him as a reference.
I know a whole lot of people (male or female) who will marry anything for a billion dollars. --
15. When it comes to old friends
You tend to lose touch with people fairly easily
You're good at keeping in touch
I keep in touch fairly easily. Email is a beautiful thing.
This question is implying that women are more sentimental than men. Please! My exhusband has a photo album full of old photos, letters, and postcards that I sent him when he was away on military tours. He hates my bitch ass now. --
So, the end result:
Your Brain is 26.67% Female, 73.33% Male
You have a total boy brain
Logical and detailed, you tend to look at the facts
And while your emotions do sway you sometimes...
You never like to get feelings too involved
The Gender Brain Quiz isn't meant to tell you what gender your brain is; it's really a quiz that counts how many men or women actually took the quiz! Based on behaviors that are stereotypical male or female behaviors, the creators of the quiz can state that they have had X amount of females take the quiz and X amount of males take the quiz. That's really all they can say.
Backing up to my grad school lecture:
My professor implied that women were more thinking/feeling types, while men were more reactionary and less feeling. Somehow he brought up the Iraq war and asked of the class, "which would you want on the front line with you?" I raised my hand and told him that his theory was flawed because it ignored the fact that there are women out there who are so sick of the being labeled "thinking/feeling types" that we've conditioned our brains to be anything but. There are some women who have gone so overboard with it that they are bonding with men and behaving "like one of the boys" -- note the females involved in the Iraq prison abuse scandal. I told my professor that boardrooms are not war zones, even though it certainly looks that way. Executives aren't supposed to be void of feelings because they deal with human beings on a daily basis. So, if he's implying that females don't make good executives because it's assumed we are too "thinking/feeling" then I believed that was really the wrong information for any professor to present to a group of MBA students.
I'm not sure I've completely bought into the Left Brain Right Brain theory as it relates to gender. According to this neat little flawed quiz, my brain is 73% male. I am "logical and detailed." I suppose if my brain was 73% female I would be irrational? Dem sounds like fightin' words to me.
The New York Times reports Bill Gates might not be a wimp-ass after all. Microsoft may support a gay rights bill after the company stated last week it would not. Religious bullying was cited as the reason for Microsoft deciding to pull its support from the gay rights bill.
Gates said he was surprised by the backlash the company's decision has created. Is he now? His company has been the corporate leader for gay rights for decades. How can he be surprised that this would anger people? For a man as smart as Bill Gates, I find that really hard to believe. Of course he knew, but he played both sides of the card. With the present technology employment market, will his gay and gay friendly employees leave in droves in search of new employment simply because they are angry? No they won't -- and Gates gambled on that knowledge.
Gates has a house full of highly skilled, well-paid, gay employees who aren't going anywhere anytime soon. He knows that better than anybody. He could sign on to support the next Republican National Convention and all those employees would do is congregate around the water cooler and complain.
I usually jump on these stories, but I wanted to see how this one unfolded. A 5 year-old was arrested and handcuffed after having a temper tantrum in school. She tore papers off a bulletin board and punched an assistant principal. Ouch! That little fist must've hurt. The video tape does show the little girl calming down before the police even arrived.
I watched this video, and this is obviously a troubled little girl. But I'm even more troubled by adults who can't find a way to deal with a five-year-old, and feel the need to call the police. I'm not one to throw race into every situation, but it disturbs me at my core to see three white police officers handcuffing and arresting a five year-old Black girl for acting up. I'm getting disturbing 1960s flashbacks -- "bed waves of fear and paranoia."
Judging only by the anecdotal evidence of the stories and the video, as well as my experience with children, it's hard for me not to suspect that this child is being abused emotionally and physically, or she has some undiagnosed hyperactive or emotional disorder.
I held off responding to his email then because I wasn't sure it was a race issue -- at least not on the surface. Having two children in the public school system, I can say this much: if you're a minority student and you act out, it's automatically assumed you're a kid from a bad home. That's exactly the buzz about this child in the conservative blogosphere -- especially over at Black conservative blogger La Shawn Barber's place, who is really just embarassed to be Black right about now. She was embarrassed to be Black when Chris Rock hosted the Oscars too, but that's a different story.
I won't even speculate that the child in the video is being abused at home because we don't know that. If anyone remembers the story of Helen Keller, she was indeed an ornery child who threw fits of rage. Was she being abused? No, not that any of us can remember. We can not make assumptions here. We don't know if this child has been tested for any developmental disorders and we don't know if the home has been investigated for any abuse situations. Typically, abused children do not act out like this. I oughta know, I was a horribly abused child. I knew better than to say anything to anybody about what was going on at home -- even at the age of 5. Parents who are beating the shit out of their kids at home are also masters at mind control. Before we assume that this parent is abusing her kid, we need to know how child abuse really works.
Now, did it really take 3 police to handcuff one 5 year old? No. It didn't. But, if we're concerned about a police officer flipping out about a kid kicking her/him in the shins, then it might take 3 of them to handle a 5-year old. Personally, I don't trust that police officers have too much patience with children just because they are police.
There was a discussion on MSNBC on April 25 about the issue that you might find interesting. Follow this link to view the video.
Blogs are buzzin' about Arianna Huffington's new community blog that will consist of 250 Hollywood bloggers -- both left leaning and right leaning. This blog is set to be called The Huffington Post and will be in direct competition with the Drudge Report -- which seems to lean to the right a bit. Well, who can blame the guy? That's where the advertising dollars are. Some of Arianna's bloggers will include: Walter Cronkite, David Mamet, Nora Ephron, Warren Beatty, James Fallows, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Maggie Gyllenhaal, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Diane Keaton, Norman Mailer and Mortimer B. Zuckerman. I didn't see Madonna, Brittany, or Snoop Dogg on the list, but ya never know.
According to reports, Arianna has stolen Drudge's right-hand Web whiz, Andrew Breitbart who will be her researcher. You go girl!
Now, I'm waiting to see how many feminist bloggers will dump Arianna like a hot potato from their blogroll now that she's doing a Hollywood-style blog that will be financed with advertising dollars. Can't have that, now can we?
Now here's something the good Christians could be working on. Certainly they care about the children, and certainly, they don't want the liberals callin' them out.
WASHINGTON, April 25, 2005 — Every year, hundreds of thousands of children are abused and neglected in the United States. Child welfare specialists say it's an epidemic caused by mental illness, drug addiction and poverty.
A new report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found an estimated 1,500 children in the United States died from abuse or neglect in 2003. The majority of them were under the age of 4.
[. . . ]
Many social workers say they are stunned by an increase in abuse in the middle class, putting additional strain on a system already under pressure.
"It covers across the socioeconomic spectrum," Bilchik said. "So this isn't about just impoverished families."
The good Christians should divert that anti gay marriage energy over to the child abuse epidemic. I think it would be best utilized there, eh? I'm bettin' this is an issue we won't see mentioned too often on conservative blogs since mental illness (one of the variables for child abuse) isn't something that can be labeled with a "god damn liberals" sticker.
I tell ya what we should do, we liberals and lefties. We should keep an eye on some of the most gawd awful religious conservative blogs in the next few weeks, and see just how many of them mention the child abuse epidemic.
Over the coming days and weeks, we’ll be fueling a national conversation about the affect the irresponsible corporate behemoth has on our economy. Our goal is to spread the truth about Wal-Mart’s countless abuses on their employees, suppliers, and the communities they do business in.
This week, we’re kicking off by shedding light on Wal-Mart’s voracious appetite for public subsidies. Last Friday, Americans everywhere filed their federal tax returns and paid their fair share.
The organization had a full page ad in the New York Times (damn! can't believe I missed the original) and has launched serious efforts to monitor the company's activities. The organization's blog has financial information and discussions on the group's activities.
When I was in grad school, I must have been one of the only MBA students who was in the minority when looking at Wal-Mart's business activities. Most of my classmates gave the organization a positive review because they were looking only at the bottom line; it didn't matter to them how the organization accomplished its goals. Most of my classmates also gave the Enron employees who are sitting in prison a positive review also. Why? Because those employees made money for the organization and the organization comes first -- always. You must remember, MBAs are a cut-thoat breed, for the most part, and our country is run by a Harvard MBA.
It's nice to see Wal-Mart Watch keeping an eye on Wal-Mart, but what is the purpose -- other than watching and providing information? In addition, I wonder what organization is behind Wal-Mart Watch and helping them pay for all these very pricey ads in very expensive mainstream newpapers like The New York Times and USA Today?
This week's The L Word involved an Olivia cruise so it was full of sex and drama. A boat full of lesbians in the middle of the ocean. I remember those days. I was in the Navy. We even got to see one of the most cliche female performers in the lesbian music scene on the show: Shawn Colvin. I love, love, love me some Shawn Colvin, so don't get me wrong. But come on, the only thing more predictable than Shawn Colvin's performance would've been Sarah McLachlan or Ani. I am really starting to get incredibly bored of The-L-Word-style stereotyping here folks. Lesbians do have rather diverse tastes in music. But first, you must find and appeal to diverse lesbians. Ha!
On with the update.
The first 5 minutes or so of this episode showed a woman of size getting laid. I don't know where I read this (so if it was your blog, please post a link) but I read a post a week or so ago that said The L Word didn't show fat sex. Someone was angry that the sex scene between Kit and the TOE guy was very, very brief and attributed it to Kit's size. Well, the lesbian in the first 5 minutes of this week's scene is considerably larger than Kit. So, I wonder if there was another reason for the short Kit/TOE guy sex scene.
Jenny is really trippin' about the Shane/Carmen love confession tape she saw in Mark's room. My opinion: oh well, girlfriend! You were the one who said you weren't ready for a relationship. Karma really is a bitch, ain't it, and it has a mean bite. I do like the way she borrows Mark's camera and turns the tables on him, letting him know he's busted and she knows he's been spying on them. Gigs up, Mark!
Shane, Carmen, Jenny, Dana, and Alice all pack up and head out on the Olivia cruise. Alice and Dana get a nice spacious cabin; Jenny, Carmen, and Shane get a tiny cabin. Jenny suggests they share a bed with Carmen in the middle. Uh huh.
Alice borrows a captain's uniform for Dana to use. Dana gets dressed (packin' her strap-on underneath) and someone knocks on the door to let them know dinner is ready. Dana has to go to dinner packin! This is the second time she's caught in a compromising position with her strap-on; the first being at the airport when they dump her carry on bag and find her toys inside. Now, a sidenote: personally, I'm finding Alice a bit pushy here with the sex toys issue. Remember how Alice was constantly riding Dana's ass about how Dana allowed Tonya to dictate things? It seems to me Alice controls their sex life.
Bette and Kit's father comes to visit, but all is not well. We can see almost immediately that he's ill, but he hasn't said anything to anyone. He and Bette bicker a little about Tina. Bette tells Kit not to mention that Ben is married.
Tina is absolutely crazy about Bette! Bette attends an awards ceremony for Tina and, at this ceremony, Tina asks Bette if they could start dating. Bette asks about Helena and Tina says she and Helena are not exclusive. Hmm. . . I wonder if Helena-the-she-devil knows that! When Tina goes to accept her award, she looks out in the audience for Bette, but Bette has to leave because she receives a phone call about her Dad. Kit called to let her know their father has taken ill.
When Jenny, Carmen, and Shane return from the Olivia cruise, Mark fesses up to the three of them. He tells them about the cameras and about the videos. He tells them Jenny found out before they left but didn't want to ruin their vacation. Shane seems the most hurt of all of them. Carmen tries to smoothe things over with Jenny. I don't know why.
Next week: Gay pride festivities start for the girls.
The New York Times has an Op-Ed on interracial relationships in movies I thought was very interesting. The author, Nicholas D. Kristof, writes:
But it's hard to argue that America is becoming more colorblind when we're still missing one benchmark: When will Hollywood dare release a major movie in which Denzel Washington and Reese Witherspoon fall passionately in love?
For all the gains in race relations, romance on the big screen between a black man and a white woman remains largely a taboo. Americans themselves may be falling in love with each other without regard to color, but the movie industry is still too craven to imitate life.
I might have to disagree with Kristoff. Americans are still very aware of color. Take for example the white man who has low self-esteem and compensates for that by dating Black women because he feels superior to them, or the Black man who dates white women because he feels white women are submissive. We can also look at white lesbians who have stated they do not find Black women attractive, but they do find Black men attractive (I'm not sure how that works exactly).
Kristoff goes on to say:
The latest "Guess Who" is about a white man in love with a black woman, and that's a comfortable old archetype from days when slave owners inflicted themselves on slave women. Hollywood has portrayed romances between white men and (usually light-complexioned) black women, probably calculating that any good ol' boy seeing Billy Bob Thornton embracing Halle Berry in "Monster's Ball" is filled not with disgust but with envy.
This is a point I have touched on many times when discussing The L Word here at SistersTalk. I once wrote a review of The L Word for a popular lesbian website. I titled it "A WTF Review of The L Word." In that review, I discussed the lack of Black lesbians and pointed out that Pam Grier is not Black per se (as they like to brag she is, using her as the token Black for the show), she's bi-racial -- which is much more acceptable to many lesbians than Black. That review received a 1 star rating -- as expected. I knew my audience when I sat down to write the article and my intent was to piss people off. Mission accomplished.
America is not becoming more colorblind when, if you want to see television with color, you have to turn to BET or Telemundo. And of course, it's BET and Telemundo's fault that they are creating ghettos of entertainment by providing a service that no one else seems to want to provide.
If I was a bettin' kinda girl, I'd be willing to bet that a show about Black lesbians in LA would never see the light of day. Who's in on that bet?
I was gonna fill it out, but I didn't know where we were supposed to send it.
UPDATE:
It looks like my blog host might be SPAMMING Cut to the Chase's referral list (located at the bottom of her blog). If you noticed, my host's URL shows up as a referral in her list three five times, yet there's no link to that site on my blog host's main page at all -- at least not one we can see. If you click on that link, you are redirected to tblog's signup page. I am ashamed of you guys. Tsk, tsk! This would be one of the reasons I stopped using trackbacks and the referral list. Creative SPAM.
I am loving this country more and more everyday. Can't ya tell?
Catholics in MA are demanding gay marriages in that state are halted until they can have the state constitution amended to make gay marriages illegal.
Oh, I have a much better idea. A revolutionary idea. I demand Catholics stop allowing Priests get away with child molestation. I demand all Priests who sexually abuse children are made to serve a mandatory 20 year prison sentence. That should be an issue they deal with before they worry about two adult people deciding who they wish to commit their lives to.
Ya know, Catholics really ought to find something better to do with their tme.
I just read a story at ContraCostaTimes that's biased reporting if I've ever seen it! This story talks about blogs sounding off on Eggs Benedict. At the end of the story, it lists blogs that are discussing the new Pope, and none of those blogs lean too much to the left.
Give the the story a look then write the author and give her a piece of your mind. Oh, but I'm sure you will.
In the First Amendment and Commenting on Blogs discussion, we keep circling back around to the subject of link whoring: people commenting on blogs for no other purpose than to drop a link to their blog. This is a different kind of SPAM than bot SPAM that leaves advertisements for viagra and casinos. It's sneaky SPAM--the kind you recognize if you weren't born this morning.
It leads me to the subject of linking as it relates to blogs.
Some bloggers are very liberal about linkage: linking to friends, enemies, and anything else you can imagine. Some bloggers are very conservative about linkage: linking only to bloggers who (they hope will) scratch their back in return. Some bloggers are very cliquey about linkage: linking only to bloggers who are in their inner circle (you know who you are). Some bloggers are very haphazard about their linkage: sometimes linking to other bloggers, but most of the time linking to newspapers, websites acting as news sources, and Wikipedia (that would be me).
One of the things I've noticed is that linkage is very important to bloggers -- as if blogging can't exist without it. Apparently there are supposed rules for linking to a blogger when you mention one of her blog posts. They are:
1. You must link to the blogger's main page 2. You must link to the post mentioned
So, I guess you're supposed to link to the blogger twice in one post if you're mentioning one of her blog posts, but only once if you're merely mentioning the blogger. Well . . . I don't respond well to being told to do things. Let's just leave it at that. The only reason someone came up with that rule is to increase their Technorati link count. Are we serving as marketing tools for each other? If we are, that's all well and good, but call it what it is.
So, is blogging really about sharing ideas, opening up the lines of communication, and fostering open discussion -- or is it a very competitive system organized around link dropping, link swapping and blogrolling? My angry house guest (the one who debated with me in email about my commenting policy) kept referring to my Technorati link count. Give up the obsession with my link count, already!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Consensual sodomy between members of the U.S. military no longer would be a criminal act under a proposal sent to Congress by the Pentagon's legal office and made public on Thursday.
Gays could still be drummed out of the military for openly discussing or acting on their sexual preferences. But the separate criminal rule against consensual sodomy would be changed to bring the military legal code closer to that governing civilians, according to the April 7 memorandum.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to make things better for homosexuals serving in the military since gays can still be kicked out for discussing their sexual orientation. If anything, the new law seems to help heterosexuals who were prosecuted under laws meant for homosexuals. Come on now guys, is that really the intent?
Tragically, this tendency toward compassion by our community was cynically and opportunistically exploited in 1991 by then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Although his career history had even then betrayed his racial self-hatred, he was not at all reluctant to describe allegations against him of sexual harassment by an accomplished, distinguished Black woman as a “high-tech lynching” of a Black man. True to form, much of the village came to his defense. As everyone knows, Thomas rewarded the African community’s love and support with a series of legal opinions that, in some cases, are so anti-Black (maybe even anti-human) that even his most reactionary Supreme Court colleagues have distanced themselves from his analyses.
[b]On OJ Simpson:[/b]
For example, without the benefit of a group discussion, the general analysis of O.J. Simpson’s plight was that although he purposely distanced himself from our community, his lack of malice toward us, and the fact that he had been the target of an indisputably sloppy, if not racist police investigation, made him worthy of support by the African community.
[b] On Condi Rice:[/b]
Rice’s crime is that she is so eager to please her boss that she not only carries out his plans, but she also initiates and orchestrates projects that further his objectives, even if Africans are unnecessarily harmed in the process. The relationship between Bush and Rice may not be as between master and slave, as Mugabe suggests. Rather, it may be more akin to the relationship between master and pet. Bush says “fetch” and Rice runs as fast as she can. Bush says “sic ‘em” and Rice doesn’t pause, even if the identified victim is from her community. Should our village protect such a person? In the same way that the world assumes a pet’s master will care for his animal, perhaps we are best served by allowing Bush to take care of his pet Negro while we Africans focus on the more important task of struggling for our liberation.
In the case of Clarence Thomas, Fancher points out that the Black community wanted to show solidarity so badly (and see a Black Supreme Court justice), that we (we, in a collective sense) were eager to dismiss the claims of an African American female who said she was sexually harassed -- writing her off as a white man's tool to destroy the Black man.
Again, in the OJ Simpson case, we (we, in a collective sense) saw OJ Simpson as a Black man being devoured by the white system -- even though he'd largely turned his back on the Black community.
As for Condi Rice: she has carefully avoided making comments that concern racial matters and her support for Affirmative Action has been limited -- if that. When GW called out Zimbabwe and Cuba as outposts of tyranny, Rice piped in loudly -- forgetting that Cuba has sent more doctors to Africa than any other country, including the country she serves. It has also allowed young Blacks to train in its medical schools for free, returning to this country to work in poor communities.
Good as You reports that Microsoft has withdrawn its support for an anti-discrimination bill after being bullied by a local pastor. A pastor? Well now, Ann Coulter used 10 large college kids to bully a group of liberals, but 1 pastor could bully an entire corporation?
According to reports, the pastor threatened to organize a boycott of Microsoft's products unless Microsoft withdrew its support of the bill. How many people are going to run out and purchase Macs just because Microsoft supports an anti-discrimination bill? We all know that Wal-Mart discriminates against women and Blacks, but everytime I enter a Wal-Mart (I'm a woman and I'm Black) . . . . See where I'm going with this? There are some corporations that can do whatever they please (within reason) and they'll still have enough of a customer base to survive. Microsoft is one of them.
According to an article published at The New York Times, the pastor made several demands of Microsoft -- including firing Microsoft employees who testified on behalf of the bill.
I was just visiting The Pryhills because I landed there from Technorati while looking for posts for BbW (not that's not Big Beautiful Women). I was going to comment on something and noticed her commenting feature isn't activated. No biggie really because the commenting feature for BbW isn't activated either; I want people to visit the blogs I feature and comment instead of commenting on BbW.
I've heard a few people say that "good bloggers" always have their commenting feature enabled. Is that true?
I want to hear from bloggers who have their commenting feature disabled, or have commenting policies that have pissed off more than a few people. If you've visited a blog that has a commenting policy in place you don't like, feel free to pipe in -- even if it's my blog. I'll be sure to jump in and explain why my policy is as it is.
Oh, and this is a great time to discuss the First Amendment and how it does not (in my opinion) cover commenting on a blog that doesn't belong to you.
I'm gonna ramble for a bit because I just realized I'm behind on my LGBT news and I'm suddenly reminded of the good ol' days when I rambled and bitched like there was no fuckin' tomorrow before I finally said what I had to say.
I was about to redesign my blog again, right, but I decided, "Oh hell no. I'm so sick of that. Where's the consistency?" The last time I redesigned it was because this really bitchy artsy regular who came here complained that everything was too wide on her screen and that she had to scroll to see everything. Now, mind you, I tested the screen resolution on my new laptop and my old computer (Windows 95) to make sure it would look somewhat decent on even the worst machines. Uh huh, yeah. But, I played with the design and changed it anyway. Eventually, she and I got into this huge tift (do people use that word anymore?) and she stopped coming around. I'm so distraught. Can't you tell? Anyway, no blog redesign for you.
I'm gonna talk about news, even though I read somewhere today that true bloggers don't regurgitate the news and true bloggers don't do this or that. Everytime I read shit like that, I think, "where are these people getting all this insider information about true bloggers?" Is there some kind of APA or MLA type guide for blogging? If so, what credible professional organization developed the guide and how did they develop the guidelines? If there is no guidebook, then whose standard are we adhering to? And, what makes that person (or group) so special or unique that he (more than likely a he or a group of males) gets to dictate to the blogosphere what the standard should be?
And now, on with the news:
Jackie Meyer informed me that Texas is at it again. The good folks of Texas have passed a bill that bans homosexual and bisexual foster parents.
365gay.com reports that gay couples are suing good ol' WI for domestic partner health insurance benefits and family leave protections.
Thousands in Minnesota rally for a chance to vote in favor of a gay ban.
Thanks for the tips from all of you. I'm sorry I've been so bad at getting back to everyone. I was caught up in this really nasty email bitch session with a girl (I call her C commentor) who insisted I argue with her about my commenting policy. I don't even know that woman. Please, my email policy states that if I ask you not to email me and you continue to do so, that's harassment.
