Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘sad’

So today I fully intended a happy fun Christmassy like post then I made the mistake of surfing over to CNN.  I just read the article regarding Obama’s choice for the inaugural invocation.  He has chosen Rick Warren.  Please read the article, the link is below:

 

 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/17/obama.warren/index.html

 

God damn it.  I am thoroughly offended by this!  It’s a slap in the face really.  So Linda Douglass is quoted in the article saying, “”“The president-elect certainly disagrees with him on [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] issues,” Douglass said. “But it has always been his goal to find common ground with people with whom you may disagree on some issues.”” Obviously, he doesn’t disagree with him enough to find his opposition to gay marriage offensive.  It very well may be true, regarding finding common ground with people who disagree on some issues but I’m not some issue nor are my rights.

What people fail to recognize is that my rights are not a bargaining chip.  It isn’t common ground that should be disagreed on, Obama should be championing for our rights.  I’ve come terms with the concept that gay rights are not number one on the agenda (and I hate to admit it because in my mind gay rights should be a high priority unfortunately it’s not shaping up to be that way).  Fine, let’s fix the economy, let’s get out of this war, but remember there were a ton of gay men and women who voted to put Obama into office then he goes off and makes this kind of choice for invocation.  It’s like a big F*** You!

I love the fact that Linda Douglass defends the choice to saying, ““This is going to be the most inclusive, open, accessible inauguration in American history.””  Please, really?  Do you really believe that, as a gay man, I want to go to the inauguration of our President who chose a man, who does not support gay marriage or gay rights, to do the invocation.  Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?  It shows a disconnect with the gay community.

What people don’t understand is the symbolism that his choice holds.  It is symbolic acquiescence to the religious right.  Remember when I posted several months ago and said that I wanted someone in office that would champion rights 100%, this choice shows me Obama’s not the person for it.  I can’t have someone with a luke warm attitude towards my rights in office, and this just shows me that my rights are part of a political agenda.  Instead of standing up for us gays (who many touted with rainbow colored pins with his logo) he chose to try and united political parties, which in my mind was a political move (plain and simple as that).  If Obama can’t see what it means to have this man swear him into office then my biggest fears are being recognized. 

 It just pisses me off to think that Obama chose a man who not only opens supports Prop. 8 but also champions pro-life (for all you ladies out there that are pro choice). 

 

I decided to take a little spin around Obama’s website and found the following quote from Obama,

While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

 

“Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us…” well I feel exploited.   

 

What upsets me is that fact that all my friends were all over Obama.  He had a heavy college aged constituency and I happen to hang out with a lot of college aged people.  I hate the fact that they were upset over the fact that I liked Clinton.  They were stunned that I didn’t jump onto the Obama bandwagon.  But I don’t think they fully understand what its like to compromise your rights for a politician or a political agenda.  I hate the fact that I had a friend tell me Obama was the best that I had at the moment and that I had to look at the greater good for the U.S.  (She meant this in a good way meaning one more advocate in office is better than no advocate at all…ahem McCain/Palin).  Greater good my ass…you see where the greater good is getting me right now.  I’m upset that the gay community was so quick to support Obama.  He was championed so quickly by our community to deliver on gay rights and civil unions (which should be marriages) that now instead of delivering he is more apt. to unite political parties.  It isn’t the fact that the LGBT community supported him that upsets me, it’s the possibility that we could be disappointed by him.  I view my rights as not a political stepping stone.  So when he says he wants to deliver on “equality by treating all citizens with dignity and respect” perhaps he shouldn’t have picked Rick Warren to do the invocation.

 

 

 

 

I’d like to post script this by saying I can’t fault the gay community for supporting Obama.  It is exciting to think that we might have someone in office that is a champion of gay rights (even though gay rights include marriage and not civil unions).  What I think, though, is that we have to ask a lot of our political people we chose to support.  We can’t just support someone when they say they support gay rights, we need to expect them to follow though.  The reason for this is so that those newspapers, gay community supporters, etc. that endorse, endorse, endorse aren’t shocked when something like this happens.

