What the . . .

You have to read this to believe it!

My comments: Get a life!

Enough said!

S

Another Day in Politics

I was hoping for a day off from politics. I refrained from watching politics on television this weekend, and resisted the urge yesterday to view stories on the Internet. I obviously failed in that endeavor.

Two stories from cnn.com - Obama advisors says . . . and Obama camp hammers . . . are the two posts in question.

First Story: Former New York Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic Party’s vice presidential nominee in 1984, told the (Torrance, California) Daily Breeze that "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Obama's campaign - justifiably - wants Hillary to repudiate Ms. Ferraro's comments. After all, Obama recently had an advisor resign because of her monster comment about Hillary. The question is: will Hillary comply, when in fact, Ms. Ferraro is one of her topfundraisers? Money talks! Hillary needs money to keep her campaign going. Will another Hillary double standard (i.e., MI/FL delegate debacle) ensue? Will Hillary not expect the same standards of her campaign staff that she allegedly demands of Barack's campaign staff? Only time will tell.

Second Story: Barack Obama's presidential campaign took some of its most pointed jabs to date at Hillary Clinton's claim of experience, circulating a memo to reporters Tuesday morning from former Clinton State Department official Greg Craig that suggests the New York senator uses "false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security." - cnn.com, political ticker - 03/11/08.

Basically, Hillary believes she has the experience to be President. Obama believes she is exaggerating those claims. Hillary thinks she has passed the 'Commander-in-Chief' test. Obama does not believe she has passed that test. It is a classic case of he/she said without a clear winner in sight. Personally, I don't think anyone is truly qualified/experience enought to be President. It is a job that basically sucks the soul out of a person and ages them quickly. It is not an easy job to do.

Is Obama unjustified in attacking Hillary like this? No. Hillary is basing her campaign on her experience and constantly attacking Barack's alleged lack of experience. If she does not have the experience she claims to have . . . well, I don't think I need to draw a picture to point out what that makes her.

In the end, I count the months until the end of election so sanity can prevail again. I'm not sure what the media will do once all is said and done, I guess go back to making Brittney and Paris the top stories of the day. Gee, something to look forward to . . .

S

FL/MI - What to do with the delegates?

I have so many responses to the title question, all brought about by this article. In the end, the FL/MI voters should - unfortunate for them - have to vote again. Case in point: Obama was not on the ballot in MI. The decision was made for the delegates not to count in those States well in advance of the primary. Many voters - again see linked article - did not vote because they knew their votes did not count. Shouldn't they get the chance to have their votes count? The only fair way for this to happen is for both States to re-hold a primary, have both candidates names on the ballot, and allow everyone a fair solution to the problem at hand.

S

No Cussing

First, you need to follow the link and read the article.

Second - I admire the principal behind what the town is attempting. Basically - for the first week in March from this point forward, no cussing is allowed in this town. Again, great principal.

Here's my thoughts on the matter:

• If you say fudge in place of f&%#, doesn't it mean the same thing?
• If you say shoot in place of sh*&, doesn't it mean the same thing?

The answer: Yes!!!

So, if everybody in this town starts saying shoot, fudge, gosh darn, heck and whatever other sugar-coated word they can think of, aren't they still cussing? Of course they are still cussing. The only reason f&%# or sh*& are nasty words, is because someone, at some point in history, decided that those words - and many like them - were nasty. Maybe it was because of how they sounded or some other inane reason; but whatever the reason, the negative connotation on the word is society driven. Sooner or later, if everybody starts saying shoot, fudge, gosh darn, etc., those words too will have negative connotations associated with them as well.

So, the whole no-cussing thing - again, admirable - is seemingly pointless in the long run since society will, eventually, negatively connotate those words. Just my theory.

S

The morning after primary wins in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island, Hillary Clinton said she would consider being part of a Democratic “dream ticket” that would include both her and presidential rival Barack Obama. "That may be where this is headed,” she told the CBS Early Show during a marathon set of appearances on the network morning news shows. “But of course we have to decide who is on the top of ticket. I think the people of Ohio very clearly said that it should be me."

First, let me point out the problems with Hillary's statements:

1. Technically, Obama has more delegates at this point in the game; so, he should get the presidential nod, and Hillary - if Obama choses - would get the vice president option, not the other way around.
2. What in the heck do the people of OH have to do with who is President?

