Rants from the Soapbox

First Amendment Rights

2011-03-02T10:53:00.003-06:00

Today, in a not so stunning move, the United States Supreme Court ruled (8-1) that the Westboro Baptist Church (Topeka, KS) is within it's First Amendment rights to protest military funerals and carry signs saying Death to Faggots, and whatnot.

First - I agree it's within their First Amendment rights. I don't agree with their protest, but, the First Amendment is there for a reason.

Second - My personal theory: I think it's within the First Amendment rights of GLBT to gather outside the Westboro Church every time they have a service and protest the church. Make some noise, do a little dance, and denounce their bigoted beliefs.

Yes, a bit extreme, but . . . shouldn't GLBT have the same rights to protest bigoted opinions? Of course, we should.

I understand that religious beliefs often conflict with justice and equality. I understand that many churches like to take the Bible out of context to justify their - allegedly - narrow minded, bigoted beliefs that would deny equality to all humans, and reinforce their own superiority (alleged, btw) complexes.

There's an old saying what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. So, I think us ganders (GLBT) need to take a page from the Westboro Baptist Church . . . and start protesting outside their church at every single service. I think the signs for the protest should be simple like . . .

Equality for All

Down with Hate, Up with Love - okay, obviously creating signs isn't my strong suit. That one made me laugh.

In the end, the way forward is often an uphill struggle, with more steps back then forwards. Yes, a bigoted Church has the right to protest military funerals and proclaim deaths to gays. But, more open-minded individuals have the same right to protest such intolerance.

Just saying . . .

The Republican Agenda

2010-11-04T15:48:00.005-05:00

Why are Republicans hellbent on the following: keeping the country in a recession, keeping unemployment rising, and causing more individuals to lose their homes?

Today, in a show of defiance - more like petulance - Senator Mitch McConnell proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Republicans care nothing for the well being of this country.

Some of his comments . . .

"If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction," McConnell said.

This isn't about moving in your direction, Senator McConnell, it's about moving the country out of a recession, out of a growing unemployment rate, and out of people losing their homes because of legislation passed years ago that allowed the banks to go all willy-nilly with their loans . . . and knowing people couldn't afford to pay back those loans.

"But we can't expect the president to sign it," he said. "So we'll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation, and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions."

Oh, yes, let's put another Republican't in office so they can increase the deficit, give the wealthy tax breaks they don't need, while increasing taxes for everybody else. Yeah, that worked out well the first time, didn't it, Senator McConnell.

"By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood," he said. "And we gave voters a real choice on Election Day."

You don't have a clue. The voters didn't make rationale choices on Election Day. You, others like you, corporations serving the alleged special interest of the Republican party, and so on put out false, misleading, taken out of context, and fear mongering political ads that played on the fears and desperation of the American people. You knew what you were doing. You knew people, motivated by fear, wouldn't vote with their conscience. You knew they would vote out of fear - which they did, in droves. This wasn't a fair election, Senator McConnell, and you know it and your brethren in the Party know it as well.

"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Your focus shouldn't be on ousting the current President. Your concern, that of every Senator and Congressman, should be the well-being of this country - here/now. The rising unemployment should be your concern. The multitude of foreclosures should be your concern. The continued recession should be your concern. The sad fact is: you and the rest of the GOP doesn't care enough about this country, about its citizens, to make it your concern.

Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.

Why would you want to cut spending and decrease the deficit? Why would you want to shrink government and make it more efficient? Oh, that's right, you obviously don't.

This blatant disregard for the citizens of the United States is not what this country needs right now. We're in the mess we are in because of Republicans and Democrats alike. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their sense of well being, all because the political parties cannot work together.

Yet Senator McConnell, and other like minded Republicans, don't give a damn about this country. They're still pouting over the 2008 election. Get over it people. So John McCain and Sarah Palin didn't get elected. You are - allegedly - adults. Act like an adult. Quit acting like a spoiled brat who didn't get their way.

The current attitude of the Republican Party, the current petulance, the current I'm going to do everything I can to ensure this country doesn't recover from the recession is, well, first grade playground stuff.

If you're not adult enough to act responsibly, Senator McConnell, and every other politician currently in office, then resign and let someone more adult, more mature, more responsible, and more tuned in to the actual needs of the country do the job.

I'm just saying . . .

All quotes came from here:
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20101104/US.Bipartisan.Challenge/

Worse Rather Than Better

2010-11-03T10:20:00.003-05:00

Our country has a history of political cycles/upheavals just like this one. My prediction: things won't change, the voters who voted out of anger and fear will realize their mistake, and the political climate will change again in 2 years. We are a country divided that seems unable to work together. Until we do start working together, things will get worse rather than better.

I made the above comment on Facebook this morning.

This past election - yeah, not even a day old yet, and it's past - was one of the more vitrolic I've seen over the course of the last few years. The negative campaigns were rampant . . . and yet still we elect these politicians who choose to outright lie in their ads and/or take things so out of context that the truth no longer exists.

Here's what I predict: the recession won't end, unemployment will remain steady or rise, it will not decrease, and the voters who voted out of anger and fear (brought about in a fear mongering campaign by corporations and politicians alike) will wake up about a year from now, realize things are worse rather than better, and - hopefully - realize that they are responsible for the continued deterioration of this country.

Yes, we as voters, are responsible for the state of this country because . . . we continually elect people into office who have no intent of following up on their campaign lies. No, they're not promises, they're lies, because every single politician out there knows that they have little, if any, intent of keeping the alleged promises (i.e., lies) they make to get elected. These politicians, especially the repeat offenders, know beyond a shadow of a doubt that our government isn't set up to honor the promises (i.e., lies) they tell to get elected.

So, we, as voters, are responsible - not as responsible as those in power - for the state of our nation.

The voters who elected George W. Bush into office, twice I might add, are paritally responsible for the current recession, rise in unemployment, and the foreclosure situation. Yes. You. Are!

I am just as responsible, even though I didn't vote for him, because the politicians I did vote into office didn't fight hard enough to change things so that the recession we are currently in, the unemployment and foreclosure crisis, didn't happen.

Now, please note, George W. and the Senate/House during his reign weren't the main culprits of the recession, that began before their time, but they pushed - in my opinion - us over the edge.

There was no way in hell President Obama could fix the mess he inherited. No. Way. In. Hell. It wasn't possible, it isn't possible, and everybody out there knows that fact . . . they just aren't willing to admit that fact to themselves. Go figure.

Look at it this way: an individual, in the folly of youth, incurs a great amount of credit card debt. Said individual decides to stop using credit cards and begin paying them off. In 98% of cases, this takes years and years.

To fix the recession, the crisis at hand, is going to take years and years, and probably more than one Presidential administration.

And yet . . . the members of the Republican't party, the members of the Tea Party, want to place all the blame on President Obama.

The blame is wrongly placed. These people don't want to admit their own part in the current crisis.

Sarah Palin - she with Presidential aspirations - has one agenda in mind: the White House. Her hit lists, her endorsement of Tea Party members, everything she says and does, isn't out of the goodness - at least in my opinion, and allegedly (ha) - heart. Her hit lists, her endorsement of Tea Party members - who, btw, didn't do so well - everything she says and does is out of her desire to become President of the United States of America.

So, dear voters who don't bother to do a bit of research, check the facts, and realize that politicians and corporations will - allegedly - do and say anything to get into office. Next time you see a political ad, next time Sarah or any politician speaks, make sure to understand that you give them the power, you can put them into office, and you, if brave and intelligent enough, can weed through the political bullshit and affect change . . . by not electing those who prey on your fear and insecurities into office.

And, dear voters who don't bother to do a bit of research and vote out of anger rather than reason, as things get worse rather than better, understand that you, in large part, are responsible for the deepening crisis this country is about to experience.

Just saying . . .

Condoning Bullying

2010-10-01T11:42:00.002-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/30/spaulding.rutgers.suicide/index.html?hpt=T2

Unless you’re living under a rock, you know that Tyler Clementi committed suicide after his college roommate thought – I use that term loosely – it’d be a good idea to stream Tyler having sex with another man all over the Internet.

In response to that incident, Pam Spaulding, founder of the political blog PamsHouseBlend.com, posted the above linked opinion piece on www.cnn.com.

She brought up two important questions:

• Who creates the bully?
• Who is accountable?

These behaviors start young, and whether they're manifested in homophobia, as they seem to be in this case, or in teasing others because of their faith, clothing, race or weight, we need to ask: Where do the parents and other influential adults in these bullies' lives fit in?

So, childhood memories have been floating to the forefront of my brain these last few days as more and more stories of teen-agers/young adults committing suicide, because of bullying, have hit the airwaves.

One memory in particular, but some backstory first . . .

I grew up in a very large neighborhood. There were tons of kids in every age group from babies to college students. Huge neighborhood. Kids of a certain age hung out in groups.

I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago. Winter Wonderland.

I remember one winter, not sure how old I was, snow forts in all the back yards, and a major snowball fight going on. One child – a friend, a schoolmate – was being picked on. Yes, even at a young age, a pecking order is established . . . and not in a good way. The kid finally had enough and went running home, crying. Everyone else followed, still tossing snowballs. Hey, it’s what kids do. I remember the kid’s mother saying “Don’t come running home for protection, never do that again, stand up for yourself.”

Yes, we all need to stand up for ourselves. But . . . this is where bullying gets pushed to the side, where parents tell their kids to grow up, to get tough, and yet do nothing about the fact that a group of kids was tormenting – yes, with snowballs – a single kid, and, that a good portion of those kids were 2 – 3 years older than the kid being pelted with a multitude of snowballs.

Yeah, in case you’re wondering, I was throwing snowballs too. It’s what we did.

What we – meaning kids do – isn’t so important in this situation. It is what the parents failed to do: recognize the bullying attitude.

You see, the snowballs from childhood turn into names: fatty, fatty, two-by-four, can’t fit through the kitchen door.

The snowballs from childhood turn into hateful names: faggot, queer!

The snowballs from childhood, if not stopped can – as the media this week has shown – turn into people feeling they have no where to run, nobody to turn to.

The snowballs from childhood can lead to . . . suicide.

We are a society geared toward not caring.

We are a society that is responsible – every single one of us – for the death of Tyler Clementi and so many other kids.

We as a society can no longer sit back and think oh, hey, it’s not my problem.

Yes, it is my problem.

It's cold, this learned anti-social attitude towards being different and it has a striking impact on university campuses.

This “learned anti-social attitude towards being different” must be stopped.

People like the Assistant Attorney General of Minnesota shouldn’t – free speech or not – be able to have a blog that puts a swastika over a gay man’s head . . . and think the behavior is okay.

People like religious leaders and politicians, while having every right to their opinions, shouldn’t be allowed – with their words and actions – to condone bullying on any level.

The people in power, the people with money and media limelight continue to spew their hate forth – NOM anybody – and condone bullying.

Those people, as well as the parents who do nothing, as well as every single individual who looks the other way . . . shouldn’t be allowed to condone bullying.

How many people must die before people realize bullying is wrong?

The Loss of Hope

2010-07-06T12:06:00.003-05:00

I ask this... If there should be an assassination, I would hope that five, ten, one hundred, a thousand would rise. I would like to see every gay lawyer, every gay architect come out - - If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door... And that's all. I ask for the movement to continue. Because it's not about personal gain, not about ego, not about power... it's about the "us's" out there. Not only gays, but the Blacks, the Asians, the disabled, the seniors, the us's. Without hope, the us's give up - I know you cannot live on hope alone, but without it, life is not worth living. So you, and you, and you... You gotta give em' hope... you gotta give em' hope. - from the film Milk as spoken by Sean Penn portraying Harvey Milk.

Frank and I watched Milk last night. It was a powerful and awe-inspiring movie that made me laugh, but more often, it made me cry. The ironic thing about the movie: the parallels between then (1978) and now (2010).

I mean, seriously, what has changed? The gay community is still fighting, and losing, the same battles they fought 32 years ago! 32 years and society has barely moved forward at all!

Why?

Why hasn't the gay movement moved forward? Why aren't gays (lesbians, bisexual, transgendered) allowed the same rights as heterosexuals? Why is the battle for equality still going on?

Did the life and death of Harvey Milk mean nothing to our community? Were his words just meaningless utterings?

I don't have the answers to these questions. I only know that today (2010) the same battles are taking place.

Yes, we've (the gay community) gained some ground, but not much, people, not much at all. Proposition 8 passed! Yeah, court battle, and all that jazz, but it passed! Where was the cohesive rallying that saw the defeat of Proposition 6 in 1978? Where was the united effort to win one battle when the gay community was losing so many battles across the United States?

Yes, people came forth in defiance of Proposition 8, but . . . it wasn't enough. Why? What's changed within the framework of society that a community and its allies failed to defeat a measure that is born out of hatred and ignorance? Why did we fail to defeat the allegedly narrow-minded bigots who think their way of life is the only way to live?

Again, I don't have the answers to these questions. I only know that the gay community and their allies need to galvanize their efforts to defeat any and all measures that strip us of the equal rights guaranteed us under the Constitution of the United States of America. We can no longer sit in our closets hoping somebody else will do the job for us.

I am here tonight to say that we will no longer sit quietly in the closet. We must fight. And not only in the Castro, not only in San Francisco, but everywhere the Anitas go. Anita Bryant did not win tonight, Anita Bryant brought us together! She is going to create a national gay force! And the young people in Jackson Mississippi, in Minnesota, in the Richmond, in Woodmere New York, who are hearing her on television, hearing Anita Bryant telling them on television that they are sick, they are wrong, there is no place in this great country for them, no place in this world, they are looking to us for something tonight, and I say, we have got to give them hope!

Did the hope of the gay community die with Harvey? Did we become too complacent in expecting someone else to take up the fight? Are we to blame for the defeats we have suffered in our fight for equality?

I say - YES! We, as a community, every single one of us, not just the select few fighting the fight, are to blame!

We live in an age of instant communication - Facebook, Twitter, Blogs. All a person has to do on Facebook is hit share and all their friends can see a message, and then those friends can share and so on and so on and so on! In a matter of minutes a message can travel from one part of the country to the next and . . .

. . . yet, it's not happening. Who's to blame? Hmmm . . .

Unconscionable

2010-06-23T07:15:00.002-05:00

In a totally, I mean totally surprising (as in not at all) turn of events, another antigay individual is, well, GAY! Or, at least that's what is being alleged about a Lutheran pastor.

Here's the brief snippet from The Advocate website:

Lavender Magazine, a Minneapolis-based gay publication, has outed a Lutheran pastor critical of gay clergy after reporter John Townsend found the pastor, Rev. Tom Brock, at a confidential Catholic meeting for gay men struggling with chastity.

Brock is known for his denunciation of homosexuality, Townsend reported. His church, Hope Lutheran in Minneapolis, left the Evangelical Church in America last year as it liberalized its policy over gay clergy, and Brock has railed against ECLA’s decision to welcome partnered (and presumably sexually active) gay ministers.

The magazine’s president acknowledged that Townsend joined the support group, where he encountered the Rev. Brock, without revealing he was a journalist.

Brock is now on leave from Hope Lutheran, where another pastor called the magazine’s story “unconscionable.”

Here's the full article with a link to the full story in the magazine.

None of the above is really that important. Okay, it's important that the truth (alleged or otherwise) about the pastor was revealed. But for me, the important part of the article is the fact that "another pastor called the magazine's story "unconscionable".

Well, excuse the "F" out of me? It's wrong to out someone but not wrong for someone who is allegedly gay to denounce gays? Uh, what delusional world is that pastor living in? Certainly not the real world.

Wrong is wrong. If you're gay and promoting antigay, it's wrong. Yes, perhaps the reporter should have outed (oops) so to speak, himself, but then again, isn't the whole point of undercover investigation not outing (oops) yourself? I'm just saying . . .

The point is, the dear antigay pastor is allegedly a hypocrite, as are many other lawmakers out there passing antigay legislation while having men on the side.

The point is: it is not unconscionable that this pastor was outed. Okay, it is to a certain extent, especially if married w/children. A friend of mine and I get in some quite lively discussions over that subject. I'm not one for outing someone, even if they are passing antigay legislation, if they're married w/children. That's a whole other story, and a whole other set of complications and ramifications that are beyond my understanding.

Still . . . no matter my beliefs on the whole outing thingy, I think to call the outing unconscionable is, well, wrong! Yes, it's only my opinion, and probably doesn't count for much.

We live in a divided world where equality only exists for some people, and not all people. On a daily basis, gays and lesbians are denied equal rights. They are denied the right to marry, to care for their loved ones, to provide healthcare for their loved ones, and to enjoy equal status with heterosexuals because some people (unfortunately the ones with the most $$) feel that gays/lesbians are deviant, not natural, and that our sexuality is a choice and not genetics.

Well, enough said!

Okay, maybe not enough said. Let me tell you, and let my mother, for that matter tell you: I was born gay. My mother - 85, people, 85 - has made the statement: Scott, my favorite child (okay, she didn't say that, but I am her favorite) was born the way he was born, just as my other children were. I didn't make a choice, no more than any heterosexual out there made a choice to be heterosexual. They. Were. Born. That. Way!!!!! Geesh.

Yes, I know, there are people who will always, always, always, believe that gays choose their lifestyle (oh, you don't want me started on that subject, trust me on that). My being gay is no more a lifestyle choice than Elizabeth Taylor being straight. I was born that way. She was born that way! Enough! Said!

The unconscionable act here, was not the reporter (well, perhaps he bears some of the blame), but rather the allegedly gay pastor fighting against who he truly is as an individual and channeling that fight in a hateful, arrogant, and ignorant manner that does more harm than good. I'm just saying . . .

Perpetuating the Gay Stereotype

2010-06-04T06:50:00.002-05:00

So, Logo (that's the gay channel for anyone wondering) is prepping for a new reality series called The Gay Housewives of New York! Yes, you read that right. No kidding on my part.

No, the series does not - at least to the best of my knowledge - star a bunch of lesbians.

The series, for all intents and purposes . . . oh, wait, why should I explain, when The Advocate did so well . . .

Gawker has done some digging and come up with a few of the men slated to take part in the first season of Logo’s upcoming Gay Housewives of New York series.

Amazing Race winner turned model-actor-author Reichen Lehmkuhl and his boyfriend, Brazilian model Rodiney Santiago, will appear on the show. Lehmkuhl relocated to New York earlier this year to star in the off-Broadway production of My Big Gay Italian Wedding.

Celebrity photographer Mike Ruiz, who is known for his work with stars including Tyra Banks and Dolly Parton, will also appear on the show. Ruiz is Los Angeles-based but travels to New York often for work.

Full article here.

I'm sorry, but these are not women, i.e., wives, but men. Yes, as a gay man I know that many within the gay community refer to each other as girl. I don't happen to like that fact, but I can't change that fact . . . other than not to use the term myself. These are men - anatomical correct men at that! They are not women, thus they aren't - at least not in the definitive sense of the word - wives. They might be husbands, but not wives.

Hollywood - motion picture, television, and whatnot - has an allegedly ignorant tendency to perpetuate the gay stereotypes. Okay, wait, perhaps not always mainstream Hollywood, but more network TV Hollywood. Will & Grace - you have two extremes: Nellie as can be Jack and straight-laced (no pun intended) Will, a good-looking man that just can't find a date. Trust me, that doesn't happen in the real gay world. 9 times out of 10, a gay male on Network TV is going to perpetuate the Nellie, effeminate, not a butch man stereotype, rather than the reality that only a small percentage of gay men are actually effeminate.

If, as many in the community want to end these stereotypes, then why do we continually allow - gay housewives anyone - the stereotypes to continue? Why is it all right for Logo to title a show The Gay Housewives of New York?

I don't know. I just know, as a gay man, that I'm more than a bit offended by this perpetuation of gay stereotypes. I've been partnered for almost sixteen years. I don't consider myself Frank's wife, but rather his husband, and vice versa. Frank's not my wife, but my husband . . . well, for all intents and purposes except legally since we live in a back-asswards country (for the most part)! I want to see gay men (and women, for that matter) realistically represented, and not just on Showtime. I want network television to quit portraying a minute percentage of the gay community, and portray the entire spectrum from effeminate to butch (in both gays and lesbians).

I'm just saying . . .

S

Biblical Misuse by Antigays

2010-06-02T13:17:00.002-05:00

Sometimes, I don't need to say anything at all, because someone else said it much better. Case in point, the below article from cnn.com. Here's the link to the actual article.

Now, since this is me posting, I'm going to italicize/bold my favorite sections.

Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible

Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- My partner and I recently took our mothers to Las Vegas for a week for Mother's Day. It's not our favorite city, but for a pair of 60-somethings who can sit at the penny slot machines for hours, it was heaven.

When they were not being robbed by one-armed bandits, we saw a couple of shows and had some amazing dinners. We also enjoyed trying to figure out which women were hookers and which were just dressed like one. And of course saying "public drunkenness" is pretty redundant after 11 a.m.

But that's why we go to Vegas, right? Life on the Strip. What happens here stays here ... and all that good stuff. By the end of our trip, the four of us had seen just about everything you would expect to see in a place nicknamed Sin City -- except for faith-based protesters.

Funny, a week of walking up and down the main artery of the self-proclaimed heart of moral debauchery, and nary a Bible verse could be heard. In the many times I've been to Las Vegas over the years, I've never seen a religious protest. And yet let a midsize city try to add sexual orientation to its municipal nondiscrimination policy or a high school senior bring a same-gender date to prom, and you would think it was the apocalypse.

The Bible doesn't state that one sin is greater than another, but you wouldn't know that by counting the number of comments that quote Scripture on news stories about the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. Compare them with how many address murder, or the environment, or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and well, the word "hypocrite" comes to mind.

I am never ashamed to say I follow the teachings of Christ, but I am not always proud to say I am a Christian. That's because I am bothered by the continual mutilation of my religion's basic principle of love by the extremists in my religion who construct a hierarchy of sin -- which does not exist in the Bible -- for no other reason than to protect their own prejudices.

We've seen this throughout this country's history, and perhaps with the exception of abortion, no current issue illustrates this transgression more so than gay rights.

Some conservatives might attend church only twice a year, but ask their opinion about gays in the military. They can find Leviticus 18:22 blindfolded, handcuffed and sinking underwater: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is an abomination."

Rarely do you hear them mention the other "sexual sins" in Leviticus, such as making love to your wife while she's menstruating. There are some people who say Jesus freed us from the old laws with one side of their mouths while using old laws to condemn GLBT people with the other.

Many turn to the destruction of Sodom as proof against homosexuality. But the King James version lists fornication, greed and lying as sins committed in Sodom as well, and never specifies which particular sin caused God's wrath.

In fact, the word "Sodomite," which some like to toss around as an anti-gay insult, is a mistranslation and is not used in the original Hebrew text. The actual word is "kadesh," and it does not refer to the city, its inhabitants or a specific sexual act. It refers to the occult male prostitutes in the shrines, just as "kedesha" refers to the female equivalent. Neither word reflects sexual orientation.

It may be convenient to say Sodom was all about homosexual people, but historically and scripturally, that isn't accurate. This is why I, like so many other Christians, do not follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I'm not ducking Leviticus, I'd just rather go directly to the source. Concepts get lost in translation, and we all know history is filled with influential people and institutions that have defined religion for the masses based upon their own selfish needs. For example, King Henry VIII, the man who authorized the first English translation of the Bible, was married six times and essentially had the British Empire separate from the Roman Catholic Church so he could divorce in peace. Then there's King James, whose own writings suggest he was secretly gay or bisexual, according to historians such as Michael B. Young and Caroline Bingham.

He was directed to marry for the sake of the throne before authorizing the version of the Bible that swapped "kadesh" for "Sodomite" in the first place. Hmm, where have we heard that story -- closeted gay politician with an anti-gay policy -- before?

But theology and history aside, it is clear from the lack of consistent reaction to and organization against the litany of other present-day sins that a large number of people who call themselves Christians do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible either. So, if some of us are picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow, why are so many opting to pick and choose verses that appear to condemn homosexuality and not the one against marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?
If sin is sin, why such Christian angst directed at the GLBT community and not the greedy corporate community, which, quite frankly, has more direct impact on the average person's life?

The answer is simple: Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices.

It's no different from Christian slave owners using Scriptures to feel better about enslaving Africans, or men pointing to Jezebel as a way to keep women out of the clergy, or Bob Jones University picking verses that supported the school's ban on interracial dating.

The extremists aren't fighting gay rights because of sin and honoring Leviticus 18:22. If they were, then where are the faith-based organizations spending millions trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10? Is 18:22 more true than 20:10, or does it just support a more common and entrenched prejudice?

LZ Granderson is a senior writer and columnist for ESPN The Magazine and ESPN.com, and has contributed to ESPN's Sports Center, Outside the Lines and First Take. He is a 2010 nominee and the 2009 winner of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) award for online journalism as well as the 2008 National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) winner for column writing.

Go For It!

2010-03-26T15:45:00.000-05:00

Go For It! This is President Obama's response to opposition to Healthcare Reform.

Now, first and foremost, for my job, Healthcare Reform is not a bad thing at all. Yes, I'm in the insurance industry, but the reform, whatever it might be, is most likely going to increase rather than decrease our business. Job. Security. Go Healthcare Reform!

Now, I'm not a huge fan of Healthcare Reform. I believe there should be limits on healthcare. I also believe the reform is only a band-aid on a gaping wound. The reform is only consider one small part of the problem, rather than the overall problem. The band-aid's not gonna fix the problem.

But, back to go for it! Last time I checked, arrogance (or whatever) went before the fall. Over confidence that healthcare reform is going to succeed probably isn't the wisest move on President Obama's part. Never, ever underestimate your enemy . . . or the memory of your opponents.

Healthcare Reform is a very touchy issue - death threats, rocks through windows, hit lists - with many people. It shouldn't be taken lightly. Go For It! seems a fairly lighthearted attitude, and a bit arrogant. Will he be so confident if the moves by his opponent succeed in delaying the reform? If the courts take up the unconstitutionality of the reform? If the idea of separation of church and state doesn't exist based on the language in the new bill? Hmmmm . . .

Perhaps a more understated - we'll see - response would have been better. In the end, taunting a hungry lion with a piece of raw meat isn't always a good thing. I'm just saying . . .

S

Reactive Behavior

2010-03-25T09:14:00.002-05:00

So, healthcare reform has the nation galvanized . . . in good ways and bad ways, but more bad than good. Such is life.

Every since the House passed Healthcare Reform, well . . . rocks through windows, racial slurs, derogatory comments, death threats, and Sarah Palin's hit list.

First - rocks through windows, death threats, derogatory comments, etc. GROW UP, PEOPLE! You're not in Kindergarten. You're grown adults. Your actions are that of children. Heck, children are better behaved than you.

Second - Sarah Palin. Now, should Sarah Palin, at her age, have what's called a hit list on her Facebook page? No! She's not in the mafia - heaven help us if that happens - and she's not a teenage girl. Hit lists are for those two groups. Period. Mrs. Palin, and the other extremists, need to grow up, get a life, and figure out proactive, not reactive, ways to deal with their discontent with Healthcare Reform and the current administration.

Third - the Tea Party. This group of discontents needs to get a life. Okay, the majority of them, not all of them. Many of the reactive instances lately have been allegedly committed by these members. There is not a place for such reactiveness (yes, I know, not a word, but it works, get over it) in today's society. We're not in the Stone Age, people. We don't hit people over the head with clubs to a) get their attention or b) get a mate. If you want a mate, try eharmony.com - they're pretty discriminatory as is, and would fit right in with the extremist ideals of many members of the Tea Party . . . and the G.O.P. for that matter.

So, in short: GET A LIFE! Violence is not the answer. Hit Lists are not the answer. Rocks through windows, death threats, slurs of any type . . . are not the answer. Go raise money for a political candidate. Be proactive, not reactive. GROW UP!

2010-03-10T11:00:00.002-06:00

Normally, I just direct people to the article in question and just rant away here. Well, not today.

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to defend their prejudice and deny their ignorance. The Catholic Church is no exception.

Personally, people take the Bible out of context - a snippet here, a snippet there, everywhere a snippet - to defend their ignorance and oppress individuals. Equality only exists for the allegedly enlightened . . . at least in my opinion.

Well, I'm pretty sure the Bible wasn't meant to be taken out of context to unfairly limit equality to people, or make one group feel better about their oppressive natures and denial of equal rights to people. I'm just saying . . . .

So, a Catholic school in Colorado has ejected a little girl from the school because her parents are - gasp, the horrors, say it isn't so - lesbians. Oh, yes, they did!

The article is below and I'm going to put my comments in bold between certain paragraphs!!

(CNN) -- The archdiocese of Denver, Colorado, is defending its decision not to re-enroll two children in a Catholic school in Boulder next year because their parents are lesbians.

"The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are 'bad,' or that their children are less loved by God," wrote Archbishop Charles J. Chaput in an article to be published in Thursday's edition of the Denver Catholic Register. "Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ."

Thou shall not judge, lest ye be judged - hmmm, I guess they haven't got that far in the Bible. I'm just saying . . .

I mean, seriously, people, this man can sleep at night with this drivel being his life's blood????? Oh, they're not 'bad', just not acceptable. Yeah, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy!!!

He added people with a different understanding of marriage and family life "have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children."

'Other options'??? Oh, please! I'm sorry, but the Archdiocese of Denver really needs to get a life, and a better spokesman.

The issue centers on the Sacred Heart of Jesus School, where the children are currently enrolled, the older of whom has been enrolled in kindergarten for next year but will not be allowed to enter first grade and the younger of whom is in preschool but will not be allowed to enter kindergarten.

"The Archdiocese of Denver has acted very unjustly in singling out this child for exclusion," said DignityUSA Executive Director Marianne Duddy-Burke in a written statement Monday, before it became clear that two children were affected. "Until every student's parents are tested on Catholic teaching, this action by Catholic officials cannot be understood as anything other than discrimination on the back of a child. At a tender age, this child has learned that Catholic officials are willing to inflict pain on children and families."

Woo-hoo! Agree! Agree! Agree!!

The decision was made public last week.

"These actions by the Denver Archdiocese harm the student by taking the child away from friends, teachers and community," said Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. "It's deeply troubling to see any school remove a child from their educational program simply as the means of rejecting that child's parents."

In a posting of his sermon, the Rev. Bill Breslin, pastor of Sacred Heart of Jesus Church, supported the decision. "The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."

Who is he to judge whether a relationship is good or not?? I mean, seriously! The Catholic Church is infamous for it's delicate dealing of pedophilia within the Church for centuries. Oh, let's just transfer this priest to another parish, surely he's learned his lesson. So, why should their ill treatment of a child be any different in a different situation? The Catholic Church is famous for covering things up, only this time, they're right out in the opening allegedly implying that they know what's best . . . for them, not the rest of us. Go figure!