 

I’d like to close with this quote from Andrew Sullivan in the article, “[It’s] shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now.””  It’s a scary quote and I hope he’s wrong, but I have to question is this the start of something, beginning with Rick Warren, that will only serve to disappoint the gay community later down the line?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

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 »

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 »

So first off I would like to say that I’ve officially reached 26 today the 5th of November!  Yes the most important time in American politics lands right on the eve, or on the day of my birthday.  But lets be serious, the American people aren’t really celebrating the election of a new leader for our nation…they are celebrating my…ahem…birth.  To continue celebrating my birth…here is a gratuitous man picture…enjoy…it is my gift to you 😉

 

 

 

 

 

Now let’s get down to brass tacks my friends.  I began my blog several months ago to try and figure out what I lacked and needed to do with my life.  While I look back at my posts and recount the many fun times I’ve had I’ve also noticed that I am not really where I wanted to be by the time I turned 26.  I thought at this point in my life after being partially out of the closet I’d have significant other.  I don’t have a significant other, but I do have someone I full around with pretty consistently…even if he is much older than me.  I thought I’d have a job in my field, I don’t, but Does it count if I’ve applied???  These two notions make me kind of anxious considering I am closing in on 30.  It isn’t that I’m getting older it’s just that I’m not where I thought I’d be in life by 26.  I’m at a state of stasis right now…consistent yet happy, but I’m going to need some changes real soon.  Okay so enough of this feelings conversation…I hope you all go out and have some good old booze gay man fun to celebrate my introduction to the world!  Cheers for now.

 

 

So originally when I finished this blog the 2008 election wasn’t over now that it’s over there are a few things I would like to get off my chest.  First and for most…shame on you Florida, California, Arizona, and Arkansas…you’ve taken away peoples rights.  On what basis did you take these rights away, fear and your religion????  This breaks my heart to know that there are people out there that feel the need to marginalize others.  That is what they did plain and simple.  Secondly, I just want to say that for those of you gay men and women who want to adopt, don’t do it.  I hate to say it and it isn’t pretty to say but if people want to deny marriage then why should we help those children that languish in a state system.  I’ve talked about this before and I genuinely hate to know that children will suffer from this but why should we gays sink money into state systems that feel the need to deny us our right to marry.  I say let the systems fill with children until states realize that these kids could have wonderful loving homes but because of their moral issues they won’t get a home. 

 

I know it crass, mean, and down right deplorable of me to say but why is it that we have to take the moral high road.  You know what I’m saying, that voice in your head, your conscious that goes, “you know even though people have taken your right to marry away we should still adopt because there are children that need us…it’s for them.”  Screw that I’m over being Mr. Nice Gay.  I’m sick and tired about people being so scared of gay marriage.  Is it really that crazy or scary that two men and two women love each other and want the sanctity of a marriage to prove their love and devotion to each other? 

 

 

The other thing that I’m kinda over is people calling us progressive as a nation.  Yes we are progressive but I believe we are selectively progressive.  Don’t get me wrong I’m enthralled at having Obama as my President.  But if we were progressive don’t you think that gay rights would have won.  People “selected” not to progress gay rights.  We only choose to be progressive when we want to or when the time is right.  We tout being progressive but I just think we pick and choose our areas of progression based on how we feel at that time.  I mean we chose to progress in some areas of animal rights and abortion. 

 

 

On a final note I just want to say I hope Obama and Biden stay true to their word protecting what gay rights we have.  I have said from the beginning that I was a Clinton supporter, but when she did not get the nod for the presidential position I was left with Obama and McCain…obviously I would not vote for McCain so that left Obama.  The hardest thing for me to swallow about Obama was that both he and Biden stood up and said they will protect gay rights but believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.  First, I believe marriage is a right that should be given to me…and currently the states show that they don’t believe in that right, secondly, people look to Obama and Biden as not only leaders of our nation but as moral leaders too.  When these two men stood up at the debates and said they believed that marriage was between a man and a woman they told people that is okay to give certain rights to gays.  They made it okay, they made it comfortable, acceptable, for people to give certain rights to the gays while still holding them an arms length away from total equality.  Because of this I came down with the choice of either not voting for Obama or compromising the feelings I have about equality for gays for the greater good.  That’s not an easy decision to be asked or to be made.  What makes the decision even worse is that Obama is in office and that is great but will he and Biden do anything to help the gays in the state that just had their rights to adoption and marriage taken away from them, or will they just support the rights for gays to visit their loved ones in hospitals etc?  I think it is an important question we have to ask ourselves and our new President and our new Vice President.  Like I said I’m not bashing Obama and Biden.  I am just a concerned, marginalized, second class citizen who has questions and is hoping for change.

 

Okay now I’m over my political rant.  This should be a happy day so as a gift to me go out and get drunk and have some crazy gay fun times with the people you care about the most. 

 

 

P.S. Congrats to Obama and Biden!  Let hear it for change!

 

 

P.P.S.  I think it’s kind cool that I get to share my birthday with a significan piece of American history!!!!!

 

 

 

I’m making my birthday wish and it’s for some of the items below! 😉

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 »

So I have a few bones to pick with the state of Arkansas.  What in the world are they doing with this ban on adoptions for unmarried individuals?  See the link below:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080825/ap_on_re_us/gay_foster_ban

 

There are a few levels here that need to be discussed.  First, this is supposedly going to be on the ballot in November, meaning there is still a chance to overrule this proposal.  Secondly, I can understand the hesitation to allow unmarried individuals to adopt, but on the flip side doesn’t a state agency look into this sort of thing?  I believe there are requirements that have to be fulfilled if an adoption between two people should occur.  Thirdly, since Arkansas doesn’t allow for gay marriage gay men and women are, for all intensive purposes, unable to adopt.  Take this into consideration.  Let’s say we have a straight unmarried couple who wants to adopt.  The only thing that this couple has to do, other than pass state clearance for adoption, is get married.  They can literally walk down to the courthouse on a lunch break and have a Justice of the Peace marry them, whereas gay men and women can’t. 

 

As mentioned in article it was the Arkansas Family Council that brought this to fruition.

“Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers,” Family Council President Jerry Cox said. “We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible.” 

Gold standard my ass, this infuriates me because these people hide behind marriage jargon when all it really is rhetoric that says that adoption is only good for straight people because churches define marriage as being between a man and a woman.  As if marriage determines the ability for people to raise a child.

 

But, I think the most important aspect of this whole thing is the children that are involved.  It kills me to think that there are people out there, like Jerry Cox, that would rather a child stay in a state system than let gay couples adopt him or her.  That is what it really comes down to.  Their moral standard doesn’t help the children that are waiting to be adopted…in fact I will even go as far as to say that their (Arkansas Family Council) moral righteousness is keeping children in the state system.  What is good about that?  What is good about denying a child a good home because the couple just happens to be gay?  The mean, cynical gay part of me says screw them and their proposal let them do what they want; I’m fed up with dimwitted idiots like Jerry Cox trying to be a straight martyr.  Then I think of those kids in the system who deserve a good home and I know that we have to stop blatant discrimination like this.  This is messed up.

 

On the upside though Arkansas’s Families First is campaigning against the measure!  “”We’re going to work very hard to defeat this because it is just bad policy for children,” Willhite said.  Debbie Willhite is a consultant for Families First.

 

 

I do have one more tiny little rant to cover.  Madonna during her Sticky and Sweet tour made a tiny reference to McCain…a reference that compared him to Robert Mugabe….and Hitler. 

 

See the link below:

 

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1593432/20080825/madonna.jhtml 

 

Now let me reiterate that in a past post I bashed McCain’s camp for making ludicrous comparisons between Brittney Spears, Parish Hilton, and Obama.  I have to say that Madonna’s comparison is absurd as well.  Don’t get me wrong the liberal part of me is cheering for her!  And, I also have to suspect that this piece political “discourse” didn’t hurt her in ticket sales either if you get what I’m saying.  Political uproar is always edgy, controversial…and a great money maker.

 

And rightly so McCain’s camp has done damage control denounced the negatively charged comments saying, “”The comparisons are outrageous, unacceptable and crudely divisive all at the same time,” said Tucker Bounds, A McCain campaign spokesman.  “It clearly shows that when it comes to supporting Barack Obama, his fellow worldwide celebrities refuse to consider any smear or attack off limits.”

 

You know what I have to say about that:

 

HYPOCRITES

 

The whole McCain camp is full of hypocrites.  So it is okay for McCain’s camp to put out a PAID (yes paid as in campaign funds donated by McCain supporters used to shoot a video) video comparing Obama to Spears and Hilton.  Then when a private citizen chooses to make a big statement in the same manner against McCain, the camp is shocked and sickened by it.  How could McCain’s people not see this one coming?  I think the best part of this whole thing is that McCain paid to have his video against Obama done and Madonna just hauled off and put it into her tour for no money.

 

No I lied I think the best part of the whole debacle is that Obama’s camp came out and denounced Madonna’s political jabs while still sticking to McCain supporters.  Tommy Vetor, a spokesperson for Obama’s camp, also spoke out about Madonna’s controversial move. “These comparisons are outrageous and offensive and have no place in the political process,” he said in a statement to CNN. “We hope that John McCain will offer a similar condemnation as his allies increasingly practice sleazy swift-boat politics.”

Booyah!!!!!!

I just want you to remember that it was McCain’s camp that opened Pandora’s Box here, and that they paid for a celebutack (see below).  Where as Obama is playing with clean political campaigning.

(celebutack- c-leb-you-tac- n. meaning the use of one’s celebrity, whether it be of paid or personal use, to attack ones opponent.)

Read Full Post »

You know I was going to discuss my weekend in OH then I saw this article on cnn.com and it made me sick. (See the link below)

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/28/church.shooting/index.html

 

 

This man in Tennessee goes into a liberal church, which he targeted for being liberal and killed two and wounded seven of the church goers.  Then thinking he would be killed by the police he left a note discussing how liberals and Democrats were causing America to fall into decline, and then he discussed how he did not like “hated” gay people. 

 

You know what make me so angry about this whole situation is that he believes that liberals are the cause for the decline of America.  This is coming from the person who brought a shot gun to a children’s performance at a church.  His reasoning is skewed and I find it ironic that he blames people like myself for America’s troubles when in actuality it is people like him that are to blame for the problems in America.  Instead of being tolerant of others and allowing for liberal and conservative ideas to co-exist he goes and tries to eliminate the “liberal movement.”

 

I mean in actuality if one would look at the entire picture they would see the ironic natures of this incident.  The shooting took place at a church, a place of worship and community.  A place where people find solace in times of need, a place where people are TAUGHT TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR etc!  It funny because this guy, I can’t even bare to type his name in this blog because he doesn’t deserve the notoriety of being blogged about, is upset about the decline of American (which I suspect he is thinking about the morality of America) and he is the one that halls off shoots a bunch of people in a church.  It’s ironic that he thinks the liberal agenda is the decline of America; it wasn’t the liberal that brought the gun to church. 

 

On two final notes, in the article the police say that the man was upset because “the liberal movement was getting more jobs… And he felt like he was being kept out of the loop because of his age.”  I would just like to say that perhaps it wasn’t his age or the liberals keeping him from getting a job, perhaps it was because he was FUCKING NUTS.

 

Lastly, three of the seven victims that had been shot had come to the church for the first time.  Again, it’s ironic that the shooter touted in his letter that “because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement … he would then target those that had voted them into office.” That’s funny because I find it hard to believe that he would be able to deduce the liberals in that church when voting for governmental positions are done by secret ballot (just because someone goes to a liberal church does not mean they are liberal) and three of his victims were at the church for the first time.

 

This is sad and upsetting.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »