I found a great blog and a great coming out story.
I would write my own coming out story, but it's so uneventful and boring. I wasn't disowned. No one offered to pay for Christian counseling. No one called me a dyke. Geez, I feel like
I missed out on something.
Oh, I love his disclaimer. Reminds me of the one I used to have here. Mental note: must repost my disclaimer. In the meantime, his disclaimer applies to this blog as well. Ha!
Merry Christmas to everyone who's wandering around the blogosphere instead of spending time with family and friends. My teenage boys are with their father, so
I'm drinkin' and bloggin'. Watch out, things could get a little dangerous.
I cooked Christmas dinner twice. Yep, twice. My placement arrangement has my children with me on Christmas Eve through 5 pm on Christmas Day, then off with their father
until January 2. I cooked a huge dinner yesterday, thinking the boys would have a second Christmas dinner at their father's house today. They ate almost everything last night, including all of the
dessert. At about noon today, I hear, "Mom, we're hungry." It didn't matter that they would have dinner at their father's, they wanted me to cook again. And I did. The
problem came when I realized there was no dessert left. So, I drove around all over Beloit looking for anything I could use to make more dessert. Oh.my.gawd. Trying to find a freakin'
apple pie on Christmas Day is impossible. I even called the Chinese restaurant to see if they had a pie they would sell me. No luck. They were closed.
By the time I finished searching for dessert, I was exhausted and stressed. I needed a drink. Thank goodness alcohol was a lot easier to find.
And then . . . I got a little textual with a cutie in Chicago. A little playful flirting via text message. I may need some me-time later this evening.
And then . . . I found a great station on XM that was playing Christmas music all day. My absolute favorite Christmas song of all time is O Holy Night. A friend sang that for me
at Karaoke on Sunday night. It gave me goosebumps.
And now . . . I'm heading out to meet some friends. We're the childless, done-with-our-family-for- the-night group. Should be interesting!
Robert, a Ron Paul supporter, made the following comment related to my recent
domestic violence post:
He said: "To the extent that the state has such authority over such issues [domestic
violence], it is a matter for the legislatures of the respective fifty states.
It is, however, mainly a social issue, i.e. not a political issue, to be
addressed outside the polity but within the traditional social institutions."
(all emphasis are mine)
Ok, so let's run with that theory and assume that domestic violence is a social issue -- and not a political issue.
Let's see what other social issues Paul has already addressed:
Racism: seems very much like a social issue to me.
Home-schooling: since when did it become the federal government's business how we educate our children? I thought that was a state issue.
Paul's vote to ban gay adoption is definitely a social issue,
one he didn't mind getting involved in at all.
It seems Ron Paul is very picky about those social issues he will address and those he will not. At some point, Paul did indeed see violence against women as a political issue: he
voted against the Violence Against Women Act (VAMA). If he really sees that as a social issue, and one the federal government should not address, he could have just refrained from voting. Instead, he voted against it.
I urge Harris Interactive to retract the findings of their study on holiday stress in heterosexual women vs. lesbians. I'm thinking holiday stress is high for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.
I might revive my weekly L Word recaps here at SistersTalk. I didn't watch a single episode last season. I guess I had enough of my own lesbian drama to deal with.
For L Word fans looking for a sneak preview,
OurChart (the ad to your left, top of page) will host the season 5 premiere of L Word for FREE -- one full week before the season premiere airs.
December 25, 2007: Updates to this post are here, here, and here.
Some changes have been made to the original post to make some clarifications. Changes are in bold and brackets.
------------------------- ------
Original content below:
Employees at a beauty salon in New York are taking on domestic violence. Salon employees are being trained to spot cases of domestic abuse that may not get reported
to the authorities -- particularly domestic violence in the Latino community.
Operating off of the belief that women tell all when they're at a beauty salon,
salon employees are hoping they can help put an end to what they consider a huge concern in the Latino community.
Apparently, lots of individuals and groups are concerned about domestic violence, except the 2008 Presidential candidates. The only Democratic candidate who [directly] addresses violence against women [on his campaign page] is John Edwards:
Ending Violence Against Women
Achieving full equal rights for women includes the right to be free
of violence everywhere. Edwards supports efforts to fully fund the
Violence Against Women Act, which provides resources for crisis centers,
domestic violence shelters and continuing education to law enforcement
and the courts. Edwards will also aggressively support political and
economic rights for women where they do not exist and supports efforts
to reduce violence against women and children around the world.
On YouTube's Face the Candidates, domestic violence isn't even a bullet point, and a
quick check of Google and
Yahoo
yields very few articles on how the 2008
Presidential candidates have addressed domestic violence in any comprehensive fashion.
I have $5 that says the moment Fox News makes a domestic violence case the next big story, all the
Presidential candidates will scramble to pen their new and aggressive plans to fight domestic abuse in America. Let's pray we don't need a
dead, white, suburban housewife to get the 2008 Presidential hopefuls interested in domestic violence issues.
I found a video on YouTube that addresses Bill O'Reilly's obsession with an imaginary war on Christmas. The video
suggests that O'Reilly's use of the word "war" has fueled
some animosity amongst those who consider themselves [radical] soldiers of Christ.
This year, there's been very little talk about the supposed war on Christmas from the O'Reilly camp. Apparently, even Condi
Rice's use of the words "Happy Holidays" at the end of this video (instead
of "Merry Christmas") hasn't been enough to stir O'Reilly.
Think back to a time when you
would wait until everyone left the room so you could
shake all the boxes under the Christmas tree that had your name on it.
Remember how you started shaking those boxes right around the
first of December because your parents started their Christmas shopping the day after Thanksgiving? I remember those days. Unfortunately,
my kids haven't been so lucky. I'm a cash and gift cards kinda gift-giver. I usually wait until December 23 to buy those gift cards. Not sure why, it's not like they'll be on sale. There's something so impersonable about giving cash as a gift, but I do it because I
really dislike shopping.
Every year for the past 5 years or so, I have given friends and family members cash --
for birthdays, anniversaries, the birth of a new child, and Christmas. This year, I'm giving
Visa gift cards. I'm hoping the cute little card boxes they come in will be a more personable touch.
A friend celebrated his 23rd birthday last month and I gave him a $23 gift card; that was my attempt to turn a gift card
into something more meaningful.
Call it what you will, but in my opinion, gift cards are the absolute best presents you can give this holiday season. Think about it. The recipient of a Visa
gift card can purchase whatever she wants. The next time you see that person and she says, "Girl, I just loved your present this year!" you'll know
she's not lying. Gift cards are the presents no one re-gifts -- unlike fruit cakes and bathrobes.
How will I determine the denomination of each gift card? Easy! All kids under the age of 12 will receive a $15 gift card.
Anyone between the age of 13 - 35 will receive a gift card that equals their age times 1.5. Anyone over the
age of 35 will receive a gift card that equals their age times 2.
Thank gawd I have a very small (but close) group of friends! Of course, my kids will both receive large gift cards, regardless of their age.
As I write this, I'm thinking about the worst Christmas present I've ever received.
I would have to say all those ugly, thick, cotton, flannel shirts I received as a child were
probably the worst Christmas presents ever. My mother bought those for me every year until I was 15 years old.
What was the worst Christmas present you ever received?
I snagged this list from Kevin Hayden of The American Street. Kevin did a great job of analyzing web
traffic and compiling a list of the top 100 liberal/progressive bloggers in the blogosphere.
Please visit The American Street
to read the entire post. Clarification on how the list was complied is afforded to you there. The stats used to compile this list came from
LBAN. Feel free to check
it yourself as the numbers sometimes change dramatically. Here's the list so far:
I've just gotten wind of a Newsday article
about Dr. Phil's recent comments in O magazine regarding adoption:
Responding to a 42-year-old adoptee who
felt she never quite fit in with her family,
[Dr. Phil] McGraw said, "It's not uncommon for parents
to have a hard time forming the same bonds
with their adopted children as they do with
their biological children. That isn't fair,
but it's the reality."
I often felt out of place in my family and I'm not adopted. I suffered serious physical and psychological abuse at the hands of my mother. My brother and sisters
never experienced the same abuse.
Anyway, I rarely pay any attention to Oprah's dog-and-pony show called Dr. Phil, but after I
read through the
98 comments on this article, I just had to toss in my two cents.
One comment really annoyed me:
"I grew up with a kid
in Deer Park who was raised by adoptive parents.
The father was a taxi driver and the mother
collected money for being a foster parent.
Living conditions were better at my house
and we were poor, lower middle class.
This kid had to go to bed at night in
sub freezing conditions because the
foster mother was too cheap to turn
on the heat. He had a lot of talent.