About 30 opponents of the move, "mostly hetero allies of the gay community," protested Sunday outside the church during Mass, said Dave Ensign, board president of Boulder Pride, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community center and services organization.

Ensign handed out flyers to the protesters and then joined the parishioners as they listened to the sermon defending the church's move. "I was disappointed, but it was pretty much what I was expecting to hear," he said. He added that the larger community's reaction has been positive. "When people hear about this, they speak up and I think that says a lot about our community," he said.

The children have not been identified publicly.

In the end, the children (as usual) are the ones hurt while the allegedly ignorant skip on their merrily way down the path of judgment toward others as they take the Bible out of context.

Now, I know this isn't a reflection of all Catholics. I know there are many Catholics out there, my family among them, that do not agree with the archaic teachings of the Church, nor the instance by the Pope to remain in the Dark Ages, rather than move forward into the 21st Century . . . and beyond. The sad thing here, the children, as normal, pay the price for the alleged ignorance of adults!

S

Sarah Palin & Sexism

2009-11-17T16:32:00.002-06:00

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 . . .

S

The Smartest Thing

2009-11-04T08:10:00.002-06:00

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?

Why?

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 . . .

S

Nobody's Business

2009-09-17T11:11:00.003-05:00

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.

Yes!

It!

Is!

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.

S

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill

2009-09-16T07:13:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

WTH?!?!

Moral issue???

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 . . .

Ya Think????

2009-08-06T07:50:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

How The Mighty Have Fallen

2009-07-19T16:44:00.001-05:00

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 . . .

Morality or Opportunity?

2009-07-17T07:54:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

S

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.

Woo-Hoo Massachusetts!!!

2009-07-09T07:01:00.002-05:00

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)

I'm a quitter, not a finisher!

2009-07-08T08:00:00.003-05:00

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 . . .

S

A Joke Taken Too Far?

2009-06-16T11:17:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

S

Idiocy in Idaho

2009-06-10T12:12:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

Blogs

2009-06-10T07:38:00.002-05:00

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:

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/
http://slog.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/
http://www.signorile.com/
http://www.goodasyou.org/

Here's the full list, in no particular order:

AmericaBlog.com:
Gawker.com
DListed.com
HuffingtonPost.com
OhLaLaMag.com
Signorile.com
PamsHouseBlend
TowleRoad.com
WorldofWonder.net
PerezHilton.com
Slog.TheStranger.com
PinkIsTheNewBlog.com
Popnography.com
Rod 2.0
GoodAsYou.org

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 . . .

S

At what age . . .

2009-06-09T06:57:00.002-05:00

. . . 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!

S

Disappointed

2009-05-26T14:12:00.003-05:00

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!

S

The Best Interest of a Child

2009-05-20T09:29:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

To Out or Not to Out, That is the QUESTION!!!

2009-05-19T07:22:00.003-05:00

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 . . .

S

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!

The Weighing of Happiness

2009-05-12T15:29:00.002-05:00

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.

Bullied to Death

2009-04-24T07:02:00.003-05:00

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)

When Does it Stop?

2009-04-22T16:37:00.002-05:00

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.

What is it . . .

2009-04-22T14:11:00.002-05:00

. . . 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 . . .

Allegedly . . .

2009-04-22T12:16:00.003-05:00

. . . 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.

S

Miss California

2009-04-21T15:46:00.005-05:00

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!

S

A Challenge

2009-04-16T11:29:00.004-05:00

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.

S

This rant inspired (and quoted material taken from) this article: http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090416/Gay.Marriage.New.York/

Overcoming the Voices of Hate

2009-04-15T08:49:00.003-05:00

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 . . .

Blatant Discrimination

2009-04-01T10:51:00.004-05:00

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!

S

Fannie Mae Execs to get BONUSES!!!

2009-03-19T07:08:00.002-05:00

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 . . .

Oh, where, oh where, . . .

2009-03-03T15:17:00.002-06:00

. . . do I began?

Bailing out AIG . . . AGAIN???

People mired in the past????

A pink bottenose dolphin??

The OctoMom???

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 . . .

S

p.s. I'm allowed to wonder about the dolphins sexuality since he/she might be one of my people!

At what point . . .

2009-02-19T11:13:00.002-06:00

. . . 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 . . .

Why are people surprised . . .

2009-02-18T15:04:00.002-06:00

. . . 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 . . .

Boycott Valentine's Day

2009-02-11T16:10:00.002-06:00

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!!

S

I just want to know . . .

2009-02-06T10:15:00.002-06:00

. . . 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!

S

Why do we . . .

2009-02-04T14:08:00.006-06:00

. . . 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!!!

S

Stimulus Package

2009-02-03T11:14:00.002-06:00

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?

Puppy Cloning

2009-01-29T10:02:00.002-06:00

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 . . .

S

p.s. $155,000?? I mean, really!!

The Lies We Tell Ourselves . . .

2009-01-26T19:26:00.002-06:00

. . . in the dark of the night or the light of the day. Do they make us happy? Do we believe them? Are they (the lies) really worth telling?

Okay, I'm not really going in depth about the lies (what I said really wasn't that bad, what they don't know won't hurt me, etc., etc., etc.,) we tell ourselves in the dark of the night or the light of the day. What I am going to talk - well, write - about is the lies New Life Church in Colorado continue to tell. If you've been following this blog, then you might recall the post I did about Ted Haggard, the founder of New Life Church, when it was revealed that he - an anti-gay person who preached his anti-gay verbal spam from the pulpit - had an affair with another man and then, after brainwashing, declared himself cured. Search through the old posts, because I really don't feel like rehashing my opinions about the alleged curing of homosexuality.

So, now, three years later, in the wake of another sex scandal involving Ted Haggard and New Life Church, the current pastor has revealed that Ted Haggard had more than one affair - No, Seriously, WTF - with a man. In fact, the church went so far to "pay the man in exchange for his pledges not to talk publicly about the relationship". No??? What is the world coming to? A church paying a man - wait, is that what they call blood money, the same reason Judas Iscariot committed suicide??? - to keep silent about a scandal? Has that been done before? Oh, wait, in a way - yes - I believe that would be the Catholic Church . . . but, like Sophia Petrillo, I digress. New Life Church "provided the man (in question) the money to pay his college tuition, moving expenses and counseling" Why counseling? Well, according to the folks at New Life Church, homosexuality can be cured. Excuse me, I laughed so hard my tiara fell off!

Let me discuss the 'blood money' aspect of all of this. According to current Pastor Boyd, the money was "compassionate assistance" to help the man "move forward, not a settlement to keep him quiet". Dang, there goes the tiara again. I've got to quit laughing so hard. I mean, does the Pastor actually believe the crap he's spewing forth? Is he so befuddled by his religion that he cannot recognize the truth?? New Life Church did not want to silence the man. First lie.

Why is that statement a lie? Well, Pastor Boyd - open mouth, insert foot, and hope no one notices - later goes on to say that the man (btw, the man has agreed to interviews, which New Life Church found out about, thus their sudden defensive posture) is "in violation of the agreement we signed with (him)". What does it matter? If the agreement wasn't to keep him quiet, then why would New Life Church care that the man was finally speaking out? Oh wait, because New Life Church allegedly lied. The agreement was all about silence to protect the battered image of the church.

Okay, obviously I'm sort of pissed about the whole thing. How many lies must churches hide behind to protect their ignorance . . . of life, of humanity, of homosexuality? How can a Pastor, an alleged man of God, spew forth such drivel and not see the lies dancing right in front of him? In my opinion, lofty and arrogant as it might be at times, this behavior is inexcusable from an alleged man of God! A lie is a lie, no matter how a person sugar coats the lie! New Life Church paid off a twenty year old man so their organization would not be rocked by another homosexual sex scandal. The only reason Pastor Boyd is even speaking out now is that the scandal was about to break. Otherwise, Pastor Boyd would have been content with the silence of the lies, the blood money.

Whew!!!

Lastly, Pastor Boyd made the following statement: "We had a leader with flawed character and we're trying to clean up from the residue of the past. This will not always define us. I can promise you that in the days ahead, we won't be identified with scandal, but helping the widows and orphans."

Oh, yes he did play the widows/orphans card!! I believe that is one of the classic actions of denial. "Oh, but we do so much good for the widows and orphans, so what if we bought a man's silence rather than stepping up to the plate and dealing with a situation honestly. We are a church after all. Why should honesty count?"

Okay, so he didn't say that, but his actions - in my opinion - say all that and more. How many times will a church tell blatant - or not so blatant - lies, and not feel the slightest guilt about those lies? What harm was done to the 20 year old? Yes, I know, his education was paid for, he received counseling, and what happened between him and Ted Haggard was swept under the expensive carpets of New Life Church. In the end, however, the man pays the greater price and New Life Church hides behind the lies they so eagerly spew to protect their image so they can do good for the widows/orphans of the world.

I'm sorry, but that is the lamest excuse in the world. The Catholic Church hid behind their power for decades while priests were transferred from parish to parish to continue their molestations of trusting parishioners. Time and again, the priests were giving new positions in the church, while their victims suffered in silence. Only now is the Catholic Church paying retribution to the victims of their convenient lies. Shouldn't New Life Church be required to pay retribution as well? How many more men (20 years old, older than that, younger than that) did Ted Haggard have sex with? How many more college educations and counseling sessions has New Life Church paid for so that they can help out widows and orphans?

A lie is a lie, Pastor Boyd, and you're allegedly spewing them out left and right to protect (at least in my opinion) not the victims involved, but rather the financial livelihood of New Life Church. Now, isn't that something to be proud of???

S

Happiness is . . .

2009-01-26T07:28:00.002-06:00

. . . a journey, not a destination (see full text below) - Father Alfred D'Souza

For a long time it seemed to me that life was about to begin -- real life. But there was always some obstacle in the way, something to be gotten through first,some unfinished business, time still to be served, a debt to be paid. At last it dawned on me that these obstacles were my life. This perspective has helped me to see there is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way. So treasure every moment you have and remember that time waits for no one. Happiness is a journey, not a destination.

The above has become my new motto in this life. The above are the words I see whenever I drink out of my coffee cup at home. The words, at least to me, make perfect sense. Everybody, again, at least to me, seems to be searching for happily ever after . . . as if it's a place (i.e., a destination). Well, as the above states, and that's only one man's opinion, happiness is not a destination, but rather a journey, rather . . . LIFE.

Happiness can be found in so many ways. I just wonder how many people overlook happiness. I'm happy with a cup of coffee in hand, sitting out on the patio, and watching the cardinals flock to the bird feeders and fountain in the backyard. I'm happy walking around the house admiring the beautiful day lilies in the late Spring. I'm happy curled up on the couch with a good book in my hand and a glass of wine on the coffee table next to me. Yet all my happys are not places, but moments. I did not have to get in the car - well, unless the trip to the wine store and book store count - to find happy. Happy was right there, all around me, all the time . . . I just could not see the happy.

Now, did the above quote just change my life in a moment of epiphany? No. Did it make me gaily - well, every thing I do is done gaily . . . I'm just saying . . . - dance down the street? No. The above text just sort of put things in perspective . . . for me. The above text might not have any meaning for any body else in the Universe. It does not matter. What matters is that the words had meaning for me.

So, I raise my coffee cup to you, the few readers of this blog, and use the words of that late 80s song . . . don't worry, be happy!

S

A Different Invocation

2009-01-20T14:21:00.003-06:00

Since this invocation did not get all the hoopla or media attention of Rev. Warren's invocation . . .

A Prayer for the Nationand Our Next President, Barack Obama

By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural EventLincoln Memorial,
Washington, DC
January 18, 2009

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God’s blessing upon our nation and our next president.

O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

Bless us with anger – at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

Bless us with patience – and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be “fixed” anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

Bless us with humility – open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for ALL the people.

Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.

Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand – that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Today is . . .

2009-01-20T07:48:00.002-06:00

. . . a defining moment in history as the first African American President takes office. Today is also a day where the same political decisiveness that has defined this country for generations rears its ugly head. WTF???

A friend of mine is a principal and has asked that all teachers allow Internet and/or television access for the students to view the Inauguration. A simple request, really? A moment in history should be viewed by all . . . right? Well, this is where the lovely political bias that I absolutely hate comes into play. According to my friend he has "Republican teachers who don't want to watch the inauguration in their classes".

My response . . . I'd tell the Republican teachers that their political opinions have no place in school, and that their students have yet to take silly, childhood political sides, and should be allowed to watch a moment of history unfold, whether their teachers are ignorant or not. I'm sorry, but there is no place for political bias when you are a teacher. The bias needs to stay out of the classroom. I'm just saying . . .

Now I understand that people have political beliefs, religious beliefs, and so many other beliefs that weigh them down on a daily basis and - sometimes - make them insufferable to be around. I just don't feel that those beliefs should take precedent in school. Children go to school to learn, not to have a teacher's personal beliefs/opinions thrust on them. I feel the same way about pharmacists who don't want to hand out birth control or the morning after pill because of their religious beliefs. If a person is so rigid in their beliefs, that is fine and good, but perhaps said person needs to find a different job if they cannot remove themselves from their beliefs. I'm just saying . . .

S

Frances

2009-01-13T07:42:00.004-06:00

Early this past Saturday morning, my friend/co-worker Frances lost her valiant battle with breast cancer that had metastasized to the bone. She fought long and hard for more than 3 1/2 years. She defied the odds.

In October 2007 the doctors gave Frances 3 to 6 months. One year later and she was still battling the oppressive cancer that was eating its way through her body. She could no longer live by herself and reluctantly agreed to go into hospice. The hospice center gave her 1 to 3 weeks. Well, she beat those odds as well.

On December 31, 2008 we received a call that Frances probably would not make it through the day. A few of us made the trip to hospice to say our good-byes to Frances. While there, the hospice nurse came in and said that Frances probably had 1 to 2 days left. Frances was a wonderful, stubborn woman. When did she ever listen to anybody who was trying to put a timeframe on her life? She made it for more than a week, but finally - in the very early hours of Saturday morning - passed from this world.

I don't think I can - even as a writer - truly describe Frances. She was one of the most wonderful people I have ever met in my life and had a vibrant, almost effervescent - those are the sparkly, fizzy things in 7-Up - personality. She greeted each day with joy. Nobody, not nobody, could say 'good morning' like Frances. No matter what my mood might be when I came into work, a good morning from her cheered me up. When the cancer began to take its toll, and the pain as well, she stopped saying good morning. Still, on the rare days that she did say good morning, we knew it was a good day for her, even if her good mornings were not as exuberant as before. I picture her now, in Heaven, strolling around and giving her most exuberant, vivacious, and vibrant good morning to every soul up there. She was just that kind of woman. It might take her centuries to get all her good mornings taken care of, and then she'll have to start with the new entrants, but she'll keep on saying good morning.

We lost a part of ourselves at my workplace when Frances left us. We're a small company, more a family than a group of co-workers. Her absence has been felt everyday since October 2007 when the cancer became too much for her and she could no longer come in to work everyday. Frances loved coming in to work. The loss is even greater now because we know she is not a phone call, visit, or email away from us. Still, we were lucky to have her as part of our lives.

Not Afraid

2009-01-12T13:37:00.002-06:00

Read this article.

In a surprising show of support, gay bars in Seattle, Washington did a booming business this past weekend after receiving terrorist - i.e., someone threatened to poison patrons with ricin - threats. Did my people run and hide? No, my people (GLBT in case any one is wondering) came out in full force with the following attitude: 'Come on out. If you don't drink, a terrorist wins'. The terrorist did not win this past weekend. The gay community won. I'm just saying . . .

Adam Herman went missing . . .

2009-01-07T16:30:00.003-06:00

. . . in 1999. His adoptive parents never reported him missing. They "really rue the fact that" they didn't report him missing. Ya think? I mean, seriously, how do you not report that your 10 year old adoptive son - someone you've had custody of since he was 2 - went missing. Their excuse - well he ran away a lot and we just figured he was either with his biological parents or homeless. Okay, that statement is wrong on so many levels. What possible excuse could they have for not contacting the police or biological parents?

Is Adam alive or dead? Nobody knows at this point. Did his adoptive parents allegedly harm him? Nobody knows at this point. If he did run away, why not call the police or somebody? Why not do something to save a child?

I just don't understand a good portion of humanity any longer. It seems with each passing year a small portion of humanity moves further and further away from anything human-like. Adam went missing and nobody reported him missing. Elvira sits alone at dinner and no one seems to care. Hedviga Golik is dead. Three different posts on this blog about the inhumanity of humanity. Does anybody care any longer? Has society become so desensitized that the disappearance of a child - the fact that an elderly woman sits alone for dinner every night, the fact that a woman (Hedviga) was dead for 23 years before anyone figured it out - doesn't cause any concern at all? If the answer to that questions is a resounding "yes", then . . . well, I don't know what. I just know that no matter what Adam was like - horrible child, didn't listen to his adoptive parents, didn't make his bed - he deserved to be reported missing. If he is dead, didn't he deserve a chance to live a little bit longer than 10 years? Maybe, on the chance that he is dead, if his adoptive parents reported him missing, he might have had a longer chance at life. I'm just saying . . .

Senator Burris

2009-01-07T12:55:00.002-06:00

Here's my thoughts on the current ordeal with Senator Burris. Let the man in already!

Okay, so those aren't my total thoughts on the subject. In case you've been living under a rock, Senator Burris is the junior senator from IL selected by the allegedly corrupt Governor of IL to replace Barack Obama in the United States Senate. The issue at hand: the Senate doesn't want to recognize Burris because the selection does not have the seal of the IL Secretary of State - a perfectly legitimate legal requirement set forth in the Senate by-laws. The IL Secretary of State refuses to put their signature on the necessary legal document because of the corruption charges facing the current IL Governor. Senator Burris feels he has every right to step into Barack Obama's senate shoes. The Senate feels otherwise. The Senate feels that a nomination by an allegedly corrupt Governor corrupts the nomination/selection. I agree to some extent. I'm just not sure I agree in keeping the man out of the Senate. Find some concessions, people, some type of agreement that Burris can temporarily assume the senate seat; however, if the IL Governor is found guilty, then Burris must step down.

Is that a fair solution? Well, probably not, but it's the best I can come up with on short notice. Personally, if it was me, I would have declined the Governor's selection, knowing that the selection is without merit and - for the most part - tainted. Why tainted? Well, the Governor is under investigation for corruption, and for attempting to sell Barack Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. In the face of everything, the Governor has maintained - the American right, and all that jazz - innocence and continually cast blame at everyone except himself. Isn't that the defense of an allegedly guilty man? I'm just asking . . . So, any nomination/selection (or whatever the heck the appropriate word might be) by said allegedly corrupt Governor takes on a hint of corruption as well.

Yes, this is all just my vaulted opinion that's really not worth anything to anyone except myself. I just think too much time is being spent arguing this back and forth (yeah, I'm guilty as well on that count), threatening lawsuits, and everything else. There are more important problems in our country right now (recession, economic crisis, unemployment, businesses shutting down, an increasing deficit, etc.) that we should be focusing on, rather than this issue. Reach a compromise, people of the Senate, and get on with the business at hand. I'm just saying . . .

Yesterday . . .

2008-12-31T07:33:00.003-06:00

. . . I said good-bye to my cherished cat Jordy. He lived a good life (16 years). Yesterday, was a crappy day all around. I just knew when I got up that something was wrong. Boy, was I right on that count. I made the painful – trust me, I kept Kleenex in business this morning – decision to have him put down. He’s just not been doing well, arthritis was setting in, and he was just having a really hard time of it lately.

Jordy was the best cat ever. Not that his sisters Tasmyn and Squeaky aren’t good cats, they just have an attitude most of the time. Jordy, on the other paw, was just Mr. Laid Back. He accepted life (the addition of Tasmyn to the household, then Spanky and Arthur when Frank and I moved in together, then Squeaky after Arthur passed away, and finally Jesse and James once Spanky had journeyed forth into the great beyond) as just another day.

I went to the pound sixteen years ago looking for the most adorable kitten ever. They had no kittens that day and kept showing me cat after cat. None of them seemed “right”. I’d finally settled on a cute cat, when all of a sudden I felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around and there was Jordy – cute as could be, just looking at me with those big green eyes saying “Uh, excuse me, excuse me, but I’m the best there is!!!” Truer words could not have been spoken. He melted my heart with that simple tap on my shoulder. I took him home that day and despite the neutering two weeks later, oh, and then the declawing incident two weeks after that, he was my little sack of flour that I could carry around like a baby . . . for sixteen great years. Okay, there was the diabetes in 1999 and two shots a day, but he took the shots like a trooper and showed up in the kitchen every night around the same time to take his medicine. I rarely had to hunt him down to give him his shots, though there were twenty or forty such occasions where he made me look for him. He was a cat after all, and had to remind me that I was at his beck and call, and not the other way around.

I went to the vet alone yesterday morning, just Jordy and me, kind of like the beginning of our lives together. Frank offered to go, but we had a contractor due at the house, and I think I just needed some “me” time with Jordy. Frank said his good-byes at the house, giving Jordy a ton of treats and petting him while he ate them. I said my final good-byes at the vet, just Jordy and me!

No one ever tells you when you adopt a pet, that the final day just sucks big time. Trust me, it does. Still, he brought joy to my life for a good long time. I miss him terribly. I’m still keeping Kleenex in business. He was the best!

There are so many good memories of Jordy . . .

The Closet Incident - okay, there were many times when this sneaky cat of mine snuck into the closet without either Frank or I knowing. We would only learn of his closet presence when he woke up from his nap and began to bang on the door to be let out.
The Scratching at the Door Incident - Jordy was an indoor cat who just loved to go outside. I would take him out every now and then and sit with him while he prowled around the yard. At one point, after finally adjusting to Spanky and Arthur (the dogs), Frank would take Jordy and the dogs out together. The three of them would run side by side across the driveway to the fenced in backyard. Jordy, at least for a time, was one of the dogs. Well, when Jordy wanted out, he would scratch at the door in the den. No, Jordy, you're not going out - was my normal response. One night, he was scratching at the door, and I made my usual response without even looking. It wasn't until the next morning, when I couldn't find Jordy to give him his shot, that I realized he was not in the house. I went outside, shouted for him, and here he came from the deeps of the wilds of the backyard. He was not a happy camper. Little did I know when I said No, Jordy, you're not going out, that he was scratching from outside wanting to get in. Boy, did Frank get a talking to that morning about not bringing Jordy back in . . . and not for the first time, I might add.
The OMG What Did You Bring Home Incident - this was when, after only having Jordy a few months, I brought Tasmyn home to join the family. Jordy went up to the carrier, sniffed at Tasmyn, turned his back and walked away. If you think I'm having anything to do with her, you're out of your mind. Jordy stuck to his word. He would have nothing to do with Tasmyn at all. He ignored her. If he was on the bed and she clawed her way up, he got down. If he was in a chair and she leaped over to sleep with him, he got down. He wanted nothing to do with her. Nothing at all. So, months go by and I come home from work early one day. What do I find? Jordy and Tasmyn curled up in a chair together. Jordy looks up in surprise and leaps out of the chair. After I stopped laughing, I told him that his secret was out. From that day forward, they were pretty much inseparable.
The I'll Protect You Incident - when Frank and I first moved in together we had the pleasant task of introducing the cats to the dogs (Spanky and Arthur). Let me tell you, Tasmyn drew blood from the dogs on many occasions. Finally, a truce was called . . . or so I thought. One night, the dogs are on the sofa with Frank, sleeping soundly, and Tasmyn struts by, reaches out, smacks the hell out of Spanky, and keeps on walking. Well, next day, payback time and Spanky corners Tasmyn. He barks. She hisses. From behind me a hear a low growl. Here comes Jordy, tail puffed up big as can be, eyes, wide, and coming across the room toward Spanky. Nobody, not nobody, messes with my sister, BUD!!! He might have disliked her to begin with, but she somehow wormed his way into his heart, and nobody was going to bother her, not even Spanky.

The memories go on and on, and the tears continue to flow. The picture above is of Jordy in one of his favorite places - on the dining room chairs beneath the table cloth. He always thought no one could find him there. His only problem - he always let his tail dangle out from beneath the table cloth. Still, when in doubt, no cat about, look beneath the tablecloth!!!

The Christmas music . . .

2008-12-24T08:40:00.002-06:00

. . . plays semi-softly in the background. Outside, the rain is falling. Glad I'm not in Chicago . . . or anywhere else where snow is socking them in and giving them a splendidly white Christmas. Okay, I would love a white Christmas. It just rarely happens in TN.

I grew up outside of Chicago. Snow was part and parcel of Christmas. I remember only one year where we could actually see the grass at Christmastime. Ahh, the days of childhood when I would romp all day in the snow - bundled up (long underwear, jeans, snow pants, quadruple layer of socks, sweaters, jackets, mittens, scarves, hats, face totally protected from the cold) and braving the huge drifts of snow, tunneling from yard to yard, building snow forts and snowmen, and having snowball fights. Oh, then there was the creek behind the house. Ice skating everyday as well. Oh, did I mention I had a tendency of finding the only thin spot on the ice and falling through.

Once upon a time, in the days of childhood, I fell through the ice - repeatedly - on a single day. Well, after the umpteenth time, my mother had enough. "If you fall through the ice again don't bother coming home." Ahh, the joys of childhood when you take your parents words literally. I fell through the ice again.

Darkness falls. I'm not home. My parents, sisters and brother, bundle up and beginning searching for me. No sight nor sound to be found in the winter wonderland that was the Chicago suburbs at that time. Finally, mother opens the garage door and there I am - soaked to the bone, shivering (probably blue, but she never mentions that part when she tells the story).

Well, years later we can laugh about the story. I always tell Mom "careful what you tell your children". Oh, and I have no true memory of the event. I guess it is true that you block out the traumatic events of your childhood. Still, those were the days.

Where do our childhoods go so that we no longer truly enjoy snow? Or Christmas for that matter! We lived in a two story house growing up. The one Christmas tradition I remember clearly, is the four of us (two sisters, my brother and I) perched at the top of the stairs waiting for Mom and Dad to wake (okay, they'd probably been awake since 4 AM hearing us whispering outside their bedroom door) up and allow us to go downstairs. We'd make slow treks - one at a time - down the stairs to peek around the corner into the living room to see what we could see. Then, in a mad - probably earth-shattering dash - we would scurry back up the stairs and perch at the top, expectantly looking at Mom and Dad's room. Again and again, we would repeat this action until finally Dad would emerge. Were we allowed to run pell-mell down the stairs? Oh, no, that would be too simple. Dad meandered his way down the stairs. Mom had yet to emerge. the wait was eternal. Everything was eternal at that age. Finally, Mom would emerge in her robe. "Merry Christmas. Wait here." She would go down and make coffee. Finally, Dad would appear at the bottom of the stairs with his camera. "Now," he would say, and we would rush down while he snapped a picture. Year after year, the same situation, a little less wild the older we got, but the picture - two girls, two boys, in pajamas and robes, rushing down the stairs on Christmas morning - filled the photo albums.

Bottom of the stairs, Mom blocking the way to the living room where Santa's presents lay exposed for all to see except for us. Around the corner into the family room where the overflowing (mostly with fruit, I might add) lay on the fire place where - thankfully - the fire had finally burned out to allow Santa entry into the house. We dug into the stockings with hurried fervor and only then were we allowed to dash into the living room and see what Santa had left us.

Mom and Dad let us play with our Santa gifts while Mom fixed breakfast. The same thing every year: blueberry muffins, bacon, scrambled eggs and orange juice. To this day, we all still make the same thing on Christmas day. Tradition. After breakfast, we could open the rest of the gifts. Chaos. Paper everywhere. "Thanks Mom and Dad". Phone calls to grandparents and then off - do we have to???? - Church. Back home from Church. Play with the toys. Christmas Dinner! Merry Christmas!

Childhood is gone. My brother, sisters and I are grown. We all have our own families and lives. No more running down the stairs in pell mell fashion. No more Dad snapping the pictures at the bottom of the stairs. Still, near or far, the memories remain forever in our hearts.

Merry Christmas!!!

Whatever happened to . . .

2008-12-17T07:23:00.002-06:00

. . . children should be seen and not heard?

I was getting my haircut the other day and two women had brought their children to the salon (yes, I go to a salon - good haircut, they serve wine and the prices are not that bad) with them. The children were running rampant through the salon. Their mothers thought they were so cute. I'm sure their mothers were the only ones who thought they were cute. Eventually, one of the salon workers politely told the children that they needed to sit on the couch and not move. The children - for the most part - did.

Here's my gripe: the mothers should have told their children to sit on the couch, play with their toys, and not move. The children should never have been running rampant through the salon.

As a child, I would never have been allowed to run rampant. My parents had better control over us. We did what we were told . . . for the most part, we were kids, we misbehaved, and we knew we would get punished. It was part of life when I was growing up. There were consequences. If Mom told me to sit in a chair while she had her hair cut; I did exactly that. I did not get up and run like a heathen through the beauty shop. I listened to my mother.

The sad fact about this post, is that - most likely - the mothers of the children in question did not tell their children not to run rampant through the salon. The mothers - not once while I was there - ever said one word to their children as they ran through the store, sometimes screaming at the top of their lungs. Boy, talk about needing a glass of wine.

So, to parents everywhere when out in public with your children - it is not okay to allow your children to run around like heathens in a place of business. I'm just saying . . .

Joe the Plumber is Appalled!!!

2008-12-11T09:36:00.002-06:00

The title of this post is the title of a recent article on cnn.com about how Joe the Plumber "felt "appalled" at some of his interactions with the Arizona senator, and soon felt the need to ditch his campaign" (www.cnn.com). First - he never did ditch the campaign, he was there to the bitter end.

Now, what is wrong with this picture? This man - Joe the Plumber - literally threw himself on McCain's bandwagon. He appeared at rally after rally in support of John McCain and now that McCain did not get - thankfully - elected, Joe the Plumber is showing his true colors. I mean, really, get some morals, man!!! You had no problem grabbing whatever limelight you could - even though you owed back taxes - and going so far as to sign a deal with a management firm in Nashville to represent you . . . until your candidate of choice lost the election. Hmmm, maybe you should have supported Obama???

According to the article, at one point, because of how appalled he was, Joe "wanted to get off the bus after I talked to him" (www.cnn.com). What stopped him? Why did he continue to go to rally after rally and support a man who "appalled" him? Well, let's see, does 15 minutes of fame have anything to do with it? More than likely. Why is he speaking out now? Because the world has forgotten about Joe the Plumber and he is - allegedly - not a happy camper. What's a plumber to do when the limelight begins to dim? Oh, wait, here's an idea, let me talk bad about the person that helped propel me into the limelight in the first place. Et tu, Joe????

I had little respect for this man - unpaid back taxes and all that jazz - in the first place, but I have even less respect now. I could place a bet that Joe being "appalled" would not have happened had John McCain won the election. I'm just saying . . .

Tomorrow (Dec 10, 2008) . . .

2008-12-09T14:23:00.002-06:00

. . . is call out gay day. In effect, in order to show the allegedly ignorant people that continually vote for hate legislation (Prop 8, for example), gays - and their supporters - across the United States are supposed to call in sick (i.e., call out gay) on Wednesday, December 10, 2008. The second option offered is to not spend a cent tomorrow - no Starbucks, no McDonald's for lunch, no nothing.

For me, since I work for a highly enlightened employer that accepts me for me (as I pointed out to our HR person, I'm gay at work every day, why make a special event of that fact??) and offers domestic partnership benefits, I'm choosing the second option and not spending a cent toward the economy tomorrow.

Personally, I think the "let's not spend a cent" makes more sense, because the true impact of our contribution to society will be felt. The allegedly ignorant love to take the money of the GLBT community, they just don't want to offer equality to GLBT. So, the logical choice in the matter, is to not spend a cent tomorrow.

Will the impact of GLBT non-spending be phenomenal? Probably not. Will any one notice the impact? Again, probably not. The point of the situation is not always the impact, but the fact that something was done. So what if the allegedly ignorant fail to realize that the economy faltered just a little bit more because those in the GLBT community, and their supporters, withheld their money for just one day. So what, if - for many - the effort seems empty. The effort is not empty. The effort - in my opinion - is the reward.

By not spending money tomorrow, by not going into work, the GLBT community is taking a stand against inequality. Maybe no one will notice. I think, however, that someone will notice. I think that the passage of Proposition Eight (hate legislation at its finest) will perhaps - hopefully and hurtfully - bite the proverbial asses of all who voted for its passage. In the end, the wake up call has sounded - loudly and clearly - for not only the GLBT community, but its supporters as well. Tomorrow - in the words of Scarlett O'Hara - is just another day, but it is a day where the economy will suffer a slight setback because many members of the GLBT, and their supporters, will choose not to spend their money. I'm just saying . . .

Will Work for $1!!!

2008-12-04T08:29:00.003-06:00

This is the amazing statement made by the CEOs of the Big Three automakers!

In my opinion, it is an empty statement. It has no meaning. It has no impact. Why? Well, let's see, because their salary per year is probably more than I'll ever make in a single lifetime, not to mention their yearly bonuses that are also probably more than I'll ever make in a single lifetime. So, forgive me for greeting the news with my normal dose, plus an additional amount for added measure, of cynicism. The CEOs can more than afford to work for $1 for a year. They are not going to be hurting for money. They are not going to have to worry about putting food on the table. They are still going to be able to take their lavish vacations, spend money like there is no tomorrow, and still have more money left in their bank accounts than I'll ever have in my lifetime.

Do I sound bitter? Well, probably, but it is not intentional. I'm just amazed that the CEOs actually believe they are making a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice. They don't have to worry - at least not right now - about money. Their working for $1 should not be a condition for the Big Three getting bailout money. The CEOs should take some of their gazillion of dollars of excess money and bail their own companies out. The ultimate decisions of the auto industry, that put it in the current state, end up with the CEOs. So, instead of taxpayer money, the CEOs can give back some of their bonuses and their years of extremely excessive salaries. I'm just saying . . .

Rights Denied: The 2nd Class Citizenship of GLBT

2008-12-03T09:38:00.002-06:00

The following is from Join the Impact:

There has been a great deal of talk on The Impact about Light Up the Night and whether or not we should have 2nd Class Citizen T-shirts. Many feel that they are a 1st Class Citizen with 2nd Class Rights, and I think we should be allowed to express who we are in a way we are comfortable with. When it comes down to it, few will argue that our lack of rights incorporates a feeling of 2nd Class in one way or another. On December 20th, we want to bring light to this lack of rights and want you to feel comfortable expressing the 2nd Class status in your own way.

So many people still don’t understand what we are fighting for. Here’s some examples of the “unequal protections under the law” that the LGBTQ community faces:

We can not fight for our country without hiding who we are
In many states (like the recent law in Arkansas) We can not adopt a displaced child in need of a home and safety
In many states, we can still be fired because we are gay
My rights in Washington do not stand when I cross the border to Idaho. Therefor, if my partner were to fall ill on a cross country trip, she would be alone in the hospital and I would be powerless.
Partners cannot share insurance in many states
In many states, people can be murdered because of their sexuality, but their murderer will not be tried for committing a hate crime
A loving couple can share a home, but if one passes, that home can be taken from the other in states where shared property rights are not available.
Finally, a couple can share their lives, share expenses, share good times and bad over many years, but they still cannot gain the equal protections and recognition that two strangers can in one drunken night in Vegas. 2 Strangers + 1 20 minute ceremony + $50 + 10 shots of tequila = Holy Matrimony and 1st Class Protections Under the Law… now who’s crazy?

Random Act of Kindness

2008-12-02T07:07:00.003-06:00

What is a random act of kindness? Well, it's pretty self defining, don't you think?

I was the victim of a random act of kindness on the way into work this morning. No, not a victim, but rather the surprised recipient! I'm in the drive-thru line at Starbucks - waiting, waiting, waiting, and waiting some more - and I finally get to the window to pay. I was informed that the woman in the car in front of me paid for my order as, her words, a random act of kindness.

I was surprised. The Starbucks employee was surprised. A stranger - total, complete - bought my peppermint mocha twist grande and apple fritter. She did not know me. For all she knew, I could be a serial killer. I'm not, btw! She just - randomly - paid for my order.

Now, I know you're wondering whether I paid for the order of the person in line behind me. No. Why? It is not a random act of kindness, though I'm sure it would have been appreciated, to automatically buy the person in line behind you something because something was bought for you. To do so, in my opinion, cheapens the act in itself. I would have been reacting out of instinct and a sense of obligation, and not out randomness. I will perform a random act of kindness at some point . . . today, tomorrow, this week, next week, and maybe quite often at that.

My challenge to any who read this blog: Sometime, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, maybe quite often, perform a random act of kindness. Buy some one's coffee, tea, Big Mac, whatever. Hold the door open for somebody. Say good-morning. Smile. Perform a Random Act of Kindness.

Lastly, I must say, the random act of kindness had a profound effect on me. I'm still slightly dazed. In a world of chaos, a time when the simplest things - a smile, a nod of the head, a thank-you - are pointedly ignored, a stranger bought my coffee. I hate to say it, but it made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I'm just saying . . .

S

World AIDS Day

2008-12-01T07:46:00.003-06:00

Today is World AIDS Day! The world has come a long way since the onset of AIDS. Back in the day, AIDS was thought a boon from above to eradicate the homosexual population. It was the GAY disease. The only celebrating being done at the time (and, potentially, still by a select few) was by the ignorant in the world who (most likely) cheered when news spread of a deadly disease ravaging the gay population.

In the 80s, no thought would have been given to World AIDS Day. Today, in an allegedly more enlightened time for society (unless you live in a state where hate legislation was passed during the recent election, or in years past) we take one day (shouldn't we take every day) to honor those who died from, and are still fighting against, the disease that knows no boundaries. The disease is not a gay disease, it is a disease that affects men, women, and children. It is a disease that did not spring forth suddenly in the 1980s. It is a disease that has existed since the early 1900s . . . oh, and it wasn't a gay disease back then.

So, why am I blogging about World AIDS Day? Because a friend wanted to know when, all theories aside, it really started. I have no true answer to that question, but my response . . .

Well, the theory now, is that AIDS began very early at the beginning of the 20th Century . . . they just didn't know much about the disease, or the fact that it would spread so rapidly once the 80s descended upon the 20th Century. Was AIDS a government generated disease to wipe out homosexuality? If so, it kind of backfired. Was it a Christian based disease spread by some religious organization, all in the name of the greater good? Or, was it just some random freak of nature that spread like wildfire through the gay community, and then beyond to affect all Races, all Genders, and all Sexual Orientations? I think that last one is the actuality of the situation. AIDS is just one of those random things that happen in life. There is no true explanation. It was not, however, a GAY disease as the ignorant liked to proclaim (and some still do) back in the 80s. It was not God's punishment. It was just something that happened. No true explanation. No true reason. No true understanding of why, even almost 30 years later. Some things, my friend, just happen. AIDS is one of those things.

So, take a moment today, and remember all those who have died from AIDS, and those who are valiantly, day by day, still fighting the disease. Take a moment to maybe not go and pay $5 bucks for a cup of coffee, and rather, donate the money to fighting AIDS . . . or cancer . . . or heart disease . . . or . . . well, pick the cause of your choice and remember that every single day in this country, somebody dies from natural causes, or from some horrific disease like AIDS, or Cancer, or even Heart Disease that can fell a seemingly perfectly healthy man just back from a walk from the beach, and just shy of his 60th birthday, or even a young man, 24 years old out playing basketball with friends.

Take a moment, my friends . . .

Christmas

2008-11-30T10:50:00.002-06:00

I absolutely love Christmas. I think - other than Halloween (the gay new year) - that it is one of my favorite times of the year.

I spent this weekend listening to Christmas music and decorating the house. I put up the tree Friday and spent the rest of the day fluffing the branches, and fluffing, and fluffing, and fluffing some more. I spent hours staring at the tree, going over and fluffing over the bare spots. Fluff, fluff, fluff!!

Saturday was ornament day. Again, not a short process. In fact, I'm still adjusting the ornaments - move it an inch up, down, left, right. Crap! It still doesn't look right. Remove the ornament totally - music playing in the background ~ Josh Groban, Linda Eder, Barenaked Ladies, Celtic Woman, Manheim Steamroller, Transsiberian Orchestra - stare at the tree and then, slowly, methodically move forward to place the ornament once again. Sing along with the music, do a little dance, and the decorating continues. Whew!

Then, there were the outdoor lights . . . in the rain. Okay, so the majority of the lights went up the day before Thanksgiving when it was an absolutely gorgeous day, and quite warm as well. The final lights did not go up until yesterday, in the rain, and after quite a few phone calls made to my partner while I was at Target trying to decide what length extension cords we needed, and how many more lights, and . . . and . . . and . . . well, I guess you get the picture. The lights are up. The house is still in process.

S

Kindness

2008-11-25T12:32:00.003-06:00

This entry is two-fold . . . as you'll see if you keep reading. If you stop reading, you'll never understand the two-fold nature of this entry.

Here's the two-fold (actually, two questions) part: Why are people surprised by an act of kindness? Are people afraid of showing kindness (and/or compassion) toward others?

Here's the deal: I was brought up to treat people respectfully, to hold open doors, for women, men, children, whatever, to say thank you, no thank you, you're welcome, yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am, and all the other little kindness that demonstrate - at least in my opinion - the greater potentials of humanity. What surprises me, is that people are often surprised by these small kindnesses. Why? Has society spiraled so far toward chaos that kindness, whether among friends or strangers, is no longer recognized? Has humanity begun a backwards descent towards the neanderthal days? Will acts of kindness soon no longer exist?

I have no answers to those questions. I only know that, more and more, people seemed surprised by signs of kindness, and/or respect.

Now, to my second question (the two-fold nature of this post since the two questions, in many ways, are extreme polar opposites of each other): Are people afraid of showing kindness (and/or compassion) toward others? It seems to me that people would rather act rudely toward each other, than kindly. How difficult is it to hold a door open for someone or to say thank you? How much effort goes into a smile? A kind word? A kind gesture. If someone holds a door open for you, would it kill you (yes, major generalization, get over it) to say "thanks"? Is your face going to break if you smile? Now I understand, the Botox Queens cannot smile or show any facial expression at all, but what's stopping the rest of the world? Why are people afraid to make eye contact? Whew!! Sorry, that took a lot out of me. I guess I'm just confused by the whole surprise toward kindness I have been witnessing lately.

There is no price for kindness, only the reward (if you can get it) of a thanks or a smile, or a coke and smile for that matter. I'm just saying . . .

S

Supersize Me!!

2008-11-25T07:38:00.002-06:00

I know, strange title, but . . . Thanksgiving is just days away, and everybody knows what happens on Thanksgiving: American society overeats like crazy. In fact, Thanksgiving is the beginning of the holiday eating season. From now until New Years, Americans will eat, eat, eat, and then eat some more and more and more. It's an American pastime. It's an American obsession. It's absolutely frakkin' crazy!!! Is this what the Pilgrims had in mind when they sailed to America? Were they not allowed to eat in Europe? When/why did America become such a "fat" society?

Why do Americans eat so much? Why is the South more obese than the rest of the country? Why do restaurants supersize every frakkin' meal? The portions are out of control. Eating is out of control. I think there is a conspiracy between clothes manufactures and the restaurant industry. Picture it: the two sides meeting and the clothes people saying Okay, now you give people way more than they'll eat, and then they'll feel they have to eat everything on their plate because that's what Mom's have told kids for generations, and then their weight will increase and they'll have to buy bigger clothes. It's a win-win situation. And the clothes manufacturers and the restaurant bigwigs laughed all the way to the bank. Can you hear their evil laughter?? It's all a conspiracy.

Okay, so it's not really a conspiracy. The fact is: Americans, for the most part, overeat. They gorge themselves during the holiday season, make false promises to themselves that they'll diet starting the first of the new year . . . and then, three to six weeks into the new year they have given up the diets and are asking for fries with every meal. Instead of cutting back, they go out and buy bigger clothes. Trust me, I've been guilty of the same thing.

My question: where/when does it end? At what point (it took me getting to a Size 34, a very, very tight Size 34) does a person say enough is enough? Why don't people say enough is enough? I have no answer to that question. I only know the eating frenzy that consumes (pun intended) American society will begin in just a few days. The glut of free food gifts has already begun at my office. From now until Christmas, deliveries will arrive. Will my co-workers and I step away from the free food? Hell no!! We'll eat more and more and more, and wonder, as New Years - literally for some of us - rolls around, how in the hell we gained so much weight between Thanksgiving and New Years. Was it the pound of chocolates? The boxes and boxes of cookies? The fruit baskets? Okay, so fruit - in moderation - is somewhat good for a person, but too much of anything packs the pounds on! I'm just saying . . .

S

Faux Heterosexuals

2008-11-22T09:58:00.002-06:00

Faux Heterosexual - a man/woman who is gay, but pretends to be straight, and marries to perpetuate the facade of heterosexuality.

Why am I providing a definition of faux heterosexuality? Well, because I recently learned that a faux heterosexual donated money in support of Proposition 8. Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. This faux heterosexual has been married numerous times. Gee, I wonder why? In fact, the gayvine - telephone, telegraph, tell-a-gay-man - alleges that one of his wives caught him in bed with another man. Gee, do you think that's why she divorced him?

So, this faux heterosexual, in defense of the illusion that he is straight, donates money to support hate legislation that denies same-sex marriage. WTF!!! I mean, seriously people, marrying a woman and donating money against same-sex marriage is not going to make the man straight. He was born gay, he might deny he is gay, and he is going to die gay. You can't change genetics.

Isn't it strange how many of the people who denounce gayness are actually gay? It's as if the only way they know how to react is with anger and oppression toward their own people. It's a crying shame, my friends. I'm just saying . . .

S

BELIEVE

2008-11-12T11:10:00.005-06:00

I believe in equality for all, and not just a select few - this is what I tell people when they ask about the bracelet (see picture) I've started wearing.

This bracelet is available here. It's not expensive. It's $12.00. That's less than three trips to Starbucks for a Grande Cafe Mocha. That's less than you'll pay going out to lunch two days per week.

The sad fact is, election day brought about the passage of hate legislation (Prop 8, etc.) in our country. The sad fact is, equality only exists for the select few in our country. I am denied equality on a daily basis. I cannot marry my partner of 14 years. I cannot (unless I want to risk the potential of violence) walk down the street with my arm about my partner's waist. I cannot openly show affection for my partner in public (again, unless I want to risk the potential of violence). I can, however, since I work for a great company, have my partner covered under my company health plan since we offer domestic partner benefits. Not everybody can say the same thing. Equality does not exist for all.

I believe that equality should exist for all. So, in protest for Prop 8 and all other hate legislation passed on this most recent election day, and on previous election days, I am wearing my believe bracelet. I will respond in the same way - I believe in equality for all, and not just a select few - every single time someone asks about the bracelet. When further asked to explain, I will point out the passage of hate legislation.

What do I ask of my readers? Go here, buy the bracelet, and tell people the same thing. It is a small step toward equality, but it is a step. Every step counts, my friends.

Just in case the link doesn't work - go to http://www.hrc.org/, shop, jewelry, cuff bands/watches and scroll down until you find the believe band.

Hate Legislation

2008-11-07T10:28:00.003-06:00

President-Elect Barack Obama made the following statement in his victory speech: If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

I doubt that "America is a place where all things are possible". The passage of hate legislation that dares to deny the love between two men, or two women, that dares to decree that marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman, does not represent a "place where all things are possible". The passage of hate legislation proves that America, for the most part, in some States at least, is a place where equality is denied to people on a daily basis, and where only the allegedly heterosexual people of this country can expect equality.

So, President-Elect Obama, I issue this challenge: change the policy of discrimination and non-equality against the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered community. Stand up for the rights of all citizens of the United States, and not just the rights of the allegedly heterosexual. Erase my doubt that "America is a place where all things are possible"!

S

Gay Marriage Bans

2008-11-05T08:10:00.002-06:00

Here's what I don't understand: why isn't someone taking the states that pass gay marriage bans to court? The gay marriage bans clearly violate the separation between Church and State set forth in the United States Constitution. Defining marriage solely between a man and woman is Biblical based (i.e., Church). So, to ban gay marriage by using that definition, the separation between Church and State no longer exists, thus the violation of the United States Constitution.

Now, I know, I'm probably missing something, somewhere but it seems pretty simple to me. If the law (gay marriage ban) violates the separation between Church and State, then the law is illegal. I'm just saying . . .

S

WHOO-HOO

2008-11-05T07:02:00.004-06:00

Okay, enough said! Yes, I'm ecstatic over the results of the Election. Whoo-frakkin' - hoo!

As my last official blog of the 2008 election, I would like to commend (in an odd sort of way) Senator John McCain for accepting blame for his failed election. Very few people today are willing to step up to the proverbial plate and say hey, I'm responsible and I'm sorry. In his concession speech, John McCain spoke those admirable words.

I'd like to point out, to him, to the country, that he is not solely to blame for his failure to get 270 electoral votes. The majority of the blame can be summed up in one, very simple word: Bush. Yes, our current President, as well as the Republicans in charge, along with some Democrats as well, are partially - if not majorly (I know, not a word, but I'm using it anyway) to blame for John McCain's failure to garner 270 electoral votes.

With that said, Senator McCain made a few missteps along the way:

First - instead of sticking to his ideal of running an honorable campaign, he ran a dishonorable campaign.
Second - he never should have suspended his campaign because of the economic crisis. He did himself more harm than good with that act, and then whined continuously about that act for the rest of his campaign.
Third - he underestimated the effects of the economy, and George W. Bush, on the American voters.
Fourth - he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate!!!! WTF!!!! Before her nomination as his running mate, who in the heck had heard of her? He picked - in my opinion at least - her for her gender alone and not her qualifications. That, my friends, is sexist!

Still, he accepted the blame, in part, for his failed campaign, so the man has earned some of my respect. I'm just saying . . .

Another Gay Character Bites the Dust on Network Television

2008-11-04T08:37:00.004-06:00

The Grey's Anatomy lesbian storyline is gone. Dr. Hahn has left the building. ABC let the actress go. Why? Well, who the heck knows why the network executives do what they do. The common thread is that they didn't like the lesbian storyline. Shonda Rimes says it didn't have anything to do with the lesbian storyline. The message boards are abuzz with rumors and hateful comments, oh, and the alleged Christians are saying good-riddance. PLEASE!

What would Jesus do? Well, from what I understand - and the more sane of commenter's responded - Jesus would accept and love everybody, without judgement. He would not - yes, grand assumption on my part - spew hate and take the words of the Bible out of context to stress His point of view.

So, what's your take on the firing of a talented actress involved in a lesbian storyline? Was she fired because - as many posted - her character is unsympathetic? Was she fired - as Shonda Rimes stated - because she had no chemistry with her bi-sexual counterpart Callie? Or, was she fired because the ABC executives are narrow-minded and have no clue about real life?

The sad fact is, even with the limited number of gay characters on television, the gay population - my people - are sadly underrepresented. I can find a gay man/woman anywhere I go in this country - restaurant, hotel, law office, gym, Church, grocery store, bus stop, library, etc. The person may or may not be out, but they are there. We are there, we are everywhere, except equally represented on network television. I'm just saying . . .

S

Today . . .

2008-11-04T07:34:00.002-06:00

. . . the people of this country make a very important choice.

. . . the world waits, along with the American people, with baited breath to see which path the United States will take.

. . . the hopes and dreams of one candidate, one party, will be dashed into a million little pieces.

. . . for a little while at least, maybe until tomorrow, the voters will hold hope in their hearts that their candidate will win the election.

. . . I accept the fact that I have done all I can do . . . I have voted (well, technically I voted a few weeks ago when early voting started).

S

Joe the Plumber

2008-11-03T08:54:00.002-06:00

Why all the media hype about Joe the Plumber? First - his name is not Joe. Second - he owes thousands of dollars in back taxes. Third - he's not actually a licensed plumber. Is this really someone we want to represent the average American?

NO!

I'm just saying . . .

Everybody is talking . . .

2008-10-28T13:02:00.002-05:00

Everybody is talking . . . about dear Sarah P and the fact that she recently went rogue and released her inner diva into the outer world. The fact is, I don't like her inner diva anymore in the outer world, than I liked her before she released her diva.

My question: why did it take her so long to release her inner diva? Why now, after months in the spotlight, is she suddenly trying to step away from the puppet strings of the Republican Party? What about in the first days as the spotlight first shined on her? Why now? Because she - in my opinion - is looking out only for herself (somewhat admirable, I must say, if not a little bit too late) and her political future. She is not looking toward November 2008, but rather November 2012 when she could (oh, shudder at the thought) attempt to run for President. Excuse me while I go barf. The only thing scarier than dear Sarah P as Vice President, is dear Sarah P as President. I think I'll need therapy (massive, massive amounts of therapy) if that ever happens.

Okay, back to what this post is about: dear Sarah Ps slow realization that her public image was doing her no good, no good at all. So, she steps to the forefront, grabs the proverbial reins, and attempts to wrest control of her life back from the all consuming GOP. She is called rogue and a diva for daring to even attempt to snip at the puppet strings so artfully (well, not really artfully, more travesty-like than anything) controlled by the GOP. Many women (no offense meant) are calling the term sexist. Yes, the term is sexist. The sad fact is, dear Sarah P, for whatever reason, allowed the GOP to present her as they did. She should have said no, this is not me, choose somebody else. She did not. She made the choice to allow them to present her as they (GOP) did. She made the choice to bow down to the pressure of her chosen political party. She made the choice to let the GOP, McCain advisers, McCain himself, or whoever, control what she said, when she said it, and all that jazz. The choice, my friends, was hers and hers alone. No one forced dear Sarah P to do anything. She alone made that choice, perhaps (though doubtful) for the greater good; but perhaps (much more likely) for her own political good.

In the end, her choices have made her a joke. Her choices have painted an ugly portrait of dear Sarah P. In the end, whatever terms (sexist or not) are used against her, whatever portrait the American public has of her, are all by her choice. If she had stood up for herself sooner, if she had said hey, thanks, but no thanks to the $150,000 wardrobe and make-over, than perhaps some respect might exist for her right now. If she had not put her political (future or otherwise) ahead of herself, than . . . well, I wouldn't be writing this blog.

Everybody is talking about dear Sarah P because she failed to stand up for herself in the first place. I'm just saying . . .

S

Good News

2008-10-28T09:27:00.002-05:00

A psycholgist friend of mine once said, that for every bad news story, there should be five good news stories. So, in doing my part . . . here is a good news story. Yes, it is only one, but one is a good enough start.

S

Wake Up and Smell the Manure

2008-10-28T08:16:00.005-05:00

So, I'm flipping channels last night and land on CNN and Larry King Live. He has a panel of four women - Janine Turner (Northern Exposure) among them - discussing Sarah Palin. Two of the women were for Sarah Palin and two against. The problem: both sides were not actually listening to each other. They would spout their rhetoric and then, while the other side was speaking, they would plan their response, without actually listening. It was just amazing to see the defense/attack of Sarah Palin and/or the Republican Party.

I love the rabidness of politics. I just wish the fervor/passion would be directed in a better manner. Forget about a rabid defense/attack against Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. Your voice, your thoughts, and your energy are wasted. Direct that passion, that fervor, that rabid single mindedness toward something better: fixing the system that no longer works.

The current system of government in the United States is broken, perhaps beyond repair. How much better would our government be if the rabid defenders of either party actually put forth an equal, if not greater, amount of energy toward fixing the problem?

The current candidates are not going to fix the problem. The current candidates are part of the problem. Sarah Palin - love her or hate her - is part of the problem. The American People are part of the problem because we sit back and allow our government to stagnate and decay. We are responsible for who is currently in office, and who will be in office soon. We pick sides, when sides should not exist at all, and rabidly defend our position without looking at the bigger picture. We the people, to borrow a phrase, have failed as much as the government has failed.

It is time that we the people wake up and smell the coffee, roses, or huge piles of horse dung emanating from our nation's capitol. It is time that we the people stepped back from our rabid defense of either party, and focused on the actual ideal of fixing the broken, stagnating, decaying government that has inexorably driven our country into a recession. People are losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, and their hope because we have a government that cannot cooperate with each other, even to save a failing economy.

So, hold onto your fevered beliefs, but direct them in a way that helps, rather than hurts this nation. Defend your politicians of choice, but not so rabidly that you lose sight of the greater picture: we are a country in crisis.

Just because you are Republican/Democrat does not mean you are honor-bound to vote Republican/Democrat. Sometimes, change comes from going against the flow, rather than with the flow. I see most political mind people as lemmings - those cute, adorable little creatures, that have no greater sense than to follow the leader over the cliff to certain death.

Wake up, dear little lemmings!!

S

Random Thoughts About Sarah Palin

2008-10-24T12:03:00.006-05:00

Obviously, my I Want list is not working . . . yet. I still have hope.

So, I'm scanning the Internet (cnn.com - favorite news site), and what do I find, an interesting article with a ton of different pieces of information. The best, dear Sarah P talking about her $150,000 make-over. First, I'll admit, there is a double-standard in talking about her hair, make-up and wardrobe. Second - she still accepted a brand spanking new top of the line wardrobe.

According to dear Sarah P "most of the clothes are still in her campaign airplane . . . and the designer clothing she has worn, she said, will be returned, auctioned off or donated to charity" (http://www.cnn.com/). In fact, her "favorite shop is a consignment shop in Anchorage, Alaska, called Out of the Closet" (http://www.cnn.com/).

First - thousands upon thousands of dollars of clothes are just sitting in an airplane? We are in the middle of an economic crisis where people are having a hard time putting gas in their cars and food on their table, let alone buying new clothes - and she has a frigging new wardrobe sitting on her airplane??? Go figure.

Second - the clothes will allegedly be donated to charity after the election. What charity? The RNC??? Like they need more money. I mean, if the clothes are going to be donated to charity, I'd like to think the money would go to a worthy organization . . . American Heart Association, American Diabetes Association, a cancer organization, AIDS organization, etc.

Third - So, if dear Sarah P's favorite store is a thrift store, then why in the heck is she wearing the designer clothes? Why not present herself as a real person, and not some RNC puppet with the strings clearly showing? I'd be far more impressed - if that's even possible - with her had she presented herself to me, and not the image the RNC thought would draw in more votes. For the record - the clothes, the cars, the house, the jewelry - do not impress me. People - on their own, no adornments - impress me. I don't care what you wear, drive, or where you live. I care about you - as a person. It's that simple, and perhaps all politicians should get a clue!

Now, because it's so obvious, I must comment on her choice of stores. Out of the Closet??? Uh, is she sure it's not gay owned (you know her stance on gay marriage by now)???? I'm just saying . . .

I Want . . .

2008-10-24T09:14:00.002-05:00

A day without politics.
A day I don't have to hear about a McCain supporter allegedly being attacked by an Obama supporter.
A day I don't have to hear about the fact that the RNC spent $150,000 to make-over dear Sarah P.
A day without seeing an attack ad by either party.
A day without all the media hoopla surrounding dear Sarah P - do you realize the sound of her voice makes my dogs bark?? Seriously. No kidding at all. My dogs don't like dear Sarah P. Not only are the boyz adorable, they also have good sense.
A day without talk about the current economic crisis or plunging stocks. The country is in the current crisis, in part, because of the current Administration; though, the current Administration can only accept part of the blame.
A day without hearing something about Miley Cyrus, Lindsey Lohan, Brittney Spears, or any other celebrity. WTF, people, do we not have lives of our own???
A day without any reality television except Project Runway. I'm sorry, but reality tv is carefully edited tv to show the worst in people, rather than the best in people.
A day where I can sleep past 4 AM. Note to my dogs: if you can read and access the Internet, please pay attention.
A day so devoid of anything to blog about!!!!!!

There's my wish list. Now, see what you can do about the last one on the list. Because, so my warped logic dictates, if the last one happens, then all the others would have happened. I'm just saying . . .

YMCA

2008-10-23T11:26:00.004-05:00

What better thing for a gay man to write about than the Y.M.C.A?? C'mon, you know, you know the dance unless you've been living under a rock for far too long.

The YMCA of Middle Tennessee is "altering its membership plan to become friendlier to all, including same sex couples" (http://www.wkrn.com/). Whoo-hoo! According to the news story, "the family membership category will be changed to two plus, meaning two adults plus dependents that live in the same household would qualify for a membership together, including same sex couples" (http://www.wkrn.com/). Again, whoo-hoo.

Of course, this story is not without its detractors - Cornerstone Church Pastor Maury Davis. According to this allegedly enlightened Pastor, "the change goes against Christian principles".

Yeah, last time I checked, Christian principles were all about discriminating about your fellow human beings. I'm sure theres is some sort of commandment or something in the Bible that states "Thou shall discriminate against people because you feel you should discriminate against people". Okay, so not my best work. Still, you should get my point. I just love it when hypo-Christians take the Bible out of context to suit their own purposes.

The very fact that a Christian organization is willing to change its policies so they are not discriminatory, is admirable. The very fact that an allegedly Christian Pastor has a problem with the decision is just . . . SAD!

It is time to put discrimination of any sort to bed. There is no place for discrimination in today's world. Discrimination is an outdated, ignorant ideal, that needs to become a part of ancient history, and not modern/future history. The time is NOW to stand up against discrimination. I'm just saying . . .

S

p.s. I bet you can't get the words of the song out of your mind right now, can you??? Hate it!

Blogoholic

2008-10-22T13:10:00.002-05:00

OMG, this election is turning me into a blogoholic. I used to be a nice, normal (well, not if you ask my sisters - but that's a whole other story, and a few trips to therapy on my part) person. I'd occasionally dip into the blogsphere, post something, and go about my normal life. I did not, did not, did not, post more than once a day. Heck, in the old days (i.e., before this cursed election ruined my life), I was lucky to post once a month, let alone once a day. Now, every time I go onto the Internet, something about this cursed (drat and double drat) election grabs my attention. My mind slips into blog mode and all hope for normalcy (at least until I get home and can pour myself a glass of wine) slips away from me. I become a blogmie (that's a zombie that blogs, just in case you're wondering).

What's happened now, you're wondering? Okay, even if you're not wondering, I'm going to tell you, so you might as well keep reading.

This happened, and then this, and then this (which I blogged about earlier this morning). OMG!!!!!!! It's a Palinlaplooza!!!!

First - dear Sarah P has no clue about what the Vice President actually does. Uh, shouldn't she have researched that before signing up for the job? Talk about no experience.

Second - $150,000 for hair and make-up????? Can't the woman afford to dress herself? Oh, that's right, she left the town of Wasilla, Alaska $27 million in debt after her term as mayor. Of course dear Sarah P cannot afford her own clothes. Again, I ask of you, do we really want this woman as Vice President of the United States. Suzi Orman would be a much better candidate. At least she knows how to manage money. I'm just saying . . .

Third - well, I blogged about that earlier, so go read that post.

Have a nice day!

S

Every Vote Counts

2008-10-22T12:47:00.003-05:00

Okay, another election post. I know, I'm tired of them too. Only 13 more days, and then, at least for almost another four years, I can blog about something else. One can hope!

The other day one of my co-workers said to the other: Well, I guess your vote will cancel out my vote. My partner - yes, there is such a thing as a gay Republican (p.s., don't tell the Republican party, they might get scared) - said the same thing to me at one time. In his defense, he doesn't always vote Republican. Anyhow, the point of this post is: every vote counts. If I vote for one party and my partner the other party, both of our votes count. Neither vote cancels out the other vote. That, dear readers, is a frakkin' common misconception. The President of the United States - unfortunately - is not elected by popular vote. If he/she was elected in that manner, than, yes, votes might have the ability to cancel each other out. Since the President is elected based on Electoral Votes, every single vote counts.

So, what I'm saying with this post is: get your butts out there and vote. Do not think, oh, Suzi's vote is going to cancel mine out, so why should I vote???? Your (massive generalization, in case anybody is keeping count) vote counts. I'm just saying . . .

S

Need I Say More

2008-10-22T07:24:00.003-05:00

Check this out! Apparently, dear Sarah P has altered some of the expense accounts during her Governorship of Alaska. It seems that dear Sarah P took her children on some trips she shouldn't have, but then altered the accounts to make it look like it was official business. According to the article . . . In the amended reports, Palin added phrases such as "First Family attending" and "First Family invited" to explain the girls' attendance. "The governor said, 'I want the purpose and the reason for this travel to be clear,' " said Linda Perez, state director of administrative services. Uh, wouldn't logic - I know, I'm talking about dear Sarah P and have stepped into oxy-moronic territory again - dictate that you fill out the forms correctly the first time, and not once you know the forms are about to become public record. Please, dear Sarah P, give the American people some credit!!!

Here's another of my favorites: The charges included costs for hotel and commercial flights for three daughters to join Palin to watch their father in a snowmobile race, and a trip to New York, where the governor attended a five-hour conference and stayed with 17-year-old Bristol for five days and four nights in a luxury hotel. I mean, when is it official business for the State of Alaska to pay for the Governor and her daughters to watch a snowmobile race???? A 5 day stay for a 5 hour conference? I mean, really, dear Sarah P should have to pay back the State of Alaska for the extra 4 days she stayed in New York . . . at the State of Alaska's expense.

Do we really want this woman one step away from the Presidency of the United States? We have enough of a deficit right now without allowing dear Sarah P anywhere near a governmental expense form. I'm just saying . . .

S

Church burns Porn

2008-10-21T10:40:00.002-05:00

Okay, admit it, I got your attention with that title. Here's the story, and it's not about a man named Brady . . . a Church in FL bought some land, upon which stood an old drive in movie theater that used to show porn, lots, and lots, and lots of porn. The church discovered all this porn when they went into the building. So, what's a church to do with an overload of porn??? Why, have a massive bonfire of course!

Okay, can you sense just a little bit of snark in the above paragraph. Of course you do, that was my intent. The church in question, of course, thought the burning of the porn was symbolic in showing a fresh start for the Church and somehow erasing the past of the land. In my opinion, it was only an amazing show of both ignorance and censorship. Number 1 - last time I checked, burning film creates noxious chemicals. I sure as heck hope that all the children and adults present wore masks. Oh wait, I watched the video and none of them did so. Smart move, eh? Okay, now for the ignorance part, the pastor made the comment that burning the films was better than letting them get out in the world. That's the censorship part, just in case you're wondering. Who is he, to decide what should or should not get out in the world. Yes, I understand, he's a man of God and all that jazz. Being a man (or woman, for that matter) of God does not make that man/woman any more intelligent than anybody else. It also, at least in my humble opinion, does not give that man/woman the right to decide what should or should not get out in the world.

As I've mentioned before, and will again and again until ignorance no longer exists in this world (fat chance of that ever happening), I, and probably most humans, are capable of making decisions for themselves. I, we, don't need other people to make these decisions for me/us. If there is a television program I don't like, I switch the channel. If there is a book I don't want to read, or that I find offensive, I don't read the book. No matter what my personal feelings are about porn, if somebody wants to watch it in the privacy of their own home - more power to them. Forget the symbolism of burning the porn to create a fresh start. The burning of the porn was an act of censorship, of that particular church attempting to send a message about what they believe is right or wrong. For the love of (insert favorite Deity here), if we weren't meant to procreate, we wouldn't have been instructed to go forth, be fruitful (I handle that one really well, btw), and multiply. There is no dictate, at least none that I know, that says how we must go forth, be fruitful, and multiply. Those films probably had some pretty good suggestions. I'm just saying . . .

S

2008-10-21T07:34:00.003-05:00

Sarah Palin is at it again. Shouldn't her views be quite similar to that of John McCain, especially since she is his running mate? Yes, I thought so too. Recently, however, she opened her mouth and . . . well, we all know what happens when she opens her mouth. Nothing good. Explosive gas. Anyhow, she clearly stated that she goes against McCain's beliefs about same sex marriage, and the fact that there should be a constitutional amendment prohibiting such marriages.

Sarah Palin is a throwback to an ignorant past America can no longer afford to embrace. It is time for our country to move forward, and not backward. It is time for the People in Power (PiPs), to embrace change, rather than continue to stagnate in the Pool of Outdated Beliefs. It is time to stop oppressing people on a daily basis. It is 2008, people, not 1908. We are an allegedly enlightened society. Discrimination is wrong. Applying Biblical passages out of context to suit your own ignorance, is wrong. Wake up and smell the Starbucks!

Now that I've ranted about that, let's explore the issue of marriage.

First off - marriage is based on religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether a judge marries a couple, a priest, a pastor, someone with an Internet minister license, or a justice of the peace. The concept of marriage is religious based. It's in the Bible, after all.

Second - the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America clearly sets forth a separation between Church and State.

Third - so, if marriage is a religious based institution, and you enact laws to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples, isn't that unconstitutional since there is clearly not a separation of Church and State in that instance? Hmmmm . . . In my opinion - YES! Since there is no way to remove the religious stigma from marriage, it does not seem legal (at least to me) for individual states or the country as a whole to enact legislation that prohibits marriage between same sex couples without violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Fourth - why in the hell hasn't someone challenged the legislation enacted???

Okay, that's about it for right now. With Sarah Palin around, and 13 days left until the election, I'm sure I'll have plenty to blog about in the coming days. She is just an absolute joy, isn't she? She provides so much fodder for my blog. Geesh!

S

Comments

2008-10-20T07:26:00.002-05:00

Just a little note about comments for my blog. I moderate all comments. I do not do this to limit free speech or censor any one's thoughts. I do this to stop the crazy spammers in the world, and the people that insert links into their comments. I do not necessarily agree with the comments I allow on my site. I still allow them, for the most part, unless they are extremely derogatory, hateful, and all that jazz.

I made an exception with a comment I allowed earlier today: there's an embedded link in the comment. I will not make such an exception a second time. For anyone who is a part of blogger, your name appears in the comment and people can click on your name to review your profile and see whatever blogs you have through blogger. Please, whatever you do, do not insert a link to your blog within your comment. It will not get posted. Any comment with a link will not get posted. It's how I operate. It is my blog after all.

S

Brilliance

2008-10-20T07:22:00.002-05:00

I just hate it when someone with greater brilliance then I have, beats me to the punch. I couldn't have said it better. In fact, I couldn't come close to saying it better. I bow to the greater brilliance of Garrison Keillor. In a recent article he wrote the following:

It was dishonest, cynical men who put forward a clueless young woman for national office, hoping to juice up the ticket, hoping she could skate through two months of chaperoned campaigning, but the truth emerges: The lady is talking freely about matters she has never thought about. The American people have an ear for B.S. They can tell when someone's mouth is moving and the clutch is not engaged. When she said, "One thing that Americans do at this time, also, though, is let's commit ourselves just every day, American people, Joe Six-Pack, hockey moms across the nation, I think we need to band together and say never again. Never will we be exploited and taken advantage of again by those who are managing our money and loaning us these dollars," people smelled gas.

Here is the full article. Have I mentioned I think this article is brilliant? If not, I do. If I did . . . well, get over it. I'm allowed to repeat myself. It is my blog after all. Read the full article. He really nails things down. I just love the visual of the above paragraph, especially the line "people smelled gas". Too damn funny.

S

Bush to Give Pep Talk to Anxious Country

2008-10-17T06:59:00.002-05:00

The title of this blog is a headline on one of the news services this morning. Isn't the title an oxy-moron? I'm finding more and more of those lately, btw. I think the oxy-morons had a party with a little Viagra involved and are breeding like rabbits now. I'm just saying . . .

So, dear (add heavy dose of sarcasm/snark to that word) President Bush is going to give a pep talk to an anxious country about the mess he created. Oh wait, sorry, he didn't create, he just pushed it over the precipice into a bottomless pit. I mean, really, people, is anything he can say going to change the current economic crisis? No! Is anything he is going to say really going to calm the fears of the nation when unemployment continues to increase and the stock market continues to tumble? What words can he say to ease the fear of someone who lost $32,000 out of their 401K? What about 100,000 thousand? What about people who no longer have homes because the banks lent them money that the banks knew they could not pay back? What comfort can a - thankfully - departing President, who did more harm to this country (at least in my snarky opinion) than good), offer right now? What fears can he allay? How many times can he go on television and read the words off a tele-prompter before he realizes that nothing he says can actually turn this country around or ease the fears of people watching their retirement savings shrink into nothingness?

There is nothing he can say or do that will change what has already happened, and what is currently happening. The time for change was four years ago when he was mistakenly elected to office a 2nd time. Boy, didn't this country pay for that mistake? Yes, I know, he's not solely at fault for the current crisis or the problems in the country. He is a part of the problem, however, as is the current administration, and I'll go so far as to say the current House/Senate/Whatever. We need dramatic, positive change in this country where the Administration does not bow down to the whims of the rich and conservative. I'm just saying . . .

S

Where's Forrest Gump When You Need Him?

2008-10-16T08:23:00.002-05:00

The phrase "stupid is, as stupid does" popped into my mind just a little bit ago. I told you somebody, somewhere would do something stupid . . . Boy, was I right, and I didn't have to wait more than an hour or so.

You go to college, take all the required courses, make good grades, and reach graduation day. The routine of millions of people every year. Once you graduate, you have your diploma and go out into the real world to - hopefully - find a decent job based on your college degree. The degree is, after all, just a little bit more than a piece of paper. It is the magic key to allegedly higher paying jobs. What happens when the magic key is taken away? A recent graduate of Brigham Young University (that Mormon school) is about to find out.

Brigham Young University just sent a letter out to one of it's recent graduates (Aug 15, 2008 graduation date) and basically told him his degree is worth nothing because he is "not in good honor code standing to graduate because you had been excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the affiliated sponsor of BYU". Why was he excommunicated? Because this recent graduate created a Mormon Beefcake (yummy!) calendar. Let me tell you, those Mormon's are good-looking. So, there is a hold on this young man's graduation until he is "reinstated as a member of the Church in good standing".

So, this recent graduate's degree is not worth the paper it is printed on because he produced a beefcake calendar. WWJD???? I guess he'd pull a persons degree according to BYU.

Can you get any more idiotic than this? Yes, I'm sure you can, and I'm sure someone will, and I'm sure my fingers will be flying over the keyboard in response any moment now. I'm just saying . . .

S

Family Portraits

2008-10-16T07:23:00.002-05:00

Since the election is - thankfully - almost over, I figure I'd better find some other things to write about. Oh, I know, somebody, sometime soon, is going to make an allegedly stupid comment and force me to respond on this blog. The holiday season is coming up. What was it last year? Oh, that's right, no Christmas trees because they might offend somebody. Scroll through the archives of this blog and you'll find an entry or two about that bit of stupidity from human society!

Today, I'm going to write about family portraits. Why? Well, because a friend of mine just had one done. He was all dressed up in a fancy suit, the wife in her pretty dress, and the two kids in equally pretty dresses (oh, the kids were both girls, just in case you were wondering). My question: why in the heck do we dress to the nines for family portraits? What's wrong with dressing casually, in everyday wear? Why does society insist that family portraits must look stuffy and uncomfortable? Trust me, I have a black and white family photo (this was before digital cameras and, I guess, before color film - I'll have to research that one a little more, I'm not that old) of my brother, sisters, and I taken when I was about two. I was a cute little devil. Not much has changed in the intervening years. My sisters have on their matching dresses and my brother and I are in our little suits with bow ties (yes, another ancient custom that is - thankfully - no longer in practice). I did look pretty sharp (and cute) with my bow tie. The thing is, I was also probably as uncomfortable as hell. Perhaps that's where my dislike for suits and ties originated. I'll have to ask a therapist about that.

What I'm really trying to say is, why do we take pictures of ourselves, that don't actually represent ourselves? Is that the real me (cute as can be) in the suit with the bow tie looking absolutely adorable? Of course not! I was two years old. I was probably more comfortable running around in a diaper . . . or naked, for that matter. I was two after all. Clothes aren't really that important to a two year old. I'm just saying . . .

So, at what point in our lives, do we decide that we need to dress all nice for a family portrait, if that dressing nice is not actually representative of the person having their portrait taken? I do not have an answer to that question. I guess it's just another one of those mysterious things that happen, kind of like the sock going missing in the dryer, or once a person reaches age 50, how gravity tends to affect certain parts of the human body.

S

Relationships

2008-10-15T11:28:00.004-05:00

For a change, this blog is not going to discuss politics. Instead, I'm going to discuss the lovely subject of relationships, or rather, the break up of relationships. Yes, I know, a very delicate subject.

Picture it: your best friend is dating someone, they seem to have a good relationship, you like the person your friend is dating, they move in together, and then - BAM (Emeril at his best) - they have broken-up. What in the heck is a gay man to do when two people he likes breaks up? I mean, I like them both. Okay, so I've known one longer than the other. I like them both. Oh, man, I've suddenly found myself between the proverbial rock and a hard (don't even let your nasty little minds go there) place. Let me tell you. It's a very tight squeeze . . . almost tighter than trying to fit into my jeans about a month or so ago. Too much ice cream over the summer. Oh, did I mention that one half of the couple started dating another man within a week???

Picture it - the sequel: your best friend is dating someone, they seem to have a good relationship, and then - BAM (the whole Emeril thing again) - they break-up. Your friend is devastated. A few weeks later you learn that another friend is now dating the ex-boyfriend of your friend. Whoa!!!

So what do you do in situations like this? Run screaming into the night and never look back. Okay, that's not really an option. Pretend you're a politician and lie like hell! Dang, and I was trying not to talk about politics. Pretend that you know nothing about nothing! Ooops, there I went back into the whole political thang!

In the first scenario, only a week and all that jazz, you just do the best you can do. I mean, how do you tell a friend that his ex-boyfriend is already seeing somebody else? This is not something you can bring up in casual conversation. "Hey, man, did you know your ex is banging the waiter in the back alley?" Trust me, that's not a good start to a conversation. In that instance, discretion is definitely the better part of valor. Say nothing and deal with the consequences later. Let someone else be the bearer of bad news. Run screaming into the night.

In the second scenario, it's a little more tricky since you're good friends with both parties involved. Again, run screaming into the night seems the best option, especially if the one friend doesn't know anything at this point, but has strong suspicions. Sometimes, however, you just have to bite the proverbial bullet and be the bearer of bad tidings. My simple advice in this area was that someone needs to tell the friend that his ex-boyfriend is already dating somebody else. Do not, whatever you do, mention the name of that somebody else. The crap is going to hit the fan soon enough and you, the bearer of bad news, do not necessarily need to get splattered by the crap quite so soon.

Now, while I'm talking about relationships. Here's something you shouldn't do when trying to keep people from finding out about your new relationship: do not go to the local gay bar two weekends in a row with your new boyfriend. I'm just saying . . . There's no such thing as a secret in the gay community. Telephone! Telegraph! Tell-a-gay-man! The gayvine knows no limits and is the source of all information, and misinformation within the community. Be discrete. Stay home with the new love of your life. That way, dear friends, your new boyfriend's ex-boyfriend won't have a clue . . . at least until the next time you appear in public with your new boyfriend, who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of your good friend. Whew!!

As all the above situations remind me, sometimes, life is a bitch! I hate it when friends break-up. I never know what to do, who I should invite to margarita night, who I shouldn't invite, and all the other fun - heavy on the sarcasm on that word, just in case you're wondering - social situations that crop up after a break-up. It would be nice if I could just only like one person in a relationship. That rarely happens, my friends. My advice to all my friends who are currently couples: please don't break up, because I'll have to disown both halves of the couple just to remain fair to all. I'm just saying . . .

S

Sarah Palin's World of Delusion

2008-10-14T08:27:00.002-05:00

What world is Sarah Palin (Sarah P for short) living in? It's definitely not the real world. As everyone should know by now, unless they're still living under the proverbial rock, Sarah P's ethics were in question over the firing of Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. In effect, a bi-partisan committee (though McCain's campaign alleges the committee is partisan) found that "Palin's efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action" (cnn.com) - see full article here. The official response from Palin's camp is: Branchflower's conclusion that Palin had violated state ethics law was wrong, because no financial interest was involved. Palin told reporters over the weekend that she had been "cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there."

Now my question: what world is Sarah P living in? Obviously, it is a world of delusion. The report clearly states she violated ethics; yet, her attorney states she did not. Sarah P thinks she did nothing wrong.

Sarah P needs to go back to her delusional world and let someone who actually knows the difference between right and wrong run for Vice President and, in the bigger picture, run the government. Oh wait, that totally eliminates everyone currently serving/running our government. Dang, hate it when that happens. Well, at least, someone less delusional than Sarah P should be the Republican Vice Presidential candidate. Is that even possible? I'm just saying . . .

S

Association

2008-10-08T11:22:00.004-05:00

The entries just keep coming! Check out this article from cnn.com. The word for the day is association. Barack Obama is continually being slammed by the Republican candidates for President and Vice President for his association with William Ayers, a 1960s radical; a terrorist. This article turns the table on Senator McCain and lists a few of his associates: Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, and Robert Byrd. Each of these men were racists, to such an extreme that one of them belonged to the Klu Klux Klan (definitely a terrorist organization) and all of them wholly supported the segregation and oppression of African Americans. Now, as the article points out, based on the logic of John McCain and Sarah Palin with Obama's association with Ayers, McCain is associated with . . . well, I painted the picture for you, and I'm sure you can see it clearly.

As I pointed out to my co-worker the other day, nobody truly knows their friends. You might have hung out with a great guy in high school, only to find out that he's a rapist. Your best friend might abuse her children. There might be a sex offender living in your neighborhood. By the (misguided) logic used by McCain and Palin, you (yes, a generalization that would make any English teacher . . . or school principal cringe) are guilty by . . . association. Since you knew the child abuser, rapist, or lived in the same neighborhood as the sex offender, you are - in the words of Sarah Palin - palling around with them. Don't you hate it when your words come back to bite you in the nether region????

In the end, as the article points out, the association argument is "weak and impotent" (where's Bob Dole when you need him - EDS commercial, people!).

Lastly, the best point of all of the article is: What I find to be more deplorable is to hear McCain advisers say they want to turn the page to anything but the issue number one -- the economy. (cnn.com - 10/08/2008)

Amen to that, my brother!!

S

Read This

2008-10-08T07:18:00.001-05:00

Go here. The link is to a blog written by an 82 year old woman about Sarah Palin. I find it absolutely hysterical. Too dang funny. OMG!!!

The Debate

2008-10-08T07:00:00.003-05:00

This will be brief and to the point. At last night's debate, when Senator McCain was asked to prioritize three things (health care, economy, and something else - sorry, first cup of coffee hasn't hit yet), he made the statement that he would work on all three at the same time. Excuse me, is that the sound of ice forming in hell? This is the same man who could not multitask and focus on his campaign and the economic crisis at the same time. This is the same man who suspended his campaign to help the economy. BTW, in case anyone is wondering, the economy is still in the crapper.

As I was thinking about this entry this morning, I realized one simple thing: I was assuming that Senator McCain was incapable of multitasking, i.e., running his campaign and dealing with the economic crisis. After careful thought, I realize that there wasn't any multitasking involved at all. Senator McCain is not running his Presidential campaign, his co-workers, advisers, and speechwriters are running his campaign. They tell him where to go, hand him a speech, and prepare statements for him when he wants to attack Barack Obama. So really, there was no need to suspend his campaign since he wasn't really - at least in my opinion - doing much in the first place. Now, if he'd just quit whining about suspending his campaign, which, technically was never suspended, since all the little people were still working behind the scenes, I'd be a really happy camper.

Also, in case you watched the debate, go here to get the facts. Oh, and lastly, John McCain repeated some of the things Sarah Palin said about Barack Obama during the Vice Presidential debate. I guess it's fairly obvious now that originality does not exist with the Republican ticket. I'm just saying . . .

S

Sarah Palin Forgets To Tell the Full Truth . . . Again

2008-10-06T13:27:00.004-05:00

Here we go again . . . does she never learn?

Republican vice presidential candidate Gov. Sarah Palin said Saturday, October 4, that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is "someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." (cnn.com)

Once again, poor, deluded Sarah Palin makes a - mostly - false comment. She is, in part, according to this article, referring to 1960s radical William Ayers, who happens to live in the same neighborhood as Barack Obama. This is not somebody that Obama pals around with, only someone who lives in the same neighborhood. A fact which Obama brought up earlier this year.

The actual facts that poor deluded Sarah Palin failed to relay in her speech are:

There is no indication that Ayers and Obama are now "palling around," or that they have had an ongoing relationship in the past three years. Also, there is nothing to suggest that Ayers is now involved in terrorist activity or that other Obama associates are. (cnn.com - factcheck)

I guess her false statements should be expected. Barack is making similar statements. What's a poor voter to do? Go to one of the many fact check sites and spend a little time researching the truth before making the final decision to vote. The fact is (at least in my opinion), there is not a politician alive who allegedly tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Politicians have a history of taking things out of context and presenting them as truth, hoping beyond hope that voters are going to take them at their word. Isn't that another one of those oxy-morons? What person in their right mind would believe what a politician tells them? Have we learned nothing from no new taxes? Or wait, what about the infamous - and nonexistent - WMDs???

I'm just saying . . .

S

Is it so hard for a politician to tell the truth?

2008-10-03T07:02:00.004-05:00

Case in point - during last night's debate, Sarah Palin made the following statement "Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction — 94 times."

What Sarah, obviously either at her own discretion or the insistence of the Republican Party, failed to mention was the following:

–23 were against proposed tax cuts.

— 7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals."

– 11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care.

– 53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"

The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures. Annenberg says a close look at the record reveals that Obama has "voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers."

The Fact Check Verdict: Misleading. Palin's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. The total also includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.

The fact is, Sarah Palin told enough of the truth for her statement not to be an outright lie. She just failed to fill in pertinent details, obviously hoping the voting public was ignorant and would not bother checking facts. What, is she living beneath a rock?? Google is my friend. A good portion of the voting public knows how - and will - to check facts. Perhaps Sarah, and every other politician out there, might want to consider that option before they lie by omission.

Now, since I'm being fair here, let's pull out the following statement from Joe Biden - "As a matter of fact, John recently wrote an article in a major magazine saying that he wants to do forthe health care industry (is) deregulate it and let the free market move like he did for the banking industry."

Now for the facts, my friends.

In Congress, Sen. John McCain has frequently supported deregulation. Some aspects of that deregulation are now widely blamed for the problems on Wall Street.

In the current issue of a magazine for the American Academy of Actuaries, McCain discussed a change he wants to bring to the health care market: allowing people to buy plans across state lines. "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the lastdecade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," he wrote in the magazine called "Contingencies."

Biden and Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama have pointed to the first part of that quote to bolster their argument that McCain wants to see the health care industry undergo the same changes as the banking industry. But the reform McCain wants for health care — state deregulation — is only one of several types of deregulation that reshaped the banking industry. McCain has not proposed reshaping the health care industry in all the same ways as banks.
McCain and his opponents disagree over what impact state deregulation could have on the health care industry. McCain says the increased competition would benefit consumers; Obama says consumers would lose key protections, and insurance companies would be given more power.

Though a frequent fan of deregulation, McCain blames the current Wall street mess partly on federal regulatory agencies failing to do their jobs, and vows to "replace the outdated patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight" with a high-level, bipartisan oversight board.

Verdict:Misleading. McCain does want to overhaul state oversight of health care, but the deregulation he is calling for is not nearly as extensive as what was done to the banking system.

Note: All of the above information came from this article on cnn.com.

Again, Biden told a partial instead of a full truth. In effect, like Sarah Palin he lied. Enough with the lies, people. Try telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth for a change.

Also, check out this - very interesting.
S

Whine, whine, and more whine . . .

2008-10-02T13:50:00.003-05:00

Whine, whine, and more whine . . . and the election continues! Is it November yet??? What's the latest whine from Republican country. Click here.

Basically, John McCain is down in the polls. His response, as can be found in the linked article is quite classic. According to the article, "Sen. John McCain jokingly said Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama's poll numbers are rising as the economy seems to sink "because life isn't fair."" (cnn.com). Sen. McCain went on to clarify (didn't read like a joke to me - I'm just saying . . .), "He certainly did nothing for the first few days," McCain told Fox News on Thursday. "I suspended my campaign, took our ads down, came back to Washington, met with the House folks and got on the phone, and also had face-to-face meetings." (cnn.com)

For the record, Obama did not do nothing. He did make plenty of phone calls - as McCain reluctantly acknowledges.

Would you like some cheese with that whine, Senator McCain? I mean, really. The only thing the suspension of his campaign proved (to me, and quite a few people I talked with) is that the man who hopes to become the next President of the United States is unable to focus on two things at once. I can picture it now: there's a hurricane a coming and nature is calling. What's a man to do? He can't handle two things at once. Oh well, guess since he's distended he'll have to go void. Okay, so two totally different things, but I think you get my point. Senator McCain - like Barack Obama - should have kept his campaign going and called whoever he needed to call to get things moving toward the economic bailout. This is the age of technology after all - telephones, cell phones, instant messaging, emails, and all that jazz. What he did in person, he could have done in some other way. There was no need to suspend his campaign. He should have proven, to himself and the country, that he is capable of multi-tasking.

Now that his decision is biting him in the nether regions, all he can do is . . . whine, whine, and more whine!

Senator McCain made a choice that did not turn out as well as he expected. That happens to everybody at some point in their life. I have three words for you Senator McCain: Get Over It! I'm sorry, I know this is probably harsh; but he sounds like a spoiled brat who did not get his way. Life is not fair, Senator McCain. Bad things happen all the time. If you cannot accept responsibility for your choices as a Senator, how in the heck are you going to take responsibility for your choices as the - potential (hopefully not in the lifetimes of anybody I know) - next President of the United States. Well, uh, I really didn't press that red button!! BAM!

S

Age

2008-09-30T07:46:00.003-05:00

In a recent speech, Sarah Palin - again reading words written for her, because after the Katie Couric interview, everybody knows she can't speak on her own - made the following comment about Joe Biden: "I haven't met him, but I've been hearing about him since, like, second grade." Okay, here's the rub: Joe Biden is younger than John McCain. Isn't her slap in the face to Biden a double slap to McCain? I would think the Republican drones that write the speeches, would have a little more sense - oh, wait, that's an oxymoron isn't it? - than to bring up Biden's age, when McCain is older. I'm just saying . . .

S

Suspended Campaign

2008-09-25T07:15:00.003-05:00

I'm sure by now everyone has heard that John McCain wants to temporarily suspend his political campaign for President so he can help deal with the current economic crisis. WTF!!! As a dear friend of mine pointed out: when he becomes president, will he not be able to handle two things at one time???? I agree 100%.

I also think that McCain has probably done one of the more stupid moves in his political career. If one person - my dear friend - has the thought that McCain cannot handle more than one thing at a time (definitely not an assest for the leader of a country), than other people have thought the same thing. I know that if I had any confidence in McCain's ability as a leader in the first place, it would have completely disappeared after his latest statment.

Now, some might say - oh, it's a good thing, he's showing priorities by focusing on the economy. The question is: as President, what happens when there are two major things he needs to focus on at the same time? You can't just suspend one major thing to deal with another major thing. Life, unfortunately, is not that simple. We don't have the leisure to decide what we want to focus on in this life. To me, it is a slap in the face to the American people for John McCain to suspend his political campaign. He should be able to campaign and focus on the economic crisis. If he can't, then perhaps he needs to bow out of the election.

S

Clay Aiken is Gay

2008-09-24T07:06:00.004-05:00

And this is news? I mean, unless you've been living under a rock, I think everybody figured out which team Clay played on. I mean seriously, folks, this is the biggest un-announcement since Ellen announced she was gay. I'm just saying . . . I mean, he's actually come out of his supersized closet and announced he was gay to the two people who did not know!!! Ah, the joys of living life in the Land of Delusion.

S