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:

"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?

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:

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?

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.

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...

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?

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.

Arrive Alive

Shock and Awe... Let's go NZ

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 what North 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.

Random Surfings... Number Two

Who could resist.... DUCKIES!!!!!

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.

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.

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?

Happy Fourth of July