He was a great drummer. But he turned
into a drug addict biker . . . " - (signed by someone named legalize marijuana)
First, let's note that the comment came from someone who goes by the name legalize marijuana.
Are we to assume that the poster, who is not adopted, also partakes in drug use just
like the adopted Deer Park kid who is now a drug addict? I doubt very seriously that the child's
adoption status is the direct cause of his misfortune. It looks more like the adopted child had less-than-desirable parents who
needed to work on their parenting skills.
Growing up in a family where no one was adopted,
I can honestly state that I've seen some horrible biological parenting in my day. Some of the women in my family
used to dope their kids up on cold medication, take them to a psychiatrist, and have
the psychiatrist label them psychologically disabled so they could then collect state disability
checks for their kids. These kids were placed on psychiatric medication they most likely didn't need.
One of these abused kids recently died.
I'm no doctor, but I'm guessing prolonged use of unnecessary psychiatric medication might have contributed to his death.
My family members were not the only ones guilty of this
kind of abuse. It was almost an accepted practice amongst the poor and ignorant when I was growing up. How a doctor could be manipulated and convinced that
a kid needed psych meds (even though he most likely didn't!) is beyond me, but there's been
a lot of talk about doctors overmedicating children for awhile.
My son's best friend "M" is adopted. M has a brother who is also adopted. M's mother, a Black woman, was almost 50 (and had 3 grown children already!)
when she adopted both M and his brother as infants.
I don't know about my readers, but when I'm 50 years old, I don't plan to start raising kids all over again.
Kudos to anyone who takes on that kind of challenge at that age instead
of retiring in Florida. M's mother is one of the best mothers I've ever seen, hands down. She lives for her children and doesn't treat the adopted ones
any different than she treats her biological children.
And then there's the drunken lesbian who adopted 4 children and is in the process of adopting one more. She's what I would consider a horrible parent.
I can't believe the state of Illinois even let her adopt kids. Between her drunken rampages and wild parties at 3am in her backyard
(while her children should be sleeping soundly!) and her
constant yelling and screaming, those poor kids will need serious therapy as adults.
The comparisons I've offered are not meant to make any definitive statements about race or sexuality as it relates to adoption;
my only goal is to make it clear
that good parenting skills are a necessity, whether you're an adoptive parent or a biological parent. Although it would most likely be a violation of a person's
civil rights, I would love to see legislation that makes it mandatory that people receive at least 1 year of parenting classes before they are allowed to become parents. This rule
should apply to both adoptive and biological parents. I know, it's damn near impossible to teach a person how to be a parent;
however, there are things we obviously need to tell people. Like: don't dope up your kids just to collect a state check!
Domestic violence is the most common cause of injury to women.
Statistics state that 97% of women who are killed by someone in their family are killed by their husband. The rates of domestic violence in same-gender relationships is roughly the same as domestic violence against heterosexual women (25%)
[source: Lambda].
The amount of reported domestic violence cases rises significantly during the holiday season. A quick search of Google returns
numerous articles
about an increase
in reported domestic abuse cases during the holidays.
Americans are not the only ones grappling with holiday domestic abuse issues;
even police in the UK have their share of
domestic violence troubles during the holidays.
I blogged on a recent study that suggests
lesbians are more stressed during the holidays than straight women, supposedly because of
"[e]strangement from family, marginalization within and isolation from society, [and] separation from children . . . ." These very
stress factors often lead to an increase in domestic violence amongst gays and lesbians during the holidays. A violent partner who is dealing
with estrangement from her own family
will often refuse to allow her significant other to visit family members. The fact that gays and lesbians are often
isolated from society offers a prime opportunity for violent partners to abuse their significant other because they know their partners
most likely won't report the abuse to the authorities.
I read a recent article on abuse (ack! can't locate the source at the moment) where a lesbian recounted how last year her partner wouldn't allow her to visit her family on
Christmas day even though she was still very close
to her family after coming out. The fact that one partner still had a healthy relationship with her family
and the other did not encouraged feelings of resentment. This resentment lead to one partner refusing to
allow the other partner to continue her relationship with her family.
I don't want to ignore the fact that victims of domestic abuse are often men.
Statistics show that 5 - 10% of domestic abuse victims in the US are men. The numbers are probably higher,
but too many men are embarrassed to admit they have been domestic abuse victims.
The Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project states one in four gay men experience domestic violence.
BatteredMen.com states that 835,000 men are victims of domestic abuse on an annual basis.
Please note that the BatteredMen story is dated 2001 so the numbers may have gone up or down since then. I'm guessing the numbers have gone up.
Only once in my life have I ever been a victim of domestic abuse. My exhusband once locked me in my room when I asked for a divorce, stating I was no longer
interested in playing straight just to help him save face with his conservative religious family. I had to promise I wouldn't leave him so he would set me free.
Once I was free, I immediately went to the courthouse to get a restraining order. The judge refused the restraining order because in her mind, locking someone
in her room against her will is not domestic abuse. Gotta love those Wisconsin judges!
GOP presidential
fund raising frontrunner Ron Paul has been criticized for not returning a $500 donation he received from an alleged White Supremacist.
The donation Paul received from the operator of a website called Storm Front that uses the motto, "White Pride World Wide."
Ron Paul has not returned the donation and doesn't plan to. Jesse Benton a campaign spokesman said they intend use "the money and try to spread the message of freedom." Benton, also said "If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money."
In my opinion, Storm Front's operator made the $500 donation, not to support Ron Paul's candidacy, but to make every attempt to derail Paul's momentum. The contribtor had to
have known that the media would get wind of a white supremacist making a $500 donation to a candidate who is anti-racism (supposedly). It was a great attempt
to cast some doubt on Paul's stand against racism in America. I didn't need Storm Front to make me second-guess Paul; I have serious doubts that he is who he says he is.
Remember, George W. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. Look what it got us:
Basically, what I'm saying is: politicians lie like a rug to win votes. After they're in the White House, all hell breaks loose. I wouldn't trust Ron Paul if I were you.
He seems too good to be true -- like another Republican we know.
I'm just getting a chance to review One.org's website.
They're the newest SistersTalk advertiser to your left. The organization is aggressively attacking the following issues in the United Sates:
The spread of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis
Malaria
Child and maternal health
Universal primary education
The number of people without clean water or enough food
One.org has urged every Presidential candidate to submit plans - in writing - on these issues. Here's a quick comparison of each candidate's responses.
2. Do you believe marriage rights should be determined at the state or federal level?
Genia: . . . I support any law that dictates age restrictions. In my opinion, an adult shouldn't be allowed to marry a teenager -- like R Kelly for example. We have age restrictions on alcohol consumption, driving privileges, military service, and the purchase of cigarettes. It seems logical to require that both parties are at least 18 years of age before they are allowed to marry. If Evangelists are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, I would think they would look seriously at legislation that makes it illegal for R Kelly types to exploit teenagers.
Paleocrat:As much as I hate saying this, I think age restrictions have much more to do with the power and influence of the state over our children than it does with their wellbeing. I also think that it has more to do with special interest groups (i.e., government schools, business elites, etc.) than with the wellbeing of a community. For example, I think that the tension teenagers have between their internal time clock and external constraints is at the top of the list of reasons for teenage depression, suicide, pre-marital sex, abortion, the use of contraception, and teen pregnancy.
Let me nuance my former remarks by saying that local communities (not the state or federal governments) are best to handle this situation.
3. If you do not support gay marriage rights, do you support civil unions that will provide homosexual couples with the same rights and obligations that married heterosexual couples have?
Genia:I will need clarification on Jeremiah's answer, but here's my response. It's my opinion that gay marriage opponents are against allowing homosexuals to marry because they want the right to define the word "marriage." Essentially, they want ownership of the word "marriage." So be it. Give heterosexuals the word "marriage" and allow homosexuals to use the term "civil union." Couples in civil unions should be afforded the same rights and obligations that married heterosexuals have.
Paleocrat: I have been very vocal in my frustration with evangelicals and Republicans over this issue. For starters, marriage is in disarray unlike any other time in American history. Divorce, adultery, single parent homes, reproduction rates that barely keep our nation above survival (2.5), and families unable to make it week-to-week with bills and mounting debt. With all of this, a definition should be the last of our concerns. The substance and meaning of the word is what needs saving, not a bunch of letters stringed together to form a word. If this was done, the definition wouldn't really be under dispute.
Once again, is gays want marriage rights, fine; but they must also allow the private sector to decide whether or not they wish to provide various benefits. We have ownership rights and the "right" to marry in conflict. When it comes to the market, ownership rights trump. We don't have a "right to work" anywhere we want. The owner has the right to choose who he/she wishes to work for him/her and what benefits the place of employment will provide or even recognize.
