Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘America’ Category

So I just received this little ditty in my email regarding pat boone.  

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82830

It pains me to put this link up…literally.  I hate to think all the press this hate monger is going to get.  In this recently posted article of his he went as far as to equate our struggle (regarding Prop 8, gay marriage, and other rights) with the extremists that caused the terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

Go ahead read it…I’ll wait.

Now that you’ve had that chance to digest his horrible and awful words lets take a moment and discuss.

First,  mr. boone, I’m gay and I am in no way shape or form like the individuals who have caused the terror in Mumbai.  If you think that me being a political activist equates me to someone who will kill people then you are sadly mistaken, small minded, and unable to comprehend our community.

Secondly, for you to write such awful things about our community and our people then at the bottom of the page tout about your “Broadway headlining,” I have a newsflash for you.  You have performed with tons of gay men and women and it’s a shame that you would say such hateful things about actors and actresses that have aided your career.

Thirdly, let’s take a moment and look at a few things you’ve said shall we…

Every homosexual citizen has the same, identical rights as any other American.” If every homosexual citizen has the same rights as any other American then why is it that we have to fight for regulations to protect us from jobs that will fire us because we are gay…or protect us from those people who will kill us leaving a gay bar?  If we have the same right how is it fair that my married parents can be on each other’s health benefits despite the city in which they live where as I couldn’t have my partner on my benefits nor would he be covered depending on the state we live in?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/nyregion/10assault.html?_r=2

(Mr. Sucuzhanay wasn’t even gay.)

Because this elemental building block of society has been so defined and respected throughout history, elected representatives in our self-government have granted certain supports and tax relief and privileges to marriages and families. Again, these privileges did not originate with some benevolent higher authority – they originated with the people, through the democratic process.

That’s how a free republic works. Our people consecrated our Constitution and determined to live within its provisions, voluntarily. It was determined that the will of the voting majority would rule, though it was subject to change if the majority will changed.” What you fail to realize mr. boone is that a voting majority does not have the right to take away others rights.  That’s not the way it works.  If we were voting on tax raises or voting to create a new road system a majority vote would be acceptable but the minute you try and justify that a  majority can take away rights then the democratic process has been overstepped.  Also, just because you may be in a majority that doesn’t necessarily mean that the “said” majority is right.

No “rights” were ever granted to citizens on the basis of their sexual habits or lifestyle. There simply are no such “rights.”  Perhaps mr. boone needs to study up on his Constitutional Law.  Its a little Supreme Court called Griswold vs. CT.  For those of you who don’t know what this case involved, mr. boone, it involved the use of contraceptives in the state of CT.  Women at one time were not allowed to use contraceptives in CT.  This case argued that a woman’s body is her body and can do with it what she wants…in terms of contraceptives.  The law was over turned allowing for the use of birth control.  It was a crash course in what the meaning of “right to privacy.” A right provided for by the Constitution.  In other words a woman has the RIGHT to take birth control because her body is private and the State cannot dictate what she can and can’t do regarding birth control.  Might I add that this “privacy” which a woman has was granted on the basis of some women’s sexual habits and or lifestyles. This was just a quick glaze over the case it really is a great case and merits further investigation and trust me there are many more cases regarding rights then you realize.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1964/1964_496/

 

“Slavery was abolished, blacks and women obtained the rights to vote, and these true rights were not obtained by threats and violent demonstrations and civil disruption (though these things did occur, of course), but by due process, congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification. This was democracy in action, not mob rule. As noted journalist Thomas Sowell has said, there never was “a right to win.” In America, at least the America we’ve known till now, rights are earned and won in a deliberative, legal way – at the polls.”  Uuummm correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t one of Thoreau’s and Martin Luther Kings’ tenants Civil Disobedience if a law was not fair. I think I remember something from my Civil Rights class I took in college…that we are obligated as good citizens to demonstrate against rules that are unjust and unfair.  At the moment I don’t think we’ve had any giant violent gay demonstrations?  And if we want to nitpick even more due process wasn’t necessarily reached in your “congressional deliberations and appropriate ratification” when Eisenhower had to call in the Army to desegregate Little Rock Central High School for the Little Rock 9 or when a white mob tormented the people who sat at Woolworths. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_disobediance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins

Finally, “There never were any “rights” granted or designated to those who dissented with the will of the majority, other than the same rights all citizens have to work through the democratic process to accomplish their purposes.”   I think if we operated under this assumption we could very well be British citizens still.  I do believe that our 13 colonies were a minority in regards to England.  I believe we dissented with the will of the majority and fought a war for what we believed were our rights as a new nation…I believe we dissented with the majority when England tried to impose a tax on our tea….a la the Boston Tea Party.

 

The point is mr. boone while you try to paint us as crazy, unjust people, our history is littered with people who have been considered radical but in actuality were quite sane fighting for the rights they know they deserved.  We are no different.  And while you can compare me to a “sexual jihadist” lets not forget to turn that powerful ability to judge on yourself.  You’re right hate is hate and those people who perpetuate it by taking away the rights of others and those people who take the time to fan the flames, mr. boone, are just as guilty of hate as well.

 

P.S. Your argument lacks consistency and validity.  It falls apart with every flimsy argument you make.  I’m not quite sure what is irresponsible or hedonistic of gay men and women fighting for the right to marry one another.   In fact fighting for the right seems to be the exact opposite of hedonism and irresponsibility.

Read Full Post »

Yesterday I had a quick chance to check out the Newsweek article that is causing pandemonium amongst the religious right.  If you haven’t read please do, the link is below.

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1

 

I had saved the link to do a post about it yesterday but unfortunately I was running errands for my job and never had the chance to.  So here is my quip about the article.  I think Newsweek hit the story right on the head.   Lisa Miller has taken what the religious right clings to and used it against them…the bible.  It’s a simple as that.  What is in question is the conventionality of the bible.  Is the bible a reliable source of morals and ethics in today’s society?  I think the answer is yes and no. 

I believe that there are several over-arching, capital T (for you philosophy majors), Truths that are detailed in the bible that add to a moral code that will always be part of life.  Love thy neighbor, treat others as you would want to be treated, don’t kill, don’t steal etc.  These are a part of a moral code or ethics that all people should live by.  But, these morals and ethics are not just a construct of the bible or religion.  They are products humanity.  Now here is where it becomes tricky.  So we have a moral and ethical code created by humanity and it is supported by a religious group, doctrine what have you.  What happens when there is a disconnect between humanity and religion.  What happens when you have humanity saying that it’s okay to do one thing but religion telling you it isn’t okay to do said “thing;”  in this case gay marriage. 

The problem is that the religious right argues points in the bible that are not in accordance to a capital T Truth…a Truth that is in accordance with humanities views.  That’s the problem with the bible is that it lacks the conventionality to continue dictating peoples lives.  I’m not saying Love is an advent of conventionality but is something that is Truth regardless of age, period of history etc.  But the moment people try and use leviticus to tell me I can’t sleep with the person I love and they are wearing a cotton blended shirt they have lost their argument right out of the gate.  While leviticus says a man laying with a man is an abomination he also states that wearing blended fibers is wrong as well.  That is an unconventional belief, hypocritical, and not part of a Truth. 

This is the argument that Lisa Miller put forth in her article for Newsweek and she doesn’t even have to say it.  Miller chips away at the hypocrisy that is contained in the bible.  Notice while she does it she never takes away from the importance of love and loving your neighbor.  Notice how she doesn’t have to dog-ear the hypocrisy in not killing and not stealing….she doesn’t dog-ear those precious pieces of the bible because they are not part of a trivial, unconventional, part of a substandard way to dictate life.  They are part of something much bigger (Truth).    It amazes me how quickly these “religious” people are willing to put up a fight for these little pieces of the bible.  I would understand if Miller argued to not love anyone and to kill and steal.  But, to argue so fervently for doctrine that can’t even be proven as truth blows my mind.  Now I know there are people out there that believe that the bible is a capital t truth but I have one question if your religious doctrine is a truth who are you to say that other religious doctrine aren’t also capital t truths?  Also, if your doctrine is a capital t truth then why aren’t all the followers abiding by it?  I know I know your going to pose the same question to me regarding Love and that is fine.  Not everyone Loves someone else or Loves at all.  But Love is not denied from them, all people have Love and can give Love and can deny Love.  The point is that every one has Love no matter color of skin, creed, or sexual orientation, or gender…it’s your choosing to do with it what you want and nobody can take it away from you.  But marriage on the other hand can be taken away because people believe that Love between to men isn’t the same kind of Love between a man and a woman, and that a marriage which affirms the Love between two people isn’t possible if you’re gay.  It’s funny how we easily equate love and marriage (queue the Sinatra) and how easily people try and dictate that love and marriage only is possible between a man and a woman.  But now we are stepping on the Victorian ideal of marriage…and I’ll save that for another post.

 

 

P.S. I have also added this gem below.  It was comment on the Newsweek blog that posted Millers article.   Delightful I must say, glib and to the point I especially enjoyed the part how nice it was 20 years ago and going back into the closet.   I wonder if we can get their right to vote revoked…..

 

·         Jesus Christ… Here we go again… The Gays are trying to shove there lifestyles in our face,Dam the Constitution! Im sorry but i dont want to hear it. And im so tired of these Liberal whiney peaple who are more worried about political correctness then the law of the land. Hey,i dont hate Gays,thats your business if thats how ya wanna live. I dont have a problem with civil unions,but ill be dammed if the Gays think they can have there own rules. Im not a Religous nut,i dont even go to Church. But im tired of America bowing down to every group with an agenda. We need to bring America back to Normalacy,and the Gays need to cool there jets… It was alot nicer 20 years ago,when they were in the closet. If they cant live by the rules,Maybe they should GO BACK!

 

P.P.S.  Here’s a big gay WOOT WOOT for Lisa Miller whose article was AWESOME!

Read Full Post »

Alright everyone.  On Saturday the country will unite in Protests agains Prop 8.  If you want to see what your area is doing see the link below

http://jointheimpact.com/

 

As for the Erie Area here is the following information regarding our Protest on Saturday.

 

Wednesday (tonight) the 12th we will be meeting to begin organizing the protest.  The meeting starts at 7pm and will be held at Unitarian-Universalist Congregation of Erie, 7180 New Perry Highway, Erie PA.  Be there!

 

Saturday the 15th tentativelly we are looking at the Protest being at 1:30 pm on the steps of the Erie County Court House.  Look here for more updates and a solidified schedule! 

 

I HOPE YOU ARE ALL OUT GETTING READY TO EXERCISE OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH ON SATURDAY…THAT’S ONE RIGHT THEY CAN’T TAKE AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Full Post »

For those of you who voted for Prop 8 (or any other Prop defining marriage as being between a man and woman) in an effort to support a “traditional marriage” and/or preserve “family values” lets take a moment and look at some things.

 

While you denied me my right to marry, you allow those heterosexual couples that sexually, mentally, and verbally abuse each other the right to marry.  Is that your idea of a traditional marriage or good values or a good environment to raise a child?

 

While you denied me my right to marry, you allow those men and women with drug problems to marry and raise a family.  Is that your idea of family values?

 

While you denied me my right to marry, you allowed children to languish in a state system because you refuse to allow unmarried people to adopt.  Is that your idea of a good personal moral compass?

 

While you voted yes for Prop 8 you easily took rights away from me and other gay couples.  Tell me was it easy for you to check yes?  Do you sleep easily at night knowing you marginalize people?  I’m guessing you probably do.

 

Well here is what I think…Any woman that voted for Prop 8 or any definition of marriage being between a man and a woman should have her right to vote taken away from her.  It seems only fair considering we celebrated the 88th anniversary of your right to vote.  You know the saying “an eye for any eye”…well now it should be a right for a right.

 

For any man that voted for Prop 8 or any definition of marriage being between a man and a woman you are small minded.  Your inability to see past us being gay to realize that we are people just the same as you and deserve the same rights exemplifies just how narrow minded you are.  You should have your right to freedom of speech taken away because what you have to say is filled with lies and bigotry.  You take away one of my rights I should be allowed to take away one of your rights.

 

For any mormon that voted for Prop 8 or any definition of marriage being between a man and a woman you pouring 20 million into supporting Prop 8 shows me that you are scared worthless people.  Your right to practice your religion freely should be taken away and we should get to persecute you.

 

 

For any Senator, State Representative or person holding public office if you state that you want to protect the rights of the gay community but believe marriage is between a man and a woman you make it morally acceptable for people to marginalize us.  You lack the ability to stand up for those of us that have been marginalized and we deserve a strong voice in office that will stand up and fight for us and not just for another term in office.

 

For the members of the gay community that read this…now is the time to be angry.  It is time we define ourselves differently.  No longer should we be a gay community, we are a community committed to gay rights.  We are committed to rights that we deserve and should be willing to have our voices heard for.  Now is the time to picket the churches that we go to that depend on our patronage to continue.  We shouldn’t give our money to them the same way they won’t give us the right to marry.  Now is the time to have open discourse and discussion with those people who don’t believe we should marry and educate them properly.  We need to show them that we are not a group of people who deserve to be marginalized.  It is time for us to be angry and upset and it is time for us to be heard.

 

http://www.jointheimpact.com/

Read Full Post »

So I’ve been mulling over some of the reasons why the gays in California had their right to marry taken away from them.  On the surface you see California being more liberal in its decisions and view points.  It is home to the Castro District; moreover San Francisco itself is a liberal/gay Mecca.  You have Berkley and so on.  All these free thinking individuals in a state that went blue on Nov. 4th and the gays were still denied had their right to marry taken away.  Not just taken away, the California State Constitution was amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  It’s like taking three giant steps backwards. 

 

As I was sifting though the numerous quantities of internet information on the passing of Prop 8 I stumbled across several pieces of information that I find to be interesting. 

 

First, the Mormons siphoned millions upon millions of dollars (upwards around 22 million dollars!!!) into getting Prop 8 passed.  Alright then, if that’s what they wanted then that is what they got.  Now it’s time to hear my terms and conditions for them.  I want to attend your church.  No I don’t want to go though all the hub-bub of becoming a Mormon…no no no.  I just want to be able to walk into their church and participate…including weddings.  I don’t think that’s much to asking.  I mean since they have taken issue with what goes on in my bedroom then I should be able to see what goes on in their churches…and by go on I mean seeing everything.  Somehow deep inside I don’t think they would let me in.  I wonder why?  Why are they so secretive?  Why can’t I come and participate?  More importantly, why did liberal Californians trust them enough to vote with them?  Why is it that people will follow blindly with a group that won’t open the doors to their church to anyone?  Also why do they get to define what “traditional/traditional marriage is?”  If I’m not mistaken they aren’t necessarily the most traditional group ever.  Well let’s just get one thing straight…If you are a mormon I’m judging you.  Yes, I’m judging you and that’s what you get for following a church that got its beliefs from a man (Joseph Smith Jr.) who found your beliefs on gold plates.

 

The second areas I want to look at are the exit polls regarding Prop 8.  So on a CNN blog they gave the following information on Prop 8 exit polls. (the link will be below)

 

If the trend holds, younger, first-time voters can be said to be responsible for Proposition 8’s defeat. Voters between the ages of 18 and 29 opposed the proposition 66 percent to 34 percent; voters 30-64 were evenly split; voters 65 and above favored the amendment 57 percent to 43 percent.

First-time voters cast their ballots against the proposition by a 64 percent to 36 percent margin. The rest of the electorate favored the amendment 52 percent to 48 percent.

Californians who attend church weekly voted for Proposition 8 by an 83 percent to 17 percent. Those who attended church occasionally voted 40 percent in favor and 60 percent opposed. Californians who never attend church were 14 percent in favor and 86 percent against.

College graduates opposed Proposition 8 by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin. Those without a college degree favored it, 53 percent to 47 percent.

African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 by a 69 percent to 31 percent margin. However, 55 percent of white voters and 52 percent of Hispanics voted against the proposition.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/05/exit-polls-gay-marriage-in-california/

At first looking at this I found nothing to surprising.  I’m not surprised that the educated individuals and the young voters opposed the amendment.  I’m not surprised that those people who attended church regularly supported the amendment.  I mean you eventually get use church goers being blinded and brain washed enough by organized religions to never be able to make decisions for themselves.  Who doesn’t love an antiquated book with a patchwork of stories, the bible, and a priest; aid you in your decision making? **insert sarcasm** 

 

What did surprise me was how the African Americans voted.  A whopping 69% of African Americans voted for Prop 8.  69%.  I find this particularly upsetting considering their own struggles with civil rights.  I took a Civil Rights course while in college and I found it somewhat comforting to know there were others that had to fight for their rights.  They understood our plight.  Granted it wasn’t nearly the same kind of fight, but we could commiserate to some extent.  Well apparently the African Americans do not feel the same way about us gays.  I think it is particularly hard when a marginalized group attacks another marginalized group.  It stings a little more because the connection that we thought, or at least I thought, shared.  Well now it’s just plain HYPOCRISY! 

I just want you to know that you made history not once but twice election night.  You helped vote into office the first African American President…but…you also took rights away from people too…welcome to the majority.

 

Finally, to those of you who will read this blog, don’t share my beliefs, and want to comment.  If I find your comment particularly cruel I’ll remove it.  Also, make sure it’s not anonymous and that I’m able to link back to your blog.  There is nothing less appealing than someone who will insult your stance but are to chicken shit to leave a name or their blog.

Read Full Post »

I hope this finds you well and enjoying your Friday.  Things are good with me, busy, but good.  There are a couple things I’d like to cover.

 

First a questions:  Since I can see Canada from Erie does that mean I have foreign policy experience?  I’m just wondering.

 

Secondly, perhaps if Bush wasn’t to busy trying to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, or trying to define marriage as being between a man and a woman we wouldn’t be in our current financial mess.  ASSHOLE.  For the record, Bush and his buddies were given a surplus of $128 billion.  Check out the article. 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

 

As far as I’m concerned it’s we middle class folk that will be the ones carrying the burden.  Can anyone else see the disconnect that the republicans have with the working class?  What concerns me the most about it is that I’m starting to get use to it.  Isn’t that awful?  Gas prices soar, I have to get use to it.  Food prices skyrocket, I have to get use to it.  The American financial system is a mess; I’ll get use to it.  It’s like I wake up everyday and see some new and senseless problem our government has gotten us into and I’m not surprised any more.

 

One more thing on my political rantyness (I know it’s not a real word).  I love how Palin met with 9 foreign leaders in 30 hours this week.  There’s nothing like a cram session before the debates.  HHHEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOO I don’t know about anyone else but when I would cram for a test the end result was never in my favor. 

 

As for the upcoming debates I would just like to say I hope Palin is ready one, because of the lack of foreign policy experience, and two because she is a woman.  For those of you who will cry that sexism will run rampant and that Biden should go easy on her, you can all go to hell.  We are in a fast paced political arena and Palin had better be ready to carry her own.  This self proclaimed barracuda will have to do battle in the media spotlight and frankly it isn’t going to be pretty.  The other thing is would the world have been willing to give Hillary Clinton an easy run at the debates.  Hell no, they would have tried to tear her apart. 

 

Okay I know I could go on and on about this forever (except its making me sick) but we have more important things to cover…like my love life…or lack there of.

 

 

So currently I’m torn.  I have Steve on one hand.  He’s cute and totally out but he has a certain roughness about him.  Some of the things he has said has been harsh or a little mean.  I’ve had several friends tell me that I could do better which is new dynamic in flirting with him.  Also, I came out to him “officially” a couple nights ago and I think it changed the flirting that was occurring between us.  I don’t want to flirt with him but I just can’t help myself.   Have you ever noticed that when people say they can’t help themselves it usually ends badly with said person having to admit that they made a huge error or lapse in their judgment…I don’t like that.  But when I’m around him I just can’t stop.  I get all school girlish and I’m not normally like that. 

 

Then I have Dave the older guy that sexually harassed me this week (jesus that sounds like a messed up line…Dear Diary, I’m crushin’ on the man that sexually harassed me (said in a school girl voice)).  We exchanged several emails and I find that I’m aroused at the fact that he is older and hitting on me.  But he doesn’t strike me as my type.  If we were ever to get together to do man “activities” I really think it would just be for the gratification of it.  I try not to do fall into that stereotype of instant self gratification that we gays sometime find ourselves stamped with, but my hormones sometimes over power my ability to make sound decisions.

 

I’m very torn…and horny…a dangerous combination…ugh.

 

On a brighter note, it is my almater’s homecoming and Lauren and I have a ton of friends that are in town and staying with us.  I’m uber excited about it.  One because I love my college, two I love my friends, but three, I hope it will take my mind off my current crush crisis.  There will be ample booze to sample and food to eat.  We have our football game etc and its always such a great time!

 

I’ll let you know how the weekend goes in my next post.  Wish me luck with the boys and have a fun filled weekend! Don’t stay indoors blogging to much the days are getting colder, enjoy the weather!

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

So imagine my surprise when I opened up word today to re-write my Palin politic blog and found that the computer somehow recovered the document.  Needless to say I WAS EXCITED.  So below is the blog I was working on. Enjoy.

 

I think it is safe to say that McCain has made a decisive choice in selecting Palin as his running mate.  I mean those of us who were Hillary Clinton supporters are now left with several choices considering she is out of the running for the presidential ticket.  We could vote for Obama and keep to our political party lines, we could vote for McCain and cross party lines, or we could exercise our right to not vote for a presidential/ vice presidential candidate (while there are some out there that believe not voting in the election is a vote for McCain…I look at it as a personal decision that people are allowed to make as long as it is an informed decision and not just out of laziness). 

 

Why shouldn’t McCain make a play for the Hillary voters out there?  I mean they make up a decent voting block.  But, and I stress but, here is the funny thing, just because McCain chose a woman as his running mate doesn’t mean he is going to sway the Hillary supporters.  It’s degrading to think that just because McCain has picked a woman to run on his ticket that Hillary supporters (especially women) are going to flock to his camp.  It feels as if McCain’s camp thinks that women voters will vote for a woman despite her policies.  I’m now going to call this gender voting and if I were a woman I would be repulsed by this assumption McCain’s camp has made.  Also, if McCain is trying to sway Hillary supporters to his side why in the world would he pick a conservative governor?  There are certain policies that appealed to those of us who were going to vote for Hillary if she were a candidate.  Perhaps some of us liked her views on education, or LGBT rights, or her being socially liberal, what about her stances on abortion, the point is Hillary supporters supported her for specific reasons, not just because she’s a woman.  Palin policies do not match Clinton’s policies (okay so they both approve of the death penalty…big whoop).  Strategically speaking, shouldn’t have McCain’s people advised him to pick someone who was more center of the road? 

 

I would just like to point out that in perusing of several blogs that it has come to my attention that McCain was suppose to be on CNN and field questions regarding Palin but he backed out.  The reason for this is that one of the listed questions was going to be asking him name one foreign policy that Palin has backed and McCain felt that was stepping over the line in terms of questioning.   First, asking someone about their foreign policy (especially if they are going to be in the second most powerful position in America) is not crossing the line.  Like all good job interviews it’s nice to know the skills one has.  I’m just saying Palin doesn’t seem to have those skills.  Secondly, it wasn’t like CNN (of all groups) asked about her pregnant unwed child.  That would be below the belt and not something necessarily for the American people to judge (while they do find it easy to judge the gays).  But it also brings up a talking point.  It is only and example, but Palin’s policy on abstinence only sex education.  Let us talk about how it is a flawed policy that has hit home with her.  I think it is very telling about Palin’s ability to govern.  Another point I’d like to make is that this is big time politics here.  And please don’t get me started with her supporting the teaching of creationism in science class.  We are not talking the population of Alaska (and I’m not trying to bash Alaska).  What I’m trying to say is that we are looking at a much larger extended population she would have to deal with and to go from Alaskan politics to world politics is a big change.

 

Let me also ask all of you this…if McCain died in office is this the person that you would want leading out country? 

 

Personally, I don’t want this “hockey Mom” leading out country.  I want a decisive leader who has experience and frankly Palin doesn’t do it for me.

 

Jesus, if McCain and Palin are voted in I’m moving to Canada.  This is going to be a long two months. 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE:   I just found this article please enjoy!  See below http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-steinem4-2008sep04,0,1290251.story

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »