Two Weeks - Grizzly Bear from Gabe Askew on Vimeo.
24 October 2009
16 October 2009
Kirk Cameron V the world
Kirk Cameron and I have had our disagreements in the past. Indeed, we've almost settled the question: are we both human? No resolution yet on the gender question yet.
Actually Kirk and I disagree, respectfully on my part at least, when it comes to religion and more importantly: proselytizing your religion. I'm not one who feels you must go forth and convert the masses. K Cameron on the otherhand feels differently. Like so much of the bible, when skillfully read, you can make the point in either direction.
More importantly though, Kirk and I disagree on this nation. Which is HUGE. I am under the impression that separation of church and state established an important division of labour between the management of law in our nation and the adherence to your religious backing (either of g-d, al-ah, or other religious entity of preference). In doing so, not only was it established that religions of all works were free to coexist in this new union, but that the religion of not having one and even an ambivalence/lack of practicing a religion could exist peacefully. In exchange, the laws of the nation would be dictated by the people, not the religion.
In truth the second half (the laws of men not religion) is difficult to achieve completely. As it happens, when a rapid crowd believes fervently that... you cannot sell alcohol on Sundays, have your gay relationship recognized, adopt a child out of wedlock, or run a grocery store on the Sabbath (whichever day that is for your religion) - they tend to make laws that reflect this EVEN IF they are well aware that others (quite possibly a silent majority of the nation) do not agree with them.
And so too is my problem with K Cameron: he believes so much in his version of his faith that he feels the need to share it always and actively with others even to the suppression of rights for those that disagree with him. Now i have no issue with him having his beliefs, or sharing them. There is however a fine line between sharing what you feel is the truth and converting the masses to your brand of thought by force. (Which some might feel Nichts Besonderes does as well - except I am happy to agree to disagree with you on just about everything (civil equality notwithstanding obviously).
His latest escapade is an effort to persuade people to his ideology in a method that is not entirely honest. Rather than bore you with more words, here is a video clip on the subject. You can find his version out there too. Enjoy:
Actually Kirk and I disagree, respectfully on my part at least, when it comes to religion and more importantly: proselytizing your religion. I'm not one who feels you must go forth and convert the masses. K Cameron on the otherhand feels differently. Like so much of the bible, when skillfully read, you can make the point in either direction.
More importantly though, Kirk and I disagree on this nation. Which is HUGE. I am under the impression that separation of church and state established an important division of labour between the management of law in our nation and the adherence to your religious backing (either of g-d, al-ah, or other religious entity of preference). In doing so, not only was it established that religions of all works were free to coexist in this new union, but that the religion of not having one and even an ambivalence/lack of practicing a religion could exist peacefully. In exchange, the laws of the nation would be dictated by the people, not the religion.
In truth the second half (the laws of men not religion) is difficult to achieve completely. As it happens, when a rapid crowd believes fervently that... you cannot sell alcohol on Sundays, have your gay relationship recognized, adopt a child out of wedlock, or run a grocery store on the Sabbath (whichever day that is for your religion) - they tend to make laws that reflect this EVEN IF they are well aware that others (quite possibly a silent majority of the nation) do not agree with them.
And so too is my problem with K Cameron: he believes so much in his version of his faith that he feels the need to share it always and actively with others even to the suppression of rights for those that disagree with him. Now i have no issue with him having his beliefs, or sharing them. There is however a fine line between sharing what you feel is the truth and converting the masses to your brand of thought by force. (Which some might feel Nichts Besonderes does as well - except I am happy to agree to disagree with you on just about everything (civil equality notwithstanding obviously).
His latest escapade is an effort to persuade people to his ideology in a method that is not entirely honest. Rather than bore you with more words, here is a video clip on the subject. You can find his version out there too. Enjoy:
10 September 2009
09 September 2009
08 September 2009
07 September 2009
We shouldn't worry about the next Fred Phelps.
A lot of people are worried about who shall become the next Fred Phelps or James Dobson. It's not the next Pat Robertson. No, it's the Brian Brown's of the world that I worry over. Mr Brown, for the missing, is a leader within NOM. The Mr Browns of the world are sane and articulate. They are capable and credible. Not only are they fluent and level headed, but they don't use an extreme inane argument. These arguments (such as: the bible lacks gay marriage, therefore, so shall we as a nation lack them) tend to be greeted by a public collective eye roll. Instead, they speak plainly and clearly, using arguments that are better received.
No, Brian Brown argues against it by saying polls showing gay marriage acceptance are temporary as when people mature, they will adjust their opinion (just as the polls show he implies). This might be true, but not to the extreme he implies. Nichts Besonderes has a mum that was a crazy lefty radical as a child. She fought for such silly things as: balanced budgets, civil rights (gay black otherwise), abortion rights, and omg all those other lefty things. Today, as a mature mum in her own right: she now thinks... Gays should have equal rights, always; abortion rights are good, and well she didn't really shift any of her opinions. My mother is more progressive than her mother who is more progressive than her mother. My Great Grandmother never fully accepted that my grandfather was not from the same religion. Oh the horror! These polls cannot be used to argue shifting trends amid aging unless we somehow are capable of tracking the same people over the course of their life in such a way to prove it is age that changes the opinion, and nothing else.
I won't argue with the Browns of the world that children need a father and a mother. They probably do. I will argue they also need teachers, neighbors, mentors, role models, success stories, guidance, and love. Children should learn how to love one another, lend a helping hand, and become the future forefathers of the world. People get father figures from people other than their birth fathers all the time. Same is true for a mother, and mentors, and role models, and success stories. Our current president is a strong argument against this One Mother + One Father (married to her) is the only way to bring up a child. It might not always take a village, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have that much love and nurture in a child's life. That is what i argue against: you can't say there's only ONE way to succeed when we can see there are so many other ways. Sorry Mr Brown, but I just can't agree with your premise. Ever.
No, Brian Brown argues against it by saying polls showing gay marriage acceptance are temporary as when people mature, they will adjust their opinion (just as the polls show he implies). This might be true, but not to the extreme he implies. Nichts Besonderes has a mum that was a crazy lefty radical as a child. She fought for such silly things as: balanced budgets, civil rights (gay black otherwise), abortion rights, and omg all those other lefty things. Today, as a mature mum in her own right: she now thinks... Gays should have equal rights, always; abortion rights are good, and well she didn't really shift any of her opinions. My mother is more progressive than her mother who is more progressive than her mother. My Great Grandmother never fully accepted that my grandfather was not from the same religion. Oh the horror! These polls cannot be used to argue shifting trends amid aging unless we somehow are capable of tracking the same people over the course of their life in such a way to prove it is age that changes the opinion, and nothing else.
I won't argue with the Browns of the world that children need a father and a mother. They probably do. I will argue they also need teachers, neighbors, mentors, role models, success stories, guidance, and love. Children should learn how to love one another, lend a helping hand, and become the future forefathers of the world. People get father figures from people other than their birth fathers all the time. Same is true for a mother, and mentors, and role models, and success stories. Our current president is a strong argument against this One Mother + One Father (married to her) is the only way to bring up a child. It might not always take a village, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have that much love and nurture in a child's life. That is what i argue against: you can't say there's only ONE way to succeed when we can see there are so many other ways. Sorry Mr Brown, but I just can't agree with your premise. Ever.
03 September 2009
Campaign Season
Here are two great campaign efforts to help ease up the homophobia i so often rant about:
GLSEN: Think B4 You Speak.
It's not so gay, it's so clever. Word Reclamation should be a government department of the interior. Just like the Water Department of Reclamation.
This is OZ
You can't say *** on the radio, and you can't say all Ruggers hate/dislike gays. This campaign is about ending the hate, wherever it is until there is no more. Here are some photos of big names lending a hand and reminding us all: gay is ok. It's more than OK, it is what it is and that is good.
So, spread the word: gay isn't a four letter word, but f-ggot is and so is the expression that's so... you don't need me to spell it out.
GLSEN: Think B4 You Speak.
It's not so gay, it's so clever. Word Reclamation should be a government department of the interior. Just like the Water Department of Reclamation.
This is OZ
You can't say *** on the radio, and you can't say all Ruggers hate/dislike gays. This campaign is about ending the hate, wherever it is until there is no more. Here are some photos of big names lending a hand and reminding us all: gay is ok. It's more than OK, it is what it is and that is good.
So, spread the word: gay isn't a four letter word, but f-ggot is and so is the expression that's so... you don't need me to spell it out.
02 September 2009
Less stupid, more filling please
I can't argue with this logic on equality. When it comes to Gay Rights, and social equality, the first groups i automatically think of are Habitual Swearers, people who say "Yello" instead of "Hello" generally, and the "you betcha" crowd. In fact, the last groups of people i would think of when we talk about Gay Rights are African Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Women, and any other protected class of citizens.
While the writer's advice to "deal with it and move on" because we (as a nation) "don't need the 'protection of government' to live full, productive lives" might possibly be true. Agreeably, not everyone will accept me or others for who we are. This man clearly does not (as he states it is a choice, not a reality to be GLBTetc). There are people alive today that do not accept African Americans as equal (see the crazy christian churches that condemn Blacks, or other racial minorities).
I pick the African American community as an example of why the LGBTetc community should continue fighting not because they are equal fights. Nor do i find the GLBTetc community the next African American community. I pick them because we have several laws upon which to build our argument already on the books for the African American Community. Laws of course are one layer of the dreaded 'protection of government' the writer opposes.
We did in fact pass a series of laws post civil war to ensure equality. We elevated some of these laws to the level of Constitutional Amendments. If we were to believe this writer, African Americans (whom he probably finds akin as a group to people who wear tartans religiously or refuse to wear less makeup) should have accepted these attempts however feeble and difficult they were as the best government could muster. Having failed to secure racial equality, they should have given up and moved on with their lives accepting the cards as they were dealt.
We know in fact this is not how things played out. There were a series of Civil Rights bills passed long after this point, up to and including the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. These laws have among other things, forced the hand of this nation to help foster racial equality and a broader acceptance of all people despite their race.
In no way am I implying or suggesting or otherwise stating that we have achieved a racial utopia. Nor am i so bold as to say that a series of LGBTetc Community centric laws would immediately create sexuality equality in this nation. They would benefit the nation, just like past laws providing redress and protection for one minority of the nation (be it by gender, religion, race, or other) have benefited the nation as a whole.
One councilmember, the core subject of the first article, implied her vote was one to protect a vulnerable subclass of society. Is the writer vulnerable? yes. Am I for my sexuality? Absolutely. I'm not as vulnerable as Matthew Shepard was when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality. This has a lot to do with him, the laws that stemmed from that horrific crime, and how those laws (and subsequent educational campaigns) have shifted our culture. I don't have to worry about losing my job. This is not because my boss, employer, and all their resources are enlightened, supportive, and respectful of my sexuality. It is in fact because the law prevents them from firing me over my sexuality. This law by the way, also would protect the writer as well from losing his job over his sexuality as it does not specifically state which sexualities are protected.
I wish we lived in a culture where we don't need this law. Or any other law that protects people from discrimination, hate, violence, or another crime because of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other values. The law that protects my job has in fact allowed me to prosper and thrive which in turn has benefited my employer immensely just like it has benefited me. I am well aware that I would have lost my job well before this point could have occurred had my previous boss had her way.
I'd be happy to respond to the writer's implication that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as much as prolific swearers. What about smokers (already protected), the obese (already protected), single mothers and mothers-to-be (already protected), and other groups of people like these? These comparrisons, and comparrisons to race, or gender, or religion, or the groups the writer picked are comparisons between Apples and Volkwagens and Nuclear Warheads. There are similarities and there are extreme differences. There is no need and I have no interest to be sidetracked by such a non sequtur complaint.
Protecting one class is not a detriment to the others. Some things are worth leaving to the marketplace of ideas. Some things need to be protected legally despite our abject objections. There are valid reasons to keep on the books laws that protect minors from pedophiles and equality in gender pay. These laws limit the freedom of pedophiles and chauvinists. They protect children and both genders in the workforce. Laws are best when they are written to protect both the minority but also the majority. Writing into law a protection of sexuality on the workforce protects me from a conservative employer or coworker that does not like me as much as it protects them from someone opposed to them.
I have no interest in limiting your right to swing your fist. Until you reach the bridge of my nose. The writer is free to practice his beliefs, much as i am free to practice mine. But in the common spaces of our culture, we must both sacrifice a bit of our freedom to ensure our cohabitation. I promise to tolerate scary culty Christians. That is only after i'm promised the same level of tolerance: on paper and in the common spaces of our culture. As soon as I don't have to worry about losing my job or my house or my benefits because i'm gay wherever i live in this wonderful nation of ours for any employer i am hired to work under, i can start living my life freely. I'm not sure why the writer (who isn't gay) is worried about these issues, but he too should perhaps start living his life.
While the writer's advice to "deal with it and move on" because we (as a nation) "don't need the 'protection of government' to live full, productive lives" might possibly be true. Agreeably, not everyone will accept me or others for who we are. This man clearly does not (as he states it is a choice, not a reality to be GLBTetc). There are people alive today that do not accept African Americans as equal (see the crazy christian churches that condemn Blacks, or other racial minorities).
I pick the African American community as an example of why the LGBTetc community should continue fighting not because they are equal fights. Nor do i find the GLBTetc community the next African American community. I pick them because we have several laws upon which to build our argument already on the books for the African American Community. Laws of course are one layer of the dreaded 'protection of government' the writer opposes.
We did in fact pass a series of laws post civil war to ensure equality. We elevated some of these laws to the level of Constitutional Amendments. If we were to believe this writer, African Americans (whom he probably finds akin as a group to people who wear tartans religiously or refuse to wear less makeup) should have accepted these attempts however feeble and difficult they were as the best government could muster. Having failed to secure racial equality, they should have given up and moved on with their lives accepting the cards as they were dealt.
We know in fact this is not how things played out. There were a series of Civil Rights bills passed long after this point, up to and including the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. These laws have among other things, forced the hand of this nation to help foster racial equality and a broader acceptance of all people despite their race.
In no way am I implying or suggesting or otherwise stating that we have achieved a racial utopia. Nor am i so bold as to say that a series of LGBTetc Community centric laws would immediately create sexuality equality in this nation. They would benefit the nation, just like past laws providing redress and protection for one minority of the nation (be it by gender, religion, race, or other) have benefited the nation as a whole.
One councilmember, the core subject of the first article, implied her vote was one to protect a vulnerable subclass of society. Is the writer vulnerable? yes. Am I for my sexuality? Absolutely. I'm not as vulnerable as Matthew Shepard was when he was brutally murdered for his sexuality. This has a lot to do with him, the laws that stemmed from that horrific crime, and how those laws (and subsequent educational campaigns) have shifted our culture. I don't have to worry about losing my job. This is not because my boss, employer, and all their resources are enlightened, supportive, and respectful of my sexuality. It is in fact because the law prevents them from firing me over my sexuality. This law by the way, also would protect the writer as well from losing his job over his sexuality as it does not specifically state which sexualities are protected.
I wish we lived in a culture where we don't need this law. Or any other law that protects people from discrimination, hate, violence, or another crime because of their race, gender, sexuality, religion, or other values. The law that protects my job has in fact allowed me to prosper and thrive which in turn has benefited my employer immensely just like it has benefited me. I am well aware that I would have lost my job well before this point could have occurred had my previous boss had her way.
I'd be happy to respond to the writer's implication that homosexuality needs to be a protected class as much as prolific swearers. What about smokers (already protected), the obese (already protected), single mothers and mothers-to-be (already protected), and other groups of people like these? These comparrisons, and comparrisons to race, or gender, or religion, or the groups the writer picked are comparisons between Apples and Volkwagens and Nuclear Warheads. There are similarities and there are extreme differences. There is no need and I have no interest to be sidetracked by such a non sequtur complaint.
Protecting one class is not a detriment to the others. Some things are worth leaving to the marketplace of ideas. Some things need to be protected legally despite our abject objections. There are valid reasons to keep on the books laws that protect minors from pedophiles and equality in gender pay. These laws limit the freedom of pedophiles and chauvinists. They protect children and both genders in the workforce. Laws are best when they are written to protect both the minority but also the majority. Writing into law a protection of sexuality on the workforce protects me from a conservative employer or coworker that does not like me as much as it protects them from someone opposed to them.
I have no interest in limiting your right to swing your fist. Until you reach the bridge of my nose. The writer is free to practice his beliefs, much as i am free to practice mine. But in the common spaces of our culture, we must both sacrifice a bit of our freedom to ensure our cohabitation. I promise to tolerate scary culty Christians. That is only after i'm promised the same level of tolerance: on paper and in the common spaces of our culture. As soon as I don't have to worry about losing my job or my house or my benefits because i'm gay wherever i live in this wonderful nation of ours for any employer i am hired to work under, i can start living my life freely. I'm not sure why the writer (who isn't gay) is worried about these issues, but he too should perhaps start living his life.
When it comes to doing the right thing, you sir, are not doing the right thing
In reading this article on Equality in Utah, the Governor is quoting for saying "We don’t have to have a rule for everybody to do the right thing. We ought to just do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do and we don’t have to have a law that punishes us if we don’t."
Gary Herbert, the current Governor of Utah is probably right. When it comes to doing the right thing, people should just do the right thing. Now I'm not a legal expert when it comes to Utah laws. I'm pretty sure however they have laws about speeding. And shoplifting. And murder. And... quite a bit actually. This isn't because people aren't capable of deciding what the right thing is when it comes to shoplifting, murder, or speeding. People feel very culpable on these topics and other laws intrinsically. And yet, we set these laws (or whichever laws are on the books in Utah) not perhaps precisely because but in large part due to the fact that not everyone does the right thing always. By preventing a law on the equality in Utah (eg: Job protection, housing protection, etc), Gov. Herbert is failing to do the right thing. Ensuring the right thing is done legally (by definition, part of why we right laws) is helping do the right thing. While this could be a hindrance or a nuisance, it is what we expect. There are laws protecting religious and racial equality because, as it happens, not everyone naturally does the right thing. Weird. Wouldn't by extension of the same logic as these laws, be the protection of today's fringe minority (the LGBTetc community)?
So, in response to Mr Herbert and his quote we offer only this rebuttal: Sometimes, to do the right thing, we have to do the right thing by reminding people what the right thing is legally. Even if we all know the right thing by nature, sometimes we must nurture the right thing within our culture.
Gary Herbert, the current Governor of Utah is probably right. When it comes to doing the right thing, people should just do the right thing. Now I'm not a legal expert when it comes to Utah laws. I'm pretty sure however they have laws about speeding. And shoplifting. And murder. And... quite a bit actually. This isn't because people aren't capable of deciding what the right thing is when it comes to shoplifting, murder, or speeding. People feel very culpable on these topics and other laws intrinsically. And yet, we set these laws (or whichever laws are on the books in Utah) not perhaps precisely because but in large part due to the fact that not everyone does the right thing always. By preventing a law on the equality in Utah (eg: Job protection, housing protection, etc), Gov. Herbert is failing to do the right thing. Ensuring the right thing is done legally (by definition, part of why we right laws) is helping do the right thing. While this could be a hindrance or a nuisance, it is what we expect. There are laws protecting religious and racial equality because, as it happens, not everyone naturally does the right thing. Weird. Wouldn't by extension of the same logic as these laws, be the protection of today's fringe minority (the LGBTetc community)?
So, in response to Mr Herbert and his quote we offer only this rebuttal: Sometimes, to do the right thing, we have to do the right thing by reminding people what the right thing is legally. Even if we all know the right thing by nature, sometimes we must nurture the right thing within our culture.
24 August 2009
No more Acid for me please
Wow. Billy Herrington - a Japanese Icon. Enjoy the clip. It's just too... acidy for normal usage. Also, NSFW.
Look what I found...
I pick up new blogs from time to time. Old ones die. And i really should clean up my blog roll. Eventually mein Herrn, eventually. In the meantime, here's something new and shiny. Or are these borrowed and blue? Either way, enjoy!
MoHoInTx: He writes well. That's really all the hook i had to keep reading. Nothing interesting beyond that.
Homotography: I'm not really sure why I keep coming back to this one (and to be fair, in looking at my logs - coming back is a strong line: 4 visits over 5 weeks? That's not exactly a popular site in NB land). It's vapid like gawker, but withless filling and virtually no content just photospreads mostly that are... just... well... Homotography. You'll enjoy it.
John and Steve are Having a Baby: Who could resit this charming site? Not NB. Let's face it: Gay Couple + Baby + Modern World Reality = an NB winner.
Enjoy.
MoHoInTx: He writes well. That's really all the hook i had to keep reading. Nothing interesting beyond that.
Homotography: I'm not really sure why I keep coming back to this one (and to be fair, in looking at my logs - coming back is a strong line: 4 visits over 5 weeks? That's not exactly a popular site in NB land). It's vapid like gawker, but with
John and Steve are Having a Baby: Who could resit this charming site? Not NB. Let's face it: Gay Couple + Baby + Modern World Reality = an NB winner.
Enjoy.
Glass Houses III
Now, lord knows I've no room to complain about anyone else's spelling and grammatical habits when you consider my own. That doesn't stop me from whining about the death of the languages. Whether it's English, Spanish, German, Farsi, or any language really, please take this to mind: learn how to write clearly. There is nothing that will take away from your argument as quickly as a poorly worded argument, or one that isn't legible.
Case in point.
Also, learn how to make a strong argument. That, however, is a story for another post.
Case in point.
Also, learn how to make a strong argument. That, however, is a story for another post.
Dolla Dolla Holla
Apparently, girl strippers = ok. boy strippers = society's downfall. Which explains why places like Denver Berlin New York no longer exist.
20 August 2009
NOAH - or - OOOOOOOHHH That's shiny!!!
This is pretty. NOAH - or the New Orleans Arcology Habitat (awkward acronym) is a concept for the future. I just think it's pretty:
Don't turn me in...
Apparently, if you believe former tele-show winner Richard Hatch, I should be in jail for being gay.
If you need me, i'll be in hiding, with the gay boys watching Ellen to make sure they don't take her away too. And reading Dan Savage. And...
"Survivor" winner Richard Hatch said in an interview broadcast Tuesday that he believes he was sent to prison because he's gay.
If you need me, i'll be in hiding, with the gay boys watching Ellen to make sure they don't take her away too. And reading Dan Savage. And...
PSA: Arrive alive, don't text n drive?
Wow. Nice quality. I've never had this happen to me by someone texting. But close. Awkward.
More at Fast Company
More at Fast Company
16 August 2009
I am a victim...
Of Hate. We all are. Hate has held this nation back from it's greatest potential. And it will keep holding us back. So here's another video to remind us: Gay Rights really help create EQUAL Rights. Enjoy.
14 August 2009
11 August 2009
What's the story about glass houses? Take II
This story on CNN is just a sample of a current theme. Some people feel the GLBTetc Community is pressing their story as the new subjugated class beneath the minority, a role previously considered the exclusive domain of the Black community. People might want to sing the blues, as this writer implies, and no one might want to live them, as he concludes, but I feel they shouldn't have to first live the blues to be qualified to sing them. No one owns the minority card, and certainly no one is exempt from it.
It's easy to pit any struggle with an "us v. them" theme. It's boys v. girls, natives v foreigners, legal immigrants v illegals, insured v. uninsured, black v. white, gay v straight, and any other of the millions of divisions we can create. In reality, life isn't this clairvoyant and simple to divide. Black v white forces us to decide between two choices. Are asians black or white? What if there were two interracial couples. Would their children be cast to different races based on their appearance? In truth, this is our historical precedent. Are transgendered and intersex people forced to pick one gender over the other today as in the past?
The written column I chose to nettle over serves as an example because it covers so many of the themes in question. For example, one of the issues near and dear to my heart is ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Created 16 years ago, this prevents people from disclosing they are gay in the military or asking others if they are. It's a terrible policy forcing some people to be less than honest about their personal lives with their brothers in arms on a topic that has no bearing to the job at hand: protecting our nation.
Because Group A had to wait 80 years for their military rights to be addressed fully, Group B is forced to wait a similar period as well. At least, that's what one writer at least would have you believe. While we should not have waited to desegregate the military racially, it is not sensible to continue bad inefficient policies because of an imaginary time frame under the auspices of equality.
Which group has had it the worst historically speaking in America: the GLBTetc Community or blacks? I'm sorry? Indians? Women? Asians? No no no, this writer insists there is only a parallel between the GLBTetc Community and the Black Community. Because those are the only two who have suffered in this nation. Ever. And within the GLBTetc community, the writer alleges, there is only a black-white divide. Poppycock. I refute his claim and suggest he meet a larger audience. There are racist GLBTetc community members. There are non-racists as well. There are even members that associate only on the lines of race whether that is black, white, or some other.
This line of division is evident in the general population as well. There are still pockets of black communities. And Chinatown isn't just some clever marketing slogan. People like having similar interests. Boystown, Chinatown, and black only communities are historically reinforced communities from when we legally pressured people to live in Us v Them focused communities. Does this mean the writer would rather have us bust up communities where the majority is a particular demographic? Maybe. There is nothing wrong with there being a Chinatown or even a Boystown within a city. It would be wrong if there was still a cultural pressure (conscious or otherwise) that pressured such a community into existence from the greater community.
The nation has never fully encapsulated race issues. Only in the recent history of this nation (which some trace back to 1619) has there been a black identified president. We can't cover all the divides between us without becoming exhausted. Already we have a red v blue fight, big state v small state, big city v rural farmer, banker v the taxpayer that bails them out. Does the GLBTetc Community need to continue and further address race relations? Yes. Yes it does. Does the greater community at large? Yes. Yes it does. It is easy to see the continued conflict of race issues by merely reading the newspaper.
This doesn't make the fight any more personable or relevant. It doesn't benefit the nation. Racism and race conflict still happens despite our best efforts to overcome it. So too does Sexism, homophobia, and every other form of the us v them fight taken to an extreme. In time, I'm sure we will live in a more idealised world. One where the only us v. them theme is the united us against the divided them. Can we wait 400 years for this to happen for a continued pattern of equality between two minorities? Yes we can. Should we? Hell no!
It's easy to pit any struggle with an "us v. them" theme. It's boys v. girls, natives v foreigners, legal immigrants v illegals, insured v. uninsured, black v. white, gay v straight, and any other of the millions of divisions we can create. In reality, life isn't this clairvoyant and simple to divide. Black v white forces us to decide between two choices. Are asians black or white? What if there were two interracial couples. Would their children be cast to different races based on their appearance? In truth, this is our historical precedent. Are transgendered and intersex people forced to pick one gender over the other today as in the past?
The written column I chose to nettle over serves as an example because it covers so many of the themes in question. For example, one of the issues near and dear to my heart is ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Created 16 years ago, this prevents people from disclosing they are gay in the military or asking others if they are. It's a terrible policy forcing some people to be less than honest about their personal lives with their brothers in arms on a topic that has no bearing to the job at hand: protecting our nation.
Because Group A had to wait 80 years for their military rights to be addressed fully, Group B is forced to wait a similar period as well. At least, that's what one writer at least would have you believe. While we should not have waited to desegregate the military racially, it is not sensible to continue bad inefficient policies because of an imaginary time frame under the auspices of equality.
Which group has had it the worst historically speaking in America: the GLBTetc Community or blacks? I'm sorry? Indians? Women? Asians? No no no, this writer insists there is only a parallel between the GLBTetc Community and the Black Community. Because those are the only two who have suffered in this nation. Ever. And within the GLBTetc community, the writer alleges, there is only a black-white divide. Poppycock. I refute his claim and suggest he meet a larger audience. There are racist GLBTetc community members. There are non-racists as well. There are even members that associate only on the lines of race whether that is black, white, or some other.
This line of division is evident in the general population as well. There are still pockets of black communities. And Chinatown isn't just some clever marketing slogan. People like having similar interests. Boystown, Chinatown, and black only communities are historically reinforced communities from when we legally pressured people to live in Us v Them focused communities. Does this mean the writer would rather have us bust up communities where the majority is a particular demographic? Maybe. There is nothing wrong with there being a Chinatown or even a Boystown within a city. It would be wrong if there was still a cultural pressure (conscious or otherwise) that pressured such a community into existence from the greater community.
The nation has never fully encapsulated race issues. Only in the recent history of this nation (which some trace back to 1619) has there been a black identified president. We can't cover all the divides between us without becoming exhausted. Already we have a red v blue fight, big state v small state, big city v rural farmer, banker v the taxpayer that bails them out. Does the GLBTetc Community need to continue and further address race relations? Yes. Yes it does. Does the greater community at large? Yes. Yes it does. It is easy to see the continued conflict of race issues by merely reading the newspaper.
This doesn't make the fight any more personable or relevant. It doesn't benefit the nation. Racism and race conflict still happens despite our best efforts to overcome it. So too does Sexism, homophobia, and every other form of the us v them fight taken to an extreme. In time, I'm sure we will live in a more idealised world. One where the only us v. them theme is the united us against the divided them. Can we wait 400 years for this to happen for a continued pattern of equality between two minorities? Yes we can. Should we? Hell no!
Why I'm still fighting...
A Facebook Friend friend on Facebook said awhile back that people whining for gay rights should sit back and let the president work through some of the more pressing issues. He felt (and i have no reason to doubt that he doesn't still feel this way) that addressing the War, the Economy, health care, the financial market scandals, and just about everything else trending these days is what we need to focus on and address first and foremost. In truth, I agree these are important matters that must be addressed. In reality, I will not be quiet on gay rights, or non-gay rights, or any civil rights for that matter until these issues are addressed.
There are a variety of reasons I won't be quiet on gay rights. I should rather think that the issues at hand are obvious, but to clarify which issues we are discussing: the overarching umbrella of rights where must define specifically for the GLBTetc community the same rights responsibilities privileges and obligations that are otherwise afforded to the greater community without such definitions. Or in a less legal context, not just gay marriage and the right to serve openly in the military, but job and housing equality and all other forms of legal separation and discrimination between the GLBTetc Community and the greater community.
While this legal mouthful covers a lot of issues that converge across a wide spectrum of issues, it is equally important to address these issues as it is to address the issues regarding the war and other issues some feel are more important. Gay rights conveniently weave into each of these issues. The War issues include should gays be allowed to serve openly or would such an ability be a detriment to the military. As we debate health care rights, we must consider how gay partners (whether of one year or 50 years together) should be allowed to exercise their rights as we do not recognize their relationship. My point, is that it should be impossible to address an issue archetype (eg: military, health care reform, etc) without addressing the GLBTetc community's issue(s) under this category.
More than the forced conversation by relation to the topic, we should never tolerate a minority's subjection to partial rights. Separate is never equal, as demonstrated multiple times throughout this nation's history (and upheld by the supreme court). In the end, the debate centers on what sort of nation we want. I want one where nobody has to fear that their boyfriend could lose them their home or job or pension. Sexuality is no less a distinct and integral part of a person than their gender, or race, or religion. Each of these are things we have fought hard to protect. Our laws do not say all religions are protected except Unitarian Universalists. They do not say you cannot discriminate by race except hispanic-asian-native/aboriginal Americans. They say all religions are protected and that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This should be no different for the GLBTetc Community. In doing so, we have thus ensured that all rights are protected. Not only would such a blanket right ensure the rights to Gays and Lesbians but also ensure that the majority's rights shall not be infringed. Although rare, reverse discrimination does occur and that should not as well(whereas the generally accepted majority is discriminated against in certain situations by the minority - consider a non GLBTetc person being fired for such by the GLBTetc small business owner).
A solution provided by some (GLBTetc or otherwise) is to grant "special" rights to the GLBTetc community. While we prevent such things as gay marriage, we proffer up gay civil unions as the GLBTetc equivalent under the law. The difference is not just semantics. Marriage is considered a universal right widely recognized as valid in most jurisdictions (state to state, and nation to nation). Civil Unions are not. There is not a legal plethora of rulings that would support that this secondary category would be separate but still equal. Indeed, if they were separate but still equal before the law, there would be no legal cause or barrier to gay marriage. A similar case exists in public schools with open enrollment policies. Whereas neither has a restrictive membership requirement (as a public school it is rather difficult to do such), a student may be openly enrolled into either without any consequence to educational requirements. This has been reinforced again by the supreme court.
Ultimately, i have faith that this nation will unite behind equality bills and legislation that ends any separate but equal policies in place, establishes the rights for all regardless of gay rights and gives legal responsibilities to anyone despite their sexuality. No doubt, there were few considering this a pressing issue in 1776. I would doubt that any such farseeing forefathers would have been able to establish such matters. Remember, in 1776, we couldn't decide if blacks were citizens, if slavery was a good or bad economic construct, or if women should be allowed the vote (provided they were recognized as a citizen). Just like i doubt anyone in 1776 considered the rights to riding the public bus. And yet, it was a bus that helped spark a political debate on civil rights for one American community several years ago. Today, the discussion before us is on gay rights.
In truth, today's gay rights struggle is different than the fight by women, blacks, asians, and indians had in the past. No two groups face the same issues, astigmatisms, or struggles; even as we continue to debate who can serve openly in the military, own housing, or be protected on the job. As we move forward, we allow some rights to trickle out to others but not all. The greater GLBTetc Community may not need to fight for the right to vote, but only because that right has been granted to all US Citizens because of past struggles for equality.
Now some may find the responsibility of ensuring all citizens are equal to be less important that pretending to address the financial market crisis. Some may in fact not be inclined to agree on what rights we are addressing. This is not new. In each past civil rights argument, there were some who argued against the expansion of the rights. Some felt that this was not an issue in their area and therefore not a national matter. And yet, not everyone impacted lives in the GLBTetc safe areas. Not every african-american lived up north where racial discrimination was less severe than the southern states. It was the advice of some apologists to move north and avoid the discrimination. That ultimately is not what we found beneficial to the nation. Again, we should not tell people to move when we would not otherwise tell them so.
I find civil rights to be a cornerstone of this nation. I am confident we are only as free as our least free members. I cannot imagine anything more important than ensuring civil rights are protected, and available to all of our members. should we have the freedom of religion despite which religions we are discussing? Yes. Is there such a thing as a freedom of speech? Absolutely. Should we abridge these rights to certain groups and subsets of the American populace? No. Absolutely not. And should we defer the fight until some issue is discussed first? No. There is nothing in that argument that will ensure GLBTetc rights will ever be most important. We should never settle for second best. Not as a community within a community and not as a nation. We can move forward on both civil rights and the economy and we should. While i understand where myFacebook Friend friend on Facebook is coming from, I cannot settle someone to be second class. Not in this nation; not now, and not ever.
There are a variety of reasons I won't be quiet on gay rights. I should rather think that the issues at hand are obvious, but to clarify which issues we are discussing: the overarching umbrella of rights where must define specifically for the GLBTetc community the same rights responsibilities privileges and obligations that are otherwise afforded to the greater community without such definitions. Or in a less legal context, not just gay marriage and the right to serve openly in the military, but job and housing equality and all other forms of legal separation and discrimination between the GLBTetc Community and the greater community.
While this legal mouthful covers a lot of issues that converge across a wide spectrum of issues, it is equally important to address these issues as it is to address the issues regarding the war and other issues some feel are more important. Gay rights conveniently weave into each of these issues. The War issues include should gays be allowed to serve openly or would such an ability be a detriment to the military. As we debate health care rights, we must consider how gay partners (whether of one year or 50 years together) should be allowed to exercise their rights as we do not recognize their relationship. My point, is that it should be impossible to address an issue archetype (eg: military, health care reform, etc) without addressing the GLBTetc community's issue(s) under this category.
More than the forced conversation by relation to the topic, we should never tolerate a minority's subjection to partial rights. Separate is never equal, as demonstrated multiple times throughout this nation's history (and upheld by the supreme court). In the end, the debate centers on what sort of nation we want. I want one where nobody has to fear that their boyfriend could lose them their home or job or pension. Sexuality is no less a distinct and integral part of a person than their gender, or race, or religion. Each of these are things we have fought hard to protect. Our laws do not say all religions are protected except Unitarian Universalists. They do not say you cannot discriminate by race except hispanic-asian-native/aboriginal Americans. They say all religions are protected and that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race. This should be no different for the GLBTetc Community. In doing so, we have thus ensured that all rights are protected. Not only would such a blanket right ensure the rights to Gays and Lesbians but also ensure that the majority's rights shall not be infringed. Although rare, reverse discrimination does occur and that should not as well(whereas the generally accepted majority is discriminated against in certain situations by the minority - consider a non GLBTetc person being fired for such by the GLBTetc small business owner).
A solution provided by some (GLBTetc or otherwise) is to grant "special" rights to the GLBTetc community. While we prevent such things as gay marriage, we proffer up gay civil unions as the GLBTetc equivalent under the law. The difference is not just semantics. Marriage is considered a universal right widely recognized as valid in most jurisdictions (state to state, and nation to nation). Civil Unions are not. There is not a legal plethora of rulings that would support that this secondary category would be separate but still equal. Indeed, if they were separate but still equal before the law, there would be no legal cause or barrier to gay marriage. A similar case exists in public schools with open enrollment policies. Whereas neither has a restrictive membership requirement (as a public school it is rather difficult to do such), a student may be openly enrolled into either without any consequence to educational requirements. This has been reinforced again by the supreme court.
Ultimately, i have faith that this nation will unite behind equality bills and legislation that ends any separate but equal policies in place, establishes the rights for all regardless of gay rights and gives legal responsibilities to anyone despite their sexuality. No doubt, there were few considering this a pressing issue in 1776. I would doubt that any such farseeing forefathers would have been able to establish such matters. Remember, in 1776, we couldn't decide if blacks were citizens, if slavery was a good or bad economic construct, or if women should be allowed the vote (provided they were recognized as a citizen). Just like i doubt anyone in 1776 considered the rights to riding the public bus. And yet, it was a bus that helped spark a political debate on civil rights for one American community several years ago. Today, the discussion before us is on gay rights.
In truth, today's gay rights struggle is different than the fight by women, blacks, asians, and indians had in the past. No two groups face the same issues, astigmatisms, or struggles; even as we continue to debate who can serve openly in the military, own housing, or be protected on the job. As we move forward, we allow some rights to trickle out to others but not all. The greater GLBTetc Community may not need to fight for the right to vote, but only because that right has been granted to all US Citizens because of past struggles for equality.
Now some may find the responsibility of ensuring all citizens are equal to be less important that pretending to address the financial market crisis. Some may in fact not be inclined to agree on what rights we are addressing. This is not new. In each past civil rights argument, there were some who argued against the expansion of the rights. Some felt that this was not an issue in their area and therefore not a national matter. And yet, not everyone impacted lives in the GLBTetc safe areas. Not every african-american lived up north where racial discrimination was less severe than the southern states. It was the advice of some apologists to move north and avoid the discrimination. That ultimately is not what we found beneficial to the nation. Again, we should not tell people to move when we would not otherwise tell them so.
I find civil rights to be a cornerstone of this nation. I am confident we are only as free as our least free members. I cannot imagine anything more important than ensuring civil rights are protected, and available to all of our members. should we have the freedom of religion despite which religions we are discussing? Yes. Is there such a thing as a freedom of speech? Absolutely. Should we abridge these rights to certain groups and subsets of the American populace? No. Absolutely not. And should we defer the fight until some issue is discussed first? No. There is nothing in that argument that will ensure GLBTetc rights will ever be most important. We should never settle for second best. Not as a community within a community and not as a nation. We can move forward on both civil rights and the economy and we should. While i understand where my
29 July 2009
More good clean fun parenting bits
Here's some good clean fun on parenting: TSHIRTS!!!!
Here's one that I LOOVE at the moment. You can come from a traditional broken home (hmmm... that's not common), or you can come from a cute happy two daddy family. Imagine those poor kids that have this conversation:
Poor kids. But at least there's a cool shirt for all the double daddy families :). BUY ONE TODAY! (OR TWO, SO YOU AND YOUR FUTURE WIFEY WILL BE SPIFFY AND MATCHING LIKE THOSE ANNOYING COUPLES).
Here's one that I LOOVE at the moment. You can come from a traditional broken home (hmmm... that's not common), or you can come from a cute happy two daddy family. Imagine those poor kids that have this conversation:
"Hi, this is my daddy Daddy1. And this is my other daddy Daddy2. What's your dad's name? Oh you don't have one, awe jeeze, sorry. What's your mommies' names? Oh, you don't have a daddy at all. :("
Poor kids. But at least there's a cool shirt for all the double daddy families :). BUY ONE TODAY! (OR TWO, SO YOU AND YOUR FUTURE WIFEY WILL BE SPIFFY AND MATCHING LIKE THOSE ANNOYING COUPLES).
Some People's Children...
Remember that Dr. Suess' book Green Eggs and Ham? Would you try them in a box, with a fox? Yea... that book. This question sort of sounds like it is from the adult edition of that book: Would you bag a hooker with your son? Would you kill her with him near the room?
Deputies allege that a man picked up a hooker, possibly had sex with said hooker, killed the hooker, and disposed of the body. ALL WITH HIS SON IN TOW...
And I'm the one that can't have kids? Really?
Deputies allege that a man picked up a hooker, possibly had sex with said hooker, killed the hooker, and disposed of the body. ALL WITH HIS SON IN TOW...
And I'm the one that can't have kids? Really?
20 July 2009
What's the story about glass houses?
There's that childhood story i was raised with growing up: Do not throw stones if you live in a glass house. Now my mother explained that to me as: You can't go around talking smack about something if you don't have your own house in order. So no comments about adulters if you are commiting the same crime. Are you paying attention John "Dough" Ensign, et al?
Now, there is a man who was doing the naughty naughty with his kid: trying to pimp the kid out at the ripe age of 5. This is why we still need to afford a vice squad. Shortly after the story broke, the kids on the right thought he was the model example of proof regarding why gays shouldn't have kids.
Far be it of me to overgeneralise like the idiots (and that's what they are to assume everyone is like the worst case scenario), but here's a heart warming tale of bad gone worse:
Now, as I was saying, you can't tell me all gays are bad parents using one bad example. Honestly, there's just as many or more on the other side of the road. Just like this couple. Giggle.
Now, there is a man who was doing the naughty naughty with his kid: trying to pimp the kid out at the ripe age of 5. This is why we still need to afford a vice squad. Shortly after the story broke, the kids on the right thought he was the model example of proof regarding why gays shouldn't have kids.
Far be it of me to overgeneralise like the idiots (and that's what they are to assume everyone is like the worst case scenario), but here's a heart warming tale of bad gone worse:
Each day when Corey Bryant and his wife, Heaven Smith, left for work, they left their 10-month-old twin daughters home alone, strapped into infant seats. Sometimes the couple left the babies home alone so they could go out to eat or to the movies. Bryant gave the girls cold medicine so they would sleep.
That's according to testimony from Smith during Bryant's trial on charges of murder and child neglect. One of their daughters, Miracle, died of starvation and neglect on April 8, 2008, the day Bryant returned from a three-week Navy cruise.... Smith said she had considered abortion when she found she was pregnant, but decided against it. After the babies were born, she suffered from severe depression: She heard voices, stopped eating, became suicidal. She said she told Bryant she could no longer care for the babies and asked him about putting the girls up for adoption. He wasn't interested, asking her what their parents would think and reminding her they would get more pay from the Navy if they had children, she said....
Now, as I was saying, you can't tell me all gays are bad parents using one bad example. Honestly, there's just as many or more on the other side of the road. Just like this couple. Giggle.
Where is the love?
My mum and I may not always see eye to eye. But you'll never - and I truly mean NEVER here - see anything like this from her or me or my mates. Ever. So where is the love that considers it compassionate to make this sort of decision? Is this the same sort of love that would have you put a crack baby in a safe house to be all but ignored? Or is this the kind of love where you don't accept the wonderful gifts life has provided and instead think you can engineer a better one? You won't see me in the news. again. and again. and again. This isn't the first boy to have this happen (the conversion therapy or the internet "save so or such" campaign. He won't be the last. When it comes to me though, you certainly won't see a plea like this because I grew up on the other side of the tracks. For once, the good side prevails and we won't need to worry about this with me. Ever. Where is the love?
19 July 2009
Put down the potato crisps
Science suggests, you make yourself fat. Which is more or less what we said too. So stop being a fattie and do something Tommy Thompson would approve of you rolly polly.
Jeezie Creezie
And they say Gays are what ruin a marriage. And I'm pretty sure that's not what you use a crucifix for ever. Really. Wrong wrong wrong.
15 July 2009
Because DADT works so well...
If you are like the president and think DADT works, or rather it would with some amount of adjustment (read: no repeal), here's some proof for you (compliments of the Palm Center at UC Santa Barbara):
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Britain
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay
actually, these are states where there is no DADT because people serve openly. Sorry. And wow, look at how many of those were Allies to the recent military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, other various unnamed places, etc. Amazing... I guess Obama is right, we do need DADT. I mean, if South Africa with its Apartheid past or Spain with its Machismo culture can figure out a way to make it work... I can see the point to his argument about our military. Amazing...
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Britain
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay
actually, these are states where there is no DADT because people serve openly. Sorry. And wow, look at how many of those were Allies to the recent military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, other various unnamed places, etc. Amazing... I guess Obama is right, we do need DADT. I mean, if South Africa with its Apartheid past or Spain with its Machismo culture can figure out a way to make it work... I can see the point to his argument about our military. Amazing...
Support the repeal of the HIV Travel Ban
There are so many fronts for Gay Rights these days: marriage, job security, ending DADT, housing rights, parenting.adoptive rights, and the list goes on. somewhere in the mix is immigration equality and travel equality. In this country, a bi-national heterosexual couple has marriage rights that a gay couple does not. Even a gay couples married in a state here (MA, CN, VT, IA, NH, etc) or nation recognized by the state department have no rights. Do your part to help make things equal. You can start, by going here (Immigration Equality).
What's your top 12?
The DCCC has it's top prioties for the nation. What are yours? Here are ours:
1. Repealing DADT, DOMA, expanding federal recognition of a state recognized union by precluding them in a federal definition (NB doesn't find marriage to be a state's right matter).
2. Re-establishing a fiscally self-viable financial system including the possible actions of breaking up anything too big to fail, tanking anything that never said no to a bad investment, and restoring the full intent of the glass-stegall act.
3. restoring the buying power of the dollar
4. reducing the national debt
5. establishing national and universal health care for all citizens and guests
6. closing gitmo, restoring common sense to the rule of law on terrorism subjects.
7. Opening a criminal investigation into illegal acts of the previous administration, including torture and other noted questionable acts.
8. Economic development that creates a sustainable job base not a flash pan bubble based industry with real wages.
9. energy independence. Independent of foreign entities, finite fossil resources, and stock speculation.
10. establish a smart transit model featuring mass tranist (buses, and trains) as well as auto lanes
11. replace the TSA with a smarter organization, one that isn't a complete joke.
12. Enhanced education opportunies.
Well that's odd, i got GLBT rights on my top 12. Why didn't Obama?
1. Repealing DADT, DOMA, expanding federal recognition of a state recognized union by precluding them in a federal definition (NB doesn't find marriage to be a state's right matter).
2. Re-establishing a fiscally self-viable financial system including the possible actions of breaking up anything too big to fail, tanking anything that never said no to a bad investment, and restoring the full intent of the glass-stegall act.
3. restoring the buying power of the dollar
4. reducing the national debt
5. establishing national and universal health care for all citizens and guests
6. closing gitmo, restoring common sense to the rule of law on terrorism subjects.
7. Opening a criminal investigation into illegal acts of the previous administration, including torture and other noted questionable acts.
8. Economic development that creates a sustainable job base not a flash pan bubble based industry with real wages.
9. energy independence. Independent of foreign entities, finite fossil resources, and stock speculation.
10. establish a smart transit model featuring mass tranist (buses, and trains) as well as auto lanes
11. replace the TSA with a smarter organization, one that isn't a complete joke.
12. Enhanced education opportunies.
Well that's odd, i got GLBT rights on my top 12. Why didn't Obama?
14 July 2009
Who's land is this anyway?
Constitutional question du jour... how much of a right does the land owner have in setting the rules? Land ownership is tantamount to the American dream. As much as the right to bear arms, or possibly more. Here's the gist: the city of Salt Lake (herein STL) sold a portion of the main drag of STL called Main Street to the scary Mormon Church a few years back. They broadcast services on the strip and do all the other things that indicate they own the drag. But here's the rub: we're talking about the street. The street. And the sidewalk.
Far be it of NB to think a couple walking down the street have more rights than the person, etc who owns said street. Then again, this argument is over the public right of way. Ultimately we aren't talking about fisting, or sexual acts, or anything covered by the Lawrence V Texas decision of 2003. Murder or other criminal acts aren't what we are talking about either. We are talking about two boys or two girls, or one of each holding hands and or kissing. If one of these couplings is ok in the public right of way, they all should be, regardless of who owns the land. While this does put us against the Mormon Church (again), it isn't by default. We aren't talking about the church doorway (or beyond), where the church could say whatever it wanted on the topic of how much is too much. Sidewalks and streets are more or less free and should be that way now and forever. Sorry property owners if you disagree. Anyone kissing in the street or sidewalk that isn't committing a crime (eg: obstructing the flow of traffic), shouldn't be charged with a crime. And that's where we stand on this matter.
Far be it of NB to think a couple walking down the street have more rights than the person, etc who owns said street. Then again, this argument is over the public right of way. Ultimately we aren't talking about fisting, or sexual acts, or anything covered by the Lawrence V Texas decision of 2003. Murder or other criminal acts aren't what we are talking about either. We are talking about two boys or two girls, or one of each holding hands and or kissing. If one of these couplings is ok in the public right of way, they all should be, regardless of who owns the land. While this does put us against the Mormon Church (again), it isn't by default. We aren't talking about the church doorway (or beyond), where the church could say whatever it wanted on the topic of how much is too much. Sidewalks and streets are more or less free and should be that way now and forever. Sorry property owners if you disagree. Anyone kissing in the street or sidewalk that isn't committing a crime (eg: obstructing the flow of traffic), shouldn't be charged with a crime. And that's where we stand on this matter.
07 July 2009
05 July 2009
Suddenly, Tokyo seems like a nice place to visit
Want to see Tokyo? How about now knowing they have a Gundum Fighter? No, a real life size one. Check out Pink Tentacle for some photos of awesomeness. And look at this clip:
See Chicago Like Never Before
This is coolness. You'll like it too... Unless you are SH or LoveMuffin. And well a few other people too.
O M G.... ftw goodness.... One
As most people who know NB are more than well aware, we're a math nerd/science junkie. We binge on knowledge. I digress...
Here is the most awesome site of the day. How cool is it? Well...Very. See whatNorth Korea anyone with a nuke and.or giant meteor can do should they get past that Star Wars Skynet Defense thingy in the sky.
In case you didn't believe me, now you can see how Eff it all it would be if something were to hit Dub's fair town. No really, I would be gone. I'd miss you all... really.
Pretty Awesome.
Here is the most awesome site of the day. How cool is it? Well...Very. See what
In case you didn't believe me, now you can see how Eff it all it would be if something were to hit Dub's fair town. No really, I would be gone. I'd miss you all... really.
Pretty Awesome.
He who shall not be named... Two
As is a long standing NB tradition, we don't give mention here to things we don't approve of much in the same manner that a mother avoids some topics with her child. Ever so often, there is something that must be addressed, even if it is to avoid addressing it.
In case you missed it, Michael Jackson is dead. D-E-D, dead. For some, this is a trajik loss of a national icon. For others, not so much. It doesn't really matter what our opinion here at NB is on the matter. What is important though, is that we don't approve of some people's intents to protest the funeral of MJ. We don't approve that for any funeral (even child molesters). I will say what comes to mind of the living (eg: Obama isn't the fierce advocate he wants to be for anything except his ego. I'd rather a real live cat be in charge of gay rights than him at the moment, effing moron). Sure my opinion of some of Jackson's past habits have lead me to use the Wacko Jacko nommer (even after his death). All of this pales though to the concept of protesting his funeral. Even I, cynical vicious cruel me, won't go there. Ever. I can't, and I won't, approve of something like that.
Leave MJ, and his family be for the moment. Even serial child raping killers and their family/friends deserve a moment alone with their makers. That, and this moron from KS should do what old people do best, die in obscurity.
No press for him, or his idiotic concept of morality.
In case you missed it, Michael Jackson is dead. D-E-D, dead. For some, this is a trajik loss of a national icon. For others, not so much. It doesn't really matter what our opinion here at NB is on the matter. What is important though, is that we don't approve of some people's intents to protest the funeral of MJ. We don't approve that for any funeral (even child molesters). I will say what comes to mind of the living (eg: Obama isn't the fierce advocate he wants to be for anything except his ego. I'd rather a real live cat be in charge of gay rights than him at the moment, effing moron). Sure my opinion of some of Jackson's past habits have lead me to use the Wacko Jacko nommer (even after his death). All of this pales though to the concept of protesting his funeral. Even I, cynical vicious cruel me, won't go there. Ever. I can't, and I won't, approve of something like that.
Leave MJ, and his family be for the moment. Even serial child raping killers and their family/friends deserve a moment alone with their makers. That, and this moron from KS should do what old people do best, die in obscurity.
No press for him, or his idiotic concept of morality.
Random Surfings... Number One
No comments, just links to other fun things.
If you're tired of hearing a random divorce rate thrown out in public without any math to explain it, here's a fun site to explain the numbers.
I'm more worried about DADT than fraternization within the ranks. Why? Because when these allegations come to light, we respond. If you ask me, we kick the wrong people out for the wrong reasons, but I'm not commenting today.
Do good priests worry about what bad priests do like these parents worry? Isn't it sad they have to worry about these things?
America should so something like this here. It truly needs to address safer sex, diseases like AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies. No really. Like right now.
Finally, not to spread the panic, but... could we please think of the children so my future son and his future boyfriend (not to mention all their male cohorts) have working penises? Please. I'm down with a little inconvenience if it saves the future boys of the world. Or a lot, I'm down with that too.
If you're tired of hearing a random divorce rate thrown out in public without any math to explain it, here's a fun site to explain the numbers.
I'm more worried about DADT than fraternization within the ranks. Why? Because when these allegations come to light, we respond. If you ask me, we kick the wrong people out for the wrong reasons, but I'm not commenting today.
Do good priests worry about what bad priests do like these parents worry? Isn't it sad they have to worry about these things?
America should so something like this here. It truly needs to address safer sex, diseases like AIDS, and unwanted pregnancies. No really. Like right now.
Finally, not to spread the panic, but... could we please think of the children so my future son and his future boyfriend (not to mention all their male cohorts) have working penises? Please. I'm down with a little inconvenience if it saves the future boys of the world. Or a lot, I'm down with that too.
Where is the love?
Let's be honest with ourselves...
The current cultural war between christian conservatives and everyone else isn't going to be won with words, or laws, or much of anything. If there is anything that can be learned from the war of cultures in Israel is that differences in opinion will last forever and always be a contentious battle at the frontline. So really, our current debates have more to do with how to pass time than solving the issues. If you don't believe me, see if they drew blood in Jerusalem over a parking lot and religion.
Now, to weigh in on a current battle in the culture war...
In this corner, Dan Savage, etc. And in this corner, i don't know who he is but his last name sounds like Klingon, etc. I'm not going to link to articles and words they have published. There's too much. We can sum it up though with Dan Savage on the side of expanded social equality (ie: gay marriage), and the other for a more, homophobic viewpoint.
There has been this growing tend among conservatives to suggest that gay rights will somehow hurt the women-folk. Oh won't someone think of the women and children. I truly have no concept of what this argument entails but I'm guessing it is something akin to: if there were social equality for the LGBTetc community, the kids wouldn't be content with a conservative normalised heterosexual pairing and instead, the boys would shun their women-folk for some good old fashioned (but now accepted) homosexuality. I just can't buy that. I'm positive that neither the world is so simplistic nor are our viewpoints so frail as to collapse but for some tedious legal footwork.
In truth, (and I should have disclosed, i'm still a pinko lefty politically speaking), I'm more akin to agree with what Dan is selling: Gay Marriage will benefit gays and only gays. I wouldn't be so naive as to deny that there are still some people out there that live a deceitful life married to a spouse they are not attracted to at the basic gender level. Nor would I suggest that marriage equality would end such loveless marriages.
Allowing people to have an honest conversation about who they are and who they are attracted to isn't a bad thing. That makes more sense than quoting a story that involves incest, angels, and salt. Allowing people to marry whom they love will probably help reduce divorce rates, and probably will have a greater benefit to women than quoting Lot and bashing someone's personal choices. Besides, I don't think you can claim the moral high ground if your allies in the cause are caught having multiple affairs. Isn't there a saying about stones and glass houses?
The current cultural war between christian conservatives and everyone else isn't going to be won with words, or laws, or much of anything. If there is anything that can be learned from the war of cultures in Israel is that differences in opinion will last forever and always be a contentious battle at the frontline. So really, our current debates have more to do with how to pass time than solving the issues. If you don't believe me, see if they drew blood in Jerusalem over a parking lot and religion.
Now, to weigh in on a current battle in the culture war...
In this corner, Dan Savage, etc. And in this corner, i don't know who he is but his last name sounds like Klingon, etc. I'm not going to link to articles and words they have published. There's too much. We can sum it up though with Dan Savage on the side of expanded social equality (ie: gay marriage), and the other for a more, homophobic viewpoint.
There has been this growing tend among conservatives to suggest that gay rights will somehow hurt the women-folk. Oh won't someone think of the women and children. I truly have no concept of what this argument entails but I'm guessing it is something akin to: if there were social equality for the LGBTetc community, the kids wouldn't be content with a conservative normalised heterosexual pairing and instead, the boys would shun their women-folk for some good old fashioned (but now accepted) homosexuality. I just can't buy that. I'm positive that neither the world is so simplistic nor are our viewpoints so frail as to collapse but for some tedious legal footwork.
In truth, (and I should have disclosed, i'm still a pinko lefty politically speaking), I'm more akin to agree with what Dan is selling: Gay Marriage will benefit gays and only gays. I wouldn't be so naive as to deny that there are still some people out there that live a deceitful life married to a spouse they are not attracted to at the basic gender level. Nor would I suggest that marriage equality would end such loveless marriages.
Allowing people to have an honest conversation about who they are and who they are attracted to isn't a bad thing. That makes more sense than quoting a story that involves incest, angels, and salt. Allowing people to marry whom they love will probably help reduce divorce rates, and probably will have a greater benefit to women than quoting Lot and bashing someone's personal choices. Besides, I don't think you can claim the moral high ground if your allies in the cause are caught having multiple affairs. Isn't there a saying about stones and glass houses?
04 July 2009
29 June 2009
More NSFW tomfoolery
Here's some web surfen fun for the whole family to enjoy: how many colours are on the image?
Visit the link for the answer/explanation.
Enjoy!
Visit the link for the answer/explanation.
Enjoy!
Why politicians generally don't speak in absolutes
Do you remember when Obama said silly things during the 2008 campaign. Things like he was pro gay rights, anti signing statements, and blah blah blah? You can read the full articles here and also here.
To highlight, the first link covers a signing statement the president issued over recent legislation he signed into office. The signing statement, among other things, announced this president would disregard passages of the law he was signing. The second link demonstrates something we've said here at NB all along: the president is perfectly capable of signing an executive order if he so chooses.
What does this mean? That the president forgot how deplorable he found signing statements during the campaign season and that following the law as written by congress sometimes isn't what he wants. Also, it demonstrates the president is ok with flaunting the law or disregarding it as he sees fit, just like past presidents.
What does this mean to you and me on the Gay Rights Front? That the president isn't the fierce advocate, strong supporter, or true ally he said he was. Let's face it, he's a politician and wouldn't help a gay cause out if he didn't have to and could still get reelected. Now, would he be crazy Homophobic like previous presidents? I dunno. After reading the DOMA brief though, I'm not going to pretend that's an impossibility. The only thing we've seen is that the president is ok with saying yes or no or both if that helps him get what he wants. I'll wait to see if he means yes or no, but early results don't do him any favors.
To highlight, the first link covers a signing statement the president issued over recent legislation he signed into office. The signing statement, among other things, announced this president would disregard passages of the law he was signing. The second link demonstrates something we've said here at NB all along: the president is perfectly capable of signing an executive order if he so chooses.
What does this mean? That the president forgot how deplorable he found signing statements during the campaign season and that following the law as written by congress sometimes isn't what he wants. Also, it demonstrates the president is ok with flaunting the law or disregarding it as he sees fit, just like past presidents.
What does this mean to you and me on the Gay Rights Front? That the president isn't the fierce advocate, strong supporter, or true ally he said he was. Let's face it, he's a politician and wouldn't help a gay cause out if he didn't have to and could still get reelected. Now, would he be crazy Homophobic like previous presidents? I dunno. After reading the DOMA brief though, I'm not going to pretend that's an impossibility. The only thing we've seen is that the president is ok with saying yes or no or both if that helps him get what he wants. I'll wait to see if he means yes or no, but early results don't do him any favors.
Stonewalling, across the universe
Pride 2009 has ended for me. It was fun. I saw too many friends, mates, and blokes i know of to really list them all. The highlight, my mates and I are still tight. I even got to meet some new key players to it all. All in all, i think this makes the year a success.
I'll update later the playlist i made for the year. In the meantime, here's a sample of some highs from it all:
Obamaoutright supports admits gay people are people too.
Tiger is well received by my mates, most of whom get confused on his relationship to me. Naturally, I fail to correct their story.
Ran into the crazy drug boys I tend to avoid these days. Didn't relapse.
Got the numbers of whores, sluts, and a few frat boys. Apparently, i look OK.
Most importantly, I wasn't arrested, harrashed, or punished for being who I am.
I'll update later the playlist i made for the year. In the meantime, here's a sample of some highs from it all:
Obama
Tiger is well received by my mates, most of whom get confused on his relationship to me. Naturally, I fail to correct their story.
Ran into the crazy drug boys I tend to avoid these days. Didn't relapse.
Got the numbers of whores, sluts, and a few frat boys. Apparently, i look OK.
Most importantly, I wasn't arrested, harrashed, or punished for being who I am.
That's so HMO
There is a storm brewing on this health care thing. It seems that a lot of people are saying what's on their mind with the whole Health Care issues. There are probably a lot of great ideas in the great world out there that need to be heard and talked about during this time of ours. At the moment, we should talk about the general basics of what sort of health care we want. I'm personally a big fan of the Health Care for all model. In this model, the only profits are the benefits reaped by taking care of everyone. The downside of course is that we don't have to ask the question "are you insured" during admissions. I'm not sure how that's a bad thing, but here's a step towards having that conversation nationally. Big ups to my senator for saying something on the matter.
23 June 2009
Where Change I Can Believe In Is In DC
This is something that I have said can be done previously. Clearly, other people are catching on. Props to my rep and the rest for telling the President something you would think a scary lefty liberal would already know: DADT is bad and stopping it takes everyone's effort - the sooner the better. If we could just translate this into something substantive...
Now, make it happen loca!
Now, make it happen loca!
June 22, 2009
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama:
The United States of America prides itself on having the finest military in the world because of the hard work, dedication, and sacrifices of our brave servicemen and women. And yet, under 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces), better known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the talents and contributions of our openly gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) service members continue to be ignored simply because of who they are. Every day, we lose approximately two service members to this misguided, unjust, and flat-out discriminatory policy. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not only an injustice to them, but a disservice to the U.S. military and our country as a whole.
As you know, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton as a compromise to allow gay and lesbian service members to serve in the military -- so long as they did not disclose their sexual orientations. Fifteen years later, Don't Ask Don't Tell is instead negatively impacting the lives and livelihoods of these military professionals and depriving our Armed Forces of their honorable service. Since you took office on January 20, 2009, more than 250 gay and lesbian service members have been discharged under this law, which continues to undermine and demoralize the more than 65,000 gay and lesbian Americans currently serving on active duty.
Although we are confident that you will remain true to your campaign promise to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell, our LGBT service members and our country's national security will continue to suffer if initial action is delayed until 2010 or 2011. We urge you to exercise the maximum discretion legally possible in administering Don't Ask, Don't Tell until Congress repeals the law. To this end, we ask that you direct the Armed Services not to initiate any investigation of service personnel to determine their sexual orientation, and that you instruct them to disregard third party accusations that do not allege violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, we request that you impose that no one is asked and that you ignore, as the law requires, third parties who tell. Under your leadership, Congress must then repeal and replace Don't Ask, Don't Tell with a policy of inclusion and non-discrimination. This bilateral strategy would allow our openly gay and lesbian service members to continue serving our country and demonstrate our nation's lasting commitment to justice and equality for all.
As the United States continues to work towards responsibly ending the War in Iraq and refocus on the threat from al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, our LGBT service members offer invaluable skills that enhance our country's military competence and readiness. Despite the great strain on our military's human resources, the Armed Forces have discharged almost 800 mission-critical troops and at least 59 Arabic and nine Farsi linguists under Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the last five years. This is indefensible. The financial cost alone of implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell from Fiscal Year 1994-2003 was more than $363.8 million. Our nation's military has always held itself to the highest standards, and we must recruit and retain the greatest number of our best and brightest. To do anything less only hurts our country's military readiness and our service members.
We also want to bring to your attention the most recent examples of the failed Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in action. New York National Guard First Lieutenant Dan Choi and Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach are two exceptional servicemen who have dedicated their lives to defending our country and protecting the American people. Their bravery and abilities have been tested in combat, and now they face impending discharge under Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
First Lieutenant Choi, a current National Guardsman with the 1st Battalion of the 69th Infantry in Manhattan, is a West Point graduate, Arabic language specialist, and Iraq War veteran who is under investigation for refusing to lie about his identity.
Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, Assistant Director of Operations for the 366th Operations Support Squadron at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, has honorably served his country for 18 years as an F-15E pilot. He has received nine air medals, including a Medal for Heroism during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and was hand-picked to protect the airspace over Washington, D.C. after the Pentagon was attacked on September 11, 2001. Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, who has flown combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda, continues to serve while the recommendation for his honorable discharge moves forward to a review board, and eventually to the Secretary of the Air Force. Just two years away from his 20-year retirement, he stands to lose $46,000 a year in retirement and medical benefits for the rest of his life if discharged.
The American people and service members of the Armed Forces overwhelmingly support the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. According to a national Gallup poll conducted in May 2009, 69% of Americans, including 58% of Republicans, favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military. Furthermore, a 2006 poll of 545 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan by Zogby International and the Michael D. Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, revealed that 73% are personally comfortable with gay men and lesbian women. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Clinton administration, and more than 100 retired admirals and generals support this repeal, in addition to the Human Rights Campaign, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, and Knights Out, an organization of LGBT West Point alumni cofounded by First Lieutenant Choi.
Mr. President, we cannot afford to lose any more of our dedicated and talented service members to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. On behalf of First Lieutenant Choi, Lieutenant Colonel Fehrenbach, and the more than 12,500 gay and lesbian service members who have been discharged since Don't Ask, Don't Tell was implemented in 1994, we stand ready to assist you in repealing this dishonorable and debilitating law as soon as possible, and in restoring justice and equality in our Armed Forces.
Please know that we will continue to monitor this situation and are hopeful that, together, we can address this urgent issue soon. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
The letter was authored by Rep. Hastings and signed by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), José Serrano (D-NY), James Moran (D-VA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ed Pastor (D-AZ), James Clyburn (D-SC), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Jane Harman (D-CA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Donna M. Christensen (D-VI), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Bill Delahunt (D-MA), Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Robert Wexler (D-FL), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Michael Capuano (D-MA), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), Rush Holt (D-NJ), John Larson (D-CT), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), David Wu (D-OR), William Lacy Clay (D-MO), Mike Honda (D-CA), James Langevin (D-RI), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Diane Watson (D-CA), Tim Bishop (D-NY), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Linda Sánchez (D-CA), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Doris Matsui (D-CA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-FL), André Carson (D-IN), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Donna F. Edwards (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Marcia L. Fudge (D-OH), Phil Hare (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Laura Richardson (D-CA), Joe Sestak (D-PA), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Mike Quigley (D-IL), and Gregorio Sablan (D-MP).
What a boy wants
Every boy I know wanted when they were little to drive a construction truck, or crane, or bulldozer, or well anything cool like that. Apparently, some boys get to do that for real. Or this is some sort of robo-baby we have yet to see or hear about.
Now I know the economy is bad, but we probably don't need any more people trying to get a job. Don't send your toddler out to make up the income you lost.
Now I know the economy is bad, but we probably don't need any more people trying to get a job. Don't send your toddler out to make up the income you lost.
Not my kind of religious leader
Having grown up with a fairly healthy dose of religion, I can say elders are relgious leaders. And this elder is not the kind of person I know any church wants as a leader. Boy is that awkward...
Introducing...
So, I opened a new blog where I'll be posting personal Information. I'll be parsing out old posts here in short order. About the same time i bring in some of the older posts i've written and kept hidden (offline) that should be brought here. No words on how soon that will be... stay tuned...
21 June 2009
18 June 2009
It Keeps Getting Better. Pt 2
While we are well aware, based on past statements from various administration members including John Berry, that this was going to happen eventually, we can't help but wonder here if this statement was accelerated given the bad press of late. Did the president just offer an ice cream cone (something small but sweet to cheer you up) hoping that pittance would draw back the ire of GLBTetc and their allies? I think so. This is the first thing the president has said or done for GLBTetc people or their rights since taking office. He hasn't denounced the wording of the recent DOMA brief as "extreme" or as anything else.
If Obama truly meant what he said of being the fierce advocate in chief that once elected would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to promote, advocate, and advance the equality of rights for GLBTetc people and their allies then this was not nearly enough, and came a little bit late. Here's the deal: this doesn't go very far (because apparently the president can't do much aside from tie his shoes). When it comes what the president can do, we have two options: memo and executive order. Memos are sort of like the notes for while the president is in office. An executive order is much the same, but is forever (or until further changed). So the president could have written an executive order saying going forward we shall offer nothing. Instead, he gave us this memo that dies with him. He could have been clear in his support of PBOA (the real benefits bill stalled in congress). Instead, he said "i'll sign PBOA if it passes" with the lackluster excitement of a child forced to attend high holy mass. While something is generally better than nothing, perhaps we should keep the change until you have enough for a bill.
NichtsBesonderes reminds the president we don't like ice cream much, so please don't give us an ice cream cone before a real meal. Here's what was offered up.
If Obama truly meant what he said of being the fierce advocate in chief that once elected would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to promote, advocate, and advance the equality of rights for GLBTetc people and their allies then this was not nearly enough, and came a little bit late. Here's the deal: this doesn't go very far (because apparently the president can't do much aside from tie his shoes). When it comes what the president can do, we have two options: memo and executive order. Memos are sort of like the notes for while the president is in office. An executive order is much the same, but is forever (or until further changed). So the president could have written an executive order saying going forward we shall offer nothing. Instead, he gave us this memo that dies with him. He could have been clear in his support of PBOA (the real benefits bill stalled in congress). Instead, he said "i'll sign PBOA if it passes" with the lackluster excitement of a child forced to attend high holy mass. While something is generally better than nothing, perhaps we should keep the change until you have enough for a bill.
NichtsBesonderes reminds the president we don't like ice cream much, so please don't give us an ice cream cone before a real meal. Here's what was offered up.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON FEDERAL BENEFITS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION, AND SUPPORT OF THE LIEBERMAN-BALDWIN BENEFITS LEGISLATION
In 2007, Michael Guest, the first openly gay Ambassador confirmed by the United States Senate, resigned from the Foreign Service. He loved his career, but he had to leave it in the end -- because he believed that the country he served was failing to implement the principles of equality it espoused abroad. His partner was ineligible for training provided to Ambassadorial spouses; he bore the costs of his partner's transportation to his placements abroad; and his partner did not receive the overseas benefits and allowances given to spouses of Ambassadors.
It is too late to prevent Ambassador Guest from having to make the choice he made, but today I am proud to issue a Presidential Memorandum that will go a long way toward achieving equality for many of the hard-working, dedicated, and patriotic LGBT Americans serving in our Federal Government -- Americans like Ambassador Guest. In consultation with Secretary Clinton, who in her role as Secretary of State oversees our foreign service employees, and Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry, who oversees human resource management for our civil service employees, my Administration has identified a number of areas in which greater equality can be achieved under existing law by extending to the same-sex partners of Federal employees many of the same benefits already available to the spouses of heterosexual Federal employees. I am therefore requesting the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to extend the benefits they have identified to the same-sex partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved consistent with Federal law. I am also requesting the heads of all other executive departments and agencies to conduct a review of the benefits they administer to determine which may legally be extended to same-sex partners.
But this Presidential Memorandum is just a start. Unfortunately, my Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. That's why I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. It's discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it.
I am also proud to announce my support for an important piece of legislation introduced in both Houses of Congress last month -- the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. This legislation will extend to the same-sex partners of Federal employees the same benefits already enjoyed by the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. The legislation has a number of co-sponsors in both Houses of Congress, but among those many sponsors, I want to recognize one in particular -- Representative Tammy Baldwin, who has been a real leader on this issue, and more broadly on the LGBT struggle for equality. Representative Baldwin, I look forward to working with you to achieve the important objectives set out in this bill as it moves through the legislative process. I also look forward to working with the bill's Senate champions, Senators Lieberman and Collins; I know that they will approach this process with the same spirit of cooperation in pursuit of our shared goals that they bring to all of their work in the Senate.
Extending equal benefits to the same-sex partners of Federal employees is the right thing to do. It is also sound economic policy. Many top employers in the private sector already offer benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees; those companies recognize that offering partner benefits helps them compete for and retain the brightest and most talented employees. The Federal Government is at a disadvantage on that score right now, and change is long overdue.
As Americans, we are all affected when our promises of equality go unfulfilled. Through measures like the Presidential Memorandum I am issuing today and the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, we will advance the principles upon which our Nation was founded and continue to perfect our Union.
17 June 2009
It Keeps Getting Better. Pt 1
Here's a little something something from our fair White House:
Next up: More...
TAPPER: Does the president stand by the legal brief that the Justice Department filed last week that argued in favor the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?
GIBBS: Well, as you know, that the Justice Department is charged with upholding the law of the land, even though the president believes that that law should be repealed.
TAPPER: I understand that, but a lot of legal experts say that the brief didn't have to be as comprehensive and make all the arguments that it made, such as comparing same-sex unions to incestuous ones, in one controversial paragraph...
GIBBS: Well...
TAPPER: ...that's upset a lot of the president's supporters. Does the president stand by the content, the arguments made in that brief?
GIBBS: Well, again, it's the president's Justice Department. And, again, we have the role of upholding the law of the land while the president has stated and will work with Congress to change that law.
Next up: More...
16 June 2009
Work it Fierce Loca!
If you haven't already heard of this group called NO H8, I like them. And here's a sample of why. Join their cause and I'll love you. Forever. No really. Visit their awesome site too. Work it Fierce Loca!
Don't speak, I know what you're thinking...
(Please recall past statements by our president, including but not limited to this speech: from just before his inauguration)
It's not that I don't want a fierce advocate. If this however is what a fierce advocate does, I think I was much better before hand without one. Before we start, let's get the standard disclosures out of the way: I'm a pinko lefty scary liberal. I voted for Obama. I don't think he's a socialist, blah blah blah. But let's also be clear: I'd rather not be on the agenda, than be run through the mud by my "fierce advocate in chief" and his administration with where I am on the agenda.
There's a difference between upholding the law by going through the motions and upholding the law with overzealous extremism. It is one thing for a legal brief to say in essence "this is the law of the land that we are required to uphold, despite our better judgment." It is quite another to defend it by equating anything but that law as the very bastion upon which all moral depravity will stem should this law not be upheld. Including the justification that hate is still something legal in the constitution is appalling and would suggest that none of us are truly free, just free at the moment from hate and legal intolerance. To suggest that Gay Marriage is on par with incest, bestiality, or other criminal acts runs counter intuitively to previous rulings and common sense.
Provided that the historical effort to push for recognized gay rights and true social equality has blossomed in its own right within the last 45 years, and the criminal underpinnings of our society predate the constitution, it seems impossible to suggest that gay marriage is to blame for all crime. Anyone who has read the sermons of historical record from this nation's founding will recognize moral depravity is a constant theme and not one that has always relied on homosexuality as the root of all things evil. Indeed, during the events leading up to prohibition of alcohol, the fiery sermons claimed alcohol caused it all. I doubt very much gay marriage has caused any evil in its own right. States that recognize gay marriage haven't fallen off the map yet, or had their criminal elements explode since recognition. That should have happened in the states that have allowed Gay Marriage, Employee Non-Discrimination Acts, Hate Crime Legislation, or any of the other equality legislative acts that have occurred in some states.
I can't discredit the people who defend Obama by saying these legal briefs are not his personal opinion. I can't even disprove them by showing Obama agrees with them explicitly. But he is agreeing with them implicitly. Truman, another previous president, somehow was able to by executive order desegregate the military. Apparently the rule of land by fiat ruling has changed so much since then, Obama cannot do the same by even suspending DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the federal prohibition of honesty among soldiers in the Military). I'm not sure how we would know since Obama isn't actively trying.
In fact, Obama has actively been doing the opposite. It's a well established fact that Obama doesn't think I should get married. It's also well established that he doesn't think the federal government has any business in this legal discussion, concluding it a "states" issue. I sometimes wonder if he would do the same with DADT. I would like to see a progressive state like IA decide for its National Guard that how you do your job is more important than what happens in your bedroom. Obama hasn't talked about gay issues more than he has had to thus far.
By permitting the legal argument supporting DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) to proceed as written will make it impossible for Obama to be anything better than previous presidents on social justice issues. Provided that his administration (which would include him as well as the writer of the brief) permits such bull puckey as the implication that gays are little more than bestial incestuous child molesters seeking to usurp the rule of law, there is little chance he can also extend equality by changing DOMA or DADT or quite frankly anything else related to social justice. If Obama's left hand wants to repeal the law, his right hand should at least be supportive of this endeavor.
I understand that Obama doesn't want to rock the boat of this nation. I get it that he thinks it's permissible to abridge the rights of a minority (as if that doesn't somehow limit how broad his own rights are). But that makes him a hypocrite, an idiot, and not a fierce advocate. If Obama truly wants to be the change I can believe in, he has to actually change how things have been. I understand that sometimes, things happen by the groundswell of public support driven by fine the people, congressional members, and statesmen (such as real advocates of change like Dianna DeGette and Linda Newell). Sometimes it takes a President to make something happen. If you need an example, you can look at the record of someone like President Johnson (who was from that scary liberal state you and I call Texas). You won't see that with Obama's current social justice platform. Not now at least. And to quote the past: if not now, when? I can't actively support someone who thinks, which he must given his continual silence on any matter gay rights related, that I'm a child molester. This is his administration, and therefore, his tone. He can change it at anytime, but he could have set it from the beginning just as he said he would before and after the election. I expect more from a fierce advocate than a few forced tokens of change and a speech or two. If this makes me a fierce advocate of our president, loca look out.
It's not that I don't want a fierce advocate. If this however is what a fierce advocate does, I think I was much better before hand without one. Before we start, let's get the standard disclosures out of the way: I'm a pinko lefty scary liberal. I voted for Obama. I don't think he's a socialist, blah blah blah. But let's also be clear: I'd rather not be on the agenda, than be run through the mud by my "fierce advocate in chief" and his administration with where I am on the agenda.
There's a difference between upholding the law by going through the motions and upholding the law with overzealous extremism. It is one thing for a legal brief to say in essence "this is the law of the land that we are required to uphold, despite our better judgment." It is quite another to defend it by equating anything but that law as the very bastion upon which all moral depravity will stem should this law not be upheld. Including the justification that hate is still something legal in the constitution is appalling and would suggest that none of us are truly free, just free at the moment from hate and legal intolerance. To suggest that Gay Marriage is on par with incest, bestiality, or other criminal acts runs counter intuitively to previous rulings and common sense.
Provided that the historical effort to push for recognized gay rights and true social equality has blossomed in its own right within the last 45 years, and the criminal underpinnings of our society predate the constitution, it seems impossible to suggest that gay marriage is to blame for all crime. Anyone who has read the sermons of historical record from this nation's founding will recognize moral depravity is a constant theme and not one that has always relied on homosexuality as the root of all things evil. Indeed, during the events leading up to prohibition of alcohol, the fiery sermons claimed alcohol caused it all. I doubt very much gay marriage has caused any evil in its own right. States that recognize gay marriage haven't fallen off the map yet, or had their criminal elements explode since recognition. That should have happened in the states that have allowed Gay Marriage, Employee Non-Discrimination Acts, Hate Crime Legislation, or any of the other equality legislative acts that have occurred in some states.
I can't discredit the people who defend Obama by saying these legal briefs are not his personal opinion. I can't even disprove them by showing Obama agrees with them explicitly. But he is agreeing with them implicitly. Truman, another previous president, somehow was able to by executive order desegregate the military. Apparently the rule of land by fiat ruling has changed so much since then, Obama cannot do the same by even suspending DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell - the federal prohibition of honesty among soldiers in the Military). I'm not sure how we would know since Obama isn't actively trying.
In fact, Obama has actively been doing the opposite. It's a well established fact that Obama doesn't think I should get married. It's also well established that he doesn't think the federal government has any business in this legal discussion, concluding it a "states" issue. I sometimes wonder if he would do the same with DADT. I would like to see a progressive state like IA decide for its National Guard that how you do your job is more important than what happens in your bedroom. Obama hasn't talked about gay issues more than he has had to thus far.
By permitting the legal argument supporting DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) to proceed as written will make it impossible for Obama to be anything better than previous presidents on social justice issues. Provided that his administration (which would include him as well as the writer of the brief) permits such bull puckey as the implication that gays are little more than bestial incestuous child molesters seeking to usurp the rule of law, there is little chance he can also extend equality by changing DOMA or DADT or quite frankly anything else related to social justice. If Obama's left hand wants to repeal the law, his right hand should at least be supportive of this endeavor.
I understand that Obama doesn't want to rock the boat of this nation. I get it that he thinks it's permissible to abridge the rights of a minority (as if that doesn't somehow limit how broad his own rights are). But that makes him a hypocrite, an idiot, and not a fierce advocate. If Obama truly wants to be the change I can believe in, he has to actually change how things have been. I understand that sometimes, things happen by the groundswell of public support driven by fine the people, congressional members, and statesmen (such as real advocates of change like Dianna DeGette and Linda Newell). Sometimes it takes a President to make something happen. If you need an example, you can look at the record of someone like President Johnson (who was from that scary liberal state you and I call Texas). You won't see that with Obama's current social justice platform. Not now at least. And to quote the past: if not now, when? I can't actively support someone who thinks, which he must given his continual silence on any matter gay rights related, that I'm a child molester. This is his administration, and therefore, his tone. He can change it at anytime, but he could have set it from the beginning just as he said he would before and after the election. I expect more from a fierce advocate than a few forced tokens of change and a speech or two. If this makes me a fierce advocate of our president, loca look out.
14 June 2009
17 May 2009
More NSFW tomfoolery
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4&feature=player_embedded
again, i'm not the biggest fan of the tactic or the tacticianer, but it's still a funny starting point to the conversation. And anything that makes Phelps look dumb is decent enough for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra_fAYl4Th4&feature=player_embedded
again, i'm not the biggest fan of the tactic or the tacticianer, but it's still a funny starting point to the conversation. And anything that makes Phelps look dumb is decent enough for me.
09 May 2009
I'm back...
I'm not sure how often i'll be posting. But i've re-established my life. so here goes nothing. Details pending....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)