Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, why did you have to come out of hiding? I was enjoying the moments of peace and quiet since you went back to Alaska. But, lo and behold, the silence is broken. You wrote a book, which you are now promoting. Le Sigh.
Okay, I'm done . . . for the moment. Go here, read the article on cnn.com and then hop back over for my deep, intellectual thoughts and insights on . . . sexism according to The Rogue!
Basically, Newsweek's cover shows Sarah Palin in a running outfit. Mrs. Palin believes that the photo is sexist.
Okay, I'll bite . . . why??
I have no clue why. Personally, if she thought the running outfit was sexist, why was she wearing it in the first place? I mean, seriously. She put the outfit on. She had no problem wearing the outfit for a photo shoot with a running magazine, and yet when another magazine puts said picture on their cover . . . it's sexist.
Yeah, the logic escapes me as well.
If the outfit is sexist on Newsweek shouldn't it be considered sexist on Runners World? Does context really matter in this instance?
Of course it doesn't.
Don't you like how I keep answering my own questions???
I guess Mrs. Palin has nothing better to do than attempt to draw as much attention to herself on her book promotion tour . . . .hhhmmmmm, is that the smell of strategy??? Oh, I get it, do whatever you can to get on the news so you can mention your book. Ahhh, I'll have to remember that one in the near future.
Well, at least Mrs. Palin is good inspiration for this blog.
I do have some advice for Mrs. Palin: if you don't want pictures of yourself, in a shorty-short-short running outfit that some (namely yourself) consider sexist, then I wouldn't pose in the outfit in the first place. I'm just saying . . .
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, why did you have to come out of hiding? I was enjoying the moments of peace and quiet since you went back to Alaska. But, lo and behold, the silence is broken. You wrote a book, which you are now promoting. Le Sigh.
Posted by Scott at 4:32 PM
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
So, the GOP won a few elections. Woo-hoo!
It's too bad that the winners of those elections aren't going to do anything different than any other politician does when they win the election. They are not going to fulfill their campaign promises. They are not going to try to effect change. They are going to continue the stagnation of the political spectrum and crush the hopes and dreams of the people who elected them into office.
My main question here: Why are you a Democrat/Republican?
I can answer that question for the majority of people: You are a Democrat/Republican because your parents were, your grandparents were, your great-grandparents were and down through the generations to the founding of America.
Probably 85% of the time people don't choose their political party, it is chosen for them by their parents.
Well, let me tell you, the smartest thing (like how I tied in the title of the post) my parents ever did was . . . let us choose our own political affiliation.
My parents never once, never, while we were growing up, discussed politics with us. Not. Once. By the time I turned 18 and could register to vote . . . I had no clue to my parents' political affiliation. Not! A! Clue!
My parents believed in their children enough to let them decide things on their own without providing undue influence.
Now, if I'd asked, I'm sure Mom or Dad might have said well, we're . . . Then again, they might have said well, you need to make this decision on your own, based on your feelings, and not ours. I'd really like to think they'd go with that option. In fact, they did go with that option by not influencing me at all.
They did that with a lot of other things as well.
My siblings and I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. My parents were from the South. My siblings and I never knew our parents were prejudice until we were all grown, out of the house, and had our own lives?
Well, because being highly intelligent individuals, my parents didn't enforce their belief systems on their children. They didn't enforce their religious beliefs, their political beliefs, or anything on us. They let us make our own decisions, and some mistakes as well . . . and learn from those decisions, and the mistakes. Oh, and trust me, my political affiliation wasn't one of the mistakes. The perm in the 90s . . . yeah, that was a mistake!
The sad thing with our current political system, and the voters electing these people into office - the majority of them probably have no clue why they are voting Republican/Democrat. They're just like lemmings - following the leader off the cliff to their ultimate death.
Just because a person's parents vote Republican/Democrat, doesn't mean said person has to vote the same way. Unfortunately, too few people realize this truly amazing fact of life.
So, the GOP wins some, the Democrats win some, each side claims VICTORY and yet, there is no victory because the American people are the ones who suffer because the politicians all go in to office with an agenda that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the promises they made to get elected in the first place. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 8:10 AM
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Another neighbor told the Herald Sun she had her suspicions about the father but did not want to interfere.
"I didn't go to anybody, because it wasn't anybody's business," she told the paper.
She added that the woman who encouraged the victim to contact police "has always been a busybody."
Have we as a society reached a point where we no longer care?
The above italicized section is an excerpt from an article you can find here (cnn.com). Long story short - man began sexually abusing his daughter in 1970 . . . and continued the abuse almost daily until 2007. 37 years. The man fathered four children, one of which died, all of which had defects, with his daughter.
Now, the story is horrifying to begin with, let alone the neighbor's attitude.
I know, people just don't want to get involved. People just want to live their ordinary little lives and pretend everything is find and dandy.
Everything is not fine and dandy. A woman was sexually abused by her father for 37 years. 37 years. 37 years. She had four children . . . by her father. Oh, and her mother's comments . . . "We lived in a big house, so I wouldn't have known".
She wouldn't have known.
She wouldn't have known.
She wouldn't have known!!!!
How in the frak can you not know that your husband is having sex with your daughter . . . for 37 years?? 37 years!!!!!
Seriously! Then, the lovely neighbor that it's not their place.
At some point, it is somebody's place! At some point in time, we as humans, need to stand up for the dignity of life. At some point in time, we as humans, need to say enough is enough.
37 years, people, and the lovely neighbor says "I didn't go to anybody, because it wasn't anybody's business".
Yes, it is somebody's business. At some point in time, somebody needs to care enough. If we stop caring, if we let abuse continue for 37 years - 37 years - then we are no better than the animals we kill on a daily basis to feed ourselves. If we stop caring, if we let abuse continue for 37 years - 37 years - then we are . . . well . . . we're no longer human.
Posted by Scott at 11:11 AM
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
So, Nashville's Metro Council passed the sexual orientation discrimination bill which means business cannot discriminate against a person based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Woo-hoo.
There were mostly yeas in the passage of this bill.
There were, of course, some nays as well.
One strong opponent, voicing his dissent, his moral opinion, was a minister from a local church. Go figure.
I mean, this man, on his moral soapbox, basically said (well, not in so many words, but . . .) it is okay, okay, I tell you, to discriminate against gays and lesbians. God would want you to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
Okay, he didn't say that, but, for all intents and purposes this man of God (written with a shake of the head and a snide chuckle . . . man of God . . . PLEASE!), believes, believes I tell you, that allowing non-discrimination to my people (gays and lesbians, people, just in case you didn't have a clue) is morally wrong. In fact, this lovely enlightened (insert snark here) individual actually said We obviously realize this is not a discrimination issue this is a moral issue we believe Council tonight has sanctioned an immoral lifestyle.
First, I must digress. Lifestyle? WTF? Seriously people, it's genetics, pure and simple, no question. Lifestyle? Geesh!
Second . . . this man is probably just jealous of the immoral things I can do in the . . .
Now, back to our scheduled rant . . .
Yes, the people from the Land of Delusion are alive and well . . . and unfortunately living in Nashville, TN.
Oh, did I mention this opponent is a minister? Why, yes, I believe I did, but I'd thought I'd remind you just for kicks.
He is A. Man. Of. God!! Why do I have the sense of an echoing, computer generated voice saying those words over and over again????
Oh, did I mention that it appears he allegedly believes he is the moral compass for Nashville. Boy, he must carry a lot of weight on those tiny shoulders.
Oh, did I mention he wore his fancy - I'm a hetero and only heteros deserve equality - sticker on his nicely pressed shirt?? Awwww, how cute. His drones wore them as well. They looked so, well, gay with their matching stickers . . . sorry, these things just tumble out of my head sometimes.
I mean, seriously people.
Basically, this man and his drones believe . . . it is okay to discriminate. They, in fact, support discrimination. They, in fact, promote discrimination with their cutesy little stickers of a stick man and woman (really, it was the symbols that appear on bathroom doors - irony, people, irony so sharp it hurts) holding hands.
I mean, these people, really think they are capable of deciding an issue this big for E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y!
So, go forth . . . and discriminate!
It's okay, really it is, well at least according to the people with the bathroom symbols stuck to their chests!
My final thought (for now) . . . what if my people were put on Earth as a test for the allegedly morally righteous? Huh? What if? I mean, seriously, if my people are a test, you darn well know who just failed that test . . . Seriously, you do, you can find them by the bathroom symbols stuck to their chests. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 7:13 AM
Thursday, August 06, 2009
The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective - see full aritcle here.
I mean, seriously, people!!! I cannot (okay, I can) believe that there are so many ignorant (no allegedly about this one) people out there that think a person born gay (genetics, people, not choice) can suddenly turn straight. Yeah, a gay man can have sex with a woman. OMG!! But, you dang well know why his eyes are closed and what he's fantasizing about . . . and it's not the woman beneath him.
So, I mean, this whole issue just confuses me. I really think the people that think gays can go straight are really just faux heterosexuals struggle with their own genetic make-up. They want to believe it's all a choice and not genetics, that therapy can cure the sickness, because it makes them feel better about their own conflicting emotions about their genetic make-up.
I mean, can we spend any more money on pointless issues???? I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 7:50 AM
Sunday, July 19, 2009
So, I’m out the other night and I see this guy I had relations with long ago and far away, in another place and time. He was older, not as slender, and his hair showing the signs of age. Oh, it was still thick and luxuriant, but grayer now. My first thought (shallow) was how the mighty have fallen. I mean, where was, as my friend Lori once said, the dark, pagan god. Okay, she didn’t say that, but it sounds really good, so I used it. She actually saw him from a distance the first time, on a misty night. He was standing beneath a street light, wearing a long coat, and she was like oh, my God, he’s gorgeous. Yes, he was. It was a different time and place in my life.
So, the mighty dark and pagan god is not aging as well as he could. Heck, does anyone really age as well as they could? Its constant work, trust me on that – exercise, eating right (for the most part), and trying to stave off the years the best that I can.
Once I got beyond my shallow (hey, it happens, get over it) thoughts, I came to another realization: he still had it, only in a different way. He wasn’t pursuing the younger men (he’s a few years older, but always went for the youngish types) this time. This time, the man he was pursuing – flirting, joking, smiling, dancing to the music – was a man probably 15 – 20 years his senior.
How the mighty have fallen!
Did he somehow realize that – extra weight, grey hair, the signs of youth no longer present – he couldn’t attract the younger men? Did the vibrancy of his personality somehow diminish with that realization? I mean, here was this man (the welcome wagon of Nashville – different story, another post, perhaps a book) who relentlessly and successfully pursued younger men, dancing and flirting with an older man. I mean, he had cards with his name and number on them. Seriously, people, cards. Now, the mighty have fallen.
Is gaydom so jaded that when men reach a certain age that stop going after what they want and start going after what they don’t want? Did he reach some age and realize that he would have to settle for something less? Is gaydom geared only to the young and the old have no chance at all?
So, the mighty fell and this man (me, in case you’re wondering) wonders why? I wonder if everybody reaches a point in their life when they give up on what they want?
I mean, I’m lucky. I found Frank fifteen years ago. The road to happiness has been rocky at times, but we survived. We love one another. We work through our problems. But, a different path in life, and me alone at 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 – what path would I choose? Would I sacrifice all my beliefs for companionship? Would I sacrifice what I truly wanted just so I wasn’t alone?
Did Mr. Dark Pagan God do just that? Do older gay men everywhere do the same thing?
I don’t have the answers to my questions. I just know that the mighty fell, and it wasn’t pretty.
Yeah, this post is probably a bit judgmental. That’s not my intent. My intent is to pose the question: at what point do we give up on ourselves and accept less than we deserve?
Mr. Dark Pagan God dancing, joking, flirting with a man he wouldn’t (trust me on that) have looked at twice 16 years ago when I first knew him. Did the onset of age change his perspective on life? Did the fear of loneliness cause him to rearrange his thought pattern to allow him to flirt with someone – here/now – that he would have ignored 16 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago?
I’m just wondering . . .
Posted by Scott at 4:44 PM
Friday, July 17, 2009
Why is the media still focusing on South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford? Yes, the man had an affair. So what? His affair doesn't merit the constant media attention.
Did his affair affect his duties as Governor? Did his affair stop him from doing his job? Did his affair cause the United States to go to war with some foreign country? Did his affair cause the recession? Did his affair cause the housing crisis? Did his affair . . .
Well, the obvious answer is: NO! So, why in the frak is the media still focusing on this issue? A FL couple was brutally murdered in their home this week while their nine developmentally disabled children slept. 8 people have been arrested so far. Still, Gov. Sandford is making news. Still, we're talking about a man who had an affair.
As M'Lynn in Steel Magnolias once said . . . 'why, why, why, why, whhhhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyy!'
I mean seriously, people, the only reason this issue is still in the news is because the Gov. political opponents want him out of office. His opponents are not (at least in my opinion) doing this because of their high moral values, but rather because they are opportunistic political rats who see an opportunity for their party to take a position of power. That's it in a nutshell, dear readers. Morality has nothing to do with Gov. Sanford still being in the news. I'm just saying . . .
p.s. yes, the affair was wrong, he shouldn't have done it, but is it any more wrong than 99.9% of politicians breaking all their campaign promises once they get in office?????? I don't think so.
Posted by Scott at 7:54 AM
Thursday, July 09, 2009
In a bold, brave, stunning, extraordinary, and so many other postive exclamatory (in a good way words), Massachusetts is suing the U.S. government, challenging DOMA! Article below or you can go here. Woo-hoo!
(CNN) -- Massachusetts sued the U.S. government on Wednesday, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"We're taking this action today because, first, we believe that [the Defense of Marriage Act] directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents," Attorney General Martha Coakley said Wednesday afternoon.
"Massachusetts has a single category of married persons, and we view all married persons equally and identically," she said.
"DOMA divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage."
The lawsuit argues that the act, which became law in 1996, denies same-sex couples essential rights and protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.
"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state wrote in the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in federal court.
Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, said that about 16,000 same-sex couples have been married there since 2004, when it began issuing marriage licenses. Since that time, the lawsuit said, "the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state. "
The state is challenging Section 3 of the law, which defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and a spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Before the act, the lawsuit argues, defining marital status was the prerogative of the states.
The law "eviscerated more than 200 years of federal government deference to the states with respect to defining marriage," it said.
The lawsuit also argues that the law forces Massachusetts to treat same-sex married couples differently from heterosexual married couples, particularly through determining who qualifies for the state's Medicaid program, known as MassHealth, and whether a same-sex spouse of a veteran can be buried in a veteran cemetery.
"But for DOMA, married individuals in same-sex relationships in the commonwealth would receive the same status, obligations, responsibilities, rights, and protections as married individuals in different-sex relationships under local, state, and federal laws," the lawsuit said.
The defendants named in the lawsuit include the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki and the United States itself.
Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said the department will review the case but noted that President Obama supports the legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.
In March, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- the same Boston-based group that successfully argued in 2003 for same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts -- also sued the federal government over Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Besides Massachusetts, three other states recognize same-sex marriages: Connecticut, Maine, and Iowa. Vermont and New Hampshire will join their company when same-sex marriages become legal later this year and early next year. (www.cnn.com 07/08/2009)
Posted by Scott at 7:01 AM
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Those are the words Sarah Palin should have spoken in her most recent interview.
So, Sarah Palin has resigned as governor of Alaska and proved once again that she has no clue what she's talking about.
Her latest statement: I'm not a quitter, I'm a finisher!" Okay, she quit her job, which makes her a quitter. She didn't finish her job as governor, so, uh, doesn't that maker her a non-finisher??? I'm just saying . . .
I mean, seriously, people, does she actually think she's the hope of the Republican party? Oh, and then there's a new poll out there that said 7 out of 10 Republicans would vote for her. What about the other 3? Oh, that's right, they're going to vote Democrat because they can't stand her! Woo-hoo! Why, woo-hoo? Well, figure it out, if every 3 out of 10 Republicans votes Democrat, plus the majority of Democrats voting Democrat, well, that should push the Democrat to a win. Yeah, I know, the 3 out of 10 Republicans will probably just not vote. Woo-hoo! 3 out of 10 less Republicans voting!
Hey, do you realize Sarah Palin just created a Win/Win situation! First time I've had something positive to say about the woman.
Yes, I'm being a bit snarkity-snark-snark this morning. I'm allowed. I thought after the election I wouldn't have to hear about Sarah Palin. I hoped beyond hope that she would go back to Alaska and fade into the background. Well, so much for the hopes of millions upon millions of people. Like a bad check, she keeps bouncing back into the spotlight. I mean, can't we have a Sarah Palin free 10 year period, or something like that? I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 8:00 AM
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
So, David Letterman made some inappropriate (is anyone really surprised) jokes about Bristol Palin. Sarah Palin, of course, her fifteen minutes of fame over (thankfully) used this opportunity to jump back (hopefully very briefly) into the spotlight.
Now, the joke was in very poor taste. Still, it was a joke, and people need to get a life.
Now this from cnn.com . . .
CNN) — Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is accepting comedian David Letterman's apology over the controversial joke directed at her daughter, but says she hopes "men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve."
"Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction," Palin said in a statement. "And this is all thanks to our U.S. Military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's Right to Free Speech – in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."
Palin's comments come hours after the late night talk show host formally apologized for the off-color joke he made last week about one of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's daughters that set off a war of words between the Letterman and the Palin family.
"It was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it," Letterman said in the opening monologue of Monday night's show.
Meanwhile John Ziegler, the conservative radio talk show host who has made a film about Palin, is set to lead a protest Tuesday outside the theater where Letterman's show is taped. Ziegler is calling for the late night host’s ouster.
Now, my response . . .
First Paragraph - seriously?? Evolve?
Second Paragraph - I'm sorry, isn't it a bit hypocritical for Sarah Palin to tout free speech, when she's blasting Letterman for utilizing his right to free speech? Oh, and what does the military have to do with the whole joke incident. Nothing. As usual, Sarah Palin demonstrates her inability to carry on a coherent conversation. Yes, both parties made their point. The fact is, neither point should have gained the media attention they did.
Third/Fourth Paragraph - personally, I don't think he owed anybody an apology. I'm sorry, there are greater issues facing this country right now then whether or not somebody made an inappropriate joke. Equality is being denied to the GLBT community on a daily basis. President Obama is breaking (did anyone expect anything less) the promises he made to get elected. We're still in Iraq. The recession is still here. David Lettrerman's inappropriate joke should not be the news story of the day.
Fifth Paragraph - would John Ziegler be arranging a protest outside of Letterman's show if he hadn't made a film about Palin? NO! The protest is just his way of promoting his film. Enough Said!
So, if you want to care about something . . . care about the denial of equality, the recession, the war in Iraq, and anything except the silliness (yes, I just devoted a blog post to this - go figure) surrounding a joke. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 11:17 AM
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Sad, but true . . . go here to read the blog post.
Recently . . .
A same-sex couple and their three foster children were denied a reduced admission price to a pool in eastern Idaho because the Lava Hot Springs State Foundation says the five don't fit the definition of a family.
Amber Koger and Jeri Underwood say they and their three children were recently denied the resort's advertised family admission price to the Olympic Swimming Complex at Lava Hot Springs.
The reason (you're gonna love this) . . . the state of Idaho doesn't recognize gay or lesbian marriage and defines a family as one male, one female and children.
So, what's wrong with the above definition? Have you figured it out yet? I bet you have. Basically, with this definition the following are excluded . . .
- Divorced mother with two children - she's missing the man, therefore she's not considered a family by the Idaho definition.
- Divorced father with three children - he's missing the woman, therefore . . .
- Widowed mother/father with four children - missing the man/woman . . .
- Married man and woman with one child - their missing the children, therefore . . . oh, yes, the definition clearly uses the plural children rather than child(ren) which would have been the proper definition.
- Single mother/father w/children . . . again, missing the other half, therefore not a family and not eligible for the discounted rate.
This is too sad, but also - in an ironic way - kind of funny. I really think the couple involved needs to sue the State, request membership records and find out how many non-family units received the discounted rates. The State should then have to go back and collect all the back money due them since those people were paying the wrong rate. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 12:12 PM
Below are four, blogs I found throug an article on www.advocate.com. These are basically blogs dealing with issues for the GLBT community.
The four blogs below are the ones I'm currently - probably much to my dismay, and problem great fodder for this blog - following:
Here's the full list, in no particular order:
Some of the blogs are gossip blogs, some political, and some very important news blogs for the community. So, if you're one of my people, or if you're not ignorantly inclined and care about equality and justice for all . . . check them out. They're definitely interesting and thought provoking . . . well, at least the four I follow. Some of the other ones . . .
Posted by Scott at 7:38 AM
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
. . . do men, if they ever had it in the first place, lose all fashion sense? I mean, is there some line that men (well, the majority of them, mainly hetero, but some of my people as well) cross when suddenly they begin to dress in a more hideous fashion than normal?
This morning, driving to work, enjoying a pleasant day and then - BAM - the Fashion SWAT team is swarming over two men wearing shorts, and socks up to their frakkin' knees. Yes, their frakkin' knees. I think they had to call out the SWAT team because one of the men was wearing dark socks.
So, now you see the whole point of this post. Pretty soon, I'm sure those men will be wearing shorts down to their knees and socks up to their knees. Please, shoot me if you ever see me dressed like that and it's not Halloween.
Now, as someone still under 50 . . . if I'm wearing shorts and tennis shoes, I wear the little footie socks. I don't wear socks that cover my ankles. Why? Because it's WRONG people, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! Repeat after me: WRONG! Of course, I wear the footies because I have excellent calves and ankles and just like showing them off. I'm just saying . . . But, back to this snark filled post . . . why, people, why, the need to wear socks up to your knees once you reach a certain age? My father - much to the dismay of his four children who had to go out in public with him - did the same thing. I'm still in therapy over that incident, among other things from my childhood. Are men genetically predispositioned to do these things? Is there no hope for me?
Oh, and while I'm on the subject of fashion: socks with sandals is a definite no-no! Never, no matter the reason, wear socks with your sandals. Frank, if you're reading this blog: this means you! Oh, and white socks with dress shoes - NO! Again, Frank, if you're reading this blog: this means you. Picture it, Frank and I out for a night at the theater. He's dressed so nice - dress shirt, khaki, dress shoes. He's a fine looking man. We sit down, he crosses his leg, his khakis ride up to reveal . . . white socks. I was so horrified I sat in another row. Kidding. I did make him put both feet on the floor and promise me never, ever, not in a gazillion years, to do that ever, ever, ever again. Now, before we leave the house, I do a sock check. Hey, it's my duty to keep the fashion police as far away from us as possible.
Last, men in their 60s or above, overweight, covered in hair, should not, under any circumstances, wear a speedo! I think I just went blind!
Posted by Scott at 6:57 AM
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
To say I'm disappointed in the California State Supreme Court's ruling regarding the discriminatory Proposition 8 is an understatement. Yes, the court ruled - for the most part - against equality. Go here for the full story.
How can denying someone equality be considered justice? How can saying that 18,000 people have the right to be married under the law and that thousands of others don't is equality? It is is not. It is, plain and simple, DISCRIMINATION. Repeat after me - DISCRIMINATION.
And that, dear readers, is all I have the energy for right now. I don't have the energy to rant and rave against the INJUSTICE served to the GLBT Community today. I don't have the ability to organize my thoughts and provide a thought provoking blog post. I just have a huge, huge amount of disappointment that is so frakkinly overwhelming!
I mean, seriously, people, get a life and get a clue. Justice doesn't exist for everybody in the United States. Equality doesn't exist either. And I . . . I . . . just don't know any more. What's the point? How long should the GLBT Community sit idly by as we are openly discriminated against time and time again? How long should we hope for resolution when it is obvious that resolution only exists for heterosexual people? At what point do we just give up?
We don't. We keep on fighting for EQUALITY! We keep on fighting for JUSTICE. We keep on fighting against blatant, outright, oppressive DISCRIMINATION. We do what we must, we fight the fight, and we keep on going. Why?
I'll tell you why. No, wait, I'll let Catherine Cash Spellman tell you why by using a quote from her book Bless the Child . . .
"What will I do?" she cried into the hot desert wind.
"You will fight against Fate and the Devil and the world and God and everybody, if you must! That's where the dignity lies. You can't control what they do to you. Only what you do in return. This is no fair game we've been sent to play here. Hateful things happen. People die. People suffer. People are born with no limbs, no sight, no hearing. Courage! That's all there is!"
We must have courage and we must continue the fight for EQUALITY. We cannot give up in the face of obvious DISCRIMINATION and INJUSTICE. We must have . . . courage!
Posted by Scott at 2:12 PM
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
When did we lose our right to decide what is best . . . for ourselves, and our children? Okay, I don't have any children, but . . .
It's been all over the news about a mother who didn't want chemotherapy for her son. A judge (thus, my question) ruled that her son must receive the chemotherapy. The mother has since fled with her son rather than submit him to the chemotherapy.
Isn't that her right? Shouldn't a parent have the final say about the best interest of his/her child? Why shouldn't this mother be allowed to seek alternative therapy for her son's condition? What right does a judge (any court for that matter) have to decide that a mother's decision is not in the best interest of a child?
Chemotherapy works . . . in some instances. Chemotherapy is also very aggressive. Some people choose not to take chemotherapy. My friend and co-worker Frances was one of those people. Five years ago she was diagnosed with breast cancer which metastasized to the bones. They doctor gave her 5 to 10 years to live. At first, she was gung ho about the chemo. After receiving chem for a time, Frances made the choice to stop all treatments. You see, the treatment was worse than the disease itself. This was her choice, and one I firmly believe she was allowed to make.
Frances was a fighter. Eventually, the doctor gave her 3 to 6 months to live. Ha! Frances beat those odds. In the end, after more than 4 1/2 years battling her cancer - with the most upbeat attitude I've ever seen - she passed from this life into the next. She died fighting, to the very end. She died with her wishes - no chemo - honored by all those who loved her.
So, why should a judge, even if he thinks it is in the best interest of the child, demand that a child go through chemo. Does the judge have any clue how devastating chemo is? Does he have any clue about some of the consequences of chemo?
I seriously don't know, and don't care. I just think that if parents wish to seek alternative treatment for their children, and if the consequences have been explained to the child, then they should be allowed to do so. We are not a third world country. His parents - at least in my opinion - are not monsters. They are just trying to do what they think is best for their child.
So, the mother and child are on the run, an arrest warrant has been issued, and the freedoms we are allegedly allowed in this country (at least for this mother and child) are seriously in doubt.
In the end, if it were me, and no seeking treatment was what I thought was the best decision for me, I would hope that my decision would be honored.
I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 9:29 AM
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
This morning, my email buddy asked the following question: Did you see the clip of the newscaster from DC during a discussion of outing politicians?
My initial response before doing the YouTube thang . . .
Now, here's my thing (I see a blog post in my future) about outing people. Don't do it. Yeah, the politician might be voting against our people and proclaiming how homosexuality is wrong, blah, blah, blah . . . but at what point do we have the right to out somebody. Yes, said politician (or car dealership owner in Nashville) is a hypocrite. Yes, they're wrong in allegedly living a gay life on the side while proclaiming the wrongness of heterosexuality. Hyposhit happens every day. I just don't think anybody has a right to out somebody. Now, after I find the newscast, my opinion might change, but I seriously doubt it. In the end, what is the greater good? Is it outing a politician that has voted against equality for our people? Is it destroying a man's family, devastating the wife, the kids, the parents, in one simple newscast? Would you want a local news reporter to out you? Probably not. Coming to terms with homosexuality is not an easy road. You and I have been there, done that, and have the multiple t-shirts. People lose their families, more often than not, when they come out (and who the heck came up with that term in the first place??). Very few people (okay, Frank is an exception) come bursting out of the closet wearing a sparkly dress, tiara, and open-toed silver pumps, saying Hey, Girls! Sorry, but snark was necessary at this point. The fact is, that no matter the hypocrites that continue to flaunt their faux heterosexuality for all the world to see, while cheating on their waves with male interns, the outing of anybody needs to be done by one person: the gay man trying to come to terms with his/her genetic make-up. That's just my feeling on the matter.
Now, since my email response, I have done the YouTube thang, and, well, I kinda agree with the reporter saying that outing people is wrong (see my response above).
Now, the bigger question: Do I think it right for closeted politicians to vote for legislation that openly (or subtly) discriminates against Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered people?
HELL NO! I think it's wrong. Plain and simple . . . WRONG! Should those politicians be outed in a film? No - again, see above about the rough road of coming out. Nobody, no matter what, should have be forced to come out of the closet until they are damn good and ready. It takes time to get the tiara positioned just right on your head for such a dramatic entrance into the world. It takes time to come terms with this is how God made me, this is who I am.
My coming out wasn't an easy thang. I struggled for years with who I was. Heck, it took my sister twelve years to talk to me about my being gay. She knew for twelve (well, I'm sure she knew longer than that) years, after my conversation with my mother about being gay, that I was gay, and yet she didn't say anything for twelve years. Such is life. Still, the process wasn't easy. And no, it wasn't a choice for the allegedly ignorant who still believe homosexuality is a choice. My sexuality is genetics, the way I was born. Enough said.
Now, back to the outting of politicians, celebrities, and whoever. Enough is enough. No family needs to find out that daddy/mommy is gay by hearing about it on the local news. No parent needs to find out their son/daughter is gay by getting a phone call from Mrs. Kravitz next door who happened to see it on the news.
I understand Mike Roger's (the filmmaker) frustration. I understand his outrage at the blatant hypocrisy going on in Washington, DC. I'm right there with you, man. But I'm also right there with Doug McKelway (the outraged reporter) in his feeling that outing is an invasion of personal privacy. What people do in their bedrooms, or bathroom stalls, or in the park, or wherever, is their own personal business. It does not need to be fodder for a documentary.
Lastly, outrage aside, the gay community needs to unite to fight the laws being enacted, rather than out politicians (or whoever) who are still coming to terms with how God made them. I'm just saying . . .
BTW - Frank did not leap out of the closet wearing a sparkly dress, tiara, and open-toed pumps. I just put that in for dramatic effect. Love you, sweetie!
Posted by Scott at 7:22 AM
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A dear friend of mine mentioned he missed my blogging on this site, versus my other blog. So, in homage to him . . .
I think sometimes in life we have to weigh our happiness. WTF? Has he lost his mind, you're thinking? WTH is he talking about?
The idea for this post began last week while I was in MA for a work conference. I was talking to a friend of mine who I only see at the conference. I asked her how her beau (boyfriend for those not in the know) was doing, and she kind of shrugged her shoulders. Well, let me tell you, that got everybody interested in what was going on with her relationship. In the end, as much as she loves him, she's just not totally happy in the relationship.
My response: who is? Nobody has a perfect relationship. There is not a perfect relationship . . . anywhere. Still, the conversation made me think. We talked some more, and I told her that sometimes, love is not enough. We can love someone deeply, yet that doesn't mean a relationship is going to survive.
I continued to think about our conversation and sent her an email Monday morning as follows:
I think sometimes in life we have to weigh our happiness. You’re thinking . . . WTH??? I’m thinking about our conversation in the bar Tuesday night about relationships. Perfect relationships do not exist. Every relationship takes work and compromise on the part of the people involved. There comes a point when we question whether we want to still be in the relationship or not. It is at that point, at least for me, that people need to weigh their happiness. Or, just ask yourself one simple question: Am I more unhappy in this relationship, than happy? Okay, there’s another question: Does my partner in this relationship get on my nerves more often than not? Well, there are probably a gazillion other questions you could ask yourself. In the end, it’s about what is best for you as a person. Follow your heart and do what’s best for you. Sometimes, love is not enough.
Relationships are not simple. Life is not simple. In no way am I encouraging my friend to dump her boyfriend. What I am trying to do, is to encourage her to delve beneath the surface and really examine the relationship.
Sometimes, people get/stay together for all the wrong reasons. Another dear friend of mine, again one I only see at the conference, made the comment that she misses the companionship of being in a relationship. For me, at least, that is not a reason to be unhappy the majority of the time. It is also not a reason to get involved with somebody. Gee, I'm lonely, he's kind of cute, and even if we don't find happily ever after, at least he'll be there when I get home at the end of the day. Heck, if you want that kind of relationship, get a dog. They're always glad to see you! I'm just saying . . . I'm also not trying to diminish/dismiss my friend's concern about loneliness. I understand loneliness. I've been there, done that, and have multiple t-shirts. I just want something more out of life than a companion.
I'm lucky enough to be in a great relationship. My beloved partner, who worships the quicksand I walk upon, makes me smile/laugh every single day. You just never know what's going to come out of Frank's mouth. Really, people, minds out of the gutter. Do we have problems? Yes. As I've said before, there is no such thing as a perfect relationship. But, when I weigh my happiness, it's far heavier than my unhappiness at certain points in the relationship. That, dear readers, is what I mean about the weighing of happiness.
Posted by Scott at 3:29 PM
Friday, April 24, 2009
The other day I wrote this post after reading about an 11 year old boy who killed himself after enduring extreme bullying. Below is the full article from cnn.com about the little boy's death.
Ya know, nothing about the story makes sense. An 11 year old should not feel so traumatized that he takes his own life. Somewhere, somehow, everyone one of us in society failed this child.
My Bullied Son's Last Day on Earth
ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Eleven-year-old Jaheem Herrera woke up on April 16 acting strangely. He wasn't hungry and he didn't want to go to school.
Bit the outgoing fifth grader packed his bag and went to school at Dunaire Elementary School in DeKalb County, Georgia.
He came home much happier than when he left in the morning, smiling as he handed his mother, Masika Bermudez, a glowing report card full of A's and B's. She gave him a high-five and he went upstairs to his room as she prepared dinner.
A little later, when his younger sister called him to come down to eat, Jaheem didn't answer.
So mother and daughter climbed the stairs to Jaheem's room and opened the door.
Jaheem was hanging by his belt in the closet.
"I always used to see these things on TV, dead people on the news," says Bermudez. "I saw somebody die and to see this dead person is your son, hanging there, a young boy. ... To hang yourself like that, you've got to really be tired of something."
Bermudez says bullies at school pushed Jaheem over the edge. He complained about being called gay, ugly and "the virgin" because he was from the Virgin Islands, she said.
"He used to say Mom they keep telling me this ... this gay word, this gay, gay, gay. I'm tired of hearing it, they're telling me the same thing over and over," she told CNN, as she wiped away tears from her face.
But while she says her son complained about the bullying, she had no idea how bad it had gotten.
"He told me, but he just got to the point where he didn't want me to get involved anymore because nothing was done," she said.
Bermudez said she complained to the school about bullying seven or eight times, but it wasn't enough to save him.
"It [apparently] just got worse and worse and worse until Thursday," she said. "Just to walk up to that room and see your baby hanging there. My daughter saw this, my baby saw this, my kids are traumatized."
She said Jaheem was a shy boy just trying to get a good education and make friends.
"He was a nice little boy," Bermudez said through her tears. "He loved to dance. He loved to have fun. He loved to make friends. And all he made [at school] were enemies."
Bermudez said she thinks her son felt like nobody wanted to help him, that nobody stood up and stopped the bullies.
"Maybe he said 'You know what -- I'm tired of telling my mom, she's been trying so hard, but nobody wants to help me,' " says Bermudez.
After Jaheem's death, the school board expressed condolences, saying the school staff "works diligently to provide a safe and nurturing environment for all students."
Trying desperately to understand what went wrong, Bermudez asked her son's best friend to recount what happened on the day Jaheem killed himself.
"He [said he was] tired of complaining, tired of these guys messing with him," Bermudez said, recalling the conversation with Jaheem's best friend. "Tired of talking, I think to his teachers, counselors and nobody is doing anything -- and the best way out is death."
Allegations of such severe bullying surprises experts familiar with the school district. It's anti-bullying program was considered exemplary and includes programs to raise awareness and a specially trained liaison. Students are even asked to sign a no-bullying pledge. But other parents told CNN they have complained about bullying as well.
Despite recent strides towards preventing bullying in schools and increased awareness programs, a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network study showed that 65 percent of teens are bullied each year and most believe adults can't help them.
Less than a month before Jaheem's death, a boy in Massachusetts killed himself after being bullied, harassed and called "gay."
Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, says to be effective, awareness programs need to include education about the harm that can be done by teasing someone about sexuality or perceived sexuality.
"Anti-gay language is really the ultimate weapon for a bully who wants to degrade his or her peers," she says. "And any effective response to bullying has to take that on."
Bermudez doesn't understand why the children at school couldn't learn to get along. Because of it, she'll never get to see her son grow up.
"My baby, that's my only boy, and I lost him now," says Bermudez. "He was my first child and ... to lose him 11 years after, he didn't live his life."
She hopes her son's death will result in positive changes that will help other kids being bullied.
"Those that are being bullied -- they need to talk to their parents, they need to not hold back," she says. "I lost my son and now something has to be done."
Suicide hotline numbersNational Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-TALK (8255) National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
Posted by Scott at 7:02 AM
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Another young life lost!
11 year old Jaheem Herrera of Stone Mountain, Georgia, took his own life last week because his fellow classmates at Dunaire Elementary School harassed and bullied Herrera for thinking he was gay.
At what point do we (big generalization, and I really don't care) enough is enough? When does society stand-up and say it's not all right to bully? In recent weeks, two young kids have committed suicide as a direct result of bullying - see below italicized article. A few years ago, the famous MySpace incident, begun by an adult no less, caused a teen-age girl to kill herself. It has to stop.
We are not (at least I hope we're not) an ignorant society. We (well, some of us) are an intelligent group of individuals capable of compassion. At least I think we are. Articles like the one below, incidents like the ones mentioned below, truly test my faith in humanity.
Kids are kids, and kids are mean. It happens. Adults sit back and let them be mean. There comes a point, however, when adults must step in. The two incidents mentioned below are one of those points. Unfortunately, no one stepped in and two young lives were lost far too soon, all because some ignorant kids took the bullying to extremes.
Will the kids responsible feel guilty? Probably not. Will their parents? Probably not. The parents will just say oh, kids will be kids. Well, the kids learn from adults.
Now, what I haven't said so far, is that the kids were bullied because the other kids thought they were gay. Yes, some other kids thought an 11 year old was gay. Go figure. Did they know for sure? No. Did they care? No. Were the kids wrong in what they did? Yes. Did they probably think it was right because they see public figures bashing gays all the time? Yes! The fact is, the diatribes by public figures have a trickle-down effect to even the youngest members of society. I can hear it now - But, Mom, that pastor on TV said that homosexuality is wrong! Yes, I went there.
At some point, we as a society, need to get a grip. It is not okay to bully. It is not okay to discriminate. It is not okay to deny equality to people based on the way they were born.
Okay, I'm done. Read the article below.
He was just 11 years old!!!
Jaheem's 10-year-old sister discovered her brother hanging from a fabric belt in his bedroom, no longer alive.
Herrera's stepfather said homophobic bullies at school would taunt and name-call his stepson, a 5th grader, repeatedly calling him "gay and a snitch." The boy was even brave enough to tell teachers and faculty at his school about the harassment, but the bullying continued.
Jaheem's tragic loss comes just weeks after the suicide of a Massachusetts boy, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, who also suffered bullying because classmates thought he was gay, attracted national attention.
He was 11 as well. His mother found him hanging from an extension cord in the family’s home.
Posted by Scott at 4:37 PM
. . . with the blaming the GLBT community for everything wrong in society?
Ultra-conservative radio host Mike Savage has gone on a disgusting rant calling all gays and lesbians perverts, abominations, and pretty much blaming them for everything wrong in society.
Yes, the allegedly ignorant in society are providing me with boundless sources for my rants. Let me dissect this one.
First - the GLBT community is not responsible for everything that is wrong with society.
To prove my theory, let me list the things that would not happen if not for the GLBT Community:
- Designer Clothes - count the number of my people in the industry versus the hetero designers. Let's see how pretty the heteros look without the gay designers.
- Hair - again, count the number of my people in the industry versus the hetero hair stylists. Let's see how pretty the heteros look without the gay hair stylists.
- Interior Decorators - again, same argument as before.
- Waiters - boy, talk about long waits in restaurants if you only could hire straight people.
Yes, that's only a very few examples. The fact is, my people add the right stuff to society. We are not responsible for everything that is wrong in society . . . that, my friends, would be the right wing, ultra conservative Republicans' fault. Okay, so I'm going to extremes here (though I'm probably not far off base).
Studies have shown that property values go up when gays move into a community. I guess increased property values are a sign that everything is going wrong in society. I mean, a highly landscaped yard and an impeccably decorated house are bad things, right? Perfectly styled hair is a bad thing too, right?
Let's talk about sex offenders: the majority of sex offenders are not gay. They are - pay attention, people - heterosexual. The majority of serial killers are - again, pay attention people - heterosexual. The majority of lawmakers who have brought our country to the point of recession are - again, pay close attention people - heterosexual, except for the ones doing the foot-tapping in the bathrooms at the airport.
The downfall of society is not the fault of any one group of people - GLBT or Republicans. The downfall of society is an evolutionary process brought about by ignorance.
Now, if someone is homophobic (if the shoe fits, people, wear it), I can't help that. If someone wants to spout of hateful rhetoric blaming one part of society for the downfall of society, I can't help that either. I just don't want to hear such moronic, idiotic, and ignorant ramblings. Has anyone heard of duct tape? Next time you want to hatefully target one select group of people, tear off a really big strip and place it over your mouth.
Sorry, about that, but I really, really, really, am tired of hearing that everything that's wrong with society is the fault of the GLBT community. We bring a world of diversity and talent to the world. Yes, there are hetero waiters, hairdressers, decorators, landscape artists, and all that jazz. Yes, they contribute. But let society survive solely on their talent and see how quickly things change. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 2:11 PM
. . . Republicans (not all, btw, just a good number) are still bitter over the recent Presidential Election. Go Figure. What are they allegedly doing about their bitterness? Well, in an MSNBC poll, they are allegedly giving the President an F. Again, go figure.
So, here's the link - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093. Go here and vote fairly, without bias, and without bitterness. Just because the President is a Democrat and fairly, without bias, won the 2008 Presidential Election, is no reason to give him an F because you are a Republican.
Personally, faced with the mess of our government when he became President, I think President Obama is doing a good job. And, no, I'm not a Democrat or Republican, only a concerned citizen of the United States who voted with his conscience. I really don't think I can say the same thing about many (not all) Republicans.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Can you say sour grapes? I mean, seriously, people, she thinks she lost the contest because she said marriage should be between a man and woman? Yeah, right.
I'm sorry, I know I'm gay and all that jazz, but Miss California, along with countless others, are truly allowed to believe what they believe. I truly don't think she was penalized for not affirming gay marriage. I think her insistence (talk show after talk show after talk show) that she was penalized for her comments is, well, just plain silly. I mean, get a life.
Now in the you have to read it to believe it category, here are excerpts from Miss California's interview with FOX News:
FOXNews.com: Did your stomach sink when you first heard you picked Perez Hilton's question?
Carrie Prejean: I had a gut feeling. I knew he was controversial, and so was the question. Out of all the topics I studied up on, I dreaded that one, I prayed I would not be asked about gay marriage. If I had any other question, I know I would have won.
My Comments: OMG!! OMG!!! OMG!!! She actually believes that one question (a test by God, no less - oh, yes, she did) was the determining factor in her loss.
FOXNews.com: Have a lot of people been trying to get in touch with you?
Carrie Prejean: Yes, lots of phone calls. I've gotten over 500 facebook friend requests, hundreds of messages from people I don’t know, saying how proud of me they are that I stood my ground. That made me the real winner of the night.
My Comments: Yeah, she's a winner. OMG!! OMG!! OMG!!! I mean, seriously, does she actually believe what she's saying? I hate to tell her, but the real winner that night was Miss North Carolina! Yes, Miss California stood up for her beliefs. I applaud her for that, truly I do, all snark aside. She should not have to lie to win a contest. But seriously, Miss California, can you somehow get over it and get a life? Yes, you're catching holy hell over your answer. Think of it as a test. I'm just saying . . .
Seriously people, don't we have enough problems in the world without having sound bite after sound bite about Miss California's loss? What about the runner-ups in all the previous contests? Did they get so much media attention? I don't think so. I think it's all a conspiracy by the AntiGay Justice League (the superheros who wouldn't be caught dead in a sparkly pair of tights) to force their marriage and equality are only for straight people agenda down the throat of unsuspecting and impressionable Americans.
I mean, according to all the anti-gay ads, the homosexual community will be the eventual downfall of society. Well, if my people are in charge of the downfall of society, there's one thing I know for sure . . . we're all going to look fabulous!
Posted by Scott at 3:46 PM
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Today in New York, Gov. David Paterson announced plans to legalize same-sex marriage in New York. Woo-Hoo!
Or course, as with anything to do with legalization of gay marriage, there are those who protest. What would the world be without the allegedly ignorant protesting the legalization of equality for all people? I mean, isn't it just and right that all people have equal rights? Isn't it time to step into the 21st century? Well, not for some people.
Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx is an opponent of gay marriage. Go figure! The man is an evangelical pastor. Need I say more?
Well, of course, I need to say more. This is me, we're talking about!
Sen. Ruben plans to "meet with religious leaders to discuss how to block the bill". First, he is not planning to meet with religious leaders on how to block the bill, he is planning to meet with religious leaders to plan how to continue to deny equality to United States citizens. That, dear readers, is the fact of the matter. His meeting is based on prejudice (and possibly hate) toward the GLBT community, and nothing else. His meeting is based on religious bias. The facts are simple and gaily-forward.
Sen. Diaz has gone so far as to state that Gov. Paterson's announcement is "disrespectful" because he did it the same week that New York City Archbishop Timothy Dolan was installed (what a word??). Of course, Dolan being a still stuck in the dark ages Catholic is going to be against equality of any sort for the GLBT community. He still believes that Catholics don't use birth control. Yeah, right!
Gov. Paterson's timing (at least in my opinion) has nothing to do with Archbishop Dolan. Sen. Diaz (also in my opinion) is just using that statement to fan the flames of his religious fervor, perhaps his fanaticism as well. It is something to hide behind rather than admit he is willing to discriminate and oppress people rather than treat them in an equal way.
Sen. Diaz claims that Gov. Paterson's action is a challenge he is "sending to every religious person in New York and the time for us has come for us to accept the challenge". What amazes me about this statement is that Sen. Diaz is saying that every religious person in New York agrees with his view. I'm glad the man is psychic. Personally, I can guarantee that many religious people in New York do not agree with Sen. Diaz. I'm just saying . . .
There is no challenge. There is only a fight for equality. Why is Sen. Diaz (and countless others like him) afraid of equality for all people? Who is he to decide who deserves equality and who doesn't? Who is he to fan the flames of hatred against one community?
Fan the flames of hatred?? WTF??? Yes, fan the flames of hatred, dear readers. His actions are not done out of the kindness of his heart nor compassion toward fellow humans. His actions have the potential to spur the allegedly ignorant on to acts of violence. When people in power rage against homosexuality, when they shout out from the pulpit that homosexuality is wrong and against God's will (though I'm sure they haven't talked to God, only misinterpreted the Bible and taken things out of context . . . as always), they provide other people (that would be the aforementioned allegedly ignorant) with the catalyst for violent actions. Matthew Shepard died because two men thought homosexuality was wrong. GLBT have paid the price because preachers, pastors, priests, senators, congressmen and so many other people in power continually tell people that homosexuality is wrong.
Well, Sen. Ruben Diaz of the Bronx, homosexual is how I was born. It is not a defect. It is not a choice. It is how I was born, how I live, and how I will - someday, far in the future and hopefully peacefully in my sleep - die. Just as you didn't pick a day to decide you were heterosexual, I didn't pick a day to decide I was homosexual. I am the way God set me forth on this Earth.
I take offense at you, and others like you, who dare to deny me EQUALITY! I take offense that you, and others like you, dare to spout your allegedly righteous religious beliefs at my people. I take offense that you hide behind your religion as you deny EQUALITY to my people. Tell it like it is, Sen. Ruben Diaz - you don't like gay people. You think they are inferior and defective.
There is a saying, Sen. Diaz actions speak louder than words. Your actions, and those of people like you, speak louder than any words you could use to deny the simple fact that you don't believe in equality for all people, and that you will do anything in your power to deny that EQUALITY to all people.
This rant inspired (and quoted material taken from) this article: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090416/Gay.Marriage.New.York/
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Here's what some duly elected people to the United States Government are saying about homosexuality:
- Newt Gingrich: "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it."
- Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern: "The homosexual agenda is destroying this nation . . . I honestly think homosexuality is the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam."
- Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe believes that LGBT people are "an offense to God."
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele when asked whether the Republican Party ought to consider civil unions he replied "No, no, no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?"
My responses, in order of appearance:
- To Newt Gingrich: Isn't that what the religious right have been doing for years? Isn't that their agenda? Haven't the religious right (and a good portion of Republicans) used the government to serve their agenda and openly discriminate, oppress, and deny equality to GLBT??? Haven't the religious right used violence (and inordinate sums of money) to get their biased point of view across? Uh, YES!!!
- To Sally Kern: Are you nuts?? The only homosexual agenda is equality. My people want the same rights that the heterosexuals (and alleged heterosexuals for that matter) currently have. As for your comments that we are a threat . . . are you absolutely delusional? My people are known to bring up property values in neighborhoods so that your people can get better prices when you sell your houses. Talk about stimulating the economy. How is equality a threat?
- To Scott Renfroe: Did you ever think that God put my people on this Earth as a constant test for the allegedly religious? What if your intolerance toward homosexuality is actually a failure of that test? What if, on Judgment Day, you suddenly realized that you failed the biggest test of all? Huh? Never thought of it that way did you? Of course not, because the religious right (and even some of the religious left) fail the most important text in the Bible: Thou Shall Not Judge! Yeah, I'm failing that little text right now, but I have cause!!!
- To Michael Steele: Well, I really don't have a response. Your comments really don't deserve a response because you really didn't say anything at all. In fact, it sounds a little like somebody doth protest too much. I'm just saying . . .
In the end, the religious right (or the definitely ignorant) haven't got a frakkin' clue. People in the GLBT community did not make a choice. Genetics determined their sexuality. Being GLBT is not a lifestyle . . . it is a life, the way God (or whoever depending on your religious beliefs) made them. There was no choice involved. I repeat . . . there was no choice involved.
The GLBT Community is not going to tear apart the proverbial fabric of society. Even if the fabric of society is torn, my people are good at sewing things back together. We'd just fix it. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 8:49 AM
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
I work for a great company - we're casual almost every work day of the year, we leave at 3 on Fridays (noon on a Holiday weekend if we're caught up), and have off every Bank holiday. Life doesn't get much better. Recently, I asked the Big Boss about domestic partnership benefits. His response: yes, we can offer that. Question asked, answer received and life is good until . . . a little research turns up the following:
Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits
When an employer provides health insurance for the spouse or dependents of an employee, federal tax law allows the value of the health insurance coverage to be excluded from the employee’s gross income.
But when an employer provides the same health insurance coverage for the domestic partner or the dependents of the domestic partner of an employee, federal tax law considers the fair market value of that coverage, including the employee's pre-tax contributions, as "imputed income" to the employee. According to a December 2007 report by the Center for American Progress and the Williams Institute, employees with partner health benefits now pay on average $1,069 per year more in taxes than would a married employee with the same coverage. The only exception is when a domestic partner qualifies as a dependent of the employee under IRS definitions.
Additionally, employees cannot use pre-tax dollars to pay for a domestic partner's coverage, precluding them from the full benefits of a Flexible Spending Account, Health Reimbursement Account or Health Savings Account.
Because the imputed income increases the employee's overall taxable income, it also increases the employer’s payroll taxes - the Social Security and unemployment insurance tax that employers pay based on employees’ taxable incomes. According to the same CAP/Williams Institute report, employers pay a total of $57 million per year in additional payroll taxes because of this unequal tax treatment.
As a result, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals that secure employer-provided health insurance coverage for themselves and their unmarried partners face a significant tax penalty; one that, depending on the individual, can be in the thousands of dollars per year and result in the individual paying upwards of 50% more in federal taxes. Meanwhile, employers that extend partner health benefits pay higher payroll taxes and face the administrative burden of maintaining separate payroll functions for income tax withholding and payroll taxes.
So, because I'm gay and have a domestic partner, I have to pay upwards of 50% more in federal taxes. Discriminatory??? Hell, Yeah! Legal? Unfortunately. How is it, in 2009, such discriminatory practices are allowed? Oh, wait, it's because I'm homosexual. How stupid of me not to realize that the genetics of my birth would one day affect my paycheck!!!! How stupid of me to think in 2009 (yes, I know all the multitudes of facts against the statement I'm about to make) we would live in an enlightened society!!!! 50% more in federal taxes because I'm a gay man in an - almost - 15 year committed relationship with a man who is an integral part of my life and the government obviously thinks this is a good thing.
Well, it's not a good thing. It's CRAP. If my heterosexual co-workers do not have to pay taxes on imputed income to have their spouses covered under the company health plan, then neither should I . . . or any person in the free world.
So, what did I do about this little tidbit of information gleaned from www.hrc.org? I sent a message to the White House. Yes, I did. I also sent a message to HRC for clarification. Yes, there is legislation in the works to correct this horrendous WRONG that exists in our society. Yes, people have been working on this for years now. To date, the problem still EXISTS; therefore, with our new President in office, I sent a message to the White House to voice my concern. Yes, the economy sucks right now and we need to solve that crisis, but that in NO WAY means that obviously discriminatory practices should be allowed to coast along.
Discrimination needs to be abolished.
Equality should exist across the board, no matter whether a person is homo/hetero-sexual. My love for a man who worships the quicksand I walk upon should not incur me 50% more a year in federal taxes because I want to share my health benefit plan with him. My company should not have to impose such taxes on me because they stand up for equality. I should not have to be stressed out at the end of a day because of imputed income and have to rely on one of the Three Sisters of the Order of Maintaining Sanity - Sister Merlot, Sister Cabernet, and Sister Margarita!
Posted by Scott at 10:51 AM
Thursday, March 19, 2009
WTF?? Here's the story! In a nutshell, "the bonuses were (allegedly - my word, not part of the actual article) necessary to keep Fannie's most experienced executives working to reverse the effects of the mortgage crisis, FHFA Director James B. Lockhart told CNN (cnn.com)".
Two letters for ya: BS (fill in the blanks, I'm sure you can figure it out). I mean, seriously? Let the execs leave. They are obviously part of the problem which required the bailout money in the first place. People are losing jobs on a daily, probably hourly basis, and Fannie Mae wants to justify giving four execs 1/2 million dollar bonuses and providing the above lame excuse. Let the execs leave and find someone with a greater work ethic than an executive who is going to leave a company because he/she did not get their bonus. Life's tough right now. The economy tanks on a daily basis. Jobs are at a premium right now. Do these execs (and the higher ups at Fannie Mae) really think they can leave a high paying job and find another so easily?
My personal opinion: if the execs are demanding their bonuses, then kick their respective butts to the street and promote someone within the company who is willing (like the Fannie Mae CFO and CEO) to forgo a bonus in these troubled economic times. And it's not like the bonus is from money Fannie Mae made, but rather (AIG anyone?) from the stimulus money the taxpayers paid to bail them out after their bad decisions to offer loans to people that they knew could not pay them back. My tax dollars should not go into the pockets of executives. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 7:08 AM
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
. . . do I began?
Bailing out AIG . . . AGAIN???
People mired in the past????
A pink bottenose dolphin??
Yes, the possibilities, are endless. There's also the legal battle brewing regarding Proposition 8 in California.
So, what to choose, what to choose . . . eeeny, meeny, miney, moe . . .
AIG - WTF!!!!! I mean seriously, people, we're giving them more friggin' money???? When is enough, enough? When do we stop bailing out these giant corporations? They obviously have no clue what they are doing! There are other insurance companies out there. Let AIG fold and let a company that has a clue what they are doing step up to the plate. Yes, I know, I sound cold, harsh and unforgiving. Well, it's my tax dollars being spent . . . a second time . . . so excuse me for my unforgiveness. I hate the fact that people will lose their jobs. I also hate the fact that AIG can't get it right. Oh, did I mention I hate the fact that our government is given away trillions of dollars with no accountability? WTF!!!!!!
Okay, I'm limiting myself to this little rant for right now, though I do wonder if the pink bottlenose dolphin is gay. I'm just saying . . .
p.s. I'm allowed to wonder about the dolphins sexuality since he/she might be one of my people!
Posted by Scott at 3:17 PM
Thursday, February 19, 2009
. . . do we stop awarding millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in settlements?
Go here! Basically, a FL woman was awarded 8 million in her lawsuit against Phillip-Morris Tobacco company because her husband was addicted to cigarettes and died at age 55. Now, this case will go into appeal - over and over and over again - and the settlement will most likely be reduced.
Now, I'm not immune to the woman's loss. I'm not immune to the fact that the tobacco companies allegedly knew that nicotine was highly addictive and did nothing for decades to warn people about the dangers of smoking. I know all of this. I also know that ever since I can remember, there have been Surgeon General warnings about the dangers of cigarette smoking.
Now, I don't know all the details of the case, but, if I knew about the Surgeon General's warnings, then I can guess that the man in question knew about them as well. So, he knew and yet did not stop smoking. Hmmmm! BTW - the jury found the man 58% responsible since he did not quit smoking. 58%!!!!! Okay!
Now, I'm going to sound very callous here, so be prepared. Had the man never heard of Nicorette or any of the smoking deterrents available? Had he tried any of them? Again, I don't know the full details of the case, so I can't say for sure. I can say that my father, back in 1968, quit smoking cold turkey . . . after having a 2 pack per day habit. My mother quit cold turkey (at age 69 I might add, after smoking since she was about 20) in 1994. She had tried to quit numerous times before and couldn't - the addiction, and all that jazz. What finally made her quit? She coughed up blood one day. That, dear readers, was enough to get her to stop smoking. Now, thankfully, the blood had nothing to do with cancer . . . just some other health issue that has since been resolved. The point is, she quit. The point is, my mother knew the risks of cigarette smoking and still smoked . . . as do countless other people. I have many friends and coworkers that smoke. I understand it is an addiction. I just do not think the tobacco companies should have to shell out millions upon millions upon millions of dollars when people know the risks and keep smoking.
Yes, a man lost his life because of his addiction to cigarettes. Perhaps he didn't read the Surgeon General's warning on the package. Perhaps he had an addictive personality and the first puff was all it took. Perhaps he tried every trick in the book to quit smoking . . . and failed. I don't know. I just think that the tobacco companies shouldn't be held entirely responsible for human behavior (i.e., the choice to smoke or not, knowing the risks, even after the fact).
Again, I'm sorry the woman lost her husband. I just think we have become a society that will sue for whatever reason, without accepting responsibility for our own actions. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 11:13 AM
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
. . . about more alleged lies from a politician? I mean, seriously people, is there an honest politician out there? Has any politician ever kept the false promises they made to their constituents to get elected in the first place? Does no new taxes sound familiar to any one?
Okay, maybe I'm being overly hard and cynical. No! I'm! Not! Our government is full of allegedly corrupt individuals out for one thing: their own advancement at the expense of the American people. Okay, maybe that's a tad bit harsh - true, but harsh. I'm sure some politicians enter the political fray full of idealistic hopes for change that are quickly shattered beyond repair by the reality of a government that is not for the people, by the people any longer. The government is in place to help the rich get richer and the poor to get poorer. I'm just saying . . .
Now, why did I start this post? Well, it appears that Senator Burris (the man who demanded he take Barack Obama's vacant seat in the U.S. Senate, no matter that the corrupt Governor of IL appointed him) didn't tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about his association with the IL (impeached, I might add) of IL. In fact, the allegedly 'I had nothing to do with the Governor' innocent senator did have contact (indirect as it was) with the Governor of IL. Go figure. See full story here.
So, now you know why I've gone on another political rant. We do not need corruption in our government. We need change. We need a government that is for the people, by the people. I'm just saying . . .
Posted by Scott at 3:04 PM
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Here's a great commentary about boycotting Valentine's Day. I absolute love it.
First - don't get me wrong, I'm all about letting my partner (of almost 15 years, btw) know how much I love him. I just agree with the commentator that a solely commercial holiday is not necessarily the way to do that. What about just saying hey, sweet baboo, i love you on February 13 or March 15 or April 1 or May 25 or any other day of the year? What about taking sweetums out for dinner one night as a surprise, for no other reason than to say hey, sweetums, i love you?
Second - well, I don't think there is a second, because my first, and this article, says it all.
I'm not against Valentine's Day and showing that someone special in your life that you love them. I'm just against the commercialization of all holidays that strip away the true meaning, just to sell a few cards, trinkets, and flowers . . . which brings me to this question: when all meaning is stripped away by commercialization, do the flowers even count?
In the end, it is the smaller moments in life - a kiss, a caress, a glance across the room, a touch on the back as you walk past the person you love, the sound of their gentle snoring in the dark of the night, and so many other things - that matter the most. Flowers die. Jewelry is lost. Love - at least in some cases - lasts forever. If not, well . . . there's always speed dating just in time for Valentine's next year. I'm just saying . . .
Seriously, though, treasure the little moments in life. Surprise your husband/wife/partner with flowers, jewelry, or whatever on any day (if not every day) of the week, instead of one day created solely by retailers for them to make money!!
Posted by Scott at 4:10 PM
Friday, February 06, 2009
. . . who in the heck paid for this retreat?
"Don't come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis," the president said at the House Democrats' annual retreat in Williamsburg.
Okay, now the President is talking about the stimulus package and the back and forth with Republicans over excess (and obviously unnecessary, at least in my opinion - see previous post) amounts in the stimulus package. Still, at a retreat??? Hasn't the President (yes, I voted for him, and no, I don't regret my vote) has given the major corporations (AIG, for example) a hard time over their retreats, and yet Democrats do the same thing. Isn't that a little hypocritical on both the President's part, and all the Democrats who attended? So, who foots the bill? The government? The taxpayers (i.e., me, you, everybody who reads and doesn't read this blog)? It just seems very strange that the President/Democrats/Whoever would take any type of retreat as the country is virtually collapsing around us.
Now, the stimulus package does need to be passed. I'm still not in agreement with the majority of the provisions of the package, nor the lack of accountability toward those receiving the money. People are losing their jobs and homes on a daily basis. The banks are not lending money (uh, wasn't that the purpose of the bailout money they received?). My 401K continues to decrease. My mother's retirement fund continues to decrease and President Obama and other Democrats take a retreat to Williamsburg! Go figure!
Posted by Scott at 10:15 AM
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
. . . sometimes (perhaps often) second-guess the ones who worship the quicksand we walk upon? Are we (major English Comp faux paux generalization) somehow ingrained to second-guess, to doubt the ones we love? Is it inherent to the human race?
Now, the few readers of this blog are probably furrowing their collective brows and going . . . huh, WTF, has he been drinking at lunch again???? Unfortunately, the liquor did not flow at lunch . . . at least not today! This whole post - as with many of the posts of this blog - was brought about by a conversation between a friend and I. He made the comment about his partner telling him to do something, but he wasn't sure his partner really wanted him to do that something. No, it's not what you're thinking, get your minds out of the gutter.
My response: Sword - check. Shield - check. Lion repellent - crap, where'd I put the lion repellent. Okay, here I go . . . have you suddenly become a mind reader? Did you have dreams of (insert name of significant other) not wanting you not to (insert event of choice)? If the man told you to go to (insert event of choice), go to (insert event of choice), and quit second guessing yourself . . . and (re-insert name of significant other). : ) If you really don't want to go to the(insert event of choice), and are just trying to use (third re-insert name of significant other) allegedly not wanting you to go as an excuse . . . well, now you see why I have my handy sword and shield.
I went by myself to (insert friend's name)'s super bowl party bridge thingy because Frank (my beloved partner of almost 15 years who definitely worships the quicksand I walk upon) didn't want to go. Frank (blah, blah, blah . . . blah) is perfectly content staying home and letting life pass him by. I'm not. Once upon a time, I worried about whether I should go by myself or stay home with Frank (loves me, loves me not . . . ), even though he told me to go and have a good time. I kept thinking . . . gee, maybe he really doesn't want me to go, even though he told me to go, and maybe . . . maybe . . . maybe . . . Well, I finally quit thinking about the maybes. I enjoy bridge. Frank (love is a many splendored thing) does not. I'm not going to stop playing bridge because Frank (there's no place like home, there's no place like home . . . Frank, give my niece back her ruby slippers) doesn't like the game . . . nor would he expect me to do something like that (and no, I'm not even trying to imply anything about anybody other then me). The point of my lengthy diatribe is . . . in this life, I can only do the best I can do. Happiness is a journey, not a destination, and yet if you just sit at the train station all friggin' day in the cold, you're probably not gonna be that happy. So, my advice, dear friend, grab what happiness (even if it's just a <insert event>) you can in this life and quit trying to second-guess the man (re-insert name of significant other) that worships the quicksand you walk upon.
Please note - the colored comments above were added for this post alone, and not part of the original email response and done in a simple effort to omit names/places/events/whatever. Why? To protect the guilty, of course! Seriously, that's not why I did it. I just think that, sometimes, the names/events really don't matter . . . not to mention, some of my friends might not want their lives on public display in my blog.
My whole point, and the line of thinking, is why are we so quick to doubt what our partners/wives/husbands/lovers/boyfriends/girlfriends/whatever tell us? Is there some hidden meaning to no, honey, go ahead, and have a great time? Are we instinctively supposed to have suspicions and think our partners/wives/husbands/lovers/boyfriends/girlfriends/whatever really don't mean what they are saying? Do all our relationships come down to a simple question of doubting the words of the people that compliment our lives? I'm just asking . . .
As for me, I think my response pretty well gives my take on the situation. Like Dolly Levi in Hello, Dolly . . . the friggin' parade is not going to pass me by!!!
Posted by Scott at 2:08 PM
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
So, the GOP has created a list of what they consider wasteful provisions in the current Stimulus Package up for vote. I agree with some of the stuff, and disagree with others. So, here I go . . .
- A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film - totally agree. Why should my tax dollars go for this????
- $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship) - again, why should my tax dollars go for this? What's wrong with the current icebreaking ships?
- $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters - same argument as before . . . why should my tax dollars go for this?
- $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters - same argument, different wasteful provision! I don't see the government giving my office money to buy new office furniture. I'm just saying . . .
- $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs - DISAGREE. We have overflowing landfills everywhere and we need an alternative solution. Now, granted, I'd rather my taxes not go to do this, but I do think the subject needs to be addressed.
- $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." - AGREE. I'm sorry, but I should not have to pay for "smoking cessation activities". Smoking is a choice people make. Yes, it's an addictive choice, but I have watched numerous people over the years quit . . . and quite a few of them cold turkey after smoking for more than 40 years.
- $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River - DISAGREE. After the devastation of the floods of 2008, I would think doing everything possible to prevent future floods is more than necessary.
- $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service - AGREE. Since when do volunteers get paid? I'm just saying . . .
- $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint - DISAGREE. You would think that the GOP would care about a definite health hazard. Oh, wait, they're politicians, they care only about themselves. What in the "F" was I thinking?
You can find the full list here.
My own thinking about the excessive/wasteful items in the stimulus package is that maybe the government should cut out some of the perks of office (free postage, medical care, raises, etc.) and put some of that excess money toward the Stimulus Program. Has any one done an audit of all the perks (i.e., free stuff at the expense of the tax payers) government workers (Senators, Congressman, etc.) receive? I mean, seriously people, why should they receive all their perks after they've left office?
Posted by Scott at 11:14 AM
Thursday, January 29, 2009
So, this Florida couple's dog was dying from cancer. They had some of his DNA frozen and when he eventually died, they paid $155,000 to have the dog cloned. Woo-hoo for them!
Now, I don't mean to sound snarky (well, maybe I do), but the cloned dog is not the dog that died. The FL couple may think it is the dog that died . . . but really, it's not. The DNA is the same, but is the dog the same? Personally, I don't think so. DNA is only part of an animal/person, but it is not the animal/person. Environment (how an animal/person is raised) plays a big part in who/what the animal/person becomes. Can the couple duplicate exactly the environment their recently departed dog existed in from day one of it's life? Highly unlikely. So, without the exact same environment, how can the clone dog be the same as the recently deceased dog? It can't. The cloned dog can only be a pale imitation of the DNA donor.
So, what happens when the cloned dog doesn't leave up to its owners' expectations? Will they love the dog less? Will they get rid of the dog because it is too painful to see the face of their beloved pet in a pale imitation? I have no clue. I just hope the best for the cloned puppy.
Now, why in the heck would you have your dog/cat/whatever cloned? I loved my cat Jordy. I miss him terribly. But Jordy was Jordy and no other cat will ever be the same, not even had I decided to play God and Jordy cloned. I don't want to replace Jordy. I might get another cat one day, but that cat will be unique in his/her own way.
Why do people have this insane idea to clone animals/people? What is wrong with individuality? Are people so narrow in their love that they cannot open their hearts to a new animal/person? I have no clue. I only know what choice - at this point in my life - I would make, which is not to clone.
My partner and I have lost three animals - Arthur and Spanky (our dogs) and Jordy (our cat) - in the almost fifteen years we have been together. Since Spanky died, we have adopted two new dogs (last April). They are unique in their own, special way . . . and that's just how we like it. Spanky and Arthur, Jordy as well, were unique in their own way. We have enough love in our hearts to love the dogs and cats we have, as well as the dogs and cats we had. Why doesn't everybody have that kind of love? I'm just wondering . . .
p.s. $155,000?? I mean, really!!
Posted by Scott at 10:02 AM