Okay, I know the whole theory that who OH chooses is normally President, but there's a first time for everything, so OH might just be wrong. OH does not choose my vote. I believe Hillary is suffering from the same delusion as current President Bush when he announced after the 2004 election that "America has chosen!" No, America did not choose, only 51% of American's chose. The logic of politicians is scary!

In another article Hillary makes the claim that she would be President. Again, definite problems with her line of thinking. Personally, right now, the country has chosen Barack Obama, not Hillary. Go figure.

S

Polls

According to CNN, the latest polls have McCain as the next President of the United States.

If I remember correctly from my statistics course, polls really aren't that accurate. If only 100 people are polled, and 46% (i.e., 46 people) say they would vote for John McCain versus 44% (i.e., 44 people) say they would vote for Barack Obama; then what about the other gazillion eligible voters not polled? The fact is, CNN does not provide the data (i.e., number of people polled, ages, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliation, conservative/liberal label) behind the polls. Did they poll the entire country? Did they poll a majority Republican versus Democrat area? Were the people polled liberals or conservatives, whites or blacks or Latinos? I guess only CNN knows, and they're not freely sharing the information.

In the end, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled, and as truthful as those same people. Another thing I remember from statistics class, sometimes people lie when being polled for fear of the information (whether as simple as a political election or as complex as did you cheat on your spouse) being used against them. Then again, there was always that famous political poll from years ago when the people doing the polling made up the answers. I'm just saying . . .

S

Project Runway

My name is Scott, and I'm a Project Runway addict!

Once upon a time, I lived an RF (reality free life). I did not watch Survivor or any of the other reality programs that soon began to choke the airwaves and drive away scripted series. I resisted the impulse to watch any reality shows. I succeeded in this endeavor for years.

I blame my Project Runway addiction solely on my partner of (now) 14 years. He got me hooked. He is an enabler. I was doing just fine without Reality TV. I had a life. He made me watch Project Runway (during Season 1 - The I Hate Wendy Pepper Season) and the rest, dear readers, is history. I was hooked from the outset. I watched the rest of Season 1 - hated Wendy with the rest of the world - and found myself watching all the reruns (Bravo does an outstanding job of reruns so you never miss an episode), and the marathons. I laughed and cried, I booed and hissed. There was no help for me.

Season 2 came along - hated Santino, but loved his impressions of Tim Gunn. Personally, I thought Daniel should have won.

Season 3 came along - Laura almost reached Wendy level, but not quite; though her stunt with Jeffery came close to Wendy's soul sucking performance. Didn't you just love when Kara told Wendy - one day you're gonna need your soul, and you're not going to have any left. Woo-hoo!

In between Season 3 and 4, Bravo hooked me with other series: Blow Out and Top Designer, never liked Top Chef. Who knew that styling hair could be so much fun? Loved Tabitha! What about the hedge clipper challenge? Too damn funny.

Yes, as you might have noticed, Bravo Reality TV has become my passion. I still do not watch Surviver, Bachelor, The Apprentice, Amazing Rest, or any of network Reality TV. I'm a Bravo Addict . . . and proud of it.

Season 4 - the end is near. I absolutely adore Rami. I wasn't sure about Christian in the beginning; as my partner put it, is that a man or woman???? Still not sure. ; ) I think it's great that Chris, after being voted off and allowed back, was in the top 4. Personally, I think Jillian will pull off the win. She might end up in an insane asylum, but she definitely has talent. Christian has talent too, but I've seen his collection, and I'm not sure (though I'll probably be proven wrong) its strong/different enough to win. As for Rami and Chris, tonight is their ultimate face-off (though, both did show at Fashion Week in Bryant Park). I've seen both of their collections, and - personally - I think Rami did a better job. Chris did a good job, but not sure if it is good enough to win the face-off. Then again, you never know with Michael, Heidi or Nina.

So, tonight I'll turn on Bravo, watch the multiple repeats of previous episodes, and then tune in for the first of the two-part season finale! After next week, the withdrawl process will begin until Season 2 of Blow Out begins, or Bravo hooks me with another reality show - better quality, better drama, than network TV could ever up for.

As Heidi says, "one day you're in, the next you're out!"

S

Another Day in Politics

Welcome to another day in the political arena!

At last nights debate, there was far too much whine! I mean really!

The point of the blog this morning is - surprisingly - to admit that I (to a certain extent) agree with Hillary regarding the photo of Obama discussed in an earlier post.

Clinton denied any knowledge of the photo coming from one of her staff. "So far as I know, it did not," she said. "That's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign - (cnn.com 02/27/08)."

On the other hand, just the other day, her campaign manager issued the following statement: In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

I still believe her campaign had something to do with the photo. Hillary is only human, and she's not omnipotent (all knowing). She does not have 100% control over the gazillions of people working on her campaign. It is highly likely that a member of her campaign allegedly released the photo. It is highly likely that Hillary allegedly did not know about the photo. Personally, that's always the greatest excuse in the world. Still, I'll give her a semi-break on this one issue.

I still won't give any of the candidates a break on the negativity they are spewing at each other. Enough already.

S

The Endless War in Iraq

"My friends, the war will be over soon ... for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years," the Arizona senator said. "But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us - John McCain, 02/2008"

Isn't it odd, how suddenly, John McCain changes his stance on the war in Iraq? His earlier comments about the war - U.S. forces may need to remain in Iraq for up to 100 years - were not what he meant. They were misinterpreted, misunderstood, and - the best of them all - distorted by his Democratic rivals. Yeah, and the Pope's about to allow all priests to marry!

The fact remains, the United States is currently fighting a war in Iraq that we cannot win. We need to pull our troops out and quit funneling billions of dollars per year into a war we cannot win.

My opinion about Senator McCain's comments: he realizes the war is no longer popular, and that his support of the war (hundreds of years of war) could result in him not getting elected (fingers and toes crossed on that option - for me at least) President of the United States. Go figure!

On the CNN scroll this morning, a little blurb floated across the screen about President Bush hoping that Republicans would elect a President who would continue the war in Iraq - or, something to that effect.

Let's hope not! As stated earlier in this post, the war in Iraq needs to end. It needs to end today, not tomorrow. Our troops need to come home. We cannot win the war in Iraq. We cannot win the war on terror. All we can do (United States, any nation) is to persevere and prepare. We need to remain strong and positive. We need to spend the billions of dollars spent on a war we cannot win, on counter-terrorism efforts, on strengthening our country. It does not take rocket science to come to that conclusion. It might take more than a third grade education, but definitely not rocket science.

My only hope for this country is that we elect a leader capable of change, capable of standing up against a governmental system that is archaic and in need of drastic repair, and who is capable of realizing our troops need to come home, our elderly need to be taken care of, that the influx of illegal immigrants into our country is not a good thing, and that the selling off of our country to other nations is a bad idea!

S

Politics - Either You Did It, or You Didn't (No Middle Ground)

Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional Somali attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.
In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

Okay, so today I thought - there's nothing worth writing about. Wrong!

A photo is circulating of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali attire. The phoe has allegedly been circulated by Hillary's camp. Hillary's camp does not deny circulating the photo, nor do they confirm circulating the photo. Typical Political BS! If you (Hillary's camp) did not circulate the photo all they have to do (real simple here folks) is say: We did not circulate the photo. Evading a denial, in my book at least, is confirming the action.

When will it end? For the love of . . . will it ever end? Issues, people, issues, not negative ads, not what somebody did 10 or 20 years ago . . . ISSUES!!

Hillary - you're losing ground. Instead of focusing on the negatives you believe Barack Obama has, why not attempt to focus on your (if any) positives? Forget the attacks; they're obviously not working. Case in point: Earlier this year, some Clinton volunteers left her campaign in those states after circulating e-mails that falsely claimed Barack Obama was a Muslim – an inaccurate rumor his campaign has worked hard to dispel — and suggesting that his drug use as a young man might make him vulnerable to Republican attacks were he to become the nominee - (cnn.com 02/25/08).

In the end, I know I cannot expect a positive political campaign. Politicians only seem to know how to fight negativiely, rather than positively. Politicians - so history has shown (and present day as well) - are incapable of running an honest campaign focusing solely on their qualifications for office.

S

Desperation in the Political Arena

As Barack Obama solidifies his lead, Hillary Clinton is shaking things up with a revamped message and sharper digs at her party's front man - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

What was wrong with her initial campaign message? Oh, that's right, it's not working, Barack's in the lead, and she's scared.

"It is time to get real," Clinton said, "to get real about how we actually win this election... It is time to move from good words to good works -- from sound bites to sound solutions" - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

So, everything up to today was not real? What was it, a figment of America's collective imagination?

Clinton has also stepped up attacks on Obama's strong point -- his words. She's accused him of offering rhetoric with no specifics, and this week, based on similarities between his words and those of Obama-ally Deval Patrick, her campaign accused him of plagiarism - (cnn.com 02/21/07).

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the plagiarism allegation. I just think, unless Hillary can claim 100% ownership to every word in every speech she has spoken, then she just needs to let the proverbial sleeping dog lie! I guess what bothers me most, is that very few, if any, political candidates write their own words. They pay someone to do that. Personally, it is wrong. I don't want to hear what a paid speechwriter thinks the candidate should say. I want to hear what the candidate has to say. If you need a speechwriter, maybe you shouldn't be running for office. Do the candidates give their speechwriters credit? If not, hey, wait, isn't that plagiarism? Shouldn't Hillary - or candidate of choice - acknowledge the fact that they did not actually write the words they are speaking? Smells like plagiarism to me. Hmmmmmmm . . .

Other thoughts . . .

Why can't the candidates - Hillary, Oback, John - just be honest? Why do they have to attack, undermine, create controversy where none actually exists? Yes, each candidate is different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Yes, each candidate has a different message, the message they believe will get them elected. Again, no rocket science needed. There is not a perfect person on this Earth, and there is not a perfect candidate. Everybody has faults, everybody has secrets, and - in the end - none of it matters. What matters is what you - the candidate - is going to do for our country?

Lastly, why hasn't Hillary produced her income tax records like all the other candidates? What's the big secret?

S

Politics - The Neverending Battle

It appears there is a bounty of inspiration out there for my blog. I don't think I've ever wrote this often on the blog. What's the latest?

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton desperately wants meaningless wins in Florida and Michigan to turn into votes she can count on" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). As I'm sure everyone out there knows, the Democratic National Committe stripped the delegate counts from FL/MI because both states held their primaries earlier than allowed. Please note, this was not a spur of the moment decision made just weeks before the FL/MI primaries, but rather a decision made last year when FL/MI announced their plans to hold their primaries earlier than normal.

Now that Hillary (sorry, not meaning to pick on her, but she makes it so easy lately), is behind in votes, she wants her 'meaningless wins' to count. But . . . drumroll please . . . "Clinton did not object to the DNC stripping the states of their delegates when the decision was made last year" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). In fact, irony at its best (or worst if you're Sen. Hillary Clinton), some of her "backers were on the committee that made the decision to do so and activiely supported it" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). Does the word two-faced hold any meaning here?

I mean, really, people! Get a life. The fact is, Hillary wants to change the rules because they adversely affect her at the moment. If the rules were not adversely affecting her, would she be raising such a fuss? Highly unlikely. If the proverbial shoe was on the other foot (Obama's foot, though I'm not sure how he'd look wearing Hillary's shoes), would she be raising such a stink? Highly unlikely. In fact, I could probably place money on this one, I think Sen. H. Clinton would be fighting tooth and nail to uphold the DNC ruling if Obama was wearing her shoes. Heck, if Obama was wearing her shoes, she might have plenty more to say.

In the words of a good friend of mine . . . I'm just saying . . .

S

Politics - Negative Ads

I've never understood the point of negative ads. My philosophy: insecure people run negative ads. Since the majority of politicians run negative ads . . . I guess that means all politicians are insecure. I think it also - at least in my opinion - means that politicians running negatives ads are immature.

Case in point: (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday sharpened her attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama as she faces what even her supporters admit are must-win situations in Texas and Ohio in the weeks ahead.

The above is from http://www.cnn.com/. Sen. Clinton, because Barack Obama is in the lead, is now 'sharpening' her claws and running negative ads. She didn't do this when she was winning, so why now? Why can't she - and all politicians - just run positive ads, highlighting what they are going to do for the country, instead of focusing on alleged negative aspects of their opponents? I'm more likely to vote for someone who runs a positive versus negative campaign.

Now, before someone leaps to a conclusion - I'm neither for nor against any candidate at this point, though I do have preferences (please refer to other posts). I just want honesty in a candidate. I want maturity. We are not in kindergarten! We are adults. Negative attacks should not exist.

Scott

Money, Money, Money

If I were a gay man, I'd make some musical quote for this blog. Oh, wait, I am a gay man, so . . . "and the money kept rolling in from every side" (Evita for you non-musical people, gay or straight, out there). Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on the current political campaigns. I just don't get it! Why is it, that political candidates can raise millions of millions of dollars to bombard an unsuspecting, and unwilling in some cases, society with political ad after political ad (95% negative, 2% positve, and 3% that make no sense at all - in my opinion), and yet cannot find money for worthwhile causes once they get into office?

Think of it - millions upon millions of dollars going for cancer research, AIDS research, border security, eliminating the deficit . . . and the list goes on. Instead, millions upon millions of dollars is wasted every time an incumbent or new candidate runs for office. Think of it - for every winner, there are one, two, if not three losers per political office. Think of the millions upon millions of dollars down the drain. It is wasted money. The money had no effect whatsoever. The candidate did not get elected.

So, why shouldn't the candidates - the money so easily accessible - not donate 65% of campaign contributions towards charitable organizations, the national deficit, border security, or some other cause? Why not make the money useful rather than useless?

S

Conservatism, and other politics.

Current President - and thankfully out of office soon - Bush wants to keep a conservative in office. My question: What have conservatives done for the country lately?

Let me make a list:

1) Sent us to fight a war we should not be fighting based on an outright lie: WMD!
2) Sent our country into a recession.

Do I need to say more? Conservatism is not what our country needs. We need to quit funneling billions of dollars into a pointless war, bring our troops home, and let them defend our country, on our soil, and not some foreign war that we cannot - and will not - win, not matter how long we stay over there. And, before the right wing conservatives take aim, I currently have one nephew in Iraq, and another set to go at some point in time. I support our troops 100%. I just do not support the administration that started a war we could not win based on false (WMD) information. We need a President/Administration that is going to see to the needs of the United States first and foremost - homelessness, illegal immigration, the economy.

We need a government that is for the people, by the people, and not the current state of government that is for the conservatives, by the conservatives, and to hell with the rest of the population.

What do I want in a political candidate?

1) Honesty - tell me what you think you can do, what you want to do, but don't give me false promises. Don't tell me, that when you're elected, you're going to create a fair tax, create national healthcare, blah, blah, blah . . . It's not gonna happen! Tell me that you would like to create a fair tax, but, you know it's probably not going to ever happen, but you'll try your best. Don't tell me about your plans for national health care, rather, tell me about your plans to set fair and stable pricing across the board by hospitals and physicians. The reason insurance companies charge so much in premiums, is because the hospitals/physicians charge so much to the consumer. A band-aid does not cost $2.99. The mark-up on hospital/physicians bills is incredible - I should know, I work in the insurance industry. So, national healthcare candidate, tell me how you want to solve that problem, outline your plan, and finish your statement with the truth: you'll do the best you can. The country has listened to the false promises of candidates since the beginning of our established government. What the country has not listened to is honest statements about what they hope to do once in office. Try that for a change and see what happens.

Okay, so I ranted off subject, but so what, since it all ties in together. The United States is failing. We are a country in crisis. It is time the energy of we the people (that means the government as well) went to fixing our problems, rather than focusing on the problems of every other country in the world.

S

Things I Don't Get

This entry will serve as a continuous entry as things just strike me.

Case in Point: In a recent article about a 10 year old boy who allegedly set his house on fire and killed four people, the pastor of a local church said he didn't think the boy set the fire because the boy is a 'churchgoer'. What the F###???

Where is the logic in the pastor's statement? Does he really live in a world that people who go to church do not commit crimes? People commit crimes on a daily basis. It happens. It's life. Just because someone goes to Church does not make them any more or less likely to commit a crime.

I just don't understand the warped logic that makes people think that just because someone goes to Church they cannot commit a crime. Whether the 10 year old boy set or did not set the fire is the question, not whether he could set or not set the fire because he goes to Church. I'm sure Ted Bundy went to Church. He also murdered a heck of a lot of people. Has anyone heard about the Catholic Church scandal? The priests allegedly invovled were leaders of the church and they allegedly committed a crime. Enough said.

Just my thoughts for today.

Scott

In Memory of . . .

Spanky

May 1, 1991 – June 6, 2007

The Rainbow Bridge

(inspired by Norse Legend)

By the edge of a woods, at the foot of a hill,

Is a lush, green meadow where time stands still.

Where the friends of man and woman do run,

When their time on earth is over and done.

For here, between this world and the next,

Is a place where each beloved creature finds rest.

On this golden land, they wait and they play,

Till the Rainbow Bridge they cross over one day.

No more do they suffer, in pain or in sadness,

For here they are whole, their lives filled with gladness.

Their limbs are restored, their health renewed,

Their bodies have healed, with strength imbued.

They romp through the grass, without even a care,

Until one day they start, and sniff at the air.

All ears prick forward, eyes dart front and back,

Then all of a sudden, one breaks from the pack.

For just at that instant, their eyes have met;

Together again, both person and pet.

So they run to each other, these friends from long past,

The time of their parting is over at last.

The sadness they felt while they were apart,

Has turned into joy once more in each heart.

They embrace with a love that will last forever,

And then, side-by-side, they cross over… together.

© 1998 Steve and Diane Bodofsky. All Rights Reserved

The Failure of Elected Officials

Why is it that elected officials are allegedly ignorant? See two separate examples below:

Nashville parks have recently installed cameras because: The homosexual sex is one of the reasons Metro Council Member Michael Craddock said he fought to have the cameras installed in the first place. Craddock said, “It has taken me a year... ...to get these cameras installed where they can use them to deter sexual deviants in the park.” (wkrn.com)

New Hampshire passes a law legalizing civil unions for homosexuals. The response of one senator: "Let's just call it what it really is, no sugarcoating," said Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau. "This creates same-sex marriage. There is no right to marriage in either the New Hampshire Constitution or the federal Constitution." He goes on to say, "We don't let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons," he said. (comcast.net – news – AP)

My response: Give me a break! I mean, really, people, grow up, get a life, and get a hobby!

First, Nashville Metro Council Member Michael Craddock – to the best of my knowledge, homosexuality is no longer listed as a deviant behavior, so, his statement is false. Homosexuality is genetics. It is not a choice. It is not something people ‘try’. It is how they were born, just like Mr. Craddock was born heterosexual. He had no choice no his sexuality, just as I had no choice on my sexuality. It’s all in the genes!

Second, Senator Robert Letourneau – Are you on drugs? I mean, really, “we don’t let blind people drive or felons vote, all for good and obvious reasons.” I understand why we don’t let blind people drive and felons vote, the reasons both good and obvious, but what does that have to do with civil unions? Can a person make a more illogical statement?

Is there anything more to say on this subject? I don’t think so. The logic, the intelligence, or lack thereof, of elected officials making important decisions for our communities, is frightening. I understand that some people choose to believe that homosexuality is a choice. It makes their hatred, their discrimination, their oppression, easier to swallow. It helps them sleep at night by calling someone a deviant, or making lame (blind people don’t drive for obvious reasons) statements, that somehow (at least in their minds) make homosexuals somehow less than human.

In the end, perhaps humanity exists in greater measures in homosexuals, in women, in people of color, who have to deal with discrimination and oppression on a daily basis by allegedly intelligent people.

I truly feel sorry for Mr. Craddock and Senator Letourneau. I feel sorry for all the people affected by their alleged ignorance. I feel sorry for the voters who put them in office, thinking they were allegedly intelligent individuals capable of making logical and justified decisions. I feel sorry for the world that is not a better place because of the power these two men hold in their hand, expressing their personal views over the greater views of the public they were elected to serve. For, in the end, they were elected to their respective positions to serve the people, and not themselves. They have failed in that duty.

Don Imus - Double Standard

By now, the world knows what Don Imus called the Rutger's Women's Basketball team. His words are inexcusable. The media frenzy and retribution over those words, to me at least, is inexcusable.

Why? Simply put: double standard.

It is perfectly okay for rap artists, hip-hop artists, filmmakers of colors, to use such language in their music and films. It is considered cultural in those contexts. Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition are protesting Imus, but I have yet to see them protesting the artists who perpetrate such language for the almighty buck. Why aren't Jesse and friends picketing the record labels and movie production companies? Why aren't the news personalities so strongly deriding Don Imus, doing the same thing? If it is wrong for a white person to make such comments, based on the cultural phenomenon of rap music and certain films, then why is it all right for others to make such comments?

Simply put: It is not. Or rather, it should not be. Plan and simple: double standard.

I do not agree in any way with what Don Imus said. I think it is wrong. It is ignorance at its worst. There is no defense for his actions, not even the rampant use of similar language by hip hop and rap artists. If he has no defense, then the hip hop and rap artists, the movie directors, etc., should not have a defense either. If the punishment for Don Imus is to get fired (which is happening, so it seems), then the same punishment should apply to rap and hip hop artists, et al.

Now, before the rage and indignation begins, before the name calling, and the protests by the Rainbow Coalition, please do remember I am a gay male who has heard more than my share of derogatory comments - faggot, queer, fairy, and so many other lovely terms. I am not defending Don Imus. I am simply protesting a double standard.

Society cannot change on its own. Society cannot (rather, should not) exist with the multitude of double standards. No one - black, white, or any other color - should be able to use the terms Don Imus used to describe the Rutgers Women's Basketball team. No one - gay or straight - should be allowed to use the term faggot, queer, fairy, or any of the other more colorful terms that exist to deride gay people. No one - men or women - should be able to use the term bitch to describe a woman. The fact is, within the Races, the Sexual Orientations, the Genders, there is a tendency to take the words, the derogatory terms, and empower them, limit the negative connotation, and create a positive connotation. My friends and I sometimes refer to each other as faggot, queer, fairy, nellie, etc. We take the negative and make it positive. It is wrong. Women do the same thing with the word 'bitch'. It is wrong. It is a double standard. We - society, one unit, not separate - must move forward as a group and stop. It is that simple. If one person is punished for using derogatory language, then all people using the same language - no matter the Race, Orientation, Gender - should receive equal punishment.

S

Homosexuality Cured!!!

Reported from the Associated Press - 02/06/2007

DENVER - One of four ministers who oversaw three weeks of intensive counseling for the Rev. Ted Haggard said the disgraced minister emerged convinced that he is "completely heterosexual."

Haggard also said his sexual contact with men was limited to the former male prostitute who came forward with sexual allegations, the Rev. Tim Ralph of Larkspur told The Denver Post for a story in Tuesday's edition.

"He is completely heterosexual," Ralph said. "That is something he discovered. It was the acting-out situations where things took place. It wasn't a constant thing."

News Flash - there is a cure for homosexuality, at least if you're Ted Haggard. See above article.

Now, let me carefully dissect that email for all concerned.

1st Paragraph - "disgraced minster emerged convinced that he is 'completely heterosexual'. Convinced! Convinced! Convinced! So, allegedly, Ted Haggard believes he is no longer a homosexual because he is 'convinced' that he is heterosexual. Can somebody spell denial?

I guess there's a lot of scientific backing to his claim. Isn't that how all scientists prove their theories? Excuse me, but we're convinced that . . . , said the scientist. Convinced, does not mean anything other than that the person believes in something, it does not make it a fact.

3rd Paragraph - his heterosexuality is something he 'discovered'. Hmmm, discovered, another tricky word that - again - does not provide scientific proof of a cure for homosexuality. It might well mean that Ted Haggard allegedly 'discovered' his heterosexuality so he can be reinstated into his church and rake in the money once again. It might mean that Ted Haggard allegedly discovered his heterosexuality so he could continue his campaign against homosexuality without having to feel guilty for being an alleged hypocrite.

1st Paragraph - the best part of all. Four ministers oversaw intensive counseling. So, the ministers technically brainwashed - a common occurence in cults - Ted Haggard to convince him that he was heterosexual. I think the man doth protest too much!

Okay, I know people out there - allegedly right wing conservatives - believe that homosexuality is a choice, and - by the above article - believe that there is a cure for homosexuality. Now, above article as proof, we can see that there is not a cure, but only 'intensive counseling' used to 'convince' a disgraced minister that he is 'completely heterosexual'. It was a 'discovery'.

I am just totally amazed at the lengths allegedly intelligent people will go to, in order to convince themselves that a) homosexuality is a choice versus genetics and b) that there is a cure for homosexuality. All I can say, is that Ted Haggard is allegedly in denial. His 'discovery' is nothing more than an alleged intensive brainwashing by four ministers probably more worried about the money not coming in because of Ted Haggard's alleged fall from grace, rather than a true belief that Ted Haggard 'discovered' he is 'completely heterosexual'.

As a final note, I'll tell the story of a certain young man who would kiss a man, have sex with a man, but was not gay because he did not have oral sex with men. Who knew that not having oral sex with a man meant you were not gay. Perhaps somebody should alert Ted Haggard to that fact.

S