By the way, C commentor, I know the name of a good therapist darlin'.
I wasn't going to touch the Ann Coulter/Time Magazine issue here at SistersTalk because I blogged on it BlogsbyWomen, but Tari emailed me the cover.
I'm tellin' ya, Ann Coulter is nothing more than a release valve for pissed off conservatives. She says things just to provoke a response. Other conservative bloggers have started copying her style. They say shit just to get attention. The nation, now more than ever, is deeply divided and conservatives find columnists/bloggers who will say what they want to hear because they're too chickenshit to say it themselves.
At any rate, it was an excellent marketing tactic for Time Magazine -- along with the piece on George W Bush. Controversy sells. The marketing professional in me has to bow in their direction.
We know that he has had the reputation of being rigid in his position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, silencing and expelling theologians, priests and nuns whom he perceived as not being orthodox.
[. . . ]
We do believe in the spirit of 'prayer and work' that is the motto of the Benedictines.
We share a deep sadness that one of the world's most homophobic religious leaders has been elevated to the papacy, and regret that his policies will continue to devalue the rich spiritual gifts of LGBT people and women of faith.
My faith teaches that all people can change, so my prayers today are that the eyes of Cardinal Ratzinger -- now Pope Benedict XVI -- will be opened to the unique giftedness and blessing that LGBT people can be to the Church. And my prayers today are with my brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church, and those whose lives will be harmed by church policies that treat LGBT people with less than unconditional acceptance and dignity.
“Based on his history and his demagoguery it is nearly impossible to imagine that this new Pope will usher in an era of reconciliation and welcome. Ratzinger has been the author and voice of oppression and attack on GLBT people.
“In anticipation of the announcement of who would be the next Catholic Pontiff, Sam Sinnett, President of the national gay Catholic organization Dignity USA, said, ‘We do hope there will be a little more listening, and an end to the virulence of the anti-gay language.’
In the interest of preserving the sanctity of heterosexual marriages, I thought I'd point to a New York Times article on marriage counseling. According to the article, marriage counseling isn't really that effective; it works for about a year, but 38% of those couples who participate in marriage counseling usually end up divorced anyway. Many say therapists lack the skills necessary to work with couples who are in serious trouble -- you know, like people who probably never should have married in the first place.
One man claims a therapist hurt his marriage. He said:
"One therapist hurt our marriage and actually caused our separation," said the husband, Jim, who did not want his last name used out of concerns for his privacy.
"She told my wife, 'You don't have to put up with that,' " referring to his battle with alcoholism, he said.
I'm not exactly sure how it's the therapist's fault since the husband is the alcoholic and the adults in the situation make their own decisions. And really, the therapist was right, the wife didn't have to put up with that; it's called enabling.
Now, I ask you: whose responsibility is it to save your sacred marriage? Yours or your therapist? You didn't need a therapist to get you in the marriage, why would you need one to keep you in the marriage? I'm not saying therapy isn't a good idea, because I believe in heading to the gym if you need a little help getting the fat off your ass. But yelling at the people who own the gym when they close the gym early and blaming them for your lack of fat loss is a little ridiculous. Which reminds me, it's time to shed those winter pounds. Wisconsin is a horrid place to live. All a sistah does is hibernate in the winter.
Back to saving sacred heterosexual marriages. I do digress often, don't I? The article states couples wait an average of 6 years before they see a therapist. Well damn. That's a whole lotta unhappiness before you finally decide to do something about it. By that time, there's so much baggage to dump on a therapist, it's no wonder 38% of you end up in divorce court fighting over the house, the kids, the car, the dog, your in-laws, and who slept with the next door neighbor. There are couples who say counseling made their marriage stronger, but those were the couples who saw a therapist before someone made it over to the neighbor's house.
And then there are those couples who just don't like each other. They really just can't stand each other. Hint: that's not good.
As for those couples that consist of me-me people, that's bad too (and there appears to be a lot of that going on). These are relationships that consist of two people who are really wrapped up in their own needs. These people are very individualistic types who are not concerned about what makes the other party happy. Therapists say more couples need to pay attention to what makes their partner feels appreciated and loved. Both people need to do that, it's not a one-sided deal.
And wrapping this up before I start to get angry about the whole anti gay marriage thing:
Marriage counseling is suppose to be short, people! If you've been in marriage counseling for over 26 weeks or so, you now have other things to think about.
CNN has announced that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany has been chosen as the new Pope.
View Google's collection of images if you don't know who he is. I didn't.
Update: CNN has now updated their story and included a picture of Ratzinger. The new Pope has taken the name Benedict XVI.
Ratzinger will be more of the same of what Catholics got from Pope John Paul. It was no secret that Ratzinger wanted a traditionalist elected as the next pope. Many people were hoping the Catholic church would become more inclusive with the election of its next Pope. Better luck next time, perhaps?
This week Bette and Tina sleep together, Alice asks Dana to strap it on, Kit gets stood up by the married man she's dating, Ivan reappears (yeeaah!), Shane confesses her feelings for Carmen, and we meet Ivan's girlfriend of 5 years (WTF?).
Bette and Tina visit the doctor for an ultrasound and they get to see their little girl on the big screen. Ok, the little screen. Bette holds Tina's hand during the procedure and they bond. Afterwards they return to Tina's place and, predictably, the two women end up having sex. Afterwards, when Tina walks Bette to the door, she tells Bette they're not back together. Ouch! Helena visits shortly after that and Tina kisses her and tells her she wants to have sex all night. She starts grabbing at her clothes and gets angry when Helena doesn't reciprocate, claiming Helena needs an audience. I kept waiting for her to tell Helena that she just slept with Bette, but she didn't.
Bette talks to her therapist after she sleeps with Tina. While she enjoyed having sex with Tina, she's not sure she wants her back. Tina has changed a lot; she's independent and apparently quite freaky in bed. That intimidates Bette a bit.
Alice asks Dana to strap it on for her. Dana asks Alice if that's a bisexual thing. Alice assures Dana that many lesbians wear strap-ons. Interjection here: I know many lesbians who believe that if a lesbian needs penetration from a dildo or strap-on, she might as well be with a man. Anyway, Alice and Dana visit an adult toy store; Dana is very embarrassed and Alice is more than extremely comfortable. By the end of the episode, Dana worked up the nerve to enter the store alone and buy a nice strap-on for her woman.
The TOE guy is married! Well, who's really surprised by that? Pfft. The men on L Word are slime, it seems -- well, except the new guy who we learned is a closeted homo. Anyway, Kit was supposed to have dinner with the TOE guy but he stood her up -- claiming his mama was in the hospital. I can't believe she fell for that one.
We see Ivan again when Kit shows up at an AA meeting because the TOE guy stood her up. Ivan is at the AA meeting. Ivan takes her out with him and she meets Ivan's girlfriend of 5 years. Kit was immediately jealous, even before she learned the woman was Ivan's girlfriend. I saw her claws come out right away. Kit was very angry that Ivan was romancing her when he had a girlfriend. Wait, didn't she just get stood up by a married man? The difference? The married man told her he was married.
Mark records Shane confessing to Carmen that she has a hard time watching her and Jenny together. Carmen tells Shane that she and Jenny are not the real thing. When Jenny goes looking for a DVD in Mark's room later, she finds the taped confession and watches it. Ouch!
Next week: Jenny challenges Carmen about her feelings for Shane.
The State Department decided to stop releasing annual statistical account of terror incidents worldwide; the task be turned over to a government center established by Congress last year.
Talk in the blogosphere says the Bush Administration is embarassed the report will show there hasn't been much progress in the war against terrorism. This letter to Colin Powell from Rep. Henry A. Waxman shows the Bush Administration misrepresented a supposed decline in terrorism last year -- presumably for election purposes -- and had to issue a statement correcting the numbers.
According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades.
The statistics didn't include attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror."
The Bush camp used a Kerry quote about terrorism as part of its campaign. Bush/Cheney said: "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat [of terrrorism]?" Well, obviously someone else doesn't understand the threat of terrorism, and they're covering that up by hiding the terrorism report from the country.
My news reader is a bit slow this weekend. I just got this story although it was published Friday.
Greg Dougherty wore an Afro wig and brown makeup to a student-faculty basketball game because he wanted to get a laugh. He resigned his post at the high school after he was told he would be "suspended without pay and barred from school property and events for the rest of the current academic year." Laugh. That's laughable, right? Ha!
While I was scanning blogs yesterday, I wondered what the "oh, we can call George Bush a chimp, but a white man can't wear an Afro wig" comment was about. "Now I see, said the blind man." Newsflash for the idiot who made that comment. There's a huge difference here. Suggesting George Bush is a chimp is not making fun of an entire race of people. Actually, it's a compliment. Chimps are really intelligent creatures so I'm hoping we stop insulting chimps by comparing them to George Bush. Anyway, I'm digressing.
When I read the article about Dougherty, it called to mind many experiences I had as a young married woman. Aaah, those were the days of sheer stupidity. I married a white man (that wasn't stupid, marriage was). I was 19 and he was 21 when we married. His parents reminded me of something straight out of Nick at Night. Boy did they say the dumbest things about Black people. They did a lot of things -- meant to make me feel welcomed -- that would have offended other Black people. I was young and impatient and just as head strong as I am now, so my in-laws heard things I'm sure they never heard from their own kids before. The time we spent together was educational for everyone involved.
Some white people really don't have a clue that it's just not funny to wear an Afro wig and paint your face brown -- in most situations. You can do that with your frat buddies (if they all feel the same way you do), but you probably shouldn't do that at a student-faculty basketball game. Now, I know there are conservatives who will come here and say that was a ridiculously PC statement. Is it really? Well, if it's okay for a white man to wear an Afro wig and brown makeup around my kids, then it's okay for me to burn the American flag in front of yours. I'm just doing it for a laugh.
A woman is suing her ISP Comcast for disclosing her name and contact information in a file-sharing case that never happened. The woman was told she has to pay $4500 or face a lawsuit.
The RIAA did not have a court order to obtain the woman's personal information. I'm sure they could have gotten the proper paperwork necessary to obtain her personal information, but the facts are they did not. Comcast handed that information over without being required, by law, to do so.
In a lawsuit filed in King County, Wash., Dawnell Leadbetter said that she was contacted by a debt collection agency in January and told to pay a $4,500 for downloading copyright-protected music or face a lawsuit for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
[. . . ]
But no court authorized Comcast to release names and addresses of its customers, or notified his client that her information had been given to an outside party, Lybeck said.
The RIAA and Comcast have acted as judge and jury, settled the case and sent this woman a bill. Should internet users worry about what other information their ISP is giving away -- and to whom? If the record industry can get private information this easily, who else can get your private information just as easily?
Ok, so I'm really confused about something. I've been called vulgar by many conservatives who do drive-bys on this blog. I've been told I should cut back on the swear words I use on this blog. Again, this comes from conservative bloggers. Now, since when did conservatives embrace South Park so much that they are calling themselves the South Park Republicans? When the fuck did this happen and where was I? And isn't South Park the most vulgar cartoon on television?
Oh wait, it makes fun of gay people, Black people, fat people, Mexicans . . . nevermind. It's like Ann Coulter animated.
My first thought was this blogger is suffering from attention deficit disorder -- you know, in need of attention on his blog. But then, I realized he has an entire series devoted to "20 Reasons to Question the Gay Agenda." The quoted item is from reason 14. If you read the quote, it's completely contradictory. Here goes:
"there ISsound EVIDENCE that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle may be at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm." (emphasis mine)
The first part of the blogger's statement is definitive (there is sound evidence), but the last part of his statement goes weak by using the word "may." If he wanted to make a definitive statement, it should have said, "there is sound evidence that children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle ARE at increased risk for emotional, mental, and even physical harm."
What can we conclude? We can conclude that he's pulling this out his ass. I would go through the rest of his bullshit and tear his logic apart, but I already have a headache.
I skipped over the latest story on DeLay because all the political bloggers are more than running DeLay stories in the ground. I don't really give a rat's ass who's paying for DeLay to go on fancy trips and eat fancy dineries 'cuz I know there are at least half a dozen more Republicans and Democrats doing the same thing. They just haven't gotten caught.
The Army National Guard has not met a monthly target since the year began and has met 75 percent of its targets for the current year. The Army Reserve has done a little better, and is at 90 percent.
"We're in a different environment that we were a few years ago," said Army Brig. Gen. Sean Byrne, the Pentagon's director of military personnel policy. "Clearly, a large portion of our force is deployed, both on the active and the Reserve. … You'll probably get the opportunity to see a lot of the world and, in some cases, a lot of places people don't necessarily want to go to. But that's the real world as it is right now."
In response, the Pentagon has raised enlistment bonuses to as much as $20,000 and college tuition benefits for new recruits to $70,000 — the highest in history. In addition, they're deploying 33 percent more recruiters, one of the biggest increases in years. And to try to keep the troops they've already trained, re-enlistment bonuses have been increased — and are tax-free if the troops re-enlist while on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I'm confused here. Before the election, we were told the military supported GW and the war. Military personnel who are fighting a war for freedom, democracy and justice don't require or demand re-enlistment bonuses. Anxious young men and women who just can't wait to graduate high school and run off to be good little patriotic citizens don't require incentives like, oh, college money. Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure some of you will. And, a military that is doing well doesn't suffer so badly that it has to raise its age limit to 39 with the hopes that some unemployed pro-Bush groupie with nothing better to do will come knockin'.
Oh by the way, La Shawn Barber is still an armchair activist. She hasn't joined the military yet although she's well within the age requirement now and very supportive of the war effort. I am very disappointed in her. Michelle Malkin hasn't joined yet either. Those girls really disappoint me. They'd rather blog and support the war than get their hands dirty. I've just had another thought. Ann Coulter is within the age requirement now too!
An ABC report says airport security is no better than it was before 9/11.
"A lot of people will be shocked at the billions of dollars we've spent and the results they're going to see, which confirm previous examinations of the Soviet-style screening system we've put in place," Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., told The Associated Press on Friday.
Ha. Ha. Ha. I won't be shocked. I don't think too many other people will be shocked either. People will turn the other way, as they have done with so many other things our government has done in the past 4 years or so. For those who don't choose to turn the other way, we will be angry. As we have been for about 4 years now.
The reports show that the private airport screeners aren't performing at the level necessary to keep prohibited items off aircraft. Well, that should make ya feel safe. I thought if we re-elected GW, we would all be much safer. At least, that's what we were told. Now that he's comfortably back in the White House, they can loosen their belts and release all these reports that state otherwise. Not that 48% of us didn't already know it was pure rhetoric.
The Washington Post has a story on a new report that states senior education officials did nothing illegal or unethical when they paid Black conservative commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to provide biased reports to African Americans about the Bush Administation's No Child Left Behind initiative. Officials contend they exercised bad judgement and poor management.
Let me ask ya something. If Williams hadn't come forward, would they even admit that?
Here's why the officials claim their actions were neither illegal or unethical: they argue they didn't get their money's worth. Williams duped the Education Department!
Much of the report's criticism focused on whether the department got its money's worth. It noted, for example, that the agency paid for advertisements that were never made or that were sometimes of poor quality. Investigators did not turn up any evidence that the administration paid Williams to personally promote its policies in his newspaper columns and television appearances. But they did not look into whether the agreement produced covert propaganda, leaving that issue to the Government Accountability Office, which is also investigating.
"The department paid for work that most likely did not reach its intended audience and paid for deliverables that were never received," the report said. "The advertisements (ads) that were produced under the work requests appear to be of poor quality, and the department has no assurance the ads received the airtime for which it paid."
I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Because the Education Department was not pleased with the quality of the advertisements, it has decided its actions were not illegal or unethical. What kind of logic is that?
An article in the LA Times says the White House wouldn't allow investigators to interview White House personnel related to the Williams case because it would " breach long-standing legal traditions." Well, if the Education department didn't do anything illegal or unethical, and it was a matter of poor judgement and bad management, I don't see any reason why White House personnel can't be interviewed. It's not like we're talking about 9/11 tapes and matters of national security.
When we, as loony liberal citizens, state we don't want the Department of Homeland Security monitoring our phone calls and email without our consent, the first thing conservative supporters of the Patriot Act say is, "Innocent people don't have anything to hide." So, if the Bush Administration is innocent, what's with all the secrecy?
I ran across an interview with the self-identified feminist writer of Utopian Hell who said this of bloggers who sell advertising on their blogs:
The most important thing about blogs that I read, though, is that I avoid blogs with Ads on them ... even political ads that lean in my direction. It ads a touch of sleeze to the medium and makes me wonder how brutally honest these people can be if they're now trying to bring in advertisers. I don't want to be a product that a blogger is selling to an advertiser. I'm worth more than $50 a month, or whatever the going price for banner ads is.
I responded with,"That's nice to know. For those bloggers who are self-employed freelance writers, we like knowing you find our work sleezy." I'd also like to add that this blog contributed to my graduate school bills, helped buy groceries for my children, and put gas in my car so I could get to class. Oh, and it fed my gawd awful caffeine addiction.
I feel I'm quite brutally fuckin' honest and I don't need some self-righteous feminist (a feminist! I can't believe it! oh wait, yes I can!) telling me that if I sell advertising I can't be otherwise. Check. yourself. girlfriend.
By the way, someone ought to tell Mother Jones she's sleezy. All those ads on that blog add a certain element of sleeze. Stop by Rad Geek and let them know they're lookin' a bit sleezy too. When you leave her place, honk your horn at Feministing and let her know she's lookin' fabulously sleezy.
CNN reports that Yale and Columbia grad students have decided to strike. For one week, pro-union students "will not teach classes, host review sessions or participate in research." As I read various conservative blogs, they all say the same snide remarks (and I paraphrase): " since when do spoiled rich students become paid employees?" yadda, yadda, yadda. For once, I have to agree with them. Get your ass off your shoulder and get back to work. And here's why I say that.
As an undergraduate, I was a student worker. I received minimum wage and I hated it, so I quit my student worker job and refused to accept any internships. I could make more money working as a temp in a professional office environment. I had mad computer skills; I was ex-Navy; and I had great written and verbal communcation. I arranged my school schedule so that I had all my classes completed no later than 11am. I worked from noon until 4pm everyday as a Human Resources Associate at a company that produced machines that created paper products. That company pretty much kept this small town on its feet. One day we learned the company was filing for bankruptcy. I was a temporary worker, so guess what? Graduation came and I was left to my own devices to find a job because I had no connections to the college's career center. I'd refused work-study and I never interned.
By the time I started graduate school, I was self-employed. The MBA program I attended was an accelerated program for adult learners. There were no opportunities to become Teaching Assistants or become research assistants for professors -- like most grad students. So, again, I have very few connections to my university's career center that will help me with job placement if I ever decide to hang up my entrepreneurial gig.
I don't think grad students understand how valuable these connections are. These connections are so much more valuable than money because, in the end, the connections help you make more money. I've learned it really is who ya know, not what you know, that's most important. Ask George W. Bush, I think he will agree.
It never ceases to amaze me the responses I read to stories like these:
Student claims he was suspended for wearing makeup. The 16 year old is in his 2nd year at the school. He says he has worn makeup before and the black lipstick and red eye makeup expresses what he feels is his Wiccan religious beliefs. I don't know if that's true and it really doesn't matter if it is. It's just makeup and it doesn't hurt anybody. The boy received a 5-day suspension, but says when he returns he will contine to wear makeup because girls are allowed to wear makeup.
What - a wannabe Goth who hides behind religion because he’s too chickenshit to stand up for himself?
Then homeschool him. The school has a dress code for a reason. If you can’t abide by it, keep him home and he can wear whatever he wants. It’s one thing to teach expression of self and another to teach respect for rule, regardless of how much you don’t like them.
I just laughed and laughed when I read that. It seems to me this student is more than standing up for what he believes in. He's wearing black lipstick and red eye makeup to school, running the risk of being called a fag or a freak by his peers. Boys just don't do that, not if they want to be considered real men. What train did this woman fall off of? The student stated that when he returned to school he will contine wearing makeup; if girls can wear makeup, so can he. Now, I don't know if she speaks a different language than he does, but I see conviction here.
Update: photo added.
With everything going on in our nation's schools, this makeup, while distracting to those who allow it to be, certainly isn't a death threat. It's no more of a distraction than some of the haircuts students are allowed to have (remember pink mohawks? and mullets? dear lord, I can't believe people were allowed to have mullets!). I suggest teachers and administrators go back to worrying about guns in schools and stop worrying about eye makeup. And umm, a little more attention on educating students would be nice.
Ok, so I'm reading the morning news and I choked on this ABC story:
President Bush said Thursday that the public should know as much as possible about government decision-making, but national security and personal privacy including his need to be protected.
"I believe in open government," Bush said at a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. "I've always believed in open government. I don't e-mail, however. And there's a reason: I don't want you reading my personal stuff."
In case anyone has forgotten, the Patriot Act allows the Department of Homeland Security to monitor your email and telephone calls without your knowledge or consent. The federal government can also do that without a warrant.
So, umm, speak louder, I didn't hear ya? Did you say you didn't want people reading your stuff? My hearing must be going bad.
I've been sitting here reading through several articles about Eric Rudolph, the man who has been called a "right wing extremist" after he pleaded guilty to four bombings in the late 1990s -- two at abortion clinics, one at a gay bar, and one at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia.
A right wing extremist they call him. Not a terrorist. If Rudolph's last name was Muhammad, or he was a practicing Muslim, he'd be called a terrorist. Ain't that right? If Rudolph was a Black man, he would be called a "thug" by at least a few Black conservative bloggers. But, since Rudolph is a white man, he's called an extremist. It's not too harsh, but it packs enough punch to make a statement of disapproval.
I am shocked Rudolph was allowed to plea bargain to avoid the death penalty after killing two people and injuring 100 more. In this current political climate, with conservatives acting like every immigrant is an anti-American terrorist who must be tagged and monitored, I can't believe anyone who commited the acts Rudolph committed (citizen or not) was allowed to plea bargain! Conservatives had a fit when the Supreme Court ruled a teenager could not be executed, but I certainly don't see any of them caring two shits about an abortion clinic bomber and gay bar bomber getting away with murder. Hypocrisy at its finest folks; watch it here in the USA!
I do not support the death penalty, not even for Rudolph; however, it's so painfully obvious that Alabama is quite picky about who gets the death penalty and who doesn't. White boys who bomb abortion clincs and gay bars -- killing 2 people and injuring 100 more -- don't count. Remind me to pray for reincarnation as a white boy if I ever wanna go mental and head out on a world tour.
ST reader Tari has sent me this article from Court TV:
An Army reservist was arrested on charges of holding seven Mexicans at gunpoint at a rest stop in southern Arizona, where civilian efforts to watch for illegal immigrants have raised fears of vigilante violence.
Now, this is getting a bit outta hand, folks. Ya can't go running around pointing a gun at every Mexican at the border. And no, all Mexicans do not look alike. Honestly, they don't.
Officials said Haab used his vehicle to stop the seven men from driving away from an interstate rest stop Sunday, then ordered them to lie on the ground or be shot.
I'm hoping the military will issue the harshest punishment possible for this service member because, well, the war is in Iraq -- not Arizona. Haab had no evidence these men were involved in any illegal activity, nor did he have any right to stop, harass, or threaten these men with physical violence. Had these men been illegal Canadian immigrants who looked like good little Americans, Haab wouldn't have been the wiser. His actions were reckless and blatantly racist.
I have a better idea. Instead of running around the desert pointing a gun at Mexicans, how about you concerned citizens cowardly punks get together and hunt for Bin Laden? Remember him? Those who participate in the Minuteman Project have been hailed by the likes of La Shawn Barber as manly men. Me? I see them as cowardly pansies (true pansies if I ever saw any) who chase down women and children using guns, instead of looking for the person who killed 3000 innocent people on September 11, 2001. You wanna be a hero? A real fuckin' hero? Find Bin Laden. Impress me, don't impress the conservatives.
Brooklyn Skyline reports a gang of 30 Black teenagers in Brooklyn, NY attacked four white girls while chanting "Black power" and police are refusing to call this a hate crime. You can guess conservatives will chew on this story for awhile.
Before any of you start declaring Blacks get away with hate crimes while whites are prosecuted at every turn, let me point you to a few articles:
WASHINGTON, DC -- African-Americans who thought that hate crime laws would protect them against rampaging white racists are in for a shock: A new FBI study reveals that blacks are proportionally one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
"This new hate crime study is Jesse Jackson's worst nightmare," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party national director. "It appears that he and other African-American leaders have been duped into crusading for laws that have condemned a disproportionate number of blacks to prison.
Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics," a book by James Jacobs and Kimberly Potter offers revealing statistics in the arena of interracial crime and hate crimes. In 2000, the study found that 75 percent of interracial violent crime involved black offenders and white victims, 10 percent were white offenders and black victims and the other 15 percent were different combinations. Such a discrepancy isn't entirely shocking; after all, there are about six times as many non-Hispanic Caucasians in the United States as African-Americans. What is shocking is that in 1998, the FBI reported 2,084 "anti-black" hate crimes committed by whites and 567 "anti-white" hate crimes committed by blacks. In other words, despite the fact that crimes committed by blacks against whites occur seven times as much as the opposite, someone from the latter category -- a crime committed by whites against blacks -- is four times as likely to be charged with a hate crime. This demonstrates that hate crimes seem to be nothing more than crimes committed by one of a majority against a minority.
. . . we find that blacks were victims of 2,030 racially motivated offenses committed by whites, while whites were victims of 524 racially motivated offenses committed by blacks. Thus whites were responsible for 79.5 percent of these interracial hate crimes, and blacks 20.5 percent.
While this may appear to support the popular assertion that whites are likelier than blacks to commit hate crimes, we must remember that the total population of non-Hispanic whites is about 6 times larger than the total population of non-Hispanic blacks. When we factor this population disparity into the equation, we find that the "average" black is actually about 50 percent likelier than his or her white counterpart to commit what is classified as a racially motivated hate crime. Because this fact so radically contradicts most Americans prevailing worldview, one would think it might be big news deemed worthy of discussion by activists and academics alike. But in fact these are among the most underpublicized numbers in all of criminal justice.
So, while we have our conservative Black Christian blogger ranting about the unfair treatment white criminals receive while Black "thugs" run rampant and beat up on precious white folks, she (along with her counterparts) fail to provide any information that indicates Blacks are indeed prosecuted for hate crimes. It's easier to pretend she's not equipped with that knowledge. It also keeps her in Master's good graces.
We've discussed hate crimes here at ST before, and it was my opinion that hate crime legislation is necessary because adults need to be told they can't intimidate, assault, harass, or murder people just because they belong to certain groups. I realize hate crime language gets messy and law enforcement officers are moronic and don't apply the law equally to everyone. I believe the root of hate crimes lies in our classist system, a system established from the beginning of this country's development. We've been working for over 200 years to undo that system. At this point, I ain't crying too many tears for those who are the direct descendants of those who set the system up this way to begin with. Call me a racist. Call me bitter. Call me whatever. I don't give a crap. I'm really pretty tired of it all.
The New York Times has an interesting article that really addressed the complexity of race and ethnicity.
A group of college students in Pennsylvania recently took a DNA test and were quite surprised by the results. One Black student realized he's 52 per cent African and 48 per cent European, even though both his parents are Black. Of the 100 students tested, half of them were white. Each of the white students said they wanted to find out they were something other than white -- just to piss off their parents.
"When I teach I try to demonstrate to students how complex race and ethnicity are," Dr. Richards said. "My secondary goal is to improve race relations, and when people discover that what they thought about themselves is not true - 'I thought I was black, but I'm also Asian and white' - it leads them to have a different kind of conversation about race. It leads them to be less bigoted, to ask the deeper questions, to be more open to differences."
An interesting question to ask is why do we want to know how much European we are?
"I think the test is really interesting; I had to know," said Ms. Best. "But it makes me question, why are we doing this? Why do people, especially in this country, want to know? Why are we, as a people, so caught up in race? Maybe we haven't progressed as much as we thought we had."
Will this knowledge really help improve race relations in the United States? If Americans suddenly learned we were something other than what we thought we were, would that change our social class system as we know it? Would it matter since -- in relation to race -- we really focus more on what we see on the outside instead of what you really are on the inside?
What the hell is going on in our public schools? Have these people gone mad?
The New York Times reports that a group of Haitian parents and supporters are protesting a public school in Queens after assistant principal, Nancy Miller, made 13 Haitian fourth graders sit on the cafeteria floor and eat their lunch of chicken and rice with their fingers while the other students watched. The incident was prompted by the misbehavior of only 2 Haitian students. The assistant principal said, "In Haiti, they treat you like animals, and I will treat you the same way here."
Again, I draw your attention to the assistant principal's gender. We can't expect that women would be kinder to children just because they are women. I certainly hope people have wiped that idea from their consciousness.
Now, what the hell was she thinking? Did she really expect these parents to roll over and take her shit just because she's in a position of authority? Like my grandma used to say, "These white folks done lost their damn mind."
[b]Update: April 15, 2005[/b]
The principal who made 13 Haitian students sit on the floor and eat their lunch -- using their fingers -- after 2 Haitian students misbehaved, has been . . . reassigned. I'm sure that pleases our conservative friends. We wouldn't want them thinking we're functioning under a politically correct system that fires white administrators for mistreating students simply because they are of color. Nah, couldn't have that.
The New York Times reports a high school principal was fired for not only failing to report that a 16 year-old special education girl was sexually abused by a group of young boys, but she also urged the father to refrain from calling the police.
The principal did not call the girl's father right away because she wanted to avoid a confrontation between the father and the boys. Sounds like someone who was more concerned about appearances than she was about that young girl's mental and physical health.
One boy forced the young girl to perform oral sex on him. The boy told the girl that if she screamed, he would have the other boys punch her. The Times article mentions that the principal said she didn't want the police involved and that she'd rather have the school officer handle things when he returned the following morning.
I know I've written many posts in which I have stated that women can be cruel; however, I am still finding it hard to believe that a female would behave in such a manner. Do you think the situation would have been handled differently if the girl wasn't a special education student?
Yale and the 248-year-old congregation are at a crossroads. The university has announced that as of July its chapel will no longer be affiliated with United Church of Christ, the successor to what was once referred to as the Congregational church.
Though the decision is one of several aimed at making the Yale campus more welcoming to all faiths, the church's congregants have criticized the university for turning its back on its Congregational past and leaving them feeling unappreciated and adrift.
Is it just me, or does that sound like a really long marriage coming to an end? One person feels really unappreciated so he/she is leaving the other.
So, anyway, if you haven't been living under a rock, you know the United Church of Christ is the church that ran the controversal advertisements featuring the homosexuals being turned away at the door of other religious affiliations.
Why do colleges and universities even begin affiliations with churches to begin with, especially if those educational institutions are not religious in nature? I attended Cardinal Stritch University for grad school. The university is Catholic and run by a group of Franciscan nuns. Yeah, I know -- me, at a Catholic university? Yes! The university provided benefits to partners of gay employees and included sexual orientation as part of its non-discrimination policy. I felt more than comfortable there.
According to UCC, there is no contract between Yale and the church so Yale has the right to alter its relationship with the church. UCC feels betrayed since it was the church that founded the university to begin with. The university feels the church has focused more on the community's needs than it has on the university's needs. Well now, we can't have that, can we?
While reviewing AlterNet, I read an article by Sean Gonsalves. Sean addressed what he considered judicial decision-making that doesn't pass the conservatives' muster.
The nation is well aware that Bush believes any judge who rules in favor of something he doesn't believe in is an "activist judge." It's not possible the judge was simply behaving as a fair-minded individual. Oh no, that's not possible at all. Recently, we saw our Supreme Court activist judges refuse to intervene in the Schiavo case. They must be activist judges, right? That's the only explanation.
Gonsalves says:
Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has for years been railing against the alleged dangers presented by "judicial activism." But recently, as we saw with the Terri Schiavo case, many conservatives have ratcheted up the rhetoric, giving the impression that the American legal system is being run by liberal neo-Nazis who are so evil that they inexplicably want to starve the disabled to death!
Let's consider a couple of relevant facts regarding the Schiavo case that make it hard to swallow the argument that this was yet another case of liberal judicial activism run amok.
Gonsalves goes on to state that in 1990, when the first Bush was in office (in case anyone needs a stinkin' reminder!), the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving Nancy Cruzan. It was decided that anyone in a "consistent vegetative state" has a right to be removed from a feeding tube. Both liberal and conservative judges agreed. Again in 1997, Rehnquist (under the Clinton Adminstration), wrote that the Constitution protected a person's right to refuse lifesaving medical treatment.
Gonsalves points out a few more interesting things. Brace yourselves, dear conservatives. It was a Clinton appointee (a liberal) who was the dissenting judge. He stated, "I fail to see any harm in reinserting the feeding tube." A George H.W. Bush appointee refused to allow temporary relief. He said, "The district court's carefully thought-out decision to deny temporary relief ... is not an abuse of discretion."
Bush made his own hypocritical ruling in Texas that clearly contradicts his actions on the Schiavo case. Does that mean he was an activist governor at one point?
So while the conservatives are blogging their anti-liberal rants and calling the liberals hateful murderers while they blog constantly on the Schiavo case, I suggest they dig a little deeper on the issue. It's so much easier to hate us though and turn this into a party issue. It gives them something to blog about. Well, something other than DeLay and Bolton.
Thanks to Sean Gonsalves for the great information.
And then there's Warren Chisum, the resolution's author, peddling his own patented version of reality:
"You can't find anyone in this amendment that's discriminated against," said Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, who wrote the amendment and sponsored the state's Defense of Marriage Act passed during the 2003 legislative session. "Homosexuals coming up and saying, 'We're married, too.' That's what this protects [married couples] against."
Thanks, Warren, but no thanks. Hombre and I can maintain our own marriage without any interference from the state, and we can mind our own damn business while doing so.
We need more like-minded heterosexuals who mind their own marriage and their own business. 'Cuz they know what we know. These resolutions are just plain mean-spirited and have nothing to do with "saving" heterosexual marriages. Homosexuals have absolutely nothing to do with the current 50% divorce rate in heterosexual "marriages." (I had to put that in quotation marks because apparently 50% of you are doing a dress rehearsel for something else). Blame your broken homes on somebody else.
Conservatives often place quotation marks around the word marrriage when talking about gay marriage. I say we start placing the word marriage in quotation marks to make a bold statement about the 50% divorce rate among heterosexuals. Whataya say?
The 2005 Webby Award nominees are up. These awards are slightly different from the dozens of Blog awards in the blogosphere in that bloggers don't get to be self absorbed and send their friends over to vote a dozen times in 24 hours.
First, these awards are for the entire internet community, not just bloggers. And second, you have to register to vote. I imagine folks can utilize those idle 50 gmail invitations and create 50 new gmail addresses if they really wanted to go that far, but I'm developing a conspiracy all for the Webby Awards and that's pushing things a bit far.
Getting back on track, here . . .
In the blog category, the nominees for People's Voice Award are:
eBay is bumped from the nominations this year. Big surprise there! I hate those rat bastards. I don't see Monster.com on the list either. I do see Yahoo! Hot Jobs. Maybe I should email the supposed marketing professional who claimed (during her Superbowl ad analysis) that Monster was still hot shit in the job board market and gloat just a little. I told her Monster was nothing more than a glorified bulletin board.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) has been bumped from the Activism section this year. That's a glaring change. Ouch!
And one of the oddest nominations is a blog in the humor section: Rathergood.com
So, get thee ovah to the Webby Awards and vote. I know, ya gotta register, but it's so damn worth it. Ha! It'll put hair on your chest.
Congrats to my dear friend Andrea on her latest win!
Professional athlete, Andrea Ratkovic of Norman, OK, posted her second win of the year last weekend at the National Long course championships at Powerman Alabama Duathlon. Ratkovic, the former US professional champion duathlete and top professional bicyclist, unexpectedly won her second event of the year.
Going in to Powerman Alabama ill-prepared, and coming off a professional cycling race in Redlands, CA (where she took second!) last week, and also recovering from her first attempt at the Ironman triathlon a month before, Ratkovic showed up relaxed and with low expectations.
After the first 8k run, Ratkovic was dead last among the pro women and men... but then she mounted her bicycle, and sped off into the hunt. By about mile five in the 55k bike portion, she caught the lead women and was leading the women's race. Ratkovic knowing that her run would not be very fast, as she is still recovering from an Achilles injury and has not ran in a month, since finishing Ironman New Zealand, Ratkovic kept pushing on the bike to pad her lead, even catching some of the professional men!
Into T2 (the send transition area), Ratkovic pushed on into the second 8k run cautiously, holding off second place finish, Heather Haviland , by over 2 minutes.
In the end Ratkovic was ecstatic with her win, and wanted to thank all the other athletes, race promoters, her host family and sponsors for all their support.
Look for Andrea Ratkovic to spread her winning ways in a town near you soon, as she continues to race and win hard.
One of my favorite conservative bloggers to poke fun of seems to be on the victim train these days. Bert from ThatColoredFellasweblog has noticed it too. With the help of Dave Dugan, the two of them have created a great new comic strip that will illustrate the "saga of a Black woman trapped reliving a life not of her own choosing, a day of unending events that repeatedly challenge her faith, Conservative values, and sanity." They'll also keep us laughing along the way.
ABC reports the NAACP is criticizing GW for playing the race card in order to sell his proposed Social Security overhaul. Is anyone surprised? I'm not.
Paul Krugman writes a New York Times Op-Ed on what he considers the real crisis in America -- a crisis in our health care system:
Well-informed business executives agree. A recent survey of chief financial officers at major corporations found that 65 percent regard immediate action on health care costs as "very important." Only 31 percent said the same about Social Security reform.
But serious health care reform isn't on the table, and in the current political climate it probably can't be. You see, the health care crisis is ideologically inconvenient.
The Econ Project states 40 million people in America do not have health care. How can this be when the United States is supposedly the richest nation in the world?
Krugman believes health care costs are a direct result of innovation because the things we can accomplish with medical technology continues to increase. Krugman says this about the health care crisis:
First, America's traditional private health insurance system, in which workers get coverage through their employers, is unraveling. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that in 2004 there were at least five million fewer jobs with health insurance than in 2001. And health care costs have become a major burden on those businesses that continue to provide insurance coverage: General Motors now spends about $1,500 on health care for every car it produces.
Health care is expensive for several reasons: Greed on the part of those in the health care industry, and inefficiency. Americans like to believe that we have the best health care system in the world, but the French have us beat hands down when it comes to quality and efficiency.
Helena (played by Rachel Shelley) moved to Los Angeles and thinks she can take Bette's place in Tina's life. She's making herself comfortable with Bette's friends, and even joining the gang at The Planet. She purchased a beach house after Tina mentioned she loved it (and Bette also spoke highly of the place). Helena is also on the board of directors at the museum where Bette is employed. Helena wants everything Bette has -- including Tina's baby and Bette's friends.
Alice and Dana spent several days in bed screwin' like good little lesbian rabbits. Is it just me, or are those two all about sex? Obviously Alice is a bit worried because she didn't mention that she ran into Laura (Dana's ex) at The Planet. Is Alice a little worried that Dana's infidelity might rear its ugly head once again? She should be. And as Shimmer (a SistersTalk reader) mentioned in the last L Word update, Laura is dating Alice's ex. Alice had a radio audition in which she rambled about what I call lesbian incestuous relationships. Alice plotted it out in a chart, showing how she's slept with this lesbian and that lesbian by so many degrees of separation.
Speaking of incestuous behavior, I will digress a bit here: Last weekend I was in the bar with a group of friends. While sitting at the table, I glanced around and noted how many women my friend had slept with at that table. There were 3. I then counted how many women she'd slept with by one degree of separation. From there, I counted her sexual activity by 2 degrees of separation. I started laughing when I got to 3 degrees of separation. She looked at me and asked what I was laughing about. I love her dearly, but it was just so damn funny.
Getting this train back on track.
Mark is obsessed with Shane. I do believe he has a crush on her. He's still recording everything in the house, but now I think it has more to do with his really odd fascination with Shane.
Shane is having a hard time dealing with the Jenny/Carmen . . . thing. I don't know what to call it. It's obvious Carmen still has feelings for Shane.
Jenny called Carmen her girlfriend while talking to a hot shot movie executive whose memoirs she was to write. Hello! I thought Jenny didn't want a girlfriend? This resulted in her being fired because he didn't want "certain things" flaunted in his face. Welcome to the world of homosexuality, Jenny. I do like the way she was very forward in the way she confronted his actions. She looked him in the eyes and asked him if he was firing her because she was gay. The producers are really working hard to make Jenny likeable. It seems to be working. Besides, the more we dislike Mark, the more we like Jenny.
Winnie, Helena's ex, gave Bette some great advice about handling Helena. She told her to stop reacting to Helena; it annoys the hell out of her. That kind of advice reminds me of how you raise spoiled children who throw temper tantrums. Ignore them and they eventually shut the hell up. We see Bette taking that advice near the end of the episode when she invites Tina and Helena to join them at The Planet. Tina looks shocked. Helena announces she and Tina found a house -- as if they have moved in together. Tina quickly corrects her to let everyone know that Helena found a house. Helena invites everyone over later, but they all stand her up in favor of keeping Bette company instead. Helena is furious and having a temper tantrum, while Tina soothes her ruffled feathers like a good little housewife.
Next week: Shane tells Carmen she's having a hard time watching her and Jenny together.
[Ros-Lehtinen] is breaking ranks with her party and co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. As you probably know, the 12-year old policy allows homo-gay soldiers to serve their country, as long as they don't stare at any of their fellow soldier's asses or salute their superiors with "Girl those boots are, fierce!!"
The Lesbian Health Fund supports scientific research addressing the health issues of lesbians. The Fund supports both quantitative and qualitative research, as well as methodological advances, and has supported a wide range of topics (see list of past grants at glma.org/programs/lhf/grants.shtml
Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):
Population-based studies and pilot studies that will lead to population-based studies on the incidence and prevalence of specific health conditions among lesbians
Cancer among lesbians: Incidence of cancer; Prevalence of cancer risk factors (e.g., hormone replacement therapy use, diet, obesity, alcohol use, and tobacco use); and Patterns of screening behaviors (e.g., mammograms, Pap smears)
Cardiovascular diseases among lesbians: Incidence of cardiovascular disease; Prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular diseases (including tobacco use, diet, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and cholesterol); and Prevalence of screening (e.g. for hypertension and cholesterol)
Dietary patterns of lesbians and prevalence of overweight/obesity and eating disorders
Etiology of substance use and abuse
Risk and protective factors across the life span
Access to culturally-appropriate health care for lesbians
Issues specific to lesbians of color
Definition and investigation of lesbian family issues
Involvement of lesbians in lesbian-centered community organizations and activities and their impact on lesbian health
How to encourage lesbians in healthy behaviors and how to bring them in for care
Prevention and treatment intervention models targeted specifically toward lesbians.
Interventions specifically geared to prevent health risk behaviors and events among lesbian adolescents (e.g., STDs, cigarette smoking, substance abuse)
Recent publications that discuss the research needs in lesbian health include:
Office on Women's Health, US Department of Health and Human Services Report from Scientific Workshop on Lesbian Health, 2000 4woman.gov/owh/pub/factsheets/le sbian.pdf (oh, look at that, a government website on lesbians. the outrage!)
Arthur J. Finkelstein, the gay GOP consultant who recently married his male partner, is planning a political attack on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton -- all in the name of winning brownie points with the GOP:
Arthur J. Finkelstein, the political guru who helped engineer the defeat of one Democratic luminary, Mario M. Cuomo, has his sights set on another: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
[. . . ]
As a political consultant, his standing has been diminished after suffering a string of defeats during high-profile United States Senate races around the country, including New York, North Carolina and Florida.
One of his most significant losses came in 1998, with the defeat of Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York, Mr. Finkelstein's chief political patron in the 1990's. During the 1996 election cycle, Mr. D'Amato, who was then chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, had made Mr. Finkelstein the committee's chief strategist and pollster.
Recently, Mr. Finkelstein suffered another major blow when Mr. Pataki picked a new state party chairman, Stephen Minarik, who then, with the governor's support, terminated a contract the party had with Mr. Finkelstein and his associate, Kieran Mahoney.
Mr. Finkelstein and Mr. Mahoney, who have been among Mr. Pataki's closest advisers for more than a decade, were among the chief architects of his victory over Mr. Cuomo in 1994.
And Mr. Finkelstein drew criticism within national Republican circles when he said that Republican efforts to court evangelical Christians could hurt the party.
What we see here is a GOP consultant who sees his popularity dipping. What better way to renew his place at the top than to bring down Hillary Clinton?
Stephen Minarik of New York's Republican Party is giving Finkelstein a little competition, because he too is launching a "Stop Hillary Now!" campaign.
Do these people not have anything better to do? I swear, this obsession with Hillary Clinton makes me almost certain she has way more than a slim chance at winning the presidency in 2008. You don't obsess over someone who has a snowball's chance in hell at winning.
I was checking out Susie Bright's blog and learned that Andrea Dworkin has died. As I often do when I learn that someone I wasn't fond of has passed, I express my condolences then remain true to my feelings. Regular readers know I didn't agree with too many things Dworkin had to say, but I do feel sympathy for her loved ones.
I imagine many feminists will be annoyed with my post on Dworkin, while they weren't annoyed with my comments on the Pope's passing or on Reggie White's passing. That's not surprising at all. I'm allowed to be honest about my feelings about the Pope and Reggie White, but not about my feelings about Dworkin.
I saw Dworkin's writing on pornography and prostitution as a very conservative and negative approach to sexuality. She viewed women as nothing more than helpless victims who were completely incapable of enjoying sex. This view was born from her own experiences with pornography and prostitution, and thus she set out on a journey to ban pornography for the rest of the world. Her anti-male rhetoric (and that's what it was -- rhetoric -- because her life partner was indeed male) was blatantly hypocritical.
Much of Dworkin's writing ignored the fact that many people need to participate in sexual activity that includes power play in order to be sexually fulfilled. I think that's what annoys me the most about her work. For those people who willingly submit to power exchanges in their relationships, Dworkin relegates their relationships to stereotypical abuse situations. It's that old school feminist bullshit that just grates my nerves because everything can't be about abuse and women aren't always victims.
Update: As of Monday morning, 9:45 am, I still don't see her death in the news or on the internet, but Wikipedia has her death date listed as April 9, 2005.
While doing my blog bouncing for the afternoon, I ran into Another Gay Republican (AGR) who was addressing what I think is AmericaBlog's outing Jeff Gannon. First: cry me a river (or two or three). AGR was pleased with comments made by a different gay Republican:
Gay America, at least the one I belong to, knows that you are hurting our cause because the middle of the road conservative just sees a group of gay people who are invading the privacy of another.
While you might not care what conservatives think, I do. I know, and anyone who honestly looks at these issues knows, that we don’t have to convince gay people we are right. We spend a lot of time preaching to the choir. I’d be willing to bet that few, if any, of the commenters on BlogActive or AmericaBLOG are middle of the road conservatives who think you are doing a wonderful job. But guess what? They see what you are doing. And like it or not, they disagree with what you’re doing.
I get so damn tired of the displacement rhetoric comin' from the mouths of Republican homos. Supposedly, the liberals are the root of all evil because we gladly (and loudly) point out the hypocrisy runnin' rampant on the right. Nevermind the fact that it's the right standing on the hilltop preaching morals and values, pointing a finger, and taking every swing they can at our civil liberties -- while they themselves are molesting their own kids, beating their wives, divorcing at a rate of 50%, and running gay porn websites . We should be kissing conservative ass and playin' nice, according to the Republican homos; for them, it's our best chance at accomplishing anything for our team. SINCE WHEN? Since when has diplomacy ever won an oppressed group of people any damn thing?
No, here's the real issue for the Republican homos who want the liberal homos to play nice:
They're embarassed by the black sheep in the gay family. That would be us -- the liberals. It's much like the Black conservative female who is embarassed by the Blacks who supposedly failed the firefighters exam; she felt everyone was looking at her and associating her with all stupid Blacks simply because she is Black. As the Republican homo said, he cares what people think of him. And usually, conservatives do. If you review the post, you'll notice the Republican homo says, "You’ve turned into a parody of the angry queen and are an embarrassment to each and every one of the people you claim to be trying to 'help.'" Speak for yourself. I'm not embarassed, but you certainly are. That's why you've associated yourself with the Republicans to begin with, so you can say, "Heeeey, I'm like you. I'm a good little homo. I'm civilized and decent and worthy. Be nice to me, please. Pretty please.
You're such a sissy. And yes, I used that word. It's quite appropriate at this point.
According to a government document provided to The New York Times by a federal official earlier this week, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has asserted that both girls are "an imminent threat to the security of the United States based on evidence that they plan to be suicide bombers." No evidence was cited, and federal officials will not comment on the case.
Its mysteries deepened as teachers and neighbors gave details of the Guinean girl's life, like the jeans she wore under her Muslim garb, her lively classroom curiosity about topics like Judaism and art and her after-school care for four younger siblings while her parents, illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States since 1990, eked out a living.
"I just can't fathom this," said her art teacher, Kimberly Lane, who has repeatedly called the youth detention center but like Ms. Carr was not allowed to speak to the girl, who has no lawyer. Among the unanswered questions they raised was why, if she was really a suspect, no F.B.I. agent had shown up to search her school locker or question her classmates, who sent her letters of support.
"This is a girl who's been in this country since she was 2 years old," Ms. Lane said. "She's just a regular teenager - like, two weeks ago her biggest worry was whether she'd done her homework or studied for a science test."
That should give the conservatives and redneck, gun-totin', manly men a hard-on.
After reading about thousands of Iraqis protesting the American occupancy and viewing the accompanying photo, I wondered how the conservatives would spin this one? Would they call it a pro-America pep rally that the mainstream media (MSM as they call it) has somehow managed to misrepresent? Yep! They sure will.
This is a far cry from the lovely photos one conservative had plastered all over his blog. The photos showed women and children (all very handsomely dressed and well nourished) holding signs that read "Thank you, Mr. Bush."
I suppose the fact that the press would even dare report Iraqi discontent makes them horrible liberals who just want to make Bush look bad. Reporting Iraqi prisoner abuse made them terrible liberals, too.
I suppose the Iraqis are ungrateful bastards, eh? I know one of my conservative readers is thinking it, so I'll just come right out and say it. After everything we've done for them, how dare they take to the streets and protest America, chanting "'No, no to America." How dare they!
Now, somebody tell me how this works (the consulting part, not the wedding)
Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.
Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.
So, this is a guy who has helped elect a party that's done nothing but work to ensure homosexuals never have the same rights as heterosexuals. He then takes advantage of the LIBERALS' hard work by gettin' hitched to his male partner in MA so he and his partner can have the rights his party doesn't want us to have.
Ok, I wasn't going to comment on this because this blogger is practicing the Ann Coulter "piss 'em off for attention" style of rhetoric. But, I decided to comment on the post without linking to her bitch ass because I'm that annoyed with her (and I'm not giving her the linkage).
A certain Black conservative female blogger just dogged white feminists who are challenging the Masters Golf tournament -- claiming the tournament discriminates against women. This blogger says the women are bored white feminists who obviously haven't thought about creating their own co-ed organization.
Now, this is the same blogger who used to complain constantly about getting excluded in what we all know is a blogosphere dominated by A-lister white men. WHY is it that this blogger can complain about being excluded by the white boys in the blogosphere, but the white feminists can't complain about being excluded by white male golfers? 'Cuz she's a bitch (and a phoney).
Quick sidenote: Augusta, GA (home of the Masters Golf tournament) is about 10 minutes from my hometown.
I haven't talked about the Minuteman Project (a group of supposed concerned citizens who have decided to protect the United States from illegal immigrants using not-so-legal methods). Tari, a SistersTalk reader, sent me a link to The Rude Pundit's take on what he considers a bunch of crazy armed rednecks patrolling America's borders:
The Rude Pundit doesn't know about you, but he's a little, let's say, concerned about the notion of groups of gun-wielding paranoid white people "guarding the borders," as the Minuteman Project purports to do. The Minutman Project is a group of pathetic rednecks and redneck wannabes who get the chance to "patrol" the Arizona wasteland at the Mexican border in desperate hopes of hog-tying Paco and Jacinta and dragging them to the Border Patrol. It is led by a man whose last name sounds like a computer game of a gay orgy, Chris Simcox. Simcox last led the Tombstone Militia, but, since "Tombstone Militia" sounds fuckin' scary, they're now the "Minutemen."
A little less disturbing analysis of this group comes from Media Matters:
Reacting to Fox News host Alan Colmes's reference to news reports that white supremacists may have joined the Minuteman Project's efforts to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States via the Mexican border, Minuteman organizer James Gilchrist condemned supremacists but contended that "there are supremacist groups out there of all races, colors and creeds" and accused Colmes of "picking on" the white supremacists. Gilchrist has acknowledged that "white supremacists want us to wage a full battle at the border," but has denied that he is a racist: "Some people have said I'm racist, and that's just not true. ... My son-in-law is a full-on Mexican, and my grandson is half-Mexican."
It seems quite a few people have decided to claim full rights to America, nevermind the fact that traditionally this country has always been comprised of people who migrated here from . . . well, someplace else. Those who belong to the class of ignorance (or hate -- you choose) are running around with guns, patrolling the border, and keeping the illegals out. Nevermind the fact that the US economy relies heavily on immigrant labor to keep most small businesses afloat.
DENVER, April 6 (UPI) -- Colorado Gov. Bill Owens has vetoed a bill that would have required all hospitals in the state to inform rape victims about emergency-contraception pills.
Owens, who is Catholic, cited freedom of religion in his veto message and told a sponsor of the bill his decision was not based on religious faith, the Denver Post reported.
First she wrote a lengthy post detailing how no one could prove a Republican ever wrote a memo on the Schiavo case stating the Republicans would have an advantage by intervening. She went on and on, pointing to other conservative bloggers who were "all over the case" gathering facts, while the liberals were just looking for trouble. She called it a HOAX, actually. She even mentioned how Michelle Malkin was ticked that the mainstream media wouldn't issue a statement retracting their stories. 'Cuz you know, those two are the media experts. Ha!
She then wrote a second post about the incident in which she implied the blogger who wrote the original post about the memo ran with phoney information and got himself in trouble.
Since learning that the story is actually true, she's completely backtracking on her story and claiming she never said a Republican or Democrat ever wrote the memo. She's even sticking to her first two stories and even calling the liberals "sweet" in our own way -- claiming we never see when she criticizes her own people. She threw in the illegal immigrants story (which is completely unrelated, then tossed in some self promotion along the way).
Somehow, I ended up on the mailing list for Center for Individual Freedom. Maybe it's because recently I signed up for a shitload of conservative publications so I can see what the other team is up to.
Anyway, read on. You may be excited -- or furious. Dear Concerned Friend,
Our sources in Washington are telling us that in the next few weeks, the Senate will try to pass a plan to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. That's why we need your help immediately. Sign CFIF's petition to President Bush and Congress NOW!
Without question, one of the things that has made America the world's greatest country is that we are a mix of many races, religions and backgrounds. We are a mix of many cultures -- and America is stronger because of it. But we are also a nation of laws, and we cannot allow Congress to reward millions of illegal aliens who have broken our laws.
But that's exactly what Congress will be doing if they grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Pro-immigration political forces are already demanding that illegal aliens get almost all the rights of American citizens, including free public education, welfare and Social Security benefits, and they'll get much of what they want if the Senate passes the legislation IN JUST THE NEXT FEW WEEKS.
Of course many illegals are not only demanding free education, but they want the schools to teach them mostly in Spanish and other languages. America is going to have a massive problem if we have tens of millions of people who don't speak English and are not able or willing to assimilate into our culture.
Worse, liberal amnesty policies make us more vulnerable to tens of thousands of terrorists who want to enter the United States to harm Americans -- and to destroy America if they can.
We need nearly 7,000 more signers to reach our goal. If everyone who hasn't signed the petition will do so today and forward this e-mail to 10 of their friends or family members, we will easily meet our goal of 10,000 signatures. But you must act NOW so that we send a clear message to Congress and President Bush before they act!
This week's The L Word was a bit slow-moving, but there's still plenty to comment on.
Tina and Helena are in bed -- naked -- and Helena's kids run into the room. Tina is very uncomfortable about the kids seeing her in Helena's bed because she's a stranger to them. Helena doesn't seem bothered by it. As a matter of fact, she said something about her kids being sexually healthy (or something like that). It's obvious Tina and Helena have different parenting philosophies. Personally, I think it's a bit tacky to have your kids seeing strangers in your bed. We meet Helena's ex, Winnie, when she walks in on Tina and Helena fuckin' on the patio while the kids play inside.