On Gay Rights
1. Do you believe all states should establish laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation?
Genia:Discrimination in the work place, in housing, in schools, and in any other public entity based on sexual orientation should be deemed illegal and a violation of a person's civil rights. Private religious organizations can do whatever they please; however, it's my opinion that people who call themselves Christians wouldn't allow discrimination of any kind. Jeremiah is correct; owners who discriminate for whatever reason will feel the brunt of those decisions down the line. Highly-skilled talent is wasted when companies discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or what-have-you.
Paleocrat: Prohibiting the owners' right to discriminate transfers ownership from the private sphere to the government. I would say that Genia's admission that the private market would just as much damage (I contend more!) than the law is good reason to abstain from unjust laws trampling ownership rights. Anytime the free market can settle it without government intervention, stick with the free market
2. Do you believe the federal government should include homosexuals & transgendered people in all civil rights legislation?
Genia:The last line of Article 1 Section 8 says, "[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." I translate this line to mean that Congress has the power to establish whatever laws necessary to ensure the Constitution functions as it should. With that said, I think it's necessary to establish news laws that make mention of people our founding fathers and subsequent lawmakers neglected to protect.
Paleocrat:First of all, that line only permits the Federal Government to make laws that are necessary and proper for enabling the government to execute the responsibilities delegated to it in the Constitution. Nothing more. Second, the Constitution was meant to limit the government, not to toss around civil right lemon drops and lollipops.
On Affirmative Action
2. If you do not support Affirmative Action, what do you suggest would be a better way to fix the results of 200+ years of racial discrimination in the United States?
Genia:I have to speak directly to Jeremiah on this issue. You stated, "Resentment among the white community is the last thing minorities need if their goal is to heal racism." If anybody should be resentful, it's definitely not a group of people who have historically had a social and economic advantage over others simply because they are white. It shouldn't be my goal to heal racism; that should be the goal of the people who fueled those racism flames for 200+ years. Blacks did not fuel those flames, white people did.
Paleocrat: The issue at hand has to do with means by which to attain an agreed upon end. I want racism eradicated off the face of the earth. In fact, being a devout Catholic in an interracial marriage where birth control is considered a mortal sin, we'll be breaking down the walls of racism one baby at a time. Did white people in history do horrific things to blacks? Certainly. I don't deny this. I think much of what we see and hear of slavery in the mid-1800's is overblown, but to deny that chattel slavery was wrong and that the slave trade (insofar as people were stolen and sold) was immoral. But to impute the sins of the father on to the son is unjust. Much worse to impose it upon the great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren.
I'm not laying the blame at the feet of the blacks who came over on slave ships. Heavens forbid! I am simply saying that if we want lasting results in overcoming racism then we have to work together.
We need communication. This is a two-way street. And pissing off a bunch of white people, who still have the majority of the money and power, is not productive to accomplish the ends.
Oh, and nobody thought I would go to college. I was an underachiever all my life. I almost failed every year in high school. I honestly thought I was going to work at Target until I retired. That was at least one step up from my pizza delivery job.
On Separation of Church and State
1. Are you in agreement with this statement: Prayer in public schools should only be allowed in student-established and student-run religious clubs or organizations.
Genia:I support separation of school and state; however, I believe students should be allowed to establish religious organizations within the school -- just as they are allowed to establish other clubs like debate, cheer, and music. School acts as a social space for its members, whether we want to admit that or not. Students spend approximately 35 - 38 hours a week in school. Add an additional 20 more if the student is involved in any extracurricular activities. School becomes a second home. Students should be allowed to make their second home just as comfortable as their first home.
Paleocrat: Agreed. So long as we are stuck with government schools, it is only fair that religious clubs are permitted within the school. To believe contrary would be a form of taxation without representation. Unfortunately, schools are their first home these days.
2. State your opinion on what our founding fathers meant when they suggested there should be a separation of church and state.
Genia:Jeremiah has made his own interpretation of Story's commentary on the Constitution. I agree with his interpretation -- sorta. I have interpreted the founding fathers opinion on church and state in a literal sense. It seems to me the founding fathers didn't want to delve too much into religion as it would have wreaked havoc in a new country that was established with the idea that people would be free to worship as they please. To establish any laws at all that would govern worship would have gone against the principles on which this country was founded. My question was not whether the founding fathers wanted to make one religion superior to another; my question was did the founding fathers want to keep the government out of religious matters completely. My answer would be yes.
Paleocrat: Well, even if they wished to keep federal government out of religious matters (which is what the first amendment is dealing with), the framers must have forgotten what they meant. Worse yet, it didn't take long! One of the first things established was a congressional chaplain; as president, Washington declared days of Thanksgiving where the people were pray to the Lord and Ruler of Nations; and Jefferson, a darling of the separation of church and state lobby, established sodomy and Sabbath laws in Virginia. Regardless, the prohibition, if taken in it's literal sense, is applicable only to the federal Congress. [ | permalink]
Former Brady Bunch star Christopher Knight threatened to leave his model wife Adrianne Curry when she posed for sexy lesbian photos - as a birthday gift.
Liar. Liar. Big fat liar!
Can we say publicity stunt all the way around? Unless Knight is a closet homo, a prude, or completely insecure, he ain't even worryin' about his wife running off with another woman.
He needs to stop cryin' as if he is. There are very few men who give a crap about their wife swappin' spit with another woman.
People like Angelina Jolie have
been whippin' out the "Look at me! I'm a lesbian . . . sorta!" card forever. It gets them more attention when their careers are in a slump.
Yeah, the article made my eye twitch a bit. Another straight girl playin' gay to entertain her man. *yawn* That's so old.
What about a vacation in Rome or something?
That seems like a much more exciting gift to me.
A recent article in The Advocate discusses a study conducted by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs Communications.
The study finds that lesbians experience more holiday stress than straight women:
. . .80% of lesbian adults felt more stress around the holidays, compared with 64% of heterosexual women.
And while 51% of lesbians said they tend to feel more depressed around the holidays, only 36% of straight women did.
I searched Google hoping to find a complete copy of the study. No luck. I would be interested in knowing:
sample size
racial makeup of respondents
geographical location of respondents (people in cold climates may answer stress-related questions differently than those in a warmer climate due to a condition called S.A.D.)
Knowing the answers to those questions will help me get a better perspective on a study that seems, to me, quite useless and
a complete waste of research dollars. Most adults who have even the smallest amount of real-life experience know that the holidays are quite stressful.
The more I think about it, I'd like to know if there were any leading questions in the survey -- questions that would
prompt lesbians to answer certain questions differently than straight women. For example, simply asking an orientation question on a survey related
to stress may encourage homosexual respondents to consider their sexuality as they answer the survey questions. I'm willing to bet if a comparable study was conducted and
one of the questions asked respondents to identify their race, you will see huge differences in the respondents' answers. Conduct the same study on a different group, delete the race question, and watch
how the results change.
I have many straight female friends. None of them seem any more stressed out than I am.
We're all about ready to walk into a post office with a semi-automatic weapon. I don't think I'm any more stressed
than my friends simply because I'm a lesbian.
The weather here has been pretty nasty, so I stayed in and worked on adding the Digg widget to all my posts. I noticed something very interesting within 5 minutes after I added
the Digg widget to my Ron Paul post ( A Serious Look at Ron Paul) and submitted it to Digg.
Within minutes after submitting my post to Digg, I noticed an immediate influx in traffic from Digg.
People are apparently monitoring Digg for any posts regarding Ron Paul and Digging it -- I assume
to get all the Paul posts to the top of the popular list. Is that where part of Paul's $12 million is going? To Digg Hit Men?
Before I shake my finger at this viral marketing tactic Paul's supporters have employed, I will first give it some kudos. What a great move! It reminds me of the
collaborative efforts liberal bloggers used to associate Bush's name with the phrase
"miserable failure".
I hope Obama supporters are paying attention here. It's time for them to get just as aggressive as Paul supporters. If saturating Digg with Obama posts will help his campaign, I don't
see why they shouldn't do it. But, will Paul's Digg Hit Men really help him win the election? We shall see.
Update 12:30 am 12/16/2007: I just had a young white girl email me the dumbest comment I've received so far on this posting. Comment posted here
------------
Original post:
"Resentment among the white community is the last thing minorities need if their goal is to heal racism." - Jeremiah
Background:
Jeremiah (also called Paleocrat) is a 29 year-old, white, married, heterosexual male who has aligned himself with the Republican party -- although he did not vote for Bush in the 2004 election. Jeremiah runs a college radio talk show called Pale Radio at Olivet College where he is a student majoring in Journalism and minoring in Political Science. Jeremiah likes to discuss theology, politics, and apologetics.
Genia is a 35 year-old Black, single, gay female who is an Independent but will most likely vote for a Democrat in 2008. Genia is the author of SistersTalk: a blog that addresses politics, left-leaning issues, women's rights, lesbian & gay rights, and racial tension in the US. Genia has an MBA degree, but shares Jeremiah's passion for politics as she minored in Political Science as an undergrad at Beloit College.
Jeremiah and Genia have begun what will hopefully become an educational exchange between two people who have seemingly diametrical views on political and social issues in America.
1. Do you believe the government has the right to establish laws that govern marriage using religious beliefs as an argument?
Jeremiah: No. The state shouldn't spend time defining marriage any more than it defines the color red.
Genia:I agree with Jeremiah. The government should not be in the business of defining personal relationships between consenting adults. The Bush Administration wasted a lot of time making every attempt to define marriage using fundamentalists religious beliefs. That time would have been better spent trying to figure out how to fix the country's growing deficit.
2. Do you believe marriage rights should be determined at the state or federal level?
Jeremiah: Neither. I believe in the complete separation of marriage and government.
Genia: I agree with this statement as well; however, I support any law that dictates age restrictions. In my opinion, an adult shouldn't be allowed to marry a teenager -- like R Kelly for example. We have age restrictions on alcohol consumption, driving privileges, military service, and the purchase of cigarettes. It seems logical to require that both parties are at least 18 years of age before they are allowed to marry. If Evangelists are so concerned about the sanctity of marriage, I would think they would look seriously at legislation that makes it illegal for R Kelly types to exploit teenagers.
3. If you do not support gay marriage rights, do you support civil unions that will provide homosexual couples with the same rights and obligations that married heterosexual couples have?
Jeremiah: No. I think such benefits and obligations should be determined and afforded by the private market without state intervention.
Genia: I will need clarification on Jeremiah's answer, but here's my response. It's my opinion that gay marriage opponents are against allowing homosexuals to marry because they want the right to define the word "marriage." Essentially, they want ownership of the word "marriage." So be it. Give heterosexuals the word "marriage" and allow homosexuals to use the term "civil union." Couples in civil unions should be afforded the same rights and obligations that married heterosexuals have.
On Gay Rights
1. Do you believe all states should establish laws that make it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation?
Jeremiah: No. Owners should be able to discriminate for whatever reason they choose. It will cost them, but ownership rights trump.
Genia: Discrimation in the work place, in housing, in schools, and in any other public entity based on sexual orientation should be deemed illegal and a violation of a person's civil rights. Private religious organizations can do whatever they please; however, it's my opinion that people who call themselves Christians wouldn't allow discrimination of any kind. Jeremiah is correct; owners who discrimimate for whatever reason will feel the brunt of those decisions down the line. Highly-skilled talent is wasted when companies discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender, race, religion, or what-have-you.
2. Do you believe the federal government should include homosexuals & transgendered people in all civil rights legislation?
Jeremiah: No. I think the Constitution is fair enough. I also think that most all legislation along those lines runs the risk of moving beyond the delegated powers of Article 1 Section 8.
Genia: The last line of Article 1 Section 8 says, "[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." I translate this line to mean that Congress has the power to establish whatever laws necessary to ensure the Constitution functions as it should. With that said, I think it's necessary to establish news laws that make mention of people our founding fathers and subsequent lawmakers neglected to protect.
3. Please state your opinion on hate crime laws that provide harsher punishments for people who commit crimes against homosexuals and transgendered people.
Jeremiah: I am not a fan of categorizing actions as "hate crimes" and giving various groups protected or special status in the court of law. If they murder, it is murder. If they assault, they assault. I could care less if the man beating the crap out of me does so because he hates white people. What I want is justice for the fact that I was beat up by someone.
Genia: I am in agreement with Jeremiah here. I am against establishing hate crime laws. I believe tougher laws should be established for things like murder, domestic violence, and rape. Once those tougher laws are established, they should be applied equally to all people -- regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. In other words, white men shouldn't receive a lesser sentence for the same crimes that Black men commit (and vice versa). This country is notorious for that kind of thing.
On Affirmative Action
1. Please state your opinion on Affirmative Action.
Jeremiah: I am opposed to state mandated affirmative action. I believe, regardless of the arguments to the contrary, that they are quotas. I believe this is inherent within the idea of "fair representation." On the other hand, it should be completely permitted in the private sector. If a private college or a private business wishes to "diversify" their staff through some type of affirmative action, then so be it. But certainly not at the state level and certainly not any agency receiving even a penny of state funding.
Genia: Again, I am in agreement with Jeremiah -- for the most part. Contrary to the rhetoric we hear from those who support Affirmative Action in state agencies, it is definitely a quota issue. I once worked as a Headhunter (a staffing recruiter) and my area of expertise was in Diversity Hiring. I had a difficult time recommending a candidate to a company who did not meet all of the company's requirements just because the candidate was a female or Black. But, just so there's no misunderstanding of what diversity initiatives are, these initiatives often included white men and white women. For example, in the medical field, a white male nurse was considered a diversity hire -- simply because most nurses are white women.
One can argue that traditionally, Blacks live in areas where public school systems neglect to provide the same education to Black students as they do to white students. I live in one of those school districts. The school district on the west side of Beloit, WI is predominately white; the school district on the east side of Beloit is predominately Black and Hispanic. Guess which school gets the better teachers, supplies, and the most state funding? Hell, even Rockford, IL's school district is still struggling with desegregation issues that directly affect the quality of the education students receive.
By the time a Black student who grew up on Beloit's east side hits high school, he is already way behind a white student who grew up on Beloit's west side. Now, which of those students has a better chance of going off to college and securing a good, high-paying job? That question should be fairly easy to answer.
I've worked hard to make myself extremely marketable to any company. I have a Masters in Business Administration (MBA). I honestly believed I needed to get a Masters to get one-step ahead of white males like my ex father-in-law who has an Associates Degree and worked for 20 years for IBM with just that. I don't want any handouts or favors; I just want the job I deserve because I'm qualified.
2. If you do not support Affirmative Action, what do you suggest would be a better way to fix the results of 200+ years of racial discrimination in the United States?
Jeremiah: I don't believe state mandated "diversity" through the use of quotas or sensitivity training courses helps to heal racism. Top heavy thought police programs and measures have more blowback than what they are worth. Resentment among the white community is the last thing minorities need if their goal is to heal racism. I also do not see racism as being the issue it was 50, 40, even 20 years ago. This is, in large part, due to media and social evolution. I mean, I didn't marry my Korean wife because the state healed me of racist sentiments my grandfather in the 1800's might have had.
Genia: I have to speak directly to Jeremiah on this issue. You stated, "Resentment among the white community is the last thing minorities need if their goal is to heal racism." If anybody should be resentful, it's definitely not a group of people who have historically had a social and economic advantage over others simply because they are white. It shouldn't be my goal to heal racism; that should be the goal of the people who fueled those racism flames for 200+ years. Blacks did not fuel those flames, white people did.
You do not see racism as being the issue it was 40 - 50 years ago; of course you don't. But many of us who are direct descendants of those who couldn't use a public toilet because their skin wasn't white are still digging ourselves out of the economic dump our great grandparents sat in simply because they were Black. No one in my family ever said to me as I was growing up, "What do you want to be when you grow up and go to college." The mere mention of college in my family was met with snickers, shrugs, and negative comments like, "You ain't going to college. You're gonna be on welfare like every body else in this family." Did you ever receive comments like those from family members, church members, neighbors or friends when you mentioned going off to college?
On Separation of Church and State
1. Are you in agreement with this statement: Prayer in public schools should only be allowed in student-established and student-run religious clubs or organizations.
Jeremiah: No and Yes.
No, because I believe that districts should have the right to run their school as they wish. They should allow students who disagree to step out of the room. This is the same thing afforded to Christians and other faiths when talking about sex education and evolution. Yes, because I am a staunch opponent of government schooling. I am for the separation of school and state.
Genia: I support separation of school and state; however, I believe students should be allowed to establish religious organizations within the school -- just as they are allowed to establish other clubs like debate, cheer, and music. School acts as a social space for its members, whether we want to admit that or not. Students spend approximately 35 - 38 hours a week in school. Add an additional 20 more if the student is involved in any extracurricular activities. School becomes a second home. Students should be allowed to make their second home just as comfortable as their first home.
2. State your opinion on what our founding fathers meant when they suggested there should be a separation of church and state.
Jeremiah: First, only two founding fathers talked about it: Jefferson and Madison. Second, the first commentary on the Constitution (written by Madison's appointee, Justice Joseph Story), it was made very clear that the first amendment only applied to the federal congress and that it was never meant to level all religions as having the same status. I have YouTube videos on this subject (here and here) that goes in to greater depth. Still, I think I should also make clear that I don't believe that founders ever intended anything resembling our current understanding post Everson.
Genia: Jeremiah has made his own interpretation of Story's commentary on the Constitution. I agree with his interpretation -- sorta. I have interpreted the founding fathers opinion on church and state in a literal sense. It seems to me the founding fathers didn't want to delve too much into religion as it would have wreaked havoc in a new country that was established with the idea that people would be free to worship as they please. To establish any laws at all that would govern worship would have gone against the principles on which this country was founded. My question was not whether the founding fathers wanted to make one religion superior to another; my question was did the founding fathers want to keep the government out of religious matters completely. My answer would be yes.
Yes, that's right -- "gay" gets banned as is it a curse word; "fag" and "dyke" are totally fine! Clearly SOMEONE had to have inputted
the code and made the choice of which words to ban and which to allow. It's quite telling what their mind deemed offensive, and what it found kosher.
My problem is not with the fact that the word gay is banned, yet fag and dyke are allowed. My concern is that
GodTube features a video that
exaggerates every gay stereotype possible. YouTube banned the video and GodTube was born.
I guess that's what you do when someone won't let you speak freely on
their website, right? Create your own website and go crazy with your shenanigans.
One of my friends (a popular TV personality and a fellow homosexual) once stated that he hated gay pride parades because he disliked how the media picks up the most
controversial bits and pieces to show on the 10 o'clock news. That's exactly what this video does. Watch the video, see for yourself.
I couldn't figure out what was so Godly about it. The sneaky way this group attempts to convince viewers that homosexuals are out to corrupt the world seems very
hateful and manipulative; those are not words typically associated with any God I know. Other manipulative videos
(like Hell is a consequence and
Please don't go to hell) rely on scare tactics to keep people in line.
It's psychological abuse like the ones posted on GodTube that
send Christian housewives into a psychoctic fit.
Here's an after-thought: thumbs down to YouTube for banning this video. I've seen videos in YouTube's library that are a lot worse than this. Besides, I'm all about
freedom of expression; it keeps me up-to-date on how many morons are breathing the same air I breathe. Hopefully,
idiocy (yep, that's a word) isn't contagious or we're all in big trouble.
Once upon a time, there was a Black Presidential candidate, a female Presidential candidate, and a Gay Presidential candidate. The three candidates
walked into a bar. . .
That was the first snide thing I thought of after reading
an article in today's
Chicago Tribune on the risk Oprah Winfrey is taking by backing Presidential hopeful
Barack Obama. The most annoying statement in the article is: "'For the first time
in history, we actually have a shot at putting a woman in the White House . . . [Oprah's] choosing her race over her gender.'"
There's no denying that Oprah has long been a proponent of women's rights;
however, she's been just as big of an advocate of equality and civil rights for Blacks (here and
here), gays
(here, here, and
here), mentally disabled
(here) -- you name it!
The only way Oprah would please all her fans would be to find the best gay, female, disabled,
mixed-race candidate she can find and help that person win the White House.
It's quite possible that Oprah actually believes Obama is the right choice for this country; he just happens to be a Black
candidate she agrees with. At this point, I don't believe Oprah actually knows what Obama's vision for the United States really is, but that's not the point.
Perhaps Oprah is operating with the hope that once Obama actually figures out his plan for America, it'll be a mighty fine one!
Todd Boyd,
a professor at the University of Southern California, said:
"Oprah is someone who is obviously black. Now here she is endorsing a black candidate. Some of her fans might say, 'Finally.'
Others might say, 'I didn't see her in that way before. Now she's
endorsing her candidate, and it's solely based on race. This is different than the Oprah I know.'"
What do people say about the Blacks who endorse white candidates? Or whites who endorse Black candidates? Or even whites who endorse white candidates?
That's perfectly ok to do, but when a mega-superstar like Oprah endorses a Black candidate, it becomes the talk of the blogosphere.
I don't hear any racial hoopla about white Sean Penn endorsing white Dennis Kucinich.
Ok, so Penn isn't a
mega-superstar, but you get my point.
I haven't decided who I will endorse, but I can tell you this much: so far I am not impressed with Clinton (the female candidate) or Obama (the Black candidate).
If a gay, mixed-race, chubby, somewhat-mentally-disturb ed, candidate throws his or her hat in the ring, let me know. I might have to give that candidate some serious consideration.
Bill McConkey, a straight, white, married, Christian, Republican male may
just be one of the best
figureheads for the gay rights movement.
One of the biggest arguments heard throughout the gay blogosphere is that homosexuals need to establish allies in the heterosexual community. Supposedly, a solid straight-gay alliance
would help promote the radical notion that not all straight people agree with the right-wing's anti-gay rights agenda. Even before McConkey challenged WI's ban
on same-sex marriage, many of us in the LGBT community held on to the belief that straight Americans could be formidable allies. McConkey takes that one step
further; his actions suggest that straight, white, married, Christian, Republican Americans can be allies as well.
McConkey's actions make it very clear that just because you're a Republican,
it doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the GOP spoon feeds its supporters. His strong stand against
WI's anti-gay rights law should send a loud and clear message to other Christian Republicans; people really ought to develop the ability to think for themselves.
The GOP and its evangelical followers have exhausted their argument that extending equal rights to the LGBT community will destroy the family unit.
In my opinion, McConkey is the only Republican I've seen so far who publicly displays genuine concern for the family unit. In McConkey's
AP interview posted on the Washington Blade, he says:
If you don't like gay people, who's next? Short people? Or maybe we can go back to black people or to Jews or something. As a student of history and as an educated person, I know the history and the implications of that mind-set. It began with that. I also have a gay daughter. People have asked me, would you have filed this suit if it wasn't for your daughter? To be real honest, maybe not. Maybe I would have just ranted and raved in my classrooms and written letters to the editor and fumed off to the side. But because of her, it also became a personal issue and I feel like I'm fighting for my kid. I'm a family man above all.
Because of his gay daughter, McConkey made the fight for gay rights his fight. By standing in opposition of WI's anti-gay laws, McConkey is essentially
opposing any constitutional change Americans enact simply because they don't like someone.
He's protecting his child and mine. He's protecting his family and mine.
Straight, white, males are blamed for most of the injustices in America --
and rightfully so, they are the ones who have been in charge since day one. Too many of those injustices
have been justified with religion. McConkey seems to redeem straight, white, Christian males
and suggest that there might be some hope for that population afterall.
Last night, I read a story in the Daily Record (a UK paper) about a
department store Santa who was fired for saying, "Ho! Ho! Ho!"
Australian John Oakes says his bosses ruled the traditional greeting was demeaning to women - because "ho" is US slang for a prostitute.
John, 70, who worked at a store in Cairns, Australia, claimed his employers, an agency who provide Santas to stores, had ordered all their Father Christmases to say "Ha, ha, ha" instead.
Apparently, there's a Santa training course (ha!) that has blocked the use of the word as well:
A veteran Santa has claimed a Westaff training course blocked the use of the traditional greeting.
"We were told it (ho) was a derogatory term for females and can upset people," said the man, who did not want to be named.
Thank goodness this isn't happening in the US, or else conservatives would claim the liberals have launched another attack on Christmas. The whole issue is ridiculous; however, it shows how far-reaching
American morals (and slang) can be. Here's to all the Santas in the world:
I giggle everytime I see this headline: Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again. If you've ever heard of the term fruit fly, as it relates to straight girls who love to hang out with (and dote on!) gay men, then the headline would make you laugh, too.
I don't wanna be straight, even if there is a "cure." Let's see what everyone else thinks.
I'm working on writing a Weird Al like song to the tune of the Toys R Us jingle:
I don't wanna be straight,
I'm a big ol' lesbian.
There's a hundred girls at Club Impulse
that I can play with!
More femmes, more bois, more leather strap-ons,
it's the biggest lezzy orgy there is!
I don't wanna be straight,
because then if I did,
I wouldn't be a big ol' lesbian!
I know, I know. My songwriting skills need work.
A friend of mine just screamed over my shoulder, "I wanna be a gay man. They wear the best clothes." Ha!
Update 12/11/2007 [7:59pm]:
I've decided to turn this post into a jingle writing contest. Help me re-write this jingle! The best jingle wins $50 (payable through PayPal or in the form of an Amazon gift certificate).
Here are the rules:
1. No gay-bashing
2. No gay-bashing
3. No gay-bashing
Have fun! Contest closes in 7 days. Post your jingle in the comments box.
McClatchy Election 2008 reports that the founder of the
Minuteman Project,
Jim Gilchrist, appeared in Iowa to endorse Huckabee. This comes just in time, as Huckabee and Romney face off and use the
immigration issue as a key differentiating point.
I'm withdrawing my earlier prediction that Huckabee would become our next president.
In fact, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Tuesday shows he would lose to all three leading
Democratic candidates by double digits in hypothetical contests. So while I'm not sure that he will become the Republican candidate,
I'm kind of hoping he will be because it appears he's beatable.
With all the tricks Republicans have pulled, even Huckabee (as beatable as he seems) could win the White House. The question is: will Republicans invest all their shadey
energy and tactics in Huckabee? Will Huckabee be the kind of pawn the GOP wants in the White House?
I'm a bit behind on this one. AfterEllen (I really dislike that site) reported on this last week.
Daily Mail reports that Jodi Foster has finally admitted she's a lesbian:
Actress Jodie Foster paid tribute to "my beautiful Cydney" - her lesbian partner of more than 15 years -
in a thank you speech at an awards ceremony, finally confirming Hollywood's most open secret.
Gilbert's editorial reminded me of a conversation I had with my 13 year-old a few days ago. We were at Wal-Mart (yikes! can't believe I just admitted that)
standing behind two Spanish-speaking individuals.
They were conversing in Spanish. When they walked away, my son said, "I hate when they speak Spanish in public." I said,
"Why, because you can't eavesdrop on their conversation? They
re not talking to you so why do they need to speak English?"
I'm afraid my youngest has been spending too much time with his conservative, Republican father.
This is a child who once spoke Spanish very well;
he was at a Montessori school in classes where the teachers spoke both English and Spanish.
I am in agreement with some (very little) of Gilbert's editorial:
. . . the top [Republican] candidates have a weak history regarding immigration policies. Rudy Giuliani kept sanctuary cities in NYC,
John McCain co-sponsored
the Amnesty Bill and Mitt Romney is a notorious
flip-flopper on abortion, amnesty and gay marriage
so we really don't know where he stands, even if he takes a stand.
Most of his editorial grates my nerves:
My position is clear. English should be made the official language of the United States.
English language should be a requirement for citizenship and a requirement
in any job where two spoken languages would be a safety or customer service problem.
Let's be real here. English should be the official language of the United States because the American public school system is lazy.
We are one of the few developed (or "civilized" as the ignorant like to call it) countries that
does not start teaching our children multiple languages in grade school; that should be a badge of shame for this country. We need to start telling immigrants something like this:
"Listen, we're a bunch of lazy asses in this country. We can barely master the English language so please don't expect us to master yours. Learn English or go back where you came from."
And before any of my conservative readers click the "comments" button and prepare to rant about my post, open up a new browser window and go to Dictionary.com. If you post one
spelling mistake or one grammatical error, I will call you out on it.
I have to admit, I do get a little annoyed when I call Verizon Wireless or Charter Communications
and there's a language barrier issue because the person answering the phone is in India! Many times, I've hung up the phone and called back,
hoping I would get a native English-speaking person on the other end. When it's crucial two people understand each other,
I would rather speak to someone who speaks fluent English.
I know many of you have experienced communication issues even when speaking with someone whose native language is English --
say like, those dumb ass McDonald's employees in the drive-thru.
It must be his good looks because it certainly can't be his character. The latest list of John Edwards supporters includes 6 male members of the GLBT community. They are:
John A. Perez, DNC Member (CA)
Sal Rosselli, SEIU California State Council President
Andy Szekeres, Former Colorado Stonewall Democrats Co-Chair; Former Wisconsin Director of LGBT Outreach for Kerry-Edwards
Olga Hernandez, National Stonewall Democrats Board Member (TX)
Jay Narey , Dallas LGBT Community Leader
Sean Kosofsky, Michigan LGBT Activist
Jason Lansdale, Former President of Stonewall Democrats of Central Ohio
I'm still trying to figure out where, in Edwards' rhetoric, did he state he supported FULL AND EQUAL rights for the LGBT community. In my opinion, if you don't support marriage rights for the LGBT community,
you are NOT an advocate for full and equal rights. In this video, Edwards blatantly states, "My wife Elizabeth supports gay marriage rights; I do not."
I want to see Edwards go away. It would be nice if he stayed away, too! That's one Democrat I don't want to see on the ticket for 2008.
George Carlin's hysterical routine in this video says, "Religion is bullshit." All kidding aside though, I think most of us can relate to what he's saying:
Healthy Wisconsin is the new, comprehensive health care reform plan introduced in the Senate.
Healthy Wisconsin will for the first time guarantee that all Wisconsinites get the same high
quality health care that our state legislators have had for years, while being affordable for Wisconsin families.
Still scratching my head. I didn't know Sean Penn could even read (or did he memorize his speech and just made it appear as if he was reading from his notes?)
Based on click-thru action, Obama appears to be the Democratic candidate of choice even though Clinton receives the largest percentage of clicks from female internet users.
Looks like Oprah has her work cut out for her.
One more thing. Check out the latest on the Obama/Clinton battle on the Huffington Post:
Obama beats every major Republican candidate: He beats McCain 45 percent to 38 percent; Guiliani 46 percent to 41 percent; Romney 46 percent to 40 percent; Huckabee 46 percent to 40 percent; and, Thompson 47 percent to 40 percent. In other words, Obama consistently runs 8 to 11 percent stronger than Clinton when matched against Republicans. To state the obvious: The Democratic presidential candidate will have to run against a Republican.
Watching Republicans squabble amongst themselves is almost exciting as a wet tshirt contest. Almost. The latest AP story discusses Mitt Romney's TV ad against Mike Huckabee:
"Two former governors. Two good family men. Both pro-life. Both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage," the ad says -
then it focuses on what it says are stark differences on illegal immigration.
Romney's campaign characterized the "contrast ad" - the first in which he names a rival -
as a reaction to Huckabee's own new TV commercial in which he touts his immigration proposal.
More Romney/Huckabee comparisons:
A panel discussion on Mitt Romney's speech addressing religion in politics. Note the differences between JFK's speech about the separation of church and state,
and Romney's speech on the same issue.
Every now and again, something great happens in Wisconsin. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
A straight, married, Republican, self-proclaimed Christian, father of seven has joined the fight for gay rights in Wisconsin.
In July 2007, Bill McConkey, a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh political science professor, filed a lawsuit trying to overturn Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage.
His efforts have gained momentum:
A Dane County judge ruled the lawsuit can go forward on grounds that McConkey was harmed
as a voter by the wording of the question. McConkey claims the referendum illegally asked two questions in one -- whether to ban gay marriage and whether to ban civil unions -- and he wants the state to vote on each question.
[ . . . ]
Q: What was your motivation to file suit?
A: I thought it was horrible when it first came out, because of the implication of the precedent that it sets.
If you don't like gay people, who's next? Short people? Or maybe we can go back to black people or to Jews or something.
As a student of history and as an educated person, I know the history and the implications of that mind-set. It began with that.
I also have a gay daughter. People have asked me, would you have filed this suit if it wasn't for your daughter?
To be real honest, maybe not. Maybe I would have just ranted and raved in my classrooms and written letters to the editor
and fumed off to the side. But because of her, it also became a personal issue and I feel like I'm fighting for my kid. I'm a family man above all.
Now don't we wish another Republican-father-of-a-ga y-daughter would have taken the same stand McConkey has taken? There's nothing more disheartening
than watching a father sell out his kids
because he's worried about what the neighbors think of him (or because he's trying to win an election *cough, cough*).
Wisconsin's ban on gay marriage affected not only homosexuals, but it affected straight unmarried couples functioning in what used to be considered a
common-law marriage. The ban, inevitably, outlawed common-law marriage between male-female couples.
McConkey goes on to discuss what
appears to be a separation of church and state issue:
Q: What remedy would you like to see if your suit is successful? Do you want gay marriage to be legal or do you
simply want another vote on two separate questions?
A: That is one that I struggle with. I think ultimately I would say under the U.S. Constitution,
the way it's written, we cannot constitutionally deny the right of gay people to be married. Neither can
the government order a church and say you have to marry gay people. That's
an important difference to me. With that caveat, I would say I think that gay marriage should be allowed.
It makes me kind of uncomfortable when I say that because I've been raised differently.
But that's where I've come after prayer and after thought - a great deal of hard thought - there is no constitutional way to do that.
McConkey stated he believes 59% of Wiscconsin voted for the amendment because "[t]he
idea of two men standing there getting married, it just doesn't sit well with people." I would agree with that statement.
The same men who would love to watch two women swappin' spit cringe with
disgust at the mere mention of two men engaging in sexual activity. To think that 59% of Wisconsin voted for a ban on gay marriage simply because they're bothered by
the image of gay male sex makes one wonder what happened to the state that was the very first in the nation to ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
(source: LGBTQA - History Facts).
Perhaps Wisconsin is on its way to a redemption? Being a Southerner (born and raised), I expected so much better from Wisconsin when I moved here in 1996.
So far, I've been very disappointed.
Sidenote: There's a nice write up in the UW Madison student paper on LGBT Rights: Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights. The headline made me flinch as everyone knows the Kerry/Edwards ticket did NOT support full and equal rights for the LGBT community. The story is still worth a quick read-through.
I'm a big-time Obama supporter these days, and we could use your help.
I've been trying to get up Ottumwa, Iowa every weekend this month to canvass likely caucus goers for the Obama campaign. The latest Newsweek poll show Obama six points ahead of Clinton in Iowa, and just two points behind in South Carolina.
Here's some [Obama] pictures from a rally in St. Louis in October. It was fabulous, the crowd energy was unbelievable, like being at a rock concert, now I know why they keep calling him a rockstar.
Aaraon, I wish I shared your enthusiam about Obama. I'm not nearly as optimistic as you are;
I honestly believe US citizens are not ready for an African American president. I'll have great grandchildren before this country sees that kind of change.
I lack the kind of faith in Americans that Obama supporters obviously have. Are we seriously expecting
a country that elected George W. Bush (TWICE!) to elect an African American? It ain't gonna happen.
Americans obviously don't know what's good for them.
Yes, I could throw all my support to Obama and pray for the best; maybe I will after giving it more thought. Right now, I still don't have a clue who I
(or this blog) will support for 2008.
John Paul Jones lived in Saudi Arabia for 25 years. His book,
If Olaya Street Could Talk - Saudi Arabia:
The Heartland of Oil and Islam chronicles his experiences while living there. In his book, he suggests several radical concepts:
(a) there's actually some good in Saudi Arabia, (b) Americans and Saudis have equivalent amounts of virtue and vice, and (c)
the press spends more time reporting on the bad in Saudi instead of the good.
Jones says:
No weapons of mass destruction. A forged memo in Niger.
Halliburton profits, and does not provide needed services to the troops. Old news.
But how many other "forged memos" lay undiscovered, whose exposure would help actually end the so-called
"war on terror." Is this the essence of your job?
Why not consider Saudi Arabia? Yes, the orthodox view is one of lecherous, indolent corrupt princes,
enslaved women, and a medieval religion that breeds terrorists. A fellow-traveler with the Axis of Evil,
if not the actual kernel. Though you might not use those exact expressions, it is a point of view that
you most likely share. I had similar views prior to living in the country for a quarter of a century.
Please consider a radical concept: there might be some good in Saudi society, though, of course, none has
been reported. Could the human beings in America and Saudi Arabia have equivalent amounts of virtue and vice?
Would you be willing to argue that the American government is more honest, more efficient, more caring than the Saudi
government? There really is nothing that radical about any of those concepts, but it is simply not the existing paradigm.
But rape victims have their sentences doubled in Saudi Arabia,
and foreign teachers in the Sudan are threatened with execution
for incorrectly naming a teddy bear! Sad, and pathetically true.
But what would be your opinion of America if the ONLY items reported involved a
college student who lived the secret life of a porn star, and was brutally murdered.
Of cops covering for a fellow cop as he murders his wives. Or how the current administration,
or its wantabe Republican successors openly proclaim the merits of torture? And what
must be reformed in this Judeo-Christian capitalist society to prevent the breeding
of terrorists who all too frequently go on a rampage, randomly killing their fellow
citizens?
Many of my readers will argue that the press spends more time reporting on the bad things happening in America than they do the good things.
Good news doesn't sell papers, right? In my opinion, the reason the US press reports more bad news in the US than good news is because
they want to sell papers, not because they want
to purposely make the US look bad. There's the difference. US press (Fox News, especially) wants to make Saudi Arabia look bad --
mostly to justify the US's conflict with the middle east.
The GOP really needs to find another hot button for the 2008 election because the anti-gay button is about as worn out as
those tired ass old drag queens who keep showing up at my favorite gay bar for yet another "show." I mean seriously,
know when to say when.
Wayne Besen, of Truth Wins Out called on Rudolph W. Giuliani today [December 9, 2007] to clarify
a statement he made about gay relationships to moderator Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press.
While Giuliani said he did not think a person's sexual orientation was sinful, he seemed to mirror the far right's assertion that homosexual "acts" are sinful.
"Have Giuliani's long held convictions on gay relationships changed in a New York minute to win the GOP nomination? If they have, then he lacks the character to be president," said Truth Wins Out's Executive Director Wayne Besen. "Giuliani's answer on Meet the Press seemed to parrot the religious right's cruel and empty 'love the sinner, hate the sin' rhetoric. We call on Giuliani to clarify what 'acts' he thinks are sinful and we hope he continues to respect all relationships."
[. . . ]
"It is terribly offensive to suggest that our love is sinful, that we are in need of empathy or that if gays abstain from sex they are somehow better people,"
said Besen. "The main problem we 'struggle' with is the anti-gay rhetoric that occurs every time the GOP has a tight election.
We hope that we are reading too much into Giuliani’s words and that he remains as supportive as he was in the days when he lived,
for a time, in a gay couple’s house."
A couple months back, I had a conversation with a server at one of my favorite sports bars. She said, "You're such a pretty girl. Why are you a lesbian?
You can get a man. God doesn't want that kind of life for you." Because I like exposing hypocrisy (and because I'm just a bitch in general), I said,
"Aren't you married to one man yet sexually involved and living with another one? Would God want that for you?"
Where do people get off thinking (and actually voicing!) the idea that heterosexual sin is somehow better than supposed homosexual sin?
My exhusband's new wife (a Catholic) is of the same mindset.
She said to a friend of mine, "If you were really a Christian and a true Catholic, you wouldn't support the idea of a lesbian raising children." My friend responded with,
"If you were a true Catholic, you wouldn't be divorced and remarried to a man who is not a Catholic"
Update:
Rudy Giuliani on 'Meet the Press' Video (click image to view video)
I found an advertisement for Jott while reading my Google email. I don't usually click on those ads, but this one jumped out at me. It said: "Don't Text While You Drive: Send text messages using your voice." I'm a text addict, so I was curious.
I tried it and it seems to work very well. Here's a video that shows the product in action: Jott Video
Just a warning, the initial page loads very slowly. Let's hope the service is getting busy and the slow page load is attributed to bandwidth issues.
I've been listening to Madison, WI's Connie & Fish morning radio show on
Z104FM every morning since October 15, 2007.
I know the exact date because it's the day I started a new job in a city
about 35 minutes away from my home. I love loved the show because the hosts are hysterical, the commentary is informative, and the
guests are always a pleasant surprise.
My respect for the show started to dwindle when I noticed that Fish made very frequent jokes about homosexuals. At first,
it was an occassional crude comment about lesbian
sex. Then, I noticed he would often refer to the female listeners as lesbians when they called in. On several occassions, Fish made (what he considered funny) jokes abot gay men.
Initially, I just figured he was
a closet case -- much like the right-wing, religious, conservative, closet cases who speak poorly of homosexuals in public while setting up gay sex trysts in public restrooms. Now,
it's my belief that Fish is a heterosexual homophobic who enjoys spewin' stereotypes about homosexuals just to get a laugh out of his audience. He should work on his creativity. Gay jokes are
about as overrated (and overused) as blonde jokes.
A couple of days ago, the show interviewed Kristi Necochea, the creator or Friends Forever Girls -- a new doll that
comes with a book that teaches girls about morals and values. Necochea mentioned that the dolls were designed by the same guy who designed Buzz Lightyear.
Fish suggested that the dolls' creator was a homosexual -- mostly because the designer is a man who creates dolls for a living. Fish took it one step further and hinted that Necochea's son might be a homosexual because he asked Necochea to create a doll for boys.
I wrote an angry email to the show and bluntly stated that it seems Fish has an obsession with homosexuals and he sounds like a homophobic closet case.
I did not receive a response to that email. Big surprise, eh?
It's quite possible that Fish is a gay man who, like lots of gay men, often make harmless jokes about each other.
I doubt that's the case since recently the show hosted a very straight dating-game for Fish, hoping they could help the poor guy find a
girlfriend. So, assuming he's a straight man who enjoys making gays and lesbians the butt of his jokes, I have decided to boycott the show.
I'm not asking others to boycott the show because I support Fish's right to speak freely -- and hell, even I laughed at a few of his jokes. But, when the
jokes get to be too much, I have the right to choose a different station.
I only ask that
Fish take his position of power more seriously. He's a popular radio DJ who's been voted the best in Madison, WI for 5 years in a row.
He has the power to influence.
Quite frankly, his influence is scarin' the shit out of me. My concern is for all those depressed, young,
suicidal homosexuals who have to hear homophobic bullshit on a constant basis.
The Connie & Fish show is one of the funniest radio shows I've heard in a long time. And guess what, they really don't need to poke fun at the
gays to accomplish such an honor.
I found a radio talk show host who might be a little Rush Limbaugh in training. A lot of his
comments are quite disturbing -- so disturbing that I debated even blogging about him.
Here's
an introduction to Paleocrat, a right-wing,
somewhat religious fanatic the left might want to keep an eye on.
I'm a Karaoke junkie. I admit it. I'm about to head out for my Wednesday night Karaoke gig, but before I do, I had to share a funny story.
I was on the highway heading home in some pretty shitty Wisconsin weather (it's 7 degrees as I type this) when I suddenly had an urge for Chinese food.
I called my friend Dawn and asked her to meet me at Imperial Palace, one of my
favorite places to eat. What a good friend to come out in the cold just for me.
I ordered the steamed scallops, chicken, and vegetables dish. For an appetizer, I decided on beef teriyaki.
When the food came out, the beef teriyaki was accompanied by a tiny table-top grill that had flames shooting from the top of it. My first thought was,
"I've never seen that before."
Apparently, that's how they "always" do it; the beef teryiaki comes with a tiny table-top grill. Oooo k.
We finished our meal and the server asks if we needed her to remove the grill. I jokingly said, "Nah, you can leave it.
It's kinda cold in here. We could use the heat." Within 5 minutes,
the grill was suddenly shooting out crazy sparks -- like the 4th of July fireworks! I'm not even kidding!
I called for the server from across the room, telling her she could come back for the grill because it was shooting sparks. A minute later, the server came over to pick up the grill.
I suddenly heard my friend Dawn screaming. I looked over and her sweater was on fire!
A spark must have sat for a minute on her right sleeve causing the sleeve to burst into flames. She put the flame out pretty fast, but it left a huge hole in her sleeve and
a small burn on her upper arm. The server apologized several times and said, "We have someone who can fix your sweater for you." Ummm ... what? When does a Chinese restaurant
offer clothing repair services?
Anyway, we sat for about 15 more minutes, laughing about the fire incident and making dumb jokes like, "It's a good thing I'm not Michael Jackson."
As we were leaving, the server brought us a bill.
Yep, you read that right. The server brought us a BILL after they damn near set my friend on fire! I called a manager over and said,
"I'll pay for my food cuz there was no harm done on my part; however,
why would you charge my friend for her food after your table-top grill ruined her shirt and caused her physical harm?" The gentleman said (in his Chinese accent, I assume it was a Chinese accent),
"The beef teriyaki always comes with a table-top grill. People should know it's a hazard." Now, usually, I'm full of sarcastic comebacks,
but I was completely floored by his comment. I said,
"I will pay for my food, but I don't think she should have to pay for hers. Can you just comp the bill so we can leave?"
He finally agreed to comp the bill and we left.
As an after-thought, Dawn and I said we would return with
our worst enemies and order 6 servings of beef teriyaki -- hoping they come with 6 tiny table-top grills. Ha!
When talking about women in political leadership the focus is usually on elected office. But what about the vital appointed positions that implement policy and control significant budgets?
The Women's Campaign Forum Foundation (WCFF), an organization dedicated to helping women build the skills and infrastructure they need to become more effective leaders in public life, released a survey that found men outnumber women 2 to 1 in state cabinet level positions. With just a mere 31% percent of women in appointed state positions, WCF Foundation is calling on Governors and future gubernatorial candidates for a commitment to gender parity.
While some states have made significant gains over the past ten years,
including Washington and New York with a 41% increase in female cabinet level positions, others such as North Carolina experienced a sharp decline of 18% and Nevada 17%. Overall we have only see a 10% increase.
To address this issue, WCF Foundation will launch a pilot program in North Carolina aimed at increasing the number of women in appointed roles. The program will act as a resource both for women interested in appointed leadership and gubernatorial candidates running in the open-seat 2008 election.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I sorely miss the good ol'
days of constant Homeland Security alerts that informed the country of the
latest threat to national security. Conveniently, those security alerts always seemed to reach SEVERE RISK (the red zone) when the Bush administration
needed to distract the nation from serious issues like, oh, the war in Iraq and the lies leading up to the war.
Now that Bush isn't concerned about winning the White House, we don't see a lot of national security alerts. What a curious coincidence, eh?
I'm guessing we'll start seeing more security alerts in our future -- quite possibly a ton of them leading up to the 2008 election.
What will motivate Homeland Security to issue an alert? Refer to the latest Homeland Security Alert Chart below:
The more afraid the GOP is of losing the White House to the Democrats, the more they will resort to familiar scare tactics. And why not? It worked in 2004, right?
It will be interesting to see if the GOP will use a lot of the same divise and sneaky tactics they used in 2004. It'll be even more
interesting to watch Americans fall for those tactics all over again.
I've been doing a lot of research on Ron Paul in the past month or so. No matter how positive I am trying to be, it's my opinion that Obama has a snowball's chance in hell of warming that seat in the Oval Office with his African-American ass. Hillary Clinton's biggest foes would vote for her and carry her across the White House threshold long before they ever let a Black man run the country.
I declare myself an Independent who leans just a bit to the left. Right now, I am far from deciding who I will support in the 08 election, but I'm making every attempt to learn as much as I can about all the candidates. I'm still hoping for a strong Independent, progressive candidate -- or at least a candidate that comes pretty damn close to it!
I'm not so impressed with some of Paul's other opinions:
Life and Liberty: The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
Border Security and Immigration Reform: Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.
Religious Liberty Thwarted by the Supreme Court: The language is clear- Congress simply is prohibited from passing laws establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. There certainly is no mention of any "separation of church and state", although Supreme Court jurisprudence over the decades constantly asserts this mystical doctrine. Sadly, the application of this faulty doctrine by judges and lawmakers consistently results in violations of the free exercise clause. Rulings and laws separating citizens from their religious beliefs in all public settings simply restrict religious practices. The religious freedom required by the Constitution should not end the moment one enters a school, courtroom, or city hall.
No excuses for my absence; I simply found more pleasurable things to do than blogging.
Actually, that's not so true. I've been ghost-blogging on several business blogs in the past year. While the work was financially rewarding, I can't say it was something I could see myself doing forever.
I've ended my tenure with those blogs and decided to come back to my first love, SistersTalk. How long will I stay? I'm not sure. We shall see.
For now, I will write as often as I feel the itch. I'll probably be here all night posting one post after another, since I have soooo many things on my mind.
I finished the book The Secret by Rhonda Byrne months ago. Since then, I've been living my life
(or at least trying to live my life) according to the principles she elaborated on in the book. I used the words "elaborated on" because Byrne's book didn't
create a new way of living; it simply reminds us of all the things our parents and grandparents tried telling us a kid: "You can be whatever you want to be," or
"Just ask God for the things you need and believe you'll receive those things." Of course, the word God is used very little throughout the book, but
I couldn't help but think of God as I read through the pages.
I've been working on surrounding myself with only positive people, positive situations, and positive things. How exhausting that can be when so many people around me are
consumed with the war in Iraq, the 2008 election (nothin' positive in that except the fact that Bush-boy will be history), personal financial troubles, and the not-so-positive housing
market.
I just remind myself constantly that I'm truely blessed; my children are healthy; I'm healthy; my bills are getting paid; I eat well; and my car is STILL running. I have a job I love selling advertising
for a media company and I have new friends in my life who I would happily introduce to my children. I really can't complain -- but you know I will at some point or another.
Anyway, I highly recommend The Secret if you haven't read it. If you have, your comments are welcomed. But please, don't do a drive-by hateful comment on the book if
all you know about the book is what the right-wing Christians have said about it. Try to speak from a place of first-hand knowledge or say nothing at all.
Merry Christmas to everyone who's wandering around the blogosphere instead of spending time with family and friends. My teenage boys are with their father, so
I'm drinkin' and bloggin'. Watch out, things could get a little dangerous.
While submitting a post to Digg, I found an entry by GoodAsYou on
That was the first snide thing I thought of after reading
Bill McConkey, a straight, white, married, Christian, Republican male may
just be one of the best
figureheads for the 
I'm a bit behind on this one. 
The GOP really needs to find another hot button for the 2008 election because the anti-gay button is about as worn out as
those tired ass old drag queens who keep showing up at my favorite gay bar for yet another "show." I mean seriously,
know when to say when.
I found an advertisement for 
I ordered the steamed scallops, chicken, and vegetables dish. For an appetizer, I decided on beef teriyaki. 
The 