Is it just me, or is Helena just as controlling as Tina's former attorney? The only difference is Helena looks a bit like Bette so naturally Tina will ignore Helena's shortcomings -- for awhile anyway. Also, it appears Helena is doing what a lot of expartners do -- bash the ex and call her crazy. My bet? Helena plans to use Tina and her pregnant-belly to win points with the court. "Look, I'm a good mother. I even have a new partner who's pregnant." And of course, Tina is still blind -- as usual.
Bette enters the singles scene and gets meat-tagged. I thought that was just too damn funny. Women coming out of nowhere to meet Bette, drool over Bette, proposition Bette. And Bette just blows them off. Well, all of them except a really cute, young, artist she met at an art gallery and hit on -- only to learn the woman had a girlfriend. It seems Bette prefers being the pursuer instead of the pursuee.
Alice and Dana make plans to tell their friends they are now officially a couple so they all meet at The Planet. Carmen shines the spotlight on the two of them and introduces them as a new couple. Everyone claps. That's it. I guess it's no big surprise to anyone.
Shane sees Carmen and Jenny clawing each other at the DJ station and leaves because she can't handle it. Later, Shane interrupts Jenny and Carmen -- who are are starting to make out in the kitchen. Shane enters the kitchen with not just one woman, but TWO. Umm, is it just me, or did those two women look like sisters!? Twins, as a matter of fact. Geez! Anyway, Carmen leaves after she and Jenny briefly try to figure out what the hell the Doublemint Twins was all about. Shane's obviously still hurting over Carmen because she's not joining the two women in bed, nor is she watching.
The following morning, Carmen returns and apologizes to Jenny. We think they're gonna finally do it, but Carmen just lays on Jenny. We know where her heart and mind are.
Tina called Bette and told her she had been thinking. Tina tells Bette she should be a part of their daughter's life.
Mark gets a phone call. It seems the call is meant for Jenny but Jenny isn't at home. Mark is summoned to go pick up Shane, who is drugged up and getting herself into some trouble. When Mark arrives, he sees two big men (apparently bouncers) kickin' Shane's ass. We're left to assume that Shane is drugged up on the Oxy she got from her boss lady.
Jenny is getting a little bolder in class with her comments and criticism of other people's work. It kinda pleases her teacher (played by Sandra Bernhard) who sends her off on a new assignment.
Next week: Winnie (Helena's ex) asks Bette to testify in court about Helena's character. Shane visits a priest and confesses her sins. Seems it may bother Shane (just a little) that she sleeps around.
CINCINNATI Apr 4, 2005 — Justin Jeffre, a former member of 98 Degrees, wants to be Cincinnati's next mayor, saying his love for his hometown and desire to make it better motivated his decision to run.
"I am serious about this, and I intend to win," Jeffre, 32, said last week.
No laughing, our government is full of entertainers. If Arnold can be governor of California, surely this guy can be mayor of Cincinnati.
WASHINGTON Apr 5, 2005 — Critics of the USA Patriot Act want the kind of real debate they were denied when the sweeping anti-terrorism law was passed 45 days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says he's willing to accommodate them, but he wants all the law's expiring provisions to be renewed.
Aaah, that's so nice. Gonzales is willing to accomodate the people and allow debate on an act that blatantly violates our civil liberties. That guy is much too kind.
ALBANY, N.Y - State lawmakers unveiled a bill Monday that is believed to be the first in the nation to target modem hijacking, a practice in which thieves tap into people's computer modems to make international phone calls.
If passed, the law would allow telephone companies and the state attorney general to bring lawsuits against modem hijackers and their accomplices. The bill is expected to face a vote by the end of June.
How many times do you have to tell people to stop clicking on porn links sent via anonymous email? It'll bite ya in the ass everytime.
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Harvard University did not discriminate against a library assistant who claimed she was repeatedly turned down for promotions because school officials saw her as "a pretty girl" whose attire was too "sexy," a federal jury found Monday.
Desiree Goodwin, who is black, also claimed that Harvard passed her over because of her race and gender. She had been seeking damages for emotional distress and lost wages.
I was a little confused by the accompanying photo. The woman in the photo is identified as Desiree Goodwin, but that doesn't look like a 40 year old Black woman to me. But, what do I know?
In 1983, Alison Bechdel began drawing Dykes to Watch Out For (DTWOF) -- a comic strip that would become one of the most popular chronicles of lesbian culture. The first four years of DTWOF consisted of unrelated plots and characters drawn in single strips. In 1987, Bechdel introduced a regular cast of characters that continued from strip to strip. These characters reflect the ethnic, economic, cultural, political, and racial diversity present in the lesbian community.
I am pleased Alison gave me the opportunity to ask her a few questions -- quite pleased. DTWOF is one of my personal favorites because I always see someone who reminds me of myself.
ST: I once read you were rejected by every art school you applied to for your graduate studies. Looking back on that experience, what advice would you offer eager young artists?
AB: My failure to get into grad school left me to my own devices as an artist, something I look back on with both relief and regret. Things seem to have turned out all right, but I think I've matured kind of slowly as an artist. More formal training might have sped matters along. On the other hand, it might have stopped matters altogether. Beyond "just draw," I'm always reluctant to give advice to young artists. If I figured it out on my own, so can they.
ST: I enjoy and respect the way you use DTWOF to deal with racism and classism in the lesbian community. Those subjects are not always easy to talk about. What influences those particular political and social issues?
AB: You know, I'm glad I have this reputation, but it's kind of unfounded. I've very rarely directly addressed racism in the lesbian community, and I've never addressed classism. I know I've never addressed classism because it's been on my "to do" list for like the past 20 years. Like you say, these things are hard to talk about. And even harder to be funny about.
I have addressed racism in an indirect way by including a lot of non-white characters in my strip, and working hard to make them three-dimensional people. That was an unusual thing to do 20 years ago, when I started out, and I'm happy to take credit for it. But it's not the same thing as taking on racism as a topic.
ST: In my opinion, DTWOF is one of the few comic strips that consistently illustrates the ethnic, economic, cultural, political, and racial diversity present within the lesbian community. Was this your goal for DTWOF?
AB: Yes, it was my goal at the outset. But I gave it up long ago when I realized that the lesbians are an impossibly diverse group of people, and there was no way I could represent them all. I've accepted the fact that my comic strip is about a very particular demographic.
AlterNet has a really good article on a recent Pennsylvania court ruling that has reunited a child with her non-biological mother who helped raise her for 3 years. This case involves a biological mother who ended her relationship with her female partner, then decided her former partner had no parental rights. A Pennsylvania court disagrees. I liked AlterNet's analysis, but I don't have the energey to get into it. I'm dog ass tired and this whole moving-the-clock-forward thing really ticks me off.
Here's the article, in part:
Until the Superior Court ruling in late March, L.R.M.'s tactics had been successful. A lower court had ruled that because L.R.M. had been so successful in keeping the daughter and T.B. apart for so long, it was now in the child's best interest to remain separated from T.B. But the three-judge panel of the appeals court emphatically rejected that line of reasoning as having any legal basis. "Imagine a scenario where the same premise is applied to spouses," wrote Judge Michael T. Joyce in the court's uplifting ruling. "It is inconceivable that an embittered spouse who successfully estranges the children from the other spouse, to the point where the other spouse is unknown to the children, should be rewarded by a determination that it shall be in the best interest of the children not to have any relationship at all with the alienated spouse because of the custodial spouse's feelings," Judge Joyce continued. "The preposterousness of this scenario is equally applicable to the case at bar, despite [the non-biological lesbian mother's] non-traditional status." The appeals court chided a lower court, saying it "abused its discretion" by denying visitation rights to T.B. on the basis of this argument. The lower court had kept T.B. from seeing her daughter since 1997. It also had prohibited T.B. from seeing the little girl until the matter was fully resolved. The appeals court rescinded that specious ruling, and now T.B. will be allowed to visit her daughter immediately, in a guided setting.
The New York Times has an article on segregated classrooms at a top New Jersey high school.
Black students at Columbia High School in Maplewood, NJ are protesting the school's leveling system -- a system that places white students in advanced classes and Black students in lower level classes. A white student who is one of a few white students in lower level Math classes said he's not bothered that most of his classmates are Black, but he is bothered by what he feels are low expectations.
Statistics for this year show that while a Level 5 math class, the highest, had 79 percent white students, a Level 2 math class, the lowest, had 88 percent black students. Levels 3 and 4 tend to be more mixed, though a school board member, Mila M. Jasey, said, "Some white parents tell me that they know their kid belongs in a Level 3 class but they don't want them to be the only white kid in the class."
This leveling system is not a new concept. The school system I attended as a child in Georgia used a very similar system. Students were tested as early as 1st grade to determine the track the student would follow. Most white students were placed on the College Prep track, while most Black students were placed on the General or Technical track -- meaning they may or may not attend a Jr. College or a technical school. It was very obvious the school system was segregating the schools from the inside since segregated schools in the south, by law, could no longer exist.
A white student at Columbia said "he had no sympathy for people in lower levels because all it took was hard work to move up." That one is a conservative blogger in the making. He obviously isn't aware that students must first be challenged to learn more and do more -- something he obviously isn't missing in his academic life. It's quite typical to turn a blind eye to the source of the problem. That problem isn't the Black student body. The problem is Columbia's segregated academic system.
I read an article this morning about the Pope that's sure to cause quite a stir amongst the "religious" right, but it's nice to see somebody saying it. Pam Belluck wrote about the Pope's handling of the church's child molestation crisis:
But, Dr. Post said, "[The Pope's] behavior in response to the sex abuse crisis disappointed many Catholics. He seemed very reluctant to remove Cardinal Law or accept Cardinal Law's resignation. His personal relationship with the cardinal seemed to stand in the way of his being willing to address the problems of the archdiocese."
Dr. Post said Boston Catholics appreciated some of what the pope eventually did, including meeting with American cardinals about the crisis.
"But when he brought Cardinal Law back to Rome and gave him the appointment at Mary Major, that was more than puzzling - it was deeply disturbing to Catholics in Boston," Dr. Post said. "It seemed that he was being rewarded for bad behavior, and run-of-the-mill ordinary Catholics just saw this as de facto an insult to the people of Boston."
I thank God for bringing us a powerful and passionate voice for peace. As for the rest of the Polish pontiff's "achievements," Creator, forgive him. I do believe he knew not the harm he did.
The Washington Post reports Illinois pharmacists are required to set their personal biases aside and fill birth control prescriptions without delay:
Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich (D) issued an emergency rule Friday that requires pharmacies to accept and fill prescriptions for contraceptives without delay, after a growing number of complaints nationwide that some pharmacists are refusing to dispense birth control pills and the "morning-after" pill.
Religious pharmacists across the country have refused to fill birth control prescriptions for unmarried women, claiming it violates their personal beliefs.
This is part of a calculated campaign to limit a woman's access to birth control.
First daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush will be assigned to a high-tech unit in Iraq, the Air Force Human Resources Command has confirmed. Having finished basic training at the Officer Training School (OTS) at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, they are scheduled to receive advanced training in telecommunications at the School of Information Technology before deployment overseas with the USAF Information Operations Squadron. For security reasons, the exact dates have been withheld.
[. . . ]
"We'd always planned to do this," Jenna explained. "But first, we had to graduate from college, and then we had to help our father win the 2004 election, to ensure that America would continue to have the kind of strong, inspiring leadership it needs in these troubled times."
"Right," Barbara added emphatically. "But now that the election is past, it's time for us to serve this wonderful nation of ours in a new way - in a way that reassures the American public that standing up to terrorists and rogue states, even at the expense of personal risk, is always the right thing